Mueller's investigation of Trump

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3651

Post by Slim Cognito » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:57 am

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/politics ... index.html
Trump sees Nunes memo as a way to discredit the Russia investigation



....Trump was upset Wednesday in the wake of the FBI's statement challenging the release of the a controversial memo crafted by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes, a Trump ally. The statement was issued just hours after the President made clear he wanted the document public.
....
The FBI, led by a director that Trump handpicked after he fired James Comey last May, released a harshly worded statement Wednesday afternoon condemning the release of a four-page memo that alleges surveillance abuses on behalf of the FBI and Justice Department.
....
But another person said Trump is so frustrated with the Russia investigation and, in turn, Rosenstein that he may look for any opportunity to build a case for Rosenstein's firing. He could argue that Rosenstein failed to scrutinize the information initially used to request the warrant and therefore didn't do his due diligence....


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 697
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3652

Post by fierceredpanda » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:10 am

Politico: Russia probe lawyers think Mueller could indict Trump
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation has gathered enough steam that some lawyers representing key Donald Trump associates are considering the possibility of a historic first: an indictment against a sitting president.

While many legal experts contend that Mueller lacks the standing to bring criminal charges against Trump, at least two attorneys working with clients swept up in the Russia probe told POLITICO they consider it possible that Mueller could indict the president for obstruction of justice.

Neither attorney claimed to have specific knowledge of Mueller’s plans. Both based their opinions on their understanding of the law; one also cited his interactions with the special counsel’s team, whose interviews have recently examined whether Trump tried to derail the probe into his campaign’s Russia ties.

“If I were a betting man, I’d bet against the president,” said one of the lawyers.

The second attorney, who represents a senior Trump official, speculated that Mueller could try to bring an indictment against Trump even if he expects the move to draw fierce procedural challenges from the president’s lawyers – if only to demonstrate the gravity of his findings.

“It’s entirely possible that Mueller may go that route on the theory that, as an open question, it should be for the courts to decide,” the attorney said. “Even if the indictment is dismissed, it puts maximum pressure on Congress to treat this with the independence and intellectual honesty that it will never, ever get."
Posting this here even though it flies in the face of my continued assertion that Mueller will not attempt to indict Trump because the current DOJ rules do not permit it. However, as a means to try to force Congress to take the matter more seriously, I could see Mueller viewing requesting an indictment as the best of a limited menu of options.

However, the article ends with a major caveat, more congruent with my own personal opinion - and a warning for Team Trump:
One of the Russia defense attorneys also suggested what he called a “jujitsu move”: naming Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in a larger obstruction of justice case that targets one or more associates.

Whatever Mueller and his deputies have planned, the attorney said, it is not likely to be anticlimactic.

“There’s a sense of confidence I feel when I’m with them,” said the same lawyer. “Their level of confidence has grown, and that’s a body language thing.”


"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 3937
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3653

Post by pipistrelle » Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:07 am




User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3654

Post by Slim Cognito » Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:18 pm

I know the focus of that photo was supposed to be Mueller, but I get all doe-eyed whenever I see a pix of Obama, these days.

(Not doe eyes in an inappropriate sense. It's almost melancholy.)


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 7121
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3655

Post by Kendra » Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:49 pm

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... mp-jr.html

One interesting bit in this story that won't let me c/p dagnabit, is it says that Hicks and Jr were texting during the airplane discussion.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14552
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3656

Post by Reality Check » Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:23 pm

Here you go:
The New York Times is reporting additional details about the drafting on Air Force One of the false statement that Donald Trump Jr. provided to the press about the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower campaign meeting with Russians, as well as a previously undisclosed conversation among the president and his aides the following day concerning the potential risks and ramifications of the false statement. One participant in this later conversation—Mark Corallo, who served as a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team at the time—will reportedly reveal everything he knows to special counsel Robert Mueller. The conversation reportedly included a suggestion by White House communications director Hope Hicks that the Trump Jr. emails setting up the Russia meeting “will never get out.” Corallo reportedly resigned shortly after the episode due to his concerns that it involved an obstruction of justice.

1. What are the implications for the obstruction of justice investigation?

The Times report continues to add to the accumulation of evidence that could shed light on the president’s intent when he took actions that interfered with the investigation of his 2016 campaign. As such, and contrary to the belief of some unnamed “lawyers” referenced in the article, this information is directly relevant to Mueller’s investigation and will certainly be of interest to the special counsel when he questions the president.

Specifically, these new revelations show the president’s direct engagement with efforts to provide a false narrative about his campaign’s interactions with the Russians. In establishing Trump’s intent, it will be important to show what he knew when he asked FBI director James Comey to go easy on Michael Flynn, when he asked senior intelligence officials to get Comey to drop the case, and when he later fired Comey. Trump might very well claim that as a presidential candidate and now as president, he operates at such a high altitude and cannot be aware of all of the details of his campaign, the investigation, and the actions of his staff. These new revelations show, however, that when the president was literally flying at 30,000 feet, he was very much involved in the details of drafting a false statement about the particularities of a meeting between his campaign and the Russians.

What’s more, the Air Force One episode helps to show the “there there.” A perspective that is beginning to emerge is that Mueller will not be able to put forward an obstruction allegation (either as a criminal charge or in a report as a possible basis for impeachment) absent substantive charges, because it will be most unlikely to secure a conviction for obstruction without a showing that some real crime was being hidden or protected. While it is true that an obstruction charge is strengthened by proof of underlying wrongdoing, it does not necessarily follow that absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an underlying crime dooms the obstruction charge. In any event, this episode shows that the president very badly wanted to hide the involvement of the Russians in his campaign. We don’t yet know why—whether it was to hide a crime or for political reasons. But what’s clear is he wanted it kept secret. That is the “there there” for the obstruction allegations. It helps show that when the president interfered with the investigation, it was not because he thought it was a waste of time and there was nothing to find, but rather because information existed that he did not want to come to light (whether because it showed criminal activity or would be politically damaging). That bolsters the obstruction case.
:snippity:
Further, as an evidentiary matter, Corallo had direct knowledge of all these events, and is a cooperating witness who can testify about all these facts. Corallo also contemporaneously told several people about the events and memorialized them in written notes, all of which will bolster the reliability of his account. What also caught our eye is that during the key meeting, “Ms. Hicks was sending frequent text messages to Donald Trump Jr., who was in New York.” Mueller’s team should be able to get ahold of those communications.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 7121
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3657

Post by Kendra » Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:35 pm

That's it. Oh boy :popcorn:



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7377
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3658

Post by Orlylicious » Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:44 pm

Stern's pal Ronald Rotunda makes an appearance in a POLITICO story!
Russia probe lawyers think Mueller could indict Trump
Many legal scholars doubt a U.S. vs. Trump case is possible, but two attorneys who have dealt with special counsel Robert Mueller's team disagree. One expects Mueller to move as early as this spring.
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN 02/02/2018 05:00 AM EST
Several legal scholars say an effort by special counsel Robert Mueller to initiate a case titled U.S. vs. Trump would, at a minimum, likely move quickly to the Supreme Court.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation has gathered enough steam that some lawyers representing key Donald Trump associates are considering the possibility of a historic first: an indictment against a sitting president. While many legal experts contend that Mueller lacks the standing to bring criminal charges against Trump, at least two attorneys working with clients swept up in the Russia probe told POLITICO they consider it possible that Mueller could indict the president for obstruction of justice.
***
“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting President for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the President’s official duties,” Starr’s legal adviser, Ronald Rotunda, concluded in a 1998 memo first made public last summer through an open records request by The New York Times.

“In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law,” the memo said.

Despite that assertion, :roll: Rotunda said in an interview that Mueller cannot indict Trump because he has a different legal standing than Starr enjoyed. Starr’s powers were defined by an independent counsel statute that expired in 1999. Rotunda said Mueller, by contrast, effectively has the powers of a U.S. attorney and must follow all DOJ “rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies.”

That would mean Mueller is bound by the Clinton Justice Department’s 2000 memo, he said, as well as another Justice Department opinion written in 1973.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/ ... obe-384969



User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 8325
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3659

Post by Chilidog » Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:02 pm

LOL. Ronald round architectural feature



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43136
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3660

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:02 pm

Yup. Ronald McDonald Rotunda says a grand jury can indict a Democratic President, but not a Republican President because argle bargle.

That's why this clown and joke of a law professor is Larry Klayman's ethics expert. (If Klayman does it, its ethical.) Reliably right wing loony.

Image



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5578
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3661

Post by Sam the Centipede » Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:09 pm

Ronald Rotunda might dress up his "it was correct to attack the President Clinton then but it's not correct to attack President Trump now" volte face as an opinion about the law, but I interpret his view more skeptically: IOKIYAR.



TexasFilly
Posts: 17523
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3662

Post by TexasFilly » Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:16 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:02 pm
Yup. Ronald McDonald Rotunda says a grand jury can indict a Democratic President, but not a Republican President because argle bargle.

That's why this clown and joke of a law professor is Larry Klayman's ethics expert. (If Klayman does it, its ethical.) Reliably right wing loony.

Image
:rotflmao:

I thought Rotunda was raicha's buddy?


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3663

Post by Foggy » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:56 am

Not raicha's buddy at all. IIRC, he came to our attention because he had endorsed Orly for Secretary of State of California (and quickly unendorsed her).


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you are trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23536
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3664

Post by bob » Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:29 pm

Foggy wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:56 am
Not raicha's buddy at all. IIRC, he came to our attention because he had endorsed Orly for Secretary of State of California (and quickly unendorsed her).
Too also: He once made a stray comment that could have been interpreted as birther curious. When birthers flooded him with attention, he clarified that they were :crazy: .


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3665

Post by Foggy » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:05 pm

Yeah, and then Orly did some raging about how the Obots got to him.

Good times! :lol:


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you are trying to say?
:think:

TexasFilly
Posts: 17523
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3666

Post by TexasFilly » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:07 pm

Foggy wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:56 am
Not raicha's buddy at all. IIRC, he came to our attention because he had endorsed Orly for Secretary of State of California (and quickly unendorsed her).
I seem to remember that our intrepid raicha emailed him about that endorsement and he wrote back, dialing some stuff back. But I'm too lazy to look for it. :blink:


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3667

Post by Slim Cognito » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:24 am



Video of Gowdy on Face the Nation saying, "There is a Russia investigation w/o a dossier ... the dossier has nothing to do w the meeting @ Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do w an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do w George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain."


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 7121
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3668

Post by Kendra » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:30 am

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-jr ... d=52826052
President Donald Trump's oldest son suggested on Saturday that claims by Democrats of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are ironic, since such accusations resemble McCarthyism.

"You see the Democratic senators [saying] 'This is McCarthyism.' I’m like what? You have a guy screaming, 'Russia, Russia, Russia' with no evidence," Donald Trump Jr. said during an interview with Fox News Channel's Jesse Watters Saturday night. "All this shade for 18 months, screaming about McCarthyism. I mean the irony is ridiculous at this point."
Video of his interview at the link :sick:



User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 3937
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3669

Post by pipistrelle » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:06 am

The more evidence, the less, in “Trump” world.



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 15890
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3670

Post by RTH10260 » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:56 am

Kendra wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:30 am
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-jr ... d=52826052
President Donald Trump's oldest son suggested on Saturday that claims by Democrats of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are ironic, since such accusations resemble McCarthyism.

"You see the Democratic senators [saying] 'This is McCarthyism.' I’m like what? You have a guy screaming, 'Russia, Russia, Russia' with no evidence," Donald Trump Jr. said during an interview with Fox News Channel's Jesse Watters Saturday night. "All this shade for 18 months, screaming about McCarthyism. I mean the irony is ridiculous at this point."
Video of his interview at the link :sick:
The most ironic thing about this snippet is that McCarthy would have skewered the Trumps over their Russian connections and treason to the USA :brickwallsmall:



User avatar
tek
Posts: 2089
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3671

Post by tek » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:02 am

Junior clearly has NO IDEA what 'McCarthyism' is/was.

I'm shocked.


That right-wing hooey sure stunk up the joint

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 7121
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3672

Post by Kendra » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:55 am

tek wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:02 am
Junior clearly has NO IDEA what 'McCarthyism' is/was.

I'm shocked.
I so wish Jr or Eric would give an interview with a network other than Fox. Since that won't happen, I will wish for Anderson Cooper to lecture us all on McCarthyism on tomorrow's opening blast. :pray:



User avatar
gupwalla
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:57 pm
Location: The mind of Cassandra

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3673

Post by gupwalla » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:59 am

Slim Cognito wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:24 am
Video of Gowdy on Face the Nation saying, "There is a Russia investigation w/o a dossier ... the dossier has nothing to do w the meeting @ Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do w an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do w George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain."
Well, somebody's done gone off the reservation now that he isn't worried about future elections.


In a wilderness of mirrors, what will the spider do beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear in fractured atoms? -TS Eliot (somewhat modified)

All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 697
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3674

Post by fierceredpanda » Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:52 am

With apologies to The Bangles:

Six o'clock already,
I was just in the middle of a dream.
I was reading an indictment,
Saying Don Junior was on Putin's team.
Bobby, don't be late,
'Cause Trump wants to shove you off of the stage.
These are the days,
To be glad your name isn't Carter Page.

It's just another Mueller Monday.
Donald golfs on Sunday,
'Cause that's his fun day.
Don't have a country to run day.
It's just another Mueller Monday.


"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 2160
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3675

Post by Turtle » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:35 am

He said last night this is a story they've been working on for a while:



In the Knoxville field office, Special Agent in Charge Renae McDermott wrote to the staff she leads: “Unexpected news such as this is hard to understand but I know you all know our Director stood for what is right and what is true!!! . . . He truly made us better when we needed it the most.”

The following day, in an email with the subject line “Follow up with your squads,” she followed up: “I need for all of you to make sure our/your folks are doing OK. Check with them today, tomorrow ….you get the idea.”

McDermott sent that latter email as the White House was launching its public broadside against Comey’s performance. In a May 10 press conference, the same day McDermott was asking her staff to make sure one another were “doing OK,” then-Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed that the president had “lost confidence in Director Comey” and that “the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their director.” She stated that the president had “had countless conversations with members from within the FBI” in the course of making his decision to fire Comey. The following day, Sanders stated that she personally had “heard from countless members of the FBI that are grateful and thankful for the president’s decision” and that the president believed “Director Comey was not up to the task...that he wasn’t the right person in the job. [Trump] wanted somebody that could bring credibility back to the FBI.”

Trump himself blasted Comey too, stating in an interview that the former director was "a showboat. He's a grandstander" and that the FBI "has been in turmoil. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that. You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil—less than a year ago. It hasn't recovered from that." A few days later, the New York Times reported that Trump had told Russian officials visiting him in the Oval Office the day after Comey’s firing that Comey was a “nut job.”

Over the next few days, a wealth of evidence emerged to suggest that Trump and Sanders were playing fast and loose with the truth. But we now have the documents to prove that decisively. Their disclosure was not a leak but an authorized action by the FBI, which released to us under the Freedom of Information Act more than 100 pages of leadership communications to staff dealing with the firing. This material tells a dramatic story about the FBI’s reaction to the Comey firing—but it is neither a story of gratitude to the president nor a story of an organization in turmoil relieved by a much-needed leadership transition.



Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”