More Mueller news: Whitaker, Treason, and Farage.

[Solauren]

Unforatunately, from my understanding, it still hasn't been broven that Wikileaks is funded by a foreign power.

[The Romulan Republic]

Unforatunately, from my understanding, it still hasn't been broven that Wikileaks is funded by a foreign power.

To my knowledge, no. They're allegedly working with Russian intelligence, and pretty clearly aligned with Russian interests in 2016, but it would be a thorny case to try to prove, and could easily be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an attack on freedom of the press. So I think its likely the Mueller decided not to go their when he had plenty of other charges he could throw at Stone.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

eagle109, I salute you. We've got some fun today boys and girls!

Law firm that represented Russian interests part of mystery Mueller subpoena case - CNN, January 9, 2019, 1:23 PM EST

One law firm involved in a foreign government-owned company's challenge of a mysterious grand jury subpoena related to the Robert Mueller investigation is Alston & Bird, CNN has learned, a firm that has previously represented Russian interests, including working for a Russian oligarch and a contractor of the Russian government.



...



Typically, large law firms like Alston & Bird represent masses of clients among their hundreds of partners. Only when a client allows it may a firm publicly acknowledge whom they represent. The Washington Post reported Tuesday night that the company is a foreign financial institution, citing two sources familiar with the case.



...



Alston & Bird's history of working for Russians dates back to the early 2000s.

The Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a business contact of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort whom Mueller's team has sought information about, paid Alston & Bird $300,000 upfront in 2003 to help him reinstate his US visa, according to public lobbying disclosure filings. Over the next few years, Deripaska paid the firm another $270,000 for their work, the filings say. Around that time, Deripaska gave Manafort a $10 million loan, which the FBI cited in a 2017 search warrant on Manafort.

We Now Know The Law Firm Representing The Mystery Foreign-Owned Company That Is Fighting A Grand Jury Subpoena - BuzzFeed News, January 30, 2019, 4:20 PM EST

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is seeking to intervene at the Supreme Court to have the filings in the dispute — which has received significant attention due to its reported connection to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — unsealed.



A lawyer for the committee, Gibson Dunn partner Theodore Boutrous Jr., told BuzzFeed News that Alston & Bird partner Brian Boone is representing the foreign country–owned company at the Supreme Court. The company has resisted a subpoena for information sought by a grand jury in DC and faces a contempt order as a result of its refusal to comply that would include daily accrual of fines.



...



In a brief filed by lawyers for the committee Monday, however, the committee stated that “the government has revealed Petitioner’s counsel’s name (and law firm) to counsel for the Reporters Committee.” The information was revealed to the committee’s lawyers when the government “cc’d Petitioner’s attorney” on its response to the committee’s motion to intervene at the Supreme Court. “Rather than objecting to this revelation, Petitioner’s counsel responded to the full email group and acknowledged receipt,” the committee’s lawyers detailed in Monday’s filing.



After being asked about the filing Monday, Boutrous provided a statement to BuzzFeed News on Wednesday, detailing those circumstances and noting, “Petitioner’s counsel did not object to the government’s disclosure originally, and neither party has suggested to us in their emails or otherwise that we need to keep counsel’s identity a secret. Nor has any party responded, let alone objected, to what we said in our brief, confirming that we know the name of Petitioner’s counsel. After we filed our reply brief in the Supreme Court, we served the brief on both parties, and neither party said anything about keeping counsel’s name confidential. In fact, Petitioner’s counsel even responded to us, confirming receipt of our papers.

Scott Stedman had posited that with the firm's name now revealed it had to be either Vnesheconombank (VEB) or Qatar Investment Authority (QIA):

Mystery company fighting Mueller subpoena: -Wholly owned by a foriegn government (court docs) -Has business in the US (court docs) -Financial institution (per WaPo) -Represented by Alston & Bird (per BuzzFeed and CNN) - 4:33 PM EST 30 Jan 2019



So let's put this together: A financial institution owned fully by a foreign government, with biz in the US, rep'd by Alston & Bird. - 4:34 PM EST 30 Jan 2019



Alston & Bird represented the Russia govenment as recently as 2014. - 4:35 PM EST 30 Jan 2019



It is NOT:

-Alfa Bank

-VTB

-Sberbank

-Deutsche Bank

-Bank of Cyprus

-Gazprom

-Rosneft



4:38 PM EST 30 Jan 2019



This leaves two clear frontrunners:



-Vnesheconombank (VEB) - CEO met with Kushner during transition

-Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) - Official met with Cohen during transition



4:48 PM EST 30 Jan 2019

And a long Twitter thread by Mueller, She Wrote on who from Team Mueller are involved that further breaks things down logically on why Qatar seems the likely defendant, which makes the most damn plausible sense:

THREAD

1/ NEW: It has now been confirmed that attorneys from Mueller‘s office are involved in the super-secret subpoena battle involving a state-owned company from Country A. A new unsealed court filing shows Meisler and Ahmad are handling the case. This is big! - 12:42 AM EST 2 Feb 2019



2/ I have long thought that the company is the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA). It meets all the clues we have so far: it has a US office, it does substantial business in the US, it’s state owned, and foreign. My first clue was that Ahmad was working on the case... - 12:42 AM EST 2 Feb 2019



3/ She speaks Arabic and she worked on the Flynn case. A head of QIA, Al-Rumaihi met with Flynn Jr. and Cohen in trump tower in 12/16, and we have photo evidence of that. Al-Rumaihi bragged a year later that he had bribed the Trump administration in a deposition... - 12:42 AM EST 2 Feb 2019



4/ You see, Al-Rumaihi was being sued by Ice Cube’s company for $1.2B for failing to fund a new basketball league, and in a court filing, Ice Cube’s partner said Al-Rumaihi asked him to tell Bannon that QIA would fund Breitbart since the Mercers dumped him. - 12:42 AM EST 2 Feb 2019



5/ When Ice Cube’s partner refused, Al-Rumaihi said “Everyone does it! Do you think Flynn turned down our money?” Anyhow, the Steele dossier says there was a plan to sell 19% of Rosneft to generate a commission for Trump to lift Obama’s sanctions. Dec 1 2016, Kush and Flynn ... - 12:42 AM EST 1 Feb 2019



6/ Tried to set up a backchannel to Russia. Then six days later, QIA and GLENCORE buy 19% of Rosneft. 5 days later, Al-Rumaihi meets with Cohen and Flynn at Trump tower. AND GET THIS SHIT: it was confirmed this week that the firm representing the company from country A is... - 12:43 AM EST 2 Feb 2019



7/ Alston & Bird, and while it’s true they have represented many Russians in the past, I found out they also represented GLENCORE in the past: Glencore is a Swiss morning company that managed the sale of Rosneft to Qatar. The owner of Rosneft was Sechin, who Carter Page is said - 12:43 AM EST 2 Feb 2019



8/ to have met with during one of his Moscow trips. BUT HERES THE NEW THING!! The other Mueller lawyer on this case is Meisler, and he’s the guy who worked on Manafort’s case. Manafort was pitched to the Trump campaign by Tom Barrack. AND GET THIS... - 12:43 AM EST 2 Feb 2019



9/ Barrack is being investigated for his fishy deals with QIA. Shortly before the election, Barrack called for a “radical historic shift in the US outreach to the Arab world” and the “brilliant young leaders in UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.” And IF COURSE - 12:43 AM EST 1 Feb 2019



10/ we know how much money Qatar has given to Kush, bailing him out of the Albatross known as 666 5th Ave, where - incidentally - Manafort met with Kilimnik to give his private briefings used to pay his debt to Oleg Deripaska who just had his sanctions lifted by the GOP. - 12:43 AM EST 1 Feb 2019



11/ So for all those reasons, I’m sticking with QATAR INVESTMENT AUTHORITY (“QIA”) Which is what I think is hidden under that redaction in this week’s court filing. END






12:43 AM EST 2 Feb 2019





PS: I could be TOTALLY WRONG. This is all complete speculation based on a handful of facts. AKA Super Space Beans. I know nothing. But I love guessing <3 - 12:51 PM EST 1 Feb 2019





Here’s screenshots of the docs I found linking Alston & Bird to Glencore.









1:01 AM EST 2 Feb 2019

And to further clarify, southpaw asked if the US office of Qatar Investment Authority was the one located on 57th Street in Manhattan:

Is the US office you’re referring to the QIA (Advisory) location on 57th street in Manhattan?



12:46 AM EST 2 Feb 2019

All of this is incredibly particular, and only shows that we're only going deeper into this rabbit hole.

____________________

More than likely tangential to the Russia probe since it's from SDNY's public corruption section, but too good to pass up a "stick several pins in these" as part of the bigger picture. In a nutshell, the Trump Inagural Committee might get hit with major potential financial crimes.



New York prosecutors seek records from Trump inauguration committee: Sources - ABC News, February 4, 2019, 5:58 PM EST, updated 11:52 PM EST

"This is why I've been saying for months that the Southern District of New York investigation presents a much more serious threat to the administration, potentially, than what Bob Mueller is doing," said former federal prosecutor and ABC News contributor Gov. Chris Christie.



...



The subpoena also seeks information about the inaugural committee and its dealings with a California-based money manager named Imaad Zuberi and his company, Avenue Ventures. The subpoena does not specify the reasons why investigators are seeking documents relating to Zuberi, nor does it necessarily mean Zuberi is a subject of any investigation. He is the only person referenced by name in the document.



Zuberi has been a prolific political donor, largely to Democrats, including President Barack Obama and Trump's 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. After the election, Avenue Ventures donated $900,000 to Trump's inaugural committee, according to FEC records.

Trump Inaugural Committee Is Subpoenaed for Documents - Wall Street Journal, February 4, 2019, 7:09 PM EST, updated 10:33 PM EST (paywall)

The subpoena escalates the inquiry into the Trump inaugural committee, which involved several of the president’s biggest campaign backers, and is one of several investigations into Mr. Trump’s associates. Special counsel Robert Mueller is separately investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election, which the president and Moscow have denied, and Manhattan federal prosecutors are probing the Trump Organization, the president’s family business.



The Wall Street Journal reported in December that federal prosecutors in New York were in the early stages of a criminal investigation into the committee, which raised a record $107 million.



The investigation, which is being led by the public corruption unit of the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, grew out of the office’s probe into former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s business dealings, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Cohen has since pleaded guilty to eight charges brought by New York prosecutors and has been sentenced to three years in prison.



...



The Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office investigation partly arose out of materials seized in the April raids of Mr. Cohen’s home, office and hotel room, in which Federal Bureau of Investigation agents obtained a recorded conversation between Mr. Cohen and Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former adviser to Melania Trump who worked on the inaugural events. In the recording, Ms. Wolkoff—an adviser to the inaugural whose firm was the top-paid vendor—expressed concern about how the inaugural committee was spending money, according to a person familiar with the Cohen investigation.

Trump Inaugural Committee Ordered to Hand Over Documents to Federal Investigators - New York Times, February 4, 2019, 7:34 PM EST; updated February 5, 2019, 12:03 AM EST

Another entity that the subpoena seeks documents on is Stripe, which created technology to help process credit card transactions. According to published reports, the company counts Josh Kushner, the brother of Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, among its investors. Josh Kushner is not named in the subpoena, and a spokesman for him declined to comment.



A spokesman for the inaugural committee said it was still reviewing the subpoena and intended to cooperate with the investigation. A spokesman for the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan declined to comment. ABC first reported that a subpoena was in the works.



Prosecutors have pursued the possibility that the inaugural committee made false statements to the Federal Election Commission, according to people familiar with the matter. It can be a crime to knowingly make false or fraudulent statements to a federal agency.

Federal prosecutors issue sweeping subpoena for documents from Trump inaugural committee, a sign of a deepening criminal probe - Washington Post, February 4, 2019, 9:32 PM EST, updated 10:5 PM EST

Only U.S. citizens and legal residents can legally donate to a committee established to finance presidential inaugural festivities.



...



The subpoena — issued by the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York — indicates that prosecutors are investigating crimes related to conspiracy to defraud the United States, mail fraud, false statements, wire fraud and money laundering.



...



Much of the committee’s fundraising and operation was headed by Rick Gates, a former senior Trump campaign official who served as a deputy chairman of the inaugural committee and is cooperating with prosecutors as part of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation.



...



On his Facebook page, Zuberi indicated that he visited Trump Tower in New York in December 2016 as the president-elect prepared to take office, writing that he was with incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn.



That was the same day that a delegation from Qatar, including the county’s foreign minister, visited Trump Tower and met with Flynn and campaign chief executive Stephen K. Bannon.

Federal prosecutors subpoena Trump inaugural records - NBC News, February 4, 2019, 11:55 PM EST

"We have just received a subpoena for documents," the committee representative told NBC News. "While we are still reviewing the subpoena, it is our intention to cooperate with the inquiry."



...



The Wall Street Journal, which said it had reviewed a copy, reported that the subpoena doesn't mention Tom Barrack Jr., the head of the committee. Barrack, a prominent real estate developer and longtime friend of the president's, was interviewed by investigators from the office of special counsel Robert Mueller as part of Mueller's investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.



...



Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told MSNBC in December that the House Intelligence Committee, of which he is the chairman, will also examine possible illegal foreign funding of the inauguration.

Time to quote a certain african american fictional investigator:

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Democrats in the House are preparing to vote on whether or not to send the transcripts of explosive testimonies from Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner to special prosecutor Robert Mueller, a vote that is more procedural than anything since Democrats control the Chamber. This could put Kushner and little Trump in a lot of trouble and open up a whole new avenue for Mueller’s investigation.

Either this is going to be helpful and benefitical to the Mueller investigation or it'll come out several months later that Mueller knew everything...

[The Romulan Republic]

Definitely some significant developments. FYI, I increasingly suspect that the next major indictment is going to be Don Jr., for lying to the FBI/lying to Congress, and possibly campaign finance violations. At which point there's a fair chance Trump either a) goes ballistic and tries to fire Mueller, in which case we enter endgame, or b) Trump throws him under the bus as quickly as possible.

And yeah, the Inauguration is a whole other cluster fuck of likely corruption.

[Vympel]

You understand that this is an ONGOING INVESTIGATION and that more charges are likely forthcoming that what we've seen so far? It seems like every single time Mueller has indicted anyone, we've seen Republicans and their allies come out and gleefully crow about how is this all there is, and how incompetent/corrupt it proves Mueller is, completely ignoring the fact that the investigation isn't finished yet. Then a few weeks or months later something more damning comes out, and again its treated like its the sum of the entire investigation, and we do this same dishonest song and dance all over again. And its all so pointless, because we all know that even if Mueller's final report calls for indicting the entire Trump family, cabinet, and the RNC for treason and backs it up with iron-clad evidence, you'll still say its "Fake News" created by the evil American imperialists.

Are you suggesting that Mueller is going to indict Stone again on something else later? Because if so, that's not how any of this works.

Let's recall where this tangent started. Not a single, solitary Trump associate has been charged with anything remotely close to something resembling 'collusion' with Russia.

Also, are you saying that the allegations regarding Stone's involvement with Russia are a lie fabricated by Mueller? Because if so, I'd like you to provide some evidence for that claim. Or are you saying that you think they're valid, and that Stone should be charged for them? Because in that case, I'd actually be inclined to agree with you. But I don't think that's what you meant. Or are you just repeating Dickless's talking points and shilling for Putin? Again.

Once more implying your opponents are traitors? Really? But to your actual question, Mueller as a matter of fact simply doesn't charge Stone with anything regarding Stone's supposed 'involvement with Russia', because he can't prove any of it. That's just a statement of objective fact.

Personally, I think that part of the reason Stone wasn't charged for conspiring with Russia is because he was dealing (at least from what we've seen so far) mainly with Wikileaks, not with Russia directly, and Mueller probably doesn't want to get bogged down in the fight over whether Wikileaks is a hostile foreign intelligence organization or a journalistic organization with free speech rights. I can see why Mueller wouldn't want that fight when he can go with other charges that will be less controversial.

Can someone explain to me how Russiagate squares the circle of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia but they need some clown called Roger Stone to get stuff from supposed Russian agent wikileaks?

Mind you, Wikileaks coordinating with the Trump campaign is still all kinds of illegal, as it violates campaign finance laws prohibiting a foreign organization from providing support to a US candidate (them reporting favorably on Trump, or negatively on his opponents, would not be illegal, but actively coordinating with his campaign to release stories that will benefit them would be, as I understand it).

That's a completely untested legal theory specifically made up for this ongoing farce. It's not a real thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not aware of any law that prevents Stone from ever being indicted on any other charge later. But I am sure you know what's going on inside Mueller's head, what his motives are and what information he is privy to.

Also, no, the idea that foreign organizations are not allowed to contribute to a campaign. Its not "untested legal theory" and it was not "made up" as part of your imagined Deep State plot to frame Trump and Russia. Its called campaign finance law. You are either demonstrating gross ignorance of the law, or flagrantly lying.

And I don't call people traitors because they disagree with me. That's just more of your usual strawmanning. But I do think its fair to characterize aerius's views (and your's, for that matter) as apologism for Putin, whatever your motivations may be.

[aerius]

Also, no, the idea that foreign organizations are not allowed to contribute to a campaign. Its not "untested legal theory" and it was not "made up" as part of your imagined Deep State plot to frame Trump and Russia. Its called campaign finance law. You are either demonstrating gross ignorance of the law, or flagrantly lying.

As the kids today would say, "lol". It's like you don't even know how campaign finance laws work.

US election finance laws are filled with so many giant gaping loopholes that they might as well not exist. They work about as well as tax codes for corporations and rich people where a billionaire like Warren Buffet can pay less taxes than than his secretary.

All you need to do is establish a shell company and launder the money through a Super PAC, Trade Association, 501c, or other political organization. Or if a foreign company has a US subsidiary it won't even have to do that, it can contribute directly through the subsidiary. There's so many ways around the laws that it's not even funny, it's all legal as long as you put in a token effort to launder the contributions.

Educate yourself, kiddo. I'll even help get you started.
https://endcitizensunited.org/foreign-m ... elections/
https://maplight.org/story/foreign-lobb ... elections/
https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/statutes/

[Jub]

I know it has been asked before but TRR what, if anything, do you feel will come of these charges?

Do you think that we'll see long sentences and sweeping changes? Do you think Trump will be pushed out of office? Do you think campaign finance laws (and election laws in general) will change for the better?

This Mueller thing is good and all but you seem to think it's going to shake the US to its core and I'm just not seeing it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I know it has been asked before but TRR what, if anything, do you feel will come of these charges?

Do you think that we'll see long sentences and sweeping changes?

For some individuals, certainly. Cohen's got three years already, and Paul Manafort will probably die in prison.

Sweeping changes? No. But I think that we will see sweeping changes if this all gets swept under the rug, in the wrong direction. It will confirm that the President (and his friends) are above the law. It will further erode trust and confidence in democracy and the rule of law. It will further diminish America's reputation and credibility. And it will encourage the next Trump to push even further.

One of the worst mistakes America ever made was pardoning Richard Nixon.

Do you think Trump will be pushed out of office?

If you mean impeachment/indictment, that depends on how much he keeps pissing off Senate Republicans and just how bad the conclusion of the Mueller investigation is for him.

It will certainly continue to be a millstone around his neck in 2020.

Do you think campaign finance laws (and election laws in general) will change for the better?

Too soon to say. I think there will be people fighting for that who will use whatever Mueller turns up to bolster their case.

But why does the threshold have to be "achieves a sweeping social/political revolution" to justify trying to uphold the law?

This Mueller thing is good and all but you seem to think it's going to shake the US to its core and I'm just not seeing it.

I think that it has already tied down Trump, absorbed much of his time, eroded his approval ratings, and will continue to do so. Whether it does more than that remains to be seen.

But ultimately, that's not the point. Mueller's job is not to end the Trump Presidency (even though Trumpers think that's what it is, and even though that may well be the practical result). His job is to investigate whether or not crimes were committed, either involving Russia during the campaign/transition, or during the subsequent efforts to sweep it all under the rug. And that investigation HAD to happen. Can you imagine what it would have done to the credibility of the US government, and the rule of law, if Trump had fired Comey, boasted to Russian officials in the White House that he did it over the Russia investigation, and NOTHING HAD HAPPENED? The mere fact that a significant percentage of the country believed the President to be a traitor or at the very least committing obstruction of justice (a charge which I maintain is warranted based on publicly available evidence), warranted an investigation, if only to assure them that it wasn't being swept under the rug.

[The Romulan Republic]

Basically, I think this investigation, and the other investigations of Trump, are a test of America's character- are we a country where the rule of law has any meaning at all, where there are any meaningful legal constraints on Presidential power, even in theory/on paper? That's what's at stake here.

[LaCroix]

This Mueller thing is good and all but you seem to think it's going to shake the US to its core and I'm just not seeing it.

To be honest, all this has already lead to sweeping changes and shakeups.

You have a huge influx of young people into politics.
Old "it was also done this way" standards in politics are shaken up by them not sitting down and wait for their turn.

People are starting to realize that promoting universal healthcare is a viable position.
Latest polls show that 60-70% of the people (polls done by VOX of all places, so actual number might just as well be even higher) are in favor to changes to the tax code to tax the "super rich" - depending on at how many millions of income (1-10) the income line is drawn.
Politicians openly define themselves as socialist, and people are fine with it, no matter how often the Republicans retch when hearing the word.

There are proposals to change laws to make sure a shutdown does not stop the payment of governmental workers.

These changes, proposals, and the direction they are leading towards are drowned out by the desperate fight of the Republicans to stem the tide and roll the small wins (so far) back, but remember - the Inquisition and Witch trials did not happen in the Dark ages, when the church was in absolute control of society- they happened in the Renaissance, when their control was slipping and they wanted to stop that.

[The Romulan Republic]

True, although the examples you gave mostly have little to do with Mueller.

But yeah, this is all happening because the Republicans are running scared. That whole obsession with stopping immigration (including legal immigration)? Its not just racism (though of course there's a lot of that)- its because they know that the older white male demographic they have tied themselves to is becoming less and less politically dominant, that in another election cycle or two they're going to lose Texas and much of the South and South-West, and that the only reason they are still viable as a national party is because of a system that is rigged (and that they have further rigged) in their favour.

[Jub]

This Mueller thing is good and all but you seem to think it's going to shake the US to its core and I'm just not seeing it.

To be honest, all this has already lead to sweeping changes and shakeups.

You have a huge influx of young people into politics.
Old "it was also done this way" standards in politics are shaken up by them not sitting down and wait for their turn.

People are starting to realize that promoting universal healthcare is a viable position.
Latest polls show that 60-70% of the people (polls done by VOX of all places, so actual number might just as well be even higher) are in favor to changes to the tax code to tax the "super rich" - depending on at how many millions of income (1-10) the income line is drawn.
Politicians openly define themselves as socialist, and people are fine with it, no matter how often the Republicans retch when hearing the word.

There are proposals to change laws to make sure a shutdown does not stop the payment of governmental workers.

These changes, proposals, and the direction they are leading towards are drowned out by the desperate fight of the Republicans to stem the tide and roll the small wins (so far) back, but remember - the Inquisition and Witch trials did not happen in the Dark ages, when the church was in absolute control of society- they happened in the Renaissance, when their control was slipping and they wanted to stop that.

Thank you, this is the kind of thing I wanted to hear when I asked TRR. Even if people would argue that Mueller isn't responsible for this it's the kind of news that we should be bringing up more around here.

[The Romulan Republic]

Almost 9 out of 10 Americans want to see a full public report from Mueller:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... ller-probe

Almost 9 in 10 respondents to a new survey want Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation to end with a full, public report.

A CNN poll released Thursday finds that 87 percent of respondents, including a large majority of both parties, want to see a report at the conclusion of Mueller's investigation into Russia's election interference and the Trump campaign. Only 9 percent oppose a public report.


The number is up slightly from the same CNN poll last year, which showed 84 percent wanting a public report, and includes an increase in the number of Republicans who say they want to see what Mueller's investigation turns up, now up to 80 percent.

Just under half of all respondents, 48 percent, now say that they believe Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election, a figure which includes 87 percent of the Democrats polled. A similar share of the Republicans surveyed, 88 percent, say Trump's campaign did not coordinate with Russia.

The independents in the sample were split on the question: 44 percent believe there was no collusion, while 42 say there was.

A majority — 56 percent to 32 percent — disapprove of the way the president is handling the ongoing investigation, which acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker has said could be nearing its end.

Forty-four percent of respondents approve of the way Mueller is handling his special counsel duties, while 41 percent disapprove and 15 percent have no opinion.

CNN's poll contacted 1,011 adults in the U.S. between Jan. 30 and Feb. 2, and carries a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points.

It seems like practically the only people who don't want it to be public are the Trump administration.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll add that this talk of whether there will or won't be a report, whether Trump and his AG will allow it, is to some extent irrelevant- because if there is no report, what will almost certainly happen is that the House Democrats will subpoena Mueller to come speak in front of the House (hopefully at least partially in public hearings) and report his findings to them in person.

[The Romulan Republic]

Judge rules that Manafort violated his plea deal:

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/13/18222477/ ... ooperation

Evidence suggests that Paul Manafort deliberately lied to special counsel Robert Mueller’s team after he had agreed to cooperate, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

After dueling filings and arguments from prosecutors and the defense over the past few months, Judge Amy Berman Jackson sided with Mueller’s team on three of the five areas in which they’d accused Manafort of lying.

Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign chair, has already been convicted of financial crimes in Virginia and has pleaded guilty to other charges in Washington. He was not charged with new crimes related to these alleged false statements.

But now, Jackson will take these purported lies during cooperation into account when she sentences Manafort for the DC crimes on March 13 — and they may well spur her to give him a tougher sentence.

The wrangling between Mueller’s and Manafort’s teams about the alleged lies provided a fascinating glimpse into the investigation, revealing both deeper Russian ties and more shady financial behavior from Manafort. We learned that Mueller is claiming:

That Manafort shared Trump campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime associate of his who the FBI thinks has “ties to Russian intelligence” (a Mueller prosecutor said this topic goes “very much to the heart of” their larger investigation)
That in 2017 and 2018, Manafort worked with Kilimnik to advance to promote a “Ukraine peace plan” (aimed, it seems, at settling the Russia-Ukraine conflict on terms favorable to Russia)
That $125,000 paid out from a pro-Trump Super PAC to a political media firm during the campaign was later used to help pay Manafort’s legal fees
That Manafort changed his story about a matter another Justice Department office is investigating — one that seems to involve the Trump campaign or administration
Mueller did not, however, use this dispute to give any sort of larger assessment on the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia or the president himself.

How we got here
To recap: Manafort was indicted by Mueller in two venues, Virginia and Washington, DC. He was charged with tax violations, bank fraud, lobbying, and false statements — but he was not charged with any crimes related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Last August, Manafort was convicted at his first trial, in Virginia. Then he struck a plea deal in DC to avert the second trial — and committed to cooperating with the government.

Manafort’s apparent “flip” appeared to be a major turning point in the Mueller investigation. It seemed as if Mueller now had a cooperator who had close ties to both Trump and Russia (the latter because Manafort worked for Ukraine’s pro-Russian political faction for many years).

So from September to November of last year, Manafort was questioned by Mueller’s team a total of 12 times, and also appeared to testify before Mueller’s grand jury twice. He was reportedly asked about a plethora of topics.

But eventually, Mueller’s team concluded that Manafort was repeatedly lying to them — and on November 26, they accused him of breaching his cooperation agreement.

What Mueller and Manafort’s attorneys have been arguing over
Because of the way the plea deal was structured, Manafort’s guilty plea and the related forfeiture of much of his wealth remained in place.

But Manafort’s team did dispute that he had deliberately lied, arguing that there was a combination of memory failures and mix-ups from Manafort and misunderstandings from the special counsel’s team.

Now, the government only had to meet a very low bar to find Manafort in breach of the agreement — basically, they just had to come to the good-faith conclusion that he lied.

However, the judge overseeing Manafort’s case in DC, Amy Berman Jackson, had her own reasons for wanting more details. She said she wanted to assess the government’s evidence about these alleged lies, because she wanted to weigh this as a factor in Manafort’s sentencing. (Meaning she might want to give Manafort a harsher sentence if she was convinced he lied.)

So in a series of partially redacted filings and then at a sealed hearing on February 3, prosecutors and the defense squared off, with Mueller’s team arguing that there was a pattern of deliberate lies from Manafort, and the defense claiming it was all a series of misunderstandings and unintentional misstatements.

An important technical note is that Jackson did not have to find that it was “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Manafort lied, the traditional standard for criminal conviction by a jury. She only had to rule on whether “a preponderance of the evidence” suggested Manafort lied — a lighter standard. The alternative was to rule that Mueller had “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence” that Manafort lied.

Five topics where Mueller accused Manafort of lying
To make the case that Manafort lied during cooperation, Mueller’s team singled out five topics in particular.

None of the topics, so far as we know, directly involve President Donald Trump. In particular, the infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer that Manafort attended is absent from the list. Roger Stone, Manafort’s longtime friend, is also not mentioned. We should not necessarily read too much into these omissions, though — Mueller’s team made clear that the five were not necessarily the only topics Manafort lied about. They are:

1) The $125,000 payment: In 2016, Manafort had helped set up a pro-Trump Super PAC and installed a longtime friend to run it. That Super PAC paid millions to a political ad-buying firm — and that firm then used $125,000 to help pay Manafort’s legal bills in 2017. Manafort then told Mueller’s team three different stories about where that money came from.

What was going on here? Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann offered an “educated guess” during last week’s hearing. Though the details are redacted, he seemed to be suggesting there was a kickback “scheme” of some kind involved, potentially involving Manafort himself. If true, would potentially mean that Manafort was siphoning off money donated to Trump’s Super PAC.

Weissmann said he wasn’t certain of this, but he was certain that Manafort kept lying about the payment. Manafort’s team argued his story didn’t change all that much.

Judge Berman Jackson ruled in Mueller’s favor here.

2) Conspiring with Kilimnik to tamper with witnesses: Last June, Mueller charged Manafort and Kilimnik (the associate with purported ties to Russian intelligence) of conspiring to obstruct justice. He accused the pair of encouraging witnesses to give a false story regarding their work for the former government of Ukraine. And when Manafort struck his plea deal a few months later, he admitted this charge was true.

However, Mueller’s team says that after the deal was struck, Manafort backtracked on this story and told them that Kilimnik did not actually knowingly commit a crime. Here, Weissmann suggests, Manafort “went out of his way” to “not want to provide any evidence that could be used with respect to Mr. Kilimnik.”

After Manafort had a discussion with his lawyers, though, he reverted to the story he told during his plea deal. So the defense claimed this was a misunderstanding that was quickly corrected.

Judge Berman Jackson sided with Manafort’s team here, finding that the special counsel’s office “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence” that Manafort lied on this topic.

3) Manafort’s interactions with Kilimnik from 2016 to 2018: Mueller’s team said that between 2016 and 2018, Manafort had a series of interactions with Kilimnik regarding a supposed “peace plan” for Ukraine, and that Manafort shared Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik in 2016. Many of these details are redacted (and we only know it’s about polling data because of a redaction error by Manafort’s lawyers).

But in a tantalizing statement, Weissmann told the judge that an August 2, 2016, meeting between Manafort and Kilimnik “goes to the larger view of what we think is going on” and “goes to the heart of what the Special Counsel’s Office is investigating.” It’s a meeting of the sitting Trump campaign chair “at an unusual time” with someone the FBI thinks has “a relationship with Russian intelligence,” Weissmann said.

The purpose of the “peace plan,” it seems, would have been to help settle the Russia-Ukraine conflict on terms favorable to Russia, and then allow the lifting of sanctions on Russia.

Initially, Manafort said he only briefly discussed this with Kilimnik, in 2016, but dismissed it as a bad idea. But Weissmann says the evidence was in favor of the idea and continued to work with Kilimnik on it all the way up to early 2018.

Then there’s the sharing of the polling data with Kilimnik, who then shared it elsewhere. Manafort’s motivation here remains unclear — was he currying favor with oligarchs in hopes of future business, or was he sharing data that could inform Russia’s election interference efforts? (Manafort’s team disputed that he shared the data at all and said Rick Gates, a Mueller cooperator, was making this up.)

Judge Berman Jackson ruled in Mueller’s favor here.

4) Another DOJ investigation: Weissmann said Manafort also provided information relevant to a (redacted) investigation carried out by another Justice Department office — but, again, changed his story to get a particular person off the hook. We don’t know what this is about, but references in the hearing transcript suggest it relates to the Trump campaign or administration somehow. Judge Berman Jackson ruled in Mueller’s favor here.

5) Indirect contacts with the Trump administration: Mueller’s team said Manafort claimed never to have been in direct or even indirect contact with any sitting Trump administration official, but that at the very least, there had been some indirect contacts. (Manafort’s team said they were misconstruing some communications.)

Judge Berman Jackson sided with Manafort’s team here, finding that the special counsel’s office “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence” that Manafort lied on this topic.

What does it all mean?
For one, Manafort’s plea deal clearly wasn’t the game-changing Mueller probe development that some hoped for. Prosecutors have made clear they think he was of no real use as a witness, and that they think he was still hiding the truth from them on many topics.

But the back-and-forth has revealed new areas of the investigation. In particular, the accusation that Manafort shared private Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign is arguably the closest Mueller has come to alleging outright collusion.

Still, there are are a variety of potential explanations for what happened there. Manafort could have handed over the data without Trump’s knowledge — or with it. Manafort could have handed it over in hopes of impressing wealthy Ukrainian patrons — or he could have been providing data that would aid the Russian government’s election interference efforts.

As for Manafort’s own future, it’s been widely speculated that he’s hoping for a pardon from President Trump, and Mueller’s team even said in court that this could be a potential motivation for his false statements. Trump has conspicuously declined to rule out such a move.

For now, though, the former Trump campaign manager remains in jail, where he’s resided for eight months. His sentencing in Washington will take place on March 13, and his sentencing in Virginia currently has no scheduled date.

[Vympel]

I'm not aware of any law that prevents Stone from ever being indicted on any other charge later. But I am sure you know what's going on inside Mueller's head, what his motives are and what information he is privy to.

Wow. Of course you're not aware of any law, you just think that for some reason Mueller would prosecute someone piecemeal so you don't have to let go of your fantasy that this clown is some sort of Russian asset absent any evidence whatsoever that he's anything of the kind.

Also, no, the idea that foreign organizations are not allowed to contribute to a campaign. Its not "untested legal theory" and it was not "made up" as part of your imagined Deep State plot to frame Trump and Russia. Its called campaign finance law. You are either demonstrating gross ignorance of the law, or flagrantly lying.

No, you're lying. And obviously so. You're obfuscating the actual legal issue behind purposefully vague language. Campaign finance law is about money, not information. So put your money where your mouth is - you find me a single fucking bit of case law anywhere that says receiving opposition research from a foreign source is a violation of campaign finance law.

You won't find it. It doesn't exist. Because it's a load of bullshit invented by so-called Resistance grifters, and you've fallen for it because you find it ideologically pleasing to do so.

And I don't call people traitors because they disagree with me. That's just more of your usual strawmanning. But I do think its fair to characterize aerius's views (and your's, for that matter) as apologism for Putin, whatever your motivations may be.

That's hilarious. So because I call your cockamamie Trump-Is-A-Manchurian-Candidate insanity bullshit and a scam that takes away vital energy from efforts which can actually combat a poisonous right-wing agenda, I'm an apologist for Putin, irrespective of my actual motive.

You're intellectually identical to the right-wing ghouls who prepared Iraq for a multi-year slaughter for George W Bush. Having trouble on the merits? Just call your opponent a Saddam apologist!

[The Romulan Republic]

Special Council Prosecutors reveal they have records of Stone's communications with Wikileaks and Guciffer 2.0 (for those who might have forgotten/chosen to forget, Guciffer 2.0 was alleged in previous indictments to be a cover for GRU agents interfering in the election):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/politics ... index.html

[The Romulan Republic]

To my knowledge, that now makes at least two high-level members of the Trump campaign alleged, with corroborating evidence, to have been in contact with persons affiliated with Russian intelligence during the campaign (the other being Manafort via Kilimnik).

In which case, either Donald Trump was fucking oblivious to the actions of his own subordinates or, far more likely, he willingly colluded with a hostile foreign intelligence organization to take control of the American government.

[The Romulan Republic]

It gets better: apparently the rancid fucker was coordinating the timing of the email releases with Wikileaks to benefit the Trump campaign.

This is practically everything that we've been alleging from the beginning. All that remains is to demonstrate that Trump was personally aware of it from the get-go (as opposed to merely trying to cover it up after the fact, which is already pretty well substantiated by actions and comments of his in the public record) and its game, set, and match.

[aerius]

I remain unimpressed. All that talk and they still haven't come up with a single indictment for collusion. Wake me up when they actually come up with evidence that can actually be used to charge someone with collusion.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Ladies and gents, bombshells incoming:

Special counsel prosecutors say they have communications of Stone with WikiLeaks (CNN)

Mueller has Roger Stone's communications with both Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0. These were obtained as part of the search warrants used in the DNC hacking indictment. We know now for certain that Guccifer 2.0 was a front for Russian intelligence. If those communications show that Stone knew he was talking to Russian spies rather than a lone Romanian hacker as he claimed, Stone is utterly screwed. He'd be directly implicated in a conspiracy involving a hostile foreign intelligence service.

It goes even further than that. The documents state explicitly that the prosecution of Stone is directly linked to the previous indictment of Russian Intell officers.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... d-Case.pdf

The documents include this phrase, as a header:

This Case and Netyksho Arise from Common Search Warrants

Stone is cooked. They have solid evidence of him being in direct contact with Russian Intel.

I remain unimpressed. All that talk and they still haven't come up with a single indictment for collusion. Wake me up when they actually come up with evidence that can actually be used to charge someone with collusion.

Actually, from what I'm seeing, the only reason that collusion is used is because the only other thing this entire shitstorm is (treason) is a very loaded term in the US judicial system and you'll have to make an airtight case on that.

[Vympel]

I remain unimpressed. All that talk and they still haven't come up with a single indictment for collusion. Wake me up when they actually come up with evidence that can actually be used to charge someone with collusion.

Note nowhere does this endless gish gallop ever bother to square the circle of how 'Trump conspired with the Russians' is at all consistent with using Roger fucking Stone to ask wikileaks what they had, because its fundamentally inconsistent with such a narrative.

Actually, from what I'm seeing, the only reason that collusion is used is because the only other thing this entire shitstorm is (treason) is a very loaded term in the US judicial system and you'll have to make an airtight case on that.

No, 'collusion' itself isn't even a criminal term. The appropriate term is conspiracy to commit a crime.

[The Romulan Republic]

Vymple, that's a preposterous argument and you know it. You take one thing out of context, without providing an exact quote, and claim that because Stone didn't at some point know exactly what Wikileaks had, this proves Trump couldn't have colluded with Russia? This is supposed to be a valid point?

I remain unimpressed. All that talk and they still haven't come up with a single indictment for collusion. Wake me up when they actually come up with evidence that can actually be used to charge someone with collusion.

First off, as you and everyone else who uses this disingenuous line knows perfectly well, no one will ever be indicted on a charge of "collusion". Not because collusion didn't occur, but because US law doesn't use that term. The charges, when and if they come, will be things like "money laundering", violations of campaign finance law, and "conspiracy to defraud the United States" (Treason in my opinion is unlikely, due to how narrowly it is defined in the US Constitution and the high bar for proving it).

Its also entirely possible (as dissatisfying as I and many others would find it, and as damaging as it might be to our republic) that Mueller will continue to focus on going after lesser but easier charges that will still suffice to accomplish the twin goals of putting the guilty parties in jail and pressuring them to flip on the higher-ups. Sometimes you can't easily prove the big charges, or it wouldn't be worth the time and cost and effort when you can get them on a lesser charge, so you get them on a lesser charge. This is not evidence of a "witch hunt", its how law enforcement operates. Its the principle behind plea deals. Or to take a historical example- you know what they finally got Al Capone on? Tax fraud. Pretty much nobody believes that Capone was innocent of murder, bootlegging, etc. But tax fraud was what they could nail him on.

But Mueller (who has a long-standing reputation for being both meticulous and by the book) has at least felt sufficiently confident in his evidence to go on public record (via his indictments) stating that Americans worked with the GRU in their hacking and disinformation campaign, and his team has specifically alleged that Stone was in communication with the GRU and with Wikileaks, that Manafort was in communication with Kilimnik. These guys know how much they're going to be scrutinized. They much know that when this is done, Mueller is likely going to be subpoenaed to testify to the House and Senate justifying his conclusions. I very much doubt that they would go out on this limb if there was nothing to support it. The question is, will the public ever get to see the whole story? I hope so. The one thing in this case that nearly everyone agrees on is that we need a full, public report of Mueller's findings.