Maybe Gbaji will swing by in a few days to explain why this totally doesn't count as a flip because it doesn't follow his specific criteria.
Haven't seen him around in awhile, thought maybe he got swept up in the investigation.
Nah. Just been busy and frankly bored of the same retreaded and predictable posts around here lately. I can pretty much just tune into MSNBC and know exactly what the folks on this forum will be talking about, what angle they'll have and in many cases the exact language they'll be using/repeating.
And Joph? If "specific criteria" for it to count as a "flip" is "actually flipping on someone" (presumably Trump in this case), then yeah, guilty as charged. It's funny because you're like a broken record on this. How many times now have you defined any and every single plea agreement or cooperation agreement as "flipping" (on Trump), when, as I've pointed out each and every time, the far more likely reason to do those things is to get a reduced sentence for yourself in return for the plea/cooperation.
The assumption that said plea agreement or cooperation must include "provide critical information to proving Trump did something illegal" is your own. Well, and the folks at MSNBC. Most people hear "plea deal" and assume "cop to a lower charge to avoid the cost and pain of a trial and the risk of being found guilty of a greater penalty". They similarly assume that the offer is made by the prosecution to *also* avoid the cost of a trial and the potential of the defendant not being found guilty of anything. You know, how such things normally happen every single day in courtrooms all over the country. By all means though continue to believe that "this time", it'll be the nail in Trump's coffin or something.
I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to actually state the federal statute they think someone has violated and upon which this investigation is supposed to be based. You know, like such "special prosecutions" are actually supposed to have in hand prior to being initiated, but which is suspiciously missing in this case? Not surprising that such an investigation will veer off into random directions when it doesn't start with an direction in the first place. Also more than a bit alarming to have an investigation to basically "figure out what crime might have been committed". Um... That's not how our legal system is supposed to work.
But then, there's a lot of that going on right now. Right? I mean: Make the defendant testify before the accuser? Who thinks that makes any sense at all? Ignoring the whole "turning the basic fundamental foundation of our legal system upside down", how can anyone actually ask meaningful questions of the defendant if they haven't first received testimony from the accuser? Kinda common sense there. But sense seems to be less and less "common" every day, especially on your side of the political aisle. Edited, Sep 24th 2018 6:57pm by gbaji