Sessions, leaks, security, Manafort and 'false news.'


william.scherk

4,265 views

Six fun (sad/awful/false/infuriating) stories emerged from the swamp in the last couple of days. Peter Taylor noted elsewhere on the site some vows made by Attorney-General Jeff Sessions on the issue of "leaks."  Some of the usual suspects have pretended that this is a "Threat" against the noble profession of prostitution journalism.

The strongest or least-false coverage of this issue from that point of view may be from font of evul Politico ... in a story called Jeff Sessions' Attack on the Media Is Worse Than You Think.  Of course, Objectivist analysis might find that the threat is more than necessary, and that it will encourage a proper "chilling effect." Less clear is the notion of "Lie Detectors" (in the White House). Polygraphs are a useful investigative tool, but not accepted by US courts on the whole. 

Less intrusive than a lie detector is the power to subpoena ... but see the story for all the convolutions. (one stand-out point was that it is relatively rare for journalist-itutes to be prosecuted or held in contempt for refusing to reveal sources [think Judith Miller]; the Politico story points out that the four arrested cited-but-not-cited by Sessions were not recipients but those who had purloined secret and often highly-classified 'spy' entrails from the DC borg.)

*********************************

The second story circulating is that Robert Mueller has impaneled a grand jury in Washington, DC.  This may or may not be true -- even though everyone and the dog has been biting on the "news." I do not know if this would become public in the normal course of justice.

The third story is that President Trump is a lazy do-nothing, who spends far too much time at his golf clubs ... instantiated in a nasty Newsweek cover.

The fourth story is related to the Mueller grand jury suggestion ... this excerpt is from the brief Slate article "U.S. Reportedly Intercepted Suspected Russian Agents' Chatter That Manafort Asked for Their Help With Clinton:

Quote

Buried in a long story on CNN Thursday recapping the current state of play in the Russia investigation was a reminder that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is largely out of the spotlight at the moment, may not be for long. Manafort, who had spent years on the political fringes helping dictators and strongmen get elected around the world and then lobbying on their behalf in Washington, came out of nowhere to join the Trump campaign, and then take over the reins when Cory Lewandowski was fired in June 2016. By that time, unusual communications between the Trump campaign and Russian officials had pinged on U.S. intelligence agencies’ radar. As did Trump’s new right hand man.

In the summer of 2016, US intelligence agencies noticed a spate of curious contacts between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian intelligence, according to current and former US officials briefed on the investigation… CNN has learned that investigators became more suspicious when they turned up intercepted communications that U.S. intelligence agencies collected among suspected Russian operatives discussing their efforts to work with Manafort, who served as campaign chairman for three months, to coordinate information that could damage Hillary Clinton's election prospects, the US officials say. The suspected operatives relayed what they claimed were conversations with Manafort, encouraging help from the Russians.

There are obviously multiple investigative balls in the air, and the public focus has shifted of late to Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, who certainly have had longer and more lasting influence on Donald Trump, but keep an eye on Paul Manafort, his Russia connections are deep and dodgy.

Update, Aug. 4, 2017: Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Manafort, issued this statement on the latest round of accusations: “Paul Manafort did not collude with the Russian government to undermine the 2016 election or to hack the DNC. Other than that comment, we aren't going to respond to anonymous officials illegally peddling second hand conspiracy theories.  But the Justice Department, and the courts if necessary, should hold someone to account for the flood of unlawful government leaks targeting Mr. Manafort."

Manafort was the first somewhat hinky part of the Trump campaign and influence apparat to appear in posts here on OL, back a year and more ago.  It's not surprising that Mueller would request documents and testimony from the Manafort axis.  It isn't that he was a tool of Russia or an obvious go-between, but that he could have been a major conduit for the wink-wink quid pro quo that the crazy Russia conspiracists are certain is going to be found.

Did Mr Manafort wink-nudge the Trump attitude that 'we take help from where it comes, given that politics  is a dirty dirty game'? I mean, isn't the essential question reduced to who promised what in return?  

I take the tentative position that Trump's stated positions on Russia during the campaign and since being in office are obvious. So it will be exceedingly hard to show him 'promising' things on the down low, since he did it on the stump. Then, if he was inclined to reduce sanctions bite on Russia and to warm things up between the superpower and the also-ran, it was open and public.  Which requires that underlings and satellites were going to be the ones dealing with the details of wink-wink, nudge-nudge. If you are a Menshist, or not.

(the more hysterical of the Russia hoopla employees and hobbyists are those who think every rumour is true, every leak informs the big picture. So the Flynn Effect [very pro-Russia relax] and other fizz from the week means Russian "information warfare" was coordinated. Which is alarmist nonsense, right?)

*************************************

The fifth story is about vacation-time, but in this instance taken by the manly President of Russia. Here's a sample:

GettyImages-826469374-1024x683.jpg

The sixth story is as usual performed by two casts, in two theatres. In the permutations, a Cernovich wing in the White House leaks out a broad range of accusations against Trump's National Security Adviser Lt. General HR McMaster -- that he is a tool of Soros/Rothschilds/Saudis, an enemy of Israel, and ever-so Swamp-Like that his hideous influence must be extirpated from Cabinet.

Two guys come shambling up the alley. First guy looks like Steve Bannon, the second guy looks like  McMaster, and the guy with McMaster is brown and in a turban**. Which one would you ask out on a date/for help?  Which one is leaking to the Washington Post, or -- as this week -- to Cernovich-Breitbart-Gateway Pundit?

I think there is a mini-war of ideas in the White House, which slops over into a war of words and Grand Hoopla Theatre in the mediatic multiplex. But what do I know. I am that guy who wrote "Why Donald Trump lost the election." 

 

Spoiler
i11.jpgshare.png Amir Tibon / Haaretz:
Far-right Bannon Affiliates Attack McMaster for Being ‘Controlled by Jews’ and ‘Hostile to Israel’  —  Campaign against McMaster intensified after he fired a number of mid-level officials from the National Security Council, who were considered loyal to Bannon and to the former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn
RELATED:
share.png Julia Manchester / The Hill: 
Trump defends McMaster in wake of criticism on the right
Discussion:

Incidentally, as a bonus seventh story -- did you know that obsessive humans do such things as rigorously analyze Twitter accounts that peddle the Kremlin lines of attack?

Yes you did, but did you know that PR and political attack campaigns have a particular 'footprint' or pattern? Of course you did, so it won't be a surprise that there is a website that tracks real-time information-warfare memes and their flows in Kremlin-friendly orbit. If you squint and pretend to be Louise Mensch, yesterday's peak trends like the Cernovich Leaks from the angry West Wingers about McMaster were coordinated with a robust 'managed news' campaign directed by the drunk guy in the alley. See if you can find your favourites bot link or alt-news site here. I add a screenshot of the crazy site, but first an intro from the feverish topic ends of Twitter.

 

__________________________

* I am picturing Harjit Sajjan, who rarely togs out in his Commander outfit, but still. Who doesn't feel safer when a turbaned Sikh gets on the bus?  I would think Bannon was a drunk, and McMaster probably a loud talker. Which makes me think how many more generals should join the Trump cabinet and administrative apparatus.

102 Comments


Recommended Comments



I just clicked on TMZ for the latest court news (basketball and legal, which is all they seem to cover, ) and there is a picture of Manafort  with a guy who is a dead ringer for the late John Cazale, the wonderful actor who played Fredo Corleone.  Look and see if I am not right!

Link to comment

William,

More blah blah blah.

Tony Podesta, was in cahoots with Manafort back at the time for which Mueller dug up stuff. If they put him in jail with Manafort, I would not be as upset. (Although it would still be a travesty to put Podesta in jail before a trial, but at least it would be an error of justice, not a corrupt witch hunt.)

This is political bullshit to lessen the publicity impact of the IG report. And despite any rationalization, there will be repercussions.

Count on it.

And when they come, I can't wait to read you cry foul.

Michael

Link to comment

Just a point of information. There is something called #manafortleaks. They may have been leaky for a while, but were just made easily searchable in an online database (and are being propagated through Twitter and other social media). Not quite getting the greasy insinuations that Wikileaks had sat on these ... but they are awful.  Badly awful family scab removal awful.  Like I said, a POI, not a link.  If you thought Pedosta Podesta was awful.

Meditating on bias, what makes American justice so great is everyone is entitled to the most robust defense he can buy, if not actually having one in reality. Goes to motive, Your Honour.  We allege, you decide.

To take your mind off that, a couple of pictures from the kind of house you could have if you were Yanukovych.  It should be a tourist attraction, yes?

Yanukovych-Palace.jpg

78861-full.jpg

kiev-1.jpg?w968h681

There, I've made you forget about Paul Manafort. 

Moral of the story:  Yanukovych did not get to keep this private preserve for himself.  Why not?  Starts with Coe and rhymes with up-shun and should be pronounced with a surfeit of rolling Rs.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Manafort's defense seems to be "I was paid for my work the way that the Ukrainian government demanded -- off the books, not 'laundered.'  And if I spent that money without declaring it to the IRS as income, is that really a crime?"  Or something. Wrestling Buzz basket midget feed naked for the win.

 

 

Link to comment

I thought to note that this Manafort trial in Virginia has nothing to do with the President. There is no legal harm to Trump from Manafort's woes. The judge even instructed defense and prosecution that the word "Trump" is off-side ..

That said, it might be that the President will want to keep abreast of the trial as it proceeds. 

With that in mind, Seth Abramson does a  brief explainer thread on Twitter. This might interest those here who want to understood what is at stake in the Manafort trial. Not too dry, not too moist, not too partisan ...

TL;DR:  The Trial Is A Distraction ...

 

Link to comment

Seth Abramson suggested that no one should obsess about the Manafort trial in Virginia.  It has no functional relationship with the President, and as I noted, the hard-assed federal judge instructed the lawyers involved that "Trump" was not a word he will have the jury to  hear.  They aren't even to know that Manafort is still in detention ...

Obviously, Seth does not have a conduit to the White House, because today the President said that the Manafort trial was a "hoax."  
 

 

Link to comment

Added context for the 'old charges' ... suggested by the President:

"Who was treated worse, Alphonse Capone ... or Paul Manafort?"

There is a lot to unpack in this tweet, but I will leave protracted analysis for better, sharper minds -- for those minds able to view the President's communications more objectively. 

Where is the Russian Collusion ... ?  Not in the Manafort trial, I would say, but what do I know.

-- my favourite part of the tweetstorm is the President's lament: "Why didn't the government tell me he [Manafort] was under investigation?"

Link to comment

"Who was treated worse, Alphonse Capone ... or Paul Manafort?" It's a tough question, and unanswerable so far.  But.

Here's an un-fresh Infowars show providing for a pertinent point of view. Featuring Owen Shroyer and guest voice Tyler Nixon:

 

Link to comment

While we were dancing, hugging, discussing, and wiping smirks off each other's faces, some intriguing developments of the trial of Paul Manafort.  In a fairly surprising move (to me and some Fake News commentators and analysts), the defense is moving straight to closing arguments, without calling any witnesses -- if I understand correctly.  The Supreme Grand Hoopla about Trump and Dog Woman and the N-word is dominating the flabby discourse, but still.

 

Link to comment

More on the Manafort defense moves ...

16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

In a fairly surprising move (to me and some Fake News commentators and analysts), the [Manafort] defense is moving straight to closing arguments, without calling any witnesses -- if I understand correctly.

I understand now that this kind of 'no defense' defense (except for closing arguments) is not so surprising to experienced  lawyers. In a nutshell, it focuses a jury's mind on the prosecution's case.  It thus can be a risk-avoidance choice -- underlining that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.  No defense witness to cross-examine, no 'bombshells' about witnesses. (Hat tip to @PopeHat for this gist.) 

Our correspondent from New England is not giving hat tips to Popehat, as his bottom line is that the prosecution is weak and awful.  Intriguing video all the same. I don't think Styx consulted any lawyerly types before Youtubing.

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

More on the Manafort defense moves ...

I understand now that this kind of 'no defense' defense (except for closing arguments) is not so surprising to experienced  lawyers. In a nutshell, it focuses a jury's mind on the prosecution's case...

 

And also on the spankings that the judge gave to the prosecution. His strict adherence to no Fake News or Fake Law tactics seemed to have emptied their bag of tricks.

J

Link to comment

Fox News co-host Melissa Francis spins a wee confection in re Manafort:  A kind of "Could he have been paid by Russia?" leap-off point:

 

Link to comment

Could it be that Paul Manafort, facing trial in Washington DC, is entertaining a plea agreement?  Maybe he can get only a sweet little sentence in simple white-collar prison, as it turns out George Papadopoulos received today.  The 'coffee boy' is going to Martha Stewart pokey for two weeks, reports indicate.

Manafort, really though. It's an oh dear situation, according to my spidey-sense. Oh dear.  Going down the highway. Going up country for a while. Taking some much-needed time out for reflection.

I'm thinking about what it could mean. Admit to crimes U, P, and F, explain my criminal motives, narrate my own plotting, explain my corrupt goals. Explain a few other things. Basically, confess in detail, humble myself before the law.

Once those guilty admissions are on the record, and a federal sentence imposed, how long would it then take a President to figure out the political-moral balance sheet on a pardon -- for what are now only alleged crimes? How long before a possible act of commutative mercy?

60 days to midterms in the wild and wonderful pageant, that most free-wheeling, most entertaining and compelling of all world stories ... the Trump Era.  It kinda gives me chills just dictating it. Ultra Grand Supreme hoopla, week after week. Though not all is exciting in the physical sense,  now professor Kenya-birth is taking his boring lecture circuit to Democratic events over the next couple months. Yawn.

Coffee boy did do quite good in court today (and only splashed a little bit of mud on the 2016 campaign, sources say). Good luck to Mr Manafort in DC.  Big fines, big 'paper crimes,'  fresh Martha Stewart linens and fresh mountain air ... who knows? 

Trump moved fast on the former county sheriff from Arizona, before he was to be sentenced. How likely would be a Manafort pardon before penalties are imposed by a judge?

What do the dots say, what is the pattern?

Image linked to a Manafort Pardon/Pardon pattern article at the Atlantic

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

No one will be surprised that Robert Mueller has obtained guilty pleas from Paul Manafort.  

Superseding the indictments in the DC federal trial, a "criminal information" ...  http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/VIDEOCASTS/A15KF/388600673-Manafort-Superseding-Doc.pdf

From what I understand, Manafort will have a 'sentence cap' of ten years, and will forfeit millions of dollars.  It seems unlikely to me that Manafort will offer 'cooperation' to the Mueller inquiry. The 38-page criminal information is well-detailed summation of the crimes Manafort will have admitted to.

"Why didn't anyone tell me I was hiring a crook?"

Link to comment

My guess was wrong ... Manafort has indeed offered to cooperate with federal prosecutors ...

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

It seems unlikely to me that Manafort will offer 'cooperation' to the Mueller inquiry.

-- from Katelyn Polantz of CNN:  Paul Manafort enters cooperation agreement with Justice Department

Updated to include the President's remarks from August:

Spoiler

 

 

Deripaska!  Kilimnik! 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

President Trump gave an interview to Hill.tv ... in which he said (did he really?) he doesn't have an Attorney-General.  So, who is Jeff Sessions, for pity's sake?

 

Link to comment

An edited transcript of the Hill.tv  interview has been published:  READ: President Trump’s exclusive interview with Hill.TV

The weirdest shit for me is the President suggesting he shoulda oughta have fired James Comey before he was elected ...

Quote

John Solomon: “There is something Rudy told me. Let’s see if you remember it. He said that he began advising you in November-December 2016 to get rid of Comey based on his behavior on the Clinton investigation and you held off and gave him a chance, but it really wasn’t about stopping Russia. It was about you didn't trust his judgment after seeing him in action. Is that an accurate statement?

President Trump: Yes, it’s accurate. If I did one mistake with Comey I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries. I should have fired him right after the convention. Say, ‘I don’t want that guy.’ Or at least fired him the first day on the job. If I did one mistake it was, you know, I, I really did fire him, you know I fired him a couple of months in, so it’s not like. But I would have been better off firing him or putting out a statement that I don’t him there when I get there.”

(Trump stopped the interview to make a private remark.)

This is on the record. Funny thing about Comey is that everybody hated Comey. The Democrats hated him far more than the Republicans until I announced that I was going to fire him. You go back — or that I did fire him. You go back and look at those statements. Podesta, I think, the day before said Comey should be fired. Schumer was just brutal. To show you how horrible and political it is, in fact naively, when I fired him, I said, ‘Finally I’m going to do something in a bipartisan way.’ I thought I would be popular for the Democrats. I actually thought that firing James Comey, they hated him more than anybody. And so did the Republicans, because the Republicans viewed him as letting [Clinton] get away with murder. They viewed him a different way, but the Democrats hated him even more than the Republicans. Until I fired him. And then they made a decision, and all together, I guarantee you Schumer called them all fast and say ‘We love Comey.’

But honestly when I did it, I didn’t do it for this reason, but when I did it, I really said this is one that’s gonna be really popular also with the Democrats. And you know what? They’re a bunch of phony obstructers and they all changed. The problem, the one thing they can’t do is get rid of all their statements they made the day before, meaning in the days before. Because they went for a long period of time just, the hatred for Comey was probably as great or greater than almost anybody by the Democrats, and now they act like he’s a saint. Although now they’re not acting that way.

For context ...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

The weirdest shit for me is the President suggesting he shoulda oughta have fired James Comey before he was elected ...

William,

Why is that weird?

Do you think Comey's behavior re Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign was normal for an FBI director?

Hell, it was unprofessional. Twice--that is if you are only looking at his public appearances. And twice is plenty.

Knowing President Trump's corporate employee values, I find it weird he did not fire Comey on day one.

Believe it or not, back then it was Steve Bannon who was telling him not to fire Comey. Bannon said it was for the good of the institution or something-or-other bouncing around in his head... And President Trump listened to him.

Notice that Trump is not blaming his delay on Bannon. He's owning it.

That's what a leader does. 

Michael

Link to comment

"What a difference a day makes ...

Back in late February I wondered what speculation about Manafort and Gates would mean to the benighted fanatics of Q -- or rather how various named and unnamed blobs would be affected.

For almost a full year now, the Q phenomena has based its belief structures on occulted activities of the Blobs.

On 2/23/2018 at 8:48 AM, william.scherk said:

 Former Trump aide tells loved ones of plans to plead guilty, cooperate with special counsel

What does this mean for the Cabal, the Satanists, the Gitmo-bound, the secret military tribunals, the unbalanced speculation on the 'real' objects of the Mueller inquiries?  I don't know. [...]

I do not know. Once you have slipped down the rabbithole into believing six impossible things before breakfast, can you ever get out again?

"There's a war on for your mind."  Yeah, and I think "they" have won ...

Not so fast. The last month of Q phenomena has shown that a fraction of 'believers' are having doubts or raising critical questions -- and some more rational complainants are giving the No Show a careful treatment. Eg, Richard Enos of Collective Consciousness and his Many Insiders Believe Military Tribunals For Deep State Will Happen Any Time Now

DpaUA86UwAEHIK6.jpg

"Are you prepared to see some arrests?"

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

"Why didn't anyone tell me I hired a crook?"

On 9/14/2018 at 9:17 AM, william.scherk said:

My guess was wrong ... Manafort has indeed offered to cooperate with federal prosecutors ..

There's wrong and then there's wrong ...

In partially-related news, would you believe that Michael Cohen has also spent a lot of time with the prosecutors?

So sayeth CNN. So sayeth Salon. So sayeth Vanity Fair.

Could be, might be.

Earlier in the stream of hoopla:

And yet.  "Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, too few to mention ... "

Michael Cohen re-registers as a Democrat, lawyer says

Spoiler

AP: That is a good piece of trivia. On another topic: Michael Cohen was your personal attorney for many years. He testified under oath in federal court that you directed him to commit a crime. Did you, sir?

Trump: Totally false. It's totally false.

AP: So he's lying under oath?

Trump: Oh, absolutely he's lying. And Michael Cohen was a PR person who did small legal work, very small legal work. And what he did was very sad, when you look. By the way, he was in trouble not for what he did for me; he was in trouble for what he did for himself. You do know that? Having to do with loans, mortgages, taxicabs and various other things, if you read the paper. He wasn't in trouble for what he did for me; he was in trouble for what he did for other people. He represented me very little. It's a very low level. And what he was is also a public relations person. And now if he wants to try and get a little bit lighter sentence for what he did ... Totally uninvolved. I wasn't involved and he had other clients, No. 1. And No. 2, he was a contractor to a large extent. But Michael Cohen, if you take a look at what he did, this had to do with loans, and I guess the taxi industry is something that I have nothing to do with, he did this on his own time.

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

A somewhat puzzling couple of events concerning Paul Manafort.

The Special Counsel Robert Mueller's counter-intelligence probe had obtained cooperation from Paul Manafort (as previously reported here) and was until a couple of days ago expected to update the court on the progress of the cooperation.

Instead, yesterday, Mueller filed with the court a document essentially tearing up any deal. Manafort breached the deal by lying to investigators even after his guilty plea ...

The next  large iffy item that splashed its way across the fakery falsity hoopla -- today -- is a claim that Manafort 'secretly' met with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in ... early 2016. Wikileaks uttered a strong denial, describing the story as a "hoax."

"Oh what tangled web we weave ..."

The President did not comment directly on either report:

"Why didn't anyone tell me I hired a crook?" 
"I am not a crook."
"You sure seem to act like a crook."
"I beg your pardon."

trumpManafort.jpg

 

US v Manafort - Joint Statu... by on Scribd

See also:

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Mike Cernovich has some fun with entailments and implications of the Guardian "sources say" scoop. The tone of mockery is rather light-hearted, which is a mood I wish on President Trump. It's all shadows and spooks and fakery, there is nothing in the Manafort events that can harm you, sir.  Yes, he was a crook, a crooked operative, but nobody could have known, and nobody warned you he was crooked.

In any case, if you feel he is a good man and thus a victim of injustice (despite his crookedness), just pardon him and the page will be turned.  Another page will appear, but hey.

Ridicule, mockery, comic entailments -- how would we do without them here on Objectivist Living, in the twilight, in the darkening before The Storm?

Link to comment

President Individual-1 was on the ball this morning.  When asked about today's Michael Cohen guilty plea, he covered a lot of ground in a fairly short time.  Was it CYA talk?  Inquiring minds want to know.

You can read both the Cohen legal docs 'Criminal Information' and the Plea Agreement here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-documents-mueller-probe

Needless to say, this is a moment of Grand Supreme Hoopla. Everyone and their dog has an opinion.

Quote
 Top Items: 
i28.jpg New York Times:
Michael Cohen to Plead Guilty to Charge in Mueller Investigation  —  Michael D. Cohen, President Trump's former lawyer, who pleaded guilty in August to breaking campaign finance laws, made a surprise appearance in a Manhattan courtroom on Thursday morning to plead guilty to a new criminal charge …
RELATED:
i29.jpg George Stephanopoulos / ABC News:
Michael Cohen expected to plead guilty to lying to Congress in collusion probe; gave 70 hours of interviews to special counsel: Sources  —  Special counsel Robert Mueller has reached a tentative deal with Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney and long-time fixer for President Donald Trump, sources told ABC News.
Discussion:

-- for those who are unlikely to read either of the legal docs or items from the hoopla above, the gist is that Cohen lied about negotiations for a Trump Tower Moscow, lied about when the deal was 'dead.'

President Individual-1 seems to want us to think that 'The Deal' was well-known ...

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now