The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[malchior]

They are Republicans which has been a huge problem for NYC but that is a tale for another day. I don't know how it'll play. NYS is an odd beast but we are still talking Republicans so all bets are off.

[Grifman]

[Sepiche]

They are Republicans which has been a huge problem for NYC but that is a tale for another day. I don't know how it'll play. NYS is an odd beast but we are still talking Republicans so all bets are off.

Weird timing for this story to pop up:
New York’s special election could put the state under full Democratic control

A special election in New York on April 24 could tip the state Senate back to the Democrats — putting the party in full control of state government.

But a lot has to happen for New York to turn truly blue, and the outcome depends as much on which voters turn out for an off-year local race as it does on backroom Albany dealmaking. Thanks to a single rogue Democratic senator who votes with Republicans, a numerical majority for Democrats still might not translate into the ability to pass Democratic bills — unless, after the election, he decides to rejoin the caucus.

[Holman]

In defiance of kompromat rumors, Trump has denied that he spent even a single night in Moscow in 2013, although his tweets from the time strongly suggest otherwise.

Now Bloomberg has obtained flight records showing that his plane came in on Friday and left Sunday morning, 46 urine-soaked hours later.

[Unagi]

It’s Comey that says that Trump denied that. I’m sure Trump will deny that he denied it now.

[Rip]

When a political figure is accused of wrongdoing, a conversation begins among journalists, commentators, and public officials. Are the charges true? Can the accusers prove it?

That's the way it normally works. But now, in the case of the Trump dossier – the allegations compiled by a former British spy hired by the Clinton campaign to gather dirt on presidential candidate Donald Trump – the generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head. Now, the question is: Can the accused prove the charges false? Increasingly, the president's critics argue that the dossier is legitimate because it has not been proven untrue.

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

"Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted," noted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in February.

In late December, Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor, tweeted a message about the allegations against Trump to his followers: "Retweet if, like me, you're aware of nothing in the [Trump] dossier that has been shown to be false."

"The dossier has not been proven false," said MSNBC anchor and former George W. Bush aide Nicolle Wallace in February.

More recently, Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," asked former CIA Director John Brennan, "So far with this dossier, nothing yet has been proven untrue. How significant is that?"

"As Jim Comey has said, I think very famously, these were salacious and unverified allegations," Brennan responded. "Just because they were unverified does not mean they were not true."

That's where the Trump dossier story stands today. No one has proved that the most serious allegations are true. But since no one has proved them false, either, some in the political class act as if they were true.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... rump-probe

[hepcat]

Welcome to Obama world, where you're Kenyan until you prove you aren't.

[noxiousdog]

That was one of the dumbest articles I've read in a long time.

The dossier has been greeted with HUGE amounts of skepticism. Probably more skepticism than is deserved as the source is well respected outside of Republican partisans. In fact, Steele said, "there was perhaps a 50-50 chance of the Moscow sex episode being true." Glenn Simpson said "the Russian source for the story [is] a "big talker" who might have made it up to impress Steele."

A surprising amount of journalistic integrity has been maintained by only treating independently verified dossier facts as legitimate. Feinstein is saying that in February. 18 months after it's release where many items have been corroborated and 0 items have been disproven.

Note how even though he knows the truth, "Glenn Simpson, head of the opposition research company Fusion GPS, which commissioned the dossier," he obfuscates it at the beginning of the article by blaming it on Clinton, "the allegations compiled by a former British spy hired by the Clinton campaign"

Rip, you really need to take a long look in the mirror. For someone who claims to be an independent thinker, you sure like to spout the propaganda.

[TheMix]

Wait. What? Rip claims to be an independent thinker? Wow. I missed that claim. That's a doozy.

[tgb]

Had the Steele dossier been written about any other President, it would have been met with a hell of a lot more skepticism. The fact that it carries credibility says more about Fuckhead than it does his detractors.

[Holman]

Plus, the Steele Dossier came along when the FBI was already investigating due to the activities of Page, Manafort, Flynn, Papadopoulos, etc. It didn't form the basis of the Russia probe; it was a windfall supplement to it, and its allegations are being investigated, not taken as evidence on their own.

In the end, the Steele claims will prove less significant that the actual intercepts and proofs (including some from our allies' intelligence services) that reveal the facts. Treating the dossier as somehow the cause of the probe is a lie, and everyone involved knows it.

[GreenGoo]

That was one of the dumbest articles I've read in a long time.

The dossier has been greeted with HUGE amounts of skepticism. Probably more skepticism than is deserved as the source is well respected outside of Republican partisans. In fact, Steele said, "there was perhaps a 50-50 chance of the Moscow sex episode being true." Glenn Simpson said "the Russian source for the story [is] a "big talker" who might have made it up to impress Steele."

+1. Except I didn't read the article, just the quoted material.

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

This proposition is a complete fabrication.

[LordMortis]

I guess some GOP members are still capable of self-awareness, as suggested here:

What are we to make of arch-conservative Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) taking a stand against President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)?

Tillis is among a surprising group of Senate Republicans backing a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller in case Trump fires him.

Here is Tillis, who votes with Trump 96 percent of the time, sending the message to his fellow Trump backers:

“The same people who would criticize me for filing this bill would be absolutely angry if I wasn’t pounding the table for this bill if we were dealing with Hillary Clinton,” he said last week. “So, spare me your righteous indignation.”

It's not going to shift me back toward the right but it''s a start. A glimmer of reason that I long for.


Does Trump's hiring Guliani have anything to do with his case in NY?

[Remus West]

I guess some GOP members are still capable of self-awareness, as suggested here:

What are we to make of arch-conservative Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) taking a stand against President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)?

Tillis is among a surprising group of Senate Republicans backing a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller in case Trump fires him.

Here is Tillis, who votes with Trump 96 percent of the time, sending the message to his fellow Trump backers:

“The same people who would criticize me for filing this bill would be absolutely angry if I wasn’t pounding the table for this bill if we were dealing with Hillary Clinton,” he said last week. “So, spare me your righteous indignation.”

It's not going to shift me back toward the right but it''s a start. A glimmer of reason that I long for.


Does Trump's hiring Guliani have anything to do with his case in NY?

My problem with that is sure he is sounding sane right now but

Tillis, who votes with Trump 96 percent of the time

suggests I want nothing to do with his style.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

This proposition is a complete fabrication.

Not really. The White House is a high level of government. FOX is a high level of media. I'm sure there's some high level academician who is equally as blind and ignorant as the first two.

Disingenuousness isn't always untruthfulness.

[El Guapo]

I guess some GOP members are still capable of self-awareness, as suggested here:

What are we to make of arch-conservative Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) taking a stand against President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)?

Tillis is among a surprising group of Senate Republicans backing a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller in case Trump fires him.

Here is Tillis, who votes with Trump 96 percent of the time, sending the message to his fellow Trump backers:

“The same people who would criticize me for filing this bill would be absolutely angry if I wasn’t pounding the table for this bill if we were dealing with Hillary Clinton,” he said last week. “So, spare me your righteous indignation.”

It's not going to shift me back toward the right but it''s a start. A glimmer of reason that I long for.


Does Trump's hiring Guliani have anything to do with his case in NY?

My problem with that is sure he is sounding sane right now but

Tillis, who votes with Trump 96 percent of the time

suggests I want nothing to do with his style.

People with noxious political beliefs do generally still have principles. Even if Thom Tillis believes a lot of things that you and I might view as crazy or immoral, there are still going to be areas where beliefs overlap, and it's important to take advantage of that overlap, and not spurn it just because of massive disagreement in other areas.

So I'm sure that I wouldn't vote for Tillis even notwithstanding this, but I'm super glad that he's standing up in this important area.

[GreenGoo]

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

This proposition is a complete fabrication.

Not really. The White House is a high level of government. FOX is a high level of media. I'm sure there's some high level academician who is equally as blind and ignorant as the first two.

Disingenuousness isn't always untruthfulness.

Sure it is. Leading someone to a false conclusion is not honest or truthful.

[Remus West]

I guess some GOP members are still capable of self-awareness, as suggested here:

What are we to make of arch-conservative Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) taking a stand against President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)?

Tillis is among a surprising group of Senate Republicans backing a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller in case Trump fires him.

Here is Tillis, who votes with Trump 96 percent of the time, sending the message to his fellow Trump backers:

“The same people who would criticize me for filing this bill would be absolutely angry if I wasn’t pounding the table for this bill if we were dealing with Hillary Clinton,” he said last week. “So, spare me your righteous indignation.”

It's not going to shift me back toward the right but it''s a start. A glimmer of reason that I long for.


Does Trump's hiring Guliani have anything to do with his case in NY?

My problem with that is sure he is sounding sane right now but

Tillis, who votes with Trump 96 percent of the time

suggests I want nothing to do with his style.

People with noxious political beliefs do generally still have principles. Even if Thom Tillis believes a lot of things that you and I might view as crazy or immoral, there are still going to be areas where beliefs overlap, and it's important to take advantage of that overlap, and not spurn it just because of massive disagreement in other areas.

So I'm sure that I wouldn't vote for Tillis even notwithstanding this, but I'm super glad that he's standing up in this important area.

Agreed. I was more thinking that it doesn't do anything to swing me to the right but I do appreciate his doing it.

[Carpet_pissr]

I think it further highlights the breaking of the Republican party into two factions that don't like each other very much. It may well turn into a third party if the break becomes more serious.

Old(er) school traditional R's against the new, populist Trumpistas. I think the reason that the party has even survived the Trump revolution, is that the past decade or so of Republicanism has been fraught with ideological hypocrisy. Modern R's still claim to represent the older, traditional R principles, but when it comes to voting, not so much. I can definitely see the current crop of R's voting with Trump, while hating his style, demeanor, etc, because he's so transparent about his (and their) disgusting policies and world views in general.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

This proposition is a complete fabrication.

Not really. The White House is a high level of government. FOX is a high level of media. I'm sure there's some high level academician who is equally as blind and ignorant as the first two.

Disingenuousness isn't always untruthfulness.

Sure it is. Leading someone to a false conclusion is not honest or truthful.

Maybe pre-2000 or something. Or somewhere other than the US. Here and now the ship of virtue has long since sailed. If it's not an outright lie, it's truth. Hell, sometimes a lie is truth if you get enough likes.

[Remus West]

GreenGoo is Canadian iirc so you can imagine his confusion.

[Daehawk]

I cant believe AZ elected a republican. That said....


Comey is the adult in the room

[LordMortis]

This post brings a smile to my face every time I see it. So much so when we hit a new page I may have to bring it forward. I don't know if it's fake media candid but she rarely smiles that way in presence of his excellency.

[Sepiche]

Boy, Drumpf was busy this morning calling in to Fox and Friends, and digging his hole even deeper:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ ... estigation

President Donald Trump said that though he is currently choosing not to interfere, he may change his mind and get “involved” with the investigation into Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election that is being carried out by his Department of Justice.

“Because of the fact [the investigation] is going on, and I think you will understand this, I have decided I won’t be involved,” he said Thursday morning during an interview on Fox and Friends. “I may change my mind at some point. Because what’s going on is a disgrace.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/tr ... tv-call-in

1. Trump categorically denied that he told James Comey he didn’t overnight in Moscow in November 2013 at the Miss Universe Pageant. Comey recorded Trump saying this twice in his contemporaneous memos. This is a key claim since it is clearly false and it appeared to be a falsehood manufactured to rebut the prostitute allegations. From one perspective it’s one guy’s word against the other. The problem for Trump is that the space-time continuum being what it is, it’s not at all clear how Comey would know to make this up in contemporaneous memos written in early 2017. He would have no way to know it would be significant. It simply makes no sense. There does appear to be at least one witness, Reince Priebus. It will be interesting to see what he says.

[El Guapo]

I can't imagine why Trump is having a hard time attracting top legal talent.

[milo]

[El Guapo]

Also:

[GreenGoo]

This post brings a smile to my face every time I see it. So much so when we hit a new page I may have to bring it forward. I don't know if it's fake media candid but she rarely smiles that way in presence of his excellency.

It seems like Obama can always find something to smile about, and he brings out the good humour in those around him. I love watching him and Biden interact. Let's see Pence and Drumpf have any sort of camaraderie that isn't a thin facade.

[tgb]

Boy, Drumpf was busy this morning calling in to Fox and Friends, and digging his hole even deeper:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ ... estigation

President Donald Trump said that though he is currently choosing not to interfere, he may change his mind and get “involved” with the investigation into Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election that is being carried out by his Department of Justice.

“Because of the fact [the investigation] is going on, and I think you will understand this, I have decided I won’t be involved,” he said Thursday morning during an interview on Fox and Friends. “I may change my mind at some point. Because what’s going on is a disgrace.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/tr ... tv-call-in

1. Trump categorically denied that he told James Comey he didn’t overnight in Moscow in November 2013 at the Miss Universe Pageant. Comey recorded Trump saying this twice in his contemporaneous memos. This is a key claim since it is clearly false and it appeared to be a falsehood manufactured to rebut the prostitute allegations. From one perspective it’s one guy’s word against the other. The problem for Trump is that the space-time continuum being what it is, it’s not at all clear how Comey would know to make this up in contemporaneous memos written in early 2017. He would have no way to know it would be significant. It simply makes no sense. There does appear to be at least one witness, Reince Priebus. It will be interesting to see what he says.

The most significant part of the rant is the offhand comment that Cohen was representing him re Stormy Daniels.

[Pyperkub]

This post brings a smile to my face every time I see it. So much so when we hit a new page I may have to bring it forward. I don't know if it's fake media candid but she rarely smiles that way in presence of his excellency.

It seems like Obama can always find something to smile about, and he brings out the good humour in those around him. I love watching him and Biden interact. Let's see Pence and Drumpf have any sort of camaraderie that isn't a thin facade.

It's a different relationship:

Over nearly three minutes, Pence offered plaudit after plaudit after plaudit, praising Trump's vision, his words, his strategy and his results in light of the passage of tax cuts. By the end, Pence offered 14 separate commendations for Trump in less than three minutes -- math that works out to one every 12.5 seconds. And each bit of praise was addressed directly to Trump, who was seated directly across the table.

I believe the term is brown-noser? Or maybe just pre-rapture practice?

[hepcat]

My favorite pairing is the Obamas and the Bushes. They seem to genuinely enjoy each other's company.

..I would kill to have either name in office right now.

[Holman]

Manhattan federal prosecutors seized as many as 16 cell phones when the FBI raided the home, office and hotel room of Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

Spoiler:

[Kraken]

My favorite pairing is the Obamas and the Bushes. They seem to genuinely enjoy each other's company.

..I would kill to have either name in office right now.

I wonder if Jeb! would have been any good. H.W. was mediocre, but W was easily the worst modern president until Trump. Mediocre would be a huge step up from either W or Trump, and I believe that Jeb! had mediocrity in him.

[gbasden]

I wonder if Jeb! would have been any good. H.W. was mediocre, but W was easily the worst modern president until Trump. Mediocre would be a huge step up from either W or Trump, and I believe that Jeb! had mediocrity in him.

Mr. Fed was right a long time ago about Presidential powers and I didn't listen. When he said that the executive was too powerful, I thought back to Reagan and the Bushs and scoffed. I hated a lot of their positions, but even Presidents I didn't like loved the country and did their best. I absolutely never figured the country would lose it's mind and elect an unqualified, intellectually stunted narcissist.

Sorry Ken. The last year has really made it plain what you meant.

[Grifman]

When a political figure is accused of wrongdoing, a conversation begins among journalists, commentators, and public officials. Are the charges true? Can the accusers prove it?

That's the way it normally works. But now, in the case of the Trump dossier – the allegations compiled by a former British spy hired by the Clinton campaign to gather dirt on presidential candidate Donald Trump – the generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head. Now, the question is: Can the accused prove the charges false? Increasingly, the president's critics argue that the dossier is legitimate because it has not been proven untrue.

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

"Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted," noted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in February.

In late December, Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor, tweeted a message about the allegations against Trump to his followers: "Retweet if, like me, you're aware of nothing in the [Trump] dossier that has been shown to be false."

"The dossier has not been proven false," said MSNBC anchor and former George W. Bush aide Nicolle Wallace in February.

More recently, Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," asked former CIA Director John Brennan, "So far with this dossier, nothing yet has been proven untrue. How significant is that?"

"As Jim Comey has said, I think very famously, these were salacious and unverified allegations," Brennan responded. "Just because they were unverified does not mean they were not true."

That's where the Trump dossier story stands today. No one has proved that the most serious allegations are true. But since no one has proved them false, either, some in the political class act as if they were true.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... rump-probe

From what I have read, this is almost all in response to Republican/Trump statements that this is a "fake" dossier. The Trumpster position is that the Trump investigation was based upon a fake dossier drummed up by Clinton conspiring with the Russians, LOL!. While certain aspects of the dossier are unproven, it is also just as much true that they have not been disproven as Trumpsters have alleged. That's generally what these statements have been made - they are in opposition to false Republican/Trumpster statements.

[Rip]

When a political figure is accused of wrongdoing, a conversation begins among journalists, commentators, and public officials. Are the charges true? Can the accusers prove it?

That's the way it normally works. But now, in the case of the Trump dossier – the allegations compiled by a former British spy hired by the Clinton campaign to gather dirt on presidential candidate Donald Trump – the generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head. Now, the question is: Can the accused prove the charges false? Increasingly, the president's critics argue that the dossier is legitimate because it has not been proven untrue.

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

"Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted," noted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in February.

In late December, Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor, tweeted a message about the allegations against Trump to his followers: "Retweet if, like me, you're aware of nothing in the [Trump] dossier that has been shown to be false."

"The dossier has not been proven false," said MSNBC anchor and former George W. Bush aide Nicolle Wallace in February.

More recently, Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," asked former CIA Director John Brennan, "So far with this dossier, nothing yet has been proven untrue. How significant is that?"

"As Jim Comey has said, I think very famously, these were salacious and unverified allegations," Brennan responded. "Just because they were unverified does not mean they were not true."

That's where the Trump dossier story stands today. No one has proved that the most serious allegations are true. But since no one has proved them false, either, some in the political class act as if they were true.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... rump-probe

From what I have read, this is almost all in response to Republican/Trump statements that this is a "fake" dossier. The Trumpster position is that the Trump investigation was based upon a fake dossier drummed up by Clinton conspiring with the Russians, LOL!. While certain aspects of the dossier are unproven, it is also just as much true that they have not been disproven as Trumpsters have alleged. That's generally what these statements have been made - they are in opposition to false Republican/Trumpster statements.

But that is the thing, you aren't supposed to need to prove innocence or that rumors are untrue. I could go on all day about things that have been said but not proven untrue. I heard Bill Clinton was bedding underage girls on Jeffrey Epstein's jet. No one has proven that he didn't. It certainly hasn't been disproven that he sexually assaulted several women. I could go on with mountains of those all day.

[Isgrimnur]

There’s a difference in the credibility of sources between you and an intelligence officer.

[Pyperkub]

When a political figure is accused of wrongdoing, a conversation begins among journalists, commentators, and public officials. Are the charges true? Can the accusers prove it?

That's the way it normally works. But now, in the case of the Trump dossier – the allegations compiled by a former British spy hired by the Clinton campaign to gather dirt on presidential candidate Donald Trump – the generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head. Now, the question is: Can the accused prove the charges false? Increasingly, the president's critics argue that the dossier is legitimate because it has not been proven untrue.

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

"Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted," noted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in February.

In late December, Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor, tweeted a message about the allegations against Trump to his followers: "Retweet if, like me, you're aware of nothing in the [Trump] dossier that has been shown to be false."

"The dossier has not been proven false," said MSNBC anchor and former George W. Bush aide Nicolle Wallace in February.

More recently, Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," asked former CIA Director John Brennan, "So far with this dossier, nothing yet has been proven untrue. How significant is that?"

"As Jim Comey has said, I think very famously, these were salacious and unverified allegations," Brennan responded. "Just because they were unverified does not mean they were not true."

That's where the Trump dossier story stands today. No one has proved that the most serious allegations are true. But since no one has proved them false, either, some in the political class act as if they were true.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... rump-probe

From what I have read, this is almost all in response to Republican/Trump statements that this is a "fake" dossier. The Trumpster position is that the Trump investigation was based upon a fake dossier drummed up by Clinton conspiring with the Russians, LOL!. While certain aspects of the dossier are unproven, it is also just as much true that they have not been disproven as Trumpsters have alleged. That's generally what these statements have been made - they are in opposition to false Republican/Trumpster statements.

But that is the thing, you aren't supposed to need to prove innocence or that rumors are untrue. I could go on all day about things that have been said but not proven untrue. I heard Bill Clinton was bedding underage girls on Jeffrey Epstein's jet. No one has proven that he didn't. It certainly hasn't been disproven that he sexually assaulted several women. I could go on with mountains of those all day.

No, that's in a court of law. It would be nice, but most do like their salacious gossip and in the age of social media, the gossip isn't as filtered by the 4th estate as it used to be, so it gains a LOT more traction before it can be evaluated.

What is supposed to happen is that, given the severity of the allegations, we investigate first to see if the algebraic are credible, and if so, then investigate to see if they are true, and prosecute any illegalities which can be proven.

Which is what is happening.

[El Guapo]

I guess some GOP members are still capable of self-awareness, as suggested here:

What are we to make of arch-conservative Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) taking a stand against President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)?

Tillis is among a surprising group of Senate Republicans backing a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller in case Trump fires him.

Here is Tillis, who votes with Trump 96 percent of the time, sending the message to his fellow Trump backers:

“The same people who would criticize me for filing this bill would be absolutely angry if I wasn’t pounding the table for this bill if we were dealing with Hillary Clinton,” he said last week. “So, spare me your righteous indignation.”

It's not going to shift me back toward the right but it''s a start. A glimmer of reason that I long for.


Does Trump's hiring Guliani have anything to do with his case in NY?

Sorry if this has already been posted and I missed it, but the Special Counsel protection bill passed out of committee on a 14-7 vote. Tillis, Flake, and one other Republican I can't remember voted yes. McConnell has said that he won't bring the bill to the floor regardless, because he is a terrible person, but even just this does a lot of good. First, under pressure McConnell could still decide to let the bill proceed. But secondly and more importantly, things like this shape Trump's calculus - the main worry / con for him in firing Mueller is that it may actually move Republicans in Congress to do real things to undermine him. With the Republicans having such a thin majority, 3 Republicans voting yes on this bill (when pressure is less intense than in a situation where Mueller has actually been fired) would make him worry more about them moving against him if he actually fired Mueller.

[Holman]

When a political figure is accused of wrongdoing, a conversation begins among journalists, commentators, and public officials. Are the charges true? Can the accusers prove it?

That's the way it normally works. But now, in the case of the Trump dossier – the allegations compiled by a former British spy hired by the Clinton campaign to gather dirt on presidential candidate Donald Trump – the generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head. Now, the question is: Can the accused prove the charges false? Increasingly, the president's critics argue that the dossier is legitimate because it has not been proven untrue.

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

"Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted," noted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in February.

In late December, Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor, tweeted a message about the allegations against Trump to his followers: "Retweet if, like me, you're aware of nothing in the [Trump] dossier that has been shown to be false."

"The dossier has not been proven false," said MSNBC anchor and former George W. Bush aide Nicolle Wallace in February.

More recently, Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," asked former CIA Director John Brennan, "So far with this dossier, nothing yet has been proven untrue. How significant is that?"

"As Jim Comey has said, I think very famously, these were salacious and unverified allegations," Brennan responded. "Just because they were unverified does not mean they were not true."

That's where the Trump dossier story stands today. No one has proved that the most serious allegations are true. But since no one has proved them false, either, some in the political class act as if they were true.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... rump-probe

From what I have read, this is almost all in response to Republican/Trump statements that this is a "fake" dossier. The Trumpster position is that the Trump investigation was based upon a fake dossier drummed up by Clinton conspiring with the Russians, LOL!. While certain aspects of the dossier are unproven, it is also just as much true that they have not been disproven as Trumpsters have alleged. That's generally what these statements have been made - they are in opposition to false Republican/Trumpster statements.

But that is the thing, you aren't supposed to need to prove innocence or that rumors are untrue. I could go on all day about things that have been said but not proven untrue. I heard Bill Clinton was bedding underage girls on Jeffrey Epstein's jet. No one has proven that he didn't. It certainly hasn't been disproven that he sexually assaulted several women. I could go on with mountains of those all day.

Do you think the Mueller investigation consists of investigators sitting around with the dossier and asking "Does this sound right? Can we charge him from this?"

They were investigating before the dossier came to light. They are investigating independently of it. They are looking at facts and records, intercepts and emails. They are chasing evidence, not just bouncing around allegations, because that is what investigation *is*. If the dossier points the way to independent evidence and facts, we should all (you as well, if you care about the rule of law) hope that they are found, but the dossier is not evidence in itself.

We can be 100% certain that not a single charge will be based on nothing more than "Christopher Steele said so." If that's really what you're worried about, you can rest easy.