For all practical purposes, the collusion probe is over. While the “counterintelligence” cover will continue to be exploited so that no jurisdictional limits are placed on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is now an obstruction investigation. That means it is, as it has always been, an impeachment investigation. McCarthy LinkThis is sort of the new buzz moving around the media, blogosphere, and talk radio. To the degree that Flynn's charges had nothing to do with pre-election Russian links (and given that the one reporter who suggested it might turned out to be demonstrably wrong), the new assumption is that the collusion investigation has run it's course, came up empty, and that Mueller has moved on.
As McCarthy points out, the idea of charging someone with process crimes in order to squeeze them for information on more tangible crimes is not a general practice. For one, it makes no logical prosecutorial sense to make a witness (that you might need to put under oath) plead guilty to lying under oath. Secondly, it also runs contrary to Justice regulations which requires prosecutors to charge people with the most serious crime they can prove. In those cases where a prosecutor is looking to cut a deal in exchange for information, a Judge has wide discretion to reduce even the most serious crimes down to almost nothing if recommended by the prosecutor.
Occam's razor (and McCarthy) suggests that one process crime might lead to another process crime. The only place an admitted liar has any credibility is to claim that others were being dishonest right along side of him. The idea is that Flynn was covering for others (who would be more important to the President) or for the President himself. The logic might be that if Trump knew that Flynn possibly provided false statements that could lead back to someone like his son in law providing similar false statements, then it would provide him with incentive to have that investigation dropped.
Of course... the reality is that James Comey has already testified under oath that neither Trump or anyone on his team impeded or obstructed the investigation. That stubborn piece of information makes the entire concept seems like a fairly steep uphill climb.
44 comments:
Of course... the reality is that James Comey has already testified under oath that neither Trump or anyone on his team impeded or obstructed the investigation.
Not true. Comey testified under oath that he was concerned that Trump did impede the investigation, but demurred to state definitively either way. Comey in fact said that such a determination was up to a Special Investigator.
the new assumption is that the collusion investigation has run it's course, came up empty, and that Mueller has moved on.
It's always been my position that the investigation is about obstruction of justice, and collusion with the illegal interference by Russia serves mainly to provide the motive and framework for obstruction.
You don't have to actually prove collusion, to prove obstruction into an investigation of collusion. But it would make a better case if you did.
WP...
Comey testified that neither Trump (nor his administration) made any attempts to impede or obstruct the larger investigation into Russian collusion.
Comey testified that Trump stated that Flynn didn't do anything wrong by speaking with the Russians, that Flynn was a good guy, and that Flynn had been through a lot, and that he hoped Comey could see it clear to "let it go".
Comey testified that he didn't see it as an order, and that he never told Trump that he would let it go... and of course he didn't.
You certainly cannot take Comey's recollection of this one particular conversation and satisfy any degree of "obstruction" against the President.
Sorry but he did not testify that neither Trump (nor his administration) made any attempts to impede or obstruct the larger investigation into Russian collusion. You've been consistent with that spin, I'll give you that, but the fact is that Comey testified, literally, that he wasn't going to make that call.
Read Wp's lips, Ch. Comey testified he WASN'T GOING TO MAKE THAT CALL (at that time).
Manafort Accused of Violating Bail Conditions
Special counsel Robert Mueller accused President Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, of working with a Russian colleague to draft an opinion piece about his political work for Ukraine, Reuters reports.
“Had it been published, prosecutors say it would have violated a Nov. 8 court order not to discuss the case publicly… Due to Manafort’s actions, prosecutors said the judge should reject his request to modify his bail conditions.”
Prosecutors: Manafort wrote op-ed with colleague in Russia
Associated Press
1 hr ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — While facing several felony charges, Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been working on an op-ed essay with a longtime colleague "assessed to have ties" to a Russian intelligence service, according to court papers filed Monday by prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller.
In a court filing, prosecutors say Manafort and the colleague sought to publish the op-ed under someone else's name and intended it to influence public opinion about his work in Ukraine. The op-ed was being drafted as late as last week, with Manafort currently under house arrest. Prosecutors did not name the colleague but noted the person is based in Russia.
Manafort is currently facing several felony charges involving allegations of money laundering and other financial crimes related to his political consulting work in Ukraine. He has been confined to his home while he works out a bond arrangement with the government.
Manafort has denied any wrongdoing related to his work in Ukraine. A spokesman for Manafort declined comment on the op-ed described by prosecutors.
In the court filing, prosecutors say the op-ed appeared to violate an admonishment from the judge last month to refrain from public statements.
"Even if the ghostwritten op-ed were entirely accurate, fair, and balanced, it would be a violation of this Court's November 8 Order if it had been published," the prosecutors wrote. "The editorial clearly was undertaken to influence the public's opinion of defendant Manafort, or else there would be no reason to seek its publication (much less for Manafort and his long-time associate to ghostwrite it in another's name)."
They added, "It compounds the problem that the proposed piece is not a dispassionate recitation of the facts."
Prosecutors said they discovered the efforts to publish the op-ed last Thursday and alerted Manafort's attorney, who assured prosecutors that "steps would be taken to make sure it was it was no longer going to be published."
At the time, Manafort was working to secure his release from home confinement by posting more than $10 million in bond, and according to court papers, he had reached a tentative agreement with the government. But after discovering the op-ed, Mueller's team is now opposing Manafort's proposed bond agreement.
Prosecutors did not disclose the op-ed in court papers so as to prevent it from becoming public. They also did not disclose what name the ghostwritten op-ed would have been published under.
Manafort and his longtime business associate, Rick Gates, were indicted in October by a grand jury in Washington. They were among the first people to face charges brought by the special counsel's office.
Manafort led the Trump campaign for several months, including during the Republican National Convention. Gates also worked in a senior role in the campaign.
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.
What "stuff" in your mind did you pan?
Actually James - WP is confused about the subject matter of Comey's statement. He didn't make a call regarding General Flynn. He stated flatly that there was no attempts to get him to drop the broader Russian investigation.
Here is what he stated about General Flynn
General Flynn at that point in time was in legal jeopardy. There was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with the Russian contacts. And the contacts themselves. And so that was my assessment at the time. I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct. I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning. But that’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there and whether that’s an offense.
This is what he said about the Russian investigation:
Chairman Richard Burr – North Carolina:
Director Comey, did the president at any time ask you to stop the FBI Investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections?
James Comey:
Not to my understanding, no.
Chairman Richard Burr – North Carolina:
Did any individual working for this administration, including the Justice Department, ask you to stop the Russian investigation?
James Comey:
No.
James, panning for gold, the good "stuff".
What is it exactly did you pan Janr?
I never in my wildest hopes and/or dreams thought that a Trump win would radically change the DNA of a Liberal to the extent it has.
Liberals kill the Cape Cod Wind Project.
In view of the Kennedy Estate, it had to be defeatrd. NIMBY.
o you sense that the president was trying to obstruct justice or just seek for a way for Mike Flynn to save face, given that he had already been fired?
Comey: I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that's an offense.
You don't think that the Flynn investigation was tied into collusion (it was), but later on Comey said the same thing when asked directly:
COTTON: Let's turn our attention to the underlying activity at issue here. Russia's hacking of those e-mails and the allegation of collusion. Do you think Donald Trump colluded with Russia?
COMEY: That's a question I don't think I should answer in an opening setting. As I said, when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on president trump. But that's a question that will be answered by the investigation, I think.
President Trump just stepped down, Pence sworn in and Pardons the President.
This is the WP Wet dream
So you tell me, CH. Do you think that it's possible for Trump to impede an investigation other than explicitly asking Comey to stop investigating Russia? (the part of the testimony you quoted). Why do you automatically equate investigating Russian actions with investigating Trump's actions?
Do you agree with the Congressmen, and Comey, that Russian actions and collusion with Russia are the underlying issues?
Do you think that "I shouldn't answer, let the investigation decide" when asked directly "Do you think Donald Trump colluded with Russia?" supports my position?
WP....
You do understand that in EVERY situation where someone asked specifically for Comey to provide his "judgement" or "opinion" that he deferred to the special counsel. You could have asked him if he felt Trump was the second shooter on the grassy knoll, and used bigfoot as his getaway driver...
and he would have given that same answer.
But when directly asked yes or no questions regarding tangible definable actions (such as did the Trump administration specifically attempt to stop the investigation) he gave real answers... like "no".
WP...
You also understand that pretty much all obstruction cases come from situations where people (not named Clinton) either refuse to turn over evidence, destroy evidence, tamper with witnesses, tamper with evidence, commit perjury...
In spite of your continued use of Nixon as your example, Nixon both refused to hand over evidence, and was found to have paid off witnesses to keep them quiet. He committed general actions that would be considered obstruction regardless of who did it.
The concept of a President of the United State committing obstruction by firing an FBI director or providing his opinion about a particular person's case is purely hypothetical and untested. Both of those actions are within his authority as President.
The bar that is attempting to be set is corrupt intent. But such intent would have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt... not just implied or deemed to be a possibility. If you are judging Mueller as the potential prosecutor and Trump as a potential criminal defendant... it isn't up to Trump to prove his intent... it's 100% on Mueller to show that both the statements about Flynn were unjustified.... and the firing of James Comey was not justified, and that both actions were not justified and can be proven as such.... beyond all reasonable doubt.
As it stands, you continue to argue as if the very possibility that Trump might have had an ulterior motive is reason enough to push an obstruction charge.... even if you might admit that his reasoning for not wanting a long serving General prosecuted for what seems trivial (and quite possibly a set up) as well admitting he had good cause to fire James Comey.
Ultimately what you are hoping for here, is that between James Comey and Robert Mueller that they come to some conclusion that they "felt" it was obstruction and therefor that will be good enough for you... because the actual rule of law doesn't really apply with Trump.
But you will have to convince many, many GOP congress members that whether or not a President committed obstruction doesn't really have to be proven... but simply alleged and given a reasonable possibility that otherwise legal actions were possibly corrupt. That if poor James Comey tells you that he felt intimidated by his boss, that his boss should go to jail.
It's not going to happen, WP. Comey and Mueller carry almost zero weight with Republicans right now. If they made an attempt at a coup on the Presidency over some made up obstruction charge... you somehow think that their credibility will go up?
This is about politics. At the end of the day, Mueller will leak his report to the media, it will have all sorts of bad implications about Trump (none of it proven) and it will all be about driving down Trump's approvals.
Liberals kill the Cape Cod Wind Project.
In view of the Kennedy Estate, it had to be defeatrd. NIMBY.
The bar that is attempting to be set is corrupt intent. But such intent would have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt... not just implied or deemed to be a possibility.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and this is the crux of the matter.
obstruction of justice / corrupt intent as a criminal offense cannot be proven. you know that, i know that and mueller knows that. that's why seeking a criminal offense is now off the table. this has become all about seeking an IMPEACHABLE offense. that bar is much lower. the only thing that needs to happen to complete the coup is for mueller to drag this out past the mid-terms and for democrats to win the house. that's what everyone on the left is banking on at this point. the rest is just partisan noise.
It is now far too obvious that the real collusion and corruption was at the FBI with Mueller, Comey, and Strzok working for Clinton and against Trump.
The swamp is deep and the enablers desperate.
This is a historical and profound moment for our country.
Idiot Kd only posts half the story again....
Seems the Koch boys also influenced the demise of a wind project....Bias of the kansan idiot runs deep....LOLOLOLOL Hard to believe nothing the pig wife farmer does nothing but lie>Sad how he also supports child molesters and pedophiles....
The Cape Wind project, which envisioned 130 turbines to be built off the Massachusetts coast, would have been the first U.S. offshore wind farm. It would also have spoiled the view from the Kennedy family’s estate and that of the Democratic family's billionaire neighbor, William Koch, owner of a nearby 26-acre estate.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/04/kennedys-kochs-help-kill-planned-wind-farm-off-cape-cod.html
WP....
You do understand that in EVERY situation where someone asked specifically for Comey to provide his "judgement" or "opinion" that he deferred to the special counsel.
Very aware of that - and in light of your admission of that fact I really wonder how you can justify saying that Comey "testified under oath" that Trump nor anyone else did anything to impede the investigation. There is just nothing to support that, and in fact Comey deferred to the special investigator.
The bar that is attempting to be set is corrupt intent.
I'm glad that you admit this also. This situation is unusual in that Trump has already admitted his intent, multiple times in public. Mueller has to show that his intent was corrupt, and indicting his top advisers for corrupt actions, many of them related to the Russians, he builds a case. Demonstrating Trump's direct involvement may be enough now to credibly establish corrupt intent.
saying that Comey "testified under oath" that Trump nor anyone else did anything to impede the investigation.
Because his opinion on the subject is meaningless.
In terms of every question regarding whether or not there was actual potential "ACTION" of obstruction by Donald Trump and his Administration, James Comey testified to the negative.
You continue to behave as if you actually believe somehow that obstruction can be just opined by Comey or Mueller. You act as if it doesn't have to be actually proven by demonstrating that there were tangible actions that were consistent with those actions defined in the obstruction laws.
Eh, "Do you think Donald Trump colluded with Russia?" is a yes or no question specifically posed to Comey.
He responded "I shouldn't answer, let the investigation decide"
So you are again wrong that "But when directly asked yes or no questions regarding tangible definable actions (such as did the Trump administration specifically attempt to stop the investigation) he gave real answers... like "no""
Yes or no CH, do you think Comey's response above supports my position?
You continue to behave as if you actually believe somehow that obstruction can be just opined by Comey or Mueller.
CH, you are the one citing Come's testimony as exonerating Trump. I'm merely demonstrating that his testimony did not. "Because his opinion on the subject is meaningless." - thanks for arguing my point for me.
Demonstrating Trump's direct involvement may be enough now to credibly establish corrupt intent.
Huh? Establish?
What you are doing here, WP... is confusing the concept of establishing some "possibility" that there might have been corrupt intent, as if it is the same thing as proving corrupt intent beyond all reasonable doubt.
You are basically confusing coming up with some sort of justifiable reason to make an accusation... as if it's proof.
You need proof beyond reasonable doubt.
You have six degrees of Kevin Bacon separation.
CH, you are the one citing Come's testimony as exonerating Trump.
He doesn't require exoneration.
All he requires is a reasonable argument that his actions were justified. At this point, nothing he stated about Flynn was inaccurate or corrupt. The firing of James Comey as FBI director was tangibly documented and well justified.
As you have pointed out again and again... a legal action can become illegal when another illegal action is found. The bribe makes the pardon illegal. Without the bribe, the pardon is legal.
You cannot just opine the legal action to be illegal because you can come up with theories as to how it might be possible that it was corrupt. You have to find the bribe.
As with any criminal act. You need the smoking gun proof. You cannot convict someone because it's possible that they might have committed a crime.
He doesn't require exoneration.
He's sure acting pretty desperate for exoneration. What was the first thing Trump said when his man Flynn admitted to lying in the cover-up? "No Collusion" wasn't it? Not exactly the reaction of a man who isn't seeking exoneration.
All he requires is a reasonable argument that his actions were justified
A "reasonable argument" doesn't work when something contrary is demonstrated. It's an opening statement, which must be supported and shown to still be "reasonable" in the face of every alternative that the Prosecutor throws at you. So no, a "reasonable argument" is far from the only thing that Trump needs.
WP...
People charged with crimes are considered innocent until proven guilty.
Prosecutors are required to proof their case beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, Trump's actions would be (constitutionally) considered legal, unless otherwise proven beyond a reasonable doubt to not be.
The explanation of events (that Trump thought that Flynn was a good guy who had been through enough, and that Trump thought that James Comey was unfit to serve as FBI director) is certainly a reasonable one. In fact, at this point in time, it requires the least amount of speculation, assumption, and reaching... and is by far the most obvious and best explanation of events.
As with any criminal act. You need the smoking gun proof. You cannot convict someone because it's possible that they might have committed a crime.
I am not convicting Trump - the Special Prosecutor is gathering evidence to construct a case and may recommend charges. Comey's testimony doesn't help him. The four indictments are a ring of corruption, closing around Trump in whatever case Mueller is building.
I think it is likely that Trump DID have corrupt intent for his admitted attempts to impede the investigation. His associates are charged with felonies, any of which Trump had good reason to keep hidden. There were contacts with Russian officials, perhaps intelligence, which his associates lied about. Trump had reason to want those hidden, both the contacts and the lying. His associates were involved in negotiations with the Russians regarding sanctions over their illegal actions. Trump publicly asked the Russians to continue in illegal actions, revealing hacked information.
That all looks pretty bad for Trump, but doesn't definitively establish corrupt intent. However, if these indicted associates, or another associate yet to be indicted, indicate that Trump directed some of this activity directly or through an intermediary, then corrupt intent - the last element needed - would be established.
WALL STREET JOURNAL:
Mueller’s Credibility Problem
The special counsel is stonewalling Congress and protecting the FBI.
Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.
The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.
The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.
This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.
Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent.
There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress, which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority. Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.
While there is no evidence so far of Trump-Russia collusion, House investigators have turned up enough material to suggest that anti-Trump motives may have driven Mr. Comey’s FBI investigation.
(cont. at) https://www.wsj.com/articles/muellers-credibility-problem-1512432318
_____________________________________
Comey needs to go
correction (sheepishly) Mueller needs to go
I am not convicting Trump - the Special Prosecutor is gathering evidence to construct a case and may recommend charges. Comey's testimony doesn't help him.
The special prosecutor had access to ten months of previous FBI investigations, has a team the size of some State prosecutor offices, and has been working this since May.
There is no cavalry coming to the rescue here to take up a recommendation.
Mueller can indict 673 different people with 673 separate charges, and if none of those charges have to do with Trump collusion or Trump obstruction... then he really isn't any closer to proving anything against Trump.
There is no legal "where there is smoke there is fire" or "guilt by association" or I charged 17 people around him, therefor he is guilty of something... or anything else like that.
Mueller needs solid tangible evidence that would make him believe that he could prove his charges beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law...
or...
In this case, he need the sort of rock solid evidence that would convince GOP House and Senate Members that there is no reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty of some tangible crime, to the degree that they would believe there is no way he should remain as President. Six degrees of separation arguments, or complex theories that you cannot actually prove are legally and tangibly irrelevant.
Otherwise, as James Comey once explained... no reasonable prosecutor, etc, etc...
Mueller can indict 673 different people with 673 separate charges, and if none of those charges have to do with Trump collusion or Trump obstruction... then he really isn't any closer to proving anything against Trump.
Really big "if" there. Here is an "if" that is highly plausible: out of all of the Trump associates that Mueller winds up indicting on felony charges, IF Trump has been involved in either the activity or the cover-up THEN at least some of them will flip and corroborate that involvement.
IF said involvement is corroborated as above, THEN corrupt intent is established, and the otherwise "legal" actions such as firing Comey, asking investigators to stop etc, are now established as impeding with corrupt intent and therefore obstruction.
I am fairly sure that this is the direction of this investigation. First step, tying Trump into involvement with the indictable offenses. Not necessarily prosecutable involvement, but with a tangible, active involvement. Second, relating that involvement to his actions which impeded examination of those actions. Third, some testimony about a meeting or communication emanating from Trump himself that said indictable actions are best left un-examined. I expect that Mueller is attempting to establish these three elements specifically, and will submit that together they establish corrupt intent.
WP...
Two of the four were charged with things that happened prior to being involved with Trump.
Flynn apparently was charged with false statements for a meeting with the now fired Anti-Trump investigator in which he didn't even have an attorney present. The main reason he stated he plead was the fact that he had spent high six figures on his defense and was tired of putting his family through everything.
The other person who plead guilty to false statements was a part time temporary volunteer who met Donald Trump like twice.
None of these charges prove anything against Trump.
You don't think that having advisers exposed as money laundering criminals is something Trump would want to avoid? He didn't want to hide the fact that Flynn was lying about his secret meetings with Russians, when Trump is busy denying secret meetings with Russians?
Interesting thesis CH. Not logical that I can see, but interesting.
Oh My: Has Mueller Crossed Trump’s “Red Line”?
Five months ago, Trump called any move by Mueller into unrelated financial issues a “red line” that could prompt him to exercise his executive authority in regard to the special counsel. That depended on whether the inquiry had a relation to the Russian question.
That’s the $64,000 question, right? What does Deutsche Bank’s loans to Trump have to do with Russian influence on the election? The bank has worked with Trump since the 1990s, long before the tycoon decided to enter politics as a candidate. The special counsel’s mission — or at least its original mandate — was supposed to determine whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian intelligence to hack the DNC and John Podesta, as well as coordinate a propaganda campaign during the election. Deutsche Bank seems like a target far afield from that mission, and more like Mueller has taken on a far broader role as a shadow Department of Justice.
This smacks of desperation on Mueller's part and Trump may very well be justified in firing him.
You don't think that having advisers exposed as money laundering criminals is something Trump would want to avoid?
Sooooo... just so I understand.
Your argument is that Trump fired Comey in order to prevent the future Special Counsel Mueller from investigating Manafort and Gates for issues that had nothing to do with Trump, and didn't even occur while they worked with Trump?
Because he might be embarrassed by the charges against them?
I guess I am not following the time line, the logic, or... well, really any of it.
I guess I am not following the time line, the logic, or... well, really any of it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i think at this point wp is just trolling.
investigating Manafort and Gates for issues that had nothing to do with Trump,
Hold up - how do you know that Trump didn't have his hands in any of that? What makes you certain that looking into these things won't lead to looking into something Trump would rather we not? I'd say it's just about dead certain eventually.
You contend that Trump was involved with Manafort as a lobbyist for the Ukrainians?
Seriously?
More likely Trump would want to utilize Manafort's Russian connections from the pro-Russian party he worked for.
Ukraine.
Russia.
Two different countries.
Trolling or just really that stupid?
Post a Comment