The Mueller Probe
The 2 latest signs of obstruction:
1) Manafort coordinates with the Trump team:
2) The hiring of Matthew Whataker:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/27/fbi-comey-attorney-general-whitaker-1018194
Should he recuse himself?
Trump's defense of Moscow deal - I had a project - decided not to go ahead with it, but it would have been ok if I did.
Trump never does anything unless he personally benefits from it. Was there really ever any reason to think that the reason Trump spoke so glowingly about Putin during the campaign other than Trump wanted to do a deal in Russia? He had been trying to get into Russia (the Soviet Union) for 30 years.
Here is the Information and plea agreement in U.S. v. Michael Cohen.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Cohen's plea came shortly after Trump submitted his written, under-oath answers to Mueller.
Does the plea deal cite any documentation that show that the "Moscow Trump Tower" was anything more than an idea of Felix Sater?
paulsurovell said:
Does the plea deal cite any documentation that show that the "Moscow Trump Tower" was anything more than an idea of Felix Sater?
Grasping at straws: This metaphoric expression alludes to a drowning person trying to save himself by grabbing at flimsy reeds.
"Investigators have emails from late 2015 and early January 2016 in which Cohen communicated with or copied Don Jr. and Ivanka and discussed the Trump Tower Moscow project. Ivanka at one point recommended an architect."
https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1068267354302361606
"While the focus is on the campaign time frame, don't forget that the Moscow deal was in the works for ages, and this incarnation explicitly since 2013. Ivanka travelled to Moscow in 2014 to meet with the initial players in the project, the Agalarovs."
paulsurovell said:
Does the plea deal cite any documentation that show that the "Moscow Trump Tower" was anything more than an idea of Felix Sater?
That's just embarrassing.
Oh, look, here's a document from Michael Cohen's lawyers, explaining what he did.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5348235-Cohen-sentencing-memo.html
Michael’s false statements to Congress likewise sprung regrettably from Michael’s effort, as a loyal ally and then-champion of Client-1, to support and advance Client-1’s political messaging. At the time that he was requested to appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Michael was serving as personal attorney to the President, and followed daily the political messages that both Client-1 and his staff and supporters repeatedly and forcefully broadcast. Furthermore, in the weeks during which his then counsel prepared his written response to the Congressional Committees, Michael remained in close and regular contact with White House-based staff and legal counsel to Client-1. As such, he was (a) fully aware of Client-1’s repeated disavowals of commercial and political ties between himself and Russia, as well as the strongly voiced mantra of Client-1 that investigations of such ties were politically motivated and without evidentiary support, and (b) specifically knew, consistent with Client-1’s aim to dismiss and minimize the merit of the SCO investigation, that Client-1 and his public spokespersons were seeking to portray contact with Russian representatives in any form by Client-1, the Campaign or the Trump Organization as having effectively terminated before the Iowa caucuses of February 1, 2016. Seeking to stay in line with this message, Michael told Congress that his communications and efforts to finalize a building project in Moscow on behalf of the Trump Organization, which he began pursuing in 2015, had come to an end in January 2016, when a general inquiry he made to the Kremlin went unanswered. He also stated that his communications with Client-1 and others in the Trump Organization regarding the project were minimal and ceased at or about the same time. In fact, Michael had a lengthy substantive conversation with the personal assistant to a Kremlin official following his outreach in January 2016, engaged in additional communications concerning the project as late as June 2016, and kept Client-1 apprised of these communications. He and Client-1 also discussed possible travel to Russia in the summer of 2016, and Michael took steps to clear dates for such travel.
nohero said:
Oh, look, here's a document from Michael Cohen's lawyers, explaining what he did.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5348235-Cohen-sentencing-memo.html
Michael’s false statements to Congress likewise sprung regrettably from Michael’s effort, as a loyal ally and then-champion of Client-1, to support and advance Client-1’s political messaging. At the time that he was requested to appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Michael was serving as personal attorney to the President, and followed daily the political messages that both Client-1 and his staff and supporters repeatedly and forcefully broadcast. Furthermore, in the weeks during which his then counsel prepared his written response to the Congressional Committees, Michael remained in close and regular contact with White House-based staff and legal counsel to Client-1. As such, he was (a) fully aware of Client-1’s repeated disavowals of commercial and political ties between himself and Russia, as well as the strongly voiced mantra of Client-1 that investigations of such ties were politically motivated and without evidentiary support, and (b) specifically knew, consistent with Client-1’s aim to dismiss and minimize the merit of the SCO investigation, that Client-1 and his public spokespersons were seeking to portray contact with Russian representatives in any form by Client-1, the Campaign or the Trump Organization as having effectively terminated before the Iowa caucuses of February 1, 2016. Seeking to stay in line with this message, Michael told Congress that his communications and efforts to finalize a building project in Moscow on behalf of the Trump Organization, which he began pursuing in 2015, had come to an end in January 2016, when a general inquiry he made to the Kremlin went unanswered. He also stated that his communications with Client-1 and others in the Trump Organization regarding the project were minimal and ceased at or about the same time. In fact, Michael had a lengthy substantive conversation with the personal assistant to a Kremlin official following his outreach in January 2016, engaged in additional communications concerning the project as late as June 2016, and kept Client-1 apprised of these communications. He and Client-1 also discussed possible travel to Russia in the summer of 2016, and Michael took steps to clear dates for such travel.
The "substantive conversation" resulted in the assistant suggesting Cohen attend a business conference in St. Petersburg. Now that's serious collusion to influence the 2016 election.
Here's some Cohen testimony:
As I had in the years before the election, I continued in 2017 to follow the day to day political messaging that both Mr. Trump and his staff and advisers repeatedly broadcast, and I stayed in close contact with these advisers to Mr. Trump. As such, I was aware of Mr. Trump`s repeated disavowals of commercial and political ties between himself and Russia, his repeated statements that investigations of such ties were politically motivated and without evidence, and that any contact with Russian nationals by his campaign or the Trump Organization had all terminated before the Iowa caucus, which was on February 1st, 2016.
In 2017, I was scheduled to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee as well as the House Intelligence Committee concerning matters under their investigation, including principally, whether Russia was involved in or interfered in the 2016 campaign and election. In connection with my appearances, I submitted a written statement to Congress, including among other things a description of a proposed real estate project in Moscow that I had worked on while I was employed by the Trump Organization. That description was false. I knew at the time.
It was false in that I had asserted that all efforts concerning the project had ceased in January 2016 when in fact they had continued through June of that year. It was also false when I asserted that I had very limited discussions with Mr. Trump and others in the company concerning the project when in fact I had more extensive communications, and it was false when I said I never agreed to travel to Russia in connection with the project and had never asked Mr. Trump to travel when in fact I took steps to and had discussions with Mr. Trump about travel to Russia.So - we have lying to congress on behalf of Trump to hide any Russia connection. hmmm
What is important here - Moscow knew the lies more then the America people.
An email from Sater to Cohen:
Kostin is Putin`s top finance guy and CEO of the second largest bank in Russia. He is on board and has indicated he would finance Trump Moscow. This is major for us, not only the financing aspect, but Kostin`s position in Russia extremely powerful and respected.
The bank that was to be involved in the financing: VTB - which is currently sanction by the US.
On top of this is the possible 50 million dollar penthouse suite for his buddy Vlad. Unreal if true.
General Flynn sentencing memorandum out this evening. It teases about just how much he might have cooperated.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5425862-Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-191592-46-0.html
The defendant’s offense is serious. As described in the Statement of Offense, the defendant made multiple false statements, to multiple Department of Justice (“DOJ”) entities, on multiple occasions.
Sounds serious. But, how about his exemplary career?
The defendant’s record of military and public service distinguish him from every other person who has been charged as part the SCO’s investigation. However, senior government leaders should be held to the highest standards. The defendant’s extensive government service should have made him particularly aware of the harm caused by providing false information to the government, as well as the rules governing work performed on behalf of a foreign government.
So much for that. But, he found a way out:
The defendant deserves credit for accepting responsibility in a timely fashion and substantially assisting the government. As described in the Addendum, shortly after the SCO reached out to the defendant to seek his cooperation, the defendant accepted responsibility for his unlawful conduct and began cooperating with the government.In technical terms, he's been singing for a while about a lot. Did it work?
Given the defendant’s substantial assistance and other considerations set forth below, a sentence at the low end of the guideline range—including a sentence that does not impose a term of incarceration—is appropriate and warranted.I believe we have a winner. Merry Christmas General.
The "teaser" part of the Flynn memorandum is an addendum.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5425878-Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-191592-46-1-2.html
Just when you think you're getting to a juicy part, it's redacted. One paragraph which is readable is:
"The usefulness of the defendant’s assistance is connected to its timeliness. The defendant began providing information to the government not long after the government first sought his cooperation. His early cooperation was particularly valuable because he was one of the few people with long-term and firsthand insight regarding events and issues under investigation by the SCO. Additionally, the defendant’s decision to plead guilty and cooperate likely affected the decisions of related firsthand witnesses to be forthcoming with the SCO and cooperate."
It sounds like he was very useful, with whatever substantive matters and details are blacked-out. The last sentence suggests that, when the Special Counsel began to question witnesses, they knew that he already had Flynn's detailed recollections. That probably "encouraged" them to be "forthcoming", and not try to lie. So who can say what Mueller has collected so far.
Great piece this morning from Charles Pierce.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25409455/michael-flynn-mueller-russia-investigation/
I don't have a lot to add to the commentary already swirling concerning the interesting collection of minimalist art submitted by the office of special counsel Robert Mueller on Tuesday night in the matter of Michael Flynn. There hasn't been so much speculation and rumor and interpretation of a series of black lines on a white background since the last time Frank Stella doodled on a placemat at Arby's.
The clear implication of what Mueller released on Tuesday is that Michael Flynn has been singing the full score of a German opera to whoever will listen to him ever since he first was scooped up by prosecutors after his 15 minutes as national security advisor ran out.
…
However, there is something else about the memo worth highlighting. Somewhere, there are unredacted copies of it. One of those copies is now in the hands of a judge, which is to say, beyond the reach of whatever shenanigans, legal and otherwise, are coming down the pike from the White House and its longterm pet interim attorney-general Matt Whitaker
One of the few things that Mueller is doing out in the open is shrewdly to immortalize his findings against the very real possibility of White House sabotage—which, if it is in keeping with everything else this president* has done, will be clumsy and stupid. Mueller plays his cards so close to the vest that they are at the moment behind him—Thanks, Groucho—but he's also a brilliant Beltway power player. He knows how to lay land mines and not leave fingerprints.
My current prediction.
Mueller presents damning evidence of crimes committed by Trump, his organization and family.
Trump says "So?"
His followers all agree.
The GOP do nothing.
Everything carries on as before.
Us.
The lights dim, then brighten. Mueller opens the envelope of indictments. A hush falls over the drift of journalists.
"Mr Orange did it in the Hallway with a Wrench"
nohero said:
General Flynn sentencing memorandum out this evening. It teases about just how much he might have cooperated.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5425862-Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-191592-46-0.html
The defendant’s offense is serious. As described in the Statement of Offense, the defendant made multiple false statements, to multiple Department of Justice (“DOJ”) entities, on multiple occasions.Sounds serious. But, how about his exemplary career?
The defendant’s record of military and public service distinguish him from every other person who has been charged as part the SCO’s investigation. However, senior government leaders should be held to the highest standards. The defendant’s extensive government service should have made him particularly aware of the harm caused by providing false information to the government, as well as the rules governing work performed on behalf of a foreign government.So much for that. But, he found a way out:
The defendant deserves credit for accepting responsibility in a timely fashion and substantially assisting the government. As described in the Addendum, shortly after the SCO reached out to the defendant to seek his cooperation, the defendant accepted responsibility for his unlawful conduct and began cooperating with the government.In technical terms, he's been singing for a while about a lot. Did it work?
Given the defendant’s substantial assistance and other considerations set forth below, a sentence at the low end of the guideline range—including a sentence that does not impose a term of incarceration—is appropriate and warranted.I believe we have a winner. Merry Christmas General.
Since you have proclaimed yourself a "wait-and-see" observer, is it fair to assume that your posting that Flynn was "singing for a while about a lot" was meant to suggest that he was either (a) singing about how he/Trump colluded with Russia or (b) singing about how he/Trump did not collude with Russia?
paulsurovell said:Since you have proclaimed yourself a "wait-and-see" observer, is it fair to assume that your posting that Flynn was "singing for a while about a lot" was meant to suggest that he was either (a) singing about how he/Trump colluded with Russia or (b) singing about how he/Trump did not collude with Russia?
I guess you had no interest in the "addendum" covered in my follow-up post -
nohero said:
The "teaser" part of the Flynn memorandum is an addendum.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5425878-Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-191592-46-1-2.html
Just when you think you're getting to a juicy part, it's redacted. One paragraph which is readable is:
"The usefulness of the defendant’s assistance is connected to its timeliness. The defendant began providing information to the government not long after the government first sought his cooperation. His early cooperation was particularly valuable because he was one of the few people with long-term and firsthand insight regarding events and issues under investigation by the SCO. Additionally, the defendant’s decision to plead guilty and cooperate likely affected the decisions of related firsthand witnesses to be forthcoming with the SCO and cooperate."
It sounds like he was very useful, with whatever substantive matters and details are blacked-out. The last sentence suggests that, when the Special Counsel began to question witnesses, they knew that he already had Flynn's detailed recollections. That probably "encouraged" them to be "forthcoming", and not try to lie. So who can say what Mueller has collected so far.
See highlighted portions. Now look at the addendum, available at the link.
If I were to guess, I would guess that when they say in the addendum that he provided "useful information", it wasn't an exoneration of the Trump campaign with respect to issues being investigated by the Special Counsel.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Since you have proclaimed yourself a "wait-and-see" observer, is it fair to assume that your posting that Flynn was "singing for a while about a lot" was meant to suggest that he was either (a) singing about how he/Trump colluded with Russia or (b) singing about how he/Trump did not collude with Russia?I guess you had no interest in the "addendum" covered in my follow-up post -
nohero said:See highlighted portions. Now look at the addendum, available at the link.
The "teaser" part of the Flynn memorandum is an addendum.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5425878-Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-191592-46-1-2.html
Just when you think you're getting to a juicy part, it's redacted. One paragraph which is readable is:
"The usefulness of the defendant’s assistance is connected to its timeliness. The defendant began providing information to the government not long after the government first sought his cooperation. His early cooperation was particularly valuable because he was one of the few people with long-term and firsthand insight regarding events and issues under investigation by the SCO. Additionally, the defendant’s decision to plead guilty and cooperate likely affected the decisions of related firsthand witnesses to be forthcoming with the SCO and cooperate."
It sounds like he was very useful, with whatever substantive matters and details are blacked-out. The last sentence suggests that, when the Special Counsel began to question witnesses, they knew that he already had Flynn's detailed recollections. That probably "encouraged" them to be "forthcoming", and not try to lie. So who can say what Mueller has collected so far.
If I were to guess, I would guess that when they say in the addendum that he provided "useful information", it wasn't an exoneration of the Trump campaign with respect to issues being investigated by the Special Counsel.
So "wait-and-see" includes "guessing" what is there ("what we don't know") which isn't really "wait-and-see."
jamie said:
Here's some Cohen testimony:
As I had in the years before the election, I continued in 2017 to follow the day to day political messaging that both Mr. Trump and his staff and advisers repeatedly broadcast, and I stayed in close contact with these advisers to Mr. Trump. As such, I was aware of Mr. Trump`s repeated disavowals of commercial and political ties between himself and Russia, his repeated statements that investigations of such ties were politically motivated and without evidence, and that any contact with Russian nationals by his campaign or the Trump Organization had all terminated before the Iowa caucus, which was on February 1st, 2016.In 2017, I was scheduled to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee as well as the House Intelligence Committee concerning matters under their investigation, including principally, whether Russia was involved in or interfered in the 2016 campaign and election. In connection with my appearances, I submitted a written statement to Congress, including among other things a description of a proposed real estate project in Moscow that I had worked on while I was employed by the Trump Organization. That description was false. I knew at the time.It was false in that I had asserted that all efforts concerning the project had ceased in January 2016 when in fact they had continued through June of that year. It was also false when I asserted that I had very limited discussions with Mr. Trump and others in the company concerning the project when in fact I had more extensive communications, and it was false when I said I never agreed to travel to Russia in connection with the project and had never asked Mr. Trump to travel when in fact I took steps to and had discussions with Mr. Trump about travel to Russia.So - we have lying to congress on behalf of Trump to hide any Russia connection. hmmm
What is important here - Moscow knew the lies more then the America people.
An email from Sater to Cohen:
Kostin is Putin`s top finance guy and CEO of the second largest bank in Russia. He is on board and has indicated he would finance Trump Moscow. This is major for us, not only the financing aspect, but Kostin`s position in Russia extremely powerful and respected.The bank that was to be involved in the financing: VTB - which is currently sanction by the US.
On top of this is the possible 50 million dollar penthouse suite for his buddy Vlad. Unreal if true.
"To be involved in the financing" in Felix Sater's mind.
paulsurovell said:
So "wait-and-see" includes "guessing" what is there ("what we don't know") which isn't really "wait-and-see."
Wait-and-Seers (TM) are open to discussing guesses, speculation, hunches and most other forms of analysis and things we don’t know. What Wait-and-Seers resist is the insistence that any of those things (e.g., Russiagate is a hoax or Assange deserves support) be accepted as certainties at this point.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Wait-and-Seers (TM) are open to discussing guesses, speculation, hunches and most other forms of analysis and things we don’t know. What Wait-and-Seers resist is the insistence that any of those things (e.g., Russiagate is a hoax or Assange deserves support) be accepted as certainties at this point.
So "wait-and-see" includes "guessing" what is there ("what we don't know") which isn't really "wait-and-see."
And includes reading Mueller's sentencing memos and not thinking he and his team made them up whole cloth.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Wait-and-Seers (TM) are open to discussing guesses, speculation, hunches and most other forms of analysis and things we don’t know. What Wait-and-Seers resist is the insistence that any of those things (e.g., Russiagate is a hoax or Assange deserves support) be accepted as certainties at this point.
So "wait-and-see" includes "guessing" what is there ("what we don't know") which isn't really "wait-and-see."
I think you know that no one has "insisted" that Russiagate is a hoax or that Assange deserves support. Those are positions based on the evidence that's been presented for the last 2 1/2 years and a commitment to a free press and the First Amendment.
Edited to Add:
Positions that could change if evidence to the contrary or convincing arguments are presented that prosecution of Assange would not undermine free press and the First Amendment.
Haven't seen any of the above.
dave23 said:
DaveSchmidt said:And includes reading Mueller's sentencing memos and not thinking he and his team made them up whole cloth.
paulsurovell said:Wait-and-Seers (TM) are open to discussing guesses, speculation, hunches and most other forms of analysis and things we don’t know. What Wait-and-Seers resist is the insistence that any of those things (e.g., Russiagate is a hoax or Assange deserves support) be accepted as certainties at this point.
So "wait-and-see" includes "guessing" what is there ("what we don't know") which isn't really "wait-and-see."
If you think I've said that, please show me what gave you that impression.
Paul - have you commented on Trump needing the sanctions to be lifted in order to get financing from VTB Bank? And Flynn telling Russia not to worry about the sanctions?
Also - the old thread is hard to find - I can't figure out a keyword that doesn't load 9,000 other Trump related postings of your ;-)
This thread is long overdue. If you wish to discuss Hillary and Collusion - use the other thread, this one is completely on Mueller related news.
New Cohen plea deal drops:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/politics/michael-cohen-guilty-plea-misleading-congress/index.html
Also recently, Trump keeps open possible pardon for Manafort.
Going in the other direction - both story wise and source wise - Corsi reject Mueller plea and threatens to sue:
https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2018/11/26/corsi-reject-plea-sue-mueller/