It would seem from what you’re saying that Mueller himself might be similarly unable to access the tapes (of Trump conversations) assuming he doesn’t otherwise have “strong evidence that Trump himself was involved in any communications with Russia”. You’re speculating that such might have developed after Comey’s testimony, but then again it might not have.
The speculation in this thread was that the tapes themselves would independently incriminate Trump, but from what you’re saying that might not cut it.
Yes, highly speculative. We know very little about what Comey and Mueller’s investigations have developed, other than that they convinced a judge that they have probable cause that Manafort had evidence of a crime and that he was likely to destroy that evidence.
I don’t think we can infer anything about what is on the Trump-Manafort recordings. But that includes not being able to infer that they are innocuous, which is the point I thought you were making.
Hmm. Maybe. Though I think properly accounting for what I’m saying would require a review of the minimization procedures. If it’s true that accessing the recording would require evidence of a crime, then I think we have very strong reasons to think Comey lacked that but Mueller has it.
At times like these I am reminded of the thread title.
(Remember when Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager was wiretapped, and whose house was raided! That shit was crazy! Lock her up!!)
It doesn’t matter if the indictment is in connection with Manafort’s activities on behalf of the Trump campaign or outside of the Trump campaign. Mueller isn’t going after Manafort just for grins. Mueller isn’t one to lose sight of his objective, which is to investigate the Trump campaign’s involvement with Russian interference in our elections. If Meuller can squeeze Manafort for any crimes he may have committed, it is for the purpose of creating incentive for Manafort to flip and give up what he knows about Trump campaign involvement.
I think you have your timeline confused. Comey made his comments to Trump about not being “personally investigated” on January 6, 2017. This appears to be the only time that Comey made such assurances to Trump. This was weeks before Trump was even inaugurated.
Manafort and Trump continued to have wiretapped conversations well into 2017, months after Manafort had “resigned” from his position as campaign chairman and well into Trump’s presidency. Based on that, I’d say it’s a safe bet some of the conversations were about the Russia investigation into the Trump campaign. If there was nothing to worry about, why have any discussion with a former campaign manager at all, especially one who was under investigation for his own ties to Russia?
I agree with drad dog. For Trump to not understand that an investigation into his campaign was ultimately an investigation into Trump’s own personal conduct requires the willful ignorance of a five year old. Or a baboon.
You’re misinformed. It’s pretty well known to anyone following this issue even slightly that Comey made these assurances three times. (The “three times” has been a pretty big emphasis throughout, and it’s astonishing that someone could have missed it.)
The third of those times was following Comey’s (March 20) testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (Random cite)
IMO that’s very dubious speculation in the case of anyone but even more so in the case of Trump, who a) doesn’t follow the standard political norms, and b) seems to have a pattern of keeping in contact with people’s he’s previously sacked.
I’m not sure what you mean by “well into 2017”. CNN says the tapping was until “early this year”.
I stand corrected. I was aware that Comey had issued his assurances three separate times but didn’t realize the last one had come in March. That said, I don’t think you can assume the wiretapping was over prior to March, when the information we have is “early this year.” We’ll have to wait for a date certain on that one.
As for dubious speculation, not only does Trump have a pattern of keeping in contact with people he’s sacked, he also has a reputation for being fixated on the Russia investigation and how it may ultimately impact him. I don’t find the speculation dubious in the least.
Who cares about the three times quote, except if you want to make a biblical reference to Peter and the cock. So Comey said Orangedouche wasn’t under investigation at the time. But he is now. Even then, Comey knew that Manafort was being wiretapped. So Donald wasn’t under investigation then (what does he want, a medal or a chest to pin it on?). Who cares? In the immortal words of the winner of the popular vote, what difference does it make? I don’t give a crap if Comey said a thousand times that Dumb Donald wasn’t under investigation. On Sept 10, 2001 he could have said that Osama bin Laden wasn’t under investigation for bringing the WTC down. Times change.
If you were “aware that Comey had issued his assurances three separate times”, then why did you say in your previous post that “This appears to be the only time that Comey made such assurances to Trump”? (emphasis added)
That’s an outside shot. But far-fetched. ISTM extremely unlikely that the FBI (or a judge overseeing it) would decide the time to stop wiretapping Manafort was shortly after they just hit the jackpot in the form of an incriminating statement by Trump.
The logic is backwards.
I’m not saying it’s unlikely that Trump would want to discuss Russia with Manafort. I’m saying that’s not the only reason he might want to keep in touch with him, which is your claim. Simply saying that Russia is another potential reason doesn’t support your earlier claim.
It is not my claim. I said it was not “dubious speculation” to assume he may have spoken to Manafort about the Trump campaign’s involvement with Russian interference in the election. That hardly translates into saying it was the “only” reason Trump may have spoken to him.
I would have said Robert Ludlum, but Forsyth’s a good call.
OTOH, I think Forsyth is a better writer than Ludlum; he would have come up with more intelligent, believable villains and a plot that had the protagonist outsmarted a few times by the villains.
Therefore, I’m back to thinking this is more likely a Ludlum novel.
It’s still entirely possible that there’s a buffer between Manafort and Trump. Whatever financial crimes perpetrated by Manafort or any other members of Trump’s team won’t necessarily implicate Trump. I suspect that the deeper interest in Manafort beyond August of last year is to ascertain whether or not Trump directed any of the activities by Manafort and any other associates, and to what extent. It’s one thing to have a political sleaze ball like Manafort working his international connections – it’s been known for a long time that he’s capable of this kind of work. But if Mueller’s team has audio, email, or other evidence suggesting coordination between Trump’s inner circle and Manafort, then that’s a bigger problem. I would be incredulous if Trump’s team didn’t put distance between itself and Manafort after last summer when he was pushed out of the campaign.
Why? Why “incredulous” when you know that (a) Trump kept talking to Manafort until after the inaugural, and (b) he kept talking to Flynn after he fired Flynn?
