3. I always recall the NYT piece—with major scoop of leaked McFarland emails—included this tantalizing nugget of a planned meeting with President-elect Trump later that same day. Raising Q of what Trump knew
4. All this lying to FBI by Trump team raises BIG question whether it was coordinated, which could seriously implicate Trump in actions that even @AlanDersh thinks is a crime for a President to commit.
5. Coordinated lying to FBI could implicate Priebus, McGahn.
Priebus, McGahn create 6-page memo which close observers know is FALSE. Memo is fiction saying Flynn lied to Trump team about Russia call. (Priebus himself was told of Rus sanction call in Dec '16 per McFarland email.)
6. According to @realBobWoodward's book, Trump's lawyers give the Priebus-McGahn memo to Mueller's team.
So, the question there is: Did Priebus and McGahn know that their false memo would be used to inform/try to mislead the federal investigators?
7. WaPo suggests to me McFarland likely still lied in her revised account.
A Q is date, time of her second FBI interview.
WaPo says was "not long after Flynn’s plea." But was it before NYT report with leaked emails? Did she continue to lie not knowing emails would be released?
8. Even if second interview was after emails were released, McFarland's telling FBI that "a GENERAL statement Flynn had made to her that things were going to be okay COULD have been a reference to sanctions" is directly contradicted by emails and Mueller documents in Flynn plea.
9. McFarland told FBI her first false statement was because she'd "spoken from memory, without the benefit of any documents that could have helped her remember her exchanges."
That's a joke
Plus WaPo has McFarland on record saying re Flynn call's details: “It sticks in my mind"
10. WaPo also shows McFarland seems to have lied to reporters saying she spoke with Flynn about Russia call after "she had left...Mar-a-Lago, where she had been staying with other members of the transition team."
Truth: She was at M-L with transition team and they were in on it.
11. I'd love to know answer to this question FBI surely asked:
"Ms. McFarland, what did you mean in your email to other transition officials in Dec. '16 when you wrote, 'Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him.'”?
12. In sum, the Flynn-McFarland story lines have direct implications for both:
• obstruction of justice (whether there was a coordinated effort to lie to federal investigators)
• the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation itself (why do you think they were lying?)
<end>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. My <thread>
WSJ SCOOP on Peter Smith's 2016 operation to get Clinton emails
● WSJ raises specter Smith was killed, not suicide
● Emails involve payments to “Russian students”
● 4+ financiers
● Mueller expanding interest in Smith group
● potential ties to Flynn/Trump
...
2. First, recall multiple reports that Peter Smith’s operation was potentially linked to Flynn/Trump campaign.
Ex-British security officer GCHQ Matt Tait (@pwnallthethings), who was approached by Smith, assessed Smith's "group was formed with the blessing of the Trump campaign."
3. Smith himself told @shaneharris—who broke the original story—of line of communication with Flynn, and Smith's emails “show that his small group considered Mr. Flynn and his consulting company…to be allies in their quest" for Clinton emails
<thread> Did Kavanaugh commit perjury telling the Senate Judiciary Committee and Committee staff that first time he heard of Ramirez allegations was in Sept. 23 New Yorker article?
Here's some evidence for (incriminating) and against (exculpatory) a claim of perjury...1/
Incriminating: This exchange with Sen. Hatch during Senate testimony on Thursday, Sept. 27:
HATCH: "When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?"
KAVANAUGH: "In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story." 2/
Incriminating: In Sept. 25, 2018 interview with Senate Judiciary staff, Kavanaugh even more explicitly and more clearly denied knowing about the Ramirez allegation "before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd." 3/
Kavanaugh vs. Yale college friends, classmates (from both parties)
Excessive drinking, including to point of not recalling events?
"Kavanaugh portrayed himself in his testimony as enjoying a beer or two...but not as someone who often drank to excess during those years." 1/
“Nearly a DOZEN people who knew him well or socialized with him said Judge Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker in college. Dr. Swisher said she saw him 'very drunk' a number of times...freshmen year roommate, described his stumbling in at all hours of the night.” (NYT) 2/
Dr Swisher: “Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling.” "It’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess” WaPo 3/
1. Kavanaugh: In H.S., I was focused on studying and sports and did and saw nothing outrageous in H.S. parties
Not asked: How do you then explain the apparently grotesque sexual (and alcohol) references in your Yearbook?
<thread>...
2. Kavanaugh: My Yale roommate James Roche (who said "believable" Kav engaged in Ramirez sexual assault) does not corroborate the incident.
Not asked: What about other Yale student told of incident at the time and says “one-hundred-per-cent sure” Kavanaugh named as perpetrator?
3. Kavanaugh: I hung out with wholesome and decent friends in HS
Not asked: What about your reportedly close friendship with the misogynist Mark Judge (whose own girlfriend of three years says he admits to engaging in a sexual assault)?
<thread> on Dr Ford longtime friend's (Leland Keyser) statement to Senate:
1 discredits Grassley saying this "directly contradict(s)" Ford
2 undermines Kavanaugh defense of mistaken identity
3 unsurprising she doesn't recall party
4 adds to Ford’s credibility to have named her…
I’ll begin by saying opponents of Kavanaugh should not try to rationalize away Keyser’s statements.
I may not agree with the exact way he phrased/framed it, but @saletan is making these points:
#WoodwardBook is very superficial on this topic. When it does make a claim it gets stuff WRONG. 2 examples:
Woodward: “The sources that Steele used for his dossier had not been polygraphed, which made their information uncorroborated” 1/
Some Steele's sources' info had been corroborated at the time. FBI Dir Comey's declassified notes of what he told Priebus:
"I explained that the analysts from all three agencies agreed it was relevant and that portions of the material were corroborated by other intelligence.” 2/
But more BIZARRELY what on earth is Woodward saying?
Woodward: “The sources that Steele used for his dossier had not been polygraphed, which made their information uncorroborated”
Because Steele's sources weren't polygraphed, their info cannot be considered corroborated? 🙄 3/