Those emails are the smoking gun. I'm increasingly of the view that Mueller's report, when it comes out, is going to be the most interesting political event of my lifetime...
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to flylock shox For This Useful Post:
Apparently NYT was going to release them anyway, so he did it himself. Which makes sense.
I just don't understand how this isn't looked at as treasonous behaviour by literally everyone. If you still stick by your guy after this, you don't deserve to live in a democracy.
Bang on. Is this the straw that breaks the camels back? Self admitted to having Russian influence.
Bang on. Is this the straw that breaks the camels back? Self admitted to having Russian influence.
No. It should be... but the only thing that can be (IMO) is a finding of fault (or really anything short of general exoneration) in Mueller's investigation report.
Pence with a plausible deniability statement throwing Trump under the bus is the clearest sign yet this is going south for Donnie. To quote TO...get your mother####ing popcorn ready.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Pence with a plausible deniability statement throwing Trump under the bus is the clearest sign yet this is going south for Donnie. To quote TO...get your mother####ing popcorn ready.
Not sure there's much there with the Pence statement. I mean sure there's kind of a 'plausible deniability' statement with the "before my time"-ness of it. But I'm not sure I'd expect him to say anything else in any circumstance.
Reading the email chain, I'd love to know why Jr thought this was a good idea.
Lawyers everywhere are wondering what sort of legal advice he's getting (or ignoring). These emails are essentially a confession.
My guess is that his life has simply taught him that anything he ever does wrong he'll never be accountable for, and that an explanation and a cheque will paper over any problem.
I think a few things will (or at least should) come of this. The major players in the Trump campaign will clam up in addition to further lawyering up. The Republican politicians close to Trump will begin to distance themselves from him. The bit-players will start approaching Mueller's team (through their lawyers) to see what kind of deals they can broker before they go down in the belly of the ship.
Good reason to think Republicans won't abandon Trump the same way they abandoned Nixon.
So while Frank Rich is absolutely correct in suggesting that Trump has only begun to experience the agonies that beset the Nixon White House during the much-longer-than-remembered Watergate scandal that led to the 38th president’s resignation, Trump does have this one advantage. He can quite literally talk his “base” into ignoring adverse information. That will in turn make it harder for his Republican Party to abandon him as it abandoned Nixon in 1974.
I guess the question is is this the worst thing they did, or is this just the thing people happened to be able to find out.
I mean, for ####'s sake Vox. Twelve different people responded, all described as "law professor". Do these people specialize in criminal law? How about in this particular area of criminal law? Have they ever actually practiced law, or are they academics? I know who some of them are, but not most. This would really help in deciding who to listen to.
Super annoying thing the media does to just ask a prof somewhere about what they think on legal matters. There are people teaching at law schools who have plenty of abstract knowledge but who have either not actually done anything in the field for ten years, or in some cases, ever.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I mean, for ####'s sake Vox. Twelve different people responded, all described as "law professor". Do these people specialize in criminal law? How about in this particular area of criminal law? Have they ever actually practiced law, or are they academics? I know who some of them are, but not most. This would really help in deciding who to listen to.
Super annoying thing the media does to just ask a prof somewhere about what they think on legal matters. There are people teaching at law schools who have plenty of abstract knowledge but who have either not actually done anything in the field for ten years, or in some cases, ever.
You could google their credentials if it's that important to you .....I didn't feel the spectrum of opinion was as wide as Photon suggested. I interpreted each quote suggested all of the professor's felt the email chain was evidence which could be used to demonstrate guilt. However, whether the email chain was a slam dunk for conviction was where the opinions varied. And, really, no one is going to go down that road until it truly is a slam dunk.
Mueller has the power to bring criminal indictments as part of his work, but legal experts say it will take significant time — a year or more, even — before he reaches that point.
I mean seriously... where could junior think "incriminating information" from a foreign government about a former Senator/SecState was coming from except from espionage? You don't say "I'd love it" you say "call the FBI!".
.....I didn't feel the spectrum of opinion was as wide as Photon suggested. I interpreted each quote suggested all of the professor's felt the email chain was evidence which could be used to demonstrate guilt. However, whether the email chain was a slam dunk for conviction was where the opinions varied. And, really, no one is going to go down that road until it truly is a slam dunk.
