Mueller investigation

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems to me that Trump has his perfect lawyer in Joseph DiGenova. DiGenova has earned his chops at Fox News through whip-smart investigative journalism that has exposed deep plots against Trump and his family. Finally, the truth can come out.

Jimmy Higgins, eat your sarcastic heart out.

How long until the cowboy catheter guy gets nominated for something?

 

[Patooka]

Are you referring to Thomas Kopache?

 

[Artemus]

It has now been publicly confirmed that Gates and Manafort were communicating with a former Russian intelligence agent during the campaign. He was actually an employee of Manafort in Russia.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It has now been publicly confirmed that Gates and Manafort were communicating with a former Russian intelligence agent during the campaign. He was actually an employee of Manafort in Russia.

In the memo, prosecutors said that van der Zwaan acknowledged to special counsel investigators in an interview that Gates had told him of the associate's ties to a Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU.

My god! This goes all the way to the Minions!

 

[Artemus]

It has now been publicly confirmed that Gates and Manafort were communicating with a former Russian intelligence agent during the campaign. He was actually an employee of Manafort in Russia.

In the memo, prosecutors said that van der Zwaan acknowledged to special counsel investigators in an interview that Gates had told him of the associate's ties to a Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU.

My god! This goes all the way to the Minions!

Yep. And so much for the claim "Everything Manafort is accused of was long before the campaign!"

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This just in: Muller Just Drew The Most Direct Line To Date Between The Trump Campaign And Russia.

What's particularly significant in the Mueller filing, though, are six words: “and had such ties in 2016.” Prosecutors have said previously that a longtime Manafort and Gates associate had ties to Russian intelligence, but they have never said those ties remained during the 2016 campaign. In December, they said this associate was “a longtime Russian colleague . . . who is currently based in Russia and assessed to have ties to a Russian intelligence service.” Why those six words were added in this filing when they didn't appear in the previous filing is the $64,000 question.
...
The other new piece here is that Mueller's team says Gates described Person A (again, apparently Kilimnik) as “a former Russian Intelligence Officer with GRU.” (GRU is Russia's military intelligence organization.) So according to van der Zwaan, Gates talked openly about Person A's ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik told The Post in June that he has “no relation to the Russian or any other intelligence service.” Mueller is now apparently directly disputing that using Gates's own words, via van der Zwaan.

And then there is this:

As Philip Bump details here, this is hardly the first public indication of a link between the Trump campaign and Russia, but it is the closest connection Mueller has made in a filing to this point. Mueller hasn't weighed in on the alleged Kremlin ties of the Russian lawyer Donald Trump Jr. met with, for instance, nor has he filed anything involving Roger Stone's contacts with hackers who have been linked to Russia.

My guess as to why he hasn’t yet done so is because he’s flipped one or both of them (my money would be on Stone).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This just in: Muller Just Drew The Most Direct Line To Date Between The Trump Campaign And Russia.

What's particularly significant in the Mueller filing, though, are six words: “and had such ties in 2016.” Prosecutors have said previously that a longtime Manafort and Gates associate had ties to Russian intelligence, but they have never said those ties remained during the 2016 campaign. In December, they said this associate was “a longtime Russian colleague . . . who is currently based in Russia and assessed to have ties to a Russian intelligence service.” Why those six words were added in this filing when they didn't appear in the previous filing is the $64,000 question.
...
The other new piece here is that Mueller's team says Gates described Person A (again, apparently Kilimnik) as “a former Russian Intelligence Officer with GRU.” (GRU is Russia's military intelligence organization.) So according to van der Zwaan, Gates talked openly about Person A's ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik told The Post in June that he has “no relation to the Russian or any other intelligence service.” Mueller is now apparently directly disputing that using Gates's own words, via van der Zwaan.

And then there is this:

As Philip Bump details here, this is hardly the first public indication of a link between the Trump campaign and Russia, but it is the closest connection Mueller has made in a filing to this point. Mueller hasn't weighed in on the alleged Kremlin ties of the Russian lawyer Donald Trump Jr. met with, for instance, nor has he filed anything involving Roger Stone's contacts with hackers who have been linked to Russia.

My guess as to why he hasn’t yet done so is because he’s flipped one or both of them (my money would be on Stone).

I think the answer to $64k question is that with the shake in the White House, he's putting down another card to show that there is something of significance here.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Konstantin Kilimnik? That doesn't sound like a Russian name at all.

 

[Artemus]

I think that this also explains why Mueller was able to get a "no-knock" search warrant of Manafort's home approved. Think the right-wing press will drop the claims of FBI-abuse-of-power on that one now? (Neither do I.)

 

[Angry Floof]

Trump’s Lawyer Raised Prospect of Pardons for Flynn and Manafort as Special Counsel Closed In

March 28, 2018
WASHINGTON — A lawyer for President Trump broached the idea of Mr. Trump pardoning two of his former top advisers, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort, with their lawyers last year, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.

The discussions came as the special counsel was building cases against both men, and they raise questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, who resigned last week, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Trump’s Lawyer Raised Prospect of Pardons for Flynn and Manafort as Special Counsel Closed In

March 28, 2018
WASHINGTON — A lawyer for President Trump broached the idea of Mr. Trump pardoning two of his former top advisers, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort, with their lawyers last year, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.

The discussions came as the special counsel was building cases against both men, and they raise questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, who resigned last week, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation.

I’m not sure how that was supposed to work, as it assumes that Trump would not also be indicted (and therefore impeached and therefore likely resign before it got to that point); iow, he would not be President in order to pardon anyone. Which in turn would mean that Pence would have had to have been in on any such deals, right? I ask to the thread.

 

[Angry Floof]

Trump’s Lawyer Raised Prospect of Pardons for Flynn and Manafort as Special Counsel Closed In

March 28, 2018
WASHINGTON — A lawyer for President Trump broached the idea of Mr. Trump pardoning two of his former top advisers, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort, with their lawyers last year, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.

The discussions came as the special counsel was building cases against both men, and they raise questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, who resigned last week, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation.

I’m not sure how that was supposed to work, as it assumes that Trump would not also be indicted (and therefore impeached and therefore likely resign before it got to that point); iow, he would not be President in order to pardon anyone. Which in turn would mean that Pence would have had to have been in on any such deals, right? I ask to the thread.

Would not look good for sure, but not necessarily incriminating as in de facto obstruction. More like additional circumstantial evidence of motive.

Pardoning is an almost unassailable privilege of the President, and no one else. He can pretty much pardon anyone for any reason as he damn well pleases. I would think Pence would be aware of the decision, but not necessarily in on it.

Anyway, this is testimony of witnesses who are spilling it to Mueller. The White House denies all of it.

 

[ElectEngr]

I think Manafort is waiting for Putin to give him "Diplomatic Immunity"

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[braces_for_impact]

Prosecutors aren't in the habit of letting people go that broke so many laws as Manafort allegedly did unless they really need them to flip badly and/or the ultimate prize is in sight. It may be with Gates, that Manafort is not needed.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think Manafort is waiting for Putin to give him "Diplomatic Immunity"

Later,
ElectEngr

Or for Trump to offer him a pardon.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Am I the only one waiting for O'Keefe to release of video of him posing as a Russian (very poorly) and trying to get Mueller admit that this is all 'fake news', that he'll say he is GRU and doctor documents for the case to remove Trump?

Prosecutors aren't in the habit of letting people go that broke so many laws as Manafort allegedly did unless they really need them to flip badly and/or the ultimate prize is in sight. It may be with Gates, that Manafort is not needed.

The target is the President, so as many witnesses is needed as necessary.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I’m not sure how that was supposed to work, as it assumes that Trump would not also be indicted (and therefore impeached and therefore likely resign before it got to that point); iow, he would not be President in order to pardon anyone. Which in turn would mean that Pence would have had to have been in on any such deals, right? I ask to the thread.

Would not look good for sure, but not necessarily incriminating as in de facto obstruction. More like additional circumstantial evidence of motive.

Pardoning is an almost unassailable privilege of the President, and no one else. He can pretty much pardon anyone for any reason as he damn well pleases. I would think Pence would be aware of the decision, but not necessarily in on it.

Right, but to grant a pardon, there has to be a crime committed and to accept a pardon is an admission of guilt. Even if Trump had said something like, “Don’t worry about anything that happens, I’ll just pardon you,” for that to be an effective incentive for them it would require that Trump—and/or Pence—is still in a position to pardon them.

But the reason to give such assurance is arising out of the fact that Trump’s presidency is in question. Iow, Dowd would essentially be saying to Manafort etal not to worry about lying to Mueller, because if anything happens you’ll get a pardon. But the thing that would happen is Trump being indicted/impeached and his powers of pardoning—along with everything else—being taken away. Right? Again, that’s a general question for the thread, as I don’t know the legal breakdown on this point.

Plus there’s the question of whether or not removal from office (however it may happen) would not also carry with it a revocation of any such pardons Trump may have issued prior to being removed.

Any lawyers in da house?

 

[ElectEngr]

I think Manafort is waiting for Putin to give him "Diplomatic Immunity"

Later,
ElectEngr

Or for Trump to offer him a pardon.

From What I understand (very limited), a pardon only covers Federal crimes, "Diplomatic Immunity" would also cover State and Local laws.

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I’m not sure how that was supposed to work, as it assumes that Trump would not also be indicted (and therefore impeached and therefore likely resign before it got to that point); iow, he would not be President in order to pardon anyone. Which in turn would mean that Pence would have had to have been in on any such deals, right? I ask to the thread.

Would not look good for sure, but not necessarily incriminating as in de facto obstruction. More like additional circumstantial evidence of motive.

Pardoning is an almost unassailable privilege of the President, and no one else. He can pretty much pardon anyone for any reason as he damn well pleases. I would think Pence would be aware of the decision, but not necessarily in on it.

Right, but to grant a pardon, there has to be a crime committed and to accept a pardon is an admission of guilt. Even if Trump had said something like, “Don’t worry about anything that happens, I’ll just pardon you,” for that to be an effective incentive for them it would require that Trump—and/or Pence—is still in a position to pardon them.

But the reason to give such assurance is arising out of the fact that Trump’s presidency is in question. Iow, Dowd would essentially be saying to Manafort etal not to worry about lying to Mueller, because if anything happens you’ll get a pardon. But the thing that would happen is Trump being indicted/impeached and his powers of pardoning—along with everything else—being taken away. Right? Again, that’s a general question for the thread, as I don’t know the legal breakdown on this point.

Plus there’s the question of whether or not removal from office (however it may happen) would not also carry with it a revocation of any such pardons Trump may have issued prior to being removed.

Any lawyers in da house?

I don't think lawyers could say seeing that a lot of this is untouched legal territory.

 

[Opoponax]

Right, but to grant a pardon, there has to be a crime committed and to accept a pardon is an admission of guilt. Even if Trump had said something like, “Don’t worry about anything that happens, I’ll just pardon you,” for that to be an effective incentive for them it would require that Trump—and/or Pence—is still in a position to pardon them.

But the reason to give such assurance is arising out of the fact that Trump’s presidency is in question. Iow, Dowd would essentially be saying to Manafort etal not to worry about lying to Mueller, because if anything happens you’ll get a pardon. But the thing that would happen is Trump being indicted/impeached and his powers of pardoning—along with everything else—being taken away. Right? Again, that’s a general question for the thread, as I don’t know the legal breakdown on this point.

Plus there’s the question of whether or not removal from office (however it may happen) would not also carry with it a revocation of any such pardons Trump may have issued prior to being removed.

Any lawyers in da house?

I don't think lawyers could say seeing that a lot of this is untouched legal territory.

Yeah. There's no precedent for it. Same with the Emoluments Clause.

It's what makes Trump the most tremendous POTUS ever. We are watching a new field (or at least YUGE growth) of constitutional legal scholarship being created right before our eyes. Assuming the Republic survives, we're gonna see scholars and law schools churning out law review pieces for the next decade about this shit, and every minuscule peripheral issue related to it.

Trump really is causing the advancement of constitutional scholarship.

I think my brain just blew another circuit.