Re: Mueller's investigation
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:59 pm
I don't know how these things work, but is it possible that Meisler will just continue on from another office?
Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.
But an announcement from Schiff shortly after the Wednesday morning vote underscored the ginormous reach of the 2.0 version of the investigation.
The investigation will examine the “scope” of the Kremlin’s influence campaigns on American politics, both in 2016 and afterwards, and “any links/and or coordination” between anyone in the Trump orbit—the campaign, transition, administration, or, critically, the president’s businesses—and “furtherance of the Russian government’s interests.” It will also look at whether “any foreign actor,” not only Russians, has any “leverage, financial or otherwise” over Trump, “his family, his business, or his associates”—and whether such actors actively “sought to compromise” any of those many, many people.
A related line of inquiry will examine whether Trump, his family, and his advisers “are or were at any time at heightened risk of” being suborned by foreign interests in any way. That includes a vulnerability to foreign “exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure or coercion.” All that makes it very likely that the committee examines Trump administration policy—think the Syria pullout, or ex-national security adviser and admitted felon Mike Flynn’s attempts to work with Russia’s military in Syria, or Trump’s infamous Helsinki meeting with Vladimir Putin—through that lens.
It’s hard to claim cover up when the cover’s lifted. It hard to say swept under the rug when ther rug gets rolled up and placed in the corner. And it’s hard to claim witch hunt when said witches are either identified or publicly found not to be witches.
Adding:Prosecutors make secret filing in case linked to Mueller
Government prosecutors on Monday filed an update in a criminal case stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation – but the filing was made under seal, meaning the details remain shielded from the public.
The case involves Sam Patten, a GOP consultant and one-time associate of Paul Manafort who pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign agent while performing lobbying work on behalf of a political party in Ukraine last August.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. and Patten’s defense attorneys were due to file a status report in his case on Monday -- filings that sometimes contain details about the extent of a defendant’s cooperation with the government. However, federal prosecutors asked Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is overseeing Patten’s case, to file the status report under seal. Jackson granted the request. ...
Mueller’s office referred Patten’s case to the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. for prosecution. However, as part of his plea agreement unsealed last August, Patten agreed to cooperate with the special counsel’s office and other federal prosecutors.
Monday’s filing is a possible indication that the government wants to keep any details of Patten’s cooperation from the public realm; indeed it remains unclear what probes he may be cooperating with. Prosecutors also typically use status reports to request that a judge move a defendant to sentencing. It therefore remains unclear when Patten will be ultimately be sentenced. He is not likely to face significant jail time.
Talking Points Memo: Patten’s Cooperation With Feds Stays Secret As Inaugural Probe Heats Up
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qata ... ium=SocialQatar revamps investment strategy after Kushner building bailout
LONDON/NEW YORK/DUBAI (Reuters) - When news emerged that Qatar may have unwittingly helped bail out a New York skyscraper owned by the family of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, eyebrows were raised in Doha.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/nyre ... lease.htmlBrookfield is one of the world’s biggest real estate companies, and among its investors is the Qatar Investment Authority, one of the world’s largest sovereign funds, which bought a $1.8 billion stake in one of the company’s subsidiaries, Brookfield Property Partners in 2014, and is the second-largest investor in the company, ranking only behind Brookfield Asset Management. That has raised questions given Jared Kushner’s portfolio in the White House, which includes the Middle East.
I think MBS is getting the best end of the deal here. He is getting preferential treatment, even to the extent of Trump refusing to hold him accountable for murder, and the Qataris supplied the money to help Kushner. How does MBS lose in this scenario?fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:50 amNice one, NMGirl. QIA could very well be the target of In re Grand Jury Subpoena. The only thing I don't get it how Kushner could still have good relations with the Saudi royal family if he's this financially with the Qataris. The Saudis, in case we've all forgotten, have spent the last two years basically doing everything they can to make life difficult for the Qataris. You'd think MBS would use whatever pull he has with Kushner to either offer him a better deal or at least scotch any arrangement with the Qataris.
Running the risk of Kushner and Trump becoming cozier with the Qataris than they are with the House of Saud comes to mind. Given the amount of energy the Saudis have spent lately trying to screw Qatar, I wouldn't think they'd be very understanding of Kushner playing both sides of that street. But I confess that I may suffer from a lack of imagination here.
I remember Qatar backing out of a cooperation agreement a while back. It occurs to me that Mueller may then have attempted to subpoena whatever it was the Qataris had, hence kicking off the super secret sovereign subpoena skirmish. (How's that for alliteration?)NMgirl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:39 amI'm confused about the relationship among Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jared Kushner. I can't find a source (ok, I haven't looked for one) but I remember that Mueller requested an interview with some official from Qatar (this would have been months ago) and Qatar agreed to cooperate. Then Qatar withdrew that offer.
Bailing out 666 is such an obvious bribe. This is what I don't understand about the whole transaction: It absolutely screams of Kushner/Qatari corruption.
I thought that might be where you were going with this. It certainly could happen I suppose, but I guess I just think Kushner is a complete scumbag and haven't seen any signs where he's getting cozy with Qatar. My opinion of Kushner being a scumbag would be the same whether or not he started playing up to Qatar or not. It's absolutely clear this administration is not just cozy with MBS, but willing to defy the Magnitsky Act because of personal relationship with MBS. I'm not that convinced that the administration is likely to get as cozy with Qatar, certainly not like they are with MBS, but certainly would concede that it's always a possibility. They are as fickle as they are corrupt.fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:19 amRunning the risk of Kushner and Trump becoming cozier with the Qataris than they are with the House of Saud comes to mind. Given the amount of energy the Saudis have spent lately trying to screw Qatar, I wouldn't think they'd be very understanding of Kushner playing both sides of that street. But I confess that I may suffer from a lack of imagination here.
Savage.(How's that for alliteration?)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... e7fc339421Court records show Manafort was joined at some point by his campaign deputy, Rick Gates, at the session at the Grand Havana Room, a mahogany wood-paneled room with floor-to-ceiling windows offering panoramic views of the city.
The two Americans met with an overseas guest, a longtime employee of their international consulting business who had flown to the United States for the gathering: a Russian political operative named Konstantin Kilimnik.
The Aug. 2, 2016, encounter between the senior Trump campaign officials and Kilimnik, who prosecutors allege has ties to Russian intelligence, has emerged in recent days as a potential fulcrum in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation.
It was at that meeting that prosecutors believe Manafort and Kilimnik may have exchanged key information relevant to Russia and Trump’s presidential bid. The encounter goes “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating,” prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told a federal judge in a sealed hearing last week.
Mueller May Find ‘No Collusion,’ But Still Find Crimes
Sen. Richard Burr’s comments were trumpeted by the president. He shouldn’t be so sanguine about semantics. ...
“Collusion” is a word not generally found in the U.S. criminal code, with limited exceptions. Collusion is defined as a secret agreement for a deceitful purpose. In the law, it applies most often in the antitrust context, where two or more companies agree to fix prices at a higher level than would result from competition in the marketplace. That is not what is at issue in the Russia investigation. ...
Conspiracy, on the other hand, is a criminal agreement. Conspiracy is a crime even if the parties to the agreement never achieve their goal. The elements of conspiracy are (1) an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime or to defraud the United States by interfering with the proper functioning of a government agency; (2) that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy; and (3) that at least one member of the conspiracy committed at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. An overt act need not be an illegal act, just some step to advance the scheme. For instance, an overt act could be a phone call or a payment.
To amount to a conspiracy, the criminal agreement may be explicit or implicit. That means that a conspiracy need not be a formal agreement, and it need not be in writing or even spoken. Conspiracy does not require proof that everyone agreed to all of the details, just a mutual understanding of an agreement to complete the object of the conspiracy.
An important aspect of conspiracy law is that it is not necessary to prove that a defendant knew everything about the conspiracy, or that he knew everyone else involved in the conspiracy. In addition, a defendant may be convicted of conspiracy even if he was not a member of it from the very beginning. Conspiracy also does not require proof that a defendant played a major role in the conspiracy. A slight role or connection is enough. ...
Even if Mueller is not able to prove a criminal conspiracy, he might also find conduct that amounts to “high crimes” or “misdemeanors,” the standard for impeachment. Cass Sunstein has written in his book, Impeachment, a Citizen’s Guide, that procuring the presidency by fraud would be a basis for impeachment. For example, it may be that Mueller does not conclude that all of the elements of a conspiracy occurred, but that members of the Trump campaign became aware of the Russian attack and allowed it to continue without reporting it to the FBI. Would that sort of betrayal constitute collusion? Maybe not. Might it constitute a basis for impeachment? Yes.
1m1 minute ago
"The President urged me, like he has everyone in the administration, to fully cooperate with the special counsel. I was happy to voluntarily sit down with them," Sanders said in a statement to CNN.
Follow Follow @kaitlancollins
Huge scoop from @PamelaBrownCNN -- Sarah Sanders has been interviewed by the special counsel.
2:15 PM - 15 Feb 2019
Scott Dworkin @funder
BREAKING: Mueller’s team questioned Sarah Sanders. That must’ve been her toughest interview ever. She actually had to tell the truth, for once. Or she lied, and she’s headed to prison. Win win.