THREAD: 1/ I know this sounds likes super space beans, but I need to get it out of my head so I'm putting it here. Some is public reporting (labeled AP=Associated Press), some is speculative (labeled AG=me). WHAT IF:
2/ Jan 2019: The White House is briefed on Russian bounties to the Taliban to murder allied troops in Afghanistan (AP)
Mar 2019: Bolton discusses the bounties with trump (AP)
Apr 2019: 3 US Marines are murdered in an ambush in Afghanistan. The Taliban claims responsibility (AP)
3/ If that ambush was part of the bounty operation, trump had blood on his hands & began hiding the intel, keeping it under wraps for the last 14 months (AG). He fired 5 inspectors general, replaced the DNI with a yes-man, & gutted the NCTC & the US agency for global media (AP)
You live in a country with no extradition treaty so you’re in no danger of being nabbed by the authorities as long as you don’t travel to a country that has an extradition treaty with the US. So you know you’ll never have to stand trial. 2/
But you REALLY want to get your hands on American tradecraft secrets. So you hire a couple of jagoff US lawyers and send them to your pre-trial hearings and ask during discovery for ALL intelligence documents going back to WWII because hey, why not? It’s worth a shot! 3/
Medicare for all question for the dem candidates: as a veteran, my health care is free. Would veterans’ taxes increase to pay for M4A even though we won’t use it? How would that work since we all already pay taxes to cover veteran health care?
Don’t get me wrong, folks. I’m happy to lay more in taxes so everyone can have health care. Just wondering how this will be handled.
THE TUESDAY NIGHT MASSACRE. Ask yourself what's more likely: that four career prosecutors forged Timothy Shea's name on their Stone sentencing memo, OR, Tim signed off on it, Trump found out, called him and made him walk it back? Let's look at recent history for the answers. 1/
Trump said "I didn't call the DoJ but I COULD if I WANTED TO." Sound familiar? Maybe a little like "I didn't try to fire Mueller but I COULD if I WANTED TO." And trump forcing the DoJ to walk back a decision: remember the census citizenship question case? 2/
Trump found out the DoJ lawyers conceded the case and said they wouldn't add the citizenship question to the census. Trump called ANGRY and all of a sudden, the DoJ lawyers were on a conference call with the judge on a Saturday trying to walk it back, surprised as they were. 3/
From the agency that balls at the law, refusing to hand over trumps taxes to House Ways and Means. The same agency that lifted sanctions on one of the architects of 2016 Russian interference so he could build an aluminum plant in KY with #MoscowMitch and Ayn Rand Paul.
I would like to propose a cooperation agreement to @AmbJohnBolton : if you give a press conference today that leads to a witness vote in the senate, I’ll buy your book. If not, I won’t. #NoPresserNoBook
JUSTICE THREAD: 1/ Our DoJ is 100% participating in the kind of corruption Yovanovitch was fighting in Ukraine. It all started with Barr’s incorrect characterization of the Mueller report. Mueller *should* have done more than write a letter, but remember, there were 2 letters...
2/ and we still haven’t seen the first letter. @RepAdamSchiff needs to release it. Then we have the shuttering of the Cohen case in the SDNY, not to mention zero updates on the secret company from country A. How many other referred Mueller cases went dark?
3/ Then let’s not forget Andy McCabe, who is STILL under investigation despite the grand jury refusing to return an indictment, and the DoJ is still blocking and redacting the documents related to his firing.
It never made sense to me why SDNY would shut down the Cohen case, quash the mystery company from country A case, but arrest Igor and Parnas while Giuliani went free. Given Parnas’ fear of Barr as told in his Maddow interview, and the sequence of events, a set up makes sense.
@JoyceWhiteVance, talk me off the ledge. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Is DoJ so compromised it set up Parnas? Is that why Giuliani is still a free man? Is that why Parnas got the Dowd waiver but then fired him? This possibility terrifies me.
And now we know the DoJ is investigating Comey after their own IG cleared him. Same with mccabe. And Barr disagreeing with his own IG’s findings about Crossfire Hurricane.
Hey @kpolantz check this out. This new legal memo from DoJ leaves a MASSIVE loophole for wholly foreign state-owned companies to obscure the full extent of their US influence. Makes me think of the company from country A we haven’t heard about since June citizensforethics.org/loophole-saudi…
The trump admin didn’t put out a legal opinion allowing him to withhold congressionally appropriated aid until AFTER he got caught doing it. They have a habit of creating memos after the fact to retroactively pardon past behavior. This could provide cover for the mueller subpoena
I wonder if this could also provide cover for Rudy.
1/ BEANS: Some initial notes from today’s IG report. “We concluded that the quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open investigations on Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn, & Manafort was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold established by the department and the FBI”
2/ They also concluded there was no bias affecting the decision making in Crossfire Hurricane.
3/ They also concluded there was no political bias or improper motivation influencing the FBI’s decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page, though they did note 17 issues that they make recommendations to correct in the future
Time for some impeachment beans: 1/ McConnell has wanted a fast impeachment. The GOP strategy in the hearing was to complain about rushing it to divide Dems. McConnell spoke to 45 “you don’t want them to wait for your tax returns”. Trump now calling for a fast impeachment.
2/ I would like to wait until we have the strongest possible case. Remember, trump appointed his tax guy before he appointed Barr, signaling he’s more worried about his taxes than he was about Mueller b/c Rosenstein effectively narrowed Mueller’s scope NOT to include finances.
3/ In all the court cases, Dems have argued that the finances AND mueller grand jury materials fall under the umbrella of impeachment and that Pelosi agreed. If you’re mad about not impeaching this month, it’s because Trump wants you to be. That was their goal with the hearing.
BREAKING: The DoJ has no plans to indict McCabe and will not block the release of documents related to the case. wsj.com/articles/justi…
KEEP IN MIND: the DoJ may have no *immediate* plans to indict McCabe. I don’t trust Barr any further than I could throw him.
If you can’t get through the paywall: the author here is assuming the DoJ is no longer investigating because it’s reason for not releasing documents was because of the open investigation. A DoJ lawyer will answer questions tomorrow in court. DONT PUT ANYTHING PAST BARR
1/ We know you have questions and want details about what's going on, but legally, it's just not something we can deliver. I will say I'm heartbroken in light of what's going on. I want to thank everyone who has sent messages of support and kindness...
2/ I mostly just want to assure everyone that the accusations are not true. I have always supported Jaleesa's projects and continue to wish her success. I will continue to honor our agreements by not publicly sharing details that simply aren't necessary at this point...
3/ I had hoped to handle this directly,but I feel it necessary to assure you that everyone has been paid fairly and honestly, and contracts were negotiated in good faith. There's simply no truth to the "92/4/4" claim, and not that it needs to be said, but I'm not a meth dealer..
1/ UPDATED THREAD: I inadvertently skipped option 4 in the 7 options for how to respond to the whistleblower complaint. So let’s start again: according to sources, the IC IG is not telling the committee what’s in the complaint because the law states it must come from the DNI...
2/ So we have a few options. Option 1 is inherent contempt. That’s when the house dems have the Sergeant at Arms detain the DNI and compel him to hand over the complaint during his testimony as he will likely refuse to do so. This hasn’t been used since 1934.
3/ Option 2 is a contempt citation referral to the DoJ, but that’s headed by Bill Barr, so yeah.
Option 3 is to file suit like they did in the Mazar’s case, but rumor has it you can’t take civil judicial action in whistleblower cases. Not sure I read the law that way, though...
CHECK THIS OUT: the resolution on impeachment rules that passed today was also passed in early Nov 1973 two weeks after the Saturday Night Massacre. The house didn’t vote on a formal impeachment inquiry resolution until Feb 6 1974. So be prepared for that kind of timeline.
Also, the Nixon articles of impeachment were approved end of July 1974. Six months after the inquiry was officially passed and nine months after the rules were passed (the rules that passed today).
BREAKING: Will Barr force DoJ prosecutors to indict McCabe? According to the NYT, two meetings last week indicate that the DoJ might be thinking about indicting Andrew McCabe. Do you want to know what *I* think happened? Join me for a super space beans thread!
First, here is the article from the times outlining the series of events leading up to this past week when McCabe's lawyers met with the ShitDAG Jeffrey Rosen and US Attorney for DC Jessie Liu
1/ Here are all the clues I’ve amassed over the last 9 months about the mystery company from country A fighting the subpoena battle:
1. Foreign 2. State owned 3. English is not the primary language (docs had to be translated) 4. Has US offices
5. Does extensive business in the US 6. Repped by Alston & Bird 7. Is likely owned by a gulf state as the lawyers prosecuting the case are Zainab Ahmad and Zia Faruqui; Middle East experts 8. Is central to the Russia investigation (it was handed off to Mueller)
9. May have the format “XXX_XXXX” per Marcy Wheeler’s research on line breaks and spacing.
Hello! THREAD! 1/ I'm getting a lot of questions about why I don't like some of the Assange charges. Please allow me to explain. Let's start with some immutable facts: FACT 1: I hate Assange. He's a POS probable rapist Russian hat dillweed. FACT 2: Trump hates the press.
2/ FACT 3: Assange is being charged with assisting in document theft, but he is also being charged with 9 counts of disclosing those documents (counts 9-17). Here's the indictment for you to peruse. documentcloud.org/documents/6024…
3/ FACT 4: it is not illegal - generally - for a media outlet to publish documents, even if they're stolen. FACT 5: Wikileaks could be classified as a media outlet whether we like it or not. There are no well defined terms within the law for what constitutes a media outlet.
THREAD 1/ Doing research into our upcoming deep dive series into the Mueller Report and I have a question: we know that Mueller didn't charge obstruction in Volume II because of the DoJ policy that disallows indicting a sitting president, but...
2/ Are we sure we are correct in our speculation that coordination and conspiracy weren't charged because of insufficient evidence? In the justice manual as described on page 9 of volume I, Special Counsel points out that to bring charges...
3/ Would prosecuting the crime serve a substantial federal interest that couldn't be satisfied elsewhere or by NON-CRIMINAL alternatives. Considering the counterintelligence piece isn't addressed in this report and could be open and ongoing...