Tit-for-Tat: What Mike Flynn’s 302 Reveals about the Lies He Told
Last week, I wrote this post arguing that Mike Flynn’s 302 (FBI interview report) shows what Flynn was hiding when he lied to the FBI: In addition to his most fundamental lie — that he and Sergei Kislyak had talked about Russia moderating its response to new Obama sanctions, Flynn lied about his coordination with KT McFarland, who was with Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
Since people are still wondering why Flynn lied, I thought I’d write it up to make it even more plain. This post relies on these sources:
- Flynn’s 302
- Flynn’s Statement of the Offense
- The Addendum describing Flynn’s cooperation
- Peter Strzok’s 302
- NYT story describing McFarland’s email
- WaPo story on KT McFarland’s walkback
As Flynn’s Statement of the Offense lays out, Obama signed the Executive Order imposing new sanctions on December 28, 2016.
On or about December 28, 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take effect the following day. The executive order announced sanctions against Russia in response to that government’s actions intended to interfere with the 2016 presidential election (“U.S. Sanctions”).
Flynn admitted that Kislyak contacted him the day Obama imposed the sanctions.
On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.
Flynn told the FBI that was a text that, because of poor connectivity in Dominican Republic, he didn’t see for a day. (I suspect this is also a lie, but it is possible.)
Shortly after Christmas, 2016, FLYNN took a vacation to the Dominican Republic with his wife. On December 28th, KISLYAK sent FLYNN a text stating, “Can you call me?”
Sometime in the day after Obama imposed the sanctions, Lisa Monaco gave her successor, Tom Bossert, a heads up about how angry the Russians were, making it clear the Obama Administration had formally contacted them.
Obama administration officials were expecting a “bellicose” response to the expulsions and sanctions, according to the email exchange between Ms. McFarland and Mr. Bossert. Lisa Monaco, Mr. Obama’s homeland security adviser, had told Mr. Bossert that “the Russians have already responded with strong threats, promising to retaliate,” according to the emails.
That suggests that the Obama Administration formally alerted the Russians before Kislyak’s text and alerted the Trump Transition not long after. That is, the Flynn-Kislyak contacts occurred after Obama had informed both sides, if not Flynn directly.
In spite of that formal notification, Flynn attributed any delay in responding to Kislyak to Dominican Republic’s poor cell phone reception. He claims (probably assuming the only communications the FBI would ever review would be Kislyak’s communications) that he saw the text on the 29th, took a bit of time, then called the Russian Ambassador.
FLYNN noted cellular reception was poor and he was not checking his phone regularly, and consequently did not see the text until approximately 24 hours later. Upon seeing the text, FLYNN responded that he would call in 15-20 minutes, and he and KISLYAK subsequently spoke.
What Flynn didn’t tell the FBI is that, per his allocution, he spoke with KT McFarland immediately before his call with Kislyak (importantly, this is true whether he really didn’t find out until the 29th or if there was a longer conversation with McFarland).
On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team (“PTT official”), who was with other senior ·members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration’s foreign policy goals. The PTT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation.
Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.
The account of the timing of discussions both at Mar-a-Lago and with advisors who were dispersed across the globe in the NYT story is vague. Though NYT makes it clear that one email, at least, described the Flynn call with Kislyak prospectively.
As part of the outreach, Ms. McFarland wrote, Mr. Flynn would be speaking with the Russian ambassador, Mr. Kislyak, hours after Mr. Obama’s sanctions were announced.
One of those emails, importantly, included the following talking points.
Obama is doing three things politically:
- discrediting Trump’s victory by saying it was due to Russian interference
- lure trump into trap of saying something today that casts doubt on report on Russia’s culpability and then next week release report that catches Russia red handed
- box trump in diplomatically with Russia. If there is a tit-for-tat escalation trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia which has just thrown USA election to him. [my emphasis]
Per the NYT, that email appears to have been forwarded to — among others — Flynn.
Mr. Bossert forwarded Ms. McFarland’s Dec. 29 email exchange about the sanctions to six other Trump advisers, including Mr. Flynn; Reince Priebus, who had been named as chief of staff; Stephen K. Bannon, the senior strategist; and Sean Spicer, who would become the press secretary.
One thing makes it more likely that Flynn received McFarland’s email (or at least equivalent talking points via phone), and received it before he returned the call to Kislyak. When the Agents moved to the stage of the interview where — per Peter Strzok’s later description — “if Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used,” they quoted that “tit-for-tat” language.
The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK in which the expulsions were discussed, where FLYNN might have encouraged KISLYAK not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprocal, or not to engage in a “tit-for-tat.” FLYNN responded, “Not really. I don’t remember. It wasn’t, “Don’t do anything.” [my emphasis]
So whether Flynn saw this language in an email first, it seems clear he spoke to McFarland — who was coordinating all this from Mar-a-Lago, where Trump was — before he spoke with Kislyak. And that’s important, because Flynn claimed he had no idea that the US had expelled a bunch of Russian diplomats “until it was in the media.”
The U.S. Government’s response was a total surprise to FLYNN. FLYNN did not know about the Persona-Non-Grata (PNG) action until it was in the media. KISLYAK and FLYNN were starting off on a good footing and FLYNN was looking forward to the relationship. With regard to the scope of the Russians who were expelled, FLYNN said he did not understand it. FLYNN stated he could understand one PNG, but not thirty-five.
It’s possible that Flynn didn’t learn about the expulsions until Obama’s press releases on the 29th, if he didn’t check with McFarland before that. Except he also claimed the FBI that he didn’t have access to TV news in DR.
FLYNN noted he was not aware of the then-upcoming actions as he did not have access to television news in the Dominican Republic and his government BlackBerry was not working.
In context in his 302, though, that seems to be offered as a substantiating detail to support his claim that he didn’t know about the expulsions before he spoke with Kislyak — or, indeed, the even crazier claim that Kislyak didn’t raise it on that call, regardless of what Flynn knew going into the call.
The interviewing agents asked FLYNN is he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK surrounding the expulsion of Russian diplomats or closing of Russian properties in response to Russian hacking activities surrounding the election. FLYNN stated that he did not. FLYNN reiterated his conversation was about [Astana peace conference] described earlier.
Consider how ridiculous this lie is: Flynn wanted the FBI to believe that, having asked Flynn to contact him after Russia was informed of Obama’s sanctions, Kislyak didn’t even mention the sanctions to him.
That’s obvious nonsense. But it was a necessary to hide two things. First, that he had spoken with Kislyak about sanctions — which is what the focus has been on until now.
But claiming that he hadn’t heard about the expulsions before he called Kislyak also served to hide an equally critical detail: Flynn had not only heard of the sanctions (if he hadn’t already heard) from his deputy, KT McFarland, who was at Mar-a-Lago with Trump, but she and he and a number of other people had coordinated what he would say to Kislyak before the call. And they did do based off the belief that Obama’s actions against Russia were all a political set-up and not a sound response to Russia’s involvement in the election.
Flynn not only coordinated his messaging with McFarland, but he used language she offered, writing from Mar-a-Lago: “tit-for-tat.”
After Flynn pled guilty, McFarland spent some time cleaning up what she had told the FBI the previous summer (at a time when everyone seemed to believe their emails recording all this would never be reviewed by the FBI). According to WaPo’s coverage, McFarland,
walked back her previous denial that sanctions were discussed, saying a general statement Flynn had made to her that things were going to be okay could have been a reference to sanctions, these people said.
Flynn’s statement of the offense actually reflects two conversations that McFarland may have initially lied about — one on December 29, when Flynn reported back on his call with Kislyak, and another after his December 31 call with Kislyak, when Flynn reported back to “senior members of the Presidential Transition Team.”
Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.
On or about December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement indicating that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that time.
On or about December 31, 2016, the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to FL YNN’s request.
After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the Presidential Transition Team about FL YNN’s conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the U.S. Sanctions and Russia’s decision not to escalate the situation.
It appears that Flynn tried to hide the entire existence of the call on December 31 (unless that’s why he claimed he had to keep calling back to Kislyak because of connectivity issues).
The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with KISLYAK in which KISLYAK told him the Government of Russia had taken into account the incoming administration’s position about the expulsions, or where KISLYAK said the Government of Russia had responded, or chosen to modulate their response, in any way to the U.S.’s actions as a result of a request by the incoming administration. FLYNN stated it was possible that he talked to KISLYAK on the issue, but if he did, he did not remember doing so. FLYNN stated he was attempting to start a good relationship with KISLYAK and move forward. FLYNN remembered making four to five calls that day about this issue, but that the Dominican Republic was a difficult place to make a call as he kept having connectivity issues. FLYNN reflected and stated that he did not think he would have had a conversation with KISLYAK about the matter.
The point, however, is multiple people in the Transition lied about this back-and-forth involving people at Mar-a-Lago with Trump.
Their correction of those stories is probably one thing described in this redaction in Flynn’s sentencing addendum.
The fact that Flynn’s lies attempted to hide coordination with Mar-a-Lago and the Transition team generally is significant for several reasons.
First, it appears that at least KT McFarland and probably Sean Spicer were in on at least part of Flynn’s cover story. If that’s right, it would require more coordination than we’ve seen reported based on emails. It’s still unclear how much those who lied about Flynn’s conversations early in January 2017 — including Spicer but especially Mike Pence, who has not been named as receiving the emails among the Transition team — knew about Flynn’s conversations.
A perhaps more important detail, legally, is one that Ty Cobb — at the time, still working for Trump — tried to deny: at least one person in the Trump camp had assured the Obama Administration that they would not undercut Obama’s efforts to retaliate against Russia.
The Trump transition team ignored a pointed request from the Obama administration to avoid sending conflicting signals to foreign officials before the inauguration and to include State Department personnel when contacting them. Besides the Russian ambassador, Mr. Flynn, at the request of the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, contacted several other foreign officials to urge them to delay or block a United Nations resolution condemning Israel over its building of settlements.
Mr. Cobb said the Trump team had never agreed to avoid such interactions. But one former White House official has disputed that, telling Mr. Mueller’s investigators that Trump transition officials had agreed to honor the Obama administration’s request.
This puts a totally different spin on Susan Rice’s role in unmasking intercepts involving Trump transition officials exhorting the Russian Ambassador to blow off Obama’s sanctions and working with Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan to keep a face-to-face meeting in NY secret (and probably also other intercepts assuring Bibi Netanyahu the Trump Transition would do all they could to undercut an Obama effort to punish Israeli settlements).
Rice would have unmasked those conversations having some reason to believe that the people involved in those discussions (Flynn and Kushner) were blowing off a Trump Transition commitment not to undercut Obama policy.
Such actions, then, would appear to go beyond a mere Logan Act violation. That is, Flynn and Kushner would have appeared to be pursuing their own foreign policy agenda, not just undercutting Obama’s policy, but also undercutting Trump’s (contested) agreement not to undercut Obama’s policies at least through the transition. And they would be doing so, by appearances, in pursuit of their own personal profit.
And those seeming instances of free-lancing would have accompanied Flynn’s request (in the days before it would be exposed that his Transition calls had been intercepted) to Rice to delay arming the Kurds, at a time when he was still legally hiding this relationship with Turkey.
Ultimately, we’re almost certainly going to learn all this was done with Trump’s explicit approval.
But because Flynn made such an effort to hide that his efforts to placate the Russians (and help the Turks and carry out undisclosed conversations with the Emirates and Israel) were done on the specific direction of Trump and Kushner, it would have looked like he was undermining both the Trump Administration and the interests of the United States.
It turns out he was only doing the latter.
As I disclosed in July, I provided information to the FBI on issues related to the Mueller investigation, so I’m going to include disclosure statements on Mueller investigation posts from here on out. I will include the disclosure whether or not the stuff I shared with the FBI pertains to the subject of the post.
Great analysis of the scope of Flynn’s lies. Two things still puzzle me.
First, Marcy writes that these actions go beyond a mere Logan Act violation. But all of Flynn’s actions seem to be likely approved by Trump. I suppose Flynn’s input on not arming the Kurds while still an agent of Turkey is a FARA violation. But the rest of the lies, rlie talking with Kislyak, appear to be just Logan Act violations. Is there anything more that I am missing?
Second, if that is all that Flynn was hiding, why did he lie? No one has been charged under the Logan Act for over 2 centuries. Moreover it is completely understandable for the incoming administration to speak with foreign countries. Would any of Flynn’s actions, if they came to light in January 2017 done more than just raise an eyebrow? Why lie?
p.s. long time reader, first time commenter.
I added this link in the post, but it describes how, by hiding information about his ties to other governments, Kushner (and Flynn) would have prevented the Federal government from exercising regulatory oversight over US foreign policy.
That is, it’s not just a Logan Act violation, but it’s an effort to undermine Federal oversight of foreign policy.
Dare you say conspiracy to obstruct oversight? I wonder what section that might fall under if Mueller et. al prosecuted these folks the way, and with the ferocity, my drug clients get prosecuted?
The threat of a Logan Act prosecution seems like a credible explanation of why Flynn had to cooperate, but doesn’t seem likely to explain why he lied. Seems unlikely to have been determinative for him going in to his interview. Same for “conspiracy to obstruct oversight” only more so. If there had been no conspiracy, why lie about the conversation with Kislyak? Trump explicitly campaigned on improving relations with Russia, seems to me it would have been natural to brazen it out in the belief he was acting in the country’s best interest. Why hide it? From their point of view, everything Obama did was illegitimate. Johnson knew Nixon violated the Logan act, but there was certainly no prosecution.
So the evidence of a cover-up by Flynn (to protect the PTT and Trump) is an indication there was an underlying crime. Not a Logan Act violation but a conspiracy, right?
Why would anybody on that level be worried about a freaking Logan Act violation?
There have been, in history, two Logan Act prosecutions, one in 1803 and the second in 1852. Both prosecutions were abandoned for good reason.
Seriously, nobody feared the “Logan Act” as to prosecutions. Nobody.
Yes. The fact that there appears to have been a conspiracy to hide their deals with Russia is indicative of something to hide.
A strongly affirmative “Indeed!”
Thank you Marcy for the link and the additional information.
This still leaves me unimpressed. Reading the comments below bmaz suggests conspiracy case could be made, but over what? Surely not just talking to Kislyak. Flynn’s ties to Turkey? But you have argued well that Flynn must have acted (lied to the FBI) with Trump’s approval, so this can’t just be about Flynn’s connections.
You comment later in this thread
I think that’s it. The lies aren’t about Logan Act violations, or even obstruction of Federal government oversight. It would seem that there is something more serious that Flynn, and Trump and Co are hiding.
While the last Logan Act prosecution may indeed be remote (minor point of correction — the most recent indictment occurred in 1852, so within the past two centuries), consideration of the Act may still have played some factor in the motivation underlying Flynn’s lies.
Despite the absence of a modern Logan Act indictment, the Act has been used repeatedly as a tool for political/policy P.R. in the past 60 years. There’s an article on Lawfare by Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner that provides a pretty comprehensive discussion on the legal elements comprising a Logan Act violation, and lists a number of times that accusations of violations have been leveled toward politicians and public figures, including Eleanor Roosevelt, George McGovern, Richard Nixon, Jesse Jackson, John Boehner, and Nancy Pelosi.
So, regardless of the likelihood of indictment, it is certainly plausible that Flynn et al. may have proceeded with the Logan Act in mind, if nothing more than to avoid the suggestion of such a violation with the heat turning up on the relationship between Russia and the Trump campaign.
I think what’s being hidden is the quid-pro-quo.
No matter how friendly Obama might have been with the next administration, everyone knew that whoever came next, Democrat or Republican, would have different ideas about how to deal with Russia than Obama did, so the idea that Flynn might say “Hey Kislyak, just keep cool until we’re in office,” isn’t remotely criminal – just the incoming administration laying the groundwork for their own policy, which frankly, isn’t that big a deal, and I don’t doubt that most presidents have done the same thing.
What Flynn, McFarland, etc., are hiding is the kind of consideration, bribery or blackmail, on which they based their decisions. Frankly, I can see some good arguments for staying out of Russia’s way in Eastern Europe, provided that they stay out of ours in Western Europe. The same holds true for changing polices where Turkey is concerned. But “Putin paid me off,” or “Erdogan has blackmail material” …to me these are not good arguments, and more than enough reason to pursue criminal charges.
I’m gonna sorta disagree slightly with the brilliant Ms Wheeler, for a sec (although I know it is not wise). They all knew what they were doing, playing diplomatic Russian roulette before the election; taking meetings, limited hangouts, whatnot and trying not to get caught doing it. They knew Obama’s actions weren’t simply some political vendetta/propaganda to discredit Trump’s win. There was no such ‘belief’, but rather it was spin to thwart off criticism/evaluation of their actions: it was a fake shield to hide behind and deflect blame outward.
Agree that most of them knew, but could some of the “spin” have been to dupe Trump?
Seems right to me, too, McFarland’s talking points only make sense if you posit that the PTT was aware of Russian election help.
“trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia which has just thrown USA election to him”
Is there a term-of-art here that I’m missing, or is the bolded part actually quite damning on its own, coming from the PTT?
Doesn’t seem as if McFarland expected anyone to come rushing into her office demanding to know, “What’s all this about Russia throwing the election to us?” in response to her email. Sounds as if Russia’s role was common knowledge in her circle. All the more difficult to think that Pence didn’t know what had happened or didn’t pick up on office scuttlebutt about the effectiveness of Russian assistance to the Trump campaign. Of course, I’m assuming there was office scuttlebutt, but isn’t there gossip in any office setting? It’s possible that McFarland meant her comment to be taken as a form of sarcastic or cynical humour, as if to say to her colleagues that, “Of course the MSM will say the President didn’t win the election on the up-and-up.” I imagine we won’t know for sure until the memoirs and detailed histories begin to appear. I also wonder whether there might have been some collective sense of guilt or unease among Trump’s people after the election at the realization of what the Russians had pulled off. That might explain some of the prickly defensiveness of Sean Spicer’s insistence that Trump’s inauguration had attracted the largest crowds in history. Nothing could be allowed to detract from the President’s victory for fear that the whole scheme would begin to unravel, as it is in the process of doing so now.
So is it just because Flynn, a long-term military man, (not to mention KTM, et al) was not a long-time reader of EW/FDL that he did not know about the USG intercepts of telephone or other e-communications with “random” or certain foreigners? How did he not know he would be caught in his lies? Did he think he was special? The hubris, tho.
Sessions was supposed to be the ultimate fix. But I think Trump believed Comey was a fellow traveler because he put the nail in the coffin for Clinton’s campaign, right at the last minute. So Trump asked Comey not to investigate Flynn. He never imagined Sessions would recuse. But he was forced to, after getting caught lying about his own contact with Russians. Otherwise, with Capos in place, under his power, the investigations would go “poof”, (intercepted or not).
The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry
I completely agree and have long thought that Flynn assumed his lies to the FBI would be sanctioned by Comey. The separate cell theory for deniability must have been in Flynn’s mind. If Flynn was in bed with the Russians I am sure he would not have thought it impossible that Comey was also a fellow traveler and traitor not just a misogynist Hillary hater. To me it’s one thing to betray your country for cash, luxury and power but the selling out of the Kurds, asking that they not be armed is a betrayal not just of an ally to us, to our troops in the field facing bombs, bullets and death but it is not unlike asking the Isrealis to disarm. The Kurds have suffered so similarly for centuries facing pogroms of their own. And now we see Trump putting his logo on what looks like it might an onslaught upon our Kurdish allies. Unlike Nixon i dont think Trump will send helicopters to ferry any of them at all to safety. At some point he and the traitor Flynn both decided that annihilation of the Kurds was a price they would be willing to accept before they were even sworn in. Trump gets millions from the hotel in Constantinople… I mean Istanbul.
I just don’t believe that the US is completely pulling out, either. There’s still airstrikes, drones, and artificial intelligence weaponry, aside from the Erik Prince murder for hire corps.
The US has a nasty history of leaving small trained and armed groups high and dry..but in this case, it’s unreal, Flynn seemed willing to sacrifice other people for his own personal enrichment.
Your sweet, sweet words to FSM’s noodly earbuds
(as Digby sez) Happy Hollandaise!
Marcy again another excellent explanation of the lies from Flynn. What keeps ringing in my head is: “Liar, liar pants on fire, hanging on a telephone wire.” Yep, former childhood chants when someone is lying still works.
@Jenny–love this! It’s especially delicious ’cause of all the intercepted phone calls!
Marcy: does this alter your previous speculation that kushner is likely to skate?
Could interfering with, or evading oversight be interpreted as yet another possible ConFraudUS charge?
If so, these suckers are stacking up.
Ot..I would love to hear the various opinions on who is the mystery country\business fighting the subpoena.
Why call for such rank speculation? There is a reason Grand Jury material is protected under Rule 6. Of what value is further uninformed speculation, beyond that already engaged in, at this point?
Beacuse:
‘There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.’
Speculation can be, in some instances, the impetus for interpretation of contributing factors resulting in non-obvious conclusions. Forest obscured by trees…
We try to deal with the more substantial here.
All the speculation has helped me immeasurably in understanding that the secret battle involves:
– a bank … or not a bank
– owned by another sovereign state … or with a government interest
– in Russian … or Cyprus … or KSA … or UAE … or somewhere else
– with direct implications for corruption of the president, or someone in his family … not either of those
– that’s directly related to Mueller’s mandate as Special Counsel … or not (possibly with no connection at all)
– or something none of us is able to think of because we haven’t been involved with the evidence gathering.
And armed with this insider deducementological speculata, I’ve spent much of this holiday season with the smug look of the all-knowing on my mug.
That’s what we humans (and other species do). Speculate. Is that pattern in the grass a predator or a mate? It that pattern of interactions between political entities just benign or something to think about?
Given the presence of “political entities” I’d opt for the the “predator” label.
I’m wondering about the motivations on the other side of the table. All of this was happening less than 30 days from Inauguration Day. Why did the Russians react this way instead of waiting a few weeks until Obama’s people were out of office?
Were they truly so angry that they didn’t think about security? Did they ignore the possibility that either their communications would be intercepted, or that Trump’s side would be sloppy?
Or did they think the exposure of their communications might happen and didn’t care? Why not?
Why would the Russians not use an asset in furtherance of their goals? Isn’t brazen disregard for normal behavior and reaction Putin’s stock in trade? The price of oil and other raw materials is difficult to predict when control of one of the major market players is about to change, and the Russian economy, and subsequently Putin’s budget for malfeasance is fueled by raw materials.
Bob, I read this in the lens of Marcy’s post about Putin obtaining receipts continuously, and how in doing so, it actually further mired team Trump in the shit.
Pence is not named as having received the Transition emails… but it strains credulity to believe he, or his assistant, did not. The NYT reports that Bossert forwarded the chain to SIX “other Trump advisers,” but then only names FOUR: Flynn, Priebus, Bannon, Spicer. Missing: Pence, Kushner. (Don Jr. too, but not sure how involved he would have been in this episode.) The Pence black hole really pisses me off.
In my opinion they could well have not kept Pence in the loop because the trump gang never considered him part of the group. Pence was an outsider. No need to involve him.
I expect Trump would make sure Pence did know all the illegal goings-on he (Trump & Co.) was involved in. Otherwise, Pence might try to grab the presidency from Trump at some point, being Holy and Pure. Trump would definitely drag Pence thru the mud with him.
I do agree with your comment, Ms. Williams. Its a distinct possibility. However, that would have required more deep planning than I believe the trump gang was capable of, except perhaps Bannon and Prebuis. Keep forgetting about them.
@Trip: they also thought the transition emails would be buried.
@BobCon: that’s a good question. Making sure they weren’t getting cold feet? Or perhaps it’s just — as EW has said for a while — that kompromat isn’t a pee tape but the receipts of ongoing communication:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/08/02/lawfare-missing-the-kompromat-for-the-pee-glee/
What’s weird to me isn’t that the Russians were reaching out so soon and potentially ensnaring the Trump side in more compromising actions.
It’s that they were seemingly sloppy about it.
One possibility is that it was newfound arrogance, and they figured the outgoing Obama people would be helpless to stop it. Another is that they were trying to blow up Trump’s team from day one by making a move that was sure to be intercepted.
Another one that has crossed my mind is that it’s nothing new and the Russians have been just plain careless all over the place. Maybe the communications between Russia and Trump were much more blatant than we know, and that Mueller’s team has a much bigger trove of evidence than has been known. Maybe Kushner’s attempt to set up a secure channel of communication is just a belated recognition that they were being really sloppy for far too long. I’m just not sure what’s the story here.
When you own the country, like Putin does, you don’t have to be careful, and the Russian oligarchs are out of the habit of worrying what their opponents think of them. This doesn’t translate well when you’re in someone else’s territory.
Perhaps Putin knew the Senate & House would be supporting him and Trump completely, no matter how terrible the Trump Administration’s actions. As they did.
Even if it’s been over two centuries, might nearly all Trump family members, associates, transition team, and those in hise sleaze orbit ALL be guilty of the Logan Act let alone treason and The Economic Espionage Act? Because the voting system is infrastructure AND all these actors worked in concert to knowingly and willfully hack the election.
#The Economic Espionage Act
#Treason
*DeathPenalty
NO! In fact, that is absolutely insane. If you are talking treason and the death penalty, you are in vey much the wrong place. People here are smarter than that. Just Stop.
but one can say, “No Mercy !”
What in the world are you talking about in your recent series of comments? I honestly have no idea what posit you are coming from, or trying, to convey.
The people who wrote the Constitution had very clear memories of how badly the idea of Treason could be abused against political opponents, so they were very careful to make Treason a highly conditional crime, and Trump/Flynn/Pence/etc’s behavior doesn’t come anywhere near meeting that legal standard. (Whether their behavior meets the colloquial rather than the legal/technical standard of treason is another matter, but we can’t prosecute/execute people on colloquial grounds, only legal ones.)
But don’t worry. There are plenty of other crimes Trump & Co. can be charged with, and they will be convicted and the truth will come out.
@pseudonymous in nc. Well, we can always add incompetence to the heap. It’s salt for Trump entrees.
OT: looks like King Idiot went to Incirlik AB today after the whole “first president not to visit troops overseas” thing. Interesting choice.
With a side visit to his good friend Erdogan?
Ah, it was Baghdad. Same flight path.
Hey Marcy, when you say
you mean by that, as per your statement a few paragraphs prior, that Flynn would’ve been
??? Sorry if it sounds like a dumb question.
(That’s how I read it.)
Can we make the leap, that this relationship with Turkey is related to the pull out of troops?
Or is salt and pepper?
In matters involving Russia and Turkey, it is impossible to imagine that Flynn – Trump’s NSA designate and confidante to Javanka – would have acted so directly with Kislyak and others without Trump’s explicit approval. Russian concerns, in particular, were not just important to Trump, but vital. The Russians helped elect him, they are the principal sources of money for his bidnesses, and they are a major political and military power.
On a related matter, I disagree with the MSM meme that the president’s signal or major focus is the military defense of the United States. Much of that takes place through the military and bureaucracy. The president’s influence is largely limited to setting a tone and overriding priorities, even when we are at war.
There are many priorities that compete with physical security. In no particular order, they include cyber security, political leadership and security, commercial and financial stability, leadership of our regional and global alliances (and a keen sense of why they are important), a sense that the president understands much of what is happening in the world and in America, and that the president act with in best interests of all Americans.
Trump fails across the board. He is astoundingly ignorant, has a negative learning cure, is consistently destructive, and sees and promotes only his personal and commercial interests. Flynn’s lies and the president’s direct coordination of them grows from those roots.
Who is “really” carrying the water for this incredibly dump-fucked administration?
If the dump is so totally incompetent as most of us believe he is, then who pull s the strings on the various executive organizations? Someone must be coordinating with the McTurtle repuglicons since dump doesn’t seem to like to schmooze much.
Is the string puller within the current lame government or in some RW command bunker – US-based or international?
Obviously, to me, some of the major financial institutions are on board.
“Is the string puller within the current lame government or in some RW command bunker – US-based or international?”
Bingo! Excellent question.
The Saudis use that base too. @P J Evans. Killing two birds with one stone?
I wonder who suggested this instead of his extended pity party.
I am reminded the judge told Flynn he sold out America. Perhaps he should have added in defense of his boss.
To channel Flynn for a second. Of course Flynn knew all his communications were intercepted. In Flynn’s mind he is but one crook in a sea of crooks. Why would his sellouts or Trump’s crimes ever be prosecuted? No problem with discussing the rendition of Fethullah Gülen?
Two practical things-
Sorry to have to ask, but how to download Flynn’s 302? I click on the link, and I get the address for a .pdf but nothing shows up in the window.
Marcy, given that this a simplified version, it might be made even more simple by including the source for various quotes, at the very end of the quote, if it’s not obvious.
For example: Shortly after Christmas, 2016, FLYNN took a vacation to the Dominican Republic with his wife. On December 28th, KISLYAK sent FLYNN a text stating, “Can you call me?” — all of the quotes before appear in Flynn’s Statement of the Offense, but this quote does not. Is it from his 302?
If so, thus:
Shortly after Christmas, 2016, FLYNN took a vacation to the Dominican Republic with his wife. On December 28th, KISLYAK sent FLYNN a text stating, “Can you call me?” (Flynn 302)
And so forth… as I read on I got more and more confused as to sources of various quotes, and kept having to reread what you’d said to introduce the quote or quotes.
MaybeI’m just overly tired… but nonetheless…VG, this is the link I used
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633496/181217-Flynn-302.pdf
Thank you, PJ. That link works.
I have a folder full of legal docs from this maladministration – knowing when it went in, I have a good chance of findign the download link (back to about the beginning of November, when I got a new computer: before that, tough luck).
Okay, thanks to the link PJ posted, I find that this inference is correct:
Shortly after Christmas, 2016, FLYNN took a vacation to the Dominican Republic with his wife. On December 28th, KISLYAK sent FLYNN a text stating, “Can you call me?” (Flynn 302)
But where does the next quote come from? “Obama administration officials were………etc.” Rhetorical question. Just to make the point that I’m having a really hard time figuring out sources of quotes.
the thing about this story that boggles my mind is that obama waited until Dec 28 to do something… imagine if he’d acted, um, decisively? in, er… real time? he would have had 6 months to flush these rats into the open.
Yeah, but that question puts me in mind of John Keegan’s history of WWII and his excellent chapters describing each of the major figures’ (Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt) strategic dilemmas. Decisions that seem easy after the outcomes are known are often much harder to reach based on the information available at the time.
In the case of the 2016 election, now that we know the outcome, and now that Russian interference has become a partisan issue anyway, it’s easy to say that Obama should have gone public with what he knew and suspected, and let the chips fall where they might. But like everyone else, he was convinced of the likelihood of a Clinton victory, and presumably didn’t want to politicize what would be a key national security priority post-election.
Of course, there’s a character issue here as well: in the last year of his administration, many observers felt Obama had liberated himself from the insistence on bipartisanship that hamstrung his first two years in office. It’s ironic that Obama should have been left hanging by Mitch McConnell during one last crisis, but it also seems like a reversion to form.
I’m still not convinced that this explains the tenacity and the repetition of the lying by Flynn and others. If they had said, “Sure, we agreed not to interfere with Obama’s foreign policy, but his actions in closing two compounds and expelling personnel were so egregious that they undercut *our* explicitly stated purpose of reconciling Russia and the US to reduce the chances of dangerous confrontation. As such, it looked like sabotage by a lame duck president of a clear policy of rapprochement by a president-elect.”
Maybe not exactly legal, but it would have been very hard *politically* to punish them. Exigencies of foreign policy generally get great deference. If need be, Flynn could have fallen on his sword by saying he had exceeded his authority and resigned, a time-honored way for Washington to bury scandal. And Trump could have fired Comey openly for meddling in foreign policy.
Were they not sophisticated enough to understand that politics often trumps the letter of the law? Not organized enough to carry it off? Or is there maybe more to the lies, like the appearance or reality of corruption, that made them try to conceal the purpose?
[Belated holiday congratulations to Emptywheel.net for being a bright spot of sensible analysis and generally polite conversation on the Internet.]
I almost agree with you. But the big question here is why did Trump & Co. pursue these policies? If they were merely different policies than Obama favored, but Trump and his buddies believed in them in a heartfelt way, why hide what they were doing at all?
I’m guessing their motivations were not pure, and there is something about why they pursued these policies which they are trying to hide.
No dispute, Troutwaxer. Here’s a condensed version of Marcy’s argument:
Marcy is arguing that Flynn and Kushner’s actions were motivated by personal greed, and that that greed was approved by Trump (who therefore presumably was also motivated by greed). Flynn couldn’t admit to his true motive, because that would have been an admission that this was a violation of the agreement not to meddle with Obama’s policy.
But there would have been no consequences for violating the agreement.
Therefore, like you, I believe that they were hiding something more serious. Self-enrichment would certainly have been embarrassing, but only if the quid pro quo could be demonstrated. Even so, as cases like the Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay cases show, it’s very hard to get a conviction. But if the quid pro quo involved comprising US national interests, that might make for a serious scandal.
And then we have the question of what Trump’s interest in this deal was. Presumably it would have been for something pretty big.
I think he lied because (1) he never expected to get caught, and (2) because even though what he did was arguably defensible as part of his work on the transition team, it didn’t look good. Back then (two years ago, even though it feels like a decade), Russia was NOT considered to be our friend by virtually anyone in the government, and it would have been bad optics if Flynn was known to be cozying up to Russians.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Appearances aside, Russian money spends like everyone else’s in spite of the “fact” that foreign contributions are supposedly illegal in political campaigns. The GOP seems to have been cashing a lot of checks originating from Russian funds. Even without the NRA donations, Super Pacs and Kingpins of the Republican party seem to have had access to a lot of money from mother Russia in the political atmosphere.
Trump being dumb as a post and pathologically narcissistic, he sent a goodbye to the troops tweet as he headed back to safety and more McDonald’s, apparently embedding a video in it. Sadly, his message revealed the identities and location of members of SEAL Team Five, who are or were on a covert op.
Trump should be prosecuted for the security lapse – or it should be added to the laundry list for his impeachment. I would add to the charge sheet his continued use of insecure private cellphones for presidential communications, which almost certainly violates the PRA as well as security protocols.
Has no one told the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being ever to exist that cellphone pictures and video have embedded in them precise location data, along with date, time, and other data that could be useful to our enemies? Guess not.
WOW — the Special Counsel filed a motion for an indefinite stay on the grounds that appropriations have lapsed.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5668183-Stay.html
(comment posted here for lack of a better place to put it)
P.S., it looks like a motion to stay might be “routine” when appropriations lapse, and when the court denies it, the case continues as scheduled.
That’s all of the defendants in Corsi’s bullshit sue-’em-all civil case saying that appropriations have lapsed for the purpose of replying to bullshit civil cases.
the rich and stupid armed w/ dozens of shitty lawyers did take down the election infrastructure Bc Russia wanted revenge re ISR Snowden revealed. We reignited the Cold War. Putin was more than happy to play along with the farce oiled and supply demand, which buys us peace. Snowden is a traitor like trump. China is far worse than Russia. Wake up ppl we’re in WWIII. No president has ever stayed in DC post election like Obama. Think. And yes Treason is a crime punishable by death. It’s a fact. Look it up. As for the aforesaid, I’m afraid the irony of going dark, is enlightening
ah all the quanta
who needs NRO when you’ve got RV?
That would be much more impressive if it made sense.
Long time lurker, first time commenter; just thought I’d leave this here: https://www.opslens.com/2018/12/24/justice-department-brings-espionage-charges-against-turkish-agents/
P J Evans says:
December 26, 2018 at 11:17 pm
hilarious response.
Village Voice archive, Trump 1979:
https://www.villagevoice.com/2015/07/20/how-a-young-donald-trump-forced-his-way-from-avenue-z-to-manhattan/
https://www.villagevoice.com/2018/10/30/donald-trumps-seventies-convention-center-purchase-was-as-suspect-as-any-of-his-deals-today/
We can largely ‘thank’ Abe Beame for the Trump fuckery of today.
“That would be much more impressive if it made sense.”
Heh! Mark Twain? ;-)
Ivanka and Jared Are Spending Their Government Shutdown at Mar-a-Lago~Vanity Fair
__________________________________________
(Via The Daily Mail)~ Jared getting richer on GOP programs aimed at gentrifying (aka pushing out the poors)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Federal Employees are not allowed to take their vacations with a shut down, but Princess Ivanka and Jared are royalty.
https://nypost.com/2018/12/26/federal-employees-are-losing-vacation-in-government-shutdown/
Just like Chris Christie who closed a public beach during a state Gov’t shut down, only to be photographed there himself at the governor’s beach house the same day (which became the infamous beach chair meme).
I’m sure the crown prince and princess managed to get their positions deemed “essential.” So no furlough for them.
Flynn asks judge for permission to go to Rhode Island
https://www.abc-7.com/story/39698470/flynn-asks-judge-for-permission-to-go-to-rhode-island-as-sentencing-looms
I wouldn’t read too much into this. I think he just wants to go back to his house, because it’s more comfortable there, and he’ll have fewer reporters chasing after him every time he walks out the door.
What do you think I’m reading into it?
Donald Trump is Exhibit One in the case for reimposing a serious estate and gift tax – one with equally serious teeth for those who evade it. (It’s not a death tax, it doesn’t force small farmers and business owners into bankruptcy, and unless your last name is Gates, Buffett, Trump or Rockefeller, the odds of paying it are only slightly better than winning the lottery.)
Imagine Trump’s life without those millions. No high-priced military school. No degree from Penn; given his reading ability, none from City College either. Trump would have been thrown into the mire of Vietnam and, if lucky, he would now be stacking shelves at an Amazon warehouse. He couldn’t afford his rent in an outer borough because his landlord would have lied about his improvements and ratcheted up the controlled rent, or broken a few knee caps, tossed his tenants out, and redeveloped the property into high-priced condos.
Donald Trump hasn’t had those experiences because daddy gave him $400 million, and because daddy evaded estate and gift taxes on the benefits he gifted to the Don, while teaching him that evading the rules through bribery and corruption was the bidnessman’s highest calling.
Maria Butina
https://www.thedailybeast.com/maria-butinas-red-sparrow-makeover-revealed-on-russian-tv
So, um, Maria Butina just wanted to sleep with frumpy old Republican men and go to Styx concerts, y’all. That is one seriously ugly kink.
Seven furniture stores? Hahahaha….
Wouldn’t she have been better off trying to sleep with an oligarch like Deripaska?
If this is her defense line, it makes me wonder how the conservatives are swallowing it, as the moral purity czars they are.
No. This is the Kremlin defense.
Deripaska Loses Free Bus Ride Privileges
Wut?
Then there’s fake snow lady (Poklonskaya), on a horse, with champagne:
https://twitter.com/SevaUT/status/1077645604107534336
She is getting a lot of support in the comments. Aside: Our politicians look just as stupid with these type of stunts, so there’s that. But she does need better CGI.
Wow! The Cohen story
breaks wide open.
Tried posting from my phone and the comments seem to be gone.
I know that the conventional wisdom about Cohen/Prague is that it was a dry hole, yet still (via Big Orange):
It’s being reported by McClatchy that one of Cohen’s mobile phones pinged a couple of cell towers in Prague in late summer 2016. [via dKos: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/27/1821920/-Holy-smoking-gun-Michael-Cohen-s-phone-pinged-off-cell-phone-towers-in-Prague-in-summer-2016
and at McClatchy:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article219016820.html#storylink=latest_side
“It would not be very professional to take your phone to a secret meeting,” said Neumann, who has consulted for the U.S. intelligence community.
Ya think?
Read more here: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/investigations/article219016820.html#storylink=cpy
jeeze,punaise, you beat me by a minute…but I found a more direct link to add.
LOL, PJ: call it a draw?
(the McClatchy source link is embedded in the DKos post)…
Sure!
(I have the Sacramento Bee bookmarked – McClatchy paper. It’s a fast check.)
surely better journalism than our local rag the SF Chronicle!
Guiliani and Corsi are media whirl-winding today, wonder if that means news is coming.
Corsi’s interview set to music:
(cutandpaste)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvAYIJSSZY
Corsi’s on a roll about Mueller vans stalking him, I suppose the “Deep State” is out of black choppers this week and the Men In Black are in Aruba or something. I’ll agree it telegraphs something, but perhaps he needs more traffic on the GoFundMe legal fees scam. Seriously, I still don’t see how Corsi is a stand-alone critical player with stuff to hide, especially now.
Ghouliani, on the other hand, will be more useful as the Palace lawyer (or is he Kaiser Quisling’s personal lawyer?) and his statements in the media will tell what is being laid out there to get ahead of the stuff coming out like Cohen’s Prague Ping.
OT but also amusing in its own way, apparently Butina’s being cast as a wannabe spy vixen by the
SovietRussian press. She would do well to stay here and do the wingnut welfare / Faux News contributor shtick. Maybe,an episode of Murphy Brown Version 2.0 would pay the bills.We’ve always suspected the diagnosis would be be bad; now the Prague-Know-sis is grim…
Appalling, tsk, tsk, tsk.
Anyhow, this placement of Cohen in Prague in 2016 has been the El Dorado of the collusion investigation. For much of Kaiser Quisling’s reign, this had been a topic and I would suspect that the Steele Dossier may have used some UK spook intercepts since I’m pretty sure after Philby and the occasional dead Putin critic they are very interested in any
SovietRussian activities by the FSB, et al. Steele was one of them and I’m sure he had friends.To everyone above: Only McClatchy reporting it, supposedly obtained by Eastern European intelligence, via 4 sources. Not independently confirmed anywhere else. So…dunno.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/investigations/article219016820.html
If the cell towers capture all signals, even while the phone is off, but the battery remains, why do they mention him checking emails?
also:
Trip, this is another piece of corroboration for the dossier. (Assume that Mueller got the information before collecting Cohen.)
I think once the UK spooks (following my Steele connection theory) became aware of the connection to the
SovietsRussians they forwarded it over to the Feebs who were already looking at Carter Page out of the Trump campaign for the same reasons. The short burst / check may not have been noticed, but someone was watching either Cohen or his contact relaying info to Putin.Five eyes…
P J, yeah, I get where the article is going with it. I’m simply maintaining a certain level of skepticism, since no one else can independently confirm it.
But the article conflicts with itself, in stating that the signal was captured momentarily because he opened emails, what have you, but in the same breath, mentioning that signal capture can happen with the phone off (as long as batteries aren’t removed). So why the briefness? If any of this was true, was he traveling so fast that the signal was only caught for a flash, or did he only put the battery in for a minute while passing the tower?
Regarding Cohen’s phone, I can’t help but think of Manafort’s laptop. As many recall, while Manafort was locked up, he was typing emails on his laptop and then handing his laptop back to his lawyers. Once it was in their offices, it would automatically connect to their wifi and then send his outbox.
It’s possible Cohen was trying to do something similar — give a phone to an errand boy with instructions to turn it on when he reached a destination, so that it would transmit messages while Cohen was somewhere else.
Even if this is wrong, I’m guessing before this is all over that someone else besides Manafort is going to be caught up in an amateur hour attempt at an e-security dodge. (Hasn’t someone else been caught trying to duplicate the Petraeus foldering?)
The leading theory at dKos is that Cohen turned on a non-burner phone to check a contact – it would only take a couple of seconds to check, but the ping got captured.
Peter Smith et al., HRC email hunters, were also foldering.
@BobCon, why wouldn’t you use a BAT phone, so that there is no connection to you at all?
If this is what happened — and I’m fully open to being wrong — you could see a situation where you want a text to be coming from a trusted number. Or maybe Cohen thought there was some kind of super-sekret encryption method on the phone that his brother in law Davey’s cousin’s neighbor guarantees is impossible for the FBI to break.
The only way this works is if you see Cohen as trying to pull off some kind of security scheme that is too clever by half. The reality is that if you’re trying to be really safe, you don’t carry any phone at all; but then, if you’re trying to be safe, you don’t communicate with Russians about anything and stick to legitimate business.
One point to stress, though, is that the presence of a Cohen phone around Prague doesn’t translate into Cohen being there — there are plausible scenarios for him to lend a phone to someone else who went there.
BAT phone, with a known code-word in subject line would have worked. But then again, Cohen is the same guy who set up the shell Delaware LLC (directly linked to himself, no layers), so there’s that.
We don’t, of course, know which phone they mean when they talk about Cohen’s phone. It could well be a burner that he got specifically for a single trip, and then screwed up by using a few times stateside when his regular one ran out of juice. Or maybe he thought he’d be safe by switching SIM cards.
Who knows. One of the weird features of digital paranoia is that people trying to hide something will put a lot more faith in an anonymous person on a dodgy forum who insists that you should only use a certain Chinese phone at a certain time because that’s when they reboot their servers than they will trust an authoritative source. BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THE DEEP STATE WANTS YOU TO THINK!!!
Ha!
This is ridiculous.
So let’s work under the supposition there was no collusion with Russians and the Trump campaign. This is a good position to take because, voila! there has been no collusion found or proven. You can bet if there was it would have been leaked and Mueller would have acted very quickly.
So on that basis we can state with reasonable certainty . . .
1) Flynn was perfectly within rights to discuss with the Russian Ambassador. And certainly right to plan the discussion with other Trump officials.
2) The Obama admin enacted the sanctions for exactly the reasons KT McFarland detailed, largely to hamstring the incoming Trump Admin, who, because of some Intelligence Community subterfuge, in conjunction with the DNC, Perkins Coie, Fusion (plead the fifth) GPS and British Intelligence via Christopher Steele, genuinely, or worse, disingenuously believed something was up with the Russians / Trump.
3) Someone deliberately leaked top secret information – Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak – to disrupt a presidential transition, a very, very serious (treasonous) crime not being pursued, apparently
4) Someone unmasked Flynn – Susan Rice, Samantha (of the famed 250 unmaskings, I didn’t do it) Power? – also a very serious crime that has gone uninvestigated and therefore unpunished
5) Sally Yates, later fired for overt, intentionally political insubordination, tried to frame up Flynn on the ridiculous Logan Act charges to throw chaos into the fledgling Trump admin
6) Intentionally putting the The Trump Admin in early disarray, them reeling from accusations of Russian collusion, with Trump personally staggered by Comey’s J. Edgar Hoover blackmail ploy – remember, Comey, who threw aside protocol and sent “a couple of guys” into the White House to entrap Flynn, only briefed Trump on the pee-tape. Comey himself, probably sporting that Grinch-like face of his, explained how rattling that was to Trump. Yet the PB given to Obama the previous day, and leaked to the future employer, CNN by the perjurious James (I gave the least untrue answer) Clapper, contained a full synopsis of Clinton’s anti-Trump dossier.
I strongly suggest giving up on this nonsense. Even crazy-person, Rachel Maddow seems to be finally giving it a rest, moving on to new outrages where she can finds them. Have you noticed every senior level person at the DoJ / FBI, at the time of the election has been fired, resigned, retired or demoted and it should be clear as day where the shenanigans can be laid? Do you want a list? It’s way over a dozen.
Finally, Flynn’s lying? Did he really? If he did, does it matter? He’s NSA and a general, he doesn’t answer about national security to a couple of FBI clunks many grades below his pay level. Especially when there is not one reason for them to know at all. And remember, one clunk was Peter Strzok. We certainly found out what he was all about, as did Horowitz and Mueller and his employer, the FBI. Maybe he can be a character witness at lying Andrew McCabe’s trial.
Not.
It gives me no joy to burst your bubble but it’s a bubble that must be burst. You and your country have to move forward.
Since this is a pile of dog feces, the rest of the argument is below the mound.
When you cover your ears and go “la la la la”, rock back and forth. It will make you feel better.
Yeah, I’M the one covering myself from reality…mmkay.
Here’s some reality for you . . .
FBI Departures:
James Comey, director – fired
Andrew McCabe, deputy director – fired
Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert – fired
Lisa Page, attorney – demoted, – resigned
James Rybicki, chief of staff – resigned
James Baker, general counsel resigned
Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs – resigned
Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey – resigned
James Turgal, executive assistant director – resigned
Greg Bower, assistant director for office of congressional affairs – resigned
Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director – resigned
John Giacalone, executive assistant director – resigned
DOJ Departures:
Sally Yates, deputy attorney general – fired
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general – twice demoted
David Laufman, counterintelligence chief – resigned
Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general – resigned
Trisha Beth Anderson, office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general – resigned
Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison – resigned
Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general – resigned
Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general – resigned
Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY – fired
Sharon McGowan, civil rights division – resigned
Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights – resigned
Vanita Gupta, civil rights division – resigned
Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division – resigned
*Status Unclear
If we go by departures alone, that makes Priebus, Mattis, Bannon, Tillerson, Omarosa, Cohn, Kelly, the bodyguard, Manafort, Flynn, Sessions etcetera etcetera somehow significant. Or maybe you have a psychopath who discards people, or who pushes other people to discard people when they aren’t bootlickers, sycophants, or co-conspirators who keep quiet or who haven’t gotten caught.
And then maybe another time, just to fuck with you, we should list all of the dead Russians befallen by ‘accidents’.
Mmmm….
Those DoJ / FBI types are pretty specific to the Clinton and Trump investigations and the resultant Congressional and Inspectors General investigations.
I don’t disagree that Trump’s a douchebag but those Trump circle departures are largely a result of Trump’s or their own douchebaggery.
I’m certain there’s no lower form of life, other than the Podesta boys, than Manafort, Gates and Cohen and they got exactly what they deserved. That they got into Trump’s circle is disturbing but there is a reason they call the swamp the swamp.
Oh FFS, read the Village Voice archive I posted above. Trump is the original swamp creature. The congressional investigations which were led by Inspector Clouseau Nunes? HAHAHAHAHA.
This is good comedy performance art.
I’ll give it a shot but I’ll warn you . . . articles in defunct papers written by people sporting man-buns, gigantic, hairy beards and unwashed, tight fitting jeans sometimes strain my powers of concentration.
If they’re #stillwithher I might even squirm in my seat.
The Village Voice was an excellent paper, especially in the 70s, but I mean, if you have preconceived stereotypical notions about where you are permitted to read, that explains a lot actually.
Best to get news from some rich guy in a tie, or one yelling on Faux News.
It’s not called a swamp anymore, it’s called a cesspool. Please keep up!
We know you have practiced enough to know this very well, troll.
[I hope you’ve taken notice that I haven’t responded to your limited rejoinder – ergo the brackets]
Just checked on my bubble, it’s fine.
Stay strong.
The only thing even half right is #1 (it of course depends on what they discussed). Everything else is pure garbage.
This blog does reality. Try harder: it ain’t collusion, it’s CONSPIRACY.
Ah, can’t believe I missed that.
Please bring me up to speed on the charges, proof and convictions.
Thanks in advance.
You mean all of those guilty pleas and deals?
Already covered at length elsewhere by people who can read something and comprehend its meaning as opposed to a dogmatic MAGATroll
David K. Peers, thanks for sharing. Moving forward with so much more to be revealed … stay tuned for more bubbles.
Bubbles in Russian – пузырьки (puzyr’ki)
Maybe if at least one little thing was found to be true we could keep sitting on the edge of our seats. As it is we’ve just got a red mark on our thighs, our backs are a bit stiff and we’re out of popcorn.
Even Watergate had some milestones.
I applaud the endurance of this group.
In honour of the season, I’ll just let out a good hahahahahahaha, followed by a folderol and yippy ki yay. Please watch the swinging doors as you exit: they close sharply.
Festive @earl, I like it!
Don’t worry, I’m sure I will be banned and the comment deleted. That’s de rigueur on “progressive” sites.
You’re such an impressive martyr. Jesus would be jealous.
“Holy Tintinnabulation! It’s DKP on the BAT phone!”
Thanks for telling us you’re a troll; we’d never have figured it out, based on your claims about “no collusion”.
/s
So you’ve got proof of collusion, have you?
Let’s hear it. It’s your chance to convert an unbeliever.
To quote the famous joke, patience jack a**, it’s coming…
Two years and counting.
Every major news outlet has been on this like a fat kid on a Smartie™ – nada.
The premier investigative force in the world – the FBI, – nada.
Mueller’s purported to be an investigative god (notwithstanding that Anthrax fiasco that cost everybody $5.9 million for prosecutorial criminality) – nada.
Ask yourself this; why would Putin deny collusion / conspiracy, whatever? Wouldn’t that be the greatest PSYOP coup of all time, to say you betcha, totally colluded with the Donald and man did we eff up America!!!
I would, if so inclined.
And everything Trump has said has turned out to be a lie, and the more we dig, the more we find. It’s just getting started.
Dig deep enough and you’ll get to China, a whole new bunch of colluders and conspiracists, I imagine.
Deep wide enough and you’ll bump into Mueller. You can help him re-bury the inconvenient bodies. Hi Tony Podesta!
Let me ask you this; do you think Trump is some anti-establishment politician? Because all he hired were lobbyists. He took money from the Mercers and many other dark roots. He gave the MIC more money than ever before. He gave away environmental protections so billionaires could rape and pillage the earth for more wealth. What do you think his objective is? You think he strolled into the WH as some ‘interrupter’ for change? He has been following the Federalist playbook (Koch), except for some diversions into narcissistic chaotic tantrums. He was a failure as a businessman himself. He is doing all the things that please the GOP. How is he this agent for change that the deep state is so scared of and thus is after? Do you honestly think the Clintons have THAT much power? And IF they did, how is it that they didn’t rig election for themselves with all of this deep state help?
So we are starting from the assumption that Putin has impeccable credibility? That he doesn’t troll or use sarcasm? That he doesn’t benefit from the chaos that is Trump? He doesn’t play both sides? Wow.
I see you have your reality well insulated.
I see you can’t think for yourself. You can’t interpret behavior. You haven’t read anything about his history. He has an advantage in not taking direct credit (plausible deniability), while playing the wink and the nod that he did.
It’s much more beneficial for him that way.
Huh?
And how long did Benghazi and Whitewater go on for with no convictions or even indictments (political impeachments don’t count)? Also, Mueller’s turned a profit thanks to Manafort, which is more than Ken Starr did before letting all of those sex crimes happen while running Baylor.
I’ll tackle this since nobody wants to touch it: legally speaking there is no such thing as collusion. So Mueller isn’t trying to prove collusion, and neither is anyone else. Collusion” doesn’t exist legally so nobody is trying to take it to court. The word “collusion” is a propaganda point for people with no legal knowledge.
But “conspiracy,” “failure to register as a foreign agent,” “money laundering,” “espionage,” and “accepting a bribe” are all crimes, and these are the legal issues Mueller is looking into, and he has gotten confessions and convictions on many of these crimes as well as others I didn’t mention.
Indeed he has. He’s been busily beavering away draining the swamp. I’m sure any day now, Integrity Bob will be wading into the Clinton, Maxine Waters, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Diane Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal pools, though its likely the last one has wasted all his ill-gotten gains on bad plastic surgery and re-writes of his personal Viet Nam history.
Anyway, what does any of that have to do with Mueller’s original mandate – finding out how and when Russia and the Big Fat Orange Liar worked together to influence a presidential election so Clinton lost and the BFOL won?
Hacking, theft, election coordination and conspiracy to commit any of the above would also be crimes.
Don’t forget gerrymandering and voter suppression (like in WI, GA and FL)
Mark Sumner puts together an interesting picture, at Kos – with Manafort deeply involved:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/12/27/1819792/-Explained-The-Russian-effort-to-help-Donald-Trump
The Daily Kos? LOL.
Might as well read Wonkette if you’re going to read that crap.
Why don’t you try something serious, like the Nation – Aaron Maté or Stephen F. Cohen.
If you’re still unconvinced at least you will be smarter.
Okay, here we go with the Cohen in Prague thing and McClatchy, Greg Gordon. Remember he reported it 6 months ago and no one confirmed and it felt debunked. I had given up on this because so many doubted it and because why wouldn’t Cohen give that up if he’s giving up everything else, but … https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/investigations/article219016820.html
OMFG. Even Mueller has moved well past the Cohen in Prague nonsense.
Haven’t you followed Clinton operative, Lanny Davis? Even he says the Prague story is bunk. And he’s on the Clinton payroll.
Are they paying you for these low-quality comedy bits in rubles or in dollars?
Because everyone who’s been paying any attention knows that Lanny Davis works primarily for himself.
Why would he work primarily for himself?
Does his pay come from primarily himself?
If so, I need to get that gig. I’d even take Rubles.
You post a lot of totally worthless crap. Go away.
Cohen screaming at journalists to check his passport is a rich piece of footage right now. Like I said then, “When you are explaining, you are losing.”
Stephen Hawking would have been nonplussed by that comment.
Folks, I’ve got to go. Thank you all for your time. I’ll be the first to support the removal of Trump if the accusations levelled at him turn out to be true. My hunch is they won’t but like I typed, it’s only a hunch.
Keep an open mind – me too; weigh both sides and look for truth wherever you can find it. And do be careful with the anti-Russia stuff. It’s dangerous. We don’t need a war with a nuclear power, especially because we’ve talked ourselves into one. Believe me, it’s way worse in England, this Russia hysteria cattle drive. They’re working themselves into a real problem.
Peace and prosperity to all in the New Year. Again, thank you for your time and your patience.
And don’t read the Daily Kos. Those ppl are crazy 🙂
Let the door hit you…you might learn something from the experience.
Good bye. You had nothing to offer here but the same falsehoods we can hear from Trump and his attorneys, so we won’t miss you at all.
👍
Trollrollrollrollroll, rollrollrollroll. Remarkable how quickly they can take over a comment section.
Not a troll, but some kind of paid/volunteer professional propagandist. He didn’t quite read right for a troll – his playbook was a little too advanced.
Agreed.
Why would a progressive site erase his comment? Each one of those comments is proof of ignorance and thinking errors. Mr Peers clearly does not know that his use of the term “collusion” as well as his glib tone tell us precisely how misinformed. No. My bet is that any progressive site, in the interest of cold hard facts, would let David K Peers stand by his comments as this story unfolds.
Our troll reads as well and as widely as its hero, Donald Trump, to whom it is obviously devoted. It also loves playing the victimhood card. Best to ignore.
Not sure if this matters, but you probably don’t want it out there. The link to Flynn’s 302 is file:///Users/marcywheeler/Documents/Blog/Mueller/181217%20Flynn%20302.pdf, which doesn’t return anything when you click on it, but there are probably actors more skilled than I who might be able to do something with that?
It is in the linked post, but thanks for appearing for the first time and being silly.
Yeah, we didn’t “want it out there”, there was a link to post from ten days ago focused on just that.
What kind of idiot are you?
I’m going to bookmark this page so I can come back and laugh at Mr. Peers at the end of February.
@Robert Morris
You are absolutely correct that there are two links in Marcy’s post above that refer to “Flynn’s 302” but link to “file:///Users/marcywheeler/Documents/Blog/Mueller/181217%20Flynn%20302.pdf” which is a dead link and pretty useless. I assume by “you probably don’t want it out there” you meant that Marcy did not intend to post this dead link, which is the only reasonable interpretation of what you posted taken as a whole, and of course, you are right, she did not. Unfortunately, it appears @bmaz misunderstood the meaning and intent of your post and replied to ask “What kind of idiot are you?”, to which I can only remark that bmaz is clearly the idiot in this case for misinterpreting your post.
I apologize greatly on behalf my myself and every reasonable human here in the emptywheel community for both the errors in the post and the completely uncalled for and inappropriate response you received from bmaz. It is most regrettable I think that you were subject to that and hopefully bmaz will take the time in the future to be more thoughtful before he responds.
I also extend a thank you for calling attention to the two broken links in the post–hopefully they will get fixed–and in the meantime, I believe (but I’m not certain) that the correct link is https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5633496-181217-Flynn-302.html
Best regards, thank you for reading, and thank you again for calling attention to the error.
@Alan
If you had read the comments from the top, you’d have noticed that I linked that for VG yesterday, when she pointed out that it was a bad linky.
@ Alan, Robert Morris, and bmaz-
I think Robert Morris might also have been worried about a filepath being posted, and was concerned for EW (his reference to “skilled actors”). Recently, I had seen a commenter give a filepath instead of an url and had remarked on it, while trying to not be too explicit so as to not draw the wrong kind of attention. I had hoped then that a moderator would see the accidentally posted filepath and delete it. So I can both relate and am making a more direct statement now, in case it matters. (It probably doesn’t matter in this case as MW’s name is already known, etc.)
Re: David K Peers:
Debate class was fun wasn’t it? Being tasked to argue both sides of an argument is empowering to those who believe in their own superiority and destiny to lead.
Most regulars here have heeded warnings regarding the practice of feeding trolls on this site. All should recall that when you ‘rassle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.
Like calling Trump a douchebag.
Just because you are not lying about one think it doesn’t make the lies valid.
Peers showed up on the latest thread. I guess he decided that trolling a “progressive” site – his word, not mine – is both fun and profitable.
The PTB are going to try to discredit Marcy precisely because she is credible.
My older brother, who communicates with animals, reminded me once that in the mind of a stray animal, feeding it is the equivalence of adoption.
The remarks of David K Peers are confirmation that Sinclair Lewis was astute in pointing out that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”
The propaganda he was pushing, I don’t think he believes his narrative, he knows they are pure lies.
Was trying to figure out what he was trying to accomplish. He probably understands very well nobody in this forum will buy the narrative he was presenting, so why waist the time?
Trial balloons, but for what purpose?
Tried to refrain myself on responding to his posts. They were intended to invoke responses, so paid propagandist makes some sense.
It gives a glimpse of the conservatives talking points.
It also lends credence to the RWNJ Wingnut Welfare post for profit motive that drives a fair percentage of what is wrong with discourse in this country. Don’t believe for a second that he’s from England, either!
“Trial balloons, but for what purpose?”
Matt Whitaker ever hire a spokesperson to explain his rationale for ignoring the advice of DOJ ethics re:recusal from Mueller probe?
Unfortunately, missed Mr. *Peers* earlier where he chucked in a comment about Russia / UK. Concluded that *specs* could help him see more *clearly* or maybe he could just remove the *rose-tinted* ones which are causing his trumped up parochial bias.