Anthony Weiner was the first… The hypothesis: Anthony Weiner was the first to talk about Trump and Russia. Anthony Weiner’s sexting case was a sting operation by FBI and others to tarnish Mrs. Clinton by association, it led to October 28 Letter and benefited Trump.

Share this article
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Recent Posts In Brief 

The World Web TimesNews | Photos | Audio and Video | Politics | Trump | |  Security | Reviews | Analysis | Current Topics | Opinions | Links | PostsLocal | Guides | Classifieds

Current and Selected News Stories In Brief – Front Page

Trump – Current News Stories 

Trump – Selected News Stories 

Anthony Weiner was the first…

The hypothesis: Anthony Weiner was the first to talk about Trump and Russia.
Anthony Weiner’s sexting case was a sting operation by FBI and others to tarnish Mrs. Clinton by association, it led to October 28 Letter and benefited Trump.

Selected News Stories

ANTHONY WEINER WAS THE FIRST TO TALK ABOUT TRUMP’S CONNECTIONS WITH RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS, WEINER’S SENTENCE IS TRUMP’S REVENGE | ANTHONY WEINER SEEKS TO RESCHEDULE SENTENCING FOR SEXTING A MINOR

See also:

Trump, Putin, and Reopening of Emails Investigation – News Review

________________________

By Michael Novakhov, editor of the “TrumpInvestigations.org“ 

These matters, it seems to me:

are of the utmost importance for understanding the nature of these events, and they might be among the key issues in

My impression and hypothesis, based on the reading of the press reports at that time, is that these issues are interconnected and represent the plan and actions of: 

My impressions and hypotheses also are that it was, very likely, the FBI’s (with the possible participation of the broad range of other actors, such as elements in the NYPD and, assumingly, some foreign agents also, trying to influence the elections ),

Did the foreign and the 

These operations might have been in their planning stages for some time, it looks like, maybe 2-3 years. They were triggered at that particular moment expeditiously for clearly political purposes: to sway the elections, which tended at that time in Mrs. Clinton’s favor.

had the goals of tarnishing Mrs. Clinton for her direct relationship and association with Huma Abedin and, indirect ones with Anthony Weiner. Various salacious and lowly rumors were spread at that time about them, intensifying in pitch and crescendo up to the Election day, with the traces to the 

  • Russian sources, e.g., TV programs, with the apparently similar purposes of tarnishing them and her. 

In these circumstances, it is useful to recall that 

My artistic imagination tells me that Mr. Trump could hardly afford, for his temperamental and other reasons, to disregard this attack on him and his budding political reputation, and he and his circles decided, in some, one or another fashion of the decision-making, to 1) get back at Weiner, 2) to silence him, 3) to close this dangerous avenue of pre-election discussions, 4) to ridicule and to tarnish him, and by association, the political rival and opponent, preferably with some sexual innuendos conveyed and confirmed by the “real stuff and means”, such as “emails”, “sexting”, or “server”.  These terms acquired the mystical proportions in the public imagination, which apparently is somewhat milder than mine. The use of the same tactics, namely, the explicit videos, reminds the 

So, in my same individual imagination, mixed with some reasoning and facts, that’s how

appeared on the political horizon. And, if this hypothesis is correct, and if this case is indeed the result of some kind of the plot and/or political machinations, I, in my very humble opinion of the blogger cum 

think, that not only the sentencing should be postponed, but the whole case should be reopened and reinvestigated, which might be of the certain value to all Trump investigations. 

The questions with the focus on these, described above circumstances, are: 

  • First, the familiar mantra: What did Mr. Trump know about this hypothetical political plot in
  • What and when did the others, including the “T-people”, the
    • Trump people”, and Kallstrom and Giuliani, know about it?
  • And the whole tree of the follow-up and the surrounding sub-questions, not the least curious among them: How did thousands of emails (not the occasional hundreds of ones, needed for work) end up on the Abedin-Weiner computer, other than been dumped in it deliberately and for the clearly political purposes of swaying the Elections in Mr. Trump favor, and, very possibly, by the hostile intelligence services, such as Russians, Germans, or the significant others?

The proper attention to this aspect of the investigations can bring Trump down more than anything else. 

In assessing Mr. Mueller’s Investigation, 

made this astute observation: “Given the utter unwillingness to even embrace the reality of the Russian hack by the White House and the slow roll of the GOP controlled Congress, I’m not optimistic that the truth will emerge on Capitol Hill. And as something of an expert on 

I hope that this is not and will not be the case. 

__________________________

Links and References

Related Information:

Mueller’s Russia probe: Nothing is unrelated now

1 Share

The New York Times recently asked President Trump, “if Mueller was looking at your finances and your family finances unrelated to Russia, is that a red line?”

He  responded , in part: “I would say yeah. I would say yes.”

To understand the discussion, one must be familiar with the mandate itself and the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 600, which govern the conduct of the Special Counsel.

On May 17, 2017, “to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,” Acting Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the Justice Department.

Rosenstein’s order authorizes the special counsel “to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before that House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, and

iii) any other matters with the scope of 28 C.F.R. Section 600.4(a).”

Section 600.4(a)

 grants the special counsel the authority to “investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with the intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and intimidation of witnesses.”

During his March 20, 2017 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Investigations referenced in Rosenstein’s order, Comey

testified

 that: “I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.”

Broad scope

Taken all together, Mueller’s investigative mandate is broad.

Its scope seems clear and includes investigating:

(1) Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election;

(2) the nature of any links between the Russian government and any and all individuals associated with the Trump presidential campaign;

(3) the nature of any coordination between the Russian government and any and all individuals associated with the Trump presidential campaign;

(4) any matters that have arisen out of the Russian election interference investigation;

(5) any matters that might arise directly from the Russian election interference investigation; and

(6) any federal crimes committed in the course of or with the intent to interfere with the investigation.

The core question is not a simple one: whether there were any links and/or coordination between the Trump campaign and representatives of the Russian government (“collusion” in the term popularized by the media; “conspiracy” in legal terms). This is because direct evidence of any collusion or conspiracy may be difficult to come by. 

________________________________________


Share this article
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *