CNN finally admits Russia probe won't lead to Trump indictment

CNN has backpeddled on previous statements they & parts of the democratic base have made regarding Trump's legal jeopardy. Just 6 short months ago, we still had a litany of Internet postings, pundits and even congressmen & women asserting Trump would be indicted.

Without any evidence/factual basis in reality to back their claims, they were droning on about Russians hiding under the bed/in the closet and parroting their "collusion conclusion" - always in a matter-of-fact foregone conclusion tone - predicting Trump's imminent demise. But there has been one major setback after the next for their complex and highly speculative "collusion conclusion" conspiracy theory.

Today, that argument in is in ruins as CNN finally admits Trump is most likely (read: 99% probability) not ever going to face legal consequences for the unproven non-crime of "collusion" (aka conspiracy)

www.cnn.com...

(CNN)The biggest misconception surrounding the special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election is that it will likely end in some sort of legal proceeding involving President Donald Trump. It won't -- for a bunch of reasons, the most important of which is that Robert Mueller, who is running the investigation, doesn't seem to believe a sitting President can be indicted.

The much more likely outcome is that Mueller releases the findings from his investigation sometime this fall — and lets the chips, as they relate to Trump, fall where they may. Which means — and this is what Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have understood for months — that, ultimately, this isn't a legal fight, it's a public relations one.

Did anyone else just notice that? Feels like Trump just re-gained the initiative Blue wave? Looking more & more like a PATRIOT Wave. With prominent Democratic politicians now forever tied to their bizarre, irresponsible, specious and highly speculative "collusion conclusion" we just may upend the "traditional wisdom" that suggests an incumbent party doesn't fare well in the first term mid-term elections.

I hope our candidates drive these irresponsible and entirely invented claims home (especially RE: Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, etc)

Someone owes me 1000 dollars lol.

It means thar Junior will get roasted instead..

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
It means thar Junior will get roasted instead..

No, it doesn't. "Junior" didn't do anything wrong. He never lied under oath/to federal LE investigators and the Trump tower meeting was perfectly legal.

Please do explain what specific provable criminal act you believe puts Trump Jr. in any legal jeopardy?

NONE of Mueller's prosecutions have been related to any sort of "collusion" (conspiracy) by any American. In fact, he's gone to great lengths on two occasions to point out that no US citizens were involved in any foreign conspiracy to meddle in the election

a reply to: JBurns

Well ya have to wonder what the next issue that will be used by the corporate owned media (CNN- FOX- MSNBC-ABC...) to corral peoples news consumption with worthless and fruitless endeavors.

They will need an new headline grabber to keep the people's minds on unimportant stuff.

I can see the liberal posts. But Trump had to cheat. Its the only way he could win? In what context? The Obama administration pulling the strings of government to stack the deck against the Trump campaign?

Well, CNN are "Terrorists" and "fake news" so this story can't be true

a reply to: JBurns

Just 6 short months ago, we still had a litany of Internet postings, pundits and even congressmen & women asserting Trump would be indicted.

Actually, no. The idea that a sitting president can be indicted has always been an open question but Trump has never been a target of Mueller. You know that, right?

On the other hand, a sitting president can be impeached. But that's a political process, not a legal process.

I have never really believed that they would ever see Trump face jail over what he may have done.

I just think he would be too well protected legally and that as a country it would be too damaging to have a former POTUS up on serious charges.

So my understanding of it has always been that its about the people closest to Trump, it about people like Flynn and Manafort. For Trump, yes its a public relations disaster and his handling of it has been abysmal and if he were ever to face any kind criminal charges I think it would be for something he has said or done in his handling of the situation. I keep seeing arguments like this a lot form the right and I wonder if its just that you guys have missed some of the details in your support for the man or if its a wilful straw-man.

Throughout the entire saga I think that the media have been trying to paint this as something bigger than it is, which is totally unnecessary because its a pretty big scandal in itself but its lead to this belief that actually Trump is going to face legal jeopardy over this.

For trump personally his real legal jeopardy seems to be coming form the women who are accusing him of slander which could see the inside of a court room.

a reply to: JBurns

The much more likely outcome is that Mueller releases the findings from his investigation sometime this fall

The way I understand this exercise to conclude is Mueller will give a report to the doj and the doj will decide whom to release the report to?
So it will be up to sessions as to who gets to actually see what?

a reply to: neutronflux

But Trump did not cheat.

In fact, he was so certain they were stacking the deck against him (they were - he received an unprecedented amount of negative coverage by liberal media) that President Obama had to publicly rebuke & mock him (and his voters) for even suggesting "cheating" was possible.

He didn't cheat. Pundits, politicians and establishment bureaucrats never saw him coming. And the left was so blind with their self-righteous stance on every single possible wedge/fringe issue that they didn't see it coming either. Those who did didn't believe it. Polls were clearly manipulated to disenfranchise conservative voters, with the Clinton campaign hiring a myriad of highly secretive tech giants to assist in "repairing" her public image.

One such service, "Correct the record" was an Orwellian-type company that scoured the Internet in an effort to bolster Clinton's credibility/image among likely voters. There was also a secretive company who's web-page displayed all sorts of strange symbols - functioning much like Cambridge Analytic RE: social media analysis/outreach.

No cheating. No "collusion." NO conspiracy

Trump won't be indicted, or impeached.

But when his two terms are over, he will no longer be president. And what will happen to all the puffed up minions then?

I'll be here to find out.

a reply to: shooterbrody

brody, I think that is right.. although it may be Rosenstein who makes the decision since he is "acting AG" as it pertains to Mueller/special counsel investigation

Either way, I am certain their report will be far different than the narrative some Dems have been spinning. A month or so ago, Mueller actually filed a complaint against liberal MSM outlets with a federal judge due to constant churning of fake-news/misinformation about his investigation

I'd rather have the last two years back and the endless wasted time spent arguing this snip.

a reply to: JBurns

But Trump did not cheat.

Just like I can't sit hear and say he did cheat and be 100% certain on it, you can't claim with certainty that he did not cheat as if that has been established as a fact.

I keep saying this to people on both sides but lets wait and see what the investigations report and then we can go from there. Right now thanks mostly to the media, there is too much mud in the water to see clearly what exactly has happened.

originally posted by: JBurns


Did anyone else just notice that? Feels like Trump just re-gained the initiative

Blue wave? Looking more & more like a PATRIOT Wave. With prominent Democratic politicians now forever tied to their bizarre, irresponsible, specious and highly speculative "collusion conclusion" we just may upend the "traditional wisdom" that suggests an incumbent party doesn't fare well in the first term mid-term elections.

I hope our candidates drive these irresponsible and entirely invented claims home (especially RE: Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, etc)

C'mon man, how many of the same threads do we need to stuff the ATS boards with? I can appreciate you wanted to share your opinion, but I'm like 99% sure you've voiced this opinion before and ultimately all this debate is opinion until Nov 6th anyways.

Perhaps you're right and the Republican's sweep the ballots, or perhaps the Blue wave is real and sends em all packing. Who has time to run semantic circles debating something that doesn't have an answer yet?

originally posted by: Jefferton
Trump won't be indicted, or impeached.

But when his two terms are over, he will no longer be president. And what will happen to all the puffed up minions then?

I'll be here to find out.

Ummm...”so say we all”...






YouSir

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Well, CNN are "Terrorists" and "fake news" so this story can't be true

Sounds legit to me.

I vaguely remember some lady who wears pantsuits was supposed to be arrested and thrown in jail 3 or 4 years ago. Has she been arrested yet?

a reply to: JBurns

At that point the investigation will be over and sessions no longer recused?
Also who is sessions boss? So who will really make the decision?
We know congress can't do squat about government agencies not turning over documents, or redacting said documents.
Lots of twists and turns available in this event.