Mueller's "primary target" is obvious - Trump

Attorney and professor Seth Abramson recently ran a long Twitter thread taking apart the Times story of the latest Flynn development in Mueller's investigation in which Flynn's attorneys stopped sharing information with Trump's.

Here are a few highlights:

Flynn is obviously very close to the top of Mueller's list. Who would be between Flynn and Trump? Perhaps Jared Kushner. Manafort? Certainly not many. If Mueller is flipping witnesses as high up the chain as Flynn, he's very, very close to the top.

Indeed, mainstream analyses - and Trump himself - seem to focus only on the "collusion" aspect of the investigation.

Abramson is telling us that Flynn and Trump both have the same - or very similar - legal liability.

But, here, Abramson tells us that Flynn being flipped is not the only reason to quit sharing attorney info.

Everything about the Trump campaign and his presidency is "ethically dubious," so I don't find that an argument worth too much consideration. It seems quite possible to me that Flynn has finally realized he's not getting a pardon - something that would make his attorneys pull out of any deals they thought they had with Trump.

At any rate, Abramson has let a little of the air out of my bubble by pointing out that Flynn hasn't necessarily flipped. On the other hand, I think it would not be unreasonable to think that he may well have, especially in light of the possibility that he would do that in order to secure in trade some leniency for his son, who is involved in Flynn's Turkey dealings (and possible kidnapping scheme).

Here, regardless of whether he's cooperating with Mueller, is a reminder that Kushner is heavily involved in all this:

And I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that Trump's team ultimately tries to pin the blame for everything on Kushner and portray Trump as an innocent dupe. I'm sure Mr. Mueller will be working on that argument, though, and Kushner may well be the last peg before he interviewsTrump.

Be sure to read Abramson's entire thread if you read the New York Times story. He ends with this:

I'm encouraged to see that Abramson believes that Trump will eventually be tried, but I'm having a hard time thinking Trump was smart enough to keep anything hidden out of a smart play. On the other hand, if he were taking points from Bannon and Roger Stone - and he was - both of them would have been smart enough. And maybe, this is what Abramson means, without stating it - somebody running Trump knew enough to try to keep the Russian involvement on the down low.

I'd like to hear a Preet Bharara podcast take on the Flynn development. Maybe we'll get one. This morning he was to talk with Jake Tapper about it. As soon as I can find video of that, I'll post it here.

Also, just now on Abramson's Twitter page:

UPDATE:

Preet Bharara begins at 14:35