Octopus Overlords

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:55 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:32 pm 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)

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:16 pm 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.

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.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:18 pm 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.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:12 pm The only thing that would piss of his worshippers is if he revealed in a secretly taped conversation that he actually likes Hillary.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:23 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:18 pm 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?

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:48 am Manafort's going to somehow wind up with the death penalty the way he's handling all this.

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.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:48 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:48 am 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.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:39 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:45 am

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:39 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:52 am 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.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:52 am 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.

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.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:08 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:17 pm

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

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:00 pm 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.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:02 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:17 pm

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 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:03 pm FWIW, the skeptical people on Twitter are also a pretty respectable, credentialed group.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:05 pm
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.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:03 pmFWIW, 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.

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

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)

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.

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:40 am 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.

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:40 am 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.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:17 pm 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.

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.