You’re assuming that they are now and will always be trying to suppress this.
The Russians interfered with our election not because of some love of Trump but to weaken America and her democratic processes.
They don’t have any loyalty to any particular side in this and don’t really care which side is winning at any given moment. All they care about is that the country is roughly evenly split and the two sides are at each others’ throats. So if at some point the Russia interference story dies down I expect something new to come along to stoke those flames. This new thing could be a leak of some new evidence, real or manufactured, or the untimely death of Paul Manafort. I doubt they’ll go as far as assassination, but the possibility is there.
Additionally I think you a reading the latest leaked communications between Manafort and some go between him and the Russians in some a very favorable light. It’s pretty clear to me that Manafort owes the Russians a debt and is signaling to them that he is in position to make good on that in his role as campaign manager.
Reading that as only indicating he intends to enrich himself seems short sighted. Enrich himself how? What is he offering to do? If it’s not related to his being campaign manager why didn’t he offer to do the year before?
Perhaps if it’s egregiously obvious that it’s insufficient. But that doesn’t mean he won’t have a heavy finger on one side of the scale if there’s some ambiguity. (How does anyone know if the evidence was insufficient anyway? Is this public knowledge?)
As I see it, if you leave aside what the actual evidence says to an impartial observer, the judge is facing potentially hindering a very important investigation on the one hand, versus impugning the rights of one (currently unpopular) guy on the other. Seems pretty clear where his self interest lies.
This seems circular in being apparently based on the premise that there exist the “more facts” which would justify the warrant. That’s exactly the conclusion we’re discussing. For all we know the raid only took place after they already came back with “more facts” and this was as good as it was going to get. Or there could have been other factors driving the timing. (It’s been suggested that the timing was related to Manafort’s scheduled testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that same day.)
Certainly it’s a good indicator of likelihood to indict. But whether an actual indictment (let alone conviction) follows might vary, and the prosecution might be signaling – by use of this very correlation – that they intend to indict unless the guy plays ball.
So you think the Russians are unconcerned over public opinion in America turning strongly against them? I think this is absurd, but don’t have anything more to add.
FWIW, Manafort’s position is the opposite. He claims he is owed money by this rich guy and was trying to collect.
I don’t get all your questions. What he would be doing would be exactly what he purported to be doing. He would be offering an view of the state of the US campaign, which is something this Rich Guy might be interested in. At the time of his offer he was intimately connected to the Trump campaign and was in a position to offer an inside scoop that the guy couldn’t get elsewhere - this was not the case a year earlier. Therefore, if the guy was in fact interested, he might either pay Manafort some Big Bucks (whether or not related to prior business ventures), or possibly at the least think favorably of him and hire him for Big Bucks at some future time.
If anything, the Russians killing Manafort to prevent him from talking might be stronger evidence than him actually talking. People lie all the time, and Manafort is under a lot of pressure to cut a deal. But the Russians wouldn’t kill him unless they had a very good reason to.
I could link to the list of people who have died that are connected to the Clintons, for example, and I already mentioned Johnson. What can you offer to support your hypothesis?
I doubt it. (I suppose it could depend on what type of inside information. But if it’s “here’s the state of the race”, as his email suggests, meaning the likely outcomes and possible ramifications for an Russian oligarch with international interests, then I very much doubt it.)
And even in the unlikely event that it is a crime, I highly doubt if a Russian oligarch with ties to the government would have the status of “Russia” for that purpose.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for in terms of an “example”.
The people who died who are connected to the Clintons weren’t actually killed by the Clintons. But if the Russians killed Manafort, it’s extremely unlikely that they could keep this a secret. There would be enormous resources thrown at the case, and they would be obvious suspects.
I don’t have anything to support the hypothesis. It seems extremely obvious to me that if the Russians were found to be behind the killing of Manafort it would be widely taken as proof that they were behind some sort of collusion and would in any event seriously harm their political standing in the US. YMMV, and if it does we should probably just leave it here.
This is a bizarrely favorable view of what was going on.
Sure he was giving campaign info to Russia while Russia was actively interfering in a US election, but it’s not like he gave info to Putin. It was Putin’s friend, and the info was probably boring old stuff you could look up on the internet.
I don’t think that follows. If there are significant consequences for both approving and disapproving of a questionable warrant application, it is wrong to look at only one side of the consequences. The warrant is not inherently a public document (in most jurisdictions), but usually comes out through discovery in the criminal matter.
I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of both sides of the ledger. But I’m interested in why you assume the judge considers it “a very important investigation.” Isn’t your contention that the warrant is probably for some white collar crime unconnected to Trump?
No, I’m not assuming there are more facts. My point is that judges do not consider a warrant denial to be the end of the road for an investigation. Very often, the investigators return with more facts when they exist. I don’t know (and neither would the judge) whether they would exist in this case, but they do often enough that it shapes how judges think about warrant denials.
Sure. I think you underestimate the percentage of federal indictments that lead to federal convictions just as a matter of setting your Bayesian prior here. It’s well over 90%, I’d guess. Certainly, an indictment is a reliable indicator that a conviction will follow, in the sense that more often than not a conviction does follow, even if you adjust the number downward substantially for circumstances in which the defendant has a lot of social power.
What does “running” have to do with it? You’re trying to blame the GOP (or is it Trump?) for actions that are exactly like Obama’s. Did you rail against Obama for not intervening in Ukraine?
Seth Abramson
(@SethAbramson)
BREAKING:
Senator Burr Says GOP Platform Changes on Russia Were Based on
“Guidance” (Evidence Suggests From Trump at March 31, 2016 Meeting)
Yes, I’m sure the press conference held this morning by Senate Committee Chairman Republican Richard Burr and Co-Chairman Democrat Mark Warner indicating that the issue of collusion “remains open” and that the scope of the committee’s investigation “has expanded” means nothing.
Sounds like they’re within an inch of closing up shop. (Not.)
That’s what the reporting I’ve seen indicates. But it’s not a coincidence that Mueller is investigating these matters. The hip bone’s connected to the thigh bone, and so on.
I think I missed your point earlier, sorry. That’s a fair point, but since the judge doesn’t know whether there would be anything that meets a higher standard, he would still be in a position of potentially stymieing an extremely high profile investigation.
I’m adjusting the percentage downwards in the case of 1) a highly aggressive prosecutor, 2) who is trying to flip the target in a high profile case.