Your link doesn’t offer any such interpretation.
There’s a separate hearing (which doesn’t have a video link prepared yet) scheduled for July that will review the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton. Given that that seems like the only other topic they could be discussing that I know of that would fit the title of the video, I don’t know what else they would be targeting.
I may be wrong, but I would certainly take bets that I’m not.
Addendum to the previous: With more consideration, I suppose that it is possible that they are reviewing the work that the DOJ and FBI did to protect the integrity of the voting systems during 2016. But I somewhat doubt that since:
- The Judiciary Committee is primarily involved in the oversight of the Justice system (warrants, sentencing, impeachment of justices, etc.) Election security would, I believe, fall under the purview of the Homeland Security or Intelligence committees.
- I believe that most of the research on that front was already undertaken in the first half of 2017 and things are now in the implementation phase based on the reports that were issued last year.
- Spygate.
- Public hearing.
- House, not Senate. The House likes to embrace the stupid.
Last night someone in Moscow tried to login to my state senator’s Instagram account.
Daylin Leach is a vocal critic of Trump and is known as such even outside of PA.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180608/6031e8663d8cf95a697fd636ad01af3f.jpg
Superceding indictment on Manafort:
Connects more of his accounts to him and breaks down where the payments went.
Adds a charge that he attempted to Obstruct Justice by influencing Persons D1 and D2. I will need to go back and check where all D1 and D2 appear in the document since this charge isn’t leveled until the end of the document.
Person A is swapped out to be Konstantin Kilimnik.
A few companies are mentioned, under the supervision of Manafort, but given aliases. I presume that they’re still under investigation and will be prosecuted separately, later.
It looks like D1 and D2 are employees of Company D, which entity was paid by Manafort to engage in lobbying work.
D1 and D2 feared Mueller enough to reject his attempts to communicate. This implies both that they are Americans and reasonably bright. The later rules out everyone with the last name Trump. I guess we’ll see if anyone in the press is able to form any good theories about what Company D is. It would have to be some group with American politicians or ex-politicians working in it.
After your latest set of responses it’s become clear that your argument is a rejoinder to a claim no one here has made:
The straw man in question: ‘there’s no point in Mueller looking at anything except the Troll Farm because that’s the one and only way that conspiracy/cooperation/collusion of Trump with Russia will be proven.’
No one has said that.
In addition, you appear to be leaning heavily on the rather shaky line of reasoning ‘because we haven’t been shown evidence of A, A cannot have occurred,’ as here:
You walked right past the bit highlighted and managed not to see it (or were determined to discount it): as was widely opined in February when those indictments of Russians came out, Mueller was, in his cards-close-to-the-vest fashion, declining to reveal what he had on Americans who had been in some sort of contact with the T.F. Russians. But nothing about that precludes Mueller from revealing that evidence (with accompanying indictments) at a later date.
Given all this, “we’ve been told that there is no such coordination” seems an unsupportable statement. We’ve been told that such coordination won’t be detailed and backed by evidence just yet.…but that’s all. We have not been told that there is no coordination.
I agree that no one has said that. Which includes me. I have no idea how you arrived at that interpretation (there’s nothing about investigations in what I wrote?) Mueller should investigate what he’s investigating.
The discussion was about Rachel Maddow’s theory that all will be well in the world even if Trump pardons everyone in the US, because the Troll Farm indictment will lead back to the Trump campaign and he can’t pardon them. While that theory could be correct, at the moment, we have been told that it won’t lead back to the Trump campaign, so we had better hope that Trump doesn’t pardon everyone in the US.
I didn’t walk by the highlighted bit. I wrote the highlighted bit. And I have specifically said that there is still the potential that the Troll Farm could lead back to the Trump Campaign. But, there’s currently nothing outside of faith in the kindness of the gods to believe that it will.
I don’t agree that what you state here is the theory that Maddow advanced. As I said in an earlier post:
That’s what I believe is, in essence, the theory that Maddow was advancing in the segment on the June 4 show. For anyone who wants to take a look for themselves (and, again, from an earlier post: )
That’s why I included the possibility
This article in Politico identifies Company D as FBC Media and person D1 as longtime journalist Alan Friedman.
Dolt 45 just remonstrated and protested in front of the world that he has putins hand up his ass.
At what point do we start to act like he is a hostile asset of another power.
As twitler gets closer to self immolation it may be putins wish to have him do certain tasks, while the music is still playing basically, that he can point to as accomplishments of espionage for the world to see, demonstrations of loyalty and subservience. It is really time to pull the chain on this before it gets worse.
Friedman sounds like a real winner.
Recommendations that will be made to the Senate Judiciary Committee on preventing things like the Russian interference:
Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) is founding co-editor-in-chief of Just Security. He is the Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. He served as Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense (2015-16). Ryan is also a Professor of Politics and Professor of Sociology at NYU. He was the inaugural Rita E. Hauser Professor of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at Harvard Law School. He received a J.D. from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. from Yale University, and a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a member of the Department of State’s Advisory Committee on International Law, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the US Naval War College’s Board of Advisers for International Law Studies, and a member of the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law.
Mueller follows up with more details on what things Manafort was doing to lobby for Russia, in the US:
Cohen is viewed as likely to soon flip. From Political Wire:
I suppose that we’ll see but it would seem strange to flip before you’d even yet been charged with something. The only reason I could think of to do so would be to prevent headlines and paperwork to the effect that you’d once, in your history, been charged with a number of financial and espionage crimes. But then it seems strange for a prosecutor to make an offer to allow you to flip before even charging you with something.
It should also be noted that we also don’t know (technically) that the Southern District of New York wants to flip Cohen. Who are they planning to flip him against? Trump is un-indictable so, in theory, they could decide that they don’t care about him and I don’t know if there is anyone else in their jurisdiction that they’d care about who Cohen could flip on.
Personally, I have to assume that they’d go after Trump if given the chance, even if only to get the indictment sealed until the end of his presidency but, as said, we don’t actually know what their aims are.
We also don’t know how they interrelate to Mueller. Presumably, they’re looking into Cohen for (principally) financial crimes. If they find materials that are related to national security, are they going to send it over to Mueller - even though that might throw their case onto the backburner because national security trumps financial crimes - or try to hold off on reporting until after they’ve already gotten a deal for Trump’s financial crimes?
With Mueller, I think we’re on safe ground. We know that his interest is in the law and the national security. With the SDNY, we don’t know that the guy leading the effort isn’t going to try and turn this case into his personal first step to higher politics.
It looks like the payment to Cohen from Columbus Nova could be related to the Ukraine “Peace” plan that Cohen was working on:
I’ll take him over what we got.
I don’t think cooperate and flip are necessarily synonymous. People can cooperate in the sense of negotiating a plea deal rather than fighting it in court. This would typically (though not always) involve spilling the beans on any other conspirators, but that’s if the prosecutors believe there are other conspirators. Even in cases where the prosecutors aren’t after anyone else, they can still offer deals to defendants who agree to plead guilty, which can be in the interests of both parties.
I would expect that the reason that you would switch lawyers when flipping (which seems to be a given, based on the media reports around Gates) is that once you flip there’s really not a lot of hard lawyering necessary, so you may as well get some cheaper lawyers.
If you’re flipping then the deal is pretty straightforward: Immunity and I talk. There’s no real haggling involved. That’s just the long and short of it.
But if you’re offering to plead guilty in exchange for lenience, I feel like part of the negotiating tactic would be that you could still always force the Prosecutor take it to court and risk losing - which is best exemplified by keeping around a couple of strong lawyers during negotiation. And, of course, they’re going to do a better job of negotiating to begin with, since they’re better lawyers.
Speculation, obviously.