That is in the "summary" and it applies to everything in the letter, not just Cohen. It means if in the course of the investigation they determine that criminal activity may have taken place, but it unrelated to the Russia probe, they will report that to the AG for reassignment
to DOJ or a USAO that would have venue to investigate and prosecute such unrelated criminal activity. Cohen had engaged in bank fraud and tax fraud completely separate from any work he did for Trump. His unwillingness to provide info in interviews on the subjects ...
Is why the SDNY said at sentencing they did not view him as a "cooperating defendant" and he wasn't entitled to any sentence reduction as a result. The taxi medallion fraud involved his wife's father. He would have incriminated him if he had answered questions. So he didn't.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with shipwreckedcrew

shipwreckedcrew Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shipwreckedcrew

16 Oct
First -- "RR wear a wire" story from McCabe is idiotic. The MORNING before that statement was supposedly made RR asked Mueller to be SCO. Mueller being SCO meant McCabe was "out" -- so why would RR make any such suggestion if the next day Mueller was being announced?
It always has been a BOGUS stupid claim made by McCabe after he learned RR and recommended Comey's firing. Re RR being "in on it", he recommended Comey's firing, he fired McCabe later, he fired Strzok, I'm sure he supported Wray, and Wray got rid of most of the rest.
If RR was a "player", why recommend firing Comey? Why even appoint an SCO when McCabe could have done just as much -- or more -- damage completely out of sight, working hand in hand with people in RR's DAG office. RR went the SCO route because he had to take McCabe out.
Read 4 tweets
16 Oct
Here is an @thelastrefuge2 story that does advance the story. Not sure I agree that it says as much as Sundance thinks it does, but it is noteworthy that the Oct. 20, 2017 Scope Memo to the SCO added Michael Flynn Jr. as a potential SCO target.…
Adding Mike Flynn Jr. had only one purpose - to increase the pressure on Gen. Flynn to cooperate. This "expansion" of the scope on Oct. 20 is in the middle of the SCO's negotiations with Gen. Flynn over whether he would be charged, and whether he would plead guilty and cooperate.
It is right out of Weissmann's "mafia" playbook. Find a target's weakness, then go hard at the weakness until the target buckles. Rosenstein's testimony was clearly an admission that he allowed the SCO to establish their own "scope" - although we do know that he did deny some.
Read 8 tweets
16 Oct
I'm not sure they were actually thinking that far ahead. I think most of the key actors were convinced Pres. Trump was not suited for office, and there were issues that were legitimately subject to investigation even if doing so would have led to that result.
So a big issue is whether they were "legitimately" conducting an investigation into matters within their jurisdiction, where the "abuse" was the fact that it had the potential for "political" fallout. That's more a "policy" question, and everyone involved has been terminated.
Whether the specific steps taken along the way were violations of federal statutes that can be proven is a different issue. Clinesmith is a clear instance -- he was motivated by his politics, and he altered a document as a result.
Read 4 tweets
16 Oct
And my question for all these kinds of inquiries is "What crime are you referring to? Give me a statute." There are investigations ongoing to develop facts and gather evidence and decide if the statutory elements of specific statutes can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
What Sundance and the commentators are agitating for is that this work take place on their preferred timetable. But they make these criticisms from a position of ignorance on how the work gets accomplished. Sundance play-acts about having insight into how evidence is gathered...
Or more often his claims about how evidence gets ignored or buried -- only because matters aren't progressing on a timeline that makes sense to him. You know how investigative timelines get fucked with? By defense lawyers and something like COVID.
Read 6 tweets
16 Oct
You should probably take a little more time to read my timeline before you weigh in further. My "defense" of DOJ isn't that -- it's pointing out FACTUAL errors made by Sundance. He said "FBI turned the laptop over to US Attorney's Office."
My response was simply "No it doesn't work that way" and then explained the process and why Sundance's click bait was misleading. The fact that the public has not been told what the FBI did with the computer the past 10 months doesn't mean it was "buried" -- Sundance's claim.
When the FBI seizes a computer the first thing they do is image the hard drive. The computer itself goes back to the evidence custodian. The FBI Tech Agents -- they are AGENTS specially trained in forensic computer analysis -- then employ special programs to analyze the drive.
Read 5 tweets
15 Oct
The US Attorney does not take possession of any evidence. The US Attorney's office does not have a facility for storing evidence such that chain of custody can be maintained. The FBI takes possession of evidence obtained via GJ subpoenas.
The Agent and the AUSA would have appeared before the GJ and reported to the GJ that a subpoena had been issued, and that a laptop(s) were received in response. The subpoena is actually for delivery of the items TO THE GRAND JURY, not to the USAO.
When the Agent and AUSA do the "return" before the GJ, the AUSA will ask the GJ's permission for the Agent to maintain possession of the evidence for use in the investigation. They always say "Yes" because the GJ doesn't have any place to store it.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!