Is Trump Projecting his family's, campaign's & Russia's rigging of the 2016 Election In His Present Attacks on the integrity of the vote for Biden?

[post]

Trump "won" in 2016 by 22,800 votes in Wisconsin, 10,700 votes in Michigan, 44,300 votes in Pennsylvania, but he's posturing as if close votes now are fraudulant.

Exclusive: Russian Echoes Abound in Still-Active 'Pennsylvania for Trump' Facebook Group From 2016
By June, Gina Grin was posting more often. Page 80 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report noted: "Information suggests Kilimnik understood …

Snopes.com10d

February 25, 2019

On August 2, 2016, Paul Manafort Gave Konstantin Kilimnik 75 Pages of Recent, Detailed Polling Data - emptywheel

In what was a final effort to change their explanation for why Trump's campaign manager shared campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik (or perhaps to inform co-conspirators), Manafort's lawyers also revealed there were 75 pages of the data.

www.emptywheel.net

"In what was a final effort to change their explanation for why Trump's campaign manager shared campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik (or perhaps to inform co-conspirators), Manafort's lawyers also revealed there were 75 pages of the data..."

October 14, 2019

The Criminal Investigation into Paul Manafort Was (and May Still be) Ongoing-and Likely Pertains to Trump's Ukraine Extortion - emptywheel

Documents from the filings and hearings on Manafort's breach of his plea deal suggest a real continuity between his efforts to implement a plan Konstantin Kilimnik presented to him on August 2, 2016 and the influence operations of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.

www.emptywheel.net

October 19, 2020

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/10/19/rat-****er-rashomon-trolling-for-russia/

"With one exception, the SSCI Report does a tremendous job cataloging how people with a stake in the 2016 hack-and-leak operation undermined the Russian attribution of it. It includes an entire section on Russia’s efforts to undermine the Russian attribution, in which Konstantin Kilimnik plays a starring role and Manafort significantly follows. It describes WikiLeaks’ false attribution, mentioning the Seth Rich hoax explicitly. It includes several paragraphs describing the campaign’s claimed ignorance about the source of the stolen emails, framing it in terms of the October 7 DHS/ODNI assessment.

The Campaign tried to cast doubt on the October 7 joint DHS/ODNI assessment formally attributing the activity to Russia, and was indifferent to the significance of acquiring, promoting, or disseminating materials from a Russian intelligence services hack-and-leak campaign.1436 ...

..[snip]
(U) While the Campaign was using the WikiLeaks documents, Trump cast doubt on the assessment that Russian government hackers were responsible for the hack-and-leak campaign. At the second presidential debate on October 9, Trump asserted: “maybe there is no hacking.” 1704 In testimony to the Committee, Stephen Miller claimed that the Campaign did not know who was responsible for the hacks “one way or the other.”1705 But this uncertainty did not stop Trump or Campaign officials from minimizing Russian involvement at other times, suggesting that it was an “absurd claim” to say that the Kremlin was promoting the Trump Campaign1706; that “the DNC did the ‘hacking”‘ as a distraction1707; that the Democrats were “putting [it] out” that the Russians were responsible; and that it was “unlikely” that the Russians did it1708 or that nobody knew it was Russia, and it “could also be China” or “lots of other people.”1709 According to Gates, the Campaign was “not concerned with how or who hacked” the documents, but just sought to release emails as quickly as possible. 1710
(U) Among the theories espoused by Trump Campaign officials, Manafort expressed a belief that the Ukrainians were responsible, not the Russians. 1711 Gates said that this “parroted a narrative [Konstantin] Kilimnik often supported.” 1712 According to Gates, Kilimnik also asserted that the hack could have been done by “Russian operatives in Ukraine.” 1713 Gates was not aware of Manafort asking Kilimnik “to reach out to his Russian contacts” about the source of the leaked materials, and was not himself asked to contact Kilimnik about it. 1714 The Committee has determined that this theory espoused by Kilimnik and Manafort has no factual basis.1715 Gates and others also decided to promote the story that a DNC insider had been involved in the hacks.1116

SSCI’s invocation of the doubts Trump aired in the October 9, 2016 debate is of particular note, coming as it did just days after the John Podesta release. Trump’s comment was something that Mueller’s team asked numerous witnesses about.

Continued...




"

 

[post]

Continued from last post...

"Yet SSCI doesn’t include a focused discussion of all the ways Roger Stone — who appears to have met with Trump on October 8, 2016 — undermined the Russian attribution. As noted in this post of this series, one of the affidavits targeting Stone suggests Stone optimized the release of the John Podesta emails to overwhelm any attention to that October 7 attribution statement.

Perhaps the closest the SSCI Report comes to describing Stone’s efforts to troll for Russia is where — in entirely different sections of the report — the SSCI Report documents Stone’s flip flop on the Russian role in hacking the DNC. On page 224 of the SSCI Report, it describes how Stone told Gates (in July 2016) that the stolen files may have come from Russia."

Part II
November 4, 2020

https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/11/...g-decisions-through-rat****er-rashomons-eyes/

"As noted, late Monday night, DOJ released a newly unredacted version of the Mueller Report that disclosed that, when Mueller shut down in March 2019, there were ongoing investigations, plural, into Stone’s role in the hack-and-leak. This all accords with what I laid out in my Rat****er Rashomon series, which read the four different stories of the Stone investigation so as to explain that the Stone prosecution was partly an effort to collect further information in the investigation.

I’d like to look at the newly unsealed charging language through the lens of that series. The introduction to the discussion of the hack-and-leak notes (unlike the IRA indictment) that in addition to those charged in the conspiracy, there were other co-conspirators, defining the conspiracy to include the staged releases of the documents....

....The other thing is this WikiLeaks related analysis is all campaign finance related. It doesn’t consider a pardon, about which there was communication between Stone and WikiLeaks, possibly even Don Jr or Paul Manafort and WikiLeaks. There, the question has to do with the terms, whether prosecutors have proof it was part of a quid pro quo. And, as I said before, at least as of early October, that investigation remained open.

As I laid out in my Rat****er Rashomon series, the Mueller Report has always been misread as a summary of all the things Mueller found. It’s not. It’s the explanation of charging decisions. But the footnote unsealed on Monday confirms that there were multiple charging decisions that Mueller did not make with respect to Stone — he sent those ongoing investigations to DC. And so the story told here, with significant gaps about Guccifer 2.0 and post-election, doesn’t tell the most interesting part of the story."

 

[Common Sense 1]

Another STUPID Russian collusion thread? Let it go buddy!

From the Muller report:

Mueller Report, Volume I, page 66, second paragraph:

[In particular,] the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the
Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.

 

[Rexedgar]

What did Dr. Fauci have to say?

 

[post]

Another STUPID Russian collusion thread? Let it go buddy!

From the Muller report:

Mueller Report, Volume I, page 66, second paragraph:

[In particular,] the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the
Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.

Why does this matter? It is important to establish whether Roger Stone blackmailed President Trump into issuing a commutation of his sentence, fine, and post incarceration supervised probation period.

It is important because it is now, "pardon season" until noon on January 20, 2021 !

Some Details of Mueller's GRU Indictment You Probably Missed - emptywheel

When the Mueller team obtained the GRU indictment in July 2018, they still didn't know whether Roger Stone would eventually be charged in the conspiracy. Confirmation of that makes certain details of the indictment far more intriguing.

www.emptywheel.net

by emptywheel November 12, 2020 :
"When the Mueller team wrote the GRU indictment, they were hiding that Roger Stone might one day be included in it.

Last week, DOJ unsealed language making it clear that, when Mueller closed up shop in March 2019, they were still investigating whether Roger Stone was part of a conspiracy with Russia’s GRU to hack-and-leak documents stolen from the Democrats in 2016.

The Office determined that it could not pursue a Section 1030 conspiracy charge against Stone for some of the same legal reasons. The most fundamental hurdles, though, are factual ones.1279 As explained in Volume I, Section III.D.1, supra, Corsi’s accounts of his interactions with Stone on October 7, 2016 are not fully consistent or corroborated. Even if they were, neither Corsi’s testimony nor other evidence currently available to the Office is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone knew or believed that the computer intrusions were ongoing at the time he ostensibly encouraged or coordinated the publication of the Podesta emails. Stone’s actions would thus be consistent with (among other things) a belief that he was aiding in the dissemination of the fruits of an already completed hacking operation perpetrated by a third party, which would be a level of knowledge insufficient to establish conspiracy liability. See State v. Phillips, 82 S.E.2d 762, 766 (N.C. 1954) (“In the very nature of things, persons cannot retroactively conspire to commit a previously consummated crime.”) (quoted in Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 5.03, at 442 (1985)).
1279 Some of the factual uncertainties are the subject of ongoing investigations that have been referred by this Office to the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office.

That means, eight months after they charged a bunch of GRU officers for the hack-and-leak, DOJ still hadn’t decided whether Stone had criminally participated in that very same conspiracy.

That raises questions about why they obtained the indictment before deciding whether to include Stone in it. ....
...........
................."

 

[SMTA]

What did Dr. Fauci have to say?

The blue squirrel will pirouette tonight in the moon light. Pass it on.