I feel like your conflating the standard of proof needed to convict in criminal court being the same as having the appearance of impropriety in tainting the investigation. Mueller saw this and had him immediately removed even though it was concluded that his personal bias played no role in the investigation. People are allowed to have private opinions. He shouldn’t have expressed them on a work phone though. Where reasonable doubt comes into play will be at the various criminal trials of those indicted who don’t plea out.
Im not conflating anything. Judges have thrown cases out over less information in other criminal proceedings before they even go to trial. If any of them do go to trial, you be better believe this will be the defense's tactic. People are absolutely allowed to have private opinions, but there isnt a special burden to raise doubt, it can literally be over anything. I just think in the most high profile criminal case in US history if it gets to that point, I think if everything is not 100% clean, nothing will happen. Maybe I'm wrong, but its just my $0.02.
Speaking of private opinions and high profile cases . . . like, the defense trying to show that Detective Mark Furhman was a racist, his private opinion, and whether or not that influenced his gathering of evidence against OJ . . . and OJ being found not guilty.
There is zero chance a judge dismisses a case or rules evidence inadmissible because of Peter Strzok. He is purely a PR strategy of the administration.
The House Freedom Caucus has filed articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. This is unlikely to even make it out of committee, but it's likely that the purpose of this is to provide rationale and political cover for Trump to fire Rosenstein himself.
We are talking about politicians and their lackeys. The greatest known pack of liars to exist in general. Cohen - who up until a week ago was considered honorable and upright by the Right, is now a rat and liar. This is also the same Cohen who was a world class scumbag and liar according to the Left up until a week ago and now, we are going to use his account of events, that cannot be corroborated with evidence, according to the article, as collusion?
According to Cohen's lawyer, the leak didn't come from their camp. Also, I think the Left *still* believes him to be a world class liar and scumbag. That has zero effect on the tape released so far.
This is literally the same defense John Gotti used against Sammy the Bull. It didn't work then either.
So four liars are at the same place at the same time. 1 liar says event x happened. The 3 other liars say event x did not happen. With no other evidence of the event beyond witness testimony, did event x occur?
Sammy the Bull testifies in open court that John Gotti ordered the murders of 19 individuals. John Gotti's defense points out that Gotti and two other indicted members of the Gambino crime family say it didn't happen. Did Gotti order those hits?
Who says there's no other evidence? Do you think Cohen turned "just because"? If there was no evidence, then what is his motive? They pulled truckloads of evidence from his office, electronics, and storage lockers...personally, I'm quite convinced that in the face of that evidence, he's willing to now explain what it all means and testify. The dude left damning evidence in plain view because he couldn't figure out how to convert a PDF file... and has taken audio recordings of discussions between him and Trump. There's no doubt that he was equally stupid and careless with other evidence, and a strong likelihood that he has other evidence he kept as a personal "get out of jail free card", which very well may turn out to be exactly that. To say that "he's a liar and shouldn't be trusted about what he says about Trump" is way, way too simplistic and premature.
I'm at least willing to wait to hear what he has to say, and see what he's going to give up, before I make any blanket statements.
And by the same token, thanks to his own public statements, Trump is a liar. Does that mean we should trust him when he says Cohen is lying?
That was actually Manafort. In any event, believing that Trump had no knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting requires you to believe all of the following are true: That Donald Trump Jr. a man who craves nothing more in life than the attention of his father, would set up a meeting that he believes would secure his father the Presidency of the United States and not tell him. That a veteran campaign manager would involve the campaign he was running, as well as the candidate's immediate family, in the commission of a felony without notifying the candidate. That Trump and his team lied about his participation in Jr.'s false statements about the meeting for a perfectly innocuous reason. That Trump and his team lied about Trump's whereabouts during the time of the meeting for a perfectly innocuous reason. Or, you could believe that Trump knew about the meeting, and pressure from the SDNY got Cohen to flip and tell what he knew about it.
Right on cue, Avenetti announces he has three more clients paid off by Cohen and Trump. If you really want to kill J.R., you need to keep shooting him until he goes down and STAYS down. Otherwise everything resets.