|
Post by goldenbucky on Jul 14, 2018 11:01:06 GMT -5
Fair enough - I lingered over that sentence for a bit.
A better clarification might be:
The FBI investigation isn't about politics.
Conspiring with a foreign adversary SHOULDN'T be about politics.
I have some deeply conservative friends (one wouldn't send his kids to UW out of concern it is too liberal!) who draw the line at Donald Trump. We may disagree on many things but we understand and respect some mutual principles on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 14, 2018 12:53:22 GMT -5
Conspiring with a foreign adversary SHOULDN'T be about politics. Exactly! BTW, yesterday the House committees held a closed-door session to interview Lisa Page. "Though they offered no specifics, several GOP congressmen characterized Page as 'cooperative,' 'forthcoming' and 'transparent' during her interview with the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees...Page also defended herself as unbiased, GOP lawmakers said — a characterization with which they did not agree. But they had mostly kind words after speaking with her for several hours: Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who had been among Page’s harshest critics heading into the session, told reporters that 'in ways, she’s been falsely accused about not being willing to cooperate.'” "In ways"? LOL! You mean these ways: Mark Meadows - Verified account @repmarkmeadows: Contrary to what her attorneys are telling the media, we just learned Lisa Page actually DID review documents at the FBI yesterday. Her failure to appear before Congress this morning had little to do with 'preparation'--and everything to do with avoiding accountability. Mark Meadows - Verified account @repmarkmeadows: This statement from Lisa Page's attorneys could've been better summed up in one short sentence: "We're choosing to ignore a Congressional subpoena" Indefensible Oh, and don't expect to see Page being "transparent" before television cameras anytime soon. The information the GOP got, which one said “heightened my concern that the processes at the FBI were contrived to fit the desired outcomes of people who were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump,” is nonetheless not fit for prime time, or even daytime: "some said they doubted it would be necessary to subject her to a public hearing, provided the transcript of her closed-door interview would be released eventually." Ah, yes, "eventually", as in Sir Humphrey's promise to his Minister that a report would be released "after due consideration and interdepartmental coordination, and in the fullness of time." In other words, no earlier than the November elections. These clowns suffered a beatdown by Strzok and clearly are in no mood for a repeat performance. Also, they can't convince Louis Gohmert to start taking his meds.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 15, 2018 9:45:33 GMT -5
"HELSINKI — President Trump said in an interview airing Sunday that he hadn’t thought of pressing Russian President Vladimir Putin on extraditing the dozen Russian officials charged with hacking Democratic emails, instead blaming the Democrats’ 'bad defenses' for getting hacked during the 2016 campaign. 'Well, I might,' Trump said when asked during an interview with CBS News about extraditing the indicted intelligence agents. 'I hadn’t thought of that. But I certainly, I’ll be asking about it. But again, this was during the Obama administration. They were doing whatever it was during the Obama administration.'” link
Of course he never thought about it. One, he never thinks about anything but himself: note how he constantly referrs to other leaders' relations with himself rather than with the US, echoing Louis XIV's l'etat c'est moi. Two, he keeps repeating that the attacks on the US election system--from which he benefitted--were a problem for Obama, not him, because Obama was President at the time. It's as if Ronald Reagan had gone to Berlin and said, "Hey, this wall was Kennedy's problem, not mine." Not to mention that his own national security team has told him--publicly, and no doubt in more detail privately--that the Russians still are interfering in our election systems. I've concluded that he's not so much Putin's Puppet and Putin's Puppy: snarling at all the other dogs, but following the leader wherever it takes him, heedless but wagging his tail.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 17, 2018 15:48:32 GMT -5
Unable to scape up the votes to start an impeachment proceeding, leaders of the "Freedom Caucus" instead are asking the DOJ IG to investigate whether he tried to "intimidate" two congressional staffers last January. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 17, 2018 21:44:59 GMT -5
Two developments on the Manafort front today: "Paul Manafort’s upcoming trial on bank and fraud charges will continue in Alexandria, Va., despite his efforts to move the proceedings to Roanoke. The former Trump campaign chairman had argued that the jury pool in Northern Virginia is too liberal and too saturated with coverage of the case to give him a fair trial. Judge T.S. Ellis III ruled Tuesday that Manafort is not entitled to a completely ignorant jury, nor one with as many Republicans as Democrats. Moreover, the nationwide coverage of the case would make any move ineffectual. 'The proximity of defendant’s pretrial publicity to the start of his trial will be the same in Alexandria as it would be in Roanoke or Kansas City or Dallas,' the judge wrote." linkThat's not a surprise. Basically, Manafort's lawyers were doing some venue-shopping, hoping to hold the trial in a district where there are more likely to be Trump voters in the jury pool than here in Northern Virginia. Can't blame them for trying, but I never thought it would succeed for the reasons the judge cited. Ordinarily, changes of venue occur when there's a community that's inflamed over the crime (often the killing of a child, for example) and there's been intense local media coverage pointing at the defendant. That's really not the case here: this is a national story, and while there certainly are people angry about the 2016 elections it's not as if there are lynch mobs at the courthouse. The more important development: Meanwhile, prosecutors are busily preparing for trial, filing motions Tuesday to compel five unnamed witnesses to testify under immunity from prosecution. All five have refused to testify so as not to incriminate themselves; if Ellis approves these orders, what they say cannot be used against them. The motions are sealed and the government will not name the witnesses unless they are called to testify. 'The five individuals identified in the motions at issue are third parties who have not been charged in this matter, and who have not been identified publicly with the case,' Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye wrote. 'The motions would reveal those individuals’ involvement . . . thereby creating the risk of their undue harassment.'" Oh, but don't we want to know who these people are? Yes, of course! But that "unless they are called to testify" is a clear message that they are using these witnesses to pressure Manafort into a plea bargain, presumably in return for his cooperation in the broader investigation. The fact that they are claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege also tells that they have knowledge of prosecutable actions in which they were participants. This is not good news for Manafort.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 18, 2018 1:37:31 GMT -5
For more than a year and a half we've been assured that while Russia tried to help Trump to win the election, the action was confined to leaks of emails, bots helping tweets go viral, mass emailings, etc., but not direct vote-tampering. Except we've recently learned that the Russians actually accessed voter records in some states, including some 500,000 in Illinois alone, gathering up identifying data on individual voters, and that they also broke into voter registration systems in a number of states. So, why'd they go to the trouble of breaking into those data sets if they weren't going to do anything with them? It's like a safe-cracker opening a safe, and then deciding to leave the money and valuables alone. Makes no sense. Especially when we now know that Maryland--and perhaps other states--contracted with companies to manage their electronic voting systems, and those companies turned out to be owned secretly by Russian firms tied to the Kremlin. Those same firms were the ones that reported to the states that they found no evidence of Russian tampering. Well, duh! Now comes this: "The now infamous Facebook data set on tens of millions of Americans gathered by a Cambridge University scientist for a firm that went on to work for Donald Trump's 2016 campaign was accessed from Russia, a British member of parliament tells CNN. Damian Collins, the Conservative MP leading a British parliamentary investigation into online disinformation, told CNN that a British investigation found evidence that the data, collected by Professor Aleksandr Kogan on behalf of Cambridge Analytica, had been accessed from Russia and other countries. The discovery was made by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Britain's data protection authority, Collins said. 'I think what we want to know now is who were those people and what access did they have, and were they actually able to take some of that data themselves and use it for whatever things they wanted,' Collins said." link These are the cyberthefts committed by Russia's GRU that Trump said this week could have been committed by any number of people, because "there are lot's of people out there." How many more dots need connected before we have the full picture? And when we do, what are the odds that the Russians actually fixed the final numbers? I used to think those were pretty long. But each new revelation tells me it's much higher than I'd previously thought.
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Jul 18, 2018 8:43:56 GMT -5
Hard to say for sure in this realm but I am more suspicious that the Russian effort represented an attempt - or preparation for a future attempt - to interfere with voter registrations.
I have some experience with "big data" and it is not that hard to imagine somebody doing this:
1) build a database of voter profiles (political operatives are already pretty good at identifying high probability supporters/opponents for encouragement/discouragement).
2) connect those voters to the type of information necessary to register - that will vary from state to state but Facebook data would be pretty effective at connecting each voter to specific address or at least tight geopraphical area. Looking around state election systems would be the equivalent of "casing the joint" before the crime to see what is necessary to mesh these datasets.
3) last, of course, is the hacking part where registrations are intentionally removed or altered to allow somebody to pick their voters.
#1 and 2 are well within the expertise/ability of marketing and political consultants and are not necessarily illegal. To execute this strategy to favor a candidate or party, the smartest, most efficient choice would seem to be to make the smallest possible footprint. Electoral college strategy involving narrowly contested states with weaker data security. Probably target least sympathetic, least empowered voters possible to minimize post-election complaints.
Of course, depending upon larger goals, could go the chaos route and try to disenfranchise large numbers and/or very volatile individuals (on both sides) to just discredit the whole election. That would be in character for Kremlin too.
OK, enough of that. I feel dirty just gaming this out. I'm sure our intelligence community has done this themselves - hopefully they are maximally empowered to help the states counteract.
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Jul 18, 2018 8:51:21 GMT -5
Oh, but don't we want to know who these people are? Yes, of course! But that "unless they are called to testify" is a clear message that they are using these witnesses to pressure Manafort into a plea bargain, presumably in return for his cooperation in the broader investigation. The fact that they are claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege also tells that they have knowledge of prosecutable actions in which they were participants. This is not good news for Manafort.
What a conundrum for the Trump campaign chair. Cross the Russian mob state (and spend your remaining days with a sword of Damocles/novochok/polonium), go to federal prison for life, or hope for a miracle.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 18, 2018 9:16:05 GMT -5
I'm sure our intelligence community has done this themselves - hopefully they are maximally empowered to help the states counteract. There's some good news on this front: "The head of the nation’s largest electronic spy agency and the military’s cyberwarfare arm has directed the two organizations to coordinate actions to counter potential Russian interference in the 2018 midterm elections. The move, announced to staff at the National Security Agency last week by NSA Director Paul Nakasone, is an attempt to maximize the efforts of the two groups and comes as President Trump in Helsinki on Monday said Russian President Vladimir Putin was “extremely strong and powerful” in denying Russian involvement in the presidential election two years ago. " The bad news: "It is the latest initiative by national security agencies to push back against Russian aggression in the absence of direct guidance from the White House on the issue. 'Nakasone, and the heads of the other three-letter agencies, are doing what they can in their own lanes, absent an overall approach directed by the president,' said Michael V. Hayden, who has headed the NSA and the CIA. 'As good as it is, it’s not good enough. This is not a narrowly defined cyberthreat. This is one of the most significant strategic national security threats facing the United States since 9/11.'” Full article
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 18, 2018 9:47:01 GMT -5
David Frum's short piece in The Atlantic yesterday is right on point:
Trump’s Crisis of Legitimacy: The president understands the stakes of the Russia story more clearly than most of his followers
Nothing matters—until something matters. Helsinki is that something, and it will not stop mattering soon. In the aftermath, Republican leaders in Congress have felt obliged to state unequivocally that Russia did interfere with the election. But as they speak, they face an uncomfortable problem. Here’s Paul Ryan’s version of that problem. “They did interfere in our elections—it’s really clear. There should be no doubt about that.” Then he immediately added that it was also “clear” that the interference had “no material effect” on the outcome of the election.
But of course it is not at all clear that the Russian interference had no material effect, just as it’s unclear whether there was active coordination between Russia and the Donald Trump campaign. The latest indictment from Robert Mueller’s probe alleges that the Russians stole Democratic Party voter analytics. Were those analytics shared with the Trump campaign? That remains unclear. Did the Russians and the Trump campaign in any way coordinate the targeting of Facebook and other social-media advertising? That remains unclear. How much Russian money flowed into advertising by third-party groups such as the National Rifle Association? Unclear once more.
Trey Gowdy, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, issued a statement post-Helsinki: “It is possible to conclude Russia interfered in our election in 2016 without delegitimizing his [President Trump’s] electoral success.” It is possible to do that, but you have to be strongly motivated. The more plausible and more probable conclusion, even before Helsinki, was that the Russian interference shadowed Trump’s legitimacy. Post-Helsinki, the doubts rankle even more sharply.
Plainly, there is something wrong in the Trump–Russia relationship. Plainly, it governs Trump’s behavior. Plainly, Trump refuses to do the things—release his tax returns, for example—that might clarify his financial obligations to Russian sources. Republicans want to argue that Russia did something wrong to influence the election’s outcome, while rebuffing questions about whether the outcome of the election was wrongly influenced. This is not a sustainable position, something Trump has recognized more clearly than most of his followers.
So here we are: More and more people—including the highest-ranking former intelligence officers—surmise that Russia has an improper hold upon the American president. That president refuses to comply with long-established norms of financial disclosure. The Russians interfered in the election intentionally to help the current president, as Vladimir Putin explicitly acknowledged in Helsinki. They broke American law, victimized individual Americans, and stole valuable proprietary information from an American political party. Did they share that information with the winner of the election? His party keeps attempting to obstruct the investigation of the information theft and to besmirch and discredit those doing the investigating.
Donald Trump is a natural-born citizen over the age of 35. Under the rules in place at the time, he received sufficient electoral votes to secure the presidency. American law does not provide for presidential election do-overs no matter what wrongs a candidate is revealed to have committed after the fact. Trump is the lawful president, but legitimacy is not decided by technicalities. There’s a reason we have two different words for legality and legitimacy. Each new wave of information about Russia’s targeted assistance to Trump—and the Trump campaign’s acceptance of that assistance—subtracts from this presidency’s quantum of that second, higher quality. His supporters may not care. But legitimacy is important precisely because it shapes the behavior and beliefs of non-supporters. And in Trump’s case, those non-supporters are the large majority of the American population.
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Jul 18, 2018 10:03:18 GMT -5
Here’s Paul Ryan’s version of that problem. “They did interfere in our elections—it’s really clear. There should be no doubt about that.” Then he immediately added that it was also “clear” that the interference had “no material effect” on the outcome of the election.
I see he's moved past Denial, through Anger, and has arrived at Bargaining.
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Jul 18, 2018 10:09:41 GMT -5
...and that is well-stated by Frum. Estranged and former Republicans have penned some outstanding pieces on this sorry chapter of the presidency since the election.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 18, 2018 10:51:02 GMT -5
Estranged and former Republicans have penned some outstanding pieces on this sorry chapter of the presidency since the election. Indeed. Just today: George Will: This Sad, Embarrassing Wreck of a Man - "America’s child president had a play date with a KGB alumnus, who surely enjoyed providing day care. It was a useful, because illuminating, event: Now we shall see how many Republicans retain a capacity for embarrassment." Kathleen Parker: A Cancer Lives Among Us - "Surely, now, we can concede that letting President Trump be Trump has exhausted itself — even among the smugly credulous. For a year and a half, we’ve heard his supporters say: Watch what he does, not what he says. Sure, he’s rude and crude, they’ve said, but he’s going to make America great again. No, he’s not. Nor was he ever."
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 18, 2018 22:57:26 GMT -5
From the Start, Trump Has Muddied a Clear Message: Putin Interfered"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election. The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation. Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed. "In the run-up to this week’s ducking and weaving, Mr. Trump has done all he can to suggest other possible explanations for the hacks into the American political system. His fear, according to one of his closest aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity, is that any admission of even an unsuccessful Russian attempt to influence the 2016 vote raises questions about the legitimacy of his presidency. The Jan. 6, 2017, meeting, held at Trump Tower, was a prime example. He was briefed that day by John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director; James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence; and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and the commander of United States Cyber Command. The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was also there; after the formal briefing, he privately told Mr. Trump about the 'Steele dossier.' That report, by a former British intelligence officer, included uncorroborated salacious stories of Mr. Trump’s activities during a visit to Moscow, which he denied... "According to nearly a dozen people who either attended the meeting with the president-elect or were later briefed on it, the four primary intelligence officials described the streams of intelligence that convinced them of Mr. Putin’s role in the election interference. They included stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee that had been seen in Russian military intelligence networks by the British, Dutch and American intelligence services. Officers of the Russian intelligence agency formerly known as the G.R.U. had plotted with groups like WikiLeaks on how to release the email stash. And ultimately, several human sources had confirmed Mr. Putin’s own role." linkThis is damning. Trump has known for more than a year-and-a-half that the Russians were interfering in the US elections, including in 2016. Yet for this entire time he has consistently tried to muddy that fact with evasions, false equivalences, obfuscation, and bluster. In doing so he is creating a constitutional crisis and harming the country and its interests. His party won't stop it, so there's only one thing to do. November 6 is coming.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 22, 2018 22:49:53 GMT -5
And he's back at it again: "After a week of tortuous statements, walk-backs and clarifications on whether he believes the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign, President Trump appeared to have come full circle on Sunday night, dismissing the issue as 'all a big hoax.'” linkDear Republicans in Congress: You have a choice. You can continue to play a supporting role in Putin's debasement of the Government of the United States through this Useful Idiot. Or you can grow a pair of whatever, stand up to him and at a minimum protect the Special Counsel's investigation. Forget about what History will say about you; most of you are too anonymous for History to care one way or the other. But think about what you will tell you children and grandchildren when they ask what you did to protect the country from this slow-motion takeover. Or just look in the mirror and ask what you want to see there. It's all your personal responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Jul 23, 2018 8:35:36 GMT -5
It's all your personal responsibility. I see what you did there.
Yes, the GOP should respect the strict constitutional constructionist point of view that they are a co-equal check on the executive branch. On this point the framers were much, much clearer than they ever were on the second amendment.
GOP congressmen are becoming fat, lazy, and stupid by depending upon government-as-usual to set their agenda in the face of a threat to self-determination.
GOP congressmen should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and use their God-given powers to defend the country and its values.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 23, 2018 14:42:50 GMT -5
It's all your personal responsibility. I see what you did there. ;)
Yes, the GOP should respect the strict constitutional constructionist point of view that they are a co-equal check on the executive branch. On this point the framers were much, much clearer than they ever were on the second amendment.
GOP congressmen are becoming fat, lazy, and stupid by depending upon government-as-usual to set their agenda in the face of a threat to self-determination.
GOP congressmen should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and use their God-given powers to defend the country and its values.
Oh, that is great! Thanks for picking up on and extending the metaphor.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 26, 2018 12:21:52 GMT -5
"For years, President Trump has used Twitter as his go-to public relations weapon, mounting a barrage of attacks on celebrities and then political rivals even after advisers warned he could be creating legal problems for himself. Those concerns now turn out to be well founded. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is scrutinizing tweets and negative statements from the president about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to three people briefed on the matter. Several of the remarks came as Mr. Trump was also privately pressuring the men — both key witnesses in the inquiry — about the investigation, and Mr. Mueller is examining whether the actions add up to attempts to obstruct the investigation by both intimidating witnesses and pressuring senior law enforcement officials to tamp down the inquiry. Mr. Mueller wants to question the president about the tweets. His interest in them is the latest addition to a range of presidential actions he is investigating as a possible obstruction case: private interactions with Mr. Comey, Mr. Sessions and other senior administration officials about the Russia inquiry; misleading White House statements; public attacks; and possible pardon offers to potential witnesses." linkTrump's efforts at obstruction have been ludicrously public. Because Trump seems to regard the United States as a bigger version of The Trump Organization, he has acted as if he's the CEO of a privately-held company, apparently incapable of understanding that the President of the United States is far more bound by legal constraints than the head of a family-owned company. And given his lack of normal behavioral restraint and discretion, he's left himself wide open to potential legal liability. His lawyers have tried to advise him on this, but he's ignored their advice and instead replaced them with more pliant lawyers, such as Rudy Giuliani. But chickens never wander far from the roost, and Mueller's trying to bring them home.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 1, 2018 14:22:35 GMT -5
"Last week, the New York Times reported on how special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is looking at President Trump's tweets as potential evidence in an obstruction of justice case. On Wednesday, Trump gave him more potential evidence. In a tweetstorm, Trump called upon Attorney General Jeff Sessions to shut the whole Mueller probe down — the first time he has done that. It wasn't altogether surprising, given that his lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani has called for the investigation to be closed. But it was notable because it came directly from Trump this time, and his call focused on Sessions. The attorney general has recused himself from the matter because of potential conflicts of interest, on grounds that he campaigned for Trump. So Trump is apparently calling for Sessions to un-recuse himself from a case in which he has acknowledged he cannot be seen as neutral, and then to end it." linkYeah, that's evidence of intent to obstruct. Oh, Trump's lawyers are parsing this finely. Giuliani: “He carefully used the word, 'should.'" Trump is, of course, known for his judicious choice of words, lol. Sekulow: “The president has issued no order or direction to the Department of Justice on this.” No, he's just told the A-G to close down the case, after months of threatening to fire him, or his Deputy. But no, he hasn't given any "order or direction" at all. And this isn't the first of it. He also tried to get Comey to back of the Flynn investigation and tried to get congressional Republicans to make public internal information on the Mueller investigation (which would have been a criminal act in itself). As many people have noted, it's hard to credit Trump's protestations of innocence while he's acting guilty as sin.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 1, 2018 23:42:59 GMT -5
While Trump is trying publicly to kill the investigation via Twitter and speeches, privately he has another strategy: "President Trump pushed his lawyers in recent days to try once again to reach an agreement with the special counsel’s office about him sitting for an interview, flouting their advice that he should not answer investigators’ questions, three people briefed on the matter said on Wednesday. Mr. Trump has told advisers he is eager to meet with investigators to clear himself of wrongdoing, the people said. In effect, he believes he can convince the investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, of his belief that their own inquiry is a 'witch hunt.'” linkThis is classic Trump. Just as he has insisted on "personal diplomacy" with the EU, NATO, Russia, and North Korea (maybe soon Iran?), he seems fixated on the idea that if he just sits down with Mueller he will end the investigation. But "Mr. Trump’s belief that an interview would bring the investigation to a swift end ignores several realities: that the investigation sprawls into areas well beyond his behavior; the possibility that Justice Department officials will hand over the results of the investigation to lawmakers to decide whether to proceed, thus prolonging the inquiry; and the lack of any public indication from the special counsel about how much work he has ahead of him." He can't approach this as if it's a negotiation over naming rights to a building; there's no "split the difference" between being charged with violating the law and not being charged. Some progress toward an interview has been made: "Mr. Mueller, whose team has negotiated the parameters of an interview with Mr. Trump’s lawyers for eight months, sent his latest proposal in a letter Tuesday night, the three people said. Investigators stood firm on the scope of and topics for their questions for Mr. Trump: possible coordination between his associates and Russia’s election interference and whether he tried to obstruct the investigation. They did shift slightly on format, agreeing to accept some written answers, including matters in which they want to preserve the ability to have Mr. Trump answer follow-ups in person. In doing so, they firmed up a previously expressed willingness to allow certain answers in writing." But there's a fly in the ointment: "The president’s lawyers are unwilling to concede to follow-ups in person, citing concerns that Mr. Trump will increase his legal exposure, the people said." Let's translate the legalese in bold into plain English: Trump's lawyers are afraid he'll lie to the prosecutors in answering questions orally. That's the rub. Written answers will be concocted by the lawyers, but they clearly are afraid to allow Trump to freelance his way through an oral interview. A GOP-controlled House impeached Bill Clinton over a lie to prosecutors about sex with an intern, itself neither criminal nor germane to the actual investigation they were supposed to be conducting; imagine what could happen if the Democrats take the House and Mueller reports that Trump lied under oath about conspiracy to defraud the United States by colluding with Russia and Wikileaks to affect the 2016 election. So, yeah, his lawyers would rather he not testify at all, even at the risk of taking political heat for not doing so. I don't think they'll be able to stop him, which means he's vulnerable to his own hubris.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 14, 2018 13:16:41 GMT -5
Trump's efforts to undermine the Mueller investigation with the public are failing, according to a new CNN poll: Only 34 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the Russia investigation, vs. 55 percent who disapprove. 58 percent say this is a serious matter that should be investigated, vs. only 37 percent who think it’s mainly an effort to discredit Trump. 56 percent say Trump has interfered with the investigation, vs. only 38 percent who say he has not. Only 37 percent say the things Trump has said publicly about the investigation are true, vs. 56 percent who say they are false. 70 percent say Trump should testify to Mueller, vs. only 25 percent who say he should not. 57 percent say Trump knew about contacts between his campaign operatives and Russians, vs. only 36 percent who say he did not. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/08/14/as-trump-keeps-raging-at-mueller-another-poll-shows-his-lies-are-failing/?utm_term=.0746b885d14f
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 14, 2018 14:34:18 GMT -5
"Former White House adviser Omarosa Manigault Newman says she has been interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller...Manigault Newman would not say whether she has appeared before a grand jury in Mueller's investigation into the 2016 election, but she did say the special counsel's team interviewed her. 'There is a lot of corruption that went on both in the campaign and the White House. I am going to blow the whistle on all of it. I am very interested in exposing what was happening behind the scenes,' Manigault Newman told MSNBC host Katy Tur. Manigault Newman would not say whether she has more audio recordings from her time working for Trump, but added she would hand over anything of interest to the Mueller investigation." linkOK, we all know there's been a lot of corruption around Trump. What's most interesting here--IF TRUE--is the claim that Trump knew in advance of the email release, and that she's talked with Mueller's office. The latter is of particular interest because we know that she was inside a lot of secretive meetings, and she records conversations. No wonder Trump's on the attack against her.
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Aug 18, 2018 13:01:41 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think the Manafort trial might end in a hung jury with a true believer Trumpest being the one vote against conviction on all counts. Hoping it doesn't happen that way, but I see it as a real possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 18, 2018 14:41:17 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think the Manafort trial might end in a hung jury with a true believer Trumpest being the one vote against conviction on all counts. Hoping it doesn't happen that way, but I see it as a real possibility. I've thought that, too. But remember that when they asked the judge for help in cross-referencing the documents and testimony he told them they'd have to do that themselves. I've seen that jury, and am pretty sure there are a number of typical DC nerds who insisted on taking up that challenge. So, 18 charges, 27 witnesses, 337 documents, 12 NOVA nerds making a chart of it all: just do the math.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 21, 2018 22:14:25 GMT -5
Following today's double convictions Dems demanded that Ryan call the House back into session so Congress could pass a bill to protect the Mueller investigation. Speaker Ryan "acted" quickly with this forthright statement from his office (not him personally): “We are aware of Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea to these serious charges. We will need more information than is currently available at this point.” The even more forthright Senate Majority Leader had this thundering response: *crickets*.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 5, 2018 17:06:51 GMT -5
Roger Stone has said he expects to be indicted by Mueller. That may be coming close: "Conservative political commentator Jerome Corsi is set to appear Friday before the grand jury investigating evidence in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign and expects to be questioned about his communications with Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to President Trump. Corsi’s attorney, David Gray, confirmed that Mueller’s team served Corsi with a subpoena last week and that Corsi plans to cooperate. Corsi, who has contributed to the right-wing website Infowars and is known for promoting political conspiracy theories, provided research to Stone during the 2016 campaign. Gray said the subpoena indicated that Mueller is interested in Corsi’s communications during 2016 and 2017. Gray said he believes the special counsel plans to ask about Corsi’s contacts with Stone, who has come under intense scrutiny by Mueller’s investigators. Corsi shared research with Stone around the same time that the longtime GOP consultant claimed publicly that he had been in contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ releases of hacked Democratic emails." linkThe rats keep jumping ship.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 9, 2018 18:30:25 GMT -5
"Paul Manafort’s lawyers have talked to U.S. prosecutors about a possible guilty plea to avert a second criminal trial set to begin in Washington this month, according to a person familiar with the matter...The negotiations over a potential plea deal have centered on which charges Manafort might admit and the length of the sentence to be recommended by prosecutors working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the person familiar with the matter said. Manafort, 69, already faces as long as 10 years in prison under advisory sentencing guidelines in the Virginia case. By pleading guilty, Manafort could avoid the risk of a longer prison term if he’s convicted at a second trial, as well as the threat of forfeiting several properties and financial accounts. He could also save the cost of paying lawyers to defend him at trial. Such white-collar criminal cases can cost defendants millions of dollars." linkAs one federal prosecutor points out, “What’s the point of a second trial? There’s no doubt in my mind that he’ll be convicted on some charges. He may be acquitted of obstruction, but the money laundering charge is a slam dunk.” The evidence overlaps with the used to convict him in Virginia last month, only there's about three times as much for the DC charges. I doubt Manafort's been running up a multi-million dollar legal tab out of loyalty to Trump; for him the issue is how to preserve what he can of his substantial--but endangered--fortune and limit his prison time as much as possible. So, it's no surprise that, having already been convicted, he's now considering cashing in his chips to minimize his losses. I doubt Mueller's going to make a deal just to avoid a trial, as he might in a normal criminal case. His mandate is to look into issues related to the 2106 election, and unless Mueller has something to offer on that front it's hard to see why Mueller would make a deal. In other words, if this comes to pass it's more bad news for "President" Puppet.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 14, 2018 6:45:14 GMT -5
Today may be the day Manafort flips: "Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman and one of Washington’s most prominent lobbyists, is close to a plea deal with federal prosecutors to avoid a trial scheduled for next week on charges stemming from work he did for pro-Russia political forces in Ukraine, people familiar with the case said on Thursday...Mr. Manafort’s trial on the second set of charges is scheduled to get underway on Monday in United States District Court in Washington. A pretrial hearing, which had been postponed this week, is scheduled for Friday." linkMueller frequently has had major announcements on Friday. If Manafort is ready to flip, it may be reflected in today's hearing, either with an announcement to that effect to the judge, or a request by both sides to further delay the trial.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 14, 2018 9:24:03 GMT -5
As predicted: "President Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has agreed to plead guilty to federal crimes at a hearing Friday morning, ending his long losing battle with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. The planned plea, if accepted by a judge, would short-circuit his second trial scheduled to begin this month in the District on charges of money laundering and lobbying violations. He is expected to enter his guilty plea this morning in federal court." link
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 14, 2018 10:58:12 GMT -5
In today's filing, Manafort pled guilty to two counts: (1) (a) money laundering; (b) tax fraud; (c) failing to file Foreign Bank Account Reports; (d) violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act; and (e) lying and misrepresenting to the Department of Justice during 2006-17; and (2) knowingly and intentionally conspiring to corruptly persuade two unnamed persons to influence, delay and prevent their testimony in an official proceeding during February-April 2018. Named in the indictment as co-conspirators are Richard Gates and Konstantin Kilimnik, who have been indicted on related charges previously. As part of his guilty plea the government plans to seize much of his real property and lots of cash. That's the fifth Trump campaign official to plead guilty. Next up: Roger Stone.
|
|