Comey

[Parrothead]

I watched some of the testimony, on Thursday. The main thing I took from it, was Comey stating he leaked/had his friend leak, Comey's recollections of his meeting with Trump, to make sure an independent/special investigator got appointed. I know last night CNN was reporting some info, on what they stated, went on in the afternoon closed session (where were these leaks coming from? Congress/Senate critters? ).

Trump was given control of his twitter account again. Confefe part two, to come?

[Rommie]

Just because I feel like this is the best place to put it-

Wow. Who would've bet that Donald Trump, Sr is not the dumbest Trump?!

[Rommie]

So, no one wants to talk about the Russia investigation having proof of collusion with me?

Personally the part I can't wrap my head around is why Trump Jr. tweeted out the letters incriminating himself. I mean, ok, NY Times has the email and wants a statement, so you're fairly fucked (and even if you truly think it wasn't illegal, it's obviously not the best in a PR sense). But if they're the ones sending 'em out, you always have some plausible deniability coming from a fake source etc.

I can't imagine in a million years his newly hired lawyer thought this was smart, for example.

[SciFi Chick]

So, no one wants to talk about the Russia investigation having proof of collusion with me?

Personally the part I can't wrap my head around is why Trump Jr. tweeted out the letters incriminating himself. I mean, ok, NY Times has the email and wants a statement, so you're fairly fucked (and even if you truly think it wasn't illegal, it's obviously not the best in a PR sense). But if they're the ones sending 'em out, you always have some plausible deniability coming from a fake source etc.

I can't imagine in a million years his newly hired lawyer thought this was smart, for example.

Because he and his lawyer don't believe it's proof of collusion. They believe it's proof of innocence. I've looked at this from both sides - yes, I read and watched some conservative analysis on it - and a lot of people don't think it's proof of collusion. I don't actually think it is either.

Time and time again over the last eight months, the media has put out stories that have been proven to be untrue. Then, when the next big revelation comes, some other outlet references the stories that were retracted.

Ever hear of project Veritas? It turns out CNN is doing this for ratings not because they believe any of it.

[Rommie]

So, no one wants to talk about the Russia investigation having proof of collusion with me?

Personally the part I can't wrap my head around is why Trump Jr. tweeted out the letters incriminating himself. I mean, ok, NY Times has the email and wants a statement, so you're fairly fucked (and even if you truly think it wasn't illegal, it's obviously not the best in a PR sense). But if they're the ones sending 'em out, you always have some plausible deniability coming from a fake source etc.

I can't imagine in a million years his newly hired lawyer thought this was smart, for example.

Because he and his lawyer don't believe it's proof of collusion. They believe it's proof of innocence. I've looked at this from both sides - yes, I read and watched some conservative analysis on it - and a lot of people don't think it's proof of collusion. I don't actually think it is either.

Time and time again over the last eight months, the media has put out stories that have been proven to be untrue. Then, when the next big revelation comes, some other outlet references the stories that were retracted.

Ever hear of project Veritas? It turns out CNN is doing this for ratings not because they believe any of it.

I don't frankly give a fuck about CNN; I haven't watched it in years and most of the bombshells published thus far in bringing the Russia investigation forward have been from the Washington Post and New York Times. Anyone who remembers the missing Air Malaysia frenzy they had knows they're not a nexus of quality investigative journalism anyway. And for the sake of this discussion, let's ignore the retracted stuff because there's plenty verified by Trump et al. themselves that we don't need to speculate about golden showers or what have you.

I will agree that it's clear these guys don't think what they did was illegal, and it's also obvious that Trump the president similarly thinks this is a lot of noise about a non-story. (I find the irony pretty amazing in terms of the "BUT HER EMAILS" stuff from last year though.) I cannot imagine however in a million years that revealing this information in this way was run past the lawyer, as frankly even if one genuinely believes it was not illegal, no lawyer hired in the past few days will have had time to review everything involved (and probably not allow it even if he had). I'm also not going to call this a smoking gun of criminality, but I will put in the category of "definitely sketchy."

Btw, if you're looking for sources in politics, I have really enjoyed the subreddit Neutral Politics in the last few months, which has a thread discussing the criminality here. Really heavily moderated and just devoted to people trying to get facts with sources about various topics in politics.

I dunno, I guess the part that gets to me is just the complete lack of the thought that plausible deniability is a thing you might want, on multiple levels. Even if said meeting wasn't illegal, could you imagine the top people in any other campaign's history arranging a meeting for dirt via email, with the subject "Russia and Clinton- private and confidential"? How in fucking hell dumb do you have to be to do that? It's pretty clear all campaigns search for dirt on each other these days, but I'm pretty sure you tend to set these things up via phone to minimize paper trail, and even then meet with a random underling. I find that entire angle a bit bewildering TBH.

[SciFi Chick]

I don't frankly give a fuck about CNN; I haven't watched it in years and most of the bombshells published thus far in bringing the Russia investigation forward have been from the Washington Post and New York Times.

No need to get hostile. I wasn't accusing you of getting all of or any of your information from CNN. It's just ironic that they're doing this shit when Trump has been accusing them of being Fake News. And they're really, really, really pushing the Russia agenda, so it was on my mind. The NYT and Washington Post have also had to post retractions btw. Just pointing it out. I already read where you said you're getting your political news from.

...because there's plenty verified by Trump et al. themselves that we don't need to speculate about golden showers or what have you.

Plenty of stuff verified by Trump? I'm being sincere when I ask you to elaborate.

I will agree that it's clear these guys don't think what they did was illegal, and it's also obvious that Trump the president similarly thinks this is a lot of noise about a non-story. (I find the irony pretty amazing in terms of the "BUT HER EMAILS" stuff from last year though.) I cannot imagine however in a million years that revealing this information in this way was run past the lawyer, as frankly even if one genuinely believes it was not illegal, no lawyer hired in the past few days will have had time to review everything involved (and probably not allow it even if he had). I'm also not going to call this a smoking gun of criminality, but I will put in the category of "definitely sketchy."

I absolutely agree that it's sketchy. I also absolutely agree that Jr. seems to be either very naive or stupid or both. By the same token, any lawyer agreeing to work for this family at this point in time surely knows what they're getting into.

Btw, if you're looking for sources in politics, I have really enjoyed the subreddit Neutral Politics in the last few months, which has a thread discussing the criminality here. Really heavily moderated and just devoted to people trying to get facts with sources about various topics in politics.

I will absolutely check it out. I'm on the hunt for sources, and while I find Tucker Carlson amusing and pretty good at debate, I don't consider him a source for anything, merely another person with an opinion.

I dunno, I guess the part that gets to me is just the complete lack of the thought that plausible deniability is a thing you might want, on multiple levels. Even if said meeting wasn't illegal, could you imagine the top people in any other campaign's history arranging a meeting for dirt via email, with the subject "Russia and Clinton- private and confidential"? How in fucking hell dumb do you have to be to do that? It's pretty clear all campaigns search for dirt on each other these days, but I'm pretty sure you tend to set these things up via phone to minimize paper trail, and even then meet with a random underling. I find that entire angle a bit bewildering TBH.

I definitely could imagine other campaigns arranging a meeting for dirt via email. There is no shortage of stupid in politics. Now I'll move into speculation. I believe the reason you find this angle bewildering and the reason you are astonished at their behavior is because you have not been brought up in an entitled environment thinking you actually deserve to have everything handed to you, thinking either that you can do no wrong, or if you do, your lawyers will handle it. I mean, seriously, how is someone raised by Trump (whom I believe is a narcissist) going to come out of it sensible? I'd go so far as to suggest Jr. did this to get Dad's approval. And he kept it a secret because he wanted to walk in to his dad's office and announce that he had the smoking gun that would put Hillary in jail. When he failed, he kept it secret because why bring up a fail? Now, he'll throw himself on his own petard to protect his father. Yeah. I'm making this up, but it kind of makes sense, don't you think?

[SciFi Chick]

P.S. Since you already don't like CNN, you might actually enjoy the reveals by Project Veritas. Since their story broke, CNN has lost so many ratings, they are now coming in behind Nick at Nite. I kid you not.

[Rommie]

1) Wasn't trying to get hostile, just casually emphasizing how much I don't care about CNN and their lack of journalism. But do wish some on the right would look at Fox News with the same microscope. I also confess I don't really need to spend time looking into other people saying how much they suck, I already know it and am trying to finish a PhD thesis.

2) What I am referring to, beyond the part where Trump Jr. released these emails yesterday, is stuff like how Trump literally sat down to give an interview a few days after firing Comey to say that he did it not because of the official reason given at first (ie, Clinton investigation mishandling) but actually because of how he'd been handling Russia. Like, you don't even need to look for proof and motivation when the boss himself hands it to you.

3) You may be right. I would certainly not be shocked if evidence came out later that Junior made sure his dad was aware of the meeting though for brownie points or whatever.

[SciFi Chick]

1) Wasn't trying to get hostile, just casually emphasizing how much I don't care about CNN and their lack of journalism. But do wish some on the right would look at Fox News with the same microscope. I also confess I don't really need to spend time looking into other people saying how much they suck, I already know it and am trying to finish a PhD thesis.

Sorry for suggesting you might find something entertaining. I shall refrain in the future. I agree about FOX. When I say mainstream media, I mean mainstream media.

2) What I am referring to, beyond the part where Trump Jr. released these emails yesterday, is stuff like how Trump literally sat down to give an interview a few days after firing Comey to say that he did it not because of the official reason given at first (ie, Clinton investigation mishandling) but actually because of how he'd been handling Russia. Like, you don't even need to look for proof and motivation when the boss himself hands it to you.

I guess I've seen so much blown out of proportion that I have a hard time believing they will find any evidence, and I really wish we could focus on what he's up to as President. But, like I said, I'm going to check out that reddit site you recommended, and I can't wait to see what I discover there. I've never really followed politics this closely before. I just took the sound bites that got offered. The more I get into it, the more fascinated I'm getting.

3) You may be right. I would certainly not be shocked if evidence came out later that Junior made sure his dad was aware of the meeting though for brownie points or whatever.

That fits the narrative as well, except that if he's releasing all the emails in an effort to be transparent, I don't see why he'd lie about this aspect. That would be very Machiavellian, and I just don't see either of the Trumps with that skill.

[SciFi Chick]

Also, I'm not trying to be argumentative or push for a certain point of view. I just think it's useful to look at different points of view. Otherwise, the whole discussion would be very boring. You would say something. I'd agree. The end.

[Rommie]

True.

Re: point 3, I don't think they need to be Machiavellian, I think they just plain need to be dumb, and there's ample evidence going of that going on.

I will disagree about your point that this stuff isn't important and we should focus on what he did as president, for the important reason that there's ample precedent where what gets people in trouble isn't their actions but the effort to cover them up later. Plus, frankly, the idea that Russia was involved in our election is very concerning and we need to know the full extent of it.

I am not the special prosecutor, so I will not convict or conclude based on one email. I'm sure he's got more than one by this point, after all. But damn I'm a little impatient waiting for them to do their jobs!

[SciFiFisher]

So, no one wants to talk about the Russia investigation having proof of collusion with me?

Personally the part I can't wrap my head around is why Trump Jr. tweeted out the letters incriminating himself. I mean, ok, NY Times has the email and wants a statement, so you're fairly fucked (and even if you truly think it wasn't illegal, it's obviously not the best in a PR sense). But if they're the ones sending 'em out, you always have some plausible deniability coming from a fake source etc.

I can't imagine in a million years his newly hired lawyer thought this was smart, for example.

I saw a story: Assange claims he told DT Jr. that he should let Wiki Leaks release all the emails anonymously. Per Assange about two hours later DT Jr. did on Tweeter.

I think these people are so used to saying any outrageous thing they want that it never occurs to them that things like perjury and conspiracy can send them to jail.