Mueller's investigation

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3176

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:17 am

A lawsuit against Bannon by Charles Harder for Trump would be an epic SLAPP. And fairly quickly dismissed, with attorney's fees to Bannon.

Hell, I'd take the case on for the contingent fees. (And the deposition of Trump, of course. There's even a table available for that deposition in Rancho Santa Margarita.)



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10468
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3177

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:05 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:17 am
A lawsuit against Bannon by Charles Harder for Trump would be an epic SLAPP. And fairly quickly dismissed, with attorney's fees to Bannon.

Hell, I'd take the case on for the contingent fees. (And the deposition of Trump, of course. There's even a table available for that deposition in Rancho Santa Margarita.)
Rude, very rude, you could sell tickets even.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1004
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

#3178

Post by fierceredpanda » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:16 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:17 am
A lawsuit against Bannon by Charles Harder for Trump would be an epic SLAPP. And fairly quickly dismissed, with attorney's fees to Bannon.

Hell, I'd take the case on for the contingent fees. (And the deposition of Trump, of course. There's even a table available for that deposition in Rancho Santa Margarita.)
:mememe: I volunteer as co-counsel!


"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
Suranis
Posts: 15842
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3179

Post by Suranis » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:19 am

I think you have an entire forum of people who would volunteer for something.


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 5059
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3180

Post by Slim Cognito » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:48 am

Suranis wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:19 am
I think you have an entire forum of people who would volunteer for something.
First dibs on covfefe coffee person.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Jez
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: Out there, Somewhere...
Occupation: Thread Killer

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3181

Post by Jez » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:03 am

Y'all need a tech writer, correct? I can, um.... write the procedures for... um... how the SECR uses their machine? I mean, customized procedures are always good, yes?


I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.

~Khalil Gibran

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27306
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3182

Post by Addie » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:32 am

WaPo - Jennifer Rubin
Michael Wolff’s book leaves breadcrumbs for Mueller to investigate ...

We already know Mueller’s team has interviewed White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, who was reportedly present during the back-and-forth discussions regarding the statement. He now may want to talk with former Trump legal spokesman Mark Corallo. Axios reports on the following excerpt from Wolff’s book: “Mark Corallo [former spokesman for Trump’s personal legal team] … privately confiding [to Wolff] that he believed the meeting on Air Force One represented a likely obstruction of justice — quit.”

Corallo is no crank. Matthew Miller, former Justice Department spokesman under President Barack Obama, says, “I don’t know him personally, but he has a reputation as a solid, honest guy.”

As a preliminary matter, it is critical to determine what precisely Corallo saw, what he directly observed and what gave him concern. If he has not already done so, Corallo will need to be interviewed. “Any obstruction case always involves the totality of all of the factual circumstances at play, so it’s always a mistake to read too much into any one reported fact,” Lawfare blog’s Ben Wittes tells me. “These cases are always about all of the facts in interaction with one another. That said, it certainly is interesting that one of the participants in that meeting reportedly believed it at the time to be a potential obstruction.”

Miller agrees that Corallo may be a key witness. “I think it’s clear that Mueller will be reaching out to talk to Corallo soon, if he hasn’t already, to find out what led him to draw that conclusion,” Miller says. “Corallo’s opinion isn’t so much relevant as the underlying facts leading him to believe the president committed obstruction are.” He adds, “Corollo was hired by Trump’s legal team and they will likely try to claim his interactions are covered by attorney-client privilege, but we have already seen Mueller obtain testimony from one spokesperson in this case, when he subpoenaed [Paul] Manafort’s spokesman to the grand jury.” Moreover, by talking openly about the drafting sessions and including non-lawyers, there’s a good chance any privilege was waived.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3183

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:15 pm

Addie wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:32 am
WaPo - Jennifer Rubin
Michael Wolff’s book leaves breadcrumbs for Mueller to investigate ...

Moreover, by talking openly about the drafting sessions and including non-lawyers, there’s a good chance any privilege was waived.
If what is meant is that the attorney openly discussed it, I disagree. The privilege belongs to the client (whomever that may be here). If an attorney breaks the seal of the privilege to a third party, the attorney's conduct does not constitute a waiver of the privilege. On the other hand, the rarely invoked crime-fraud exception may apply.



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3990
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3184

Post by DejaMoo » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:42 pm

Addie wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:32 am
WaPo - Jennifer Rubin
Michael Wolff’s book leaves breadcrumbs for Mueller to investigate ...

We already know Mueller’s team has interviewed White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, who was reportedly present during the back-and-forth discussions regarding the statement. He now may want to talk with former Trump legal spokesman Mark Corallo. Axios reports on the following excerpt from Wolff’s book: :snippity:
We may be better off to read it with a jaundiced eye. Michael Wolff has a history of making mountains out of molehills. He does it to beef up his articles and to make himself appear to be more of an insider than he was/is. Knowing that, it will not be easy to discern what actually came straight from the horse's mouth from what was, shall we say, "enhanced" by Wolff.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3185

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:45 pm

DejaMoo wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:42 pm
Addie wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:32 am
WaPo - Jennifer Rubin
Michael Wolff’s book leaves breadcrumbs for Mueller to investigate ...

We already know Mueller’s team has interviewed White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, who was reportedly present during the back-and-forth discussions regarding the statement. He now may want to talk with former Trump legal spokesman Mark Corallo. Axios reports on the following excerpt from Wolff’s book: :snippity:
We may be better off to read it with a jaundiced eye. Michael Wolff has a history of making mountains out of molehills. He does it to beef up his articles and to make himself appear to be more of an insider than he was/is. Knowing that, it will not be easy to discern what actually came straight from the horse's mouth from what was, shall we say, "enhanced" by Wolff.
Can you provide some examples?

I do note that Bannon has not said anything he was quoted as saying was misquoted.



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3990
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3186

Post by DejaMoo » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:05 pm

Take the Latest Explosive Trump/Bannon Stories in the Context of Their Source, a Notoriously Unreliable Narrator
...A 2004 New Republic profile of Wolff meanwhile noted that “the scenes in his columns aren’t recreated so much as created—springing from Wolff’s imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events.” The same piece quoted an editor who worked with Wolff as saying “his great gift is the appearance of intimate access. He is adroit at making the reader think that he has spent hours and days with his subject, when in fact he may have spent no time at all.” A 1998 article about Wolff’s book Burn Rate surfaced Wednesday by writer Brad Plumer notes that several of the subjects of the book say Wolff “invented or changed quotes” that were attributed to them.
:snippity:
But I do know Michael Wolff is notorious for making provocative claims without backing them up—and that he was once described by one of his own editors as having no skill greater than creating the “appearance” of knowing things he does not in fact know. So you might want to take Wednesday’s reports with a mogul-size grain of salt.
The article's worth a read.

The controversy around Michael Wolff’s gossipy new Trump book, explained
...Other tidbits are more problematic. For instance, the suggestion that Trump didn’t know who John Boehner was in 2016 appears highly dubious. Trump has tweeted about Boehner 26 times (once even mocking his occasional habit of crying) and played golf with him. It seems likely that someone told this juicy anecdote to Wolff — perhaps Ailes, whom Wolff has covered for years, who was the other party to the conversation, and who died in May. But it’s not clear whether Wolff bothered to check if it made sense, if Trump may have momentarily misheard Ailes’s remark, or whether something else may have been going on.

Some sourcing is also troublesome. Wolff quotes former Trump adviser Sam Nunberg purportedly describing an attempt to explain the Constitution to Trump. “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head,” Nunberg is quoted as saying. But just a few months ago, Nunberg bragged to a reporter that he made up what he said was a false story about Chris Christie getting Trump McDonald’s during the campaign.

Other sourcing, such as for the Jared and Ivanka anecdotes, is hazy. Did Wolff rigorously fact-check what he heard here, or might it have been a bit too good to check? Katie Walsh, meanwhile, says she’s disputing some quotes attributed to her — but whether this is a case of factual inaccuracy on Wolff’s part or the phenomenon known as “source remorse” (when someone regrets saying too much to a reporter and seeks to disavow it) isn’t clear. (Axios’s Allen writes this morning that Wolff taped many of his interviews, including at least one with Walsh, which could certainly bolster his case.)
:snippity:
...As the sourcing grows hazier, you should probably add grains of salt accordingly. Of course, anonymity is often crucial for sources to speak candidly. But it also can allow people to spread untrue or inaccurate information. And given Wolff’s weakness for gossip and the questions raised about some of his juicy tidbits so far, a skeptical eye seems warranted.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3187

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:28 pm

Thanks, Moo.



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27306
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3188

Post by Addie » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:42 pm

GQ: White House Staffers Expect Robert Mueller's Investigation to Take Down the President


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27306
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3189

Post by Addie » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:38 pm

The New Yorker - John Cassidy
Michael Wolff’s Withering Portrait of President Donald Trump ...

As Wolff tells it, Trump is, ultimately, a self-fixated performer rather than a politician, and his primary goal is to monopolize public attention. (“This man never takes a break from being Donald Trump,” Wolff quotes Bannon as saying.) This depiction probably understates Trump’s devotion to making money, as well as his racism and nativism, both of which go back decades. But, in any case, even performer-Presidents have to make some decisions, and Wolff devotes a good deal of space to the most fateful call Trump has made so far: the firing of the F.B.I. director James Comey, last May. Whether Trump’s firing of Comey amounts to obstruction of justice is a central focus of the investigation being conducted by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, into the President’s behavior.

In Wolff’s account, the battle lines inside the White House were clearly drawn. Bannon, Reince Priebus, who served as chief of staff before Kelly, and Donald McGahn, the White House counsel, were adamantly opposed to firing Comey. “McGahn tried to explain that in fact Comey himself was not running the Russia investigation, that without Comey the investigation would proceed anyway,” Wolff writes. In an Oval Office meeting, Bannon told Trump, “This Russian story is a third-tier story, but you fire Comey and it’ll be the biggest story in the world.”

Ranged on the other side of the issue, according to Wolff, were some of Trump’s cronies outside the White House, including Chris Christie and Rudolph Giuliani, who “encouraged him to take the view that the DOJ was resolved against him; it was all part of a holdover Obama plot.” Even more important, Wolff goes on, was the concern of Charles Kushner, Jared’s father, “channeled through his son and daughter-in-law, that the Kushner family [business] dealings were getting wrapped up in the pursuit of Trump.” As the President considered whether to get rid of Comey, Jared and Ivanka “encouraged him, arguing the once possibly charmable Comey was now a dangerous and uncontrollable player whose profit would inevitably be their loss.”

But “Fire and Fury” also stresses that the prime mover in the firing of Comey was Trump himself. In the end, the President cut almost all of his advisers out of his final decision-making process:
Jared and Ivanka were urging the president on, but even they did not know that the axe would shortly fall. Hope Hicks . . . didn’t know. Steven Bannon, however much he worried that the president might blow, didn’t know. His chief of staff didn’t know. And his press secretary didn’t know. The president, on the verge of starting a war with the FBI, the DOJ, and many in Congress, was going rogue.
Eight days after Trump fired Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to take over the Russia investigation. Although the findings of Mueller’s probe aren’t yet known, and Trump’s lawyers insist that the probe will clear the President of any wrongdoing, Wolff was surely right to stress the momentousness of the decision to get rid of the “rat”— Trump’s term for Comey. Wolff recounts near the end of the book that, five months after Comey’s firing, Bannon was predicting the collapse of Trump’s Presidency. Speaking in Breitbart’s headquarters, which Bannon refers to as the Breitbart Embassy, Bannon told people there was a 33.3-per-cent chance that the Mueller investigation would lead to Trump’s impeachment, a 33.3-per-cent chance that Trump would resign, “perhaps in the wake of a threat by the cabinet to act on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment,” and a 33.3-per-cent chance that he would “limp to the end of his term. In any event, there would certainly not be a second term, or even an attempt at one. ‘He's not going to make it,’ said Bannon at the Breitbart Embassy. ‘He’s lost his stuff.’ ”


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27306
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3190

Post by Addie » Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:20 pm

Newsweek
Trump Hands Over Business Documents to Mueller

President Donald Trump’s legal team has handed over to Special Counsel Robert Mueller business documents that include details about Trump’s effort to build a hotel in Moscow, his campaign’s communications with WikiLeaks and Trump Tower meeting when some of his senior campaign staffers sought to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian lawyer, according to a report by CNN.

Also given to congressional investigators, the documents cover the years 2015 through 2017 and include records of conversations by employees of Trump's business but no financial records, according to CNN’s sources.

Given to investigators in 2017, the documents also include internal communications about Trump’s April 2016 campaign speech on foreign policy and about an October 2016 speech Donald Trump Jr. delivered to a group in Paris that is closely tied to the Kremlin. Trump Jr. received $50,000 for the speech.

The White House directed a request for comment to Trump’s lawyer for the Russia inquiry, Ty Cobb, who declined to comment to Newsweek.
Adding:
The Guardian: 'Bannon may already be cooperating with Mueller': tell-all book shifts frame of Russia inquiry

In Fire and Fury, Steve Bannon is specific about what he regards as the most dangerous aspect of the investigation: Jared Kushner’s ties to Deutsche Bank


¡Sterngard! come home.

boots
Posts: 2869
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3191

Post by boots » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:35 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 5:11 pm
boots wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:39 pm
That may mean he likes it! :think:
Did you change your name or have I gone completely 'round the bend?
Yes.



NMgirl
Posts: 3731
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3192

Post by NMgirl » Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:54 pm

Addie wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:20 pm

:snippity:
In Fire and Fury, Steve Bannon is specific about what he regards as the most dangerous aspect of the investigation: Jared Kushner’s ties to Deutsche Bank
Let us imagine that trump pardons some or all of these scumbags, including Kushner. In what states could charges then be brought against those pardoned? In other words, what are the criteria that would enable state charges to be brought against The trump Family Crime Syndicate :?:


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3193

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:23 am

New York, California and Virginia.



User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 8819
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3194

Post by Chilidog » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:18 am

This would be an excellent Friday for a few more indictments to get issued.


:pray:



User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1004
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

#3195

Post by fierceredpanda » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:46 am

It sounds like Paul Ryan sided with Devin Nunes. Just saw a quote from a GOP Hill staffer saying Rosenstein and Wray "wasted a trip."

My chief concern is that Nunes' subpoenas may be almost certainly are an attempt to weaken the Government's case by providing defendants and potential defendants with a sneak peak at the prosecution's evidence. Not to mention the damage that will be done when the juiciest bits are leaked to the press and portrayed in the worst possible light. It's transparently an attempt to obstruct the investigation and prosecution of crimes by the DOJ, all carried out under the aegis of "Congressional oversight."

I would absolutely love if Nunes could be indicted for it, but the Speech and Debate Clause is a 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
Slim Cognito
Posts: 5059
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3196

Post by Slim Cognito » Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:14 am

fierceredpanda wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:46 am
It sounds like Paul Ryan sided with Devin Nunes. Just saw a quote from a GOP Hill staffer saying Rosenstein and Wray "wasted a trip."

My chief concern is that Nunes' subpoenas may be almost certainly are an attempt to weaken the Government's case by providing defendants and potential defendants with a sneak peak at the prosecution's evidence. Not to mention the damage that will be done when the juiciest bits are leaked to the press and portrayed in the worst possible light. It's transparently an attempt to obstruct the investigation and prosecution of crimes by the DOJ, all carried out under the aegis of "Congressional oversight."

I would absolutely love if Nunes could be indicted for it, but the Speech and Debate Clause is a thing.
I don't know why I had hopes Ryan would do the right thing. I guess the agreement is Nunes and other members can come to a secure area in the DOJ to view the documents, but can't take them out.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1004
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

#3197

Post by fierceredpanda » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:35 am

Slim Cognito wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:14 am
I don't know why I had hopes Ryan would do the right thing. I guess the agreement is Nunes and other members can come to a secure area in the DOJ to view the documents, but can't take them out.
And then walk directly to the Capitol Hill press corps and leak all of it.


"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
Kendra
Posts: 9995
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3198

Post by Kendra » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:58 am

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 1f3ed77d76
President Trump dispatched his top White House lawyer to try to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from Russia-related matters, The Post's Matt Zapotosky and Josh Dawsey report. The news was first reported late Thursday by the New York Times.

But it's another, somewhat-buried part of that Times story that may be even more significant — and may even be news to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. It's about an effort on behalf of Sessions to facilitate negative stories about then-FBI Director James B. Comey.
interesting opinion. Also worth clicking the link to see the photo of the Elf they chose for it. ;)



NMgirl
Posts: 3731
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3199

Post by NMgirl » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:09 am

Jennifer Rubin, also WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 87136505f7

Ms. Rubin touches only lightly on Rosenstein but:

Why hasn't Rod Rosenstein recused himself :?:


Stern: Come back. My posts are becoming sloppy and ill-thought out.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27306
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3200

Post by Addie » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:25 am

The Hill OpEd - Brent Budowsky
Robert Mueller may have a Deep Throat witness on Russia ...

Bannon is absolutely right about this. When there was a Russian operation to support Trump over Clinton using material surreptitiously obtained by Russia, anyone on Team Trump who knew about this should have reported it to the FBI immediately.

The big question today is whether anyone in Trump circles who knew about this covert Russian operation did, in fact, go to the FBI and expose it. If anyone did, it would have been an act of high patriotism, and that person would be a Deep Throat witness for the FBI and Mueller.

I do not subscribe here to the use of the word “treason." But if Bannon knew about acts he considered treasonous, it is fair to ask whether he went to the FBI himself the minute he learned about them. It is crucial to ask Bannon and Wolff whether the Deep Throat question was discussed in preparation of the book.

Similarly, of the various people in Trump circles who learned of the Russian operation to destroy Clinton and elect Trump, did any of them go to the FBI with that information?

It is certainly possible that one or more of them did, in which case, that person or persons would be our modern Deep Throat, providing the FBI and Mueller with bombshell information at a much earlier stage in the investigation than is currently known.


¡Sterngard! come home.

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”