Given your repeated posts about how people are going to flip on Trump "like any day now. Ok, any day... NOW. Hmmm... Ok, maybe this time?"
Uh, we know of multiple people who have flipped (Gates, Flynn, Papadopoulos, Pinedo). The only US indictment who hasn't
flipped so far is Manafort. But you generally don't find out that they've flipped until the prosecutor has gotten what they need from them. That's kind of Flipping 101.
You're playing games broadening and then narrowing the definition of "flip" to suit whichever argument you're making at the moment. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that to "flip" someone means to get a deal in which they agree to provide tangible evidence of Russian collusion (remember that this is supposedly the purpose of the investigation) against Trump, or others closely placed to Trump in his administration/campaign.
The fact that multiple people have entered pleas does not mean that they have "flipped" in this context. Agreeing to "cooperate with the investigation" does not mean that said cooperation actually bears the kind of fruit that you seem to be assuming it will (or has). We wont know for sure until the investigation completes, but so far there's nothing beyond speculation as to the nature of whatever "assistance" may have been provided.
Here's a link with a breakdown of folks who've made deals
. Notable quotes:
None of the charges against Americans or Trump advisers so far have directly alleged that they worked with Russia to interfere with the campaign.
Other reported focuses of Mueller’s investigation — such as the hacking and leaking of prominent Democrats’ emails and potential obstruction of justice by the Trump administration — have not resulted in any indictments yet.
So far, no Trump associates have been specifically charged with any crimes relating to helping Russia interfere with the 2016 election.
The point here is that of the four people actually connected in any way to Trump the charge for two of them has been lying about conversation with Russians (which, as I've explained earlier, is something that happens when people are in an environment where the media narrative is that any conversation with a Russian is proof of something horrible). Also no evidence that the conversations themselves were illegal, nor of a nature which supported the claim of "collusion". The other two were Gates and Manafort and had to do with actions they took years before coming anywhere near the Trump campaign.
Silly me. I'm speaking specifically about the objective of the investigation. When you say "they're going to flip so and so", the assumption is that said "flip" will lead the investigation forwards with regards to the thing they are investigating. Calling these people's actions "flips" is using an overly broad definition of the term. You have repeatedly asserted that their plea deals will somehow result in proof of wrongdoing by Trump or his campaign (I believe you've directly made statements like "flip on him", where I assume "him" is Trump) with regards to improper interactions with the Russians during the election, but the facts we have so far show that this just isn't the case. Wishful thinking aside, all we're getting is more side stuff.
Honestly, I know you revel in your ignorance and stuff but maybe buy a newspaper.
Or, I don't know, not read more into what is written than what's actually there? Just a thought.
I'll make the same prediction again that I've made all along. When this investigation finally winds down, there will be indictments. But there will be none that directly relate to the idea of "collusion with Russians to affect the election" (whatever statute one could even apply that to btw). It will be the same side stuff we've seen all along. A perjury charge here. Obstruction charge there. Some unrelated stuff "discovered" along the way. But nothing that proves anything relating to the original purpose of the investigation.
Which leads us right back to why I disagree with these types of investigations and special prosecutors. They virtually never actually find what they were created to look for and create a massive amount of political hay along the way. One might suspect that the primary purpose for creating one isn't to actually find proof of the given allegation, but just to have the political impact of the investigation itself. You put the administration on the defensive for a few years as a result. Again, same deal with the Plame investigation. It's a BS move, and we the public should really start questioning it's use.
And yeah. They constitute a fishing expedition. When the majority of the charges that results are things "discovered along the way", it supports the idea that gaining the ability to make those discoveries might just be the actual purpose of the investigation itself. The original allegation is just the excuse to launch it in the first place. At least, that's how I see it, and frankly how most people outside the liberal bubble see it. Edited, May 3rd 2018 4:08pm by gbaji