215
Pelosi invokes Article 111 in Nixon's impeachment-a signal perhaps? She did say impeachment isn't off the table until it's on the table https://t.co/ba9PMrG5lX
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 3, 2019
More Trump/Giuliani strong-arming of Ukraine officials to get them to help with bogus hit jobs on Trump/Manafort’s opponents.
Here’s a fact: Andrii Telizhenko who planted this story and Vogel’s Politico piece. I reported him to the FBI in 2016https://t.co/rbEEXMPOmh
— Alexandra Chalupa (@AlexandraChalup) May 3, 2019
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/02/democrats-william-barr-1299590
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/03/politics/trump-putin-phone-call-mueller-report/index.html?cid=web-alerts&nsid=67843467
376/ This is *exactly* what Steele said about Page. This Report vindicates the *hell* out of Steele.
377/ My plan—not that you’ll necessarily find it interesting or need-to-know—I’m going to eat dinner, then finish the last 30 pages of Vol. I (the “conspiracy” volume). I’ll leave it to others to unpack obstruction of justice—which for various reasons interests me less right now.
380/ Moreover, whereas Mueller had a “forgiving” charge, in obstruction—i.e. you don’t have to successfully obstruct, merely intend to, so it’s easier to prove—he *hamstrung* himself by investigating conspiracy when he should have been looking for bribery and aiding and abetting
365/ We now know that not only did Mueller seize Prince’s computers/phones, he interviewed him. And that interview must have revealed that Prince lied to Congress—repeatedly. And Mueller did not indict him. This—with Simes—is the greatest mystery of the Report thus far. By *far*.
366/ Wow… Mueller reveals that *Prince and Bannon told him diametrically opposed stories*, meaning either Prince was committing a crime in lying to law enforcement or Trump’s campaign CEO was. How is this not *front-page news* across America right now? These are *known crimes*.
381/ If Mueller investigates bribery and aiding and abetting, not conspiracy—and if the witnesses in that case preserve evidence and don’t lie to the feds—it’s clear the story they would’ve told would have been a “prima facie” case of impeachable bribery and aiding and abetting
This is a point also made by James Clapper-that this is a clear case of aiding and abetting
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/james-clapper-trump-campaign-was-essentially-aiding-and-abetting-the-russians
382/ So now you ask, “Why did the witnesses in the obstruction case preserve evidence and tell the truth?” The answer: they were either (a) law enforcement witnesses, *or* (b) people who knew that, even if he were caught obstructing, the Senate would *never* impeach Trump for it.
383/ By comparison, everyone *knew* that the Senate would *have* to impeach Trump for any *collusive* crime—conspiracy, bribery, money laundering, aiding and abetting, you name it—so *those* witnesses, who were the very *worst* characters in all this, lied and destroyed evidence.
384/ But here’s the rub: they didn’t get away with it. They didn’t get away with it because the Senate *must* impeach Trump if there’s substantial enough evidence Trump is compromised to create a *national security threat*. And we *do* have that evidence. In spades. From Mueller.
385/ So this is where I reveal that I don’t give a damn about Vol. 2 of the Mueller Report. Why? It’s a red herring. *Everyone knows* Trump obstructed justice. We knew it *a year ago*. And *everyone knows the Senate will ignore any and all evidence of obstruction*. We *all* know.
386/ So now you tell me why, during dinner, I turned on CNN and I didn’t hear Vol. 1 (conspiracy) discussed *one time*. *Everything* was about Vol. 2 (obstruction). Even though it’s Vol. 1 that *doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt*, for national security reasons. See?
387/ Vol. 1 *is* the ballgame. It establishes that Trump’s crew told so many lies and destroyed so much evidence and has so many ties to Russia they refuse to explain that Trump’s foreign policy is compromised *at the level of proof required for a national security impeachment*.
388/ And *still* media won’t discuss Vol. 1 in detail. And here we come to the hard truth: it was uber-nerdy folks like me who spent two years *learning* all the ins and outs of the collusion question so that we could bring the hard news to people. The media *never* did the work.
Here here for the uber-nerds!
448/ The evidence explaining why Sessions wasn’t charged is weak—many, *many* attorneys (including many prosecutors) would argue the other way on the basis of Sessions lying in *successive Congressional testimonies he prepared extensively for*—not just one time. Mueller demurred.
Some very prescient MSM criticism:
389/ Sure, there was *great* investigative reporting from the NYT or Post on individual topics—but *anyone* who tried to draw the whole picture together got drawn and quartered as a conspiracy theorist. Even as everything we wrote about—often in books—has now been proven correct.
390/ So the case that Trump is a national security threat has been made—amply—at the level needed for impeachment. But Barr has managed to keep even more evidence from us; and the media doesn’t know how to discuss it; and America hasn’t been *prepared* for this topic. Not at all.
391/ So instead we’ll spend today, tomorrow, and the next day discussing an *obstruction* case we all knew existed a year ago—and you or I would (I *promise* you, as I know from trial practice) already be in jail for—even as media coverage of Vol. 1 (conspiracy) is *weak sauce*.
392/ And here I am—making an ass of myself with a 400-TWEET THREAD so that someone will NOTICE and wake up and realize that the standard for impeachment on the only thing that was ever going to lead to impeachment has been met. And it’s *not* obstruction—it’s a compromised POTUS.
Believe me Seth we are so grateful that you are doing it. Sort of like I’m writing a 2000 page book!
393/ Now you understand why I wrote PROOF OF COLLUSION—and will publish PROOF OF CONSPIRACY in August. Now you see why I barely focused on obstruction in my books and much of my tweeting—this was *always* a national security case underwritten by *bribery and aiding and abetting*.
394/ There’s a reason the counterintelligence cases against Trump are ongoing. There’s a reason Barr wouldn’t let us see so much of what we need to see because of “GRAND JURY” or “INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE” redaction—*he* knows that that’s the danger to Trump here, not obstruction.
395/ Every time Trump lied; every time his family or aides covered for him by lying about what he knew; every time he created—willfully—a pressure point for Russia to press upon; every secret meeting his team set up and tried to hide; *all* of this provided Putin with blackmail.
396/ What I establish in PROOF OF CONSPIRACY is that it isn’t *some* of Trump’s foreign policy that’s compromised by his lies and secret deals—it’s *all* of it. His Israel policy. His Middle East policy. His Russia policy. Even his policy toward NATO and the EU. It’s compromised.
If anyone in the Democratic Congress will figure this out it will be Adam Schiff.
411/ Mueller says McFarland was with Trump when Flynn asked for guidance—not from McFarland, his deputy—on dealing with Kislyak. Mueller says he couldn’t establish Trump provided guidance—maybe because the witnesses (Flynn, McFarland, etc.) have *lied* to him. He’s admitted that.
412/ This is the key point: on conspiracy, *all* the witnesses are liars. And they were often rewarded for it. McFarland, for instance, got rewarded for lying by being (ultimately unsuccessfully) nominated to be ambassador to Singapore. She has lied *repeatedly*. No consequences.
418/ K.T. McFarland admits to asking *everyone* who was at Mar-a-Lago for advice on a *huge* issue for the campaign—what to do about Obama’s new sanctions on Russia. Mystically, magically, improbably, most likely perjuriously…she says she never asked the man actually in charge.
428/ Wow—I’m going to *love* hearing prosecutors defend the Special Counsel’s finding that you can basically “smoke if you got ’em” when it comes to receiving and distributing stolen electronic materials because, hey, what federal statute could *possibly* apply there? I mean wow.
332/ You can believe the Trump-Russia timeline includes more than a thousand “coincidences” regarding Trump and Russia or you can be an adult.347/ I’ll say this many times in the coming months, I’m sure: the Trump-Russia story *is* the Trump-Saudi, Trump-Emirati, Trump-Israeli, and Trump-Egyptian stories. It’s *one story* of collusion—and, yes, conspiracy. But the Mueller Report appears to tackle it only *glancingly*.
349/ This is… bigger than Mueller may realize. That Putin’s employee asked Nader to act on his behalf *during the election*… this is going to matter. A lot.
373/ A member of Putin’s inner circle used *the guy who helped write Trump’s foreign policy* as his cutout to get to Trump. That’s how… *ridiculous*… this all is. *All* this poses a national security threat. *All* this is impeachable. The Kremlin wrote Trump’s foreign policy.
374/ That’s right—it’s going to come down to the Mayflower Hotel, as I first wrote more than two years ago. Simes, Burt, Kushner, Manafort, Kislyak, Sessions, and the Center for the National Interest. The names keep coming back again and again—particularly Simes—like a bad penny
Put this in MSM chapter:
New @mmfa study: Major media outlets fail to debunk President Trump's false or misleading statements in their tweets 65% of the time, amplifying his misinformation an average of 19 times per day. https://t.co/8OV2FGddbn
— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) May 3, 2019
NEW: WH sent a letter to Barr accusing Mueller of playing politics with the investigation and wildly straying from his mission. WH says Mueller ignored the regs, abdicated his role as a prosecutor by punting on obstruction. w/ @PamelaBrownCNN https://t.co/fkiJJw0J5F
— Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) May 2, 2019
361/ I’m speechless… Prince was *directly conveying messages from the transition to a Kremlin agent* on foreign policy—Libya—while Trump *wasn’t in office*. So much illegality on the part of so many people here. And Prince lied about *every* *single* *piece of it*.
Indict him.
334/ Whoa… Manafort lied to the feds about whether he discussed *election targeting* with the Kremlin. Apparently he did.
There is *zero* fuzz on the question of why he lied. This goes directly to collusion broadly writ.
If you're wondering what it's meant by 'Constitutional crisis' what it looks like THIS is what it looks like
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 3, 2019
Ken Starr lawyer to prove Dems have no case?
293/ It sometimes seems like this Report was created piecemeal by people who weren’t talking to one another about their research. It’s blindingly obvious that Simes was helping run Trump’s Russia policy, and trying to put Sessions and Kushner with the Russians whenever possible.
298/ Simes will end up before Congress—mark my word. He’s emerged as one of the “stars” of the Mueller Report.
299/ So far I’ve identified Mueller’s gravest error: he didn’t realize Simes was a Kremlin agent. Read the Simes pages—pp. 100-110—with that in mind, and your head’ll pop off. And feel free to check me on Simes’ background—you’ll find exactly what my many hours of research found.
308/ So all three Trump kids knew the campaign was getting Clinton dirt; Trump’s campaign manager knew; his communications director knew; his son-in-law knew; his lawyer says *Trump* knew…
…but the report concludes there’s *insufficient evidence* that Trump himself was told.
309/ Mind you, all this despite the fact that, *on the day Don Jr. told everyone*, his father went out and made a public statement saying he’d {*checks notes*} shortly be giving a “very interesting” speech on Clinton dirt. Yep, this all checks out. Nothing to see here, America.
310/ So the idea is that Donald J. Trump went out and gave a public statement saying he’d shortly be giving a huge and interesting speech on Clinton dirt but no one anywhere ever told him he would be receiving any such information from any source and he was just riffing—*got it*.
311/ Oh, and Don Jr. refused to be interviewed by the SCO about the meeting—which would have included the opportunity for him to commit a crime by lying about whether he told his dad about the meeting beforehand (as Cohen alleged *under oath* happened).
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/29/mueller-report-jared-kushner-dmitri-simes-russia-1291392
One consequence of Democrats deciding they need to investigate Trump more is they’re basically telling the American public that Trump’s behavior has not *already* risen to level of impeachment.
If you read the Mueller Report, that’s incredible.https://t.co/xejz7h4Kwu
— Matt Fuller (@MEPFuller) May 2, 2019
When HuffPost asked moderate Democrat Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) about impeachment on Thursday, he said the things his constituents were worried about were tax policy, the environment and infrastructure.
That isn’t necessarily a universal experience for Democrats. House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) told reporters Thursday that impeachment was absolutely at the forefront of his constituents’ minds.
“In my district, I haven’t had anybody talk to me about pocketbook issues,” he said. “The only thing I get is people saying, ‘We got to get rid of him.’”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/william-barrs-theory-would-create-a-tyrannical-presidency
Hi @GOP! pic.twitter.com/TqvF6QYYDb
— MustangZeroFive 🌻 (@MustangZeroFive) May 3, 2019
RT #IMPEACH signs seen all over St. Louis! Wow! @PatrickRandall @IndivisibleTeam @MO2ndDist4Chg @ny_indivisible @FwdTogetherSTL @CCMvo pic.twitter.com/RgHFCho9A0
— Indivisible St.Louis (@indivisiblestl) May 3, 2019
286/ The section on Simes—CNI chief and a Putin “friend”—is very problematic, too. Mueller says he “did not identify evidence” that Kushner or Sessions—who had contact with Simes—passed info to the Kremlin. But they discussed Russia. And Simes is Putin’s friend. See the problem?
"Not in my memory has a sitting attorney general more diminished the credibility of his department on any subject.” You’ll want to read every word of @benjaminwittes’s unsparing evaluation of Bill Barr: https://t.co/pVojyDCk6Z
— Yoni Appelbaum (@YAppelbaum) May 2, 2019
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/02/white-house-lawyer-mueller-report-1299251
2. Oh Congressman Karen Bass PLEASE say it aint so. You're STILL hoping Trump and Barr do the right thing? How many times does Lucy have to take the football away?
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pee-tape-trump-mueller-report-823755/
242/ I’m going to continue on, but a lot of people who caused me a great deal of pain are invisibly getting the finger from me now. I’m sorry I had the full story more than you did—and published it in a book—and you “found implausible” what I *thoroughly* researched. I was right.
By all means take your victory lap Seth
260/ Ah yes—good old George. Mueller says he told *both the Australian and Greek governments* about the Kremlin having Clinton emails but *not the Trump campaign*. And yet, what’s this? He—er—vaguely recalls *maybe* telling Clovis. And Mashburn says he told him. Jesus, Mueller…
And Jason Wilson….
Wait…you mean she was forced to resign because she benefited financially from her office…AND NO ONE WAS WORRIED ABOUT UPSETTING HER VOTERS???!!?!?!!?!!?!!??!!???!? https://t.co/wAwsTk5RnN
— Jerry Parody 🐀 (@js_edit) May 3, 2019
233/ The time between Kremlin agent Mifsud’s operation (LCILP) hiring Papadopoulos and Clovis gobbling him up and telling him “Russia” would be his primary job? Like *two weeks*. Just one of a million-plus coincidences in the Russia case, or something more—well—obvious than that?
234/ Mueller credulously implies that—though Trump’s campaign negged Papadopoulos previously—his job with the obscure LCILP and fact that Trump was being criticized for not having a foreign policy team explains Israel expert Papadopoulos being hired to deal with… Russia issues?
235/ And within *days* of Papadopoulos (who worked for Kremlin agent Mifsud’s outfit, LCILP) being hired by Clovis to deal with “Russia,” who pops up and says, “Oh, good! Now I have a contact with the Trump campaign on Russia!” Joseph Mifsud. It’s like a terrible, terrible play.
237/ God… Mueller established connections between Mifsud and the IRA *and* the GRU.
238/ It’s amazing to read Papadopoulos’ painfully yearning emails to the campaign as soon as makes contact with a Kremlin agent—*begging* to be taken seriously and *seen*—but somehow we’re supposed to feel that when Mifsud gave Papadopoulos the best intel *ever* he kept it quiet.
241/ I’m sorry, but this footnote about video kompromat collected during Trump’s November 2013 trip to Moscow vindicates this feed. I can’t tell you how much grief I took about simply re-reporting what the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph (UK) and others had said on the issue. Wow—*wow*.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/pee-tape-trump-mueller-report-823755/
What about the fact that Mifsud was what lead to Papadopoulos meeting his wife?
237/ God… Mueller established connections between Mifsud and the IRA *and* the GRU.
238/ It’s amazing to read Papadopoulos’ painfully yearning emails to the campaign as soon as makes contact with a Kremlin agent—*begging* to be taken s
eriously and *seen*—but somehow we’re supposed to feel that when Mifsud gave Papadopoulos the best intel *ever* he kept it quiet.
Mueller’s willingness to believe that the Coffee Boy didn’t tell anyone in the campaign is simply mystifying,
248/ Note Mueller’s words: “the Trump campaign had received”—not, as Papadopoulos would’ve said if he kept the info secret, “I received.” Mueller thinks Trump’s camp knew of “stolen Clinton emails” in May ’16. He can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because Papadopoulos lied.
261/ This is why I emphasized how—early in the report—Mueller said (in effect) “here are the obstacles I faced” in collecting evidence. One of them was *Trump’s people lying*. There’s *every indication* Clovis and others—and Papadopoulos—successfully lied *many* times to Mueller.
230/ Per Mueller, it took Papadopoulos *under a week* to tell a foreign government what a Kremlin agent (Mifsud) had told him about having Clinton’s stolen emails. And we’re supposed to believe he never told the campaign? When they began seeking her emails immediately after? No.
231/ Mueller left out top Trump adviser John Mashburn’s claim (to Congress) that George Papadopoulos told the campaign what Mifsud told him about the Kremlin having stolen Clinton emails. One of the very first questions Congress will ask Mueller is why he did this. I promise you.
I can’t wait. The followup to that question should be if the name Jason Wilson means anything to Mueller.
266/ I want to caution us all—again—about *scope*. For instance, in speaking of Page around pg. 100, Mueller says he couldn’t establish (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Page “coordinated with Russian election interference”—a very high bar that has a lot of criminality beneath it.
267/ Page was never in a *position* to “coordinate” with Russian hacking or propaganda—which is why no one (even Steele) ever accused him of it. The question with Page was whether he ferried information between Team Trump and Russia as part of a criminal scheme and lied about it.
268/ I mean, Page actually told the SCO he was *working on America’s behalf* in passing private information on the U.S. energy sector to Russian spies. That’s how crazy it is—when you add that to him lying about meeting Kremlin officials in July 2016—to see his actions as benign.
As Ari Melber has publicly claimed. Melber has gone so far as to call Page innocent. It’s shocking that a lawyer with his pedigree could make this mistake-that because something isn’t established beyond a reasonable doubt means nothing happened.
Good question:
209/ Mueller’s a great investigator and a great attorney. But *many* Americans are going to draw different conclusions about Trump’s conduct than Mueller did, because Americans are like juries (literally, as juries are just citizens)—they don’t always see things like prosecutors.
210/ The reason is, Mueller had to see everything in the lens of “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidence—while Americans deciding if Trump’s foreign policy is terminally compromised are more likely to use a “preponderance of the evidence” (50.1%) standard. Which is more appropriate.
211/ And indeed, counterintelligence *doesn’t* use the “beyond a reasonable doubt standard”—but is more likely to use levels of “confidence” for which 50.1% proof of someone being compromised would be considered a *grave* national security risk. Which is what Donald Trump is now.
224/ (NOTE): Russian Deputy Prime Minister Prikhodko—in touch with Trump’s assistant about Trump coming to Russia for an in-campaign business trip—is the VERY SAME MAN who Nastya Rybka had on tape consorting with Oleg Deripaska in a way suggesting involvement in an election plot.
225/ Nastya Rybka’s stock just rose *significantly*. This also explains why Deripaska had her arrested and dragged away screaming by the cops at the airport in Moscow just as she was about to talk to reporters about the secret Deripaska-Prikhodko tapes she had. (Yep, look it up.)
191/ I’m… a bit thrown here. Trump began discussing Trump Tower Moscow with the Agalarovs *way* before the 2013 Miss Universe pageant. They announced the deal *at* the pageant. I don’t know why Mueller says they began discussing it after the pageant. That’s… *wildly* wrong.
192/ It’s bizarre—Mueller relies wholly, it seems, on Don Jr.’s testimony, which portrays his father as being uninvolved in the project. In fact, it was *Trump* who was the chief negotiator at the pageant, and *Trump* who struck a letter-of-intent deal with Aras Agalarov himself.
193/ Trump and Agalarov even announced funding for the deal (via Sberbank) just 10 days following the November pageant—after Trump met with Sberbank in Moscow with Agalarov. So why does Mueller say that Jr. and Emin (?) were the chief negotiators, and it all happened in December?
194/ Let me tell you why this matters: there is evidence that Trump spent the pageant *talking politics* with the Russians—including Russia policy—while he was setting up this business deal, which would establish his Russia policy was corrupt from the jump (of legal importance).
195/ Moreover, if Trump was receiving money from a Kremlin-owned bank while not only talking politics with Kremlin agents but at a time he’d already decided to run for POTUS, we’ve got the beginning of an illegal quid pro quo. Don Jr.’s false testimony elided *all* these facts.
180/ Here’s the first spot where Mueller’s *definitely* wrong. We know the *name of the hotel and the date* Smith met with Russian hackers—in fact, more than one hacking group in separate meetings. Major media reporting. Mueller says he “did not establish” such meetings occurred.
193/ Trump and Agalarov even announced funding for the deal (via Sberbank) just 10 days following the November pageant—after Trump met with Sberbank in Moscow with Agalarov. So why does Mueller say that Jr. and Emin (?) were the chief negotiators, and it all happened in December?
194/ Let me tell you why this matters: there is evidence that Trump spent the pageant *talking politics* with the Russians—including Russia policy—while he was setting up this business deal, which would establish his Russia policy was corrupt from the jump (of legal importance).
195/ Moreover, if Trump was receiving money from a Kremlin-owned bank while not only talking politics with Kremlin agents but at a time he’d already decided to run for POTUS, we’ve got the beginning of an illegal quid pro quo. Don Jr.’s false testimony elided *all* these facts.
193/ Trump and Agalarov even announced funding for the deal (via Sberbank) just 10 days following the November pageant—after Trump met with Sberbank in Moscow with Agalarov. So why does Mueller say that Jr. and Emin (?) were the chief negotiators, and it all happened in December?
194/ Let me tell you why this matters: there is evidence that Trump spent the pageant *talking politics* with the Russians—including Russia policy—while he was setting up this business deal, which would establish his Russia policy was corrupt from the jump (of legal importance).
195/ Moreover, if Trump was receiving money from a Kremlin-owned bank while not only talking politics with Kremlin agents but at a time he’d already decided to run for POTUS, we’ve got the beginning of an illegal quid pro quo. Don Jr.’s false testimony elided *all* these facts.
https://threader.app/thread/1118631217212067841
175/ Smith can’t be charged with attempting to procure stolen property because he’s dead. But it’s unclear from the Report if at any point Flynn’s involvement in the escapade acted in assistance of Smith—and again, there’s *never* been an allegation he initiated or directed him.
176/ Mueller reveals Erik Prince PAID MONEY to assist Smith’s efforts—and we have some indication from other reporting that Flynn’s network may have helped Smith secure FUNDING for his effort to solicit illegal in-kind campaign donations from the Russians. Why isn’t that a crime?
182/ What we do now know is that *Trump* tasked *Flynn* with getting Clinton’s emails from Russian hackers—a crime—and that Flynn was subsequently in substantial contact (or already had been) with Smith, a fact I discuss briefly in my first book and *much* more in my second one.
183/ I find it odd Mueller uses “displayed interest” as a euphemistic phrase to describe the Trump campaign’s relation to stolen materials it couldn’t legally receive because doing so would be a crime on two fronts. They did *far* more than “display interest”—as the Report shows.
“If we don’t see the House proceeding in that way, I think that will be a failure to discharge their responsibilities,” Clinton adds.
— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) May 2, 2019
It's happening all over again
Peter Schweizer does oppo research funded by conservative interests –> NYT credulously writes it up –> Trump and his allies bully the DOJ into investigating –> Trump claims his opponent is corrupt https://t.co/g0eiFtBhEC
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) May 2, 2019
"Not in my memory has a sitting attorney general more diminished the credibility of his department on any subject." @benjaminwittes on the performance of Bill Barr: https://t.co/NltiS9cVwq
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) May 2, 2019
This is why all the talk that if the Dems impeached it will take time away from legislating for the public is such a canard-there will be no legislation-that passes both Houses and Trump signs-wether they impeach Trump or not. This whole frame is another trap
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
As @brianbeutler writes, if Democrats don't initiate impeachment hearings now, or very soon, it could clear the way for the further politicization of law enforcement, but directed at manipulation of 2020 election.
Brian points to real signs of this: https://t.co/nMR6zvdykx
— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) May 2, 2019
Lindsay ole boy let's start you off with 6 examples-know you're not much of a reader-you've exonerated 'President Trump' without actually reading the Mueller Report https://t.co/UCVYAoeaAI
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
Pelosi just explained why Barr defied the subpoena to appear before House Judiciary. She says he committed 18 U.S. Code 1001 in the Senate. Lindsay Graham is unlikely to make a criminal referral.
Barr would likely have lied to Nadler, who WOULD make a criminal referral.
— Eric Garland (@ericgarland) May 2, 2019
https://twitter.com/B52Malmet/status/1123969275285340160
BREAKING (CNN): Former DNI Clapper Says Trump Campaign "Aided and Abetted" Russians
This is what I've been arguing since 2017—and laid out in my 2018 book Proof of Collusion. Aiding and Abetting is a collusive crime, impeachable, and not an offense the Mueller Report considered.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 2, 2019
Who got tossed under the Bill Barr bus? A POLITICO tally of the transcript counted more than 30 times where the AG redirected the criticism, with a number of figures ending up as collateral casualties…https://t.co/0huWluET8Q @dsamuelsohn @joshgerstein
— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) May 2, 2019
How stupid does William Barr and his Republican enablers in Washington, DC, think Americans are? Judging from their performance today, they think voters are very stupid.
This will backfire politically.— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) May 1, 2019
Nancy Pelosi: "[Barr] lied to Congress. If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law. Not the President of the United States and not the attorney general."
Via CBS pic.twitter.com/uJN6hUgpwY— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 2, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barr-puts-trumps-actions-in-best-light-despite-substantial-evidence-of-obstruction-cited-by-mueller/2019/05/01/dacb0046-6c2a-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.d1ee04b30efc
Let's review:
* Russia launched huge attack on our election to elect Trump
* US law enforcement investigated that attack
* Trump corruptly tried to derail that reckoning & tried to cover up that effort
Barr is helping cover up the BIG crime here.
— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) May 2, 2019
Sargent:
The idea that there was no legitimate basis for the probe is a backdoor way of saying that the Russian assault on our political system, irrespective of any criminal conspiracy with it, was not worth investigating (and by extension, that tacit Trumpworld collusion with it is also no biggie).
Indeed, Barr has basically copped to all those things. At the hearing, Barr validated the idea that Clinton may have been the real colluder, cast doubt on the investigation’s genesis, and even declined to say that the Trump campaign’s embrace of Russian help mattered.
Many Republicans are all in with this narrative, which you saw when GOP Senators used the hearing to steer the subject back to Clinton as the real colluder and the deep state plotagainst Trump.
What’s stunning about all this is that Barr does not appear to be a conspiracy theorist. He’s playing footsie with this alt-narrative for cynical instrumental purposes, and these other Republicans probably are as well.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-i-m-living-rent-free-inside-donald-trump-n1001026
Hillary Clinton: "China if you’re listening, why dont you find Trump’s tax returns. I'm sure our media would richly reward you. … According to Mueller, there’s no conspiracy there since it’s all out in the open.”
HRC trolls like a pro. 🔥🔥🔥pic.twitter.com/0jzYGhrlXI
— Greg Sarafan™ (@GSarafan) May 2, 2019
A day after Barr declared no possible conflict of interest matters for Trump we're supposed to be all hot and bothered over Biden's alleged conflict of interest?
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
A day after Barr declared no possible conflict of interest matters for Trump we're supposed to be all hot and bothered over Biden's alleged conflict of interest?
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
Here we go again. Yesterday Barr said ethics don't matter only crimes so now let's get outraged over an alleged breach of ethics by Biden?
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
According to this poll the # supporting impeachment was 35% on March 5 but fell to 29% on May 2. So the Barr Letter-and all the MSM coverage that 'impeachment is bad for Democrats' is the cause
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
If 57% believe he committed crimes but only 29% want to impeach you would think that the 28% who say he committed a crime but don't impeach are at least persuadable to change their mind.
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
Maddow: They [Barr, etc.] are saying the president can't be investigated if the president doesn't want to be investigated.
Clinton: And that is the road to tyranny. pic.twitter.com/M4lpH2ejZx
— Tokyo Sand 🗽 (@DHStokyo) May 2, 2019
We told you William Barr forced to Robert Mueller to prematurely shut down his investigation
I mean what has Schiff been doing the last 18 months?
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
https://twitter.com/NoyzeSmythe/status/1123442213357346816
Maddow just said she's working on a story about the possibility Barr shut down Mueller's probe in March. This returns us to *Matt Schlapp*—spouse of a top Trump aide—tweeting that *he already knew* before Barr's confirmation that when Barr became AG he was going to end the probe.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 2, 2019
2. This is a question you folks with Dem Reps need to be asking-Peter King is my Congressman so obviously calling him wouldn't exactly be a productive use of my energy!
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
Here's the question: as the Dem leadership is still too chicken to #ImpeachTrump do they at least have the guts to #ImpeachBarr ?
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/democrats-bill-barr-impeachment
He’s as worthless a witness as he is an attorney general. Subpoena his sorry ass, hold him in contempt when he’s a no-show, but don’t waste time over him. Call Mueller, McGahn, people who haven’t sold their souls and can help the nation get to the truth. https://t.co/Ke6TRqzrPa
— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) May 1, 2019
Where is the March 25 letter from Mueller to Barr that is referenced in the publicly-released March 27 letter? Why is no one talking about it? It was immediate response to misleading acts of Barr. I want to see it.
— Jill Wine-Banks (now on Threads as jillwinebanks) (@JillWineBanks) May 2, 2019
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1123652334171623425
https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1123710561966022658
Mueller Report Illustrates Trump’s Authoritarian Rhetorical Tactics
The real mystery isn't 'what happened to Bill Barr' it's why he ever had a good reputation in the 1st place. The answer: historical amnesia as he SUCCESSFULLY obstructed Iran-Contra
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 2, 2019
The FBI even "built and deployed a tool" to help Congress sift through Top Secret files connected to the Steele Dossier in June 2018. pic.twitter.com/oAjFnHPxsQ
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) May 2, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-mueller-silent-barr-interprets-the-special-counsels-report–to-the-advantage-of-trump/2019/05/01/54b5f3e0-6c3d-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.08542f2c181a
Jamil Smith correctly diagnoses the Dems-more concerned about elections than justice.
All they want to talk about is moving into the WH in 2020 ignoring the fact that it may be a condemned building by then.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/kamala-harris-william-barr-confrontation-829841/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/barr-mueller-report.html
I'm thinking that after we subpoena chicken Barr and force him to testify in @HouseJudiciary, I'm going to invite @SenKamalaHarris to the hearing and then I'm going to yield my time to her. https://t.co/uBDHh0qShT
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) May 2, 2019
One of the most 👀 moments of the hearing so far https://t.co/UW6QKHtlbq pic.twitter.com/Cl7eleTH2h
— Allegra Kirkland (@allegrakirkland) May 1, 2019
.@SenKamalaHarris just said Barr "has compromised the public’s ability to believe he is a purveyor of justice."
Ask yourself: Did Barr say anything at all today to dispel this notion?
No. He didn't even try to disguise his advocacy for Trump.
My post: https://t.co/TY8I900yZ3
— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) May 1, 2019
AG Barr is arguing that President Trump should have been allowed to halt the investigation into the following people:
His own campaign chairman (found guilty), deputy chairman (guilty), personal lawyer (guilty), national security adviser (guilty), and two advisers (both guilty). https://t.co/Me9FMrLQpP
— Former Congresswoman Val Demings (@RepValDemings) May 1, 2019
So what's the Dem Judiicary's response? Contempt? Impeachment? There's must be something
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
William Barr should not be Attorney General.
He's perfectly welcome to join the President's legal team, but right now he's a taxpayer-funded defense counsel for Trump.
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) May 1, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/01/barrs-conclusions-are-undercut-by-his-lack-familiarity-with-details-muellers-probe/?utm_term=.f8d82d354ffc
William Barr Absolved Trump of Obstruction without Having the Faintest Clue What He Obstructedhttps://t.co/SrvOR55qTY
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) May 1, 2019
The real mystery was why the institutionalist types trusted him in the 1st place-only answer is historical amnesia
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1123653065247207425
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/01/william-barr-his-horrible-hearing/?utm_term=.6bbee9836676
Barr’s stunning confession to @KamalaHarris: He didn’t even review all the evidence underlying the Mueller report! Yet he reached a conclusion Mueller said he couldn’t reach based on that full evidentiary record. OMG. If this isn’t enough to disqualify Barr, what could be???
— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) May 1, 2019
Kamala Harris brought out 2 important points:
1. Barr admits he has NOT READ critical evidence docs in Mueller Report
2. Barr would not answer when she asked if Trump is telling him who to investigate pic.twitter.com/OekwViWSE0— TheAverageBlackMan™ (@TheAvgBlackMan) May 1, 2019
Just FYI. https://t.co/PfRuWXwt8n
— David Cicilline (@davidcicilline) May 1, 2019
13. More of Barr's alternative facts of jurisprudence: if 'the President' believes he's being 'falsely accused' he's free to obstruct to his heart's content. He-not the legal system-is who decides that. For that matter he was NOT falsely accused-more lies by the Coverup AG Barr
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
12. James Comey who's the reason we're in this mess in the 1st place finally after defending Barr during his confirmation is admitting the ugly truth about Coverup AG Barr https://t.co/ciofygyVhP
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/william-barr-testimony.html
Very good @paulwaldman1 rundown of some of the worst dissembling, hairsplitting, and misdrection from William Barr today:https://t.co/NHIkwuHN4m
— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) May 1, 2019
22. Here is Mueller explaining why he would not state Trump obstructed justice no matter what evidence he found pic.twitter.com/WtkCKUfimj
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) May 1, 2019
If this were true then the incentive to obstruct an investigation would be virtually bottomless and limitless
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
7. I mean why do you think Bill Barr is FREAKING over the idea of real lawyers asking him questions in the House? Because he knows a competent lawyer won't fall for his line of bull. They'll call him out and the public will see him for who he is-Trump's dishonest flunky
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
6. I will say this-a lot of the new freshmen Congresswomen-AOC, @RashidaTlaib , Ihan, etc get it. They get how to be adversarial, theatrical, and CONFRONTATIONAL I love Feinstein but she doesn't understand this side of it
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
Wish you were questioning.
— Wendy Klein (@klein_uubk) May 1, 2019
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1123618653986013185
If this hearing is revealing one thing, it's the utter and inexplicable folly of making the decision of whether to launch an impeachment inquiry contingent on whether Republicans agree to it.
— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) May 1, 2019
IMPT: @SenateDems, nail Barr down on the fact that there were TWO letters!!! Don't ask "WHY!" Just establish, you said X; the truth is Y. Then keep going. Now Barr is lying about his lying. He is talking about something completely different.
— Elizabeth de la Vega (@Delavegalaw) May 1, 2019
2. First one comes quickly. He said he would exercise his discretion to release as much of the report as possible. That's false. He redacted to protect the privacy of "peripheral third parties" which is a totally made up category with no basis in law.
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) May 1, 2019
Barr is engaged in hilarious misdirection and dissembling right now.
He's justifying his lie to Congress about not knowing Mueller's concerns by making an absurd distinction between concerns of Mueller, and concerns of Mueller's team!
— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) May 1, 2019
I cannot express to you what a giant pile of nonsense this Barr testimony is to any licensed attorney who is not compromised by blind loyalty to Donald Trump
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 1, 2019
#BarrLied Coverup Specialist AG Barr's strategy at this hearing is clear enough-he's trying to bore everyone to death. Seriously that's a smart strategy he's banking on short attention spans
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
Senate Judiciary Cmte. Chairman Graham says Special Counsel Mueller found "no collusion, no coordination, no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.”
Watch @NicolleDWallace and Brian Williams fact check this claim: https://t.co/2AzwyfP45i pic.twitter.com/q7SiyB3n1L
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) May 1, 2019
Brian Williams just broke into @MSNBC's coverage of the Barr hearing to correct Lindsey Graham: "The chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said that Mueller found there is no collusion. That is not correct."
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 1, 2019
Note: Among the "peripheral third parties" protected under a PP redaction is Donald Trump Jr.
"peripheral"
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) May 1, 2019
So only Trump's top GOP co-conspirators have seen the less redacted report
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
READ IT HERE: Here’s a copy of Mueller’s March 27 letter to Barr, complaining that his initial summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work. pic.twitter.com/ZSKeR0V0Ar
— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) May 1, 2019
As @NicolleDWallace just stated so pointedly & compellingly, “You want to see collusion? You are about to see it in just a few minutes when @LindseyGrahamSC questions AG Barr. Graham is Trump’s human shield and Graham has adopted as his own every Trump act of obstruction. @MSNBC
— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) May 1, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/politics/mueller-barr.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
In congressional testimony in April before the report was released, Mr. Barr demurred when asked whether he believed that the investigation was a “witch hunt” — Mr. Trump’s preferred term. It “depends on where you’re sitting,” Mr. Barr replied
Over the past month, other signs of friction between the attorney general and the special counsel have emerged over issues like legal theories about constitutional protections afforded to presidents to do their job and how Mr. Mueller’s team conducted the investigation.”
“If you are somebody who’s being falsely accused of something, you would tend to view the investigation as a witch hunt,” he said, an apparent reference to the president.
Mr. Barr’s testimony stood in contrast to comments he made during his confirmation hearing in January. “I don’t believe Mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt,” he said then.
Mr. Mueller’s report, the attorney general and the other senior law enforcement officials believed, read like it had been written for consumption by Congress and the public, not like a confidential report to Mr. Barr, as required under the regulations governing the special counsel.
Ie, they worried it would be damaging to ‘the President’ and couched this worry in legalese.
In one instance, Mr. Barr took Mr. Mueller’s words out of context to suggest that the president had no motive to obstruct justice. In another instance, he plucked a fragment from a sentence in the Mueller report that made a conclusion seem less damaging for Mr. Trump.
Investigators wrote, “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Mr. Barr’s letter quoted only the passage that the investigation had found no conspiracy or coordination.
It is not clear whether members of Mr. Mueller’s team were angered by these points in particular, or whether Mr. Mueller’s letter cited them.
Mr. Barr also said during the news conference that some of Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation needed to be put in “context.”
“There is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” he said.
Ok so we didn’t realize ‘President Trump’ was angry. Since he was mad he had every right to obstruct Justice. That’s in the statute-you don’t have to obey the law if you’re frustrated. When I’m frustrated the meter maid doesn’t ticket me for parking in front of a no parking sign.
Barr’s answer to @RepCharlieCrist, denying knowledge of Mueller’s concerns over his summary, was deliberately false and misleading.
If he were an ordinary citizen, it might be considered perjury. As our top law enforcement official, it’s even worse.
He must step down. https://t.co/SRQuEArPIU
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) May 1, 2019
I note with interest AG Barr’s 4/10 Senate testimony. “Q: Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion? A: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.” Now it appears that Mueller objected in this 3/27 letter. https://t.co/IiK5zJYtAS
— Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) May 1, 2019
On April 20th, I asked Barr, “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” His answer was, “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”
We now know Mueller stated his concerns on March 27th, and that Barr totally misled me, the Congress, and the public. He must resign. pic.twitter.com/rod404BbYo
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) May 1, 2019
Now it is confirmed Mueller objected to the “context, nature, and substance” of Barr’s misleading summary of the report.
And the false public narrative it allowed the White House to create.
No one can place any reliance on what Barr says. We need to hear from Mueller himself. https://t.co/ET7tQxnGQG
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) May 1, 2019
Robert Reich: Congress Should Be Ready to Arrest Attorney General William Barr If He Defies Subpoena https://t.co/XpZ9pyAoyn
— Scott Dworkin (@funder) May 1, 2019
https://threader.app/thread/1118631217212067841
So Coverup AG Bill Barr is who we thought he was-a partisan hack, who wrote a 18 page letter to Trump calling the Mueller probe 'fatally misconceived' and who pardoned Casper Weinberger and the rest of the Iran-Contra co-conspirators for Bush Sr. https://t.co/tKts7oA3T6
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
Attorney General William Barr must resign or be impeached immediately
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 1, 2019
That's what happened to Nixon's Bill Barr-John Mitchell. If there's any Justice he will https://t.co/pwg2hejBsB
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
If Bill Barr has lost Cillizza he really is in trouble https://t.co/QelHNkKGaM
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) May 1, 2019
On April 20th, I asked Barr, “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” His answer was, “I don’t know whether Mueller supported my conclusion.”
We now know Mueller stated his concerns on March 27th, and that Barr totally misled me, the Congress, and the public. He must resign. pic.twitter.com/rod404BbYo
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) May 1, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/politics/mueller-barr.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
BAM! #JusticeIsComing pic.twitter.com/E5J1zk7h6a
— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) May 1, 2019
Wow. The good news is that Mueller can end that employee status whenever he wants. https://t.co/dOkOGJhBNV
— Elizabeth de la Vega (@Delavegalaw) May 1, 2019
Jimmy Gomez on Oversight just told Chris Matthews that Comey testified in a closed door hearing in December that you can trust Barr but Gomez says he never did. Now Mueller is revealing the truth on Coverup AG Barr https://t.co/CoMEEyJnk5
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 30, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/04/30/mueller-told-the-attorney-general-that-the-depiction-of-his-findings-failed-to-capture-context-nature-and-substance-of-probe/?utm_term=.aef51012d001
One major question the Dems need to ask Mueller is why wasn’t Credico charged?
Scoop: DC prosecutors have subpoenaed Randy Credico to testify against Roger Stone at his trial. First sign that they consider him to be credible & helpful to their case.
(Recall: Stone threatened to take Credico's dog and told him to "prepare to die") https://t.co/hJQz4GjHLw— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) April 30, 2019
From a counterintelligence viewpoint, the Mueller report portrays a Trump campaign that was guilty as hell of colluding with the Kremlin to damage Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in 2016, to the benefit of Donald Trump (and, let’s not forget, Vladimir Putin). While that may not meet prosecutorial threshold—the Espionage Act being devilishly difficult to apply in practice—it meets any intelligence standard of colluding with the enemy
My latest ===>
"The ability of our political-media elite in Washington to bury spy stories which they don’t want discussed remains impressive, even in the age of the internet and social media."https://t.co/BjF8lDuTHw
— John Schindler (@20committee) April 30, 2019
Long. Past. Due. https://t.co/3qogPGxjGf
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 30, 2019
The crime is not the stolen election. The crime is not the obstruction. The crime is not the lies. The crime is not even all the other crimes. The crime is that there are no consequences. The crime is that each abuse of power validates and inspires a dozen more.
— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) May 2, 2019
My research and thoughts all in one place to help readers understand Volume 1 of the #MuellerReport.https://t.co/FlWmRZxzAx
—identifies key findings of collusion (not just crimes)
—examines other Mueller documents and investigative reports to help put these findings in context— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) April 29, 2019
“One of the individuals accompanying the Russian lawyer was Rinat Akhmetshin, reportedly a former Soviet intelligence officer who “apparently has ties to Russian intelligence,” and “allegedly specializes in ‘active measures campaigns’” such as subversive political operations involving disinformation and propaganda. (See Sen. Charles E. Grassley letter to Sec. John Kelley, Apr. 4, 2017.) In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher “acknowledged that [Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin] were probably spies,” based on his own interactions with them.”
This is crazy
Congress doesn’t even have the unredacted Mueller Report, but Trump is briefing the Russians?
He needs to be impeached.Trump and Putin spoke by phone, discussed Mueller report @CNN https://t.co/Hb09g7Glvv
— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) May 3, 2019
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/29/mueller-report-jared-kushner-dmitri-simes-russia-1291392
If I was in the House-I ran in 2018-my 1st question to Mueller would be this: in its 110 years how many Democratic FBI Directors have there been? What do you think Congressman @RepSwalwell @brianschatz @RepAlGreen
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 29, 2019
This is an absolute must-read from lawyer John Bies, explaining just how radical Trump's maximum resistance to oversight really when put in historical and legal context:https://t.co/MOwzmFid9S
As he shows, all of this basically points towards this inevitable conclusion: https://t.co/H3y1yMq1tn
— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) April 28, 2019
very true. I was thinking they ought to get lawyers to ask but it's true the Freshmen Congresswomen know how to get to the point-unlike many of the Dem Old Guard-other than Maxine Waters of course
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 28, 2019
I moderated a panel with two terrific speakers—@PreetBharara and @NatashaBertrand—on Mueller Report.
Podcast:https://t.co/B2HK4E2Rem
Video:https://t.co/4lR6e3dXy3One of many great discussions: Natasha's and Preet's views on Rod Rosenstein's legacy (22:50 audio, 48:05 video). pic.twitter.com/NdNQHbSepe
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) April 25, 2019
What did we learn from the Mueller report? Revisit our recent event hosted by @benjaminwittes, where experts discussed Congress's next steps, why President Trump didn't face a subpoena, and more. https://t.co/a7WHyC9t5j
— Brookings Governance (@BrookingsGov) April 27, 2019
Are the Dems still fighting the battle on Trump’s terms?
ironically, in the law of evidence, this is called … impeachment https://t.co/9yDWc8XeBB
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 27, 2019
pro tip 👉 https://t.co/r6YAkonFzj
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 27, 2019
Make each one an exhibit with its own number. Barr's statement on the left; true statement on the right. Make each lie from the press conferences or other letters an exhibit, too. Remember: DO NOT ASK "WHY."
— Elizabeth de la Vega (@Delavegalaw) April 26, 2019
Sargent is on the same page
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/26/fresh-questions-about-trumps-corruption-emerge-his-lawless-threats-escalate/?utm_term=.a2c4e106a077
The Democrats want all the evidence before considering impeachment but the only way to get all the evidence may be to consider impeachment #ImpeachDonaldTrump #AmericansForImpeachment https://t.co/AaqZBx9Ucd
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 26, 2019
They are like the only unworried people in America. They seem asleep talking about Bidemania etc
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 26, 2019
Impeachment may be inevitable-IF the Dems want all the evidence catch 22-they say they need all the evidence to consider impeachment but to get all the evidence they may need to open impeachment inquiry
But PACE @glennkirschner2 this sounds great but may not go anyway in court. The only way to really compel testimony is via an impeachment inquiry https://t.co/zv81TqnX3o
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 26, 2019
3. and is therefore in the heartland of impeachable offenses. Congress – with each “impeachable moment” Trump is making your job easier. He has abdicated his responsibilities as president. The time is now! #ImpeachableMoments pic.twitter.com/hhqe0JnMvi
— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) April 26, 2019
6. AND, for every witness Trump blocks from testifying, Congress drafts another article of impeachment for obstructing a Congressional proceeding. We plow through, undeterred, unabated, unapologetic. We expose to public view the MANY crimes by Trump & we impeach him . . .
— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) April 25, 2019
Should he be asked if he was pressured to shutdown shop early-by Bill Barr
Arguably Mueller was unduly cautious
@Lawrence I have to agree 1000% with JW Verret-the Dems are squandering the moral high ground-how do you criticize the GOP co-conspirators when you are also putting politics first?
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 26, 2019
Trump transition official-Bannon’s missing emails; Don Jr/Kushner not put under oath
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stymied-by-aides-trump-sought-out-loyalist-to-curtail-special-counsel–and-drew-muellers-glare/2019/04/25/d58c79de-66ad-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html?utm_term=.cf6b2a05648a
Mr. Barr had the analysis backward in his summary letter. The failure to prove an underlying crime does not mean there was no obstruction. The obstruction meant that it became impossible to know whether there was a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt — and it impeded the Russian investigation. Mr. Barr then used that doubt to question whether there was the corrupt intent required by obstruction statutes. To the contrary, the preponderance of conspiracy evidence confirms the corrupt intent.”
Despite being heavily redacted, the report seems to add context to Roger Stone’s indictment, implicitly suggesting that Mr. Trump may have directed officials to contact Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, and may have been in contact with Mr. Stone about WikiLeaks. It may not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew WikiLeaks was an extension of Russian hacking and a Russian campaign, but it is more likely than not a kind of indirect coordination with a foreign government prohibited by law. And Donald Trump Jr.’s continuing contacts with WikiLeaks in September and October 2016, long after the Trump Tower meeting and the July events made its connection to a Russian campaign clear, also were likely a coordination, even if not knowingly proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Regarding the Trump campaign’s knowledge that Wikileaks was an extension of Russian hacking note Roger Stone’s many comments at the end of July and the start of August, 2016 that Wikileaks quite possibly was working with the Russians.
Did Mueller factor that in his decision?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html
The Danger in Not Impeaching Trump https://t.co/XjAlCQ8w1J
— Marty Rudolf (@wwejewfan) April 25, 2019
This really is Biden's pitch-he's promising he can return us to conventional-pre Trump-politics
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 25, 2019
When Trump heard about the appointment of Mueller he moaned 'this is the end of my Presidency' Not if Steny Hoyer has anything to say about it-Hoyer's new Dem agenda says nothing about the roiling Constitutional Crisis unfolding https://t.co/GlqFi9U2Nu
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 25, 2019
I wrote a neat little list of things House Democrats can do in the face of Trump's stonewalling. @ryanlcooper goes a half-step bolder @TheWeek:https://t.co/Gn53pRGjYv
— Peter Weber (@PJWeber) April 25, 2019
Trump has literally ordered his AG to prosecute his political opponents. Meanwhile the leadership of the Democratic party is petrified of the beltway press calling them partisan. https://t.co/XXYXgJgepy
— Adam Serwer 🍝 (@AdamSerwer) April 25, 2019
3/ We still have no explanation for why the FBI lied to the NYT in the 14 days before a presidential election, falsely saying it had no info on Trump-Russia ties—and no pending investigation on the topic—rather than just saying, "No comment." Steele was rightly unnerved by this.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 25, 2019
Because the FBI was-probably even more today is-Trumpland.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/06/18/there-may-have-been-an-fbi-conspiracy-involving-the-2016-election-but-not-the-one-you-think/?utm_term=.9da6769cbada
The Democrats need to here from Christopher Steele
https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1121415946663546881
(THREAD) Let's review the accuracy of Steele's dossier, post-Mueller Report.
(Steele said his raw intel needed processing, and was about 75% accurate.)
If you see people saying the Report discredited Steele, please RETWEET this. pic.twitter.com/WUBsjJoiJN— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 25, 2019
Great companion read by Wittes
If the active measures section of the report is exonerating of Trump and his campaign, the section that follows it—the Russian hacking section—is not. It is much worse than is commonly understood for Trump. Just how damning it is has gone somewhat unnoticed for, I think, four reasons.
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1121394666610593799?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Some thoughts on Biden’s announcement
If you're looking for a policy wonk Biden is not your guy
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 25, 2019
https://t.co/PkhBhTizTE pic.twitter.com/prYGyeO6Xz
— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) April 25, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opinion/trump-republican-party.html
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-and-massive-resistance
2. Most Americans disagreed with impeaching Clinton-impeaching Trump is already more popular than impeaching Clinton ever was-but even so the I on Clinton's forehead unfortunately did brand him in the mind of many even if they didn't agree with it
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 25, 2019
they (over two dozen people), prepared "Statements of Information" that exceeded 7000 pages. Arts of Impeachment were not drafted until May, but three months is not a magic number. They had testimony in July. Nixon resigned August 9 after the infamous tape came out. Second, this
— Elizabeth de la Vega (@Delavegalaw) April 23, 2019
Over 7000 pages! Even longer than this book!
But What About Your Emails? is longer than the-redacted-Mueller Report but not the ‘Statements of Information’ of the Watergate Impeachment Committee
I am BEGGING and IMPLORING-both!-for all my fellow Democrats and fellow resisters to read this entire fascinating and crucially important thread by a brilliant legal mind and after this let no Dem again say we shouldn't impeach without a Senate convict https://t.co/YFZF6cO9St
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 25, 2019
What the MR doesn’t say about Felix Sater and TrumpTowerMoscow
What the Mueller Report Didn’t Say About Felix Sater and the Trump Tower in Moscow
Democrats "care about Russia now because it cost them an election," Fox host says. https://t.co/coPPYpiPXJ
— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) April 25, 2019
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/donald-trump-robert-mueller-report-collusion
Russia attacked our democracy. Donald Trump and his campaign welcomed the help. The question now is: What are we going to do about it?https://t.co/1AaNdjRXgp
— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) April 25, 2019
"Because the DOJ cannot indict a sitting president the whole matter of obstruction was very directly sent to Congress. If you read that part of the #MuellerReport it could not be clearer. You could not be more explicit than 'Please look at this…. I’m giving this to you.'” pic.twitter.com/l3qwZg22c6
— Hillary In Pictures (@HillaryPix) April 23, 2019
It is. I sometimes wonder if Mueller was able to finish his work, or if AG gave him impossible guidelines to indict these clowns on conspiracy. I hope Nadler will figure it out.
— MJ (@princessmom122) April 23, 2019
https://twitter.com/SueinRockville/status/1120692945034842112
Trump is privately worried Don McGahn's testimony could lead to his impeachment, a new report says.
That's a key tell. Trump is trying to close down oversight everywhere, but his power to do this isn't limitless.
And that's making him angry.
New piece: https://t.co/9LMmUqyu0Q
— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) April 23, 2019
Nadler's question is right on point. Supposedly Mueller didn't charge Jr because: JR diidn't realize oppo from a hostile foreign power was a crime. Mueller REALLY needs to be pushed on that I thought ignorance isn't an excuse? https://t.co/B4ctw2eAac#ImpeachDonaldTrump
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 23, 2019
I thought ignorance of the law was no excuse?
If I park in a no parking spot is the fact that I didn’t seen the sign a defense-that will work before a judge?
Actually, I think Nadler, Schiff, and Cummings are not done with collusion, thankfully. But listen carefully to the people who aren’t steeped in the investigation. They tend to want to proceed on obstruction alone. That would be a real mistake.
— MJ (@princessmom122) April 23, 2019
Honestly my concern is the Dems get into this with Mueller in depth. No doubt Schiff gets it. I'm heartened that Nadler is asking why Jr wasn't indicted #ImpeachDonaldTrump
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 23, 2019
@RepJerryNadler said he doesn’t understand why Junior and the other at the Trump Tower meeting weren’t indicted. I expect to hear a lot about this at his hearings because it doesn’t add up. #MuellerReport
— MJ (@princessmom122) April 23, 2019
https://www.themoneyillusion.com/
For them, the case of Donald J. Trump would have been an easy one. It should be an easy one for us as well.
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 23, 2019
This is a simple point, and it doesn’t turn on the kaleidoscopic meaning of collusion or the criminal-law technicalities of obstruction. It goes to something very fundamental:
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 23, 2019
Dems are not making one of their best arguments:
That by obstructing the probe, Trump impeded the inquiry into not just his conduct, but also into the Russian attack on our political system.
Here's scholar Philip Bobbit on why this might be impeachable:https://t.co/kZEpQBGj4S pic.twitter.com/JKpQkvyRcy
— Greg Sargent (@GregTSargent) April 23, 2019
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/mueller-report-contains-claim-russia-taped-bill-clinton-having-phone-sex-with-monica-lewinsky?utm_source=breaking_push&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=push_notifications
– Don Jr. refused to testify voluntarily (followed by three redacted lines)
-Annie Donaldson’s devastating notes
-Erik Prince/Steve Bannon’s missing texts
-Why Jay Sekulow got his own lawyer: https://t.co/Lz9UL9Iccn
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 23, 2019
Mueller also apparently was bullied out of investigating ‘the President’s’ finances
“But the committee cannot rely solely on the narrow scope of Mueller’s investigation to develop a full picture of the counterintelligence risk. At the beginning of the investigation, the president sought to draw a “red line” around his finances. It appears this red line held, as Mueller’s report did not address the president’s finances.”
People who sat for interviews: Stephen Miller (at least 3x), Steve Bannon (at least 4x), Reince Priebus (at least 3x) and Kushner (at least 2x)
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 22, 2019
Just like Dowd boasts of intimidating Mueller
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/22/what-media-got-right-wrong-about-mueller-report/?utm_term=.72215d135188
This would've been a huge scoop for @SeanHannity!
According to Mueller's report, Hannity knew about the existence of the infamous Trump Tower meeting more than a week before the NYT published its scoop about the meeting in July 2017.https://t.co/FGUke86fgS
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) April 22, 2019
A Trump transition staffer (and law professor) says enough is enough, and calls for impeachment (via @TheAtlantic):https://t.co/ppTZgHtxVh
— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) April 23, 2019
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-trump-directed-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support
Big item in #MuellerReport:
Russians didn't just tell Papadopoulos they had emails on Clinton. They PREVIEWED their plan for "anonymous release."
And who was one member of Congress who informed the public?
Video, transcript: @RepAdamSchiff @chrislhayes
https://t.co/BYQbjMUOxM— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) April 22, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-special-counsels-long-hunt-to-uncover-whether-the-trump-campaign-conspired-with-russia/2019/04/21/57e67ac4-563c-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html?utm_term=.ea33b80c14e5
Questions for Mueller:
I keep coming back to this, too, from Barr's memo. This is not what the report showed. It showed three efforts to interfere in election, the third being direct outreach to Trump's campaign. pic.twitter.com/w6VzRaDn4N
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) April 22, 2019
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/19/mueller-mysteries-1283775
So why wasn’t Corsi charged for perjury?
“Asked if he’d had anything to do with WikiLeaks during the campaign, Corsi issued a blanket denial. He claimed that he had told Stone during the campaign that trying to contact Assange was a bad idea that could subject them both to investigation, according to a draft court filing.”
“That wasn’t accurate.”
By then, prosecutors had obtained emails showing that Corsi was in constant conversation with his friends and contacts, including Stone, throughout the final months of the campaign, speculating about Assange’s next moves, according to Gray.”
But prosecutors used his initial assertion that he declined Stone’s request to seek information from WikiLeaks as a cudgel, saying he could be charged with a crime for lying, Corsi described in a book he wrote about the experience called “Silent No More” that was published in December.
Corsi, he noted, had sold thousands of books and built a fan base by cherry-picking facts to craft a desired narrative. For Corsi, this wasn’t lying, but salesmanship, picking “truthful facts woven in a way that you don’t have to worry about the things that are inconsistent,” Gray said.
The deeply fact-based prosecutors struggled to make sense of the conspiracy theorist and his evolving testimony.
“It’s their biggest nightmare,” Gray said. “The supposed best of the best were just frankly dumbfounded by the whole situation.”
But not to put too fine a point on it why were they dumbfounded? Isn’t it pretty obvious what was going on? Corsi lied to them. He was a perjurer. So why did they let him walk-if they have that is. There are 12 spnioff Grand Juries as we speak.
It is not clear why Mueller’s team did not file the false-statement charges they threatened against Corsi. Much of the report dealing with their interactions with him has also been redacted by the attorney general, citing possible harm to an ongoing investigation. The report does not specify whether the redactions are related to Stone’s case or other continuing matters.
Corsi said last week that the experience showed the probe was a “fraud from the start.” He said only a “criminal” would urge him to plead guilty to charges that could not be proved in court.
Gray said he believes it would be inappropriate to charge Corsi because he has a faulty memory and noted that prosecutors gave him extensive opportunities to amend their answers.
“They pushed and pushed,” he said. “But at the end of the day, they threw up their hands and said, ‘We can’t use any of this.’ ”
Faulty memory. If this were a poor young Black man rather an a rich old GOPer White man they’d call it something else.
On the other hand-maybe the answer is in those redactions referring to an ongoing investigation. So maybe Coris hasn’t been charged yet. Or maybe he’s still going to used in Stone’s trial.
As for Stone’s gloating remember the perjury may be why a crime wasn’t found.
This. #Impeachment is not about whether the #GOPLedSenate would actually convict–I'm betting they won't–it's about deciding who we are as a people, and whether or not the US should, and will adhere to the rule of law. #TrumpMustGo @SpeakerPelosihttps://t.co/skLZvd1fQT
— Bill 🌊⚜️ Our Democracy is under siege (@13WJM) April 21, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/18/five-questions-that-still-need-be-answered-mueller-report/?utm_term=.dff6549bfdb8
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/20/what-we-need-hear-mueller/?utm_term=.0643cab887ea
Two myths about the Mueller Report:
1) It said no collusion.
[It very specifically said it was not addressing collusion; if it had, Stone would have counted.]
2) Proves Trump is not Putin's puppet.
[It is utterly silent on the key events to even begin to analyze that.]
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) April 22, 2019
205/ Here's what many don't get: if Trump's Russia policy was—from the start—compromised by his Russian business deals, he can't be president. For *counterintelligence* reasons. It's literally that simple. No president's foreign policy can be beholden to a *secret business deal*.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 18, 2019
Indeed, remember all the huffing and puffing over the slightest appearance of ‘self dealing’ with the Clinton Foundation?
Loose ends: Carter Page, Papadpoulos, Roger Stone-Jerome Corsi, Peter Smith.
Peter Smith:
179/ Mueller establishes that Smith listed Corsi in docs related to his Dark Web campaign—creating the first official link between 2 of the 4 efforts (the others being Schmitz's and Stone's) Trumpworld made to illegally receive stolen property and campaign donations from Russia.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 18, 2019
How is this search by Peter Smith and Michael Flynn not a crime?
177/ It's an illegal end to receive campaign donations from Russia (also, it's collusion); Erik Prince and possibly Mike Flynn took an act in furtherance of that end after being in contact with Smith; that's *precisely* what a conspiracy to engage in a collusive crime looks like?
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 18, 2019
180/ Here's the first spot where Mueller's *definitely* wrong. We know the *name of the hotel and the date* Smith met with Russian hackers—in fact, more than one hacking group in separate meetings. Major media reporting. Mueller says he "did not establish" such meetings occurred.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 18, 2019
Papadopoulos:
231/ Mueller left out top Trump adviser John Mashburn's claim (to Congress) that George Papadopoulos told the campaign what Mifsud told him about the Kremlin having stolen Clinton emails. One of the very first questions Congress will ask Mueller is why he did this. I promise you.
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 18, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/us/politics/john-mashburn-trump-russia-email-papadopoulos.html
Manafort in on Wikileaks dissemination”
159/ It's hard to tell, but it *appears* Manafort spoke to Trump about WikiLeaks—which would be huge news, as it underscores how in the loop he was. (This news would also make sense, as Stone—Manafort's longtime business partner—was apparently the campaign's link to WikiLeaks.)
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 18, 2019
Regarding Carter Page-who some like Ari Melber are calling ‘cleared’:
In interviews with the FBI before the Office’s opening, Page acknowledged that he understood that the individuals he had associated with were members of the Russian intelligence services, but he stated that he had only provided immaterial non-public information to them and that he did not view this relationship as a backchannel. 537 Page told investigating agents that “the more immaterial non-public information I give them, the better for this country.”538
Pg. 97.
“On July 7, 2016, Page delivered the first of his two speeches in Moscow at NES. 566 In the speech, Page criticized the U.S. government’s foreign policy toward Russia, stating that “Washington and other Western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization , inequality, corruption and regime change.” 567 On July 8, 2016, Page delivered a speech during the NES commencement. 568 After Page delivered his commencement address, Russian Deputy Prime Minister and NES board member Arkady Dvorkovich spoke at the ceremony and stated that the sanctions the United States had imposed on Russia had hurt the NES. 569 Page and Dvorkovich shook hands at the commencement ceremony, and Weber recalled that Dvorkovich made statements to Pa e about workin to ether in the future. 570
Pg. 108.
Page said that, during his time in Moscow, he met with friends and associates he knew from when he lived in Russia, including Andrey Baranov, a former Gazprom employee who had become the head of investor relations at Rosneft, a Russian energy company. 572 Page stated that he and Baranov talked about “immaterial non-public ” information. 573 Page believed he and Baranov discussed Rosneft president Igor Sechin, and he thought Baranov might have mentioned
the possibility of a sale of a stake in Rosneft in passing. 574 Page recalled mentioning his involvement in the Trump Campaign with Baranov, although he did not remember details of the conversation. 575 Page also met with individuals from Tatneft, a Russian energy company, to discuss possible business deals, including having Page work as a consultant.
Pg 108-109
The fact that there remains at least one ongoing Grand Jury that Page’s story is relevant to makes Melber’s ‘acquittal’ premature at best.
The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page’s activities in Russia-as described in his emails with the Campaign-were not fully explained.”
With all due respect to Ari Melber ‘not fully explained’ is far from ‘Carter Page has been fully cleared’ a distinction perhaps too subtle for the allegedly elite and high powered lawyer.
There are at least three different Grand Juries pertaining to Carter Page which makes the notion that he’s ‘fully cleared’ even more of a non sequitur.
UPDATE: It’s even worse than this as it turns out Melber also says Don Jr was cleared-he really wasn’t. I mean what Mueller said here is pretty hard to understand. Somehow he gets a pass as he didn’t know you don’ t take oppo research from a hostile foreign power. Join the club-Giuliani also says it’s perfectly fine.
Pg. 110:
In July 2016, after returning from Russia, Page traveled to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. 583 While there, Page met Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak ; that interaction is described in Volume I, Section IV.A.6.a , infra. 584 Page later emailed Campaign officials with feedback he said he received from ambassadors he had met at the Convention, and he wrote that Ambassador Kisl ak was ver worried about candidate Clinton’s world views.”
So sorry to hear that a Russian spy diplomat was very concerned about Clinton’s world views. So what was it about Clinton’s world views that so worried the chief Russian spy ambassador?
But then again, Ari says don’t worry about it-Carter Page is large and in the clear. And Melber’s fake ‘Exoneration’ of Page is hardly innocent for as we speak Trump and his GOP co-conspirators-Nunes, Lindsay Graham, Coverup Specialist AG Barr are putting together a counter narrative that this was all a Deep State setup and this counternarrative centers around the canard that Page was wrongly surveilled-in fact it went through the FISA process and was continued by Rod Rosenstein himself.
FN: The best way to describe Rosenstein is The Survivor.
81/ Long ago, we were told by many media outlets that Rod Rosenstein was a "survivor." We were told that meant that he did what he had to do to survive professionally—that he was flexible. Well, here's what having no core principles looks like in practice: https://t.co/H452bKpDBS
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 18, 2019
https://thinkprogress.org/did-the-mueller-report-actually-make-impeachment-harder-watergate-experts-say-its-complicated-a394c40f42df/
When the Democrats get Mueller in they need to ask him this. I hope they won't ONLY talk about obstruction @RepSwalwell @brianschatz
— Expand the Court (@ProChoiceMike) April 21, 2019
https://medium.com/@jesscoleman/the-mueller-reports-3-most-important-unanswered-questions-4bfe49a2ae5d
The headline is harsher than my piece. But I do think the Mueller report came up short in some critical respects. My latest column for @PostOpinions @washingtonpost
https://t.co/yoywARxM9B— Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) April 19, 2019