A disruption in communications can mean only one thing: invasion.
The theory being they were granted immunity months ago before charges were filed. Not sure though why they would give two people higher up the food chain immunity to nab Cohen though.
Yeah. So potentially one of the reasons Cohen plead guilty is because he knew that Weisselberg was going to rat on him under immunity.
We just don’t have enough information about when he was given immunity and what for. But it could be for that.
I read articles back from then, and apparently many people in and out of DOJ were very unhappy with the end result. Supposedly, the case against him wasn’t as rock-solid as portrayed and what would have been a salacious and embarrassing trial got worked around by the plea deal for the misdemeanor. That said, I’m with you; Petreus should have gone to prison for years, as well.
So they have multiple sources implicating the President of a Federal crime? Forcing the GOP to take action? The fact that Trumps lawyer was talking to the probe and Trump initially seemed unaware of it, makes me think a hammer is coming down soon.
Otherwise you are right, it doesn’t make sense…
Also, remember Executive 1 directed the payments to be made from Trump’s charitable trust. I do think it would be odd to grant immunity to him if he wasn’t acting under orders from someone else.
Maybe they’re just playing hard to get?
They’re using our own satellites against us. The clock is ticking!
This thread goes into detail.
**
The punchline:
I know Sessions is awful in twenty kinds of ways, but doesn’t his persistent determination to stay at his post and insulate Rosenstein & the DOJ from Trump and Congress’s meddling make him, sort of, I dunno… a hero for our time?
Lawful Evil! He knows he’ll go down eventually, but he won’t go down with Trump.
In practice, that means low-status people get long sentences and high-status people don’t. So as a strategy, it amounts to endorsing shitty treatment for low-status people.
That’s a troubling argument, as it says that high-status people should (in your view) be allowed to break laws that low-status people can’t; or that we should make allowances for high-status people that we don’t for low-status people when it comes to charging them and sentencing them.
Winner exposed the evidence of Russian hacking at a time when the top law enforcement officer and government official in the land - the President - was denying there was any such evidence. The government was lying to the people, and she discovered they were lying, and she exposed the lie. That’s precisely the kind of leak we want, and there’s no reasonable argument that her leak caused any damage at all. At least, no one is making that argument.
Are you saying he’s a law and order kind of hobgoblin?
The least we can do, if we come through all this, is erect a statue to Jefferson Beauregard Manassas Chancellorsville Sessions III. And then someone will pull it down because they’ll think it was a Confederate monument.
I think he values disenfranchising black people more than protecting Trump.
Odd, because the two go hand in glove.
Law enforcement was not denying it, just President dipshit who still denies it. The CIA, NSA, and FBI put out their statement in fall of 2016. The document she leaked was from May 2017. So sorry, you are wrong the government was not lying to people, just the same asshole who lies everyday. She didn’t fucking whistle blow no matter how much you wish it to be true.
The President is law enforcement, and there are many people who take his word over those of his subordinates every single day.
By your reasoning the government is still denying the hacking even though the DoJ has indicted Russians for the hacking.
By your reasoning, the President’s denials of the hacking had no impact on what people believed about the affair in early 2017, and Winner’s leak had no possibility of changing those beliefs, and there was no public good to be served by revealing that the President was lying about the affair. Respectfully, I disagree.