Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[kalm]

Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has released the Democrat's memo explaining their investigation in an attempt to preempt the release of the Republican's memo.

Spoiler: show

[CAA Flagship]

Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has released the Democrat's memo explaining their investigation in an attempt to preempt the release of the Republican's memo.

Spoiler: show

[Skjellyfetti]

More evidence of obstruction.

Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

Amid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation, two of the people said.

First, he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership. The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.

After receiving the president’s order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel, saying he would quit instead, the people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/u ... sB62tIuWyq

[GannonFan]

More evidence of obstruction.

Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

Amid the first wave of news media reports that Mr. Mueller was examining a possible obstruction case, the president began to argue that Mr. Mueller had three conflicts of interest that disqualified him from overseeing the investigation, two of the people said.

First, he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership. The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.

After receiving the president’s order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel, saying he would quit instead, the people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/u ... sB62tIuWyq

So you're saying that Trump obstructed justice because he wanted Mueller fired, but never went through with it? What, is this Tom Cruise's "Minority Report" and the intent to commit a crime, in the absence of actually committing the crime, is now a crime? Which one of the pre-cogs came up with that?

[CID1990]

More evidence of obstruction.



https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/u ... sB62tIuWyq

So you're saying that Trump obstructed justice because he wanted Mueller fired, but never went through with it? What, is this Tom Cruise's "Minority Report" and the intent to commit a crime, in the absence of actually committing the crime, is now a crime? Which one of the pre-cogs came up with that?

I'm just wondering about the lack of talk of collusion with Russia


And the real kicker is that if there is no credible evidence of collusion, obstruction by firing Comey will be largely moot - technically a crime, but WAY down the totem pole from anything close to what would provide political cover for impeachment

Trump will laugh it off, and then pardon Flynn

[houndawg]

More evidence of obstruction.



https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/u ... sB62tIuWyq

So you're saying that Trump obstructed justice because he wanted Mueller fired, but never went through with it? What, is this Tom Cruise's "Minority Report" and the intent to commit a crime, in the absence of actually committing the crime, is now a crime? Which one of the pre-cogs came up with that?

He isn't saying anything, the NY Times is.

[houndawg]

So you're saying that Trump obstructed justice because he wanted Mueller fired, but never went through with it? What, is this Tom Cruise's "Minority Report" and the intent to commit a crime, in the absence of actually committing the crime, is now a crime? Which one of the pre-cogs came up with that?

I'm just wondering about the lack of talk of collusion with Russia


And the real kicker is that if there is no credible evidence of collusion, obstruction by firing Comey will be largely moot - technically a crime, but WAY down the totem pole from anything close to what would provide political cover for impeachment

Trump will laugh it off, and then pardon Flynn

Somebody said that one shouldn't be too quick to attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Definitely applicable to the White House.

Nobody really cares what he goes down for as long as they get him and get him good. Ideally the FBI and the Republican Party will go down with him.

Now in the vein of nobody-is-all-bad-even-Dick-Cheney-shot-a-lawyer he has inadvertently done good by exposing the so-called family values crowds as the racists they keep trying to tell us they aren't and the filthy preachers that spew their message. I'm going spit in the face of the next one I see preaching in town.

[CAA Flagship]

So you're saying that Trump obstructed justice because he wanted Mueller fired, but never went through with it? What, is this Tom Cruise's "Minority Report" and the intent to commit a crime, in the absence of actually committing the crime, is now a crime? Which one of the pre-cogs came up with that?

He isn't saying anything, the NY Times is.

Has the NYT offered bonuses to their employees yet?

[houndawg]

He isn't saying anything, the NY Times is.

Has the NYT offered bonuses to their employees yet?

[GannonFan]

So you're saying that Trump obstructed justice because he wanted Mueller fired, but never went through with it? What, is this Tom Cruise's "Minority Report" and the intent to commit a crime, in the absence of actually committing the crime, is now a crime? Which one of the pre-cogs came up with that?

He isn't saying anything, the NY Times is.

That makes no difference whatsoever. And if you read it again it was Skelly that said "more evidence of obstruction". Again, how is not doing something now actually evidence of committing the crime that he didn't actually do?

[kalm]

He isn't saying anything, the NY Times is.

That makes no difference whatsoever. And if you read it again it was Skelly that said "more evidence of obstruction". Again, how is not doing something now actually evidence of committing the crime that he didn't actually do?

It doesn't from a criminal sense unless attempted obstruction is a crime.

It should however raise further suspicion when a president gives the order to fire a special prosecutor who is investigating him. I think this happened before...

[GannonFan]

That makes no difference whatsoever. And if you read it again it was Skelly that said "more evidence of obstruction". Again, how is not doing something now actually evidence of committing the crime that he didn't actually do?

It doesn't from a criminal sense unless attempted obstruction is a crime.

It should however raise further suspicion when a president gives the order to fire a special prosecutor who is investigating him. I think this happened before...

How do you attempt to obstruct? It's in Trump's power to fire the guy if he really wanted to so either he fires him and obstructs or he doesn't fire him and doesn't obstruct. There isn't any gray area in between, unless you get into "Minority Report" territory. It's not a secret that Trump has contemplated firing Mueller before and I truly believe he contemplates it everyday. Contemplating that isn't a crime though. Heck, even firing him probably doesn't rise to the level of an actual crime - it would be political dynamite, but I'm not sure it's criminal.

[kalm]

It doesn't from a criminal sense unless attempted obstruction is a crime.

It should however raise further suspicion when a president gives the order to fire a special prosecutor who is investigating him. I think this happened before...

How do you attempt to obstruct? It's in Trump's power to fire the guy if he really wanted to so either he fires him and obstructs or he doesn't fire him and doesn't obstruct. There isn't any gray area in between, unless you get into "Minority Report" territory. It's not a secret that Trump has contemplated firing Mueller before and I truly believe he contemplates it everyday. Contemplating that isn't a crime though. Heck, even firing him probably doesn't rise to the level of an actual crime - it would be political dynamite, but I'm not sure it's criminal.

JFC, relax with the "Minority Report" analogy. We get it. It was a decent movie.

Oh...and I was being sarcastic with the attempted obstruction thing.

[CAA Flagship]

How do you attempt to obstruct? It's in Trump's power to fire the guy if he really wanted to so either he fires him and obstructs or he doesn't fire him and doesn't obstruct. There isn't any gray area in between, unless you get into "Minority Report" territory. It's not a secret that Trump has contemplated firing Mueller before and I truly believe he contemplates it everyday. Contemplating that isn't a crime though. Heck, even firing him probably doesn't rise to the level of an actual crime - it would be political dynamite, but I'm not sure it's criminal.

JFC, relax with the "Minority Report" analogy. We get it. It was a decent movie.

Oh...and I was being sarcastic with the attempted obstruction thing.

Sarcasm:

phpBB [video]

The "Cancels out" line at the end cracks me up.

[GannonFan]

How do you attempt to obstruct? It's in Trump's power to fire the guy if he really wanted to so either he fires him and obstructs or he doesn't fire him and doesn't obstruct. There isn't any gray area in between, unless you get into "Minority Report" territory. It's not a secret that Trump has contemplated firing Mueller before and I truly believe he contemplates it everyday. Contemplating that isn't a crime though. Heck, even firing him probably doesn't rise to the level of an actual crime - it would be political dynamite, but I'm not sure it's criminal.

JFC, relax with the "Minority Report" analogy. We get it. It was a decent movie.

Oh...and I was being sarcastic with the attempted obstruction thing.

The movie gets better on repeated viewings. And your sarcasm only ran to the level of attempted sarcasm, therefore it wasn't really funny.

[Skjellyfetti]

If you want to parse out "endeavor" vs "attempt" - be my guest.

whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

Thinking about obstructing isn't obstruction. It's not minority report.

Telling someone to obstruct IS obstruction. The fact that they say no doesn't save you.

[GannonFan]

If you want to parse out "endeavor" vs "attempt" - be my guest.

whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

Thinking about obstructing isn't obstruction. It's not minority report.

Telling someone to obstruct IS obstruction. The fact that they say no doesn't save you.

Define "is" please.

[Ibanez]

If you want to parse out "endeavor" vs "attempt" - be my guest.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice

Thinking about obstructing isn't obstruction. It's not minority report.

Telling someone to obstruct IS obstruction. The fact that they say no doesn't save you.

Define "is" please.

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of improper relations with Russia, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

[Skjellyfetti]

Hmmmm. I'd hope that the Nunes memo has a lot more than this.

So, Rosenstein approved the extension of FISA surveillance on Carter Page last Spring. Doesn't really jive with the narrative that FISAs being misused by Obama appointees.

But, maybe Trump accidentally appointed an Obama Deep Stater.

A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it.

The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent. But the reference to Mr. Rosenstein’s actions in the memo — a much-disputed document that paints the investigation into Russian election meddling as tainted from the start — indicates that Republicans may be moving to seize on his role as they seek to undermine the inquiry.

The memo’s primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant for surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator, Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/us/p ... -memo.html

[kalm]

My suggestion is that they keep it classified, continue pushing the memo’s “findings”, but insist they’re too sensitive for the public.

[CAA Flagship]

Andrew McCabe has resigned from FBI.

[GannonFan]

Andrew McCabe has resigned from FBI.

He was already retiring in March, correct? So him leaving today, apparently taking accrued leave and is still on the FBI payroll until his March retirement, is just a guy cashing in built up vacation until his retirement? I get that Trump has been bombastic and vitriolic towards the FBI, and McCabe in particular, but isn't this the same story that was him retiring in the first place?

[SeattleGriz]

Andrew McCabe has resigned from FBI.

One day after Christopher Wray viewed the memo. Interesting timing.

[93henfan]

Andrew McCabe has resigned from FBI.

He was already retiring in March, correct? So him leaving today, apparently taking accrued leave and is still on the FBI payroll until his March retirement, is just a guy cashing in built up vacation until his retirement? I get that Trump has been bombastic and vitriolic towards the FBI, and McCabe in particular, but isn't this the same story that was him retiring in the first place?

Nerd post alert: Feds can carry over up to 240 hours (ie 6 weeks) of leave to each new year, so yes, he could be taking terminal leave through March. A typical fed (at least my plan anyway) would be to roll over the 240, accrue another ~208 the final year, and cash out 11 weeks of pay when retiring. That helps cushion the gap in between receiving first pension check. OPM has a ~3 month backlog on average.

[houndawg]

He isn't saying anything, the NY Times is.

That makes no difference whatsoever. And if you read it again it was Skelly that said "more evidence of obstruction". Again, how is not doing something now actually evidence of committing the crime that he didn't actually do?

He'd love to do it but he needs somebody else to take the hit for him.

The good stuff will come out when they get into his finances.