Some totally random thoughts after skimming the Senste Intel report: 1) The SSCI didn’t see the actual transcript of Flynn’s 12/29 call w Kislyak. They got the FBI’s summary and the 302. 2) The SSCI developed a lot of evidence of Maria Butina meeting w a variety of politicians.
3) Patrick Byrne introduced Butina to Rand Paul, consistent w his story timeline of the FBI encouraging him to introduce her around. He was rewarded by Butina by suggesting he’d be asked to speak at the World Economic Conference in St Petersburg. 4) The SSCI had no clue about ...
the details of what the PSS told the FBI, including that he lived in the US, not Russia. 5) The FBI spent little effort trying to corroborate the dossier, although the claimed to work on it until May 2017 when the SC was appointed. 6) After the SC was appointed, the SCO took over
all dossier related work and never advised the FBI what they were doing on it, if anything.
The SCO told the SSCI that the SC didn’t use the dossier in their investigation b/c they had more trust in their own work. I couldn’t find an explanation as to how the last FISA warrant renewal happened, given a) the FBI lost control over the dossier investigation and b) SCO ..,
wasn’t doing anything to verify the dossier either. Also, by then much of the dossier had come into serious question.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@shipwreckedcrew has the basic outline of what a good cross examination of Cohen will likely look like. I would add that an effective cross can be used to tell your side of the story, if you’ve got the right witness to do it with. Cohen might be that witness.
Elements of Trump’s story here could be that campaign donations and expenses is a complex area of federal law that require a lawyer to fully understand. Cohen, the lawyer, took charge of deciding how to structure transactions. Cohen and Weisslberg talked about that.
Yesterday I posted a long thread on the sleight of hand pulled by D.A. Bragg in NY to conceal the fact that his theory of the case against Trump is, in effect, a prosecution of federal crimes that by law preempt and supersede the state laws Bragg says he is using.
This fact becomes more and more obvious as the trial progresses, beginning with the opening statement to the jury. The prosecution told the jury that this case involved a conspiracy and a coverup. What crimes were the object of the conspiracy? Federal election finance crimes.
Specifically Bragg has produced evidence tending to show that David Pecker and Michael Cohen conspired with Trump and others to make disguised campaign contributions to Trump in 2016 by making payments to Karen MacDougal and Stormy Daniels to buy their silence about affairs.
This is a THREAD on the sleight of hand, shell and pea game AG Bragg is playing in his case against Trump in NY. The object of this confidence game is to hide that Bragg is prosecuting a crime he has no authority over and that the court has no jurisdiction to hear.
To understand what’s going on, let’s start with the indictment. Trump is charged with violating NY Penal Law 175.10, providing, “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, ..
… and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
Excellent analysis of the implications of the DC Bar’s attempt to disbar former DOJ official, Jeff Clark. I’d like to weigh in on the concepts of fraud vs irregularities in the election, a subject addressed at length during the hearing.
The DOJ took the position in 2020 that they only would investigate criminal fraud and civil rights violations in connection with the election. So when Clark drafted a letter from the Department to Ga legislators, Clark went beyond the DOJ’s role by including irregularities.
Stop for a minute and consider what that means. Fraud operates in the shadows. Concealment is the name of the game for every fraudster from time immemorial. So when a law enforcement official claims, “We only investigate fraud, not irregularities,” in effect abdicating his duty.
Regardless of how one views Smirnov’s credibility ( he made it all up in 2020 or, as @walkafyre notes, he has a bad memory), it’s undeniable the FBI does not look good here. The first 1023 was in 2017, in the financial crimes investigation of Zlochevsky that was opened Jan 2016.
The official FBI version b/f the indictment was nobody thought to ask for three years about Smirnov’s throw away line about Hunter being on the Burisma board. What? How can that be irrelevant to an investigation of Burisma’s owner committing theft and money laundering? Nobody ask
Then when they finally do go ask, they get a wild tale of bribery of a sitting US VP and his son, the board member. A tale that if true, the CHS had concealed from his handler for at least four years. But nobody drilled down into that. Again, the working policy was “Don’t ask.”
For those who followed the defamation lawsuit by Michael Mann against journalist Mark Steyn, and the $1 million punitive damage award against Steyn, should read this expert report by climate scientist Judith Curry: judithcurry.com/2024/02/08/jcs…
Ms Curry, @curryja , was allowed to testify for Steyn, but the court excluded her expert report and the opinions it contained: the hockey stick graph was misleading and constituted scientific misconduct because it cherry-picked data, inverted data, and concealed underlying data.
@curryja In other words, @curryja holds views similar the the ones Steyn expressed that got him hit with $1 M in punitive damages. (He described the hockey stick as fraudulent). Ms Curry was not sued, probably b/c she’s a scientist and can back her views up with science.