| Anteater |
09-02-2018 08:00 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
(Post 1993393)
Do you spend you entire days trying to find **** that will deflect from what's going on with your boy and his hood?
You never post about the legal stuff via Indictments, and plea deals, that actually damages Trump and his posse. Only stuff that you feel deflects. Why is that Ant?
In other news:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/01/polit...nts/index.html
|
Because the indictments are irrelevant unless they actually come up with an end result of political consequence. The mainstream media is fixated on them because they're the new shiny object in the room.
Manafort and Cohen or anyone who isn't critical to Trump's administration going away or being fined is meaningless unless they had some critical information to pin down Trump. And based on how much backtracking Cohen's lawyer did after making false claims about the Trump Tower meeting, it appears that Mueller didn't get what he wanted from these exchanges or his team would have gone ahead and trumpeted an announcement immediately after his trial.
The Deripaska story, on the other hand, was only reported by The New York Times yesterday until it got picked up by other outlets half a day later. It was at the top of Google's search results for 'Trump' just yesterday. Not a hard thing to uncover unless you think .2 seconds is too much time. In that story, the relationship between Ohr, Steele and others are explored in greater detail, and it doesn't look good because it also illustrates that the dossier was critical to establishing the special counsel's investigation and that FBI hoped to flip Russian oligarchs (eventually) to siding with them because they had no way to validate any of the information that Steele had supposedly uncovered. If they play their cards wrong (since they were already looking into Trump in 2015), it will come off as a validation of Trump's witch hunt commentary.
If you want to know how this will actually play out, you need to understand the arguments being made on both sides. And when I say arguments, I mean REAL arguments that cover legalities. The Democrats make a good moral case for removing Trump but it has some serious issues, so I don't see it holding up if literal Russian oligarchs are showing up and saying "The FBI tried to turn us into assets to result in a specific outcome, even if that outcome isn't based on evidence.". I haven't seen anything yet presented by the Dems that justify what we are learning about how the FBI, the DNC and how other organizations conducted themselves. If you are going to say your opponent directly colluded with a foreign government, you need something else other than character attacks and "B-b-but he must be in debt with the Russians! CNN told me so111".
The reality is that the special counsel and the FBI have gotten multiple people seeking immunity because these people (the ones seeking immunity) are afraid Mueller will financially ruin their lives if they fight it in court. It's a lot easier to say "I'll tell you what I know" even if they don't have anything to say because it will cost them the least amount of money to take that road. Strong-arming people to ensure cooperation is a common tactic. |
