Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowly
Huh? I don't think that's correct? Granted, I've only briefly gone over the plea deal document, but I don't recall him talking about the Trump Tower meeting?
***
|
You are correct: it is incorrect and I apologize. I had heard a report on the radio analyzing Manafort's allocution (for which, unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a transcript) and the point was raised about the charges and allegations
not included in the formal agreement, including likely charges of criminal conspiracy related to the Trump Tower meeting; the reporter commented that, given how the plea agreement and, particularly, the allocution were/are defined, the ability of Manafort to obfuscate or deflect on the nature and content of the meeting is, for all practical and legal purposes, nil; the reporter further noted he can't deny the participation or its nature of either Trump Jr. or Kushner, if asked directly by the SC or during testimony before a Federal Grand Jury. I made that post, and the statements therein, while trying to do two other tasks at the same tome and somehow conflated the two sources. Again, I apologize and I thank you for the good catch...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowly
|
A really bad outcome for the Trump camp would be the documents will fully back up the position of the FBI, the SC, and other related entities that all the proper means and methods were actually followed and all the "i's" were dotted and all the "t's" were crossed, resulting in a huge embarrassment for the Trumpers, although, knowing their derailed trains of thought, they'll concoct some sort of 'Deep State" conspiracy to try and deflect; maybe they should put Alex Jones on retainer right now...
The worst case for the Trumpers would be if the previously redacted or otherwise withheld parts of the filings actually cast a broader light on the actions, connections, and/or illegal activities yet to be disclosed, say something like emails, letters, wiretap transcripts, etc., that would further ensnare the participants in the scandal(s). There's and old law school and trial lawyers' saying: “You never ask a question on cross examination to which you do not know the answer to.” The maxim would hold well in the case of the redacted documents; only a relatively few people outside of the Justice Dept. actually know what the whole contents of the FISA warrants and their supporting evidence contain. The US Senate Intelligence Committee members, both DEM and GOP, know the contents, but have wisely declined, thus far, to move to release the information; the US House Intelligence Committee members also know the contents, but only to varying degrees: GOP Chairman Nunes has been furtively concealing some of the information from the DEM Committee members and has shown a very obvious devotion to protecting Trump at all costs. This has included releasing what should have been classified, sensitive information selectively in order to reinforce both his position and Trump's. However, Nunes appears to be wearing blinders in his selection of what to disclose and further seems to have that curious blindness and deafness Trumpers seem to have, you know, the type were, when presented with actual facts, they shut their eyes tight, put their fingers in their ears while shouting "Don't see, don't hear it!! Na-na-na-na, Its not happening!!". The big problem is, there are so few of the and so many, many more reasonable adults who are looking and listening...
I'm also still analyzing the Manafort plea filings and I'm impressed at the depth of detail in Mueller's filing of case information. You know, it seems a good court filing is far more elucidative than any quantity of semi-literate, barely intelligible Tweets...
Again, Dowly: Thanks for the catch...
<O>