390/ So the case that Trump is a national security threat has been made—amply—at the level needed for impeachment. But Barr has managed to keep even more evidence from us; and the media doesn't know how to discuss it; and America hasn't been *prepared* for this topic. Not at all.
-
-
401/ I'd ask anyone at CNN and MSNBC the following: when we go to war with Iran—needlessly—and men and women we love start dying in uniform, of precisely what value will be this discourse on obstruction? Will you wish that you'd done the work to understand the collusion question?
이 스레드 보기 -
402/ To those who saw an average citizen like me—a lawyer, writer, ex-investigator, professor, journalist, but *not* a native national security expert—working his butt off for years to try to shed light on a national security threat, and who thought "Let me make fun of this!":
이 스레드 보기 -
403/ The Mueller Report is out, and its first 200 pages establish a part of a story that I researched in greater detail—as Mueller saw it as outside his purview—for PROOF OF CONSPIRACY. And what we're doing is debating *nonsense*: an obstruction case that will *never be brought*.
이 스레드 보기 -
404/ Reporters could've been in the halls of Congress asking Republicans, "Why is it safe for our Russia policy to have been written by a Kremlin agent (Papadopoulos), a Kremlin lobbyist (Burt), a Putin "friend" (Simes), and a suspected Kremlin spy (Page)?" They never got asked.
이 스레드 보기 -
405/ Again, go to a courthouse tomorrow and watch an obstruction trial of a citizen like you or me—you'll hear *one-fiftieth* the amount of evidence that exists against Trump, and then the citizen will be convicted and remanded to custody. Trump won't be tried *because politics*.
이 스레드 보기 -
406/ But no one's *ever* explained why it was okay for the Kremlin to write our Russia policy. No one's *ever* explained how we can have a president who was compromised the moment he started doing secret business deals with the Kremlin mid-campaign and *lied to voters about it*.
이 스레드 보기 -
407/ No one's *ever* explained how we have a president whose top aides *and family* met secretly with foreign nationals, illegally negotiated US policy with foreign nationals, in many cases took money from foreign nationals, then turned US policy as to those nations on its head.
이 스레드 보기 -
408/ All right. That said—and ignored, I'm sure, by the folks in media actually in a position to fix their coverage and start doing so tonight—back to Vol. 1 of the Mueller Report ("conspiracy"). I have about 30 pages left before I wrap up. Thanks to everyone for bearing with me.
이 스레드 보기 -
409/ Mueller doesn't explain, unless I missed it—I don't think I did—that the reason Trump's man on Russia (Flynn) stuck with Kislyak even after Kushner was told Kislyak wasn't the best conduit to Putin is because Flynn had already established a relationship with Kislyak in 2015.
이 스레드 보기 -
410/ The same week Trump's national security adviser Flynn *dined with Putin in Moscow*—incredible the phrases we say when talking about the national security case against Trump—Flynn went to the Russian ambassador's house to talk U.S.-Russia policy. He was a Trump adviser, then.
이 스레드 보기 -
411/ Mueller says McFarland was with Trump when Flynn asked for guidance—not from McFarland, his deputy—on dealing with Kislyak. Mueller says he couldn't establish Trump provided guidance—maybe because the witnesses (Flynn, McFarland, etc.) have *lied* to him. He's admitted that.
이 스레드 보기 -
412/ This is the key point: on conspiracy, *all* the witnesses are liars. And they were often rewarded for it. McFarland, for instance, got rewarded for lying by being (ultimately unsuccessfully) nominated to be ambassador to Singapore. She has lied *repeatedly*. No consequences.
이 스레드 보기 -
413/ When Mueller "cannot establish" Trump directed Flynn, understand it's because he has no witnesses willing to tell the truth—it's not that the evidence isn't there. In fact *all* the circumstantial evidence—like who had authority to direct Flynn and was there—tells one story.
이 스레드 보기 -
414/ I don't want to get into the weeds on the Flynn-Egypt-Israel issue regarding the December 2016 UN resolution—I'll just note Papadopoulos had a September 2016 note ("off[er] Israel! EGYPT") at a time he wanted to please Israel and thought he had an in-road with the Egyptians.
이 스레드 보기 -
415/ I'll note two that Papadopoulos was in touch with Flynn during the transition, when the transition was trying to lean on Egypt to withdraw a resolution on Israel that Israel was upset about. Remember, Israel and Egypt are both "grand bargain" nations... so it all worked out.
이 스레드 보기 -
416/ I want to make a quick note here to say "thank you" to those sending money via my website. I'm not doing this for payment—but it'd be unkind of me not to say that that gesture is a thoughtful one. Hopefully people are getting value from this thread and seeing it as pro bono.
이 스레드 보기 -
417/ Okay, wow—I guess we *are* going to talk about Egypt. I didn't realize that Trump spoke to el-Sisi *personally* in December 2016. El-Sisi was a member of the "Red Sea conspiracy" (October 2015) to help elect Trump, so him having a one-on-one with Trump on Israel is... *big*.
이 스레드 보기 -
418/ K.T. McFarland admits to asking *everyone* who was at Mar-a-Lago for advice on a *huge* issue for the campaign—what to do about Obama's new sanctions on Russia. Mystically, magically, improbably, most likely perjuriously...she says she never asked the man actually in charge.
이 스레드 보기 -
419/ I'm not sure I knew that Flynn discussed the Middle East with Kislyak on the same December 2016 call that involved sanctions and led to Flynn being charged with a felony. Again, we should all note how frequently the Middle East intersects with Russian sanctions. No accident.
이 스레드 보기 -
420/ (TRUE STORY) When I was in college, I was a radio DJ—and the only music I played was psychedelic music from 1966 through 1971 (I *spat* on everything before and after). I only had *one* listener I knew of: a pizza delivery guy who'd been at Woodstock.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqDa5hCSQX0 …
이 스레드 보기 -
421/ Wait... what? This is a bizarre conversation at a bizarre moment, and I'm torn between believing K.T. McFarland was for once telling the truth and allowing that she likely was, instead, per usual, lying.pic.twitter.com/Y2SYf96CoG
이 스레드 보기 -
422/ The basis for the lie would be that it's incredibly convenient to have Trump—four months after the intelligence community told him Russia was attacking America—expressing "sincere" doubt on the question, as it would harm substantially his criminal "mens rea" (state-of-mind).
이 스레드 보기 -
423/ I'm leaning toward K.T. McFarland lying—first, because that's what she does, and second, because *since when* is Trump interested in having "leverage" over the Russians? His plan was to drop all sanctions on them... for free. What precisely was he demanding from them? Ever?pic.twitter.com/jZWpXSRqWJ
이 스레드 보기 -
424/ Mueller details another instance of a conspiracy witness destroying (in a way) evidence: Flynn kept *off* his email briefing to transition officials that he'd discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Why? He knew that he'd committed a crime under the Logan Act—why *memorialize* it?
이 스레드 보기 -
425/ On pg. 173, Mueller underscores—yet again—that he was looking at *conspiracy* only (and "coordination," but coordination defined synonymously with conspiracy). So—not bribery, or aiding and abetting, or money laundering, or illegal solicitation of in-kind campaign donations.
이 스레드 보기 -
426/ Recall the 4 categories of collusion: Collusion (conspiracy): impeachable and a crime Collusion (other crimes): impeachable and a crime Collusion (national security threat): impeachable Collusion (ethical violation): not impeachable and not a crime* *Political issue only.
이 스레드 보기 -
427/ So Mueller looked at *one* of four categories of collusion—and, at that, only the *narrowest* form of conspiracy ("with the Russian government [the IRA or the GRU]"), and not conspiracies that could have occurred on other grounds and with other parties, Russian or otherwise.
이 스레드 보기 -
428/ Wow—I'm going to *love* hearing prosecutors defend the Special Counsel's finding that you can basically "smoke if you got 'em" when it comes to receiving and distributing stolen electronic materials because, hey, what federal statute could *possibly* apply there? I mean wow.pic.twitter.com/aRtzoTIQXI
이 스레드 보기 -
429/ Now, I *will* defend Mueller—on this point—as to this much: state-level Receiving Stolen Property statutes probably *would* apply to electronic materials (in most jurisdictions) so Mueller could actually just be saying that this isn't a *federal* issue—not that it's legal.
이 스레드 보기 -
430/ But a *much* better use of CNN and MSNBC tonight would have been discussions *broadly* like this. Why wasn't this Receiving Stolen Property? Why wasn't distributing such materials the equivalent of Identity Fraud? Questions like these have yet to be discussed on major media.
이 스레드 보기 - 답글 22개 더 보기
새로운 대화 -
로딩하는데 시간이 지연되고 있습니다.
트위터의 트래픽이 폭주했거나 일시적인 문제가 발생했을 수 있습니다. 다시 시도하거나 트위터 상태 페이지를 방문하여 자세한 내용을 확인해 보세요.