its been about 3 posts since i sourced that for you...

I think you might be running into Brian Ross misreporting something.
All the original reports are saying December 2016, when he was president-elect Trump, not candidate Trump, and all the buzz surrounding Brian Ross's tweet is calling it out as such.

If that's accurate it would be something new indeed and we'd have to reevaluate it all from the start. But I think we're just watching bad reporting

I'm not sure how you can say this. Mueller has the authority(given to him by Trump's deputy AG) to look into these other issues outside of strictly campaign officials colluding with Russia. He's using whatever facts he can find to flip people, in order to get to the truth of what happened during the campaign.

Do you actually expect Mueller's endgame to be charging Trump officials with violating the Logan Act?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/01/flynn-to-testify-trump-ordered-him-to-contact-russians-reports.html

Money quote:

I think a lot of things could happen.

1. that report may be accurate, unlikely but possible
2. that may be accurate but not proven yet by flynn yet, it could just be jumping the gun on something that will eventually be proven true
3. someone else exposed by Flynn could be a key in implicating trump personally
4. flynn may have only been vaguely let believe that trump wanted him to do this so he could be a fall guy with no link to trump
5. insiders in his campaign could have been directing advisers to act on trumps behalf without trumps knowledge
6. trump is innocent but negligent in acting in mind numbingly bad optics territory instead of waiting a short time
7. trumps innocent


there are a lot of possibilities, given that Mueller hasn't has the leaks that the DOJ or FBI has had the info is far from out there. which is why i'm waiting to speculate about how i was right all along, but u can do what u want.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 1 2017 01:40pm

If Mueller wanted to know the truth of what happened in the diplomacy after the election he could have asked any 2-bit foreign policy analyst in washington
Exactly what good does it do to get leverage to expose Flynn/Kushner/Pence/Trump lying or misleading about the the back channel diplomacy after the fact?
If his end-game is to cause Trump enough political trouble to throw his presidency into jeopardy, that's a great way to accomplish it. If his goal was to find evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia during the campaign, that's a poor place to look.
What's the best case scenario, that he could crowbar his way into sensitive diplomatic channels just to figure out whether there's a whiff of any pre-existing arrangements?
Is he going to look at the lengths Flynn had to go through to set up a channel to Russia (and still get spied on) and use this as evidence to exonerate Trump, since it demonstrates the opposite?

He was tasked with looking into whether Trump colluded with Russia to cheat the election. If he's using all his powers to go after complete tangents, process violations and now dig into politically explosive diplomatic squabbles, that's painting a partisan picture.

They're directly citing Brian Ross's video
That's not an original report, its just that detail spreading from one point outwards. It could still be true or false, but that's very easily explained by Brian Ross being a dumbass



In the context of this tweet from Brian Ross, all we can do is base our analysis and speculation on the available facts.
And sure that report could be accurate, but its unlikely but possible. But its not like we can take every tinfoil hat allegation from conspiracy nutters to be credible when factoring into the equation
I read this story and all I see is every single detail about what's been testified and sworn to matches 100% what I've said in the murky analysis I've posted for 11 months, except this one detail by Ross that's probably chalked up to him being a bad reporter
Now if Ross's detail is true, I might have to throw out my timeline and narrative and start anew, or figure out how it can be reconciled.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Dec 1 2017 01:50pm

(pants tighten)

That's a strange way to look at today's developments. Mueller just flipped one of the top campaign and former administration officials, the guy who was around Trump constantly. We can speculate on what Flynn could've been charged with, but it's safe to assume he has something substantial to tell Mueller's investigators. It's hard for me to believe the extent of what Flynn knows is that Trump directed him to create a back channel to Russia during the transition.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 1 2017 01:57pm

or that Flynns lawyers would cut off contact with Trumps over transition directives.