World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Who's going to be the fall guy? First charges filed in Mueller investigation
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Ian
(new)
Dec 01, 2017 01:56PM
For me, the issue is still unclear, but maybe will become clearer soon. My guess is Flynn may have a deal, but may not. My guess is that he has pleaded guilty to something (lying to the FBI) for which the evidence in incontrovertible, and that means the FBI (or someone) recorded the conversation. I am not sure what "lying to the FBI" would mean in terms of punishment, and I am sure that many people do it to conceal their misdeeds, and my guess is, if that were all the FBI has, Flynn could probably roll with it. So the question then is, what else is there? Intriguing times are coming.
reply
|
flag
Matthew wrote: "A man working for the Russians was advising the future U.S. president WHILE the Russians were trying to influence the election so he'd win." That is indeed at the heart of the matter, and the question then is, was Manafort WORKING for the Russians? That he was working for Yanukovich is not disputed, but what happened after 2014? If he did little more than complete his obligations from those contracts, then I don't see that as collusion. If he merely continued with business dealings with Russians, that is presumably not illegal, so the fact that his dealings involved Russians who had ties with Putin does not mean Manafort was involved in political activities. I rather fancy that most leading Russian businessmen have either direct or indirect links to Putin. Further allegations may well be part of the indictment, but an indictment does not mean that he did it; merely that he is accused of doing it. We need the case from both sides. A man has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, not merely accused of guilt.I have no doubt that Trump was aware a number of these people had business dealings with Russians, and it appears that someone purported to be a Russian agent at a meeting and claimed to have Hillary's emails, but equally a lot of people probably had access to Hillary's emails, and there is no evidence that anyone at this meeting had any authority whatsoever with the Russian government. In short, they had all the characteristics of scam artists.
As for the "sour grapes", I am sure there is a lot of that around, but we must all admit there is more to this than that. How much more is the question.
And in the latest development, Michael Flynn is apparently preparing to testify that Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians. But I imagine there will still be some people who claim collusion did not take place or there's no proof. Perhaps they will say Flynn's lying to cover his ass? But as the saying goes, "denial is just not a river in Africa" ;)https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/01/court...
The question is when did the order come? If it came after the election, there cannot be collusion to pervert the election. I know you will say he was contradicting Obama's order, but I would argue that once the new President is known, the old President should not do anything to contradict the policies advocated by his replacement. (In NZ, after an election is declared, the previous incumbents have to clear their desks more or less straight away, and where there is a question, convention says nobody does anything that contradicts what the winner of the election wants.) It may have been strictly illegal to pervert the last gasp of Obama, but if it were to inform the Russians that the declared election policy would be honoured does not seem to me to be that wrong.
Flynn's issues with the FBI are all post election and/or unrelated to collusion to sway the election result.Flynn's in deep doo doo, but what is happening doesn't support the Trump-Putin Russian collusion narrative.
For the Russian collusion narrative to reach a conclusion where Trump is in trouble will require Flynn to say something that hasn't already been said.
The indictments of Manafort and the others were to scare Flynn. Consequently, I'll double-down on Flynn to have already run off at the mouth. He's yet to disappoint and there's sure to be more serious revelations at least at his level. Any takers?
Hi Alex. I'm too risk adverse to take the other side of that bet. :-).
^_^Who will be the next one to be indicted? It looks like in addition to Kushner, the following are at risk:
The day after then-President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Russia over Moscow's election interference, Flynn spoke with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the court documents say.
Flynn first consulted with a "senior official of the Presidential Transition Team," who was with other transition members at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, on what to tell the ambassador about American sanctions.
Speaking later that day with Kislyak, Flynn requested that Russia not retaliate against the punitive measures just imposed by the U.S., the court papers say. Flynn then called the transition official to report on his discussion. The following day, Russia announced that it would not take retaliatory measures against the U.S.
Top Trump aides Stephen Miller, K.T. McFarland, Kellyanne Conway, Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus were all at Mar-a-Lago with then-President-elect Trump on Dec. 29, 2016, according to a pool report by a journalist assigned to cover Trump and the transition team on that day.
(Emphasis mine.
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/01/561238...)
Everybody is still ignoring my point regarding seriousness of the event. Obama deliberately used his last gasp to do something against Russia that directly opposed Trump election promise of trying to improve relations with Russia. What is so wrong with sending someone to Kislyak to say, don't retaliate. How can "Don't retaliate," hurt the US? Yes, on one interpretation of the Logan Act it was illegal, but the Logan Act was passed to stop someone undermining the President. This was something to stop the undermining of who would be President in a few weeks. Technically naughty, but logically sound, in my opinion.Why should the President elect have to put up with the outgoing President deliberately undermining his intended policy?
Agree with Ian's point that the feeling was that once Obama realized it was Trump who inherited him, he tried to do everything in his power to perpetuate as much as possible and to make things irreversible. Yet, it will be judged under American law, which may interpret the situ differently.I remember a long line of foreign dignitaries visiting and phoning Trump once he was announced as president elect. I'm sure some of discussions weren't only pleasantries, but referred to prospective stance and policies..
Ian wrote: "Everybody is still ignoring my point regarding seriousness of the event. Obama deliberately used his last gasp to do something against Russia that directly opposed Trump election promise of trying ..."Good points on the timing and intent. The dead time in the US process between election and office is something that the UK and others struggle with. Normally a matter of hours in the UK the 2010 result was a notable exception.
On the matter at hand, we should not forget that Flynn also has the Turkish issues to deal with, which is another undercurrent in the other candidates. i.e. is Turkish collusion or attempts also evident in trying to influence the election
I also agree that Obama's actions were odd for timing as he had apparently been advised in Summer 2016 but chose not to react for fear of influencing the election - did the Republican majority in the Senate and Congress also support these sanctions. I can't find any obvious disagreement in fact they seemed concerned about Russian activity as well.
Just as a parting note and not sure how widely it has been reported outside the UK but the Russian have also been accused of influencing the Brexit referendum and potentially the UK general elections in 2015 and 2017. There had also been reports of attempts in France and maybe Germany, but I suspect much of this is sour grapes from losing sides giving Trump support for his false news accusations.
Still Trump has managed to upset the UK again this week - he will not have a sympathetic ear from the USA's closet ally for some time, whilst re-tweeting far right false propaganda. He upset the Netherlands at the same time.
This story will run and run and the FBI and Special Prosecutor may have lots more from their Grand Jury Hearings
Philip, Flynn's Turkish connection was reported here (NZ) as was the allegation of Brexit meddling. Regarding the Turkish issue, I see no substantial problem with Flynn. First, Turkey is a NATO ally, not an enemy (yet, anyway) and Flynn surely was able to earn money. Further, his actual contact, as reported here, was an American registered organization acting s an agent for the US government. He did report his activities - but to the DIA. So he reported to the wrong agency under strict US law. Surely that can't be the most serious of naughtiness?The reports of Brexit interference apparently rely on 400 tweets by people of Russian origin. So what? Am I interfering with the US by writing this? I am, after all, a foreigner. My view is the US, UK, and most other countries in the West are mature enough to allow people from other countries to express a view. When you vote, surely you vote for what you want to happen, not because you saw a wretched tweet?
As an aside, while I may seem to defend some of Trump's people, what I am defending is the right to be judged on facts, not allegations, and the right to a defence. If anyone objects to that, tough. As for Trump, he seems to be a clown in foreign affairs, and someone really should stop him tweeting.
Ian wrote: "Philip, Flynn's Turkish connection was reported here (NZ) as was the allegation of Brexit meddling. Regarding the Turkish issue, I see no substantial problem with Flynn. First, Turkey is a NATO all..."Hi Ian - agreed and my sour grapes point. We can all express views but it's only those that bother to vote that actually get counted the rest is just hot air.
Without cold, hard facts from the sealed email and other communiques of the Obama period White House, it's impossible to definitively say whether or not he was justified in kicking out the Russian diplomatic staff. (Although I have yet to hear that their diplomatic residences that were also confiscated have been returned by the current administration.) Maybe we'll know 50 years from now when a journalist uses the freedom of information act.But until then, it's worthwhile to speculate and either way is fair game. Make your case, I say.
I thought it particularly kind of Mueller to give his upcoming targets the weekend to spend time with their families whilst considering their fates.
I think that Priebus or Bannon could be next in line. Kushner would never spill the beans on his father-in-law and the other three are too minor. Thoughts?
Maybe Kushner won't spill the beans on his father-in-law but I believe that Donald Trump Junior may just do that...unintentionally, by sticking his foot in his mouth. The guy is in my opinion a not too bright spoiled brat who was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth and who depends on others to think for him.
I think it depends on what the beans are, and how widely they are spread. If, as was likely at the rate Flynn was gone, Flynn was on the outer, he may not know what the means were, so they may just draw a barrier around them. Yes, they can admit they told Flynn to go talk to Kislyak, and that may be seen by the enthusiasts as naughty, but really in the grand scheme of things it is peanuts, not beans. Nothing that the transition team did affected the election because time is one-way. Mueller can persist with that, but it starts to look somewhat petty if all they can find wrong, after all this, is find that they tried to make things better for American business and for their own policies, which had been torpedoed by Obama.
Ian, I find your reasoning and logic rather selective. There is a lot more here than just flynn simply trying to do business with the Russians. He was part of the Trump campaign at a time when Trump kept raising the subject of Clinton's emails and hoping out loud that both Wikileaks and the Russians could make those emails public. As for Obama's actions at the time, I will remind you that he was still President and was retaliating against hacking attempts and false propaganda aimed at affecting the American presidential elections. Obama had good reasons to want to punish the Russians by applying sanctions. That he was due to be replaced by Trump does not mean his responsibilities as President stopped the day after the elections.
Michel wrote: " Obama had good reasons to want to punish the Russians by applying sanctions. That he was due to be replaced by Trump does not mean his responsibilities as President stopped the day after the elections."Well said!
Michel wrote: "Maybe Kushner won't spill the beans on his father-in-law but I believe that Donald Trump Junior may just do that...unintentionally, by sticking his foot in his mouth. The guy is in my opinion a not..."
If that were to occur, it would be terribly ironic.
Michel, I guess it is a matter of opinion but here at least, if the election shows a change of government, the incumbent is obliged to do nothing that would impede the incoming government from carrying out their policies. That Flynn was part of the team when Trump was asking someone to talk about Hillary's emails means nothing - it implies that Trump did NOT know the content of them, which in turn contradicts the theme of collusion. If Obama knew there were hacking attempts by the Russians, which occurred several months before the election, why not act PRIOR to the election? That Flynn was associated with the team means Flynn was an element of the set of Republicans. The accusation is there was a subset of Republicans that were colluding with the Russians. Where is the evidence that Flynn was an element of the second subset? Find the evidence, and I shall join the crowd requiring Flynn to face that music, but I do not see it. As for logic, if you care to show me where my logic is wrong, then I shall appreciate that and apologise, but so far I do not see it.The argument that Obama was still president is an aberrant part of the US system, that it has inherited from the early times when everyone travelled very slowly. There was to be a change of government, and it is wrong to try to torpedo your successor, just because you don't believe in his policies. Obama's party was really beaten in the election, and he should have honoured the people's vote. Yes, he must carry out the responsibilities of seeing the government continues to function, but that is all.
Ian, you are again showing a deeply biased logic and arguments and I am getting really tired to discuss with someone who wants to see only what he wants to see. That so-called aberrant part of the US system is in place and functional, whether you like it or not. The USA are not New-Zealand, so forget about the comparisons. As for Obama's party being 'really beaten' in the elections and about him honoring the people's vote, I will remind you that the Democrats won the popular vote and that Trump won only because of the electoral college system in place in the USA. I have been an intelligence analyst for 27 years and was trained to look at things logically and with an open mind, leaving aside any personal bias and preconceived ideas when analyzing a situation. I now see that no argument or fact will sway you, other than those that fit your ideologies, so I am leaving this thread to go do more useful things.
Michel, even if you do not read this, my point for anyone else is:Logic is the development of conclusions based on mathematics that follow from premises, or statements. If the statement is false, then so are any conclusions that follow from it.
Yes, the US uses the electoral college system. However, if the President is decided by electoral college votes, then the sum of the popular vote is irrelevant because winning presidents focus on the so-called swing states, and ignore making major time-consuming efforts in states they cannot win. Also, my argument that Obama's party were beaten is based on the President, the Senate, and the House are Republican or predominantly Republican. You cannot say you lost all three and yet "really" you won. Not logically, anyway.
To say my logic is biased is illogical: it is either right or wrong. My statement was: "That Flynn was associated with the team means Flynn was an element of the set of Republicans. The accusation is there was a subset of Republicans that were colluding with the Russians. Where is the evidence that Flynn was an element of the second subset?" The statements can be summarised as:
(a) Flynn was a Republican
(b) There is an accusation
(c) Some Republicans are accused
The question then is, is Flynn an element of the subset defined by (c). I know asking for evidence is not popular in this debate, but that is what I am doing. To accuse someone of faulty logic because they ask for evidence is not a productive procedure. To say that no fact will sway me contradicts my request for someone to provide the fact. What I want is evidence. I am prepared to give someone the benefit of the doubt, to believe innocence until guilt is proven. Yes, I am against much of the current anti-Russian allegations largely because it reminds me of McCarthyism, and I do not want to see a return to that. Contributing towards avoiding that would be doing something useful.
There is a conversation that needs to be held on the nature of evidence and how people deal with it - perhaps someone should open a thread.I see people disagreeing on what the facts are, and on examination they have different definitions of what constitutes evidence.
This is a common issue in the world today (perhaps yesterday as well ... :-)) and results in people talking past each other because they literally respond to different 'evidence,' sets.
Interesting point, Graeme. Give me a little time and I shall try.
Things are heating up quickly.Mr Mueller issued a subpoena to Germany's largest bank several weeks ago demanding data on transactions linked to the US president, Reuters news agency and a German newspaper say.
(Trump-Russia probe: Mueller 'demands Deutsche Bank data' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-ca... )
Interesting. I assume Mueller could try a subpoena on the NY branch, say, but if all transactions went through Frankfurt, could he? Also, how does he know Deutsche Bank s the bank??Meanwhile an ABC reporter Brian Ross has been suspended for four weeks for reporting that Presidential Candidate Trump requested Flynn to contact Russians when he knew it was President elect Trump. I mention that because some her seem fixated by the concept that if it is reported it must be true.
Also, Peter Strzok has allegedly been removed from the FBI for email exchanges with a lawyer acting for McCabe (Deputy Dir., FBI) the exchanges being clearly anti-Trump Pro Hillary. The accusation from Trump is the FBI is not being politically neutral. Of course, in terms of evidence, there are only these two that have been actually named. More interesting is the Republicans are drafting a contempt of Congress resolution against Rosenstein (Deputy AG) and FBI Director Wray for stonewalling and refusing to produce material relating to the Russia probe.
Fireworks in 2018 may well come before July 4.
