Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

bathroommonkey76

(3,827 posts)
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 09:11 PM Dec 2017

(THREAD) BREAKING - The NYT has published a bombshell report on George Papadopoulos



(THREAD) BREAKING: The NYT has published a bombshell report on George Papadopoulos—the biggest Trump-Russia news since Flynn's plea. This thread dissects the new revelations—as well as some major implications for the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. I hope you'll read and share.

1/ First, here's the article. The NYT foregrounds the story's significance as a rebuttal of Trump's claims the Russia investigation began with the Steele Dossier. But in fact, anyone who knows criminal investigations knew long ago Trump's claim was untrue.




2/ As has been discussed by @AshaRangappa_, the Steele Dossier alone would never have been enough to earn the FBI the July 2016 FISA warrant it was granted to monitor Carter Page. So attorneys and those in intelligence long ago knew the Dossier didn't launch the probe by itself.

3/ The NYT story gives us—it appears—an additional piece of the warrant application the FBI filed to get a FISA warrant in July '16. But again, this is merely a piece—as was the Dossier. We know multiple intelligence agencies, not just Australia's, provided the FBI with evidence.

4/ So Trump's claim that the FBI grabbed a dossier of raw intelligence it hadn't yet confirmed and ran to the FISA court to secure a warrant to wiretap Americans connected to the Trump campaign has been laughably false from Day 1. And media has not done enough to underscore that.

5/ What we learn from the NYT (though again it's not—contrary to what the NYT seems to believe from its headline—what makes today's breaking news significant) is that the Australians informed U.S. law enforcement in July 2016 that Papadopoulos had made covert contact with Russia.

6/ In fact, while today's NYT story is indeed this month's second-biggest Trump-Russia revelation—after the December 1 guilty plea by Mike Flynn—what makes it significant isn't that it rebuts Trump's false claims but that it may have *sealed the Trump-Russia collusion narrative*.

7/ If the NYT understood this, it would've led with it. But one must know the *prior* reporting on Papadopoulos to understand why today's news constitutes one of the biggest revelations in the 18-monthy history of the Trump-Russia probe. So I'll *briefly* summarize what we know.

8/ On September 22—40 days before we learned Papadopoulos was cooperating with the Mueller probe—I said that he had directly identified himself to Trump as a Kremlin agent in March 2016. This led to major-media coverage of the now-infamous "TIHDC meeting."




9/ It hadn't previously been discussed that Papadopoulos was at the first meeting of Trump's national security (NatSec) team at the Trump International Hotel in DC (TIHDC) on March 31, 2016. But he was there—a *week* after revealing himself as a Kremlin agent to the NatSec team.

10/ So when (per the NYT) Papadopoulos revealed in May '16 to an Australian diplomat that he knew Russia had committed major federal crimes against the U.S.—via computer theft and fraud—it was two months after he told Trump's NatSec team *and Trump* he was in contact with Russia.

11/ The nature of the contact that Papadopoulos revealed in March 2016 to Trump and his team was that he was a *legal* agent—in the law we'd say "special agent"—of the Kremlin. He was authorized to represent the Kremlin's interests in setting up a clandestine Trump-Putin meeting.

12/ That authority came to Papadopoulos—from Kremlin officials—through another Kremlin agent, Joseph Mifsud. This is why Papadopoulos, per public reporting by WP, identified himself to Trump on March 31, 2017 as a Kremlin "intermediary" designated not by Trump but by the Kremlin.

13/ As has been exhaustively detailed by WaPo (WP), Trump's NatSec team spent *two months*—from March to May of 2016—discussing how to handle Papadopoulos' "offer" of acting as an intermediary between Trump and Putin. They did *not* dismiss the offer in March, whatever some say.

14/ It was in the *middle* of this deliberation by the NatSec team that Papadopoulos, in April 2016, was told the Kremlin had committed federal computer crimes by stealing emails from a presidential candidate. Papadopoulos *knew* his team was then deliberating a Trump-Putin meet.

15/ During this period, Papadopoulos was *personally* hounding top Trump officials—per the WP—to give him more authority and allow him to travel abroad to arrange a Trump-Putin meeting. His April intelligence on the Clinton emails was *without a doubt* a card he would've played.

16/ So while Australian law enforcement knew of the stolen Clinton emails in May 2016, and the FBI knew by July 2016 (via Australia), it's a *lock* that Papadopoulos gave this intel to Trump and his campaign—from whom he wanted present authority *and* a future job—in April 2016.

17/ So when Trump said, in July 2016, "Russia, if you're listening..." let's be clear—he a) knew they were listening, b) knew they'd stolen the emails he was urging them to release, and c)—this is key—had already promised, *via Papadopoulos*, to reward them for being good to him.

18/ This is the first real bombshell from the NYT: we now know Papadopoulos helped write the April 27, 2016 speech in which Trump promised Russia a "good deal" if they'd be his "friend," and that Trump *knew* Papadopoulos would transmit to Russia that that speech was a *message*.

19/ In March 2017, I was the first to argue that Trump's Mayflower Speech was the orchestrated beginning of a negotiation with the Russians—a negotiation about unilaterally dropping Russian sanctions. That thread essentially launched this feed (see link).




20/ The NYT has just confirmed the crux of that March 2017 thread: that Trump had—by April 27, 2016—established sufficient means to send a message to Russia that the careful placement of Kislyak at the event (violating diplomatic protocol) signaled the beginning of a negotiation.

21/ Per the NYT, Papadopoulos was that means. Papadopoulos told Trump he was a Kremlin agent; Trump put Papadopoulos on his campaign's Russia beat (not Papadopoulos' specialization); he let him help with the Mayflower Speech; he knew Papadopoulos would communicate that to Russia

22/ Per the NYT, Papadopoulos working on the Mayflower Speech was a signal to Russia negotiations had begun. So: Papadopoulos tells Russia he's helping with Trump's foreign policy; Russia tells him of the emails; Papadopoulos tells the campaign; Trump offers Russia a "good deal."

More
23/ All of this happens in April 2016, which is why Papadopoulos was feeling pretty damn good about himself in May 2016 when he let slip about the emails to an Australian diplomat.

It also explains why Trump was so frustrated when the Kremlin didn't give Don the emails in June.

24/ Don was excited to meet Kremlin agents in June 2016 to get Clinton "dirt" because Papadopoulos told the campaign in April Russia had that dirt. When Veselnitskaya left only a slim file with Don, the campaign was dissatisfied. They thought Russia would then release the emails.

25/ That didn't happen—other hacked info was released instead—which is why Trump made the appeal himself, on TV, in July 2016.

He'd already promised Russia a "good deal" on sanctions if they'd be a "friend"—he said he'd "reward" friends—but he felt they hadn't delivered enough.

26/ I've been arguing on this feed for over six months now that Trump-Russia collusion is *already known*: Trump negotiated sanctions relief for Russia in exchange for continued assistance with leaks—which constitutes *Aiding and Abetting Computer Crimes*.




27/ In October, I made this case in even greater detail.




28/ There is much, much more to say here about the NYT story and everything we know about Papadopoulos that makes this NYT story *much* bigger than the NYT thinks. But I have to take a break for a couple hours for an important event.

I will return *immediately* after with more.
107 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
(THREAD) BREAKING - The NYT has published a bombshell report on George Papadopoulos (Original Post) bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 OP
Malcolm Nance is right, it's a conspiracy. madaboutharry Dec 2017 #1
I also believe the high-ranking republican elected pols were in on this, too! TheDebbieDee Dec 2017 #2
Yes, exactly. lark Dec 2017 #73
#TrumpRussia 50 tweet MEGA-THREAD by Seth -- history's most explosive intel dossier ..... L. Coyote Dec 2017 #81
Wow, thanks for sharing this excellent synopsis, really pulls the whole picture together. lark Jan 2018 #103
Hearings will happen, meanwhile there is a deference to Mueller's investigation and its integrity. L. Coyote Jan 2018 #104
Lock them up! Lock them up! Lock them up! InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2017 #23
And throw away the key. dchill Dec 2017 #27
I was glad to see that jerkoff Miller implicated dawg day Dec 2017 #76
How long before Mueller delivers? quartz007 Dec 2017 #77
Ooooh! I've got a feeling FakeNoose Dec 2017 #83
Trump is a principal in the conspiracy of Aiding & Abetting Computer Crimes; can be charged with it. NBachers Dec 2017 #3
Paragraph 26 AmericanActivist Dec 2017 #4
They all knew and went along with this treason. BSdetect Dec 2017 #5
It's a flippin' James Bond movie. nolabear Dec 2017 #6
or "All the President's Men" revisited. calimary Dec 2017 #91
True dat. They're thieves, pure and simple. nolabear Dec 2017 #92
I dont want impeachment benld74 Dec 2017 #7
Same here. I want serious retribution. Wwcd Dec 2017 #9
Impeach Neil Gorsuch Thunderbeast Dec 2017 #16
That too! dchill Dec 2017 #28
I looked it up and a member of the Supreme Court can be impeached. If it can be proved Maraya1969 Dec 2017 #33
Sweet.... FarPoint Dec 2017 #65
Yes, and the grounds are simple. tomp Dec 2017 #53
I'm with you on this leanforward Dec 2017 #20
This defacto7 Dec 2017 #24
The end of the GOP would be another alternative / add-on. But I'm with you. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #44
Remove all dump-appointed heads of govt Departments and Agencies. BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2017 #63
All Executive Orders reversed, as well. nt Ilsa Dec 2017 #70
Yes, yes, yes... N_E_1 for Tennis Dec 2017 #71
When Cornyn blocked Obama's Wellstone ruled Dec 2017 #8
coming back tomorrow to read this rurallib Dec 2017 #10
I wish these bloggers, reporter types would come up with some word other than pangaia Dec 2017 #11
why not link to the NYT article instead of giving this guy so much free self promotion? msongs Dec 2017 #12
If you're a news hound, no one can read the NYT unless babylonsister Dec 2017 #14
That's not true babylonsister bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 #59
Why not click on the link that is provided in this thread bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 #15
Start your own thread if you don't like it. phleshdef Dec 2017 #21
??? You are welcome to start your own post and quit complaining! nt USALiberal Dec 2017 #26
Seth Abramson is a respected law professor FakeNoose Dec 2017 #86
This Ultimately.... FarPoint Dec 2017 #13
I think that meeting was imprompto Merlot Dec 2017 #45
You are probably right.... FarPoint Dec 2017 #64
Very interesting LiberalBrooke Dec 2017 #67
comeys Cell phone, hotwired elehhhhna Dec 2017 #68
Big Boom indeed! This looks exceptionally bad for the entire GOP. bronxiteforever Dec 2017 #17
Noted. leanforward Dec 2017 #22
Is this Fake News? BadGimp Dec 2017 #18
Tell your friend, "No. No they don't, Don." dchill Dec 2017 #30
This is laugh out loud funny! Dyedinthewoolliberal Dec 2017 #55
KNR Lucinda Dec 2017 #19
K&R... spanone Dec 2017 #25
Sorry to disappoint, but this has been all over DU and the internet since at least this morning. George II Dec 2017 #29
team trump knew about the emails mercuryblues Dec 2017 #31
Good thumbnail summary. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #42
Starting to detect a pattern ... when Two Scoops goes too far off the rails with his bullshit ... mr_lebowski Dec 2017 #32
Yes, NYT always checks it stories with principals, so Gang get alerted & go ape (in tRump's case) nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #36
Now, that quote from an unidentified member of the intel community calimary Dec 2017 #47
I've been thinking for a while now... better Dec 2017 #49
Donnie Two Scoops Scarsdale Dec 2017 #69
Thank you for posting it all; it's a gadawful thing to have to do (hard enough to read). . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #34
It took a couple of minutes. bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 #57
From Sen. Blumenthal via Twitter. sarcasmo Dec 2017 #35
When did he post that tweet? bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 #58
Yesterday NewJeffCT Dec 2017 #80
NICE !!! uponit7771 Dec 2017 #102
RW line today was that Sen Lindsey Graham had "confirmed" that the Steele Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #37
And, it was recently shown NewJeffCT Dec 2017 #72
Kind of annoying how Seth Abramson thinks he knows more than the NY Times oberliner Dec 2017 #38
Meanwhile NewJeffCT Dec 2017 #74
abramson is trying to inform the public so no one can cover all this up questionseverything Dec 2017 #88
As I recall, Abramson was first one emphasizing the important Mayflower event wishstar Dec 2017 #96
NY Times has raw facts MaryMagdaline Jan 2018 #105
Mueller is still going to have to prove that improved relations with Russia Calista241 Dec 2017 #39
Denying collusion 16 times is not acting like he's going down? bucolic_frolic Dec 2017 #46
I would bet my last dollar Trump never got on the phone and said Calista241 Dec 2017 #50
Trump fired Comey and by all accounts John Fante Dec 2017 #51
Trump can say that he fired Comey for legit reasons. Calista241 Dec 2017 #52
I don't see how this in any way invalidates the previous post. triron Dec 2017 #54
I suppose it doesnt. Calista241 Dec 2017 #60
Solid convo here ... lot of good points raised ... mr_lebowski Dec 2017 #62
Comey firing memo came from Rosenstein! quartz007 Dec 2017 #79
Your assumptions are completely wrong Juliusseizure Dec 2017 #89
Excellent! triron Dec 2017 #90
This. So much this Arazi Dec 2017 #48
RICO. BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #66
A RICO prosecution for money laundering is not in the cards. Calista241 Dec 2017 #78
Sorry but BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #85
They need significantly more than just tax records to prove a money laundering case. Calista241 Dec 2017 #87
Why are you assuming they are as incompetent BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #93
I have said no such thing Calista241 Dec 2017 #95
What? BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #97
If George Papa NewJeffCT Dec 2017 #75
"improved Russia relations" is only one of tons of quid pro quo's that could be established no? tia uponit7771 Dec 2017 #100
As If We Didn't Know Me. Dec 2017 #40
Yes, must be. But his NYT leaker got confused / upstaged by the tRump interview. Bernardo de La Paz Dec 2017 #41
This piece has been a long time in the making bucolic_frolic Dec 2017 #43
K&R smirkymonkey Dec 2017 #56
Coffee Boy? dlk Dec 2017 #61
Wine boy underpants Dec 2017 #82
There's actually more to this thread in case RandomAccess Dec 2017 #84
Hope that's close (to 90+%)! triron Dec 2017 #94
The problem, however NewJeffCT Dec 2017 #98
That was a mystery -- I didn't find any tweets in the middle RandomAccess Dec 2017 #99
Seth added to the thread today bathroommonkey76 Dec 2017 #101
OMG. Thanks. His additions are REALLY important IMO RandomAccess Jan 2018 #106
Meanwhile, over in the land of "fearless and adversarial" journalism: Blue_Tires Jan 2018 #107

madaboutharry

(40,211 posts)
1. Malcolm Nance is right, it's a conspiracy.
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 09:30 PM
Dec 2017

The entire Trump family, Kushner, Carter Page, Flynn and Papadapoulos, Stephen Miller, Manafort, Sessions, and no doubt Pence. I'm probably leaving at least half a dozen out. They're all in it. Every single one of them is dirty.

 

TheDebbieDee

(11,119 posts)
2. I also believe the high-ranking republican elected pols were in on this, too!
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 09:34 PM
Dec 2017

Ugly-assed McConnell, Ryan, other republican primary candidates prolly figured out the fix was in but didn't want to sound like sore losers so they kept quiet about it (I'm looking at you, Jebbie!)...

lark

(23,102 posts)
73. Yes, exactly.
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 11:20 AM
Dec 2017

Both Ryan and McConnell both got millions of dollars from a Russian related person. McConnell in particular seemed in on it when he was so damn sure drumpf would win, despite being unpopular with a majority of Americans. How did he know? Why was he so 100% certain, because he was in on the plot to steal the election. That's why he was so worried about Obama spilling the beans, he knew and was part of the treachery so threatened Obama. Obama, in his worst move in office, folded, to the detriment of democracy and enlightenment around the world.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
81. #TrumpRussia 50 tweet MEGA-THREAD by Seth -- history's most explosive intel dossier .....
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:00 PM
Dec 2017

I thought this should be near the top of this thread.

I agree, this is the vast right-wing conspiracy at work. We are witnessing ultra-right globalism, albeit without the Hitler/Mussulini/Emperor military treaty. Nonetheless, they pose the same threat level to democracy. With the far right conspiring with Putin, the threat level to the USA is higher than it was during WWII. The billionaires want to break up the USA and determine their own rules.

Thanks Sarah Silverman for tweeting this. I follow her on Twitter, but not Seth.























































lark

(23,102 posts)
103. Wow, thanks for sharing this excellent synopsis, really pulls the whole picture together.
Mon Jan 1, 2018, 11:29 AM
Jan 2018

This has details I hadn't seen before and brings the whole issue full circle. I just hope dems ctually have a public hearing, although I also think Russia Repugs will pull out all stops to make sure this doesn't happen, if they are as compromised as they seem to be.



L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
104. Hearings will happen, meanwhile there is a deference to Mueller's investigation and its integrity.
Mon Jan 1, 2018, 11:34 AM
Jan 2018

One of the keys to conducting a fair inquiry is not having interference and not revealing to the criminals what is known by the investigators. When those impediments are removed, we will be learning a whole lot more all at once.

dawg day

(7,947 posts)
76. I was glad to see that jerkoff Miller implicated
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 11:33 AM
Dec 2017

..as someone Papadopolous reported to. I hadn't seen Miller's name come up yet, except as runner-up for dck-of-the-year.

 

quartz007

(1,216 posts)
77. How long before Mueller delivers?
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 11:33 AM
Dec 2017

Every day that goes by with tRump in office, more progressive agenda is destroyed. Come on Bobby Mueller, indict the whole gang of dirty election stealers and really soon. The evidence is all there, what is taking so long?

BSdetect

(8,998 posts)
5. They all knew and went along with this treason.
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 09:56 PM
Dec 2017

Thought they were so smart.

Now they will do anything to stop us.

nolabear

(41,963 posts)
6. It's a flippin' James Bond movie.
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 09:57 PM
Dec 2017

But without James Bond. And "we" are the bad guy. And the hostages.

Dammit.

And yet, it's one hell of a story.

calimary

(81,267 posts)
91. or "All the President's Men" revisited.
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 05:09 PM
Dec 2017

Watergate 2.0.

Interestingly enough, BOTH Watergate AND Russiagate involve a break-in of the Democratic National Committee. Back then, burglars attempted to break into a headquarters' offices. This time, it was hackers and hacking the DNC. Plus whatever they stole from Hillary. A standard physical burglary the first time around. The crimes moved online for Episode 2.

benld74

(9,904 posts)
7. I dont want impeachment
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 09:57 PM
Dec 2017

I want retribution for the entire country
Prison time or worse
ALL bills passed removed
ALL $$$ gained returned
By all involved at all levels

Maraya1969

(22,480 posts)
33. I looked it up and a member of the Supreme Court can be impeached. If it can be proved
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 11:17 PM
Dec 2017

that McConnell blocked Garland because he knew that the Russians were going to make Trump win then I believe Gorsuch could be impeached or removed somehow because was ineligible.

 

tomp

(9,512 posts)
53. Yes, and the grounds are simple.
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 01:32 AM
Dec 2017

The Senate republicans, MCConnell specifically, were derelict in their constitutional duty by not giving Garland a hearing and a vote. Gorsuch, by accepting the nomination, and the appointment, suborned that dereliction, a gross violation of the constitution. Anyone who accepted the nomination prior to Garland receiving a hearing would be suborning McConnell's and the repubs dereliction.

leanforward

(1,076 posts)
20. I'm with you on this
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 10:41 PM
Dec 2017

To me everyone of our leaders must be pure of heart. The aforementioned individuals wanted power, greed, party, or whatever. But, they also represent those of us, not of their party, as a silent majority.

They are forgetting something. Those of us who voted in the majority and those who did not or could not vote.

The supreme court justice needs to go. Any bills, the only and latest, needs to be repealed.

No surprise, I expect the stock market to dive, worst than in October 1987 or 2007.

pRezident dRumpf needs to go along with any elected official who benefited from outside interference. Specifically, PAC contributions from oligarchs.

Bernardo de La Paz

(49,002 posts)
44. The end of the GOP would be another alternative / add-on. But I'm with you.
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:00 AM
Dec 2017

My sig line has been for months: "When tRump & Pence are impeached, the Republicon Party must not be repeatedly rewarded for stealing the Electoral College."

In other words, the Republicons can't simply replace one, two, or more Presidents in quick succession when the basic crime stole the Electoral College in the first place.

N_E_1 for Tennis

(9,727 posts)
71. Yes, yes, yes...
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 10:38 AM
Dec 2017

Since he is an illegal president, everything, EVERYTHING that was done during his time is illegal also. Undo it all. We need to have a new election.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
8. When Cornyn blocked Obama's
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 10:04 PM
Dec 2017

Supreme Court Nominee,that smelled to high hell. But,when McConnell announced on the Senate Floor that he would not move on this Nominee until after the November Elections,thing most people knew something rotten was about to happen.

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
11. I wish these bloggers, reporter types would come up with some word other than
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 10:12 PM
Dec 2017


BOMBSHELL!!!!!!!!!!!

How about,, ERUPTION !!!!!!!!!



Also --


BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING !!!


 

bathroommonkey76

(3,827 posts)
59. That's not true babylonsister
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 02:15 AM
Dec 2017

Use incognito mode in Chrome - You can read most NYT, WaPo, and a few others if you follow this trick. The Wall Street Journal is behind a pay wall - I'm not sure you can use Chrome with that site yet.

 

bathroommonkey76

(3,827 posts)
15. Why not click on the link that is provided in this thread
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 10:29 PM
Dec 2017

And if you don't want to read it you can skip along on your merry way.

FakeNoose

(32,639 posts)
86. Seth Abramson is a respected law professor
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 01:40 PM
Dec 2017

His refections are probably more valid than those of the NYT reporters, but maybe you're not aware of that. Many DUers would rather read Abramson's take because he has been instrumental in giving us the legal background on these investigations. You're welcome to read the NYT account yourself, if you have a subscription to the paper.

FarPoint

(12,395 posts)
13. This Ultimately....
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 10:23 PM
Dec 2017

Makes me think that Comey also wore a wire with tRump, alone in White House visit wherein tRump asked Comey to back off Flynn etc... which promptly got him fired as a result of not kissing the " Don's" ring....

Just purely my gut feeling....

Merlot

(9,696 posts)
45. I think that meeting was imprompto
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:04 AM
Dec 2017

Everyone was in the room, then when they went to leave, trumpft told comey to stay. So doubtful comey was wearing a wire because he didn't know they would have a one-on-one. In fact, I think they are not supposed to ever be together alone, which even sessions knew and tried to stay in the room.

Could comey have worn a wire? Wouldn't a judge have to approve that?

FarPoint

(12,395 posts)
64. You are probably right....
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 05:23 AM
Dec 2017

Then....I slide back into the sense he would of at least wanted to do something like that, suspicious of tRump already....at this phase....this remains a second thought...😇

LiberalBrooke

(527 posts)
67. Very interesting
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 09:33 AM
Dec 2017

concept. I had not considered a wire on Comey but I sure hope he did wear one. He had to know don the con would ask for loyalty to himself.

 

elehhhhna

(32,076 posts)
68. comeys Cell phone, hotwired
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 09:55 AM
Dec 2017

Read it somewhwere. Guess sits a normal thing for a person in his job...

bronxiteforever

(9,287 posts)
17. Big Boom indeed! This looks exceptionally bad for the entire GOP.
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 10:34 PM
Dec 2017

And now their hatred for Mueller makes sense.
The entire party apparatus was corrupted.

mercuryblues

(14,532 posts)
31. team trump knew about the emails
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 11:05 PM
Dec 2017
before the FBI did. Conspired with the Russians to release them to benefit his campaign. Then fired the head of the FBI to slow roll the investigation. Turtle McTurtle face then threatened Obama about how to present this to the public, in exchange for his wife to get a cushy job in trump's administration.

Czarina took a "vacation" in the middle of the campaign, leaving her newborn baby behind, to go to Croatia to meet with Putin's rumored girlfriend.

Will anyone rid us of these treasonous bastards?
 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
32. Starting to detect a pattern ... when Two Scoops goes too far off the rails with his bullshit ...
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 11:06 PM
Dec 2017

Suddenly something appears in the news ... some tidbit that looks like a leak ... that is clearly directed at shutting him up, and making him shit himself a bit.

It's surely not Mueller himself, nor probably anyone directly in his team ... in fact I'd guess that a lot of the most salient probe information has been shared among intel professionals worldwide, so as not to be 'centralized' in such a way that Teflon Don can quash it all.

I'd guess that Australian intel agents provided this info to the times, and that they've been briefed beyond what they themselves already 'knew' ... in terms of the investigation itself. Probably are agents in the UK who are informed as to it's progress/what is known ... as well.

Further ... He, and his team of attorneys ... are so far out of their league dealing with these career investigators and prosecutors ... it's not even funny.

calimary

(81,267 posts)
47. Now, that quote from an unidentified member of the intel community
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:07 AM
Dec 2017

becomes a LOT more intriguing. Anybody remember, fairly early in all this, when the remarkable quote came, re trump: “he will die in jail”?

I wouldn’t be surprised if the intelligence community shared a lot of this stuff amongst themselves. I suspect these aren’t folks you’d want to piss off.

better

(884 posts)
49. I've been thinking for a while now...
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:30 AM
Dec 2017

that this era's version of "what did he know and when did he know it" is ultimately going to be "who did he screw, and when did he screw them?".

And the answers to that question are ultimately going to lead us to what he knew and when he knew it.

Scarsdale

(9,426 posts)
69. Donnie Two Scoops
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 09:59 AM
Dec 2017

is not intelligent enough to be the mastermind in all these dirty dealings. He will have someone available (like Scooter Libby was for Cheney) to take the fall and serve the prison sentence. There must be thousands of people who tRump has screwed over in business dealings, who would LOVE to see the fat bastard behind bars. He needs to finally pay for all his misdeeds, along with his greedy family.

Bernardo de La Paz

(49,002 posts)
37. RW line today was that Sen Lindsey Graham had "confirmed" that the Steele
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 11:29 PM
Dec 2017

... "confirmed", on air, that the Steele dossier was the reason that the FISA warrant(s) was(were) granted.

They then say that since the dossier was 'fabricated by the oppo research company funded by the FBI and Hillary' that it was garbage and completely false. They say further that this proves there is a nothing burger there.

They wish.

This twitter article (gadawful medium for one) points out that the dossier was useful but not sufficient to get the FISA warrant(s).

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
38. Kind of annoying how Seth Abramson thinks he knows more than the NY Times
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 11:34 PM
Dec 2017

"If the NYT understood this, it would've led with it..."

He needs to get over himself a bit.

NewJeffCT

(56,828 posts)
74. Meanwhile
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 11:21 AM
Dec 2017

the NY Times is doing puff pieces on Neo Nazis and letting Trump blather on without any follow-up questions.

Abramson has been ahead of the curve on a lot of issues related to Trump/Russia.

questionseverything

(9,654 posts)
88. abramson is trying to inform the public so no one can cover all this up
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 03:22 PM
Dec 2017

like they did with scooter (1 guy taking the fall)

he is a hero as are the posters on this thread helping inform us

wishstar

(5,269 posts)
96. As I recall, Abramson was first one emphasizing the important Mayflower event
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 08:37 PM
Dec 2017

since Trump gave his first foreign policy speech there and it was pro-Russia with Kislyak present (and several other pro-Russian foreign ambassadors) with all the highest Trump campaign officials present.

Then Al Franken carried it forward by nailing Sessions for lying, since Abramson had already publicized photos of both Sessions and Kislyak attending the Mayflower meetup.

MaryMagdaline

(6,855 posts)
105. NY Times has raw facts
Mon Jan 1, 2018, 11:56 AM
Jan 2018

Abramson is putting all together. He is saying NYT is missing significance of the facts they are publishing.

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
39. Mueller is still going to have to prove that improved relations with Russia
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 11:41 PM
Dec 2017

Was a reward for participating in a criminal conspiracy, and not something Trump wouldn’t have done as part of a general policy platform.

It’s going to be hard to criminalize a foreign policy platform held by a political candidate absent rock solid proof, as in trump on tape proof. Mueller can’t just think Trump knew Russia hacked the DNC in April 2016, and that he promised the Ruskies something in return for releasing those emails; he has to be able to prove all that stuff beyond a reasonable doubt.

In addition, Papadopoulos is a confessed and convicted liar. To bring down anyone else, he’s going to have to have some other kind of physical proof of some kind of agreement. He can’t get on the stand and say anything that’ll be believed without such proof.

Finally, IMO, Trump really isn’t acting like he’s going down in the next few months. Sessions would already be gone, someone more pliant would be at the DOJ, and Mueller would have a new supervisor that would shut that shit down. IMO, Trump is the type to go down in flames, burning down the house, not like Nixon who resigned.



bucolic_frolic

(43,166 posts)
46. Denying collusion 16 times is not acting like he's going down?
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:04 AM
Dec 2017

He has a lifetime of cons to draw upon, and as usual is in a state of denial. He is never going to sound like they've got him this time.

As for proof, the contacts, the confessions, the witnesses, the timing, the tweets, the speeches from the horse's mouth, the hacked emails (a computer crime in itself), the SIGINT on phone conversations. It's complex to be sure, but there is a lot there there.

Something in return for the email release? How about lifting sanctions, relaxing regulations.

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
50. I would bet my last dollar Trump never got on the phone and said
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 12:51 AM
Dec 2017

"do this, and i'll do this" to anyone with regards to Russia. And he never would've said it to Papadopoulos. He would've said it to Hope Hicks or someone else he had a long standing relationship with. Trump didn't get to be a billionaire real estate mogul by airing his dirty laundry like that.

Papadopoulos was a wanta be, yes man to the campaign. Yeah, he got into a few meetings, and could've been a yes, fetch man peon; but he wasn't one of the insiders that would've been trusted with a criminal conspiracy type communication like that.

Mueller does have Flynn, who was one of the insiders. But Flynn is also a confessed, convicted liar. He's going to have to have physical, verifiable proof that something nefarious took place. And Trump and his lawyers would know about any such proof, given the close relationship between their legal teams right up until the plea agreement.

And once Mueller was appointed, and probably before that given the interest, everyone got a lawyer; and the chances of anyone important having a conversation about incriminating activity without their lawyers present is incredibly super slim. Any physical proof of an agreement between Trump and the Russians, would probably have to come from 2016, and wouldn't be something developed since the special council came on board.

John Fante

(3,479 posts)
51. Trump fired Comey and by all accounts
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 01:09 AM
Dec 2017

is itching to fire Mueller. These are not the acts of a man who thinks he's in the clear.

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
52. Trump can say that he fired Comey for legit reasons.
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 01:27 AM
Dec 2017

Like Comey wouldn't say publicly what he was telling Trump privately. To you and me, that may be a bullshit reason to fire someone, but it's entirely within the scope of his powers as President to do so.

And just 2 days ago, he said he thinks he's being fairly treated by Mueller, and he's staying "uninvolved." Everyone, including you and me, may think he wants to fire Mueller, but he's on record as saying he wants him to continue his work.

His lawyers are saying this will be wrapped up in January. We'll know soon what the next steps are. If he's not cleared in January or February, that's probably when heads will start to roll as he thinks more indictments may start coming. It will also give his minions another month to poke holes into the Special Council's staff and motivations.

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
60. I suppose it doesnt.
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 02:18 AM
Dec 2017

But i also don’t think Trump really fears an indictment yet. I think when he does, his behavior will get much more extreme.

I mean, the dude is crazy, but i don’t think him repeating a statement a bunch of times (that he’s already said a bunch of times previously) is him “freaking out” about an indictment.

 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
62. Solid convo here ... lot of good points raised ...
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 05:09 AM
Dec 2017

Bottom-line really we have no idea what's going on in Muellers, or Dumps ... heads at this point in time.

It's all tea-leaf reading at this point.

One thing I think is safe to assume is that Trump is both a megalomaniac, and constitutionally incapable of believing that he's 'done something wrong', regardless of facts. Therefore, it's probably also safe to assume that he'd never consciously try to 'cover stuff up' ... he lacks the ability to even grasp the concept that he would 'need to'.

After all, everyone loves him ... and those who do not ... (if such people exist, outside the failing media) ... really don't matter. He's POTUS, after all! Most Beloved and Famous A Person Can Get!!!

Juliusseizure

(562 posts)
89. Your assumptions are completely wrong
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 03:35 PM
Dec 2017

This is a long rant of false or uninformed assumptions, so I wonder why you'd be making them as a DU contributor?

You're clearly not familiar with Trump's legal or financial record.

Trump is reckless in his business dealings. With Trump University, he didn't even take the time to get his "University" accredited. By legal definition, it was a fraud from the outset.

The only reason he hasn't been in jail is due to his network of New York political and legal connections - through Rudolph Giuliani, through his contributions to political and prosecutorial campaigns, through his former federal judge sister. Trump University could easily have been a white collar criminal case. This is the privilege of celebrity.

You're sure he's far too smart to get on the phone and admit anything because he's a billionaire real estate developer.

Please prove he's a billionaire. He's been bankrupt at least 6 times. Forbes has admitted they have no idea what his worth his. He actively campaigns to be on it, and was kicked off for years. Western banks won't lend to him.

His tweets and interviews are wonderfully instructive to a prosecutor. "My business dealings are a red line. Don't go there." Thanks Donnie, you just told me where to to find crimes, genius IQ. The obstruction case is basically proven by his interview with Lester Holt and statements in public meetings with Russian officials the day after firing Comey. How do you think Seth Abrahamson, with no access to confidential records, can piece together 50 point threads, with timelines and corroborating evidence, based almost entirely on Trump's tweets and the shit that comes out of his mouth?

"Russia if you're listening, find/release the e-mails!" How did he know they had Clinton's e-mails? D'oh!

Let's appoint Cypress Bank President Wilbur Ross to commerce, Exxon CEO negotiator of the Ukraine oil deal w/Russia Secretary of State, and have Paul Manafort, Ukranian/Russian political operative crook head my campaign, deny Russian election interference, have Kushner meet with Russian officials to set up backward channels when everyone knows the FBI is monitoring Russians 24/7, then be brazenly obvious that getting rid of Russian sanctions is a must - to the extent congress has to pass a bill for more sanctions. He may as well wear a hat that says TRAITOR on it.

Imagine the shit for brains of this group when it comes to e-mails, wiretapped meetings with Russians, and floors of computer, financial, written materials which evidentiary validity can't be disproven.

If you think Mueller is relying on Flynn's credibility as evidence, and not the hard evidence he can provide, you must think he's as dumb as Trump, and a completely incompetent prosecutor- like first year out of law school level.









Calista241

(5,586 posts)
78. A RICO prosecution for money laundering is not in the cards.
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 11:36 AM
Dec 2017

2 or 3 lawyers on Mueller’s staff is not sufficient for such an investigation or prosecution.

A legit investigation would take dozens of accountants working full time for over a year just to understand what’s going on with the Trump Organization and Trump family’s finances. They would also need to work where all of those records are kept.

The fact that we haven’t heard of dozens of new IRS and FBI investigators requesting office space, moving into the Trump Organizations offices, and requesting copies of all their records is a solid indication this is not happening. There’s no way that kind of investigation could be kept secret.

BumRushDaShow

(129,026 posts)
85. Sorry but
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 01:32 PM
Dec 2017

this argument doesn't fly -

The fact that we haven’t heard of dozens of new IRS and FBI investigators requesting office space, moving into the Trump Organizations offices, and requesting copies of all their records is a solid indication this is not happening. There’s no way that kind of investigation could be kept secret.


The government (both NY state and the feds) has records about Drumpf and his family going back at least 4 decades and info has already been provided as the agencies have been working together since the original FBI investigation back a year ago before Mueller was named, and has recently obtained records from Drumpf "associates" (my term) -


IRS Gives Trump Staff Financials to Mueller's Russia Investigation

By John Patrick Pullen September 26, 2017

The IRS has given Special Counsel Robert Mueller financial information for members of the Trump presidential campaign and administration. The documents may include tax returns and supporting information such as real estate or banking records, reports CNN.

The disclosure of the IRS’s cooperation with the special counsel investigation comes after it was recently revealed that Mueller’s investigators have locked in on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who has extensive financial ties to Russia, and even allegedly offered to privately brief a friend of Putin’s in July 2016.

It’s not clear exactly whose records the special counsel was given, reports CNN, which notes that IRS Criminal Investigation agents have been working alongside the FBI on a Manafort probe since before the election. They are also sharing information on former Trump administration national security advisor Michael Flynn with Mueller’s team. Flynn’s finances have raised suspicions after it was revealed he received money from Russian interests before the campaign.

CNN also notes that the special counsel investigators may have requested President Trump’s tax returns, but if they did the request would have likely needed to be signed off on by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Normally that approval would be the responsibility of the attorney general, but Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the investigation over the role he played in the 2016 presidential election.

http://fortune.com/2017/09/26/irs-trump-mueller-russia/


<...>

Like a U.S. attorney’s office, Mueller has the power to reach across Justice, the FBI and other federal departments to solicit issue experts on everything from cybersecurity to counterintelligence. He’s getting help from financial record and tax specialists at the Treasury Department and IRS, as evidenced by the indictment charging Manafort and Gates with 12 criminal counts, including money laundering and failing to disclose overseas bank accounts.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/13/robert-mueller-russia-probe-organization-244789


Staff listing as of 9/29/17

Your argument is basically suggesting that they are wrapping it up but he is just getting started. There is a pretty obvious strategy going on as the noose tightens and more "unknown" folks suddenly bubble in and provide info that doesn't make the news until other shoes suddenly drop and hit the airwaves.

Keep an eye on NY AG Schniederman (and Preet Bharara who works for him now) -

<...>

How far Mr. Schneiderman is willing to go in taking on Mr. Trump could define his political career, particularly in a blue state where disapproval of the president is high. The potential of the attorney general’s office for troublemaking and generating national headlines was redefined in the early 2000s by Eliot Spitzer. Mr. Schneiderman is a less combative man who was often the target of Mr. Trump’s Twitter wrath amid a three-year civil investigation into Trump University. In the end, Mr. Schneiderman’s office extracted a $25 million settlement in the case.

Nonetheless, Mr. Schneiderman is seen by some as a possible backstop should the president exercise his pardon power to help those who might become ensnared in the investigation of possible Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election being led by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. Federal pardons do not apply to violations of state law.

In the interview, Mr. Schneiderman would say little about his potential role as a criminal prosecutor in relation to the Trump administration, except that he hoped it would not come to that. Earlier this year, Mr. Schneiderman began a criminal inquiry focused on allegations of money laundering by Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman. But his office stood down, at least temporarily, out of deference to the special counsel’s inquiry; the offices did not work together, his staff said.

“I have a lot of respect for the work the special counsel’s doing,” he said. “They’ve put together a terrific team.” He added: “Just watching it from the outside, like everybody else, it seems like they’re doing a very thorough and serious job. I hope there’s not going to be any effort to derail them or shut them down. “If that happens, we’ll do — as I think would be a genuine sentiment around the country — we’ll do whatever we can do to see that justice is done. But I hope we don’t have to face a problem like that.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/nyregion/eric-schneiderman-attorney-general-new-york.html


I expect that the main focus on Drumpf himself is obstruction of justice, but the financials (including those from his family) are leading to the other crimes and teasing out/revealing those "crimes" can provide a "motive" for any "collusion" and what could amount to "influence peddling".

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
87. They need significantly more than just tax records to prove a money laundering case.
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 02:09 PM
Dec 2017

Especially in this case, where International laws, income, taxes, and repatriation issues are concerned. Giving his finances the once over, which is what they'd be doing with just IRS records, is simply not sufficient to build a criminal case.

Shit, even the IRS sends agents on site during an audit, and all they're doing is looking to send a tax bill. There's absolutely no way they could get the information they'd need to prove money laundering or a RICO case by half-assing it looking at IRS records.

And i've said this before, but Trump has multiple layers of insulation between him and any business decisions the Trump Organization made. Every business decision made by the Trump Organization since the 1980's has been reviewed by in-house counsel, multiple business executives, multiple accountants, as well any 3rd party banks that would have put up the financing for any project.

People need to understand the enormity (and risk) of building a case against Trump. This is not your typical drug deal, get him on video and lock him up in 6 months case. If there is a case for any of the things we think Mueller might be looking at, it's going to be years down the road before any prosecution comes up.

BumRushDaShow

(129,026 posts)
93. Why are you assuming they are as incompetent
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 07:23 PM
Dec 2017

as Drumpf's lawyers? You are making a leap to assume Mueller's team is basically nothing but a bunch of Keystone cops.

The problems in the past with prosecuting Drumpf boiled down to resources and political pressure to move onto something or someone else other than the 2-bit self-described "real estate mogul" and reality show dunce, and doing so by essentially extracting a settlement (which is how most of the cases against him ended).

This is different given his current position of power.

The issue swirling around this involves his son-in-law Jared and 666 5th Ave. and a certain half-billion of debt that I believe was supposed to come due in January (or thereabouts).

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
95. I have said no such thing
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 08:20 PM
Dec 2017

The only thing I’m saying here is that they’re not looking for money laundering in the Trump Organization.

I think Mueller is the best person that could have gotten this job. What i think is that this investigation and any eventual prosecution is going to take much longer than people here expect. Everyone seems to think that in a few weeks, Trump will be impeached, behind bars, and we’ll all live happily ever after.

BumRushDaShow

(129,026 posts)
97. What?
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 08:43 PM
Dec 2017
The only thing I’m saying here is that they’re not looking for money laundering in the Trump Organization.


They might not have started the investigation in that direction but the indictments that have come down so far and the types of prosecutors that have been brought on board to date, who are experts in such, strongly suggests they are looking in that direction - again as a potential motive.

And I have absolutely no expectation of anything happening to Drumpf anytime soon. The Watergate break-in happened in 1972 and it took a year before the evidence began to mount regarding who was behind it, leading to another year's worth of hearings and court cases until such point that Nixon was finally cornered and resigned 2 years after the initial episode.

We are still at the beginning of this....

NewJeffCT

(56,828 posts)
75. If George Papa
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 11:27 AM
Dec 2017

was wearing a wire and has audio of Trump saying something to that effect, it certainly does show conspiracy. If Papadop was working as the Kremlin's agent and Trump agreed to the quid pro quo, it's pretty much proven - Trump is known as a micro-manager, so I can certainly see somebody coming to him and saying, "hey, if Russia can hack Hillary's emails and has incriminating dirt, would you drop sanctions in exchange for the dirt?" - and, Trump giving that the bigly affirmative.

uponit7771

(90,339 posts)
100. "improved Russia relations" is only one of tons of quid pro quo's that could be established no? tia
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 10:56 PM
Dec 2017

Bernardo de La Paz

(49,002 posts)
41. Yes, must be. But his NYT leaker got confused / upstaged by the tRump interview.
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 11:55 PM
Dec 2017

Maybe the NYT at the last minute decided to hold the Papadopoulos story over one day because they got the tRump interview at a last minute.

Or his Dworkin's NYT contact heard about the Papadopoulos story and assumed it was the day of the other big story; got the two days switched by mistake.

bucolic_frolic

(43,166 posts)
43. This piece has been a long time in the making
Sat Dec 30, 2017, 11:57 PM
Dec 2017

not something they threw together this week

the information is out there, being compiled, analyzed, sifted ... hopefully the pace will accelerate

These treasonous devils need to go!

 

RandomAccess

(5,210 posts)
84. There's actually more to this thread in case
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 01:22 PM
Dec 2017

anyone's interested:




including this:

100/ My estimation, as a legal expert, is that the chances Mueller refers an impeachable offense to DOJ in mid-2018 or thereafter are 90%+.

Feel free to check back in with me on that prediction, as it's based on a year of research into all that is now known on this topic. {end}

NewJeffCT

(56,828 posts)
98. The problem, however
Sun Dec 31, 2017, 08:51 PM
Dec 2017

is even if Mueller gives them smoking guns, will a Republican Congress do anything?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»(THREAD) BREAKING - The N...