I didn't expect much from somebody who wrote an article in 65 twitter messages
So, there is a currently popular story about a Seth Abramson Twitter diatribe masquerading as journalism, which I was nearly able to ignore. However, after digging through the content buried in his choppy presentation, I realized that he spent a long time saying almost nothing. My response seemed too long to be a comment, so I’m creating this diary.
In what follows, I have first turned his collection of sentences into a single entry, and then split them back up into categories that I think describe what each of the fragments contributes to his story. Note that I may have split up individual tweets into separate sections, but I have omitted nothing. I have also left all of the content in the original relative order within a section.
The brief version of this is that his article appears to me to contain absolutely no original reporting. That’s fine, but we have to recognize that it’s an opinion piece based on conclusions he’s drawn about public sources, not any new information he has uncovered. Unfortunately, his conclusions seem to either be generic ones that could apply to a huge range of investigations, complete speculation tied to no specific facts, or platitudes that don’t really add to our understanding.
Specific, testable assertions
So, this is probably the only interesting part of the story from my perspective. He claims to be able to foretell how parts of this story will unfold, and to the extent that he’s right that would be interesting information. I present these here so that we can go back at some point to see how many he got right, keeping in mind that a number of them are really speculation of the “Don’t be shocked if...” variety rather than hard predictions:
-
The estimated timeline for an indictment under these specific circumstances (direct notice of future indictment to target): 15 to 60 days.
-
So the first indictment will come in the window I and other lawyers predicted when Mueller was appointed: 3 to 6 months post-appointment.
-
Expect a line from Republicans to the effect of, "Well, we knew this was coming for Paul, and this may have *nothing* to do with Trump."
-
He'll [Manafort] be hammered—and Mueller will add more as he gets it.
-
Trump WILL be impeached. I say that not as a Dem but an experienced criminal lawyer and someone who's researched this case for 9 months.
-
So we now know that the Trump-Russia scandal will go to DEFCON 1 either this month or next. It'd be a *shock* if it takes till November. [ed. note: "Save up to 50% or more!" Either it happens in September or October, or it happens in November or later.]
-
So what happens if Manafort flips? First: it'll leak very quickly, and Mueller knows that.
-
What we *do* know is that tonight's news means a slew of new Trump campaign-Russia contacts we didn't know about until earlier tonight. [ed. note: Not sure exactly what specifically he thinks we know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.]
-
So watch the president *very* carefully over the next week—because there's every reason to think tonight's news inculpates Donald Trump. [ed. note: Not specific about what to watch for, but I'll allow it.]
-
My point—I've said it before and I'll say it again, Trump is THE target of Mueller's probe.
-
We learned today that Ty Cobb—a Trump WH attorney—is telling him he's going to be *fine* when it is manifestly clear that that is false. If or when Trump gets competent counsel—he doesn't have it now—he'll *finally* be told he's a goner and he'll react quickly and rashly.
-
So don't be surprised if tonight's breaking news stories lead to a shake-up on Trump's personal and/or WH legal team in the coming days.
-
And don't be shocked if the shake-up leads to Trump learning the truth of his situation and starting to threaten Mueller publicly again.
-
I know it's hard to keep feeling Trump will be impeached; he will be.
Complete speculation with no backing facts
The following section of things are things that are either complete speculation (“may well prove”, “could be”) or are stated as facts with no evidence behind them.
-
This would (a) explain why the FISA warrant story involving Manafort leaked today, and (b) seem to answer "Who will be indicted first?"
-
NOTE: This means Mueller likely has a transcript of Manafort's mid-January call to Priebus urging Trump to use Russian kompromat on Clinton.
-
NOTE #2: That transcript may well prove that Manafort, Kushner, and Don Jr. *did* tell Trump about their 2016 meeting with Kremlin agents.
-
NOTE #3: The chance these transcripts contain evidence against Trump for Obstruction and/or Witness Tampering (as to Manafort) is also high.
-
NOTE #4: *This* could be the FISA warrant that establishes the "smoking gun" on Russia. The feds now think Manafort was encouraging Russia.
-
What we know of the Manafort investigation suggests Mueller has the charges to possibly put Manafort away for life. And that will be key. If Paul Manafort is looking at the rest of his life in a
federal prison, the chances that he flips on President Trump rise exponentially.
-
Flynn building a seven-figure/seven-person legal team suggests he plans to be a loyal soldier and not flip. *Or* Mueller won't offer it.
-
Kushner would be a top flip target but he's family; turning on Trump would end his marriage. And he may be *willing* to do a brief bid. We can't forget that Kushner's father—his biological father—went to prison. So Jared may have a higher tolerance for the idea than most.
-
Carter Page was interviewed by the FBI more hours (10) than anyone. But he appears to be a Russophile ideologue—so, less likely to flip.
-
There's no doubt Mueller is being aggressive. And no doubt we've seen only a fraction of what *he* has—so he must have seen *bad stuff*.
-
What I'm saying is, even though we're pre-indictment, tonight's news changes everything in the probe from a legal/strategic standpoint. Note that we don't *know* the Manafort tap picked up
Trump. But it's likely—given the men talked and taps are non-selective once set up.
-
Today's news Sen. Grassley (R) still plans a bill preventing Trump from firing Mueller (despite Trump's denials he's considering it) suggests that those in Congress on Intel and Judiciary caught wind of tonight's news (or the equivalent) well before all of us did.
-
Remember: we already know Manafort spoke to Priebus about anti-Clinton kompromat in January; Priebus blocked him from getting to Trump. But we long ago learned that people do *end-arounds* past POTUS' CoS. So we should assume Manafort reached Trump by phone on that issue.
-
So the *manner* of the Manafort raid is more likely about *Trump* than just getting one more doc in a mountain of money-laundering docs. (Only exception: if the FBI had suddenly been tipped off on a *single* and *unreplicable* doc—like a private ledger—in Manafort's home.) But do you also *subpoena a man's attorneys* in a money-laundering case? No—unless the real case is POTUS *or* that man gives you POTUS.
Generic information that could be Law And Order quotes
There is also a lot of stuff I view as filler that takes the form of generic observations about how investigations normally proceed, what strategies prosecutors use, etc., without much tying it to this specific situation.
-
Reasons for this sort of notice include telling suspect to stay in jurisdiction; initiating CI talks; preventing destruction of evidence.
-
That the FBI got a FISA warrant on a presidential campaign's Manager and then got it *renewed* means they had something good on Manafort.
-
But understand that federal prosecutors don't bluster. If Mueller's agents told Manafort he will be indicted, Manafort will be indicted.
-
A prosecutor would wait to threaten indictment until he had more.
-
Remember, one reason to charge Manafort first is to get him to talk about Trump. He won't do that unless he's facing the *maximum* pain. So any criminal lawyer will say, don't expect rinky-dink charges on Manafort.
-
But by throwing the book at him, Mueller sends a message to other Trump aides: *flip now*.
-
When I say all is happening on the timeline I predicted, I only say it to say things are proceeding just as *any* attorney would expect. Any experienced criminal attorney will say you don't see this much smoke without fire—and the pace the fire is unfolding is anticipated. Poor person in a state court? Yes—things would go faster.
-
So he'd want to be *ready* to move on others. Why? The moment any flip leaks, destruction of evidence and possible flight and secret witness-tampering plots go into *overdrive* ASAP. That said, a leaked flip could *also* lead to a "rush to the courthouse": witnesses rushing to flip and get deals before they're gone. So Mueller must balance the chance of unanticipated gains coming from a high-profile flip and dangers/resource drains stemming from it. Cooperating
individuals need protection/management, as many people want to tamper with them or even (in a big case like this) hurt them. Details of a flipped witness' proffer leak about the same time as the leak of the flip—giving others tips on how to change their story. Prosecutors may gain access to new flippable witnesses, but they *also* immediately *lose* access to any then-cooperative probe targets. That's why I say Mueller has to have all his ducks in a row on the day that he signs any sort of deal with a witness like Paul Manafort. He also needs to play the *pre*-flip period right: just having witnesses think Manafort *could* flip could send them running to Mueller.
-
So why did Mueller seek a *no-knock, pre-dawn warrant* on Manafort? Usually only done in cases where destruction of evidence is likely? It suggests to me—as a former criminal attorney/investigator—that Mueller was looking for evidence of something beyond financial crimes. It's often possible to get financial records from various sources, and usually there isn't a single toilet-flushable, "smoking gun" doc.
-
Here's where tonight's news about how *bad* Trump's lawyers are—they were discussing confidential information in public—comes into play. As I saw in countless cases, *bad* criminal defense attorneys (usually highly paid ones) have a tell: telling clients they'll be *fine*.
The rest of it
The remaining bits are just observations that don’t seem to fit into any of the categories above, and don’t really warrant their own special section.
-
NOTE #5: It's telling the FBI was able to get this secret warrant. Telling that word of it leaked. Trump staffers' reported terror? Telling. [ed. note: Not clear on what it is telling me.]
-
I said in my recent AMA that Mueller will need two or more flips to get Trump.
-
Given tonight's FISA news we don't know if Mueller's plan is to indict Manafort for money laundering *or* something closer to espionage.
-
Manafort is a hard man—perhaps he won't flip.
-
Bringing down a POTUS via a complex federal probe? This is just how that goes.
-
Historians will disagree on "the beginning of the end" of Trump. But his campaign manager getting indicted? That'll be a *popular* pick.
-
Don't forget Trump only fired Manafort because he had to—and Manafort continued living in Trump Tower and speaking to Trump thereafter.
-
Every choice made is made with that in mind.
-
Today ranks, taken in sum, as the biggest day of news in the Trump-Russia scandal since the appointment of Bob Mueller way back in May. I know it's hard to accept investigations take this long; they do.
-
Carl Bernstein implied tonight Rick Dearborn could flip.
-
Carl Bernstein is wrong to say the indictment could be a FARA. Mueller's pre-dawn raid, grand jury interview of Manafort's spox, and large money laundering prosecutor team say this is more than FARA. That said, when prosecutors indict, they indict on *all* they have at the time. So Manafort will face FARA and likely other charges too. [ed. note: this is incoherent. He's saying "Bernstein is wrong, except that he's right, but just doesn't go as far as I would."]
-
That's why CNN's scoop tonight matters—and not just the NYT's. CNN says the FBI has Russians claiming additional contacts with Manafort.
[EDIT] Note that, to the extent that I don’t accidentally overlook a comment, I will be recommending everybody who responds to the diary, regardless of whether or not I agree with the content of your reply. I appreciate you taking the time to read and reply, and it is in that vein that I make the recommendation.
