571

UPDATE: Augment?

 

As noted in Chapter A “The early commentary seems to be that the Cohen filings are the most significant-as they are more revealing-Manafort’s filing was heavily redacted-and directly implicate the faux ‘President.’

“While Cohen’s documents are as important as advertised, Manafort’s documents more clearly touch on collusion.”

To be sure Manafort’s docs are highly redacted. But what is visible is more directly linked to collusion. Mueller asserts Manafort told multiple discernible lies:

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III said Friday that Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, told “multiple dis­cern­ible lies” during interviews with prosecutors, including about his contacts with an employee who is alleged to have ties to Russian intelligence.

In a document filed in federal court Friday, Mueller also said Manafort lied about his contacts with Trump administration officials after Trump took office. Manafort had told investigators that he had had no direct or indirect contact with White House officials since Trump’s inauguration, but Manafort had been in touch with officials as recently as the spring, according to the filing.

Which could be a case of witness tampering to boot. This was a clear pattern as Michael Cohen was seen at Mar-a-Lago as recently as March, 2018.

“Manafort told a colleague in February — four months after he was indicted — that he was in contact with a senior administration official through that time. And in a text message, he authorized another person to speak with a White House official on May 26.”

“The text message came two days after Trump received significant publicity for issuing a posthumous pardon to boxer Jack Johnson. Trump has publicly mulled the possibility of pardoning Manafort, which legal experts have said could be influencing Manafort to withhold his full assistance from Mueller.

“Key points in the document filed Friday were redacted from public view, making it difficult to gain a full picture of what Manafort was asked in hours of interviews with investigators since September.”

FN: In retrospect it’s clear that Manafort himself was engaged in witness tampering-the Mueller Report revealed that in March, 2018 he was telling Gates not to cooperate-that Trump and Friends would save them. Manafort never would fully cooperate with Mueller which has left key parts of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia hazy-we know collusion happened in spades but much of the detail is obscured via the dissembling of both Manafort and Corsi.

The ’employee’ referenced above was Konstantin Kilimnik-who we later learned Manafort gave regular detailed campaign polling data to.

End of FN.

“Manafort was convicted of tax and bank fraud charges in Virginia in August. He pleaded guilty in September to additional charges, including conspiring to defraud the United States by hiding years of income and failing to disclose lobbying work for a pro-Russian political party and politician in Ukraine.”

The politician in question being Viktor F. Yanukovych who was literally convicted of treason in his own Ukraine the country he used to be President of.

Will Trump ever face this level of accountability? Apparently not if Nancy Pelosi has her way-though Trump is very grateful to her.

“That plea helped him avoid a second trial in Washington and offered the former Republican operative the hope of some lenience in sentencing — provided he cooperated with prosecutors and provided truthful testimony.”

Prosecutors from Mueller’s team informed the judge last week, however, that they believed Manafort had breached the agreement by lying to them repeatedly. Manafort’s lawyers have said that Manafort did not believe he lied or violated the deal.”

“In the new filing, prosecutors offered to lay out at a future hearing additional documentary evidence to explain how they know Manafort is lying. For now, they explained that Manafort had lied “in numerous ways,” conduct they said should be held against him when he is sentenced in March.”

‘The prosecutors said Manafort has met with special counsel investigators 12 times. At four of those meetings, prosecutors from outside the special counsel’s office attended — a sign that he was questioned in connection with investigations separate from Mueller’s probe. He also testified twice before Mueller’s grand jury.”

So what did Manafort lie about? Mueller’s prosecutors stated he lied multiple times regarding five different aspects of the investigation-including as documented above, Manafort’s conversations with the Trump Russia House:

“But the biggest lie might be regarding his conversations with Konstantin Kilimnik a suspected Russian intelligence operative with long ties to Manafort since his Ukraine days:

“Manafort met twice during the campaign with Kilimnik, including in August 2016 in New York City. Kilimnik has told The Washington Post that the two discussed the presidential campaign at the New York meeting.”

“Much of a section of the filing dealing with Kilimnik was redacted, but prosecutors indicated that they have obtained electronic records, travel documents and other evidence that demonstrate Manafort “lied repeatedly” about his interactions with the Russian aide.”

“Manafort hired Kilimnik in 2005 to serve as a translator and office manager for the Kiev office of his political consulting business. Kilimnik was a key liaison for Manafort to politicians in Ukraine and to Russian businessmen, notably Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum magnate who had partnered with Manafort on a business deal.”

“Kilimnik, who is believed to be in Russia, has been charged by Mueller’s office with conspiring with Manafort to obstruct the investigation into Manafort’s work in Ukraine. According to the new filing, Manafort pleaded guilty to conspiring with Kilimnik in an effort to compel witnesses in Mueller’s probe to give false testimony, only to deny it in a post-plea interview, before reversing himself again and conceding that his plea was truthful.”

“During the campaign Manafort and Kilimnik engaged in regular contact. Soon after becoming campaign manager, he’d infamously emailed Kilimnik asking how does he get whole with Oleg Deripaska. Then in early July, asked Kilimnik to offer Deripaska private campaign briefings. But most potentially incriminating was Manafort’s meeting with Kilimnik  in NYC in early August.”

At the time Manafort had tried to minimize it as being just an informal meeting between two old friends. Yes, he admitted, they did discuss politics but ‘only informally’-as if this passes the laugh test-he was the campaign manager who had just a month ago asked Kilimnik to  offer Deripaska private campaign briefings.

“But it’s even worse than this-Manafort and Kilimnik discussed the DNC hacks but supposedly this was just in a ‘casual’ and informal way-as if the Trump campaign manager and a Russian intel agent can talk about the DNC hacks in the middle of the campaign in a ‘casual’ way.

“In August, as tension mounted over Russia’s role in the U.S. presidential race, Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, sat down to dinner with a business associate from Ukraine who once served in the Russian army.”

“Konstantin Kilimnik, who learned English at a military school that some experts consider a training ground for Russian spies, had helped run the Ukraine office for Manafort’s international political consulting practice for 10 years.”

At the Grand Havana Room, one of New York City’s most exclusive cigar bars, the longtime acquaintances “talked about bills unpaid by our clients, about [the] overall situation in Ukraine . . . and about the current news,” including the presidential campaign, according to a statement provided by Kilimnik, offering his most detailed account of his interactions with the former Trump adviser.

“Kilimnik, who provided a written statement to The Washington Post through Manafort’s attorney, said the previously unreported dinner was one of two meetings he had with Manafort on visits to the United States during Manafort’s five months working for Trump. The first encounter was in early May 2016, about two weeks before the Trump adviser was elevated to campaign chairman.”

“The August dinner came about two weeks before Manafort resigned under pressure amid reports that he had received improper payments for his political work in Ukraine, allegations that he has denied.”

“His dinner with Manafort came as Trump’s campaign chairman was facing mounting questions about his work in Ukraine and his business ties to allies of Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.”

Kilimnik said his meetings with Manafort were “private visits” that were “in no way related to politics or the presidential campaign in the U.S.” He said he did not meet with Trump or other campaign staff members, nor did he attend the Republican National Convention, which took place shortly before the Grand Havana Room session. However, he said the meetings with Manafort included discussions “related to the perception of the U.S. presidential campaign in Ukraine.”

Again, Manafort’s previous emails to Kilimnik were clearly of a political nature-an offer for Deripaska to sit down for a private campaign briefing. During this time Manafort was Trump’s campaign manager and claims that the meeting was ‘personal’ don’t even pass the laugh test.

Manafort spokesman Jason Maloni said that Kilimnik was a “longtime business associate” who would have naturally been in touch with Manafort. Manafort told Politico, which first reported his relationship with Kilimnik, that his conversations included discussions about the cyberattack on the Democratic National Committee and the release of its emails.

“It would be neither surprising nor suspicious that two political consultants would chat about the political news of the day, including the DNC hack, which was in the news,” Maloni said.

He added, “We’re confident that serious officials will come to the conclusion that Paul’s campaign conduct and interaction with Konstantin during that time was perfectly permissible and not in furtherance of some conspiracy.”

Maloni’s ‘confidence’ was misplaced as Mueller clearly does see it as highly problematic.

This points to the fact that while it’s true that the Cohen filings implicate Trump in two felonies not related to Russia collusion-though they are related to Trump’s attempt to influence the 2016 election in another way, via paying off women who had extramarital affairs with-Mueller is keeping his eye on the ball-collusion.

FN: To be sure the subsequent Mueller Report showed that Mueller’s focus was on specifically charging the crime of conspiracy with the Russian government and he didn’t find enough evidence to charge it-though he did find evidence of it-indeed, we all saw it: Russia if you’re listening.

Indeed, this is not the only way in which Manafort is linked to collusion-he was also at Donald Jr’s Trump Tower meeting in June, 2016 and there was the Guardian reporting-admittedly not yet corroborated-that he met with Assange in March, 2016 shortly before joining the Trump campaign. But wether or not this is true, he did meet speak to the Ecuadorian President at the embassy in Ecuador about moving Assange into the U.S. in early 2017.

FN: At least per a NYT’s report. Though as documented in Chapter A the MSM came to see any story linking Manafort and Assange as ‘having cooties’-and the Times itself distanced itself from its own reporting from 2017 regarding Manafort’s effort to get Assange moved to the US-see Chapter A.

End FN

For his part Cohen as well may be more directly implicated in collusion-the Steele dossier asserted that he had paid off Russian hackers in Prague and Cohen rescinded his lawsuit against Buzzfeed after the news that Mueller was investigating this himself-Chapter B. Could one of the lies Cohen told Mueller in August, 2018 be about wether he ever went to Prague?

FN: To this day the question of wether Cohen went to Prague or any other former Soviet satellite in 2016 remains a black box. He has categorically denied it and no evidence has emerged to prove it either way-it’s certainly yet another question for Mueller when he testifies in a week.

 

In any case, I think it’s pretty safe to assume that what Mueller revealed on Manafort and Cohen were just the tip of the iceberg on what he has on them-which underscores the fact that he’s far from done just yet.

I just saw Michael Isikoff-who wrote a book on Russian collusion-still sounding like a skeptic.

My guess is that as usual he’s holding his cards very close to the vest-but that he’s got collusion clearly in his sights. 

Neera Tanden sums it up well:

I personally believed it since the DNC emails were leaked with perfect strategic precision forcing DWS to resign the morning of the first day of the convention. It’s amazing how much the world has swung round to our view the last two and a half years.

As Max Bergmann argues, despite Trump’s GOP co-conspirators-and much of the media a la Isikoff-still spinning these indictments-that would be enough to drive any President from office-I argue that the Dems need Trump’s numbers in the low 20s rather than the low 40s as they are today, but in 1998 the GOP impeached Clinton despite an 81% approval rating-Mueller is clearly closing in on collusion:

“For nearly two years, since the U.S. intelligence community released its report on the Russian campaign to assist Donald Trump in the 2016 election, the American people have been seeking an answer as to whether the Trump campaign colluded with its Russian counterpart. In the endless speculation about the direction of the investigation, a common view was that maybe the investigation would never implicate President Trump or find any collusion.”

We know the history-prior to the election, the media didn’t make a peep about Russian interference and collusion was a tinfoil hat conspiracy and an excuse by the Clinton campaign. Post election they have covered it vociferously-rightly so-but throughout, the always timid MSM-timid as long as the subject isn’t Hillary Clinton-has attempted to minimize the bombshells it’s own great reporting has uncovered. Despite Iskikoff co authoring Russian Roulette with David Corn he’s still talking like a collusion skeptic.

FN: As it turned out the Mueller Report documents there was a great deal of collusion though collusion is not a crime.

The media that did so much to foment the whole Lock Her Up meme-by implying in their reporting that she was likely to be indicted-when the opposite was always the case-indeed, as argued in (Chapter A) there was never probable cause for the Emailgate investigation in the first place-has sung a very different tune regarding collusion-in reality coordination-and obstruction” now we hear how collusion-and even obstruction-are ‘so hard to prove.’

It’s easy in their mind to prove that Clinton should go to jail for using a private email server but NOT apparently that Trump obstructed justice when he admitted publicly that he did it because of the Russia probe.

Back to Max Bergmann:

But a flurry of recent activity this past week all points in the same direction: Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation will likely implicate the president, his campaign, and his close associates in aiding and abetting a Russian conspiracy against the United States to undermine the 2016 election.

“First, Mueller has clearly identified collusion in the efforts of Trump aides and associates to contact WikiLeaks. In a draft plea agreement provided to conservative operative Jerome Corsi, Mueller details how Roger Stone, who the special counsel notes was in frequent contact with Donald Trump and senior campaign officials, directed Corsi to connect with WikiLeaks about the trove of stolen materials it received from Russia. Corsi subsequently communicated WikiLeaks’ release plan back to Stone, and the Trump campaign built its final message around the email release. That is collusion.”

He also makes the same point I did above-don’t presume that what was in the filing document is the sum total of what they got from Cohen in 70 hours of testimony.

“Second, we now know that Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn have provided evidence to Mueller related to collusion. In Cohen’s sentencing memo, Mueller said that Cohen provided his office with “useful information” on “Russia-related matters core to its investigation.” One of those central elements, according to the Justice Department: “any links and/or coordination” between the Kremlin and Trump campaign figures. Collusion, in other words.

We still have yet to hear the answer either way on wether Michael Cohen ‘went to Prague’-or some other former Soviet satellite Eastern European country to pay off Russian hackers as the Steele Dossier-part of which has been corroborated and none of which has been proven false-alleges.

FN: Again we still don’t know either way about Prague conclusively but Cohen did tell Mueller-and Congress in March 2019-that he overheard Stone telling Trump about the soon to be leaked DNC emails on July 18-19 of 2016 and about a conversation he heard between Trump and Don Jr in early June, 2016 he believes was about the coming Trump Tower Russia meeting of June 9.

End of FN.

As for Manafort, you have Mueller’s focus on his conversation with Konstantin Kilimnik-who has ties to Russian espionage about the DNC hacks in early August, 2016. It’s been clear since Mueller’s deft head fake on October 31, 2017 when the Trump Russia House was ready to handwave away Manafort’s indictment by arguing it was all about financial stuff from years before he ran Trump’s campaign-though this association alone would be enough for the GOP, much of the MSM-and even a fair number of liberals and Democrats-to call for Hillary Clinton’s resignation-but then Mueller unveiled Papadopoulos’s indictment that clearly bore directly on Russia collusion.

Ignore those who argue either that the investigation is almost over or that it’s unlikely to prove collusion.

You aint seen nothing yet. 

UPDATE

 

That was in December, 2018 and Mueller handed his report in March, 2019. Again collusion was documented in great detail though it wasn’t something Mueller considered chargeable-collusion isn’t a crime. There is question as to wether Barr ended the investigation early.

At this moment we do have Mueller’s testimony coming next week. But at this point in time the question of wether Pelosi and the House Dem leadership is failing is an eminently fair question. 

OK, let’s back up. (First of all, it’s “humankind”… c’mon, man.) But more importantly, our greatest threat remains rising neo-fascism around the globe, epitomized in the United States by Trump and his concentration camps, his love for tanks and other trappings of dictatorship, and his growing disregard for the Constitution. But by failing to fight this horrible scenario with every weapon at their disposal, the Democrats are becoming modern-day Quislings, and you don’t want to be on that side of history.

It took just six months to squander the glorious moment when Pelosi took back the gavel as speaker in January, when the Democrats could finally claim one hand on the wheel of a runaway government. Remember the Michael Cohen hearing last winter, supposedly just the down payment on two years of hearings, subpoenas and aggressive oversight that would expose Trump leading up to the 2020 election and keep his authoritarian tendencies in check? Instead, that was both the beginning and the end. Without the bludgeon of an impeachment inquiry, there have been no more impactful hearings. Subpoenas and laws requiring information be given to Congress and to the public are routinely ignored, and instead of responding right away, the Democrats take weeks to fight back. Team Trump is running out the clock on constitutional checks and balances, and it’s working.

It sure is-you have Trump’s own legal team using Pelosi’s opposition to his impeachment as a defense for the Administration’s lack of cooperation with even the most basic oversight by the House.

 

License

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

Share This Book