The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[YellowKing]

I'm still very optimistic that Mueller not only has a smoking gun, he's got several of them. My pessimism lies in whether it will amount to anything given the GOP's willingness to do anything and everything to protect Trump. Watergate relied on a GOP with an actual conscience, something we no longer have.

I honestly believe that Mueller could release videotaped evidence of Trump obstructing Justice while two KGB agents watched, and this GOP would blame it on Obama, the liberal media, or immigrants.

[hepcat]

Trump reportedly submitted his written answers to Mueller recently, right? Maybe TrumpWorld is just assuming that with those answers submitted, some type of report is coming in the near future.

Yes, he did. In crayon, of course.

(seriously, yes, he did submit answers finally)

A stick figure Putin offering a stick figure Trump a piece of paper, with the latter holding out his thumb in a downward position is not state's evidence. Especially considering that he put himself on a flying lion and brandishing a flaming sword in his other hand...with the word "AUSOME SAUCE!!" written at the top.

[ImLawBoy]

I feel like a smoking gun would have wrapped up the report much earlier than now. A preponderance of evidence is only necessary if there isn't a picture of the crime being committed by subject. I don't have a lot of experience with government investigations so this is just my gut talking.

I have no experience with these types of investigations either, so this is also my gut. My gut is telling me that Mueller is very thorough and runs a tight ship. He knows that if he has one or more smoking guns, there is no advantage to his investigation to wrapping up early. When he feels he's followed every thread in the investigation, he'll issue a report that has his thorough, documented findings.

I hope those findings have smoking guns.

[Holman]

As for whether the average GOPer (as opposed to the most rabid Deplorable or most amoral McConnell) will laugh off the report, I think actual details about significant crimes will carry a real weight.

Republicans would probably be able to overlook some "light obstruction" if there is ultimately no real evidence that the Russia contacts were anything but amateur exuberance. If it turns out that everything was very clearly aimed at covering up a whole web of schemes such as secret contacts with WikiLeaks and a definite quid-pro-quo around Crimea and sanctions, that's a different story.

Plus, if the latter scenario is the case, there are bound to be numerous incidental details of the sort that would make Nixon blush. I think we're going to be seeing the real numbers on how Trump is up to his eyeballs in obligations to every oligarch from Moscow to Baku to Riyadh.

[hepcat]

The only thing that would piss of his worshippers is if he revealed in a secretly taped conversation that he actually likes Hillary.

[Smoove_B]

Mueller - Manafort is a lying liar that lies:

Special counsel Robert Mueller said in a court filing Monday that Paul Manafort had broken his plea agreement by lying to investigators since signing the agreement.

...

Mueller and Manafort had come to the plea agreement in October, just before the case against the former Trump campaign chairman in D.C. was about to go to trial. A jury in Virginia convicted Manafort in the case Mueller brought against him there, where the charges focused on bank fraud and tax fraud allegations that mostly predated the 2016 campaign.

In the plea deal, Manafort plead guilty to conspiracy against the U.S. and obstruction of justice, related to allegations of witness tampering.

I'll let the legal experts chime in as the filing is provided in the article.

[Carpet_pissr]

Mueller - Manafort is a lying liar that lies:

Special counsel Robert Mueller said in a court filing Monday that Paul Manafort had broken his plea agreement by lying to investigators since signing the agreement.

...

Mueller and Manafort had come to the plea agreement in October, just before the case against the former Trump campaign chairman in D.C. was about to go to trial. A jury in Virginia convicted Manafort in the case Mueller brought against him there, where the charges focused on bank fraud and tax fraud allegations that mostly predated the 2016 campaign.

In the plea deal, Manafort plead guilty to conspiracy against the U.S. and obstruction of justice, related to allegations of witness tampering.

I'll let the legal experts chime in as the filing is provided in the article.

I read several different sources on this story, and I am left wanting the rest. Ok, he was caught breaking his plea agreement. Sooooooo now what? He's already in jail with a gouty foot. Longer sentence?

[GreenGoo]

Just came by to post Meuller saying deal's off.

[Holman]

I'm thinking all this has a lot to do with the Trump meltdowns of the past 24-48 hours.

If Manafort's deal is collapsing (at least as legal Twitter would have it), this means a whole lot more discovery, more rulings, and more court filings dealing with the campaign, all of which will be open public records and produce a great deal of coverage.

In other words, this is Mueller's end-run around Whitaker...

[Skinypupy]

The only thing that would piss of his worshippers is if he revealed in a secretly taped conversation that he actually likes Hillary.

Trump loves Hillary. Being able to prop her up as the boogeyman for literally every perceived ill in the world got him where he is today. He's literally nothing without her (or at least the specter of her).

[El Guapo]

Mueller - Manafort is a lying liar that lies:

Special counsel Robert Mueller said in a court filing Monday that Paul Manafort had broken his plea agreement by lying to investigators since signing the agreement.

...

Mueller and Manafort had come to the plea agreement in October, just before the case against the former Trump campaign chairman in D.C. was about to go to trial. A jury in Virginia convicted Manafort in the case Mueller brought against him there, where the charges focused on bank fraud and tax fraud allegations that mostly predated the 2016 campaign.

In the plea deal, Manafort plead guilty to conspiracy against the U.S. and obstruction of justice, related to allegations of witness tampering.

I'll let the legal experts chime in as the filing is provided in the article.

I read several different sources on this story, and I am left wanting the rest. Ok, he was caught breaking his plea agreement. Sooooooo now what? He's already in jail with a gouty foot. Longer sentence?

In short - yes, unless the judge disagrees. It means that Manafort wouldn't get the sentence reduction that he was seeking when he signed onto the plea deal (but would still have pled guilty to the additional charges). It also means that Mueller could also indict Manafort for other charges that he had refrained from charging as part of the plea deal (and theoretically could re-pursue the charges that the first jury deadlocked on).

Manafort's going to somehow wind up with the death penalty the way he's handling all this.

[Jeff V]

Manafort's going to somehow wind up with the death penalty the way he's handling all this.

The news this morning was speculating that orange monkey god would pardon him.

[Max Peck]

Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy

Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.

It is unclear why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.

Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits.

Probably just a little light locker room collusion. Completely pardonable.

[El Guapo]

Manafort's going to somehow wind up with the death penalty the way he's handling all this.

The news this morning was speculating that orange monkey god would pardon him.

That seems plausible, though that would be a bit of a bombshell, and Manafort would still need to worry about the NY AG.

[Jeff V]

I would love to see the states get started on their own cases. Trump would go even more ape shit without that ace in the hole pardon card to play.

[El Guapo]

I would love to see the states get started on their own cases. Trump would go even more ape shit without that ace in the hole pardon card to play.

There are state cases - most notably, the NY AG is already pursing charges against the Trump Foundation. Most of the plea deals with Mueller have required the individuals to cooperate with state as well as federal prosecutors, so there's a good chance that that's already happened. But there's not much point in the state AGs pursuing people who Mueller is pursuing right now, unless that's needed - any action they brought might well just get stayed pending whatever Mueller does.

[$iljanus]

I would love to see the states get started on their own cases. Trump would go even more ape shit without that ace in the hole pardon card to play.

There are state cases - most notably, the NY AG is already pursing charges against the Trump Foundation. Most of the plea deals with Mueller have required the individuals to cooperate with state as well as federal prosecutors, so there's a good chance that that's already happened. But there's not much point in the state AGs pursuing people who Mueller is pursuing right now, unless that's needed - any action they brought might well just get stayed pending whatever Mueller does.

Also Maryland and the District of Columbia's emolument lawsuits were allowed to proceed and I'm quite eager to see what dirty laundry gets brought up in court along with hoping for a huge Trump loss.

[GreenGoo]

Also Maryland and the District of Columbia's emolument lawsuits were allowed to proceed and I'm quite eager to see what dirty laundry gets brought up in court along with hoping for a huge Trump loss.

That does have a nice ring to it.

[pr0ner]

Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy

Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.

It is unclear why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.

Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits.

Probably just a little light locker room collusion. Completely pardonable.

There is a lot of skepticism on Twitter as to the veracity of that article.

[GreenGoo]

Skimming the article it doesn't seem to be any better or worse sourced than other articles of this nature. There are a number of specifics in it that certainly imply actual events as opposed to more nebulous claims, and the Guardian used the term "well-placed source" which seems to give credence to the information. At least the Guardian thought so, and they aren't particularly known for being incautious about these sorts of things.

I have no opinion on this particular article, but it certainly appears to be on the up and up.

What specifically is Twitter skeptical about? The source? The idea that Manafort visited Assange?

I don't think the Guardian has any Russian trolls doing their articles for them, but it's a fact that Russian trolls use Twitter to undermine certain narratives and promote others, and the nature of twitter is such that once the ball starts rolling, the originator can get lost as more trusted sources (to the reader) promulgate the original propaganda.

Obviously I can't know that that's what's happening here either.

However:
a) The Guardian seems to be a respectable news source that I have read in the past
b) Twitter is den of scum and villainy

I'm not saying your sources specifically Pr0ner, and perhaps they even warrant more respect than the Guarian, just that when it comes to credibility, the Guardian seems to be ok and I don't know who on Twitter is skeptical.

[Pyperkub]

Some very interesting conjecture and info from emptywheel about Manafort:

Just about the only explanation for Manafort’s actions are that — as I suggested — Trump was happy to have Manafort serve as a mole in Mueller’s investigation.

But Mueller’s team appears to have no doubt that Manafort was lying to them. That means they didn’t really need his testimony, at all. It also means they had no need to keep secrets — they could keep giving Manafort the impression that he was pulling a fast one over the prosecutors, all while reporting misleading information to Trump that he could use to fill out his open book test. Which increases the likelihood that Trump just submitted sworn answers to those questions full of lies.

And that “detailed sentencing submission … sett[ing] forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies” that Mueller mentions in the report?

There’s your Mueller report, which will be provided in a form that Matt Whitaker won’t be able to suppress.

[Smoove_B]

I wasn't sure if Trump submitting his answers to Mueller and then 6 days later Manafort's deal is official revoked over lying was connected or I was imagining it might be, but I repeat: the movie they make from this is going to awesome.

[hepcat]

When they make that film, they're going to need to find an Elvis Presley lookalike to play Trump.

[El Guapo]

Skimming the article it doesn't seem to be any better or worse sourced than other articles of this nature. There are a number of specifics in it that certainly imply actual events as opposed to more nebulous claims, and the Guardian used the term "well-placed source" which seems to give credence to the information. At least the Guardian thought so, and they aren't particularly known for being incautious about these sorts of things.

I have no opinion on this particular article, but it certainly appears to be on the up and up.

What specifically is Twitter skeptical about? The source? The idea that Manafort visited Assange?

I don't think the Guardian has any Russian trolls doing their articles for them, but it's a fact that Russian trolls use Twitter to undermine certain narratives and promote others, and the nature of twitter is such that once the ball starts rolling, the originator can get lost as more trusted sources (to the reader) promulgate the original propaganda.

Obviously I can't know that that's what's happening here either.

However:
a) The Guardian seems to be a respectable news source that I have read in the past
b) Twitter is den of scum and villainy

I'm not saying your sources specifically Pr0ner, and perhaps they even warrant more respect than the Guarian, just that when it comes to credibility, the Guardian seems to be ok and I don't know who on Twitter is skeptical.

A couple quick hits:





I expect that we'll have a pretty good understanding of whether the story is legit or not within a week or so.

[GreenGoo]

As I said, the Guardian isn't particularly known for being irresponsible. If those logs were available, why did they publish anyway? Or at least mention the logs in the article? Why didn't the reporter who talked to the "well-placed source" bring this up to the informant? Either at the time or as a follow-up after realizing the logs existed.

I'm curious what the Guardian will have to say for itself in response to this skepticism.

[GreenGoo]

Which increases the likelihood that Trump just submitted sworn answers to those questions full of lies.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!

Grrr, no getting my hopes up.

[El Guapo]

As I said, the Guardian isn't particularly known for being irresponsible. If those logs were available, why did they publish anyway? Or at least mention the logs in the article? Why didn't the reporter who talked to the "well-placed source" bring this up to the informant?

I'm curious what the Guardian will have to say for itself in response to this skepticism.

FWIW, the skeptical people on Twitter are also a pretty respectable, credentialed group. Of course, none of them are saying that the story is false, they're just expressing some reservations and doubts.

We'll see. If the story isn't true, I suspect that the answer is that the Guardian reporter was fooled by a liar or believed the report of someone with an axe to grind (one of the pushback points seems to be that a key source was someone in the Ecuadorian government with an axe to grind against Assange).

[El Guapo]

Which increases the likelihood that Trump just submitted sworn answers to those questions full of lies.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!

Grrr, no getting my hopes up.

Yeah, I wouldn't. The emptywheel story that Pyperkub was quoting is conjecture, as I understand it. Plausible conjecture, but still conjecture.

The big, big hope for me is that Trump insisted on writing significant parts of his written answers himself, and/or wasn't listening to counsel when this stuff was being prepared. The more Trump was involved, the higher the odds that the answers contained easily disproven lies.

[GreenGoo]

FWIW, the skeptical people on Twitter are also a pretty respectable, credentialed group.

I suspected as much from Pr0ner's post, I just didn't have any context or reference points for the skepticism at the time. It could have been anything, from a close personal friend of Pr0ner's that he trusts to all media organizations everywhere that aren't the Guardian, which is why I left it open ended.

We'll see when we see. It's frustrating because the Guardian doesn't have to do anything. They can just say they are reporting what they were told, and they were told by someone high up.

I'm curious about the axe to grind angle though. Why would this guy have an axe to grind with Manafort? Or if the axe to grind is about Assange, how does this hurt him in any way that he isn't already poised to be hurt? I guess putting forth the idea that Assange and Manafort conspired hurts them in the public eye, but who cares? They're not exactly media darlings as it is. And claims without proof don't hold a lot of legal weight, so...?

[GreenGoo]

Yeah, I wouldn't. The emptywheel story that Pyperkub was quoting is conjecture, as I understand it. Plausible conjecture, but still conjecture.

The big, big hope for me is that Trump insisted on writing significant parts of his written answers himself, and/or wasn't listening to counsel when this stuff was being prepared. The more Trump was involved, the higher the odds that the answers contained easily disproven lies.

It's literally all conjecture at this point. There is nothing but conjecture in terms of what the outcome might be, or even what they have discovered thus far, if anything. I may be more likely to believe certain conjectures from certain people more than others, but I haven't fooled myself into believing we know anything at all, yet.

Still, it's fun to dream.

[Smoove_B]

FWIW, the skeptical people on Twitter are also a pretty respectable, credentialed group. Of course, none of them are saying that the story is false, they're just expressing some reservations and doubts.

What if there were tapes?

Per the New Yorker, Assange meets his visitors in a conference room outfitted with a surveillance camera.

And then there's this:

Worth noting that Manafort hasn't denied that he visited Assange, only that he was involved in hacks. His lawyers are declining to answer q's about the visits but also have not denied that they happened. (His spox has declined to comment on record for now)

[GreenGoo]

I would be pretty shy about making statements too, if I was repeatedly, and repeatedly, caught in my lies and that my lies were potentially federal offences.

[GreenGoo]

New CNN article (on phone, someone else link please) claims Meuller investigation aware of Manafort/Assange meeting and has been investigating prior to the Guardian article.

Details still sketchy. No definitive proof one way or the other.

Edit:. Sorry, I misread. Investigating meeting between Manafort and Ecuadorian president. Investigating if Assange was discussed in that meeting.

My bad.

[Grifman]

The Daily Kos brings all the threads of Russian collusion together:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1 ... -and-Trump

This is what that period looked like when everything is put together: On February 29, Paul Manafort sent Trump a written “pitch” document explaining how he should direct the campaign. His pitch was backed by a recommendation from Roger Stone. The very next week, Trump senior campaign staffer Sam Clovis told the team that “good US-Russia relations” were a goal of the campaign. The week after that George Papadopoulos, fresh off hearing Clovis describe the campaign’s desire for good Russia relations, first met with the London-based “professor” who claimed to have Russia connections. That was all in March.

So was this: Russians begin a dedicated attempt to hack into the emails of more than 300 employees of the DNC, DCCC, and Clinton campaign using two large teams of specialists. They managed to penetrate the the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, stealing 50,000 emails through a phishing attack. Hackers gained another entrance to other accounts on the campaign that same week, and began sophisticated attacks on the security of servers at the DNC. That was in March.

At the end of the month, two things happened: Trump met with his campaign team, where Papadopoulos discussed Russian help and the possibility of meeting with Putin. And Paul Manafort was hired by the Trump campaign.

If Paul Manafort was meeting with Julian Assange in March 2016, it shows that every part of the Russian plan, from stealing Democratic emails to distributing them through WikiLeaks, was planned in advance. And that the campaign chair of the Trump campaign was at the dead center of that plan.

Why did Paul Manafort lie? Because it increasingly looks like the origin of the plan to attack the United States through stolen emails, false media accounts, and social media pressure didn’t originate with Moscow, it came from Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.

Manafort did for Trump what he did for pro-Russian forces in Ukraine. And with the same assist from Moscow. That’s worth lying about.

And based on how Robert Mueller waited until Trump turned in his written responses before calling Manafort on the carpet, it’s going to be interesting to see how many of his lies Trump repeated.

What’s that word? Boom.

[GreenGoo]

*waits patiently for the Mueller report*

*daydreams about the many of humiliations that might befall drumpf, the good lord willing*

[Holman]

Question: It is within Whitaker's power simply not to release the report, but could Adam Schiff then subpoena it for his committee?

I think that's the only way we'll see it.

[El Guapo]

Question: It is within Whitaker's power simply not to release the report, but could Adam Schiff then subpoena it for his committee?

I think that's the only way we'll see it.

The short answer is yes. Congress's subpoena power is very broad - they can subpoena pretty much anything they want. The main restrictions are just materials that are subject to some type of privilege (e.g., attorney-client privileged documents) and constitutional restrictions (e.g., Congress can't subpoena "all documents that show that you illegally colluded with Russian intelligence").

Now, I strongly suspect that Whitaker / Trump would argue that the report is privileged under executive privilege or some law enforcement privilege or something. Whether that argument would ultimately prevail...I dunno.

[Pyperkub]

Question: It is within Whitaker's power simply not to release the report, but could Adam Schiff then subpoena it for his committee?

I think that's the only way we'll see it.

You should read my link above.

[Pyperkub]

Some very interesting conjecture and info from emptywheel about Manafort:

Just about the only explanation for Manafort’s actions are that — as I suggested — Trump was happy to have Manafort serve as a mole in Mueller’s investigation.

But Mueller’s team appears to have no doubt that Manafort was lying to them. That means they didn’t really need his testimony, at all. It also means they had no need to keep secrets — they could keep giving Manafort the impression that he was pulling a fast one over the prosecutors, all while reporting misleading information to Trump that he could use to fill out his open book test. Which increases the likelihood that Trump just submitted sworn answers to those questions full of lies.

And that “detailed sentencing submission … sett[ing] forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies” that Mueller mentions in the report?

There’s your Mueller report, which will be provided in a form that Matt Whitaker won’t be able to suppress.

Looking even more likely this is the case:

A lawyer for Paul Manafort, the president’s onetime campaign chairman, repeatedly briefed President Trump’s lawyers on his client’s discussions with federal investigators after Mr. Manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel, according to one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers and two other people familiar with the conversations.

[LawBeefaroni]

Of all the potential hoists, via his own petard would be the most satisfying.

Thank goodness Trump doesn't actually have the "best people".