Charges filed from Mueller Probe

[jaaron]

Can anyone reconstruct the timing of Trump's twitters about Clinton's emails and Russia, and the timing of these meetings? Might be interesting.

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” 7/26/16

http://uk.businessinsider.com/georg...ia-wikileaks-emails-clinton-2017-10?r=US&IR=T

 

[partgypsy]

Thanks. This part is interesting
The special counsel's filing indicates that the official forwarded Papadopoulos' email to another campaign official and wrote: "Let's discuss. We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal." (eta Manafort was the official)

Carter Page, then a low-level foreign policy adviser like Papadapoulos, traveled to Moscow in early July. His trip was reportedly approved by Lewandowski. Page took a "leave of absence" in September after news broke of his July trip, and the campaign later denied that he had ever worked with it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

It's nice for Fox News that someone drinks their kool aid.

I know it ain't gonna happen.... Mueller is playing for the Dems.

 

[Matata]

 

[t-c]

This one made me laugh out loud.

 

[AGBF]

Given that earlier in life I earned advanced degrees in history, I have recently been surprised to learn that The Civil War was all just a misunderstanding that could have been avoided had the right people been around back in the 1860's. Too bad General Kelly and Donald Trump had not yet been born. So much bloodshed could have been avoided! General Kelly has proved to be revelatory.

 

[t-c]

Given that earlier in life I earned advanced degrees in history, I have recently been surprised to learn that The Civil War was all just a misunderstanding that could have been avoided had the right people been around back in the 1860's. Too bad General Kelly and Donald Trump had not yet been born. So much bloodshed could have been avoided! General Kelly has proved to be revelatory.

I would be interested to know what kind of compromise between the North and South Kelly and Trump would have negotiated.

Kelly is sullying his reputation, unearned I now think, as the "adult in the room" with his words. Trump stains everyone with his shit.

 

[AGBF]

I would be interested to know what kind of compromise between the North and South Kelly and Trump would have negotiated.

I enjoyed this article in today's 'The New York Times" and thought that you might, too, t-c. In it historians enumerate the manifold compromises that early Americans made about slavery rather than to face dividing the North and South. The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution were written by men who disagreed vehemently with each other over whether the new nation should allow slavery, after all! The thesis of the piece is that there were too many compromises, not too few that led up The Civil War.

Deb



A Refusal to Compromise? Civil War Historians Beg to Differ...https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/...fer.html?action=click&module=&pgtype=Homepage

 

[t-c]

I enjoyed this article in today's 'The New York Times" and thought that you might, too, t-c. In it historians enumerate the manifold compromises that early Americans made about slavery rather than to face dividing the North and South. The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution were written by men who disagreed vehemently with each other over whether the new nation should allow slavery, after all! The thesis of the piece is that there were too many compromises, not too few that led up The Civil War.

Deb



A Refusal to Compromise? Civil War Historians Beg to Differ...https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/...fer.html?action=click&module=&pgtype=Homepage

I wanted to put up a commentary from the political right that David Leonhardt linked to. Click on the link for the full piece on Commentary:
General Kelly’s Disastrous Interview
Noah Rothman / Oct. 31, 2017

Either by choice or direction, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly has made himself a figure of both cultural and political relevance in a way that most of his predecessors in that role did not. Kelly has not taken James Baker’s advice, which was for chiefs of staff to consider themselves more “staff” than “chief.” Until now, Kelly’s decision to dive into the political maelstrom has been constructive. His unvarnished opinions on patriotism and traditionalism are clarifying because they articulate a worldview that is neither shared nor appreciated by Donald Trump’s critics. Kelly’s penchant for pontification has also revealed some less palatable views. Unfortunately, those opinions appear to be shared by Trump’s core supporters and perhaps even the president himself.

...

Kelly got into trouble, too, when he claimed that the Civil War was the result of “a lack of an ability to compromise.” An uncharitable interpretation of these remarks would view them as racially suspect, so that was, of course, the interpretation adopted by the unfailingly merciless mediators of our political discourse. A more generous interpretation would allow for the fact that they might simply have been historically illiterate. Of course, compromises designed to avoid a war were made; they were legislative and political, and surely Kelly is aware of them. Those attempted compromises failed to avert war, which happens when one or both sides of a dispute are uncompromising.

This benefit of the doubt may, however, be misplaced. Kelly’s unsupported comments will surely be welcomed by those seeking to rehabilitate treason and slave-holding. Furthermore, when considering remarks Kelly made regarding a more modern form of human bondage, the general’s affinities become even more suspect.

Trump’s chief of staff again played the good soldier when the subject of China was raised. Kelly insisted that China “beat us pretty badly in terms of trade,” and insisted that the nation’s $309 billion deficit with the People’s Republic represented a win for Beijing (which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the deficit is, albeit one that’s favored by this president). Kelly revealed a more disturbing point of agreement with Trump, though, when he said he was disinclined to “pass judgment” on the government in Beijing. “I think working with people no matter who they are is better than not talking to them,” Kelly said. “They have a system of government that has apparently worked for the Chinese people.”

This is nothing short of an abdication of an American administration’s responsibility to the oppressed people of the world. The State Department’s 2016 human-rights report described China as an “authoritarian state” in which “repression and coercion” of those engaged in civil and political rights advocacy remains “severe.” Torture and execution without due process are rampant. Secret prisons are reserved for journalists, bloggers, and dissidents. Women, minorities, the disabled, and the faithful are subject to cruelty and subjugation. Perhaps President Trump and General Kelly believe it is counterproductive to antagonize the regime in Beijing, but it is something else to grovel before the Politburo as they have.

Kelly’s comments follow Trump’s decision to publicly congratulate Chinese President Xi Jinping on his “extraordinary elevation” by the Chinese Communist Party to Mao-like despotic status. What kind of an atrocious sentiment is that for the leader of an egalitarian republic to express? What kind of signal does it send to Beijing or to the fearless dissidents for whom Chinese Communism is most certainly not working?

John Kelly’s decision to weigh in on cultural and political matters has been clarifying, but that clarity is not always so laudable. The comments he made on Fox range from bewildering to reprehensible. Perhaps he should consider taking James Baker’s admonition more seriously.

 

[t-c]

I've been reading some of the commentaries from Commentary:
Bad Advice from the Wall Street Journal
Noah Rothman / Oct. 30, 2017

On Monday, former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s probe released the first indictments of members of Donald Trump’s inner circle. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and longtime Trump associate Rick Gates were charged with a variety of offenses involving money laundering and a conspiracy to mislead investigators. Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos pled guilty to meeting with a Russian-linked source that promised “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. He is working with prosecutors.

For Republicans inclined to dismiss these developments as unrelated to either the campaign or the “Russian collusion” narrative, Manafort is facing charges related to interests in Cyprus—a notorious hub of Russian corruption—through which he funneled funds linked to unnamed individuals in Eastern Europe. Manafort’s habit of pocketing barrels of cash provided via concerns with direct links to the Kremlin suggests these indictments are not the last shoes to drop in the case Mueller is investigating.

Though sealed, Mueller’s office revealed that indictments were forthcoming on Friday. Even before the substance of these charges was known, David Rivkin and Lee Casey got to work crafting a Wall Street Journal op-ed advising Trump to transform a suboptimal situation into a disastrous one. “Mr. Mueller’s investigation has been widely interpreted as partisan from the start,” the op-ed declared. To support this contention, the authors note that some of Mueller’s staffers had previously donated to Democrats, though they omitted that some also donated to Republicans. Further, Rivkin and Casey invoke the “tremendous bitterness” the investigation has summoned up in Trump’s voters, though they decline to explain why this is in any way relevant to a special counsel’s proceedings.

Having established what they appear to assume is a pretext for going nuclear, the authors advise Trump to go to DEFCON 1. “Mr. Trump can end this madness by immediately issuing a blanket presidential pardon,” Rivkin and Casey insist. That pardon, they advise, should be provided to “anyone for any offense that has been investigated by Mr. Mueller’s office,” including the president himself.

Fighting “madness” with madness is an odd way to go about restoring public faith in government. The authors of this op-ed contend that Mueller’s investigation has gone off the rails and is abusing its authority, but they take for granted the assumption that their audience already agrees with this claim. They seem to have concluded that the Mueller probe was irredeemable before it produced anything that would justify their irritation.

If this kind of sophistry was limited to one op-ed from two outside authors, it wouldn’t be of much note. But it’s not. This piece was published just days after the Journal’s editorial board accused Mueller of corruption and demanded his resignation. Why are Mueller and his operation suspect? According to the Journal, it is possible, though not demonstrable, that the FBI might have followed a thread established by the “Steele Dossier” to begin investigating the Trump campaign in 2016.

The Journal alleged that the dossier is “full of Russian disinformation,” though what they mean is uncorroborated rather than objectively falsified allegations. They claimed that the dossier, which was covertly funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, might have served as a basis for James Comey’s FBI to ramp up its investigation into the Trump campaign. Finally, they contend that Mueller’s close relationship with Comey suggests that he could be too close to this investigation conduct himself impartially. The editorial closes with a rote call for “a full accounting” of the extent of Moscow’s intervention in the American political process, but that does not appear to be the purpose of this wildly speculative broadside.

These contributions to the opinion landscape play a reckless game with remarkably high stakes. The implication that there is a conspiracy at the highest levels of government to avoid investigating the real crimes committed by Clinton and the Democrats inculcates in both Trump and his supporters a persecution complex. Paranoid people do irrational things.

When outlets the president and his advisers respect signal they are willing to provide ballast for Trump if [he] makes a move against the special counsel’s office or his Department of Justice, they may have to make good on that promise. And where do they go then?

 

[AGBF]

"Kelly got into trouble, too, when he claimed that the Civil War was the result of 'a lack of an ability to compromise.' An uncharitable interpretation of these remarks would view them as racially suspect, so that was, of course, the interpretation adopted by the unfailingly merciless mediators of our political discourse. A more generous interpretation would allow for the fact that they might simply have been historically illiterate. Of course, compromises designed to avoid a war were made; they were legislative and political, and surely Kelly is aware of them. Those attempted compromises failed to avert war, which happens when one or both sides of a dispute are uncompromising."

Thank you for posting the excerpt that you did, t-c. I enjoyed it. Since I wasn't quoting you, but your article, I put quotation marks around what I quoted from the article.

The conservative author of the piece (Noah Rothman?) impugns Kelly's critics as "merciless mediators of our political discourse" and accuses them of having the most uncharitable interpretation of his statement that "lack of compromise" lay behind the The Civil War, one that would make him racially suspect.

I do not believe that to be the case at all. I think that most historians took the view that, contrary to the author's view, I believe to be true of Mr. Kelly: that he is historically illiterate.

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Santa will "lock her up!" before Xmas...

OK, Dancing Fire. Today the man who led those chants encouraging the public to lock up Secretary Clinton in some vigilante method is now about to be indicted for real. At 11:00 this morning it was announced that there is enough evidence to indict former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and also his son, Michael Flynn, Jr.

 

[Dee*Jay]

No wonder he was so eager to seek immunity all those months ago in exchange for info. Not exactly what Maya Angelou had in mind with "I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings"!

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,
You all may know this already, but I'll post it anyway. Fox News owns the Wall Street Journal. I thought that the paper had been relatively fair in its coverage so far, but blanket pardons, and the call for Mueller to step aside shows me that perhaps Mr. Murdoch is putting his hands on the paper.

Annette

 

[Calliecake]

Thank you @smitcompton I had no idea.

 

[t-c]

Hi,
You all may know this already, but I'll post it anyway. Fox News owns the Wall Street Journal. I thought that the paper had been relatively fair in its coverage so far, but blanket pardons, and the call for Mueller to step aside shows me that perhaps Mr. Murdoch is putting his hands on the paper.

Annette

Thank you @smitcompton I had no idea.

Newscorp (Rupert Murdoch's company) owns the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

WSJ has, so far and as promised, operated their news and editorial divisions independently. This is why news coverage has been pretty balanced while the recently published editorial pieces that have been bat-shit crazy.

There has been many reports of WSJ reporters being embarrassed by the editorials and the paper has lost some key personnel to WaPo and the NYTimes in the past year or so.

I think the Chinese wall allowing independence of the news division is slowly cracking.

 

[t-c]

We have the "quid", is this the "quo"? Irina Veselnitskaya granted a 2.5 hour interview to Bloomberg and indicated that she is ready to talk to the Senate and Special Counsel (click on the title to go to the full article):
Trump Jr. Hinted at Review of Anti-Russia Law, Moscow Lawyer Says
A Russian lawyer who met with President Donald Trump’s oldest son last year says he indicated that a law targeting Russia could be re-examined if his father won the election and asked her for written evidence that illegal proceeds went to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

P.s.: That anti-Russia Law is the Magnitsky Act, which has been driving Putin crazy since it was enacted.