Mueller's investigation of Trump

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25435
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3226

Post by Foggy » Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:13 pm

That's how I see it. :-


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you're trying to say?
:think:
#pasta

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14923
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3227

Post by Suranis » Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:18 pm

Pretty much. If I was his lawyer I'd split mountains to prevent him getting in from the investigation.

One of the few ways to get him onto the stand would be to play on Trumps gargantuan ego. A few mocking stories on CNN that "Trump does not have the guts to go in front of Mueller" should do it.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 987
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3228

Post by neeneko » Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:21 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:05 pm
It is exceedingly rare that I would advise any client who was the target of an investigation to agree to give testimony under oath or even meet with the prosecutors off-the-record unless a proffer was being made or an immunity agreement had been struck.
I doubt he is listening to his lawyers, or he only hires ones who say what he wants to hear.

That being said, I do not think he believes for a moment he can actually end up either impeached or arrested, so if he is doing any calculations they revolve around ending the investigation and protecting his kids.



User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 570
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

#3229

Post by fierceredpanda » Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:28 pm

neeneko wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:21 pm
I doubt he is listening to his lawyers, or he only hires ones who say what he wants to hear.

That being said, I do not think he believes for a moment he can actually end up either impeached or arrested, so if he is doing any calculations they revolve around ending the investigation and protecting his kids.
Oh, definitely. But what I don't get is that his lawyers are (presumably) making these overtures on his instructions. The "can't I talk to you and clear this whole thing out" option doesn't seem very Trumpian. The "fuck off, I'm President" option, on the other hand...


"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
Reality Check
Posts: 14468
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3230

Post by Reality Check » Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:50 pm

I don't think the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted has been adjudicated. If you perform a Google search you will find many opinions on both sides. Nixon was named an "unindicted co-conspirator" during Watergate as I recall but after his resignation charges were never pursued.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 42724
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3231

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:15 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:50 pm
I don't think the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted has been adjudicated. If you perform a Google search you will find many opinions on both sides. Nixon was named an "unindicted co-conspirator" during Watergate as I recall but after his resignation charges were never pursued.
He was pardoned by Ford a month after he quit.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14468
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3232

Post by Reality Check » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:31 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:15 pm
He was pardoned by Ford a month after he quit.
Yes, I forgot it was that soon after Nixon resigned. I am glad Ford paid the price of losing to Jimmie Carter for doing that. Ford's pardon is probably why we don't know to this day the answer to a related question as to whether an ex-president can be prosecuted for crimes committed while he was in office.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 570
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

#3233

Post by fierceredpanda » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:41 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:50 pm
I don't think the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted has been adjudicated. If you perform a Google search you will find many opinions on both sides. Nixon was named an "unindicted co-conspirator" during Watergate as I recall but after his resignation charges were never pursued.
It hasn't been adjudicated for a few reasons, all leading to the same conclusion: No one who matters thinks POTUS can be indicted while in office. 1) Legal academics have been and are, for the most part, in agreement on this point. 2) It's been DOJ policy since even before Watergate. 3) The Watergate grand jury very much wanted to indict Nixon, and Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski told them in no uncertain terms that they could not do such a thing as long as Nixon was in office. The naming of Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator and referral to the House Judiciary Committee was as far as the Watergate grand jury could go.

There have been theoretical arguments on both sides, but the DOJ's position is quite clear and always has been. POTUS can't be indicted while in office. Now, back when facts mattered, a referral to the Judiciary Committee and naming as an unindicted co-conspirator was enough to do the trick. Now? Not so much. House Republicans will screech "FAKE NEWS!" at the top of their lungs, and even if the House goes Democratic this year and impeaches in 2019, there won't ever be 67 votes to convict because there will never be enough Republican senators willing to risk pissing off their most committed voters. I don't care if they have a video of Trump signing a 1000-year contract of indentured servitude to Vladimir Putin with one hand while taking bags of money from Putin himself in the other - the politics of this are determinate. The only thing to be done is expose everything and make sure the GOP pays at the ballot box - repeatedly.

Again, maybe my cynicism is running rampant here, but show me what part of this doesn't breed cynicism. Literally every Republican in Congress who has criticized Trump has reversed course and come to heel. He can't be indicted, and he won't be impeached and convicted. That's how I see 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
Turtle
Posts: 2085
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3234

Post by Turtle » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:02 pm

If he gets interviewed, the answer to every question will be, "there was no collusion!"



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14468
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3235

Post by Reality Check » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:23 pm

I don't think it is as cut and dry as you portray it to be. The NY Times recently discussed previous DoJ and other memos on the issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/p ... -memo.html

I am not sure where your information on Jaworski originates. Jaworski's staff produced a memo clearly stating that the Watergate Grand Jury could indict President Nixon. Jaworski decided to pursue naming Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator and refer it to the House instead after discussion and calls for impeachment grew in Congress.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... cument/p65

Unfortunately, Professor Rotunda also produced a memo for Ken Starr claiming that President Clinton could be indicted, which almost certainly settles the issue in the negative. ;)


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23285
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3236

Post by bob » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:37 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:05 pm
More to the point, I don't see the downside for Trump if he just tells Mueller to kick rocks. Sure, it goes back on Trump's promise that he absolutely would testify under oath, but his supporters don't care, and a majority of Congress doesn't care. Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but it seems like the only play for Team Trump here is to stonewall Mueller.

"Want to subpoena me? Fuck off, I'm the President. Cite me for contempt? Fuck off, I'm the President."
:yeah:

IF the House changes hands in November, there's the possibility of impeachment. But I still don't see the next session of the Senate convicting.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 4436
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3237

Post by Slim Cognito » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:57 pm

I'm seeing Trump's attys playing the "We tried to cooperate with Mueller but he's so partisan, he's determined to railroad Trump no matter what, so we walked away" card.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 2085
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3238

Post by Turtle » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:17 pm



Blumenthal says he looked very closely at the Fusion GPS guy and Don Jr. interviews, and says they need to be made public. All but comes out and says Don Jr. and Jared are exposed to obstruction charges.



User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 570
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

#3239

Post by fierceredpanda » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:31 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:23 pm
I don't think it is as cut and dry as you portray it to be. The NY Times recently discussed previous DoJ and other memos on the issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/p ... -memo.html

I am not sure where your information on Jaworski originates. Jaworski's staff produced a memo clearly stating that the Watergate Grand Jury could indict President Nixon. Jaworski decided to pursue naming Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator and refer it to the House instead after discussion and calls for impeachment grew in Congress.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... cument/p65

Unfortunately, Professor Rotunda also produced a memo for Ken Starr claiming that President Clinton could be indicted, which almost certainly settles the issue in the negative. ;)
A number of the Watergate prosecutors were interviewed for one of the lengthier Watergate documentaries (on BBC) where he specifically said that the grand jury asked him if they could indict Nixon (one of the grand jurors was also interviewed). Jaworski told them they could not. I'll link the YouTube posting of the documentary at the correct time. It's about a 5 minute segment on that issue.

https://youtu.be/fRCih5rUiVQ?t=3h24m40s


"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
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 42724
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3240

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:52 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:23 pm
I don't think it is as cut and dry as you portray it to be. The NY Times recently discussed previous DoJ and other memos on the issue. :snippity:

Unfortunately, Professor Rotunda also produced a memo for Ken Starr claiming that President Clinton could be indicted, which almost certainly settles the issue in the negative. ;)
I suspect that Ronald McDonald Rotunda has changed his mind. It depends on whether the president is a Democrat or Republican.

Image



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 24386
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3241

Post by Addie » Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:40 pm

WaPo
Mueller adds veteran cyber prosecutor to special-counsel team

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has added a veteran cyber prosecutor to his team, filling what has long been a gap in expertise and potentially signaling a recent focus on computer crimes.

Ryan K. Dickey was assigned to Mueller’s team in early November from the Justice Department’s computer crime and intellectual-property section, said a spokesman for the special counsel’s office. He joined 16 other lawyers who are highly respected by their peers but who have come under fire from Republicans wary of some of their political contributions to Democrats.

Dickey’s addition is particularly notable because he is the first publicly known member of the team specializing solely in cyber issues. The others’ expertise is mainly in a variety of white-collar crimes, including fraud, money laundering and public corruption, though Mueller also has appellate specialists and one of the government’s foremost experts in criminal law.

Zainab Ahmad and Brandon Van Grack have handled some cybercrime issues in the past, though they are recognized more for their work on terrorism and national security.


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 6612
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3242

Post by Kendra » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:32 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 70e78886ff
President Trump on Wednesday declined to say whether he would grant an interview to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team, deflecting repeated questions on the topic by saying there had been “no collusion” with the Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign.

We’ll see what happens,” Trump said when asked directly whether he would sit for an interview with the special counsel.

Trump then questioned why he would be interviewed, arguing again there had been “no collusion” between his campaign and Russia.



User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 4436
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3243

Post by Slim Cognito » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:50 pm

Kendra wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:32 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 70e78886ff
President Trump on Wednesday declined to say whether he would grant an interview to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team, deflecting repeated questions on the topic by saying there had been “no collusion” with the Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign.

We’ll see what happens,” Trump said when asked directly whether he would sit for an interview with the special counsel.

Trump then questioned why he would be interviewed, arguing again there had been “no collusion” between his campaign and Russia.
He's fixated on the collusion thing, isn't he, not obstruction or money laundering. At this point, collusion is probably the least of his worries.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 42724
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3244

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:55 pm

:yeah:



User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 1867
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3245

Post by MN-Skeptic » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:18 pm

Kendra wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:32 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 70e78886ff
We’ll see what happens,” Trump said when asked directly whether he would sit for an interview with the special counsel.
Maybe he's waiting for Fox & Friends to tell him how he feels about this subject.


MAGA - Morons Are Governing America

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3246

Post by Gregg » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:02 am

A Very Stable Genius wrote:"Well, again John, there has been no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians or Trump and Russians. No collusion. When I watch you interviewing all the people leaving their committees, I mean, the Democrats are all running for office, trying to say this that -- but bottom line, they all say there's no collusion. And there is no collusion.
"And when you talk about interviews, Hillary Clinton had an interview, where she wasn't sworn in, she wasn't given the oath, they didn't take notes, they didn't record and it was done on the 4th of July weekend. That's perhaps ridiculous and a lot of people looked upon that as being a very serious breach and it really was.
"But again I'll speak to attorneys -- I can only say this, there was absolutely no collusion. Everybody knows it. Every committee -- I've been in office now for 11 months. For 11 months, they've had this phony cloud over this administration, over our government. And it has hurt our government. It does hurt our government. It's a Democrat hoax that was brought up as an excuse for losing an election that frankly the Democrats should have won because they have such a tremendous advantage in the electoral college.

Obsess much?


Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 24386
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3247

Post by Addie » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:06 am

Associated Press
Trump group says memo supports its argument over emails

WASHINGTON (AP) — A group representing President Donald Trump's transition team is pressing the General Services Administration to turn over a memo purportedly sent by an agency official to special counsel Robert Mueller's team that would offer proof that tens of thousands of emails should not have been delivered to investigators.

The transition group, Trump for America, claims in a letter sent Monday to GSA officials that an agency memo supposedly sent last June to Mueller's team provides evidence that the emails later handed over to Mueller's investigators were legally owned by the transition. The vast cache of emails should never have been delivered to the Russia election meddling investigators without Trump for America's authorization, a lawyer for the transition group wrote in the letter obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.

The transition lawyer, Kory Langhofer, did not explain how the group was made aware that the GSA memo exists but said "it is our understanding" that the document was sent in June by the GSA's top lawyer, Richard Beckler, to Mueller's team. Beckler has since died. Langhofer's letter to the GSA requested the memo under the Freedom of Information Act.

"The GSA had no right to access or control the records but was simply serving as Trump for America's records custodian," Langhofer wrote. He added that the GSA "unlawfully" handed over "thousands of private and privileged (presidential transition team) emails to the Special Counsel's office, and failed to notify (Trump for America) of the production."

GSA spokeswoman Pamela Dixon declined Wednesday to comment on the transition group's letter. Peter Carr, spokesman for the special counsel, also declined to comment, citing an earlier statement that when the counsel's office obtains emails during its investigations "we have secured either the account owner's consent or appropriate criminal process."


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 24386
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3248

Post by Addie » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:40 am

NBC News
Special Counsel Mueller has not requested interview with VP Pence

WASHINGTON — While discussions are underway about President Donald Trump possibly speaking with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, FBI investigators have not so far requested an interview with Vice President Mike Pence, a person familiar with the matter said.

Pence — who has been key figure during moments in the Trump campaign, transition and White House that Mueller is investigating — would cooperate with a request for an interview, this person said.

"Our position has always been that if asked we'll cooperate," this person said.

A second person familiar with the matter said the special counsel has not indicated an interest in interviewing the vice president, beyond initial document requests early on.


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 570
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

#3249

Post by fierceredpanda » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:11 pm

The Daily Beast:
Steve Bannon is lawyering up as he gets ready to face investigators looking into the Trump-Russia nexus.

The Daily Beast has learned that the former top White House strategist has retained Bill Burck, of the firm Quinn Emanuel. Two sources tell us Burck is helping Bannon prepare for an interview with the House intelligence committee, which is currently scheduled for next week. Sources also said Bannon plans to “fully cooperate” with investigators.

Burck also represents White House Counsel Don McGahn and former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus for the purposes of the Russia probe, as Law360 reported last September.

It is not unheard of for one attorney to represent more than one client on the same matter. But the fact that several key players with Trump administration ties have the same lawyer could irk investigators.

“In general, prosecutors don’t like it when the same attorney represents multiple people who are subjects—or more—because it looks like they’re controlling the story,” said Ken White, a former federal prosecutor who specializes in First Amendment issues, speaking of investigators’ targets.


"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
MsDaisy
Posts: 4241
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation of Trump

#3250

Post by MsDaisy » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:59 pm

Trump lender, other convicted banks get reprieves from feds
NEW YORK — Five banks, including a big lender to President Donald Trump, have received temporary reprieves from the administration to run businesses that they otherwise would have had to shut down after criminal convictions.

The Labor Department granted Deutsche Bank a waiver from punishment allowing it to continue to manage pension funds and individual retirement accounts for another three years, according to an announcement in the Federal Registry soon after the decision last month. Four other banks convicted in criminal cases were also granted waivers.

Deutsche Bank has been a big lender to Trump over the years, and the president still has loans with the bank that were originally worth $300 million.

The Trump administration waivers are a continuation of previous government policy. The Obama administration had granted the banks temporary waivers under a so-called deferred prosecution agreement with them after their 2015 convictions for manipulating a key interest rate used for loans worldwide
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... 023062001/


Birfers are toast

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”