No paper trails or tapes needed. Just underlings who say, "yes he told me to do that." Seems like Flynn is already providing that type of evidence. Maybe Papadapoulous. Probably will get one or two more will flip.

He's been saying that from the beginning. He says it more now because he knows the end is near. He thinks he can get away with pure obstruction, but he thinks collusion would be the end for him, so he continually says no collusion.

He is simply hoping that by saying it over and over again ( including the part where he says "EVERYBODY says no collusion" ), that repeating the big lie will make it true in the minds of his supporters.

Edit: took out a mistaken smiley.

donnie and his pals aren't your ordinary criminals.

they are a special breed of arrogant and incompetent criminals. they are used to working in a private, family-run business with little outside scrutiny, with an army of lawyers to abuse the court system and pay people off to cover their misdeeds.

this is very, very poor training for getting away with illegal acts on the national stage.



i think these people left fingerprints and emails and footprints and voicemails and text messages all over the place. i think plenty of witnesses have already flipped. i think mueller will have some very damning evidence.

that said, i think obstruction is easier for the press to wrap their heads around as it's familiar ground.

that said, i think mueller will have plenty enough to indict on both obstruction and collusion.


i agree that there will be financial charges as well, including at the state level, though i suspect campaign violations and tax fraud as well as money laundering.

the republicans got their impeachment but lacked the votes to convict Pres Clinton. Regardless of the Trump/Muller meeting results, there aren't even enough votes for an impeachment, much less a conviction. I'm not holding my breath with odds like those.

I've mentioned this in another post, but notice how our dear leader always uses the present tense to say there "is" no collusion. He almost never says there "was" no collusion.

It is a very curious use of tense, and it is one that he repeats over and over again.

I guess "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".......