Mueller Investigation!

[onekidanddone]

26 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Well that was quicker than I thought. Admittedly, he's not actually saying he'll flip, but the first set up for doing so has been made. 'His attorneys will have some discussion' means they're looking at all the irrefutable evidence Mueller has and seeing that there is no way they can talk their way out of this. If he wants less jail time, he'll have to cooperate. It's as simple as that.

 

Trump: Rodger Stone? Rodger who? There was this guy name Rodger Slone but he just brought me some wonderful cake and two scoops of ice cream once. 

[AmazonGrace]

Everyone has to be a bigger victim 

 

[AmazonGrace]

CNN reporting that the FBI raided Roger Stone's storage unit 

[GreyhoundFan]

47 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

CNN reporting that the FBI raided Roger Stone's storage unit 

I have little doubt that with the search warrant(s), they have examined his possessions with a fine-toothed comb. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[onekidanddone]

We need a Sad Trombone reaction.

[Howl]

I personally would not want to be the one examining Roger Stone's personal possessions.  Ewwww. 

However, Stone saw his arrest coming from a long way away and has had plenty of time to get his affairs in order and to rid himself of incriminating evidence. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"20 lies and alleged lies the Trump team has told in the Mueller probe, dissected"

Spoiler

The growing number of lies that members of President Trump’s team have admitted to or been accused of telling investigators leads to one big question: Why?

Why would these people risk jail time to tell lies if there wasn’t something significant being covered up? Many of them had to know exactly the stakes of lying to the government, and they did it anyway. Why take such a risk to protect … nothing?

It might be the defining question of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation — especially given that this is the predominant crime being charged and pleaded to. We still have no members of the Trump team charged with conspiracy. (Though just because there have been no such charges doesn’t mean they couldn’t be coming. Prosecutors have an incentive to charge smaller crimes before bigger ones and to keep their evidence under wraps.)

The most charitable answer is that they misremembered things, but that’s getting more and more difficult to stomach, given the growing volume of admitted and alleged lies, the number of people involved and the seemingly clear-cut nature of their lies. Another friendly explanation is that they were trying to avoid alienating Trump by suggesting Russia helped him win — or didn’t want to contradict his narrative. That’s the version offered by former Trump aide Sam Nunberg. “They all conspired,” Nunberg told The Washington Post’s Rosalind S. Helderman, Josh Dawsey and Matt Zapotosky, “against themselves.”

But not all lies are created equal, and it’s worth parsing each one for its potential motives. If we look at all of them individually, perhaps we can get a sense for just how much each might point to a coverup.

So let’s do just that. Below are 20 alleged and proved lies from the Mueller investigation, with some analysis for each one.

Roger Stone

The alleged lies: According to Mueller’s indictment of Stone, the longtime Trump political adviser lied to the House Intelligence Committee about:

1. “his possession of documents pertinent to [the committee’s] investigation”
2. “the source for his early August 2016 statements about [WikiLeaks]”
3. “requests he made for information from the head of [WikiLeaks]”
4. “his communications with his identified intermediary [to WikiLeaks], and …”
5. “his communications with the Trump Campaign about [WikiLeaks].”

Perhaps most notably, Mueller’s team details two exchanges in which Stone denied communicating with his WikiLeaks intermediary via text or email. He also denied discussing what the intermediary told him with the Trump campaign. Mueller’s team has lots of evidence firmly disputing both contentions.

The possible explanations: The volume of Stone’s alleged lies is what’s striking here. It’s not one isolated alleged lie; it’s a pattern that strongly suggests a coverup of his talks with WikiLeaks, which disseminated the Democratic emails that Russia hacked. Stone hasn’t been convicted, but the paper trail is lengthy. It’s difficult to see how he would have forgotten about all of these communications or how to square his denials with the evidence.

But why? Stone himself has said that there would be nothing illegal about working with WikiLeaks. Yet he allegedly went to great lengths to obscure it. Perhaps he really did think it could be legally problematic, and he simply hoped that his communications would never come to light. (This is at best a gray area when it comes to collusion with Russia.)

Or perhaps, as Nunberg argued, he simply worried how it would look for Trump. But possibly going to jail for lying for Trump is a hefty potential price to pay for your client’s pride.

Michael Flynn

The lies: The former White House national security adviser pleaded guilty to the following false statements about his contacts with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak before Trump’s inauguration:

1. Denying asking Kislyak not to escalate the situation in response to the Obama administration’s sanctions
2. Denying that he remembered a follow-up conversation in which Kislyak said Russia had indeed moderated its response
3. Denying asking countries on the United Nations Security Council to take specific action on a resolution involving Israeli settlements

The possible explanations: Flynn could have been concerned that these conversations would run afoul of an obscure law called the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized people from conducting diplomacy.

But that law has never really been enforced. Perhaps Flynn just wanted to guard against being seen as undermining the sitting president. Or perhaps he was worried about the growing narrative that Trump was too friendly with Russia, which these conversations would certainly feed. (It was at this time that Russia’s role in the 2016 election was coming to light.)

But that narrative is also at the heart of potential collusion, and it’s not inconceivable Flynn was trying to obscure behind-the-scenes dealings with Russia.

Michael Cohen

The lies: In November, the president’s former lawyer and fixer pleaded guilty to lying about his efforts to secure a deal for a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 election. According to his plea deal, Cohen’s lies included saying:

1. “The Moscow Project ended in January 2016 and was not discussed extensively with others in the [Trump Organization]”
2. That he never agreed to travel to Russia or suggested Trump might do so
3. That he didn’t recall the Russian government responding to his inquiries about getting help for the project

In fact, Cohen kept pursuing the project as late as June 2016. He planned to travel to Russia before canceling those plans, and he had exchanges with the Kremlin.

The possible explanations: Cohen must have known that pursuing this project even as people were voting for Trump in the 2016 election would, at the very least, look bad. And he had to know that seeking the Kremlin’s assistance would look even worse.

As with the WikiLeaks stuff, it’s not clear that any of it would rise to the level of collusion or anything criminal, but Cohen seemed to be worried enough to lie about it. As with the WikiLeaks stuff, if there’s not something obviously illegal going out, why the multiple lies about it that would be illegal?

Paul Manafort

The alleged lies: After a conviction related to his personal consulting business, the former Trump campaign chairman reached a deal to cooperate with the government ahead of his second trial — and then was accused of lying during his cooperation. According to Mueller’s team, Manafort lied about:

1. His interactions with an associate in Ukraine with ties to Russian intelligence, Konstantin Kilimnik
2. Kilimnik’s role in influencing the testimony of witnesses in his trial
3. A $125,000 payment made to a firm that was in debt to Manafort
4. An unknown Justice Department investigation
5. His contacts with the Trump administration

That filing was heavily redacted, so we didn’t know too many specifics at the time. But we later learned from a shoddily redacted filing by Manafort’s lawyers that Mueller believed Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Kilimnik and discussing a pro-Russian Ukraine “peace deal” with Kilimnik.

The possible explanations: The explanations here are even more confounding. Manafort had already been convicted on eight counts in his first trial, so he had to know the stakes of lying after agreeing to cooperate with Mueller. The question now is whether the Kilimnik interactions play into a larger line of inquiry in the conspiracy investigation. (The Republican platform was adjusted in a mostly pro-Russian direction on the Ukraine issue at the 2016 convention, when Manafort was Trump’s campaign chairman, for instance. And sharing polling data with a Russian intelligence agent would also seem problematic, at best.)

We also learned when the cooperation agreement was dissolved that Manafort’s legal team kept briefing Trump’s. Perhaps he never truly intended to cooperate and was instead angling for a pardon? (But a pardon wouldn’t save Manafort from state-level crimes.) Again, it seems like a pointless coverup if there was nothing untoward happening.

Rick Gates

The lies: In his plea deal, the former deputy Trump campaign manager admitted to making false statements about his and Manafort’s relationship with overseas clients. That may not pertain to the Mueller investigation’s 2016 election-Russia focus. But one false statement seems potentially relevant moving forward:

1. Denying that Manafort and a lobbyist for a company discussed Ukraine during a 2013 meeting

In fact, Gates had prepared a memo describing what had been discussed about Ukraine at the meeting for leaders in Ukraine.

The possible explanations: This one is a tougher nut to crack. We don’t know much about the circumstances here, and they long predate the 2016 campaign. That suggests that they probably don’t have anything to do with potential collusion.

Unless, that is, there is something bigger at play when it comes to the Manafort-Kilimnik relationship and Ukraine that they all sought to deliberately obscure. (More on that to come.)

George Papadopoulos

The lies: In his plea deal, the Trump campaign foreign policy adviser acknowledged making false statements during a January 2017 interview with the FBI, including:

1. Claiming his contacts with a foreign professor who said Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, Joseph Mifsud, took place before he joined the Trump campaign
2. Claiming he didn’t think the professor had close connections to the Russian government
3. Claiming he met a female Russian national before the campaign and saying she didn’t have substantial connections to the Kremlin

The possible explanations: Papadopoulos, who has completed a brief jail sentence for these lies, now claims he was set up. But that doesn’t explain why he would lie in the first place. Like the others, he seemed to be, at best, wary of admitting to any potential interactions with Russians or those close to the Russian government during the 2016 campaign.

 

[onekidanddone]

Mueller investigation is ‘close to being completed,’ acting attorney general says

Quote

Acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker said Monday that he has been “fully briefed” on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election and that, “right now, the investigation is close to being completed.”
This is a developing story. It will be updated.

 

[onekidanddone]

I have no idea where to put my emotions over this.... If is is good news (bad for Trump) is some of it going to be leaked ahead of time? If it shows Trump was guilty as sin but the AG decides not to make it public then what happens? 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump advisers lied over and over again, Mueller says. The question is, why?"

Spoiler

They lied to the public for months before Donald Trump was elected — and then repeatedly after he took office.

They lied to Congress as lawmakers sought to investigate Russia’s attack on American democracy in 2016.

And they lied to the FBI, even when they knew lying was a crime.

In indictments and plea agreements unveiled over the last 20 months, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has shown over and over again that some of President Trump’s closest friends and advisers have lied about Russia and related issues.

On Friday, Mueller laid out a new allegation: that longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone lied to Congress and obstructed its probe of Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign.

Trump and his associates have dismissed the serial deception as a sideshow that has little to do with the central question of the Mueller investigation: whether his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

Following Stone’s indictment on Friday, Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani scoffed, “Another false-statement case? God almighty.”

But it is unclear if the special counsel shares that view. While Mueller has not accused any American of criminally coordinating with Russia, the lies meticulously unspooled by his prosecutors over 20 months have not been mere quibbles.

They have documented various falsehoods by Trump advisers that masked efforts by people in his orbit to develop inroads with Russia and leverage that country’s hacking of Democratic emails.

The remaining question — for both Mueller’s team, as it works on a final investigative report, and for the American people — is why.

Did the president’s men lie to protect a still-hidden dark secret about the campaign’s interaction with Russia, engaging in a broad effort to obstruct the probe — one that included perhaps even Trump?

Did they lie to avoid diminishing Trump’s victory by acknowledging Russia played a role in his election?

Did they each lie for their own reasons, taking their cue from the president — who has told many whoppers of his own, including about Russia?

Trump’s former campaign chairman, deputy campaign manager, former national security adviser, personal lawyer and a campaign foreign policy adviser have all been accused of lying to investigators exploring Russia activity.

In their new indictment against Stone, prosecutors said he lied to Congress about his efforts to learn about WikiLeaks’s plans in 2016 as the group was publishing Democratic emails allegedly stolen by Russian operatives.

Stone falsely told Congress that he never discussed his efforts with the Trump campaign and never asked intermediaries to communicate with WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, Mueller’s team alleges.

Stone has denied the charges and promised to fight in court. “Perjury requires both materiality and intent,” he said on CNN Friday night. “There is none.”

“Secondarily, where’s the Russian collusion?” Stone added. “Where is the WikiLeaks collaboration? Where’s the evidence that I received anything from WikiLeaks or Julian Assange, and passed it on to Donald Trump or the Trump campaign?”

Trump echoed that message himself.

“Greatest Witch Hunt in the History of our Country! NO COLLUSION!” the president tweeted after Stone’s arrest.

Legal experts noted that the alleged lies are significant in their own right.

“Time and time again, elected officials and government officials have exhibited a belief they simply can say what they want in a high-profile investigation, and do so with impunity,” said Jacob S. Frenkel, a former attorney in the independent counsel’s office now in private practice at Dickinson Wright.

Some Trump friends said they are confounded by Stone’s alleged actions.

“If he had told the truth as alleged, there wouldn’t have been an underlying crime,” said Christopher Ruddy, chief executive of Newsmax. “There would have been no crime. They would have had to try and find other stuff.”

The Stone indictment does provide new details that nod at one of Mueller’s central inquiries: trying to determine whether anyone in Trump’s orbit coordinated with Russia or WikiLeaks.

In Friday’s filing, prosecutors lay out efforts by both Stone and Trump campaign officials to learn more about what WikiLeaks had in its cache in the summer of 2016 — actions that occurred after Russia had been fingered as a likely culprit behind the theft of the Democratic Party emails that June.

Still, the mounting false statements charges collected by Mueller do not speak to the question of criminal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, some analysts noted.

“I think there is some theory under which you could include them in such a conspiracy, and I wonder why not,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney. “Is it that they don’t think the evidence goes that far? Is it that they think this conduct does not amount to a conspiracy to defraud the United States and it is instead dirty, political tricks?”

Steve Hall, who retired from the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of running and managing Russia operations, said that the substance of the lies and alleged false statements documented by Mueller paint a broad picture with serious implications.

“In my view, those lies — what was lied about and under what condition the lies were told — contribute to a counterintelligence pattern that has begun to emerge pointing to senior members of the Trump team being involved with the Russians,” he said.

Hall said the country needs to take step back from a narrow conversation about the political and even criminal ramifications of each Mueller indictment. “We’ve got to be looking beyond who gets a parking ticket or even a few years in prison,” he said. “What about the bigger picture? This was Russia, attacking the United States.”

The deception by Trump advisers that has led to guilty pleas so far does have a common throughline: Much of it centers on their interactions about Russia.

Trump’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen admitted lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump real estate project in Moscow during the campaign — at a time when then-candidate Trump claimed he had no business ties to Russia.

Cohen also lied about seeking help on the lucrative project from one of Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s closest advisers. Trump had said no one in his orbit had contact with the Russian government.

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn admitted he lied — first to Vice President Pence, then to the public and finally to the FBI — about whether he had spoken to a Russian envoy in December 2016 about sanctions imposed by President Obama as punishment for Russia’s campaign interference.

That lie came as investigators were working to understand why Russia, whose top foreign policy goals include undoing U.S. sanctions, fought so hard to help elect Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos has admitted lying about his contacts with a professor who gave him early warning in April 2016 that Russia held thousands of Clinton emails.

Prosecutors have said former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has continued to lie even after pleading guilty to two conspiracy charges, which included lying to the Justice Department. His latest lies, they have said, involved details of his campaign interactions with a Russian employee who the FBI has assessed has ties to Russian intelligence.

As they wait for Mueller to finish his investigation, Democrats in Congress are likely to focus on the president himself and what he knew of the lies.

On Friday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, tweeted: “Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn . . . What did the President know and when did he know it?

Some legal analysts said the charges do not appear to be building to a criminal case against the president.

The lying “certainly alerts you to the possibility of kind of obstructionist conspiracies,” said James M. Trusty, a former Justice Department organized crime chief now in private practice at Ifrah Law. But, he added, “at the end of the day, it looks like people are making independent, individual choices that are landing them in hot water. I think it’s the kind of thing that the Mueller probe doesn’t want to ignore . . . but the indictments themselves aren’t moving the case forward.”

The number of lies documented by the special counsel could also undercut Mueller’s efforts to make a broader case by hampering the effort to sort truth from fiction, some longtime Trump associates said.

“In Trump world, everybody lies. Everybody doesn’t tell the truth. At the end of the day, they are all lying. I don’t know how Mueller can believe anybody,” said Louise Sunshine, a longtime executive with the Trump Organization.

Trump allies say the president knows that many of the people around him are not trustworthy — and believes he can use that to his advantage if any of his onetime aides attempt to pin their wrongdoing on him.

He has instructed Giuliani and his other lawyers to question the credibility of anyone who attacks him, according to White House aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. After Cohen, Trump’s longtime personal attorney, pleaded guilty, the president on Twitter called him a “rat” who “makes up stories.”

Sam Nunberg, a former Trump aide, said he believed that people around Trump lied to investigators because they were trying to make sure their version of events lined up with lies the president was telling to the American people.

“They all conspired,” he said, “against themselves.”

 

[Bethella]

6 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump advisers lied over and over again, Mueller says. The question is, why?" 

Because where there's smoke, there's fire.

If it walks like collusion and talks like collusion, there was collusion. 

[fraurosena]

I think the whole world knows by now there was collusion, collaboration, corruption and coercion with and by the Russians. Thing is, it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Or in Congress. And although it's incredibly frustrating that it's taking so long, in the end it we'll all be glad of the evidence being ironclad, irrefutable and indisputable. The absolute worst thing would be if they were to be indicted only to walk away because the evidence wasn't as watertight as a puckered dolphin's ass.

[Howl]

19 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

As has been pointed out numerous times, Whitaker has a job and that job is whatever his handlers tell him to do.  Whitaker was all flop sweat and desperation in that statement.  Pathetic. 

Professionals NEVER go public to say that an investigation is about to wrap  up. Ever.  

Doing that telegraphs to bad actors that if they stall for long enough, the whole thing might blow over or they might opt for some other legal strategy in response to that information.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Roger Stone wanted WikiLeaks dump to distract from ‘Access Hollywood’ tape, Mueller witness says"

Spoiler

The revelation in The Washington Post of a tape of Donald Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women landed just after 4 p.m. on Oct. 7, 2016.

Less than an hour later, WikiLeaks, an anti-secrecy organization founded by Julian Assange, began releasing hacked emails from the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The striking simultaneity fulfilled the hope of Trump confidant Roger Stone, according to Jerome Corsi, a conservative author and former Stone associate who was subpoenaed over the summer for questioning by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

“I had one call from Roger, as I recall it — Roger disputes this — on the day that WikiLeaks did begin in October dropping the final emails on John Podesta, in which Roger was essentially saying, ‘We’ve got this timing issue because the Billy Bush tape is going to be released, and we’d like to have Assange begin releasing emails now,’” Corsi told MSNBC’s Ari Melber on Monday. Bush was the “Access Hollywood” anchor who appeared with Trump in the clip from 2005, in which the host of “The Apprentice” describes using his stardom to grope and kiss women.

Stone was indicted Friday, accused by the special counsel of lying to Congress about his quest for information about WikiLeaks’ plans to release information damaging to the Democratic candidate. According to the indictment, Stone was assigned this quest by “senior Trump Campaign officials.” And he allegedly enlisted two friends and intermediaries in the effort, including Corsi, identified in the indictment as “Person 1.”

Whether Stone had a hand in the advantageous timing, by influencing the dissemination of the purloined emails, could help investigators answer the question of why he, and others in Trump’s orbit, allegedly lied in responding to congressional queries about possible collusion between the Republican campaign and Russian officials who interfered in the race. When asked by Melber why Stone lied, Corsi said, “I failed to take the mind-reading course at Harvard. You’ll have to ask Roger.”

Stone has repeatedly denied conspiring with WikiLeaks, asking Friday on CNN, “Where is the WikiLeaks collaboration?”

Corsi acknowledged that he could not “prove” that the longtime Republican operative and self-described “dirty trickster” had taken steps to influence the timing of the email dump. Instead, he merely shared his recollection of their phone conversation, which he also recounts in his book, “Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller’s ‘Witch Hunt.’” In the 192-page book, Corsi writes that Stone asked him to see if he “could get Assange to begin dropping the Podesta emails on top of the Washington Post exposé.”

Corsi said that he did not have a good mechanism for doing so, but that he made some halfhearted attempts, including issuing “some tweets.”

Responding to the book’s claims in November, Stone told the Daily Caller that the allegations were “preposterous.” On Instagram this month, he labeled Corsi a “pathological liar,” also identifying him as “Judas,” a disciple of Jesus who, in the telling of the Gospels, betrayed him.

A best-selling author who boasts a PhD in political science from Harvard, Corsi is a prolific conspiracy theorist. On his YouTube channel, in appearances on Fox News Channel and in his many published books, he has peddled hateful falsehoods, doubting the veracity of official accounts of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and denying that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.

Despite his well-documented tendency to take liberties with the truth, Corsi does have demonstrable links to figures in Trump’s inner circle, including to Stone. Moreover, he had an audience with the special counsel. Corsi’s stepson, Andrew Stettner, also received a subpoena to testify, and the action was seen as a sign that Mueller is keenly focused on the right-wing gadfly, whose causes — from the “birther” movement to conspiracies about the “deep state” — are also Trump’s.

Corsi said he gave 40 hours of testimony to Mueller’s team and on Sunday told CNN’s Jake Tapper that he would be “happy to testify” against Stone.

“I will affirm that what is in the indictment about me is accurate,” Corsi said. There is at least one piece of evidence, however, that he maintains is inaccurate — one that he wrote. He has disclaimed any direct ties to WikiLeaks, contradicting an August 2016 email cited in the indictment in which he appeared to alert Stone to Assange’s plans for “2 more dumps,” which promised to be “very damaging.”

Corsi told MSNBC that Mueller “was convinced” of his link to Assange, who is residing under asylum at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. After 20 hours spent detailing all possible contacts tying him to the WikiLeaks founder, Corsi claimed, “We couldn’t find anyone. I certainly couldn’t find anyone.”

He said that he had told Mueller’s team about his recollections of the phone call concerning the timing of the “Access Hollywood” tape.

Asked whether the special counsel was interested, Corsi said, “Absolutely.”

In a tweet the day before the WikiLeaks dump, Stone previewed the coming threat to Clinton’s campaign. His Twitter account has since been suspended.

"Julian Assange will deliver a devastating expose on Hillary at a time of his choosing,” he wrote on Oct. 6, 2016. “I stand by my prediction. #handcuffs4hillary”

Speaking to Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday, Stone accused prosecutors of “trying to criminalize legitimate political inquiry.” He noted that he had not been charged with conspiracy, observing, “If they could have made that case, they would have.”

He also predicted that Mueller would conclude by accusing both the president and the vice president of collusion. “That way they can make Nancy Pelosi president. She can make Hillary Clinton vice president.” He called this scenario a “nightmare.”

Stone also vowed not to turn on the president.

“I am not going to testify against him because I possess no negative information,” he said. “There is no Russian collusion. This is a witch hunt.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Is Mueller’s report really ‘close to being completed’? I doubt it."

Spoiler

Acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker said Monday that he has been “fully briefed” on the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and that Mueller’s probe into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign is "close to being completed.”

As the official overseeing Mueller’s work, he should know.

But I doubt it.

The number of loose ends that remain in Mueller’s investigation — some of which could take months to tie up — simply appears inconsistent with Whitaker’s prediction.

For example, Roger Stone, flashing a ‘‘50-year-old Nixon “V for victory” gesture, proclaimed, “I intend to fight for my life” after his indictment Friday and on Tuesday pleaded not guilty on all counts. The 66-year-old dirty trickster’s bravado may or may not dry up once he is looking down the barrel at hard jail time. But if he holds to his resolve, it augurs a jury trial that will extend into the fall.

Then there are the open issues set out in Stone’s indictment, which is pregnant with the possibility of substantive follow-up charges. Mueller’s narrative alleges communications from the highest level of the Trump campaign pushing Stone to shake loose information from WikiLeaks; from Stone back to the campaign detailing what he had learned about the damaging emails WikiLeaks was holding; and from Stone to an associate (Jerome Corsi) instructing him to procure certain parts of the WikiLeaks crop.

Each of these lines of communication is suggestive of a possible conspiracy involving the Trump campaign and Stone in an effort to procure and disseminate emails they knew to have been stolen from the Clinton campaign.

And with Stone’s arrest and the searches of his residences in Florida and New York, Mueller may have a rich harvest of information in Stone’s emails and texts.

Mueller, along with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, is also investigating possible crimes involving Trump’s inauguration. Mueller is looking into the possible angle of illegal foreign conduct (especially donations), while the Southern District focuses on the inaugural committee’s spending and potential pay-to-play improprieties

Speaking of the Southern District, it and the New York attorney general do not appear near the finish line of their probes into the Trump Organization and Trump Foundation, as well as a welter of questionable tax and other financial matters involving Michael Cohen and Trump dating back to at least 2015.

If Mueller wants to wrap up soon, it’s conceivable that he could hand off large chunks of unfinished work to other U.S. attorney’s offices. But Mueller’s sense of duty runs deep, and it is hard to see him passing the baton before he has come to judgment — and produced a report — on all the conduct covered by his commission, namely any coordination between the Russian government and the Trump presidential campaign

Then there is the really big game almost surely being tracked by Mueller’s team (not necessarily as targets — i.e., likely defendants — but at a minimum as subjects of investigation): Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and, possibly, Ivanka Trump. Of these, Trump Jr. could be imperiled for, among other things, problematic statements to Congress. Why would the special counsel bring false-statements cases against Cohen and Stone but give the president’s oldest son a pass?

Kushner, meanwhile, is in a tight spot for his involvement in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting intended to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, and he pops up in several other Russia-related episodes. And even Ivanka Trump could face possible exposure for what we now know to be her prominent role in the Moscow Trump Tower project. Mueller surely understands that charges against any of the Trump children would provoke a kind of Armageddon with the president — as well as a likely extended court battle. It makes sense to forestall that upheaval until he is ready to lay all his cards down.

By the same reasoning, it can’t be ruled out that Mueller will still move to subpoena Trump, a maneuver that would trigger a several-month court battle that Mueller probably would win.

There’s considerably more in plain view, including a hush-hush meeting in the Seychelles between Blackwater founder and Trump donor Erik Prince and the head of Russian’s sovereign wealth fund that also involved the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates. Was the meeting designed to forge covert communications with Russia? If Mueller is pulling on that string, there’s no telling how much could unravel. And a number of witnesses who have testified or given in-depth interviews to Mueller have still not figured prominently in indictments to date.

And finally, always remember Mueller Rule No. 1: We don’t know what Mueller knows, and he speaks only through public filings. That leaves an indefinite margin for sealed indictments; known persons or companies of interest whose full role remains unclear to us (Carter Page, Deutsche Bank); and surely some figures whose role in Mueller’s work has been entirely shielded from public view.

Put these all together and Whitaker’s forecast looks shaky. The probe’s completion is more likely to come in a matter of months — maybe many months — than weeks.

 

[fraurosena]

Oliver North doesn’t fancy another Congressional grilling.

 

[AmazonGrace]

Roger Stone is both a Batman villain and a garden variety racist

 

[Howl]

Came across this not very long, but quite succinct article about corruption in politics and the financial world.  Corruption in these areas is rampant, often intersects, and  isn't so illegal in some instances.

There’s a wider scandal suggested by the Trump investigations

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[AmazonGrace]

Jerome Corsi seems like a liar here, claiming that he doesn't remember having a source to Wikileaks info so he must have used his magical reasoning powers because no one can yet prove he had a source.

 

 

[47of74]

Jerome Corsi seems like a liar here, claiming that he doesn't remember having a source to Wikileaks info so he must have used his magical reasoning powers because no one can yet prove he had a source.
 
 

Corsi looks like he’s rather constipated. Not surprising given how full of it he is.

[GreyhoundFan]

58 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Jerome Corsi seems like a liar

Since he was affiliated with Stone and Dumpy, it's a safe assumption he would lie about pretty much anything.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

These tweets have a link to the court document in question.