for those who want evidence of Russian Trump collusion...
Two things seem to be reasonably well known. First: Robert Mueller has told Manafort and his attorneys that he is planning on indicting him. Second: Nobody (other than possibly Mueller) knows exactly "what" Manafort may be indicted for. In fact, not even Manafort's own attorneys claim to know what charges Mueller is suggesting.
A third thing seems to be a matter of consensus speculation. Robert Mueller is said to be using the threat of indictment to "roll" Manafort and get him to "fess up" regarding all the "Russian collusion" stuff. In other words, talk or be indicted.
Those close to the Manafort camp seem to believe that the reason they expect an indictment is that they have nothing of substance to provide for Mueller, and therefor they expect Mueller to follow through on said threat.
Which... if you follow this "logically" rather than "emotionally"... an indictment against Manafort would probably be bad news for the quest for Russian collusion evidence. I am sure it would generate a great deal of press (and a more than normal amount of "fake news" to along with it). But it may end up meaning the opposite of what some will tell you.
On the "flip side" - if the rumors start coming (from the Mueller camp) that Manafort is going to avoid indictment it might be a sign that he is coming forward with relevant information.
14 comments:
CH, "Prosecutors on special counsel Robert Mueller's team reportedly told former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort that they planned to indict him when they picked his lock and raided his Virginia home in July."
So it is not a "logical consequence" of his not having anything to bargain with respective of the Russian investigation, because this dates from before any of those negotiations began. Negotiations which by the way are not even confirmed to exist. Since your reasoning fails at this most fundamental assumption, your conclusions are unfounded.
How about, criminal indictments against close Trump associates are always bad news for Trump. Doesn't that seem a lot more logical to you?
Depends on the indictment. If Mueller can implicate Manfort and other Trump associates in a wide-range conspiracy then it would be bad news for Trump.
However, if all he has on Manafort is a bullshit process violation (al la Scooter Libby) then no, he's out of ammo and it's bad news for the Russia, Russia, Russia conspiracy theorists.
I suspect it's the latter. If it was the former, he would have leaked it by now.
"Prosecutors on special counsel Robert Mueller's team reportedly told former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort that they planned to indict him when they picked his lock and raided his Virginia home in July."
Unless the timing is actually evidence that Mueller is not using the threat of indictment to get him to provide other information.... and I don't see how it is...
Then this bit of information is irrelevant to the main logic of the assumption.
The reality is that they raided his home in July... and have not actually indicted him "yet". Would suggest that there is a reason why they are still holding out...
While I understand that some of these things take time, considering how long Manafort has been under surveillance, how much information he willingly provided, and how long they have had the information that they "found" in the raid... and remembering that this investigation has been going on for about a year and a half...
I would't believe it would take this period of time to come up with the necessary "evidence" to garner an indictment.
That's where all this information (aka rumor) about a pending indictment comes from. The raid in July. Therefore it, the timing of it, is the most relevant fact brought up in this hypothetical discussion.
Someone said that his lawyers said that Manafort's lawyers told them that Manafort said that Meuller's people informed him that he could expect an indictment. From THAT, you reason that Manafort hasn't rolled over. It's a non-sequitur when you realize that the communication came from back in July. In order for your reasoning to work at all, he would have to have been informed recently because an indictment would have to be predicated on having no use for his prospective testimony.
And even in that case (as opposed to reality), the reasoning is weak. You would further assume that Manafort would be offered complete immunity for any information, and as you know that is seldom on the table. Manafort could be offering information and testimony, and still expect indictments, and that is in fact the most common scenario. Your conclusions fail on two counts.
guys, this is occam's razor defined.
look, there's no way this thing goes all the way to a conclusion being a dry hole. manafort is the modern day scooter libby and will take the fall. bringing in my scuzzy little NY AG to hit him with non-pardonable state-level charges was insurance for mueller.
"You would further assume that Manafort would be offered complete immunity for any information, and as you know that is seldom on the table."
only if there actually is information that implicates anyone other than... manafort. i think it begins and ends with him.
.. manafort. i think it begins and ends with him.
So hang the miscreant right? It probably IS all about Manafort ... but maybe not. He IS Trump's kind of guy after all, so who knows. I suspect that we soon will know ... and wouldn't it be ironic if Clinton was involved somewhere in Manafort's misdeeds? It's not that improbable.
WP...
You assume that the same people who provide these rumors are telling the truth about Mueller telling Manafort he would be indicted...
But are not telling the truth when they claim that the threat of indictment is a ploy to get him to provide other information.
Moreover, it's a completely different set of people (those from the Manafort camp) who are suggesting that the promised indictment will come, because Manafort has not given anything to and has nothing to give Mueller.
I stand by my reasoning.
wp - don't equate my prediction with my approval. manafort could be completely legit for all we know. what i'm saying is that there's no way this investigation concludes without a scalp. personally, i think the entire thing is bullshit from top to bottom. but having said that, will all the $$$ and time spent, and all the clinton hacks hired by mueller there needs to be a fall guy to save face, and manafort's the guy.
It doesn't make any difference whether or not anyone was telling the truth about Manafort's indictment. Either way, it does not mean that Manafort had nothing to say in the Russian investigation.
Of course "Manafort's camp" is going to say that he's completely innocent and had no involvement in a conspiracy which they will deny. You'd have to be pretty dumb to use that as a basis for any reasoning about the investigation.
It's as if you investigated for your part in a car theft ring. You're telling everyone that you're about to be indicted, and it proves that your boss is innocent because they wouldn't indict you if you had information about his guilt. And then we find out that it was three months ago that you were told to expect to be arrested. When they were dusting for your fingerprints. And you really expect anyone to buy that reasoning?
it's entirely possible that the manafort indictment report is a complete media fabrication, which could just turn out to be a well educated guess. i wouldn't dismiss that possibility. even the lowest lights in the media can see that SOMEONE must go down for this non-crime. reputations are at stake. and reputations in DC have always mattered more than the truth. especially during the previous administration.
WP...
based solely on those two observations
- Being told he would be indicted
- Then being indicted
I would read nothing into it. Who would?
But when you add the third and fourth observation
- that the threat of indictment was being made to garner cooperation in an investigation
- that the person under threat expected to be indicted because they were not providing information
Then I believe "most" reasonable people come to a similar conclusion as I would...
_____
With all due respect, WP... you are simply arguing apples and oranges and "purposely" leaving out the major blocks of my reasoning in your attack. This is simply nothing more than a logical straw man fallacy. We both know that.
That *is* all that you've been told. We all figure that the probe wants Manafort to give information on Trump, obviously. But all you've been told - all that you know - is that Manafort said he expects to be indicted.
You're basing your reasoning on literally nothing. No strawman arguments needed.
But all you've been told - all that you know - is that Manafort said he expects to be indicted.
Bullshit...
The same people reporting that Manafort was told he is going to be indicted are the same people who have stated that Mueller is playing the threat to get Manafort to give information on other things.
The Manafort camp SPECIFICALLY stated that they expected the indictment SPECIFICALLY because Manafort was not giving any information (and had none to give).
Your "head in the sand" argument falls short, WP...
Post a Comment