This would normally land you in jail, basically automatically.
The real story here is that we need to find out where these leaks are coming from! Was it Benjamin Ghazi?
Some bits from testimony by Brennan today to House Intel.
Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) tweet thread: (THREAD) I’m an experienced criminal investigator and attorney. Here’s a SIMPLE FACT that will TRANSFORM how you see Trump’s Russia scandal.
[details=50-tweet thread]> (THREAD) I’m an experienced criminal investigator and attorney. Here’s a SIMPLE FACT that will TRANSFORM how you see Trump’s Russia scandal.
(1) Americans are conditioned by books, TV, and film to believe that criminal cases move relatively quickly prior to any legal appeals.
(2) In fact, a no- or low-investigation state-level MISDEMEANOR (e.g., arrest is on-site) takes well over THREE MONTHS from start to finish.
(3) Meanwhile, a no- or low-investigation state-level FELONY (e.g., arrest is onsite) often takes well over SIX MONTHS from start to finish.
(4) A state-level FELONY that’s INVESTIGATION-INTENSIVE (e.g. breaking up a drug-distribution ring) often takes OVER A YEAR start to finish.
(5) A state-level, investigation-intensive MAJOR FELONY, like homicide—and I’ve tried these—will take over EIGHTEEN MONTHS start to finish.
(6) What about the FEDERAL court system? Well, it moves FAR SLOWER than the state courts. Many federal felonies take YEARS start to finish.
(7) It’s in this context that I tell you this: the Trump-Russia scandal is the MOST COMPLEX FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION of our LIFETIMES.
(8) The FBI began investigating the Trump campaign’s Russia ties last July. The fed investigation into these ties is now in its tenth month.
(9) What this means is, it’s UNBELIEVABLY EARLY in the federal criminal investigation into the Trump campaign’s Russian ties. SUPER EARLY.
(10) This is why the White House, GOP Congressmen, and far-right trolls like Louise Mensch want you to think it’s LATE in the investigation.
(11) To this end, the White House uses Sean Spicer and cable-news surrogates to ask America, every day, “Where’s the evidence of collusion?”
(12) To this end, the only non-leak-related questions Congressional Republicans ask Comey, Rogers, or Brennan are on “proof of collusion.”
(13) To this end, right-wing trolls undermine the anti-Trump movement with stories they know are BS about how indictments are “coming soon.”
(14) What Republican (federal) officials in D.C. know, and what right-wing trolls know, is that it’s FAR TOO EARLY for PROOF of collusion.
(15) The goal of the online/offline GOP propaganda machine is to convince you that if there were any “there” to Russiagate we’d know by now.
(16) Meanwhile NONPARTISAN CAREER PROFESSIONALS in law enforcement tell us this is WELL WORTH investigating but they don’t have answers yet.
(17) The GOP strategy is genius: (1) use Congress to “call out” hardworking law enforcement pros by acting as if their work should be done;
(18) …and (2) use the White House and right-wing trolls to simultaneously dangerously under-sell AND over-sell the Russia investigation.
(19) Here are signs a career pro in the criminal justice system would use to determine if a given investigation is in its VERY EARLY stages:
(20) (a) Are major figures in the case lawyered up? If such figures have no attorney or have just gotten an attorney, it’s VERY EARLY ON.
(21) So, on that: Trump is looking for an attorney; Carter Page doesn’t have one; Kushner hasn’t retained one; Roger Stone just got one.
(22) Manafort has an attorney. Other figures (e.g. J.D. Gordon) don’t. Flynn had one long ago, but he was seeking immunity—being pro-active.
(23) (b) Are investigators still in the investigatory phase? Yes. We’ve seen *not one indictment despite some easy-to-make federal cases.
(24) The feds have Flynn dead to rights on FARA violations and Making False Statements yet they’re still in the “asking for docs” phase.
(25) Yes, there’s a grand jury in Virginia, but it just sent out its first subpoenas—in a case where it will ultimately send out hundreds.
(26) Indeed, the FIRST THING I did in criminal cases was file a “Motion to Preserve Evidence.” When did Congress do that? A few weeks ago.
(27) To underscore that last point: we’d expect this fed case to take SEVERAL YEARS—and Congress took its first step just a few weeks ago.
(28) (c) Have investigators spoken to the witnesses in the case? NO. NOT AT ALL. And note that this case will have hundreds of witnesses.
(29) Consider that Congress is still interviewing THE INVESTIGATORS. Comey twice; Rogers twice; and Brennan. No other attempt has been made.
(30) The closest Congress has come to a SINGLE ACTUAL WITNESS in a case with HUNDREDS of witnesses is Sally Yates. And look what happened.
(31) What happened is ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE. We had a dozen MAJOR #Russiagate stories in just twelve days. Total bedlam in Washington, D.C.
(32) What’s amazing is, Yates ISN’T a witness in the usual sense. She’s a member of law enforcement who (if accidentally) “worked the case.”
(33) So how about the now-defunct FBI investigation, the one that preceded the JUST-STARTED Special Counsel investigation? Same story there.
(34) While the FBI investigation was secretive, we have NO evidence Trump, Pence, Page, Manafort, Gordon, Kushner—etc—have been interviewed.
(35) Of course, Flynn is, here, the Yates-like exception. He WAS interviewed. What happened? ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE all over Washington, D.C.
(36) So a clear trend emerges: (i) we are VERY EARLY in the Russia investigation; (ii) ANY forward movement leads to ABSOLUTE BEDLAM in D.C.
(37) (d) What docs or other hard evidence do investigators have, or have they seized, if they’ve done hardly any interviews with witnesses?
(38) This we can’t know. BUT we DO know there have been NO reported domestic raids, seizures or voluntarily disclosed document caches (yet).
(39) There may be efforts to find hard-to-get internationally held documentary evidence, but this’d be the SLOWEST part of an investigation.
(40) Here too we find Yates- and Flynn-like EXCEPTIONS: namely, (i) leaks to the media, and (ii) surveillance resulting from FISA warrants.
(41) The ONE warrant that we KNOW has returned evidence…caused ALL HELL TO BREAK LOOSE, as it proved Mike Flynn committed multiple crimes.
(42) Just so, the leaks that have made the news caused…ALL HELL TO BREAK LOOSE, as they proved Don Trump committed Obstruction of Justice.
(43) So here too the trend is intact: ALL SIGNS say we’re in the VERY EARLY STAGES of #Russiagate, but when ANYTHING is found it’s ELECTRIC.
(44) What an experienced attorney will conclude is (a) we must IGNORE anyone, I mean ANYONE, who pretends we’re LATE in this investigation.
(45) And (b), EVERY TIME investigators take even the SMALLEST STEP in their investigation, they find a MOUNTAIN of evidence of criminality.
(46) So what we progressives need is cognitive dissonance: we must accept that there’s a long way to go AND that all signs suggest CRIMES.
(47) We must TUNE OUT sensationalistic major media, grandstanding Congressmen, social media tongue-wagging, and right-wing fake news/trolls.
(48) What we get in return is NEAR-ASSURANCE this President WILL be IMPEACHED. It’ll simply take, unfortunately, a LONG time to get there.
(49) Because the GOP knows this, we must ALSO defend against their Plan B: trying to get back to business as usual as Mueller does his work.
(50) So THIS is our task: we must AT ONCE keep pressure high; expect a long haul; stay optimistic; and expect success. And then we WIN. /end[/details]
Anderson Cooper DESTROYS Kellyanne Conway with this WEIRD TRICK
lol, GC.
“Simple fact” and “50-tweet thread” should never be together.
I know, guys, I know. I get it. I feel the same way about tweetstorms and the like. Especially ones that start off with a clickbaity phrase or title or whatever. And yet, here we are. Still worth a read IMO.
Seth Abramson is about two steps removed from Louise Mensch/Claude Taylor levels of delusion and resume padding/fabulism.
I’m with you on Mensch/Taylor for sure. I’ll take your word for it on Abramson.
Pretty sure his name has come up among civil rights lawyers I follow as being full of shit on other things.
I mean at this point it’s a fairly safe thing to toss out there because there is obviously something to be found. If nothing else the obstruction of justice is so blatant.
Two steps might be generous. Interesting perspective, regardless.
It’s kind of sad, but I feel like we can’t take anything for granted anymore. You may find this hard to believe, but I’ve always been the sort to question things and not simply accept things as true. But this…this is a whole different thing.
Abramson was the guy who posted a piece on Huffington Post shortly after Clinton clinched a victory in the primaries, saying that Bernie had actually won, and he was going to show how.
And then he did this ridiculous and nonsensical parlor trick by removing delegates from Clinton that she’d already won to say that this was how Bernie was going to be the nominee.
And then when people who…you know, do math, called him on his nonsense, he eventually relented and admitted that what he was doing was “experimental math”, which remains a catch-phrase used by FiveThirtyEight bloggers when someone posits some fantasy scenario that has no basis in actual math or reality.
Bernie can still win the Presidency with this weird trick.
Pretty good opinion piece from Reason magazine founder Julian Sanchez:
That’s actually secondary, however. The primary reason I doubt we’re going to see that smoking gun is that it’s hard to see why it would be in Russia’s interest to loop the Trump campaign in on their interference campaign. The risks would be significant, and the benefits hard to discern. As Lawfare observed last month, there is ample evidence of collusion and coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia—it’s just that all of it took place right out in the open. Russia’s efforts on Trump’s behalf were, for the most part, pretty open, even if Trump affected not to notice them. Trump’s praise of Vladimir Putin—grounded in an affection that long predates his political career—was public, as was his gleeful exploitation of the fruits of hacks against his opponents and encouragement of more of the same, as was his attempt to exculpate Russia long after the intelligence community had reached consensus about their responsibility, as was his use on the campaign trail of stories pushed out by Russian state media. Trump could see they were helping him, they could see he appreciated it and was reciprocating. What, exactly, would have been the marginal benefit of some further secret communication making this happy symbiosis a matter of explicit agreement? Collusion would have been redundant.
I have made a rule that I refuse to read tweetstorms. I hate the format, and it should just be on a blog.
I’m not arguing with you. I meant it might be more like one than two.