The Mueller Probe

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Paul - what do you believe Flynn's "substantial cooperation" with the Mueller probe entails?  Merely self incrimination on his lies?
What do you believe is in the redacted text of the latest sentencing memos?

 With regard to Flynn's "substantial cooperation" I like Michael Isikoff's take:
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1070688839851798529
I don't see anything in the redactions that appears to relate to Russiagate.  Show me one if you disagree.

 LOL - you're better then Trump at this stuff!  You want me to explain content that's redacted?  Huh? 

paulsurovell said:

I don't see anything in the redactions that appears to relate to Russiagate.  Show me one if you disagree.

First off, it always helps to look at the document (here's the link again):

 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5425878-Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-191592-46-1-2.html

Second, there are these parts:

"The defendant has assisted with several ongoing investigations: a criminal investigation [BIG SMUDGE], the Special Counsel’s Office’s (“SCO”) investigation concerning any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald J. Trump, [BIG SMUDGE]."

“The defendant has also assisted with the SCO investigation concerning links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. … The defendant assisted the SCO’s investigation on a range of issues, including interactions between individuals in the Presidential Transition Team and Russia, [BIG SMUDGE]. … The defendant also provided useful information concerning [HUGE FREAKIN’ SMUDGE THAT GOES ON FOR SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS]”

Third, I may not have anticipated any parsing of Mr. Surovell's statement which gives him an "out", and if so I assume I'll be corrected.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

paulsurovell: Where do you get "certainty" from? You got a problem with people expressing themselves emphatically?

 OK, so you’re not certain. And yeah, I kinda do, especially when they’re not certain.

 On second thought, I'm about 90% certain.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Paul - what do you believe Flynn's "substantial cooperation" with the Mueller probe entails?  Merely self incrimination on his lies?
What do you believe is in the redacted text of the latest sentencing memos?

 With regard to Flynn's "substantial cooperation" I like Michael Isikoff's take:
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1070688839851798529
I don't see anything in the redactions that appears to relate to Russiagate.  Show me one if you disagree.

 LOL - you're better then Trump at this stuff!  You want me to explain content that's redacted?  Huh? 

 Um . . . isn't that what you asked me to do?

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

paulsurovell: Where do you get "certainty" from? You got a problem with people expressing themselves emphatically?

 OK, so you’re not certain. And yeah, I kinda do, especially when they’re not certain.

 On second thought, I'm about 90% certain.

 "I don't accept the Russiagate narrative and the role of intelligence agencies -- including the FBI -- in creating that narrative."

- P. Surovell, February 3, 2018.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Paul - what do you believe Flynn's "substantial cooperation" with the Mueller probe entails?  Merely self incrimination on his lies?
What do you believe is in the redacted text of the latest sentencing memos?

 With regard to Flynn's "substantial cooperation" I like Michael Isikoff's take:
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1070688839851798529
I don't see anything in the redactions that appears to relate to Russiagate.  Show me one if you disagree.

 LOL - you're better then Trump at this stuff!  You want me to explain content that's redacted?  Huh? 

 Um . . . isn't that what you asked me to do?

 I asked where in the text the public can't see (the redacted black parts) - does it NOT mention Russia?  You must have access to this area to answer like you do with any certainty.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

paulsurovell: Where do you get "certainty" from? You got a problem with people expressing themselves emphatically?

 OK, so you’re not certain. And yeah, I kinda do, especially when they’re not certain.

 On second thought, I'm about 90% certain.

 "I don't accept the Russiagate narrative and the role of intelligence agencies -- including the FBI -- in creating that narrative."
- P. Surovell, February 3, 2018.

 Mixing apples and oranges.

paulsurovell said:

 That's right, but it doesn't mean that the sentencing memos are hoaxes. When a general proposition is a hoax not everything within the proposition is a hoax.

 Ah. So the investigation itself is a hoax but its comprised parts are accurate. Interesting take.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
 "I don't accept the Russiagate narrative and the role of intelligence agencies -- including the FBI -- in creating that narrative."
- P. Surovell, February 3, 2018.

 Mixing apples and oranges.

 Not at all. It's spot-on.

FWIW, I'm finished taking a break from yard work.  I've been listened to podcasts, and I'm almost finished hearing last night's "Rachel Maddow", where she helpfully reads relevant portions of the Manafort and Cohen filings from yesterday.  I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but it sounds like there are all sorts of goodies in them.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

 That's right, but it doesn't mean that the sentencing memos are hoaxes. When a general proposition is a hoax not everything within the proposition is a hoax.

 Ah. So the investigation itself is a hoax but its comprised parts are accurate. Interesting take.

 Some of its parts.

nohero said:
FWIW, I'm finished taking a break from yard work.  I've been listened to podcasts, and I'm almost finished hearing last night's "Rachel Maddow", where she helpfully reads relevant portions of the Manafort and Cohen filings from yesterday.  I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but it sounds like there are all sorts of goodies in them.

Did Rachel mention that Cohen was not accused by Mueller of lying in this statement to Congress?

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today.
As part of this statement, I would like to accomplish two things.
First, I want to comment briefly but clearly on the presumed subject of this morning's interview. Second, I want to address what I believe are the implications of it.
Let me be totally clear that I am innocent of the allegations raised against me in the public square, which are based upon misinformation and unnamed or unverifiable sources.
I have never engaged with, been paid by, paid for, or conversed with any member of the Russian Federation or anyone else to hack anyone or any organization.
I have never engaged with, been paid by, paid for, or conversed with any member of the Russian Federation or anyone else to hack or interfere with the election.
I have never engaged with, been paid by, paid for, or conversed with any member of the Russian Federation or anyone else to hack Democratic Party computers; and I have never engaged with, been paid by, paid for, or conversed with any member of the Russian Federation or anyone else to create fake news stories to assist the Trump campaign or to damage the Clinton campaign.
Given my own proximity to the President of the United States as a candidate, let me also say that I never saw anything - not a hint of anything - that demonstrated his involvement in Russian interference in our election or any form of Russian collusion.
I emphatically state that I had nothing to do with any Russian involvement in our electoral process.
In fact, I find the activities attributed to the Russian Federation, if found to be true, to be an offense to our democracy.
As an attorney, I believe justice ought not to be politicized in the United States of America - neither in this Senate office nor in the courts. I'm certain that the evidence at the conclusion of this investigation will reinforce the fact that there was no collusion between Russia, President Trump or me.
I'm also certain that there are some in this country who do not care about the facts, but simply want to politicize this issue, choosing to presume guilt - rather than presuming innocence - so as to discredit our lawfully elected President in the public eye and shame his supporters in the public square ... this is un-American. I am here today to reiterate my own innocence regarding the false allegations raised against me. What I seek is the Committee making a public conclusion about the truth or falsity of the allegations that follow.
My reputation was damaged in December 2016 when BuzzFeed published an unverified dossier prepared by a retired British spy - Christopher Steele - that was riddled with total falsehoods and intentionally salacious accusations. In my opinion, the hired spy didn't find anything factual, so he threw together a shoddily written and totally fabricated report filled with lies and rumors. The New York Post recently noted that much of the information in the dossier appeared at points to be copied from the internet; with typographical errors included.
My name is mentioned more than a dozen times in the lie-filled-dossier and so within moments of BuzzFeed's publication, false allegations about me were plastered all over the national and international press. The accusations are entirely and totally false.
A core accusation was that I had traveled to Prague to meet with Russians regarding interfering with the election.
I have never in my life been to Prague or to anywhere in the Czech Republic. I might also add that I only have one passport (a United States Passport). I have to say that to you today - that I only have one passport - because another media outlet suggested that - as a Jew - I must also have an Israeli passport!
Aside from such an allegation being incredibly offensive, it is also totally wrong.
Let me tell you where I was on the day the dossier said I was in Prague. I was in Los Angeles with my son who dreams of playing division 1 baseball next year at a prestigious university like USC. We were visiting the campus, meeting with various coaches, and discussing his future. Media sources have been able to confirm these facts and I can provide you with proof.
My wife and I have been married for 23 years, and are now entering into the season of our lives when we get to watch our children become adults themselves. My daughter, who is at an Ivy League school, and my wife, who is of Ukrainian descent, have especially been subjected to harassment, insults and threats ... some so severe I cannot share them in mixed company.
You might say that the experiences I am living through are the cost of being in the public eye, but they shouldn't be as I am not a government official. Many Trump supporting Americans are also paying this cost, like the twelve year old child in Missouri who was beaten up for wearing a Make America Great Again hat.
You can oppose the President's points of view and his policies, but not raise false issues about the validity of his victory.
I assume we will discuss the rejected proposal to build a Trump property in Moscow that was terminated in January of 2016; which occurred before the Iowa caucus and months before the very first primary. This was solely a real estate deal and nothing more. I was doing my job. I would ask that the two-page statement about the Moscow proposal that I sent to the Committee in August be incorporated into and attached to this transcript. I'm very proud to have served Donald J. Trump for all these years, and I'll continue to support him. If we really are concerned about a Russian attempt to divide our country and discredit our political system then the best thing we can do is put aside our infighting, stop presuming guilt rather than innocence of American citizens, and address this national security threat as a united people at its source.
Otherwise, the priorities of the American people will continue to be neglected, and the Russians will use our distraction to continue to harm us from the shadows while we harm each other in front of the camera lights.
I look forward to answering all of your questions today.

Yes - Cohen did lie about the date of the Moscow project - it was terminated several months later.  

The court documents released Thursday make clear that Cohen worked on the Moscow Project on behalf of the Trump Organization into the summer of 2016, far longer than he previously admitted. He discussed the project repeatedly with then-candidate Trump and Trump’s “family members.” Cohen was intending to travel to Moscow to discuss the project with Russian government officials in June 2016 and raised the possibility of Trump traveling to Russia during the campaign with the presidential candidate himself. Finally, Cohen exchanged emails and phone calls with members of the Russian government about pursuing the deal.

This was a coordinated plan to deceive the American people from Trump's Russian business plans and possibly affect the election.  Russia would also know that it was indeed a lie, which could possibly be used against him. 

The project magically ended when the Russian hacking story broke.

Then there's this piece:

Cohen provided the SCO with useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with Company executives during the campaign. 

Perhaps, Paul can tell us exactly what this means.

jamie said:
Yes - Cohen did lie about the date of the Moscow project - it was terminated several months later.  

The court documents released Thursday make clear that Cohen worked on the Moscow Project on behalf of the Trump Organization into the summer of 2016, far longer than he previously admitted. He discussed the project repeatedly with then-candidate Trump and Trump’s “family members.” Cohen was intending to travel to Moscow to discuss the project with Russian government officials in June 2016 and raised the possibility of Trump traveling to Russia during the campaign with the presidential candidate himself. Finally, Cohen exchanged emails and phone calls with members of the Russian government about pursuing the deal.

This was a coordinated plan to deceive the American people from Trump's Russian business plans and possibly affect the election.  Russia would also know that it was indeed a lie, which could possibly be used against him. 
The project magically ended when the Russian hacking story broke.
Then there's this piece:

Cohen provided the SCO with useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with Company executives during the campaign. 

Perhaps, Paul can tell us exactly what this means.

 It means -- Cohen helped us confirm that Trump did not collude with any Russians to influence the 2015 election, consistent with Cohen's statement to Congress of September 2017, which we found to be truthful (except for the one sentence about when Felix stopped pitching his Moscow Trump Tower fantasy to Cohen).

so cohen was actually a help?  Good to know!  

what info has Cohen provided that are “useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matter core to its investigation”.

jamie said:
so cohen was actually a help?  Good to know!  
what info has Cohen provided that are “useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matter core to its investigation”.

 I just answered that. Cohen likely confirmed that the answer to the core question of the investigation -- Was there coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election -- is "No."

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
so cohen was actually a help?  Good to know!  
what info has Cohen provided that are “useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matter core to its investigation”.

 I just answered that. Cohen likely confirmed that the answer to the core question of the investigation -- Was there coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election -- is "No."

I doubt Mueller would consider a simple answer of "no" to be useful information.  I also doubt is takes 70 hours of testimony to say the word "no" - but at this point - nobody knows what he said. 

Here's the worst-case scenario for Trump (nothing to do with Russia):

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-c-mccarthy-why-trump-is-likely-to-be-indicted-by-manhattan-us-attorney

Funny - I can't tell the difference these days between Surovell and Fox News.

paulsurovell said:
Here's the worst-case scenario for Trump (nothing to do with Russia):
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-c-mccarthy-why-trump-is-likely-to-be-indicted-by-manhattan-us-attorney

 Well, it's pretty clear he did violate those campaign laws. On top of that, I think Trump Inc or Trump Org may be getting some attention.

jamie said:
Funny - I can't tell the difference these days between Surovell and Fox News.

 What's your worst-case scenario for Trump (based on evidence thus far)?

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
so cohen was actually a help?  Good to know!  
what info has Cohen provided that are “useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matter core to its investigation”.

 I just answered that. Cohen likely confirmed that the answer to the core question of the investigation -- Was there coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election -- is "No."

I doubt Mueller would consider a simple answer of "no" to be useful information.  I also doubt is takes 70 hours of testimony to say the word "no" - but at this point - nobody knows what he said. 

 Mueller is going to have to say "Yes" or "No" to the question of "Was there coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election?" And that answer will be based on more than 70 hours of testimony. It will be based on more than 2 1/2 years of intensive investigation. You can calculate the hours.

Once again, Cohen was not -- that's not -- accused of lying in this statement:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/politics/read-michael-cohen-statement/index.html

Excerpt:

I have never engaged with, been paid by, paid for, or conversed with any member of the Russian Federation or anyone else to hack anyone or any organization.

I have never engaged with, been paid by, paid for, or conversed with any member of the Russian Federation or anyone else to hack or interfere with the election.

I have never engaged with, been paid by, paid for, or conversed with any member of the Russian Federation or anyone else to hack Democratic Party computers; and I have never engaged with, been paid by, paid for, or conversed with any member of the Russian Federation or anyone else to create fake news stories to assist the Trump campaign or to damage the Clinton campaign.

Given my own proximity to the President of the United States as a candidate, let me also say that I never saw anything - not a hint of anything - that demonstrated his involvement in Russian interference in our election or any form of Russian collusion.
I emphatically state that I had nothing to do with any Russian involvement in our electoral process.

Also,

I have never in my life been to Prague or to anywhere in the Czech Republic.

paulsurovell said:

Mueller is going to have to say "Yes" or "No" to the question of "Was there coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election?" And that answer will be based on more than 70 hours of testimony. It will be based on more than 2 1/2 years of intensive investigation. You can calculate the hours.

 Many of those hours have been spent investigating other things, so it's very misleading to suggest all that time was spent on nothing but the campaign coordinating with Russia to influence the election.

That is true and worth considering (referring to Paul’s post), but it’s only on the one hand. On the other hand: If you’re Mueller and (a) you think you’ve got enough evidence to answer “Yes” and (b) Cohen is cooperating anyway, would you show those cards yet by making those accusations?

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Yes - Cohen did lie about the date of the Moscow project - it was terminated several months later.  

The court documents released Thursday make clear that Cohen worked on the Moscow Project on behalf of the Trump Organization into the summer of 2016, far longer than he previously admitted. He discussed the project repeatedly with then-candidate Trump and Trump’s “family members.” Cohen was intending to travel to Moscow to discuss the project with Russian government officials in June 2016 and raised the possibility of Trump traveling to Russia during the campaign with the presidential candidate himself. Finally, Cohen exchanged emails and phone calls with members of the Russian government about pursuing the deal.

This was a coordinated plan to deceive the American people from Trump's Russian business plans and possibly affect the election.  Russia would also know that it was indeed a lie, which could possibly be used against him. 
The project magically ended when the Russian hacking story broke.
Then there's this piece:

Cohen provided the SCO with useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with Company executives during the campaign. 

Perhaps, Paul can tell us exactly what this means.

 It means -- Cohen helped us confirm that Trump did not collude with any Russians to influence the 2015 election, consistent with Cohen's statement to Congress of September 2017, which we found to be truthful (except for the one sentence about when Felix stopped pitching his Moscow Trump Tower fantasy to Cohen).

No, Paul, that's not how it works.  That Cohen memo from the Mueller team, about the testimony to Congress, is describing cooperation, and they are not opining on anything else regarding the testimony to Congress.  SDNY team is the one going after Cohen for not being truthful with respect to what they're dealing with.

You should also parse what Cohen actually wrote in that letter, because it's not a complete "Trump did not collude with any Russians" statement.

I don't know where you're getting your talking points.  They're good enough for your average Trump "true believer", but the conclusion isn't supported by the available documents.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
so cohen was actually a help?  Good to know!  
what info has Cohen provided that are “useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matter core to its investigation”.

 I just answered that. Cohen likely confirmed that the answer to the core question of the investigation -- Was there coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election -- is "No."

 They had seven separate sessions where the conversation was, "Did Trump collude?  No.  How about collusion? No.  Any collusion? No."  That would seem pointless after a while.  Perhaps there was more to discuss.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Mueller is going to have to say "Yes" or "No" to the question of "Was there coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election?" And that answer will be based on more than 70 hours of testimony. It will be based on more than 2 1/2 years of intensive investigation. You can calculate the hours.

 Many of those hours have been spent investigating other things, so it's very misleading to suggest all that time was spent on nothing but the campaign coordinating with Russia to influence the election.

 OK, let's divide the 2 1/2 years by two. Still quite a few more than 70 hours.

DaveSchmidt said:
That is true and worth considering (referring to Paul’s post), but it’s only on the one hand. On the other hand: If you’re Mueller and (a) you think you’ve got enough evidence to answer “Yes” and (b) Cohen is cooperating anyway, would you show those cards yet by making those accusations?
 

Why not say enough evidence to answer "Yes" or "No" -- since we're waiting to see?

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Yes - Cohen did lie about the date of the Moscow project - it was terminated several months later.  

The court documents released Thursday make clear that Cohen worked on the Moscow Project on behalf of the Trump Organization into the summer of 2016, far longer than he previously admitted. He discussed the project repeatedly with then-candidate Trump and Trump’s “family members.” Cohen was intending to travel to Moscow to discuss the project with Russian government officials in June 2016 and raised the possibility of Trump traveling to Russia during the campaign with the presidential candidate himself. Finally, Cohen exchanged emails and phone calls with members of the Russian government about pursuing the deal.

This was a coordinated plan to deceive the American people from Trump's Russian business plans and possibly affect the election.  Russia would also know that it was indeed a lie, which could possibly be used against him. 
The project magically ended when the Russian hacking story broke.
Then there's this piece:

Cohen provided the SCO with useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with Company executives during the campaign. 

Perhaps, Paul can tell us exactly what this means.

 It means -- Cohen helped us confirm that Trump did not collude with any Russians to influence the 2015 election, consistent with Cohen's statement to Congress of September 2017, which we found to be truthful (except for the one sentence about when Felix stopped pitching his Moscow Trump Tower fantasy to Cohen).

No, Paul, that's not how it works.  That Cohen memo from the Mueller team, about the testimony to Congress, is describing cooperation, and they are not opining on anything else regarding the testimony to Congress.  SDNY team is the one going after Cohen for not being truthful with respect to what they're dealing with.
You should also parse what Cohen actually wrote in that letter, because it's not a complete "Trump did not collude with any Russians" statement.
I don't know where you're getting your talking points.  They're good enough for your average Trump "true believer", but the conclusion isn't supported by the available documents.

 I provided the full text of the letter above.  His guilty plea involved another letter to Congress, not about the election. He wasn't accused of lying in the letter in which he denied collusion with Russia to influence the election. I'm sure that many of the 70 hours were devoted to getting him to admit to lying on the collusion letter. But he didn't, and Mueller didn't have any evidence to confront him with.

Your suggestion that I use "talking points" sounds like what psychologists call "projection." You let the cat out of the bag when you mention listening to Rachel Maddow's podcast. Not surprising.

Edited to Add:

Pro Tip: When you can't find where someone is getting his/her talking points, that means they are not using talking points.

paulsurovell said:

OK, let's divide the 2 1/2 years by two. Still quite a few more than 70 hours.

An odd post for someone who frequently claims to want proof to substantiate claims.