34

UPDATE: Possible transfer

Yes collusion.

Unlike Seth Abramson’s Proof of Collusion this book doesn’t claim to necessaril conclusively  prove collusion-though the ultimate goal of course is to reach a conclusion what I try to do is offer up a variety of hypotheses for further research and study. A hypothesis is an ‘educated guess’-or as in terms the MSM would understand educated speculations. 

There are admittedly a pretty large number of such educated speculations-this is necessarily so as there are so many leads, tracks, levels, and dimensions to Russiagate-as well as the other neglected half of Watergate 2.0, Comeygate.

But this is how investigations work-by definition you don’t start out knowing the conclusion, so you have to come up with some working theories based on available evidence-most of which will necessarily be not direct but circumstantial. But the MSM totally fails to value and understand circumstantial evidence-in their mind only direct evidence is legitimate.

But listen to what an actual Watergate prosecutor says about it:

Regarding Richard Burr’s declaration of ‘no collusion’ it’s more than a little suspect-here is someone in the person of Richard Burr who was part of the Trump campaign and transition and called for Hillary Clinton to be shot during the campaign. While his investigation has been seen as responsible-it has benefitted greatly by the comparison with Devin Nunes’ blatant obstruction in the House GOP ‘investigation’-it was always quite inadequate, starting with the fact that it was all behind closed doors. Now, Burr-as a Trump political ally who called for Clinton to be shot; does he feel any responsibility after a Trump supporter sent her a pipe bomb?-is going to declare in a purely ad hominem way no collusion without even showing his work and we’re supposed to see it as settled?

Marcy Wheeler has some thoughts on the SSCI investigation:

Her latest thought is that we should all stop talking about ‘collusion’ but rather conspiracy. In principle that’s true-after all the Mueller investigation is investigating ‘coordination’ rather than ‘collusion’ and his indictments have charged Trump co-conspirators not with ‘collusion’ but with ‘conspiracy.’ Still the word collusion has been impossible to resist in the political context.

 

But while this book set out to look at various hypotheses behind Russiagate-and Comeygate-there is a lot of water under the bridge since I begun this marathon of a book back on December 15, 2017-14 months of daily bombshells-on Russia; Comeygate remains buried by the MSM for now.

At this point, after Mueller prosecutor, Andrew Weisman’s comments last week in a federal court room, the basic contours of how collusion may have worked are becoming clear.

Comments by one of Mr. Mueller’s lead prosecutors, disclosed in a transcript of a closed-door hearing, suggest that the special counsel continues to pursue at least one theory: that starting while Russia was taking steps to bolster Mr. Trump’s candidacy, people in his orbit were discussing deals to end a dispute over Russia’s incursions into Ukraine and possibly give Moscow relief from economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies.”

Exactly-sanction relief and an outcome in the Ukraine favorable to Russia-were the quo; the quid being Russia’s interference on the Trump campaign’s behalf.

The theory was offered almost as an aside by the prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann, during a discussion of contacts between Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and a longtime Russian associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, whom investigators have linked to Russian intelligence.

A closer look at the transcript, released late Thursday, shows that the prosecutors have been keenly focused on discussions the two men had about a plan to end the conflict that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014. Persuading the United States to ease or end the American-led sanctions imposed to punish Moscow for its aggression has been a primary goal of Russian foreign policy.

Speaking of that August 2, 2016 meeting between Trump’s campaign manager and a Russian intel operative, the Washington Post just had a major deep dive into it. 

The 2016 nominating conventions had recently concluded and the presidential race was hitting a new level of intensity when Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, ducked into an unusual dinner meeting at a private cigar room a few blocks away from the campaign’s Trump Tower headquarters in Manhattan.

Court records show that Manafort was joined at some point by his campaign deputy, Rick Gates, at the session at the Grand Havana Room, a mahogany-paneled space with floor-to-ceiling windows offering panoramic views of the city.

The two Americans met with an overseas guest, a longtime employee of their international consulting business who had flown to the United States for the gathering: a Russian political operative named Konstantin Kilimnik.

The Aug. 2, 2016, encounter between the senior Trump campaign officials and Kilimnik, who prosecutors allege has ties to Russian intelligence, has emerged in recent days as a potential fulcrum in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation.

It was at that meeting that prosecutors believe Manafort and Kilimnik may have exchanged key information relevant to Russia and Trump’s presidential bid. The encounter goes “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating,” prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told a federal judge in a sealed hearing last week.

And there’s the key-at the same dinner Manafort-for some totally unaccountable reason gave campaign polling data to Kilimnik-a Russian with ties to Russian intel-they discussed sanction relief. There it is-the quid pro quo. The quid is the polling data handed to the Russians-in the person of Kilimnik. He takes this data so the Russians can better target their social media activity on the Trump campaign’s behalf. Then in exchange-the quo-Manafort assures him that if elected Trump will offer sanction relief.

Indeed, you can also further add to the picture Roger Stone’s communications with Corsi on the one hand and the Trump campaign on the other. In late July a senior campaign Trump operative directed Stone to find out what else Wikileaks had-after the very successful leaking of the DNC emails that forced the Chairwoman to resign on the first day of the Democratic convention.

As Seth Abramson recently argued-Chapter A-the media has refused to consider the obvious-that it Manafort was the senior Trump campaign official inquestion who directed him to find out what else Wikileaks had. The MSM has done this as they’ve decided that the idea of a link between Manafort and Assange is FAKE NEWS-because they have chosen to assume the Guardian story is false as no one else has corroborated it and therefore anything connecting Manafort and Assange must be false-despite the NYTimes own reporting that Manafort went to Ecuador himself in 2017 to negotiate with the Ecuadorean President for Assange being released to the US. 

But the media zeal to bury the Guardian story was so great that the Times was willing to basically disown its own reporting.

FN: That a story isn’t corroborated by one news org isn’t proof it’s false; again absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Plenty of stories aren’t corroborated by other outlets-like CNN’s reporting that Michael Cohen is willing to testify that Donald Jr told his father about the Trump Tower Russia meeting. Despite the other news orgs being either unable or unwilling to corroborate this story, CNN has stood by it.

Let’s not kid a kidder-Manafort was there on behalf of the Trump Russia House. We know that he continued to advise them since Trump has been in Office including on how to deal with Russiagate. Indeed it’s pretty clear that Manafort and Trump colluded on how to obstruct the Mueller probe. 

But that Stone would have discussed what else Wikileaks had with Manafort-of all people-makes perfect sense with their 40 year relationship. Stone boasted that he got Manafort the campaign manager job and stated in an email ‘I’m back in the saddle again.’

Find quote…

Yet no one looks at the Occam’ Razor explanation that Stone and Manafort discussed Wikileaks and perhaps Manafort was the senior aide who directed Stone in late July as the media has decreed that the idea there could be a Manafort-Assange connection is too absurd to be believed.

Speaking of the MSM’s hangups, I’ve noticed that many reporters on cable news recently have been fretting about why would Michael Flynn have lied about speaking to Kisylak about sanctions as if he did that’d be totally ok-even Rachel Maddow has wondered this on many occasions. I find this question very strange on its face.

Yes, normally a new Presidential Administration could reach out to a foreign country and discuss new policy towards that country. But, first of all, this would usually wait until after  they actually took office-Michael Flynn’s December 29 phone call for starters violated the rule that we have one President at a time. 

Certainly Obama was very careful not to step on the toes of the departing Bush W Administration. At a minimum what Flynn did violated this long time rule and may have violated the Logan Act. True it hasn’t been enforced before-as it hasn’t needed to be.

But it’s a lot worse than that. Remember when Flynn told his lies in January, 2017, the intel agencies had just released their report alleging Russian interference on behalf of the Trump campaign. And now the Trump transition is calling the Russians up the very next day after Obama implemented sanctions against Russia-for interfering in the 2016 election-and saying ‘Gee, don’t worry about the sanctions for helping us win the election! We will be there soon and get rid of them!’

While the MSM journalists have been baffled by Flynn feeling he had to lie, I’ve been baffled why they’re baffled-as it’s so blindly obvious.

What I do agree with Maddow on is her skepticism that Michael Pence really didn’t know-that Flynn lied to him. But Pence lead Trump’s transition so how did he not know? But in his sentencing memorandum even Mueller seems to accept this story at face value.

In any case with Weisman laying out the Mueller team’s theory of the case last week, it’s now even clearer why Flynn-rightly-was very worried about his conversations with Russia’s top spy diplomat the very day after Obama implemented the sanctions.

Sanction relief is the quo in quid pro quo that Manafort-at the time Trump’s campaign manager-discussed with Kilimnik back on August 2, 2016-when he gave the Russian intel operative campaign polling data.

Again, as I argued in Chapter A, one major hangup of the MSM is it’s insistence that it’s much more likely Trump will be found to be Al Capone than Julius Rosenberg-as Joy Reid put it in a broadcast. But it’s clear from Mueller’s actions that he’s is looking to falsify the idea that Trump is Rosenberg rather than Capone. We are now  to be at a place where at least a basic outline may be drawn

Yes-collusion.

UPDATE:

Amy Berman Jackson Rules that Manafort Lied about Possible Criminal Activity Related to Donald Trump’s Campaign

This Manafort link from this chapter

Paul Manafort OTOH proved to be 19-25 years loyal, the rest of his life in prison loyal. 

In this book I’ve called him Watergate 2.0’s-aka Stupid Watergate-G. Gordon Liddy but Liddy only served 5 years in prison. I think Jay Golberg would have to agree Manafort is 100 out of 100, a loyalist lifer.

What must he be protecting to choose life in prison? That he, Roger Stone, and Trump colluded with Russia.

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book