The Russiagate conspiracy theory

[Rob Dekker]

The DNC hack with a thorough analysis of CrowdStrike, Guccifer etc.
http://g-2.space/#1

Or the total debunking of the Grizzly steppe report by the WordFence team:
https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/

You can't trust the mass media like the article you refer to in Time (!). They are basically spreading the groupthink based on the propaganda invented by your intelligence agencies in the US (the ICA report as well as Grizzly steppe are excellent examples of that).

You need to go for deep, technical analysis as in the two links above.

Rrright. I gave you an example of evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
You did not respond to that directly.
Let that be noted.

Instead you came up with the above statements.
Since these links sprout a load of BS, my question now is : Which of the arguments in the g-2.space and the worldfence.com links do you find most convincing ?

[Buddy]

So.....who is going to flip NEXT?  I Hope 😳 that Donnie's 29 year old "in over her head" assistant is ready to play big league baseball....because Cy Young award winner Bob Mueller has her in his sights and he is going to bring some heat. 😳😳😳

And now.....before she is interviewed.....she knows what will happen if she lies to an FBI agent.  GULP.  She knows a LOT....and she will likely have to spill the beans to save her model ass.

That Bob Mueller fella' looks like he knows what the hell he is doing, doesn't he? 😬  I wonder how Donnie is sleeping this weekend?  Pressure kills.....

[pileus]

The odds have increased considerably that Trump will try to engineer a “Saturday Night Massacre” against Mueller, as the Flynn plea threatens Trump’s inner circle and the man himself. He will also likely be emboldened by the Senate passing the tax reform package (which also allows drilling in the Alaskan Artic, so congrats to all you Trump/Putin apologists).

Not at all surprised to see the whataboutism, conspiracy theories, and defense of Putin/Trump by the usual suspects.  No amount of evidence, findings or progress with Russiagate will sway those that live and breathe conspiracy and paranoia of everything the US government does, or reduce their admiration of authoritarianism as exercised by Putin and his puppet Trump.

[Susan Anderson]

I'll try to keep this short and simple. We all should know this.

Russia's stated and accomplished intention is to sow discord in the US, Europe, and anywhere else it can to return Russia to its former dominance.

When we indulge in detailed attack and counterattack with each other, we enhance that goal.

This also includes supporting nativist movements in all countries (white supremacists, anti-immigrant actors and actions).
----
Today I am sick with despair about my country's malign influence in the world and its government's willingness to loot and poison our civilization at home.

[Sigmetnow]

Extensive analysis of the Flynn guilty plea from Seth Abramson.  The situation is much more explosive than it first appears.  See the entire Twitter thread.

(THREAD) MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: Mike Flynn will plead guilty to Making False Statements at 10:30 AM EST today (Friday). This is the biggest development in the Russia probe so far. This thread explains what it all means, and will be updated throughout the day. Please read and share.
...
6/ Deals like this are offered *only* when a witness can incriminate someone "higher up the food-chain" than them. In the case of the nation's former National Security Advisor, the *only* people above him in the executive-branch hierarchy are the President and the Vice President.

7/ There may be other targets in the Russia probe—such as Attorney General Sessions—at Flynn's same level in the hierarchy, but unless he could incriminate two or more of them, a deal like this would not be offered to him. And there *aren't* two or more at his level in this case.

8/ What this indicates—beyond any serious doubt—is the following: Special Counsel Bob Mueller, the former Director of the FBI, believes Mike Flynn's testimony will *incriminate* the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, or both of these two men.
...
41/ For Mueller to be *so guarded* in what information he's willing to reveal in his single-count indictment—as we know Mike Flynn lied to the FBI about far more serious things than Mueller has disclosed—confirms, indirectly, that Flynn's proffer to the FBI was *quite* explosive.
...
63/ The next move for the White House is this one: to try to convince the American media, and American voters, that the only thing Mueller has on Flynn is what Flynn just pled to.

Don't be deceived; that's not how this works. That's not how any of this (cooperation deals) work.
...

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/936602442996813824

[pileus]

Extensive analysis of the Flynn guilty plea from Seth Abramson.  The situation is much more explosive than it first appears.  See the entire Twitter thread.

(THREAD) MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: Mike Flynn will plead guilty to Making False Statements at 10:30 AM EST today (Friday). This is the biggest development in the Russia probe so far. This thread explains what it all means, and will be updated throughout the day. Please read and share.
...
6/ Deals like this are offered *only* when a witness can incriminate someone "higher up the food-chain" than them. In the case of the nation's former National Security Advisor, the *only* people above him in the executive-branch hierarchy are the President and the Vice President.

7/ There may be other targets in the Russia probe—such as Attorney General Sessions—at Flynn's same level in the hierarchy, but unless he could incriminate two or more of them, a deal like this would not be offered to him. And there *aren't* two or more at his level in this case.

8/ What this indicates—beyond any serious doubt—is the following: Special Counsel Bob Mueller, the former Director of the FBI, believes Mike Flynn's testimony will *incriminate* the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, or both of these two men.
...
41/ For Mueller to be *so guarded* in what information he's willing to reveal in his single-count indictment—as we know Mike Flynn lied to the FBI about far more serious things than Mueller has disclosed—confirms, indirectly, that Flynn's proffer to the FBI was *quite* explosive.
...
63/ The next move for the White House is this one: to try to convince the American media, and American voters, that the only thing Mueller has on Flynn is what Flynn just pled to.

Don't be deceived; that's not how this works. That's not how any of this (cooperation deals) work.
...

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/936602442996813824

Seth’s reporting has been prescient on many topics related to Russiagate, but the man needs a blog 😁.  His massive twitter thread underscores why Trump must and will try to remove Mueller at this point.  It’s really his only logical course of action to protect his interests and his family from jeopardy.

[SteveMDFP]

Could ABC have retracted their "Bombshell" Flynn story?
Can they unring the bell that pealed so loudly?


Inquiring minds want to know.


http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/01/media/abc-news-flynn-correction/


So much for the Logan Act.
So much for MSM's "truthiness"
So much for "anonymous sources'
Terry

It's a clarification of the timing of Flynn being told to reach out to the Russian government.  It's undeniable that the Russian Ambassador, Kislyak, had *many* discussions with the Trump *campaign*.  See:

Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts/exclusive-trump-campaign-had-at-least-18-undisclosed-contacts-with-russians-sources-idUSKCN18E106

It's not like Kislyak disputes having had many contacts with team Trump *during* the campaign:

RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR: LIST OF TRUMP OFFICIALS I MET IS SO LONG IT WOULD TAKE 20 MINUTES TO NAME THEM ALL
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-officials-kislyak-meeting-20-minutes-714981

I really doubt they were meeting to discuss their mutual love for the Moscow ballet.  Trump's people lied under oath, denying they'd met any Russians.  If the meetings were all just to discuss straightforward matters, none of them would have lied. 

Note that the Kremlin's involvement with the Trump campaign is independently evidenced here:
Intercepts suggest Sessions discussed Trump campaign matters with Russia envoy: report
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343245-sessions-discussed-trump-campaign-matters-with-russian-ambassador

These lines of evidence are all independent of the national security Assessment, independent of each other.  But all completely consistent with each other.  But wait, there's more!

Election Hackers Altered Voter Rolls, Stole Private Data, Officials Say
http://time.com/4828306/russian-hacking-election-widespread-private-data/

It would seem that corrupting voter rolls (not election ballot counting) happened especially in Democratic districts in battleground states.  Creating very, very long lines in places like Durhan, NC.  That's a very clever way of suppressing the Democratic vote.

I could fill up *pages* of independent pieces of evidence to support that Russia violated US laws, with the Trump campaign conspiring in the efforts.  I'm not morally outraged over what Russia did, but I'm livid with the Trump mafia.

As for all this being a "US-centric" perspective, I'd suggest that those who deny the picture are mostly being parochial and Euro-centric.  True, re-starting the Cold War would be bad, but the world got along OK for half a century with very few deaths in that standoff.

In contrast, with Trump in the Oval Office, we're rapidly heading towards an armed conflict with N Korea that will kill millions.  And shifts in the middle east are suggesting that Saudi Arabia (likely with support from US and Israel) may directly attack Iran.  This would all be far, far worse for humanity than re-establishing the Cold War standoff.

[Buddy]

I forgot about Tom Cotton.  As pointed out in the Palmer Report....good ole' Tom was in the Trump transition team.....and he might have some knowledge regarding RussiaGate.  Uh oh......that may not be a good thing for Tommy.  Especially someone that is supposedly going to head the CIA.

Could be one more problem for Team Trump....

[Sigmetnow]

Seth’s reporting has been prescient on many topics related to Russiagate, but the man needs a blog .  His massive twitter thread underscores why Trump must and will try to remove Mueller at this point.  It’s really his only logical course of action to protect his interests and his family from jeopardy.

Petty sad when the best we can hope for is a President Paul Ryan and a Democratic Congress going into 2019. 

[AbruptSLR]

Seth’s reporting has been prescient on many topics related to Russiagate, but the man needs a blog .  His massive twitter thread underscores why Trump must and will try to remove Mueller at this point.  It’s really his only logical course of action to protect his interests and his family from jeopardy.

Petty sad when the best we can hope for is a President Paul Ryan and a Democratic Congress going into 2019. 

Well, if we have a Democratic Congress going into 2019, then you should be talking about President Nancy Pelosi instead of Paul Ryan.

[pileus]

Seth’s reporting has been prescient on many topics related to Russiagate, but the man needs a blog .  His massive twitter thread underscores why Trump must and will try to remove Mueller at this point.  It’s really his only logical course of action to protect his interests and his family from jeopardy.

Petty sad when the best we can hope for is a President Paul Ryan and a Democratic Congress going into 2019. 

Well, if we have a Democratic Congress going into 2019, then you should be talking about President Nancy Pelosi instead of Paul Ryan.

I love the idea of a female POTUS, but certainly not Nancy Pelosi (or god forbid Niki Haley).

[pileus]

Well, Trump basically admitted to obstruction of justice today on his Twitter feed.  Let the spin commence.

[SteveMDFP]

Seth’s reporting has been prescient on many topics related to Russiagate, but the man needs a blog .  His massive twitter thread underscores why Trump must and will try to remove Mueller at this point.  It’s really his only logical course of action to protect his interests and his family from jeopardy.

Petty sad when the best we can hope for is a President Paul Ryan and a Democratic Congress going into 2019. 

That only happens if Trump and Pence are impeached simultaneously.  Otherwise, President Pence appoints his own VP, who only needs a simple majority in both houses to be confirmed. 
That's a reason to wait past the mid-terms to impeach Trump.  If either house is Democratic, it can block President Pence's more outrageous options for VP.  Or block all options until Pence is forced out of office, whereupon the (potentially) Democratic Speaker of the House becomes President. 
The political strategizing here becomes complex, because if the Senate remains R, they'd refuse to impeach Pence, even if he were convicted of a felony, rather than let the Democratic Speaker take office.  Even if both houses go D, impeaching Pence would require 2/3 majority in the Senate, meaning that Republican retain the ability to block *any* impeachment of anyone, in all plausible scenarios.
I foresee Pence becoming President after Trump resigns/gets impeached.  He'll then stay there, maybe with an ongoing VP vacancy, until three years from now.  Neither Trump nor Pence will run for election to the Presidency again.  We won't see a President Ryan, ever.

[TerryM]

Seth’s reporting has been prescient on many topics related to Russiagate, but the man needs a blog .  His massive twitter thread underscores why Trump must and will try to remove Mueller at this point.  It’s really his only logical course of action to protect his interests and his family from jeopardy.

Petty sad when the best we can hope for is a President Paul Ryan and a Democratic Congress going into 2019. 

That only happens if Trump and Pence are impeached simultaneously.  Otherwise, President Pence appoints his own VP, who only needs a simple majority in both houses to be confirmed. 
That's a reason to wait past the mid-terms to impeach Trump.  If either house is Democratic, it can block President Pence's more outrageous options for VP.  Or block all options until Pence is forced out of office, whereupon the (potentially) Democratic Speaker of the House becomes President. 
The political strategizing here becomes complex, because if the Senate remains R, they'd refuse to impeach Pence, even if he were convicted of a felony, rather than let the Democratic Speaker take office.  Even if both houses go D, impeaching Pence would require 2/3 majority in the Senate, meaning that Republican retain the ability to block *any* impeachment of anyone, in all plausible scenarios.
I foresee Pence becoming President after Trump resigns/gets impeached.  He'll then stay there, maybe with an ongoing VP vacancy, until three years from now.  Neither Trump nor Pence will run for election to the Presidency again.  We won't see a President Ryan, ever.

I'm not sure why you don't think an incumbent Pence would run in 2020? As I understand it a VP can run twice on his own, as long as his total years in office wouldn't exceed 10 years.
2+ years of Trump. 2- years of Pence, followed by the two term presidency of the incumbent, Trump slayer, Pence.
If Trump is impeached it's a relatively clear path to a Republican Presidency until at least 2028. and this is but one of the reasons that I favor hobbling Trump, but not pulling the trigger on his impeachment.


Terry
BTW, If you had read all of my CNN link above you would have come upon the following paragraph.

Shortly before 11 p.m., after a barrage of criticism, ABC posted a new tweet with the header "Correction" instead of "Clarification" followed by the same text as the prior tweet. The original tweet was deleted.

ABC believed that what they were offering was a correction, not a clarification. Why would you want to downgrade their retraction?

[Sigmetnow]

Here’s Seth Abramson:

MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: President Trump Accidentally Admits on Twitter to Committing Obstruction of Justice
https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/937022705378975744

Edit (from the thread):

5/ Please remember: the Republican Party OFFICIALLY established—in 1998—that Obstruction of Justice is an IMPEACHABLE offense.

President Trump just admitted to an IMPEACHABLE offense to 42 million Americans.

Nothing like this has ever happened in our history. It's mind-blowing.

[TerryM]

Here’s Seth Abramson:

MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: President Trump Accidentally Admits on Twitter to Committing Obstruction of Justice
https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/937022705378975744

What am I missing.
Trump fired Flynn when he learned, as had we all, that Flynn had lied to both himself, his VP, and those who most always hear the truth. This isn't "News". this is "Olds".


By what stretch does this become an admission of "committing obstruction of justice"? And what kind of person caps the first letter of every polysyllabic word? 
Terry

[SteveMDFP]

BTW, If you had read all of my CNN link above you would have come upon the following paragraph.

Shortly before 11 p.m., after a barrage of criticism, ABC posted a new tweet with the header "Correction" instead of "Clarification" followed by the same text as the prior tweet. The original tweet was deleted.

ABC believed that what they were offering was a correction, not a clarification. Why would you want to downgrade their retraction?

Because in the context of all the innumerable contacts between the Russian Ambassador and the Trump campaign (that I documented above), the timing of when Trump asked Flynn to contact the Russians (again) is an utterly irrelevant detail.

[SteveMDFP]

What am I missing.
Trump fired Flynn when he learned, as had we all, that Flynn had lied to both himself, his VP, and those who most always hear the truth. This isn't "News". this is "Olds".

No, Flynn got fired when it became public knowledge that he'd done what the Trump administration said he hadn't.  It's not credible that the Trump administration didn't know--there'd been innumerable contacts between the Russian Ambassador and the campaign in an ongoing manner.  We have evidence already that Flynn will testify that he'd been asked to do what he was then fired for, remember. 

What's plain is that the Trump administration felt it had to deny knowledge, and that therefore Flynn had to be cast as a liar to the Administration.  Blaming Flynn for lying and firing him was the only option. 

These disparate pieces really do fit together.

[Sigmetnow]

<snip>

What am I missing.
Trump fired Flynn when he learned, as had we all, that Flynn had lied to both himself, his VP, and those who most always hear the truth. This isn't "News". this is "Olds".

Despite multiple reports of Flynn’s collusion — including a personal visit to the White House from then-Attorney General Sally Yates! — the White House line has always been, “We didn't know.”   Now the President has admitted he did know, and he acted to obstruct the investigation.  Gotcha!

[SteveMDFP]

. . .
I foresee Pence becoming President after Trump resigns/gets impeached.  He'll then stay there, maybe with an ongoing VP vacancy, until three years from now.  Neither Trump nor Pence will run for election to the Presidency again.  We won't see a President Ryan, ever.

I'm not sure why you don't think an incumbent Pence would run in 2020? As I understand it a VP can run twice on his own, as long as his total years in office wouldn't exceed 10 years.
2+ years of Trump. 2- years of Pence, followed by the two term presidency of the incumbent, Trump slayer, Pence.
If Trump is impeached it's a relatively clear path to a Republican Presidency until at least 2028. and this is but one of the reasons that I favor hobbling Trump, but not pulling the trigger on his impeachment.

Terry
 

Pence is utterly unelectable for national office, and he knows it.  Unless, somehow, he distinguishes himself as a genuine statesman after Trump is forced out.

He's utterly tainted by the Trump stench.  For one thing, it's utterly implausible that that the "lie" that Flynn "hadn't" contacted the Russians was, in fact, truth from Flynn that he had. It's Pence who is almost certainly lying, and guilty of obstruction of justice by doing so.

There was already public knowledge of extensive contacts between between the campaign and the Ambassador *before* the election.  Flynn had no reason to lie to Pence about contacting the Russians *after* and I can't believe he did so.  I'm quite confident Flynn will testify that his contacts were exactly as instructed, and accurately reported to Pence.  Pence is the liar here.

EVERYONE who works for Trump ends up looking like a slimeball, all of them.  Reince Priebus was a respected head of the RNC until he became chief of staff.  He was humiliated and resigned in disgrace.  Tom Price was a highly respected, powerful member of the House until he took Secretary of HHS.  He resigned in disgrace, and may never be employable again.  And Scaramucci, though he was never highly thought of, but he's worse off now. And, and, and.

Pence is tainted now, if not on track to go to prison.  Election to the Presidency?  Not possible.

[wili]

Sig, others are now saying the same:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/362935-ex-obama-doj-official-trump-just-admitted-to-obstruction-of

Ex-Obama DOJ official: Trump 'just admitted to obstruction of justice

Lawrence O'Donnell
(@Lawrence)
We now have a winner for most self destructive tweet in history! A confession to obstruction of justice. Trump urged Comey to let Flynn go knowing Flynn was guilty.

Kurt Eichenwald
(@kurteichenwald)

This is unreal. @POTUS just confessed 2 obstruction on twitter. "I fired Flynn because he committed a felony and I knew it, then I pushed FBI director to drop the case." Prepare to see this tweet many times. And watch DC drug stores: Trump lawyers will be buying antacids today.

Patrick S. Tomlinson
(@stealthygeek)

Okay, so. Trump just confessed to Obstruction of Justice. In this tweet, he admits he knew at the time Flynn was fired (2/13/17) that Flynn had lied to the FBI. That's a felony. The following day, Trump met with then FBI Dir Comey and told him to end the Flynn investigation.

 Ted Lieu
@tedlieu

THIS IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. @POTUS now admits he KNEW Michael Flynn lied to the FBI. Yet Trump tried to influence or stop the FBI investigation

https://twitter.com/danpfeiffer/status/937015426772434944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fhouse%2F362936-dem-on-trumps-flynn-tweet-this-is-obstruction-of-justice

 Dan Pfeiffer‏@danpfeiffer

If Trump keeps admitting to obstructing justice, Ty Cobb might be right that the Mueller investigation may wrap up sooner than we think

Trump appears to have just admitted to a serious crime on Twitter
This is a brand new version of events from the White House. And it could land the president in very hot water.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-twitter-obstruction-justice-2af99c5629f6/

If Trump knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI and then asked Comey to drop the investigation, it could amount to obstruction of justice, according to some legal experts.

"This is a pretty substantial confession to essential knowledge elements of an obstruction of justice charge," tweeted Susan Hennessey, a national security fellow at the Brookings Institution.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/362938-in-apparent-shift-trump-tweets-he-fired-flynn-for-lying-to-fbi

But then again:

Citizens for Ethics
(@CREWcrew)

This tweet might be one for the history books, but knowledge of a crime isn't needed for obstruction of justice. The public record contains substantial evidence that President Trump attempted to impede the investigation of Michael Flynn.

[TerryM]

BTW, If you had read all of my CNN link above you would have come upon the following paragraph.

Shortly before 11 p.m., after a barrage of criticism, ABC posted a new tweet with the header "Correction" instead of "Clarification" followed by the same text as the prior tweet. The original tweet was deleted.

ABC believed that what they were offering was a correction, not a clarification. Why would you want to downgrade their retraction?

Because in the context of all the innumerable contacts between the Russian Ambassador and the Trump campaign (that I documented above), the timing of when Trump asked Flynn to contact the Russians (again) is an utterly irrelevant detail.

American markets apparently didn't share your opinion and fell ~400 points on ABC's false revelation.


Bill Clinton had spent the night as Putin's house guest at a time when he was not a government official. How will Mueller deal with this collusion between Hillary's campaign and Evil Putin? How would Cohen or Tail Gunner Joe have dealt with it?


Terry

[TerryM]

<snip>

What am I missing.
Trump fired Flynn when he learned, as had we all, that Flynn had lied to both himself, his VP, and those who most always hear the truth. This isn't "News". this is "Olds".

Despite multiple reports of Flynn’s collusion — including a personal visit to the White House from then-Attorney General Sally Yates! — the White House line has always been, “We didn't know.”   Now the President has admitted he did know, and he acted to obstruct the investigation.  Gotcha!

Not only did he know, he fired Flynn in a very public way. Just what part of this equates to obstructing anything?
Terry

[wili]

It's not about the firing of Flynn. It's about what T knew about Flynn when he asked Comey to go easy on him.

"I think the obstruction case was already substantial — both circumstantially and through Trump’s own words," said DOJ veteran and former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Bill Yeomans.

"This tweet certainly contributes to the case. He knew Flynn lied to the FBI when he pressed Comey to drop the case and then fired Comey," Yeomans said. "Mostly disturbingly, however, the tweet shows either that the president is utterly clueless about his own jeopardy or he truly believes he is beyond accountability because neither his base nor Republicans in Congress will hold him responsible."

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-defends-flynn-there-was-nothing-to-hide-2017-12

Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa largely agreed.

"I think if the President knew Flynn had done anything illegal at the time he asked Comey to drop investigation, then yes, it strengthens the [obstruction] case," she said on Saturday.

"I think it also has to be looked at in the context of both him and others on the campaign simultaneously and blanketly denying any contacts with Russia, when the statement of facts Flynn pled to clearly shows the opposite," Rangappa added.

"So asking Comey to drop investigation knowing he had lied to FBI, combined with the pattern of lying about the existence and nature of across his campaign evidences a (corrupt) intent to prevent what would be uncovered by the investigation."

Andy Wright, a former associate counsel to President Barack Obama and Vice President Al Gore, said Trump's tweet " could be construed as an admission that he knew Flynn had lied to the FBI on January 24."

"Later that same week, DOJ tells the WH that Flynn is compromised and President Trump tells Jim Comey he 'needs loyalty.' Then, on Valentine’s Day, the President asks Comey if the FBI could 'let Flynn go,'" Wright said. "Having not received the assurances he sought, he fired Comey under the false pretext of Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation. As an obstruction of justice timeline, it looks very bad."

And Miller again:

"Oh my god, he just admitted to obstruction of justice," tweeted former DOJ spokesman Matt Miller. "If Trump knew Flynn lied to the FBI when he asked Comey to let it go, then there is your case."

"So he knew Flynn had lied, and now he’s admitted it..." Miller later told Business Insider. "Just unreal."

[wili]

And now Lawrence Tribe:

Laurence Tribe
(@tribelaw)

The time sequence as Trump now reports it CONFESSES that he KNEW Flynn had committed a major federal felony BEFORE firing Comey for refusing to let that criminal (Flynn) escape justice. That’s a confession of deliberate, corrupt obstruction of justice by @POTUS. QED!

CNN, among others, have now picked up the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/trump-tweet-flynn-firing-fbi-reaction/index.html

Walter Shaub, a former director of the United States Office of Government Ethics, responded to Trump's tweet, "...just couldn't resist commenting on Flynn. Are you ADMITTING you knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when you asked Comey to back off Flynn?"

...Steve Vladeck, a CNN legal contributor and professor at the University of Texas Law School, said Trump's tweet "certainly implies that, at the time the President fired then-FBI Director Comey, he knew that Flynn had committed a felony. So the question is whether he fired Comey at least in part to try to protect Flynn from prosecution for a felony of which he was already aware."

Vladeck added: "I can't speak to how the special counsel would view this statement, but it betrays an alarming lack of understanding of the relevant legal rules on the President's part, or of the serious legal jeopardy he could be in for actions he may wrongly believe are appropriate."

[TerryM]

And now Lawrence Tribe:

Laurence Tribe
(@tribelaw)

The time sequence as Trump now reports it CONFESSES that he KNEW Flynn had committed a major federal felony BEFORE firing Comey for refusing to let that criminal (Flynn) escape justice. That’s a confession of deliberate, corrupt obstruction of justice by @POTUS. QED!

CNN, among others, have now picked up the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/02/politics/trump-tweet-flynn-firing-fbi-reaction/index.html

Walter Shaub, a former director of the United States Office of Government Ethics, responded to Trump's tweet, "...just couldn't resist commenting on Flynn. Are you ADMITTING you knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when you asked Comey to back off Flynn?"

...Steve Vladeck, a CNN legal contributor and professor at the University of Texas Law School, said Trump's tweet "certainly implies that, at the time the President fired then-FBI Director Comey, he knew that Flynn had committed a felony. So the question is whether he fired Comey at least in part to try to protect Flynn from prosecution for a felony of which he was already aware."

Vladeck added: "I can't speak to how the special counsel would view this statement, but it betrays an alarming lack of understanding of the relevant legal rules on the President's part, or of the serious legal jeopardy he could be in for actions he may wrongly believe are appropriate."

If everything you inferred was true, it all took place after Trump's election. Well outside the timeframe of Mueller's mandate.


Trump may have done terrible things in the 1990's, or after he became president, but that's none of Mueller's business. Rule of law - and all that.


Terry

[SteveMDFP]

If everything you inferred was true, it all took place after Trump's election. Well outside the timeframe of Mueller's mandate.


Trump may have done terrible things in the 1990's, or after he became president, but that's none of Mueller's business. Rule of law - and all that.


Terry

Not at all.  Mueller's mandate is Russian meddling in the election, and *all criminal matters" that he comes across in the investigation.  That easily includes Trumps RICO-ish behavior from long before the campaign, and matters after his election, even after his inauguration.  See:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

[Sigmetnow]

From Friday: Good review of Flynn’s Russia connections and government jobs, and what it means to the P and VP.

Why did Trump ignore repeated warnings Flynn was compromised?
Rachel Maddow looks at the warnings Donald Trump received about Mike Flynn and the inexplicable way Trump held Flynn in favor even after he left office. Duration: 19:36
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/why-did-trump-ignore-repeated-warnings-that-flynn-was-compromised-1108062275821

Edit:  Part 2
Flynn charge gives insight on Mueller investigation's progress
Paul Fishman, former U.S. attorney, talks with Rachel Maddow about what the Mike Flynn guilty plea tells us about the Robert Mueller investigation, and Sally Yates' warning to the Trump administration that Flynn had been compromised. Duration: 7:46
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/flynn-charge-gives-insight-on-mueller-investigation-s-progress-1108098115581

[Neven]

What's the thing about Flynn colluding with Israel?

[wili]

Neven, the US is used to Israel constantly manipulating our press and elections...so we don't really care about that! 

Meanwhile:

Top Trump transition official in private email: Russia 'has just thrown' the election to Trump

http://www.businessinsider.com/emails-kt-mcfarland-russia-thrown-election-to-trump-flynn-2017-12

[Sigmetnow]

What's the thing about Flynn colluding with Israel?

Michael Flynn lied about bid to stop anti-Israel resolution at UN

According to the charge sheet, Flynn in a Jan. 24 interview with FBI agents denied that on Dec. 29, he asked Kislyak for reassurances that Russia would not retaliate for sanctions that Obama had just imposed for Russian interference in the U.S. elections. Also, on Dec. 22, he allegedly asked Kislyak to use Russia’s Security Council status to delay a vote on a resolution that would condemn Israel for its settlement activity.

https://www.jta.org/2017/12/01/news-opinion/politics/michael-flynn-lied-about-bid-to-stop-anti-israel-resolution-at-un

[TerryM]

Not at all.  Mueller's mandate is Russian meddling in the election, and *all criminal matters" that he comes across in the investigation.  That easily includes Trumps RICO-ish behavior from long before the campaign, and matters after his election, even after his inauguration.  See:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Wow!
That is amazingly broad!


I'd certainly never survive such an open ended investigation.


Terry

[TerryM]

If the outgoing Obama administration was "OK" with Flynn's contacting Russian officials at the time it was happening, then is Obama a co-conspirator, or is Mueller barking at ghosts?


https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/936962187846934528/video/1


Apparently James Clapper told CNN that this never happened, but lying to the media, even lying to the President and Vice President is OK. Just don't lie to the FBI.
Is this the way most police states democracies work?


Terry

[Sigmetnow]

Obama fired Flynn from the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, and personally and specifically advised Trump not to hire him.

Obama Warned Trump Against Hiring Mike Flynn, Say Officials
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-warned-trump-against-hiring-mike-flynn-say-officials-n756316

[SteveMDFP]

If the outgoing Obama administration was "OK" with Flynn's contacting Russian officials at the time it was happening, then is Obama a co-conspirator, or is Mueller barking at ghosts?


https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/936962187846934528/video/1


Apparently James Clapper told CNN that this never happened, but lying to the media, even lying to the President and Vice President is OK. Just don't lie to the FBI.
Is this the way most police states democracies work?


Terry

Of course there's nothing wrong with an incoming administration having contacts with any foreign power.  But if there's nothing underhanded in the exchanges, there's no reason to lie about it all.

The Trump campaign and Trump administration officials repeatedly lied under oath, saying they'd had no contacts.  The only apparent reason to lie was that there'd been an ongoing conspiracy with the Russians.  Nothing else fits with the data at hand.

[Rob Dekker]

The Trump campaign and Trump administration officials repeatedly lied under oath, saying they'd had no contacts.  The only apparent reason to lie was that there'd been an ongoing conspiracy with the Russians.  Nothing else fits with the data at hand.

It sure looks like that.

However, even if there was an ongoing conspiracy, Flynn did not have to lie to the FBI about the specific two interactions with Kislyak that he pled guilty to. He could have told the truth there, without touching on any wider conspiracy. Same thing with Papadopulous lies. That was not necessary either.

There must be a LOT more that we don't know yet...

[jai mitchell]

They can't wait to get rid of Trump so that they can make Pence the Prez. 

[Rob Dekker]

Here is a the Hill article that addresses two questions that are puzzling :

- Why did Flynn lie to the FBI, and
- Why did Mueller charge Flynn with lying.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/362948-why-did-flynn-lie-and-why-did-mueller-charge-him-with-lying

On the first question, they don't get much further than we did here, with the Logan act, and that that is not a good reason for Flynn to lie to the FBI.
So we still don't know, and the plausible reason is that there is/was a much bigger conspiracy going on between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or some sort of unwritten rule within the Trump campaign and transition team that you should deny everything that has to do with Russia.

On the second question, the Hill notes correctly that if you want a witness to testify for you, that you should not charge them with lying. After all, if they lied once, they can lie again, and thus you can't use them as 'credible' in a trial. The Hill concludes that this exposes a weakness in the Mueller strategy that they didn't charge him with something like "conspiracy", and they suggest that Mueller doesn't have enough evidence. The Hill does not explain what a charge against "conspiracy" would actually look like in legal terms.

So I don't think it is a weakness. I think that Mueller is not going to rely on 'witness' statements that much any way at this stage in the investigation. And especially not with Flynn, who resigned because he lied to the VP. Mueller is just using hard evidence at this point. Emails, recorded phone conversations, documents, wiretaps etc. Flynn was under FBI investigation for a long time, so they probably taped every one of his phone calls. That's how he got Flynn to admit that his conversation with the Russian ambassador was about sanctions any way. The FBI doesn't kid around.

Mueller will take this one small step at a time. I think it will take a while until he uncovers the truth and the whole truth of what happened during and after the Trump campaign and their relationship with Russia.

[Alexander555]

What kind of stupid discussion is this anyway. You have at least 3000 big us companies that do business in Russia. They all use their political connections in their favour. The question should be, do you want ties between business and politics. Because now you have the situation, it's ok for this and this people. And it's not ok if it's for him and him. Rotting the entire system.

[Buddy]

We still have a long way to go.  If you haven't yet watched "All The Presidents Men:  Revisited"....you need to.  You can watch it on YouTube.

1). The depth and breadth of Donnie's money laundering has not yet "outed"...yet
2). The breadth of who was involved...is going to continue with many, many politicians...both current and prior (right Rudi and Jason Chaffetz and a long list of others).
3). Donnie's Gallup poll numbers have now equaled his all time lows...33/62.  They will likely bottom somewhere in the 24 - 28 range.  This isn't Watergate.  As I noted 10 months ago...this is multiple times worse.
4). The RNC is involved...Mueller will flush that out.
5). And yes...as exFOX talking head KT McCarland said...Russia threw the election.

You need to frame this in your mind as Watergate x 5....

If you get the chance...you need to watch a little FOX News.  I suggest Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, or Jeanine Pirro if you want to see what bald faced lying looks like.  And you will also understand why President Obama said...."if I watched FOX News, I wouldn't vote for me either."

It (FOX) is truly deceitful....but you actually have to watch it to see how awful and dangerous they are.  Combined with a lot of corrupt Republican help...you get a rotten tax bill.  Whether it is global warming or RussiaGate....they will lie about anything that suits the Republican Party.  And FOX understands that Trumps future is tied to the polls.

RussiaGate continues...

[Neven]

I have a question for those of you watching US mainstream media (CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc): How does coverage of the Flynn plea compare to something like the GOP tax reform bill? Or something like net neutrality?

[SteveMDFP]

The Trump campaign and Trump administration officials repeatedly lied under oath, saying they'd had no contacts.  The only apparent reason to lie was that there'd been an ongoing conspiracy with the Russians.  Nothing else fits with the data at hand.

It sure looks like that.

However, even if there was an ongoing conspiracy, Flynn did not have to lie to the FBI about the specific two interactions with Kislyak that he pled guilty to. He could have told the truth there, without touching on any wider conspiracy. Same thing with Papadopulous lies. That was not necessary either.

There must be a LOT more that we don't know yet...

As soon as he was asked by the FBI, Flynn was sunk. If he'd said "yes, I spoke to Kislyak during the transition", the follow-up questions would be things he'd have to lie about.  "When was your first conversation?" etc.  His wisest choice would have been to say nothing.  His second-wisest choice (which he did) was to deny everything. 
That's exactly what everyone else did about contacts with Russia.  Seems coordinated like a conspiracy to me.

[Buddy]

The coverage on the tax bill has been heavy.  Especially on MSNBC , CNN, and FOX:
 
MSNBC & CNN do a pretty good job of getting people from BOTH sides of the issue...with MSNBC having more people against the tax bill...while still getting Republicans on who tout the bill as being good for the middle class...which of course is pushed back against by its journalists.  The coverage of RussiaGate is heaviest of the three topics especially on MSNBC and CNN.

On FOX....it is presented as a great deal for middle income earners:  Stuart Varney and Lou Dobbs and others have no problem in ignoring things like the facts.  Stuart Varney had a guy on a couple weeks ago that is part of a group of millionaires who are AGAINST the tax cut for the wealthy.  The guy OWNED Stuart Varney so that is likely the last time Stuart has him on.

Net neutrality hasn't been covered as the other two issues.  I haven't seen ANY coverage of it on FOX...but I only watch 45 - 60 minutes of FOX a week.  Of course Rachael covered it..but not nearly as much as RussiaGate or Tax Bill.

Any of you....even in Europe..... I encourage you to watch FOX.  It is truly amazing...

[wili]

Tax reform is front and center at WaPo, NYT and other major newspapers and blogs that I follow. Flynn is there but not as prominently. Too bad that these have obscured the coverage of net neutrality a bit, but it's still up there.

(Sorry, I don't follow tv news much)

[Buddy]

If you want a good laugh....or a god cry... watch a FOX video clip of Maria Barteromo on Sunday morning.  I’m watching it/listening to it as I text.  It’s called “Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Barteromo.”

She is a hack just like Lou Dobbs....Stuart Varney...Sean Hannity, etc.  Her coverage is incredible...

Those of you in Europe NEED to watch FOX.  Then... you will understand why some people support Trump.  It’s probably like watching Russian TV.

[Alexander555]

Did they cover the government shutdown in 3 days ? Looks like there will be no deal. The democrats want higher taxes, more immigration, and a soft approach towards criminals. I don't see how Trump can make a deal on that.

[pileus]

The media coverage question is of course a prelude to a scolding about how Americans are so easily distracted and focus on the latest tantalizing bit of news, whilst the oligarchy runs wild and unchecked.

I don’t consume any TV, but print and online sources are covering Flynn and tax legislation heavily. Net neutrality is more of a niche issue that has faded out of headlines, even though it has signicant implications.

Much like the media’s failure to probe the emerging Russia story and Trump’s policy platforms during the 2016 election (emails!), some mainstream media is behind the curve in coverage of the implications of the tax bill on the American economy and within society if it passes both chambers.  They are focused mainly on the process right now.  While it won’t undo the legislation, the media will likely deep dive and analyze the tax changes in the coming months, which should boost Democratic odds in the 2018 elections.

[Buddy]

So....Maria spends almost zero time covering RussiaGate EXCEPT for 5 minutes to rail about the agent that Bob Mueller moved OFF of the investigation because of a pro Hillary or anti Trump post(s) by that agent.  No mention of "that was the right thing to do"...no mention of Mueller is a Republican.  Why say those things when she is a mouthpiece for the Republicans.

Instead....she is spending most of her time promoting the tax bill.  She has Arthur Laffer on (probably one of Rubbles Heifestos' heroes)....the originator of the "Laffer Curve" which is the promotion of lowering the tax rates.  In fact...REASONABLE lowering of tax rates is NOT a bad thing...but good ole Arthur wants rates lowered, especially of those in upper income brackets.  Look and see what his policies did to the DEFICITS in Kansas.  Laffer is a supply sider to the extreme.  Instead of promoting reasonably lower rates on middle and lower rates on middle and lower income families which would create more DEMAND and thus increase hiring....Arthur wants lower rates on upper income individuals and corporate rates....which will increase corporate buy backs of stock, increase dividends, and increase pay for senior management.

This ONCE AGAIN gets around to my point that the US needs to move towards a "maximimum multiple" for pay within a company...so that WHEN cash does become available it is shared among ALL of the employees...not JUST senior management.

Also....when unemployment is running at low raetes...what is considered "full employment" in the US is NOT the time to do a tax decrease of any type.  Especially when that tax cut favors the wealthy...and an INCREASE in the wealth disparity by doing away with the estate tax AND the excessive lowering of corporate rates.

[Susan Anderson]

Neven, re US MSM, I'm erratic about watching, but I'd say maximum coverage goes to things like Prince Harry's engagement and there's a lot about the latest sexual predator (proven or not*) and the latest cute animal story, along with sports. In other words, the trivial gets equal time, and the total news is minimal.

There has been huge success in painting the honest part of the press as liars and lies as the "real" truth. They've gotten really good at it. We saw the birth of this effort in denial over the last decades, but they've honed it.

There is a deep divide, in that much of the country doesn't watch anything to the left of Fox, which doesn't present reality at all. Maria Bartiromo (note spelling) is part of that side of things.

re network: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and public television, and some entertainment spinoffs, are available without a subscription. MSNBC and CNN are cable and require a cable subscription. Sports is also mostly covered by subscription.

*Note: I'm all for women getting a voice, but it is being used to distract and Republicans are very good at treating relatively small misdeeds as important while ignoring the beam in their own eye.

[Neven]

Thanks for all your impressions of mainstream media coverage. I'm glad to hear the tax reform corruption gets at least as much coverage as Russiagate.