Max Bergmann worked in the State Department and Sam Berger worked in the White House during the Obama administration, and both of them are now on the payroll of the George Soros-funded/John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress. They lay out out a five-point argument that special counsel Robert Mueller has all the evidence he needs to prove Trump colluded with Russia. Rather than summarize their argument, I’ll just remind you that all these people are so smart that they were certain Hillary Clinton would be elected president.Never-Trumper David French at the National Review thinks the same: The Special Counsel’s Cohen Sentencing Brief Is Ominous for Trump
If you read the special counsel’s Cohen memo, you’ll note that the special counsel takes pains to note that Cohen’s false statements to investigators were “deliberate and premeditated” and “did not spring spontaneously from a line of examination or a heated colloquy during a congressional hearing.” His lies were in a “written submission” and a “prepared opening statement.” These lies were allegedly told to “minimize the links” between the Moscow Trump Tower project and Trump himself.And that's probably the point, to keep Weissman's 13 angry Democrats investigating right up until Oct. 2020. Da Hill: High intrigue surrounds Mueller filing in Manafort case
Also — and this is crucial — the memo notes that Cohen has been cooperating in describing the “circumstances of preparing and circulating his response to the congressional inquiries” [emphasis added].
In plain English, this means that it is highly likely that senior Trump officials reviewed Cohen’s prepared, false testimony before he lied to Congress. This raises two important questions. Was Trump aware of the substance of Cohen’s testimony? If so, was Trump aware that Cohen’s testimony was false?
. . .
We do not know if Trump is guilty of the same kind of misconduct that ended the Nixon presidency or that resulted in Clinton’s impeachment, but the special counsel’s filing provides a roadmap for continued investigation. It also strongly hints at potential presidential jeopardy for misconduct that has clear echoes in recent presidential scandals.
The court document, which federal prosecutors said last week would offer a “detailed” account of how Manafort committed crimes by lying to the FBI, is likely to be heavily redacted in areas that concern the overarching, ongoing probe.In other words, more speculation, but no any more information for us. Two from Red State:
Still, whatever information is disclosed is expected to be revelatory in terms of the content and nature of Manafort’s remarks to the special counsel’s office and other FBI investigators. In order to demonstrate that Manafort lied, Mueller will need to refer to evidence or reasons he has for believing Manafort did not tell the truth.
“In laying out Manafort’s lies and how they know they’re lies, we’re going to learn a lot about the investigation,” said Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. “There will be plenty of clues and indicators about where Mueller has gone and will go.”
Any information that could compromise Mueller’s investigation or other probes is likely to be redacted, so the federal judge overseeing Manafort’s case in Washington, D.C., District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, and Manafort’s attorneys would be permitted to view the document in full but the public will not.
The Back Story On Michael Flynn: How Obama Officials Set Him Up. One of the more egregious violations of civil liberties ever. And Could It Possibly Be True That The Mueller Investigation Was Never Really About Russian Collusion At All? What many of us thought from the beginning. It was all about undoing an election they thought they had won by cheating, and getting revenge on the victor, and so far, it's working. If they were really worried about collusion with the Russians, they'd be looking into Hillary's purchase of the Kremlin information in the Steele Dossier.
Breitbart: Jerry Nadler Vows to Shut Down House Probe into DOJ-Democrat Collusion Transparency for thee but not for me!
In a one word post, Althouse deals with the Comey testimony: Comey... ... transcript. I waded through it last night. Comey answered most questions, if by answered you mean quibbled about the meaning of generally well understood words, denying knowledge of anything that didn't happen in the room with him, and generally evading anything harmful to him, while accepting tongue baths from the democrats on the panel. AllahPundit: Comey Applauds Trump’s Appointment Of Bill Barr — Who Thought Firing Him Was The Right Decision. Barr sounds OK to me.
But then, like I said yesterday, the amount of respect Barr enjoys from official Washington has made the reaction to his nomination strange all over. Trump obviously thinks Barr will be “loyal” or else he wouldn’t have nominated him; Trump critics like George Conway and Benjamin Wittes, meanwhile, think Barr is a by-the-book administrator who’d never tolerate political interference by the White House, no matter how broad his views are of the president’s authority under Article II. Someone will be wrong.And while we're re-living the good old days, Da Hill has Nine Days in May: The Quiet Struggle Between Rosenstein and McCabe. I still haven't figured out if Rosenstein wears a black or white hat. Most likely grey.
A badly synced video. But the words are almost perfect in context.
Post a Comment