Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Election

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:10 am

RocketMan » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:50 am wrote:THE WALLS ARE INCREASINGLY CLOSING IN ON HIM AND THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END.

Yaaaas.


"I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up or anything else, if it'll save it--save the plan."
Richard Nixon
March 22, 1973


1974.tiff


THE WALLS ARE INCREASINGLY CLOSING IN ON HIM AND THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END.

odd 9 years and no one ever said let it go he will never be held accountable :)

waiting_is_the_hardest_part.tiff


THE WALLS ARE INCREASINGLY CLOSING IN ON HIM AND THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END.

where is Paulie waking up this morning? JAIL and he will wake up there every morning for the rest of his life
Image

THE WALLS ARE INCREASINGLY CLOSING IN ON HIM AND THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx94428MYcc

THE WALLS ARE INCREASINGLY CLOSING IN ON HIM AND THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END

it_takes_time.tiff



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EZFBB-MntE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpG09PenZt8

How Much of Mueller’s Report Will See Daylight?

Only a little? Or a lot?

Timothy L. O'BrienMarch 22, 2019, 7:59 PM CDT
Politics & Policy

By
The special counsel.

Photographer: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Timothy L. O’Brien is the executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion. He has been an editor and writer for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, HuffPost and Talk magazine. His books include “TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald.”
Read more opinion Follow @TimOBrien on Twitter
After an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election that lasted almost two years, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has filed his final report on the matter to Attorney General William Barr. We now know more than we knew this morning, but it will take days, weeks, months and perhaps years before we learn everything we want to know.

What we can say with assurance is that Mueller and his team — admirable public servants to the end — conducted their probe without leaks, mindful of the law, and with enough resolve to proceed despite unprecedented public and private meddling from President Donald Trump and his cronies in Congress. Mueller also moved along swiftly for an investigation of this scope and gravity (Kenneth Starr, in comparison, spent four years investigating President Bill Clinton).

What we can’t say yet is what firm and final conclusions Mueller has drawn from his exploration of whether Trump and his presidential team colluded with Russia or its proxies during the 2016 election — and whether Trump or anyone else in his orbit obstructed that probe or any investigations preceding or related to it.

We know now that Mueller, in what can only be construed as institutional deference to the presidency, decided not to subpoena or otherwise compel Trump to testify in person and under oath. That may not be a surprise, given that Mueller is an institutionalist to his core. But it also is a glaring and, in my mind, unfortunate lapse in what otherwise appears to have been a thorough and sophisticated investigation. Trump has provided written answers to Mueller’s queries, but compelling the president to answer in person would have given the probe and its report more authority and traction — especially given how aggressively the president chose to interfere with what he relentlessly described as a “witch hunt.”

We also know that Mueller leveled about 200 criminal charges against 34 people and three Russian companies. Within that group, 26 people were Russian nationals and six were once Trump advisers (Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Roger Stone, to jog your memory). Trump’s presidential campaign and his transition into the White House were populated by criminals, the facts of which can’t be disputed thanks to Mueller’s investigation. Russians, beyond a doubt, burglarized private computer servers of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign adviser John Podesta in an effort to tilt the 2016 election in Trump’s favor, the facts of which are also indisputable thanks to Mueller’s investigation. Russian interests also used social media to disseminate fake news and support Trump at the direction of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. Those facts can’t be disputed, either, thanks to Mueller’s investigation.

Mueller had a broad investigative mandate when he was authorized to launch his probe on May 17, 2017. That envisioned a “full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election” and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” We can now reasonably conclude that Mueller chose to dive deeply into probing interference in the election, but chose to interpret “any matters” arising from that probe more narrowly (perhaps because of political pressure to keep his focus tight, or simply because he interpreted the legal boundaries that way himself). That appears to have meant that Mueller decided to leave an examination of the Trump Organization and the president’s business dealings and finances to other law enforcement officials (best exemplified, perhaps, by his decision to refer the Cohen prosecution to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan).

In that context, we also know now that Mueller’s team found no reason to indict Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner or other members of the Trump family — including, of course, the president himself — as part of its investigation. That certainly doesn’t mean, however, that the president, his family and his company are out of the woods legally. They’re all being scrutinized by a number of investigators, including federal prosecutors in Manhattan, three state attorneys general and five congressional committees. Parts of those probes could continue for years.

In the near term, Mueller’s report marks the end of the beginning of the Trump investigations. In a letter to senior congressional leaders on Friday evening, Barr said he may be able to inform them of the Mueller report’s “principal conclusions” sometime this weekend. He said he plans to confer with both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law” and that he is “committed to as much transparency as possible.”

There’s the rub. The actions of the most transparently unethical and lawless president of the modern era are being formally memorialized by law enforcement in a report and through a process that has been largely opaque. We don’t know what we don’t know, and Barr is about to take the first crack at deciding what we should know. He and Congress may be poised for an epic showdown over transparency and the full contours of Robert Mueller’s magnum opus.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... t-you-know


Very Quick Thoughts on the End of the Mueller Investigation

Attorney General William Barr now has the Mueller Report, and the world looks a heck of a lot like it did yesterday, when Barr did not have the Mueller Report. At least, it appears to. The major difference is that the mystery before us has slightly changed form. Before today, we asked what Mueller was going to do, what indictments he was going to bring, and what allegations he was going to make. Today, we ask a subtly different question: What is it that he has written? What allegations has he made? And why has he decided not to make those allegations in the form of additional cases?

We don’t, at this stage, know anything about what information the Mueller Report contains. We don’t know what form the document takes. We don’t even know how many pages comprise it. We don’t know when we will learn what Mueller has found. Speculating about these questions is not useful. A huge amount depends here on how Mueller imagines his role—and on how Barr imagines his.

But there are certain things we do know: We know, for example, that Mueller was able to finish his investigation on his own terms. We know this because Barr said so in his letter to Congress Friday evening. The special counsel regulations, writes Barr, “require that I provide [Congress] with ‘a description and explanation of incidents (if any) in which the Attorney General’” countermanded an investigative step of the special counsel. “There were no such instances during the Special Counsel’s investigation.” This is reassuring. From it, we can at least tentatively conclude that the Mueller report—whatever is in it—reflects Mueller’s best assessment of the evidence, following his having taken every investigative step he felt necessary and appropriate to reach that assessment.

We also know that Mueller is not going to indict more people. Though what precisely this means is unclear, it means at a minimum that we should not expect the major collusion indictment that ties together the earlier Russian hacking allegations and social media indictment with conduct by figures in the Trump campaign. It also means that whatever Mueller found on the obstruction prong of the investigation, it’s not resulting in criminal charges either.

The president should wait before popping the champagne corks over this and tweeting in triumph. Yes, in the best-case scenario for the president, Mueller is not proceeding further because he lacks the evidence to do so. But even this possibility contains multitudes: everything from what the president calls “NO COLLUSION!” to evidence that falls just short of adequate to prove criminal conduct to a reasonable jury beyond a reasonable doubt—evidence that could still prove devastating if the conduct at issue becomes public.

There are other possibilities as well. It’s possible, for example, that Mueller is not proceeding against certain defendants other than the president because he has referred them to other prosecutorial offices; some of these referrals are already public, and it’s reasonable to expect there may be other referrals too. In this iteration, what is ending here is not the investigation, merely the portion of the investigation Mueller chose to retain for himself. It’s possible also that Mueller is finished because he has determined that while the evidence would support a prosecution of the president, he is bound by the Justice Department’s long-standing position that the president is not amenable to criminal process. On the obstruction front, he may well have concluded that, while the president acted to obstruct the investigation, he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the president’s obstructive acts were not exercises of Trump’s Article II powers. It’s also possible that Mueller has strong prudential reasons for not proceeding with otherwise viable cases.

My gut instinct is that it is some combination of these factors that explains the end of the probe. Without knowing the reasons the investigation is finished, it is impossible to know how to assess its end—and nobody should try.

Finally, we also know other one big thing: There is a report—some kind of, as Barr describes it, quoting the relevant regulation, “‘confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions’ he has reached.” About this document we admittedly know little. Barr said in his letter that he is reviewing the document and “may be in a position to advise [Congress] of the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.” How capacious this initial accounting will be is known only to Barr himself. But Barr has also promised to make as much of Mueller’s findings public as he can consistent with the law—a promise he reiterated in his letter Friday evening. So it’s reasonable to expect, though not to be complacent in the expectation, that over time, the underlying factual findings and legal analysis will emerge.

All of which, as I say, shifts the conversation from what Mueller will do to what he has written in explaining what he has done—and what he has not done. Vindication for the president will take place only when we learn that the facts contained in the report exculpate him. The end of the Mueller probe could well prove tomorrow to be merely the creation of a factual record for the next act of this drama.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... t-you-know



Subpoenas, sentencings and Stone: What will become of the special counsel’s unfinished business?

The conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election concluded Friday with the news that a final report had been delivered to the attorney general. The probe’s formal end, however, leaves questions about several ongoing legal proceedings, including the prosecution of Roger Stone, a former adviser to President Donald Trump.

In addition to Stone’s prosecution, the office’s legal loose ends include two sentencings and two grand jury subpoena appeals. Yet the government’s plans to carry those matters forward are unclear.

Before the dramatic news Friday, the special counsel’s high-powered appellate team appeared to be on the verge, after a long struggle, of winning a series of appeals filed by two recalcitrant witnesses fighting subpoenas to appear before his grand jury. If those victories had been secured, Mueller would have the right to seek documents and testimony from Andrew Miller, an associate of Stone’s, and a mysterious company about which little is known, other than it is owned by a foreign government and has an office in the United States.

The mysterious company, while zealously guarding its identity from public disclosure, had fought Mueller from the district court all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was poised to decide whether to hear the case on Friday. Miller had also repeatedly dragged his case from the district court to the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., and back, losing every time. As of late Friday night, the Supreme Court still had not issued its decision on whether to hear the mystery company’s appeal.

Roger Stone, an associate of President Trump's, leaves the U.S. District Court, after a court status conference on his seven charges in Washington. (Photo: Cliff Owen/AP)

Now, with the investigation officially over, it appears that both Miller and the mystery company may have been handed a new argument: The request for their documents and testimony is moot — with the special counsel’s investigation concluded, additional fact-finding can no longer be needed for the probe.

That may not, however, be the end of the matter. Mueller’s grand jury in Washington, D.C., the legally independent body that issued the subpoenas, had its term extended in January for up to six months, just before its initial 18-month term was set to expire. Another part of the Justice Department, such as the department’s foreign influence unit or the prosecutors who take over Stone’s case, could seek to step in and begin working with the grand jury to obtain the witnesses’ testimony.

In addition, two former federal prosecutors agreed that the Justice Department would likely be loath to see recalcitrant witnesses come away with such an easy victory.

“I think some other unit within the Justice Department will likely see it through, either [the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.] or maybe DOJ national security,” said Harry Sandick, a former prosecutor with the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office. “It would set a bad precedent for Mueller to let witnesses defeat a subpoena through delay.”

“I think that somebody will carry on the litigation because the grand jury is still in session until June,” said Elizabeth de la Vega, a former organized crime prosecutor, agreeing.

This courtroom sketch depicts Rick Gates, right, testifying last year during questioning in the bank fraud and tax evasion trial of Paul Manafort. (Dana Verkouteren via AP)
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, declined to comment on what would happen next with the contested subpoenas.

Mueller’s investigators had also executed search warrants at Roger Stone’s residences in Florida and New York when they arrested him in late January, seizing computers and phones, among other things. In court filings in Stone’s case, prosecutors disclosed that they had seized 9 terabytes from the electronic devices they found — an enormous volume of stored data roughly equivalent to 29 hours of ultra-high-resolution video. It seems unlikely that the investigators would have been able to screen and review so much material in the less than two months since the search.

The special counsel’s office is also closing with prosecutions still pending at various stages of completion. These include defendants who are waiting only to be sentenced at the completion of their cooperation, such as retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, and Rick Gates. Defendant Stone is in the pretrial stages of his prosecution, and a large number of foreign defendants have been indicted but not arrested and brought before a court. It is unlikely they ever will be.

The prosecution of Stone on charges of lying in Congressional testimony and intimidating other witnesses will go forward even though the investigation that gave rise to the charges has come to a close. Stone will be prosecuted by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., whose prosecutors have been attached to the case since its initiation, Carr confirmed by email Friday evening.

Prosecutions that may spring to life in the future, for example, if the Russian defendants associated with the Internet Research Agency were ever arrested, would be handled by other Justice Department offices associated with those cases. Whether any former special counsel attorneys will continue to participate remains to be determined, Carr wrote.

The Department of Justice in Washington, Friday. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The prosecutions of Gates, Trump’s deputy campaign manager, and Flynn, however, do not have any Justice Department components other than special counsel’s office involved.

Gates’s sentencing has been serially postponed, most recently on March 15, because Gates “continues to cooperate with respect to several ongoing investigations,” according to a status update filed with the court. It’s not clear how many of those investigations remain ongoing after Friday’s announcements; the next update is due in May. Gates’s sentencing, when it happens, will be handled by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., according to Carr.

Flynn’s sentencing was delayed late last year after the federal judge expressed his extreme distaste with Flynn’s conduct and offered him the chance to complete his cooperation before being sentenced, an offer the retired general decided to accept. The next status update in Flynn’s case is due in June.

The two special counsel attorneys assigned to Flynn’s case, Brandon Van Grack and Zainab Ahmad, had left the special counsel’s office even before the conclusion of its investigation on Friday. Asked which Justice Department office would be taking over Flynn’s case to handle the sentencing, Carr replied: “To be determined.”
https://news.yahoo.com/stone-what-will- ... 16626.html


Mueller’s Final Move
If the news that Mueller finished his report with no conspiracy indictments left you confused, don’t feel bad. Tea was left scratchin’ his chin whiskers most of the early evenin’, too. That is until he took a few breaths and applied a little horse-sense to the puzzle. Then things started started fallin’ into place.

Before we get into the details, let’s first examine Bob Mueller’s very nature, because that is the key to makin’ sense of this 11th hour chess move.
First ask yourself four words you’d use to describe Mr. Mueller. Tea thinks a fair consensus would be “smart,” “proper,” “expedient” and “frugal.” Mueller hates spendin’ money. He’s known to regularly bring his lunch in a brown paper bag. He’s proper; he always follows the book and, most importantly, he’s smart. Here lie the clues we need to get a glimpse into his likely end-game strategy.
Now let’s examine why his office brought no conspiracy charges.
Workin’ backwards, bringin’ conspiracy charges wouldn’t be “frugal.” If Mueller took on the task of prosecutin’ Don Jr, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort for the now-famous Trump Tower meetin’, it would require extendin’ his charter for at least two more years, for such a case would be fought all the way to the Supreme Court and back. This would greatly extend the cost of his mission and add fuel to fire for his critics.
The Special Counsel is designed more as an investigative collaboration, rather than a prosecutorial one. So the idea of recreatin’ an entire team to do the work done everyday by any of our federal districts wouldn’t be “expedient.”
“Proper” plays a vital role. Since Mueller plays by the book, his primary directive would be for a case to be tried where the venue is “proper.” Ask yourself the simple question, “Where did the bulk of the alleged Trump-Russia conspiracy take place?” and you have your answer: “New York City.” It would be silly for Mueller to prosecute Trump, Kush and the rest of Team Treason in D.C. when the crime took place in New York, right?
Simply put, this is “smart!” If Mueller prosecuted Diaper Donnie, Trump could pull the plug on Mueller’s charter and we’d litigate it in the courts until doomsday just to get the case back on track. But placin’ the venue in the purview of the Sovereign District of New York is a stroke of genius, safely away from Trump’s pryin’ baby hands. It’s frugal because SDNY is budgeted for just such actions. It’s expedient because SDNY is fully staffed and ready to roll. The venue is proper and, dang it, it’s just plain smart.
So… don’t be surprised if Monday mornin’ or one day real soon the SDNY drops the hammer on Little Donnie, Kush, Manafort, et, al. This would be the perfect setup for Individual-1 to be revealed in Mueller’s report as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Trump-Russia conspiracy.

Oh! One more thing. News broke tonight that the SDNY replaced the lead attorney on the Michael Cohen case with Audrey Strauss, famous for his defeat of Roy Cohn, lawyer for the Gambino crime family and Trump family attorney till his death. What’s the chances the SDNY decided to bring in the one attorney that beat Trump’s lucky charm, Roy Cohn? Tea Pain’s Grandpa Virgil always said, “Don’t believe in coincidences, Tea Pain, cause they take a heap of plannin’!”
https://www.teapaintrain.com/post/mueller-s-final-move



NY AG James
17 AGs have joined our call to urge US Attorney General William Barr to release the Mueller report to the public.

Our joint statement:
Image

45 years apart
Image
Image


Battle Looms Over Executive Privilege as Congress Seeks Access to Mueller Files

March 22, 2019
Attorney General William P. Barr has said he wants to be as transparent as possible but also that he will act consistently with the Justice Department’s regulations for special counsels.Doug Mills/The New York Times


Attorney General William P. Barr has said he wants to be as transparent as possible but also that he will act consistently with the Justice Department’s regulations for special counsels.Doug Mills/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The makings of an epic constitutional battle over the executive branch’s power to keep information secret from Congress started to take shape on Friday, as Attorney General William P. Barr began to weigh how much to disclose about the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

As Mr. Barr officially informed Congress that Mr. Mueller had handed in his long-awaited report about the Trump-Russia investigation to the Justice Department, Democrats on Capitol Hill immediately reiterated their demands to see the entire document — and more.

Democrats have made clear they are also determined to gain access to the Mueller team’s supporting evidence and other investigative files, virtually guaranteeing a fight.

“Now that Special Counsel Mueller has submitted his report to the attorney general, it is imperative for Mr. Barr to make the full report public and provide its underlying documentation and findings to Congress,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said in a joint statement.

In a letter to Congress on Friday, Mr. Barr said he might release Mr. Mueller’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend. He is expected to take a longer time to review the broader report for information that is classified, subject to grand-jury secrecy rules or relevant to any open investigation before deciding what to show to Congress.

Mr. Barr also plans to consult with the White House about any confidential internal information, including private conversations of the president, that is potentially subject to executive privilege. Decisions about what to make public will be even more complicated.

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has conducted an extensive investigation into Russian efforts to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential race. Here is the story of how it all started.Doug Mills/The New York Times
The House voted unanimously this month for a nonbinding resolution demanding that lawmakers be permitted to read the entire report and that the public be allowed to see as much as the law allows — even though the Justice Department’s special counsel regulations, written by the Clinton administration after Ken Starr’s investigation into the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals, do not call for that. They also do not prohibit it.

Asked about the report in recent days, President Trump said he wanted Mr. Barr to “let people see it.”

Regardless of how much of the report is eventually disclosed, Democrats are also pushing for information and material Mr. Mueller gathered but did not put in the report. Such files could include documents and records of interviews with witnesses, as well as any internal memos the Mueller team wrote analyzing negative information about people whom it ultimately decided against indicting.

The Justice Department traditionally opposes turning over such files — especially if they contain information relevant to investigations that remain open. Mr. Mueller has handed off many cases his office developed to regular Justice Department prosecutors for continued pursuit, and there remains a permanently open counterintelligence investigation into Russia.

“We’re definitely on a collision course for a major fight at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue over both the Mueller report, testimony related to it and the underlying case files,” said Andrew Wright, who specialized in executive privilege matters as a White House lawyer in the Obama administration and was a congressional oversight staff member.

Such a fight would play out politically — with accusations by Democrats of a cover-up and by Republicans of legislative overreach — and legally. Democrats would begin with a House subpoena to Mr. Barr, followed by a vote to hold him in contempt over whatever he does not turn over.

The House would then file a lawsuit to enforce its subpoena, asking a court to order Mr. Barr to comply with it. That would require the judge to decide whether Mr. Barr had a lawful basis to disregard the subpoena, including whether any invocation of executive privilege by Mr. Trump was legitimate.

Image

Mueller Has Delivered His Report. Here’s What We Already Know.

More than two years of criminal indictments and steady revelations about Trump campaign contacts with Russians reveal the scope of the special counsel investigation.

Anticipating a lengthy fight, Democrats have already moved to gain access another way to some of the information Mr. Mueller gathered: by asking his witnesses who provided materials to him to give them copies of the same records. Swiftly recreating as much of Mr. Mueller’s files as possible was a key strategy behind letters the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, sent to 81 people and organizations this month asking for records.

The committee so far has received tens of thousands of pages, but the most sensitive information gathered is available only from Mr. Mueller, leaving plenty to fight over.

The top Democrats on six House committees issued a joint statement on Friday night calling on the Justice Department not only to release to the public “the entire report,” but also to give their panels “the underlying evidence uncovered during the course of the special counsel’s investigation” upon request.

One potential obstacle will be information that is classified, like material that could reveal a secret source of intelligence about the Russian government. The executive branch traditionally limits highly sensitive information to the intelligence committees or even just the top “Gang of Eight” congressional leaders.

Another potential hurdle will be information that Mr. Mueller used a grand jury to gather, such as records and testimony he obtained by subpoena. Federal rules of criminal procedure generally bar disclosure of such materials to outsiders — a limit that, on its face, makes no exception for Congress.

Still, a judge could issue an order permitting grand jury information to be shared with Congress, as happened in 1974 during the Watergate scandal. A key question would be whether the Trump administration consents to such a request — as the Nixon administration did — or fights it.

Notably, for the part of the investigation that focused on whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice, Mr. Mueller’s team gathered information from witnesses through voluntary F.B.I. interviews that are not shielded by grand-jury secrecy rules, according to lawyers familiar with the matter.

A Special Episode of ‘The Daily’: Robert Mueller Submits His Report

The Mueller report has been sent to the attorney general. Here’s a look at what this means and what comes next.
A more sweeping obstacle will be any information that Mr. Trump seeks to shield by invoking executive privilege — the power to keep secret information whose disclosure could inhibit the executive branch’s ability to carry out its constitutional functions, like chilling the candor of internal deliberations.

There are two categories of information that may be protected by executive privilege: communications involving the president — which would most likely apply only to events after Mr. Trump was sworn in — and internal agency deliberations, including investigative files covering the campaign and transition.

But the scope and limits of executive privilege are murky. Courts have held that Congress also has a right to gain access to information it needs to carry out its own constitutional functions of conducting oversight and enacting legislation.

Because these rival imperatives overlap, courts have encouraged presidents and lawmakers to resolve disputes by negotiating compromises to accommodate both branches’ needs, like letting lawmakers read certain documents but not take copies of them. As a result, few disputes have resulted in definitive judicial rulings that could serve as guideposts if both sides dig in over the Mueller files.

In recent years, the line the Justice Department has tried to hold has eroded because Republicans repeatedly demanded and gained access to internal law-enforcement information generated during the Obama era, including going to court to obtain department emails about how to respond to congressional inquiries about the gun trafficking investigation called Fast and Furious.

Republican lawmakers also obtained information about the Hillary Clinton email server investigation, including a record of her F.B.I. interview and — with Mr. Trump’s help — information about the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, including an intelligence wiretap order targeting Carter Page, a former adviser to the Trump campaign with links to Russia.

“A constitutional conflict is very likely in this circumstance,” said Mark J. Rozell, author of the book “Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy and Accountability.”

“I don’t see the House backing down from its request to get access to the full record, and the president is certainly not going to allow that to happen to the extent that he can stop it,” he added. “This may need a judicial resolution.”

Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/p ... eller.html



What Mueller Leaves Behind

The attorney general says he may be able to advise Congress of the special counsel’s principal conclusions as early as this weekend.

Natasha Bertrand is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where she covers national security and the intelligence community.
Mar 22, 2019

Alex Wong / Getty
After one year, 10 months, and six days, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his final report to the attorney general, signaling the end of his investigation into a potential conspiracy between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Mueller’s pace has been breakneck, legal experts tell me—especially for a complicated criminal investigation that involves foreign nationals and the Kremlin, an adversarial government. The next-shortest special-counsel inquiry was the three-and-a-half-year investigation of the Plame affair, under President George W. Bush; the longest looked into the Iran-Contra scandal, under President Ronald Reagan, which lasted nearly seven years. Still, former FBI agents have expressed surprise that Mueller ended his probe without ever personally interviewing its central target: Donald Trump.

The content of the special counsel’s report is still unknown—Mueller delivered it to Attorney General William Barr on Friday, and now it’s up to Barr to write his own summary of the findings, which will then go to Congress.

Read: Americans don’t need the Mueller report to judge Trump

While aspects of the central pieces of Mueller’s investigation—conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and kompromat, the Russians’ practice of collecting damaging information about public figures to blackmail them with—have been revealed publicly through indictments and press-friendly witnesses, the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency, and Mueller’s own legacy, still hang in the balance. Did Trump’s campaign knowingly work with Russia to undermine Hillary Clinton and win the election? And how much was Mueller actually able to uncover?

Here are the threads Mueller has begun to publicly unravel—and the lingering mysteries that might fall to Congress to solve.

Conspiracy

To date, Mueller has leveled the conspiracy charges most relevant to the core of his probe—Russia’s election interference—at Russian nationals. In February 2018, his office indicted 13 Russians connected to Russia’s Internet Research Agency, a troll farm based in St. Petersburg that flooded the internet with propaganda and divisive political content leading up to the election. Beginning in 2014, Mueller wrote, the defendants “knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other … to defraud the United States” by influencing U.S. political processes in an operation they dubbed “Project Lakhta.” Two of the defendants, Aleksandra Krylova and Anna Bogacheva, actually traveled to the United States in the summer of 2014 to “gather intelligence” for the project, according to the indictment. The indictment did not make a judgment as to whether the results of the election were impacted, or whether collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia occurred.

Months later, and just days before Trump’s bilateral summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, Mueller pounced again: He indicted 12 Russian military-intelligence officers, alleging that they had hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and top staffers for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. (The entire contents of the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email inbox, stolen by Russia in March 2016, were dumped by WikiLeaks just minutes after the Access Hollywood tape damaging to Trump was released by The Washington Post.)

Read: The House’s latest move could be a big threat to Trump’s presidency

Again, though, Mueller stopped short of alleging any kind of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. The closest he came was this sentence: “On or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton’s personal office” (emphasis mine). By using the words for the first time, Mueller appeared to be emphasizing the fact that the hackers’ activity that day was unique—a significant detail, given another major event that took place on July 27, 2016: Trump’s “Russia, if you’re listening,” speech, in which he implored Moscow to find Clinton’s emails.

The closest Mueller has publicly come so far to establishing a link between Trump’s campaign and the Russian hackers is through Roger Stone, a longtime Trump confidant whom Mueller charged in January with obstruction of justice, making false statements to Congress, and witness tampering. In a court filing last month, Mueller linked Stone directly to one of the Russian military-intelligence (GRU) officers, writing that the search warrants his team conducted against the GRU revealed that Guccifer 2.0, a fictitious online persona created by the Russians, “interacted directly with Stone concerning other stolen materials posted separately online.” Stone has said he had “a short and innocuous Direct Message Exchange with Guccifer 2.0” in August 2016, in which Guccifer offered to “help” him. The January indictment of Stone also offered the clearest link yet between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, and suggested that the campaign might have known about additional stolen emails before they were released.

Many questions are still unanswered. One of them is whether Stone and the Trump campaign coordinated WikiLeaks’ release of the stolen Podesta emails to distract from the Access Hollywood tape, which showed Trump making vulgar comments about women. The emails were dumped just minutes after the tape was released on October 7, 2016, and the Stone indictment reveals a tantalizing new detail: Shortly after the Podesta emails were released, a Trump-campaign associate texted Stone “Well done.”

Also unknown: the whereabouts of a Russia-linked professor from Malta who told the Trump-campaign adviser George Papadopoulos in April 2016—before the Russian hacks were made public—that Russia had “dirt” on Clinton in the “form of thousands of emails,” according to a criminal information filed by Mueller against Papadopoulos in October 2017. It is still not clear how the professor, Joseph Mifsud, seemed to know in advance that Russia sought to compromise Clinton’s candidacy, and he has virtually disappeared since his name was made public in 2017.

Read: The White House has no plan for confronting the Mueller Report

And what about the internal campaign polling data that Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort gave to the suspected Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik in August 2016? One of the top prosecutors on Mueller’s team, Andrew Weissmann, said in a closed-door hearing last month that this episode goes “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.” But it has yet to be resolved in either court filings or hearings in Manafort’s case—he was sentenced last week to serve about seven years in prison for tax and bank fraud and failing to register as a foreign agent for Ukraine.

The extent to which Manafort was using his high-level campaign role to curry favor with the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska is also still unclear, as is the purpose of a meeting that another Russian oligarch, Viktor Vekselberg, had with Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen before the inauguration. A meeting that Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016, in which Kushner proposed setting up a secret back-channel line of communication to Moscow using the Russian embassy, has also never been fully explained. Nor has Kushner’s meeting around the same time with Sergey Gorkov, the CEO of the Russian state-owned Vnesheconombank and a close friend of Putin’s. The meeting came as Kushner was trying to find investors for a Fifth Avenue office building in Manhattan. (Reuters reported in 2017 that the FBI was examining whether Gorkov suggested to Kushner that Russian banks could finance Trump associates’ business ventures if U.S. sanctions on Russia were lifted or relaxed.) The Kremlin and the White House have provided conflicting explanations for why Kushner met privately with Gorkov in the first place.

A 2017 meeting in the Seychelles involving the informal Trump-campaign adviser Erik Prince and another Russian banker also remains a mystery, as does a proposed peace plan for Ukraine that Cohen delivered to the White House in January 2017, which would involve lifting sanctions on Russia. Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s motivations for lying to the FBI about his conversations with Kislyak about sanctions—a felony to which he pleaded guilty in December 2017—are similarly unclear. (Flynn has been cooperating with Mueller for more than a year.) Just days after Trump took office, though, his administration looked into lifting the sanctions that former President Barack Obama had imposed on Russia over its meddling in the 2016 election, raising questions about whether some kind of quid pro quo had occurred.

And one of the biggest lingering mysteries of all: Why did a computer server for Alfa Bank, a private Russian bank led by oligarchs with close ties to Putin, convey a disproportionate interest in reaching a server used by the Trump Organization during the campaign? The server activity has been investigated in-depth by journalists and the FBI. But a conclusion has never been reached.

Obstruction of Justice

Much has been reported about the special counsel’s interest in whether Trump obstructed justice—a felony—when he asked former FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn in February 2017; fired Comey in May 2017; and, in July 2017, drafted a misleading statement about a meeting his campaign had with Russians at the height of the election. But Mueller has revealed virtually nothing about that line of inquiry in court filings, perhaps out of sensitivity to the Justice Department policy that forbids the indictment of a sitting president. Whether he addresses it in his final report is an open question.

Read: The fan-fictioning of Robert Mueller

Even so, we already know a lot about what Mueller has been interested in. According to The New York Times, Mueller has been examining how far Trump went to keep Flynn in his orbit and safe from prosecution after the White House learned that the FBI was examining Flynn’s phone calls with Kislyak during the transition period. Mueller has also been investigating Trump’s decision to fire Comey a few months after asking him, unsuccessfully, for both his loyalty and to let Flynn “go.” Mueller is also reportedly interested in why Trump was so angry with then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia probe, and wants to know more about Trump’s attempts to fire him after he was appointed—attempts that were reportedly thwarted by the president’s staff.

Despite Trump’s claim that Comey was fired because of how he handled the Clinton-email probe, Trump reportedly told Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that firing Comey, whom he described as a “nut job,” had eased the pressure of the ongoing Russia investigation. “I just fired the head of the FBI,” Trump told the Russians, according to a document summarizing the meeting that was read to the Times. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

After Comey’s firing, the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into the president himself—an unprecedented move—to determine whether he was acting as a secret Russian agent. The obstruction inquiry was folded into that broader counterintelligence probe, according to the acting FBI director at the time, Andrew McCabe. Mueller took over the entire Russia investigation, including the counterintelligence probe into the president, days later. The question the FBI was trying to answer—whether Trump was acting at Russia’s behest rather than in U.S. interests—remains an open one.

And then there’s the infamous Trump Tower meeting with the Russians at the height of the election—and the misleading statement that followed. In July 2017, as Trump and his aides were flying back to the U.S. from a whirlwind trip to Poland and Germany, The New York Times published what seemed like a smoking gun: Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner had attended a meeting at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, with a Russian lawyer who promised dirt on Clinton. When news of the meeting broke, Trump—who has insisted that he did not know about the meeting until it was reported in the Times—helped write a statement for his son that omitted any reference to compromising information about Clinton; it said the meeting was instead about Russia’s adoption policy, a topic the president had discussed the day before with Putin at the G20 Summit. Mueller has made that misleading statement a focus of his investigation, according to questions drafted by the president’s lawyers based on their conversations with Mueller’s team.

Kompromat

The House Intelligence Committee, led by Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, is now fixated on investigating one overarching question: Is the president currently compromised by Russia? Mueller has not publicly drawn any conclusions about how Trump’s business dealings or personal behavior might have made him vulnerable to blackmail before—and perhaps even during—his time in office. But in charges filed last year against Cohen, Mueller provided the public with evidence, for the first time, that could show that Trump was compromised by Russia while Putin was waging a direct attack on the 2016 election.

Read: Roger Stone’s secret messages with WikiLeaks

Cohen admitted in federal court in New York in November that he lied to Congress about how often he and Trump had spoken about building a Trump Tower in Moscow in 2016, and acknowledged that he had tried to organize a trip for Trump to Russia in 2016 to scope out the potential project after Trump clinched the Republican nomination. He lied both to minimize Trump’s link to the Moscow project and to limit “the ongoing Russia investigations,” according to Mueller’s team. Cohen, who sat for more than 70 hours of interviews with Mueller’s team last year after deciding to cooperate, also contacted the Kremlin “asking for assistance in connection with the Moscow Project” in January 2016, according to Mueller. Cohen was sentenced in December to serve three years in prison for tax and bank-fraud crimes and making false statements to Congress.

Trump had insisted both during and after the election that he had no business ties to Russia, and his alleged double-dealing could have allowed Russia to use the project—which Trump had been pursuing for decades— as leverage, intelligence experts told me. The project might also contextualize Trump’s consistent and inexplicable praise for Putin along the campaign trail. “This shows motive: Trump’s desire to pursue a major deal in Russia,” Jens David Ohlin, the vice dean of Cornell Law School, told me at the time. “It finally gives Mueller some direct evidence that Trump’s associates continued to pursue business opportunities in Russia during the campaign, which would explain why Trump was, and continues to be, so deferential to Russia in general and Putin in particular. The motive was financial.”

A dossier written by the former British spy Christopher Steele in 2016, which outlined the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia during the election, raised another possibility: that Trump engaged in lewd behavior during a trip to Moscow in 2013, which was recorded and is now being held over his head. According to the dossier, the Kremlin tried to exploit “Trump's personal obsessions and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him.” Cohen told lawmakers last month that he had “no reason to believe” such a recording exists, and Trump has denied doing anything obscene while in Russia. His longtime bodyguard Keith Schiller reportedly told the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door interview in 2017 that someone in Russia offered to send five prostitutes to Trump's Moscow hotel room in 2013, but that Schiller declined the offer on Trump’s behalf.

Mueller’s report is expected to address only criminal activity, so he might not be able to explain whether Trump has been compromised. But the president’s deference to Putin has largely continued throughout his time in office. In July 2018, for example, when the pair met for a bilateral summit in Helsinki, Trump stunned the world when he sided with Putin over the U.S. intelligence community on questions about Russia’s hacking of the 2016 election and other bad behavior. “He tells me he didn’t do it,” Trump said of Putin, referring to the election interference. “I will tell you this, I don’t know why he would do it,” Trump said. The president has also been very secretive about his private conversations with Putin, to the point where he reportedly took his interpreter’s notes from a meeting he had with Putin in Hamburg, Germany, in 2017 and tore them up. Trump also wouldn’t allow any of his aides into his private meeting with Putin in Helsinki.

Read: Paul Manafort, American hustler

Trump’s bank of choice for decades, Deutsche Bank, is another area where Democrats say Mueller should be looking to find evidence that Trump might be compromised—the German bank was involved in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal and has loaned to Trump when no one else would. The House Intelligence and Financial Services Committees have already begun talks with the bank, which said in a statement that it plans to assist the lawmakers “in their official oversight functions.”

“If the special counsel hasn’t subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, he can’t be doing much of a money-laundering investigation,” Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, said last month. “So, that’s what concerns me—that that red line has been enforced, whether by the deputy attorney general or by some other party at the Justice Department. But that leaves the country exposed.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... mp/585526/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:25 pm

John Dean

Trump and his minions think they dodged a bullet. I have a notion — only a recurring though — that Mueller delivered a bomb to AG Barr, who is now trying to figure out how to tell Trump in a way that doesn’t cause him to start World War III. Barr knows he works for a psycho.
https://twitter.com/JohnWDean


trump2.tiff



Natasha Bertrand

Update from Miller's lawyer: "Several days ago the Special Counsel notified us that they are still interested in having Andrew Miller testify before the grand jury...It is not clear at this point whether any further request for testimony will come from the U.S. Attorney's office"
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand


Shimon Prokupecz

Rick Gates’ case before Judge Amy Berman Jackson will be handed off to the DC US Attorney’s Office, the special counsel’s office said on Saturday.
https://twitter.com/ShimonPro



Seth Abramson

(UPDATE) The minimum number of *active* investigations targeting Trump, many involving pre- and post-election multinational collusion:

# SDNY
# EDNY
# EDVA
# USDC-DC
# NYCDA
# NYAG
# NJAG
# MDAG
# DCAG
# SCO*
# FBI
# CIA
# HPSCI
# SSCI
# HJC
# HOC
# HFSC
# HWMC



(THREAD) *Right now*—in the hours before we see Attorney General Barr's summary of what Mueller sent him yesterday—all Americans *must* understand the counterintelligence component of Mueller's investigation. It's vital to our national security. I hope you'll read on and retweet.


1/ Note: I'm a current attorney and former criminal attorney and criminal investigator. I'm not a national security or counterintelligence expert. But I'm in a position to explain some of the info coming from smart NatSec experts like @AshaRangappa_, @joshscampbell, and others.


2/ One of the chief questions every American should be asking right now—and I mean both red-blooded, proud Republicans and longtime progressives like myself—is what the heck Mueller is supposed to do if he has evidence of dangerous conduct that falls below what he can report out.


3/ DOJ regs appear to broadly prohibit:

(1) Mueller providing derogatory info on individuals he's not going to charge with a crime.
(2) Mueller providing any info regarding still-ongoing investigations.
(3) Counterintelligence investigations ending until a threat is neutralized.


4/ People who don't understand the criminal justice system well often balk at the idea—absolutely routine in criminal investigations—that you can have an *enormous* amount of evidence someone committed a crime but be *just short* of sufficient evidence to bring a criminal charge.


5/ In theory—and mind you, over the years I've seen this theory honored "in the breach" as much as I've seen it honored—prosecutors aren't supposed to bring charges against someone unless they're *already sure* they can prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" before a jury.


6/ That works out just fine if the crime is a low-level offense. If a prosecutor in Xenia, Ohio believes there's a 60% chance Mrs. McKendry shoplifted a pack of frozen meat from a supermarket—"beyond a reasonable doubt" equating to 90% or more chance—who cares if he lets her go?


7/ But let's imagine that, instead, the FBI field office in the Southern District of Ohio believes there's a 60% chance Mrs. McKendry gave classified intel to the Saudi government in exchange for a loan for one of her failing real estate businesses. Is it okay to walk away *now*?


8/ What many Trump supporters will tell you—because they don't care about the safety or security of a nation they claim to love, only the legal fate of their paunchy, orange-hued "god-emperor"—is that unless and until you have 90% proof of espionage, the case must... *disappear*.


9/ Thank god—for the sake of your family and mine, and the safety and security of our nation—that's not how it works. That's not how *any* of it works. And the reason is that we have a counterintelligence system of law enforcement alongside our criminal system of law enforcement.


10/ As the excellent @AshaRangappa_ has explained on her feed, a counterintelligence investigation *doesn't* stop because the FBI or CIA has "60%" proof of something versus "40%" proof versus "90%" proof (the latter the point at which behavior might become criminally chargeable).


11/ No—a counterintel investigation continues until a) a threat is neutralized by one means or another (i.e., with certain foreign nationals neutralizing can take extra-judicial forms) or b) the threat has be translated into an ongoing criminal prosecution with 90% proof or more.


12/ Before Mueller was appointed—*long* before—there were at *least* four counterintelligence investigations opened on top Trump aides on the basis of intelligence received from *five* allied intelligence agencies (sorry, Trump dead-enders, it *wasn't* because of the "dossier").


13/ After Comey's firing but before Mueller's appointment, a fifth (at least) counterintel investigation was opened into the possibility that Donald Trump had been compromised by the Russians—which, to be clear, a person *is* the moment they can be blackmailed by a foreign power.


14/ So let's take one of those 5+ investigations and track it: Manafort. In 2016, the FBI and CIA wanted to know if Manafort was a national security threat. When Mueller was appointed a year later, it's not clear if he picked up that counterintel case or just coordinated with it.


15/ So Manafort's many charges may have been the result of a) a criminal probe, or b) a counterintelligence probe that shared information with a criminal probe. In the former case, Mueller did all the work; in the latter, he did some of the investigation and all the prosecuting.


16/ But whither the question of Manafort being a national security threat? Surely *that* concern would've been based on his clandestine contact with Kremlin agents, including what by any definition is collusion—secretly promising valuable election data and reports to the Kremlin.


17/ That Mueller had the Manafort counterintel probe is suggested (if not confirmed) by Mueller interviewing Manafort for *50 hours* after he'd been charged with financial crimes—and the understanding major media gave us that much of the questioning was about Konstantin Kilimnik.


18/ But as we all know, Manafort never gave Mueller anything—almost certainly prompted by his legal team's clandestine contacts with Trump's legal team, following Trump saying (NBC, January '18) Manafort could sink him if he "flipped"—so how could that counterintel probe be done?


19/ Manafort could still cooperate with the feds at any point in the next year for a sentence reduction—which he needs, at 70 years old and facing 7+ years inside—so surely no one at the FBI or CIA is stupid enough to close the case on him just because Mueller is closing up shop.


20/ If you're sharp, you see the massive problem all this creates for Donald Trump—whose status as a national security threat is *precisely* what Mueller would've wanted to find out from Manafort (e.g., if Trump had ordered Manafort to trade favors pre-election with the Kremlin).


21/ As long as Manafort's cooperation with the feds is an active possibility for the counterintelligence investigation into his known collusion with the Kremlin, the *counterintelligence* investigation into whether Donald Trump is a national security threat *cannot* be closed.


22/ We can deduce from this—and it's an elementary, necessary deduction, nothing fancy—that whether or not Mueller for a certain time running was (or simply intersecting with) ongoing Trump-related counterintelligence investigations, him closing up shop *doesn't* end those cases.


23/ So anyone who says the Trump-related counterintel investigations end with the end of Mueller's criminal probe is obviously wrong—as there's just no way for them to be right and have the FBI or CIA have the protocols we universally understand them to have on national security.


24/ I'm going to come back to the fact that we know Trump can be blackmailed by Russia—and is therefore a known national security threat—in a moment, but what if we now check in on someone who *wasn't* (to our *knowledge*) previously the subject of a counterintel probe: Kushner.


25/ One thing we learned from Mueller's probe, solid investigative journalism, and Congressional inquiries is that Kushner secretly transferred classified intel to the architect of Jamal Khashoggi's kidnapping, dismemberment, execution, decapitation, dissolution and incineration.


26/ We know, further—all this is from major-media reports—that the intel Kushner gave to MBS, who he'd been secretly communicating with via WhatsApp for months in an avoidance of FOIA/presidential recording regulations, led to an American citizen being tortured via electrocution.


27/ Obviously I have far more info than this from writing Proof of Conspiracy, so I'll just summarize: Kushner is a major known national security threat whether or not he can yet be charged with a crime. So Mueller not indicting him means what for the counterintel probe? Nothing.


28/ And what this means is that, at any point, the counterintel probe into Kushner—which includes *all* relevant acts, like him seeking a SCIF-enabled backchannel to the Kremlin in December '16—could transform into a criminal probe with charges being publicly brought against him.


29/ But wait! If Mueller had the criminal probe of Kushner—and if, say, he even had the counterintel probe—and didn't indict Kushner, doesn't that mean something? And the answer—as discussed in this thread—is yes.

It means Mueller has 89% or less proof Kushner committed a crime.


30/ Kushner—against the advice of intel agencies and White House NatSec staff—has top secret security clearance and uses it daily. His dad-in-law gifted it to him. Does the idea Mueller has "89% or less proof" Kushner committed a NatSec-related crime make you feel OK about that?


31/ So when you hear that Mueller closing up shop means attention is shifting to Congress—and when you then see news like the news below—it should be clear to you that the idea Kushner is out of the woods counterintel-wise *or* criminally is preposterous.


32/ There are types of speculation I really don't like—particularly on investigative strategy—but I can't fail to note that Mueller *could* have withheld pursuing Kushner for a lesser criminal offense because it would've *shut him up* on the counterintel and Congressional probes.


33/ Whether or not it was the plan—and I'm not saying it was—one thing that *is* clear is that Mueller not indicting Kushner makes it difficult for him to say he won't cooperate with Congress (including counterintelligence probes in HPSCI or SSCI) because he may face indictment.


34/ Likewise—whether or not Mueller factored this into his thinking—I can say based on my own experience and professional judgment that a prosecutor would rather extend probes that may lead to Kushner facing real justice than charge him with lesser crimes and unleash bedlam now.


35/ All this explains how misleading the "Russia probe is over" line media is using is. But what about Trump? Any lie he told voters of which the Kremlin knew the truth of the matter was a point of blackmail for Putin—for instance, the details of his secret Moscow tower deal(s).


36/ Is it a crime to trading U.S. foreign policy for a tower? Yes. It could be conspiracy, aiding/abetting, money laundering, RICO, or even bribery, depending upon the facts. If Mueller had 89% proof of it, it'd stay in counterintel; if he had 90% proof, he still couldn't indict.


37/ So, some Trump possibilities:

1) 90% proof of a "collusive" crime, but you can't indict Trump, only refer him for impeachment;
2) close to 90% proof, meaning it stays in counterintel, but could become a referral;
3) well less than 90% proof, meaning it stays in counterintel.

38/ The only option that'd put Trump in the clear is this one:

4) Threat neutralized, as there is 0% proof Trump is compromised.

That would close the counterintel case altogether. But just based on public evidence, that conclusion would be impossible for the FBI or CIA to draw.

39/ All this is *so* confusing that the answers we want we *can't get* on TV or on social media, even from experts. Whatever Mueller writes is merely a small piece of what's happening—the piece we're allowed to see. *Types* of probes and *levels* of proof make so much unknowable.


40/ One thing we know: if Manafort cracks; or Stone; or Kian; if Jr. or Prince are charged with perjury and crack; or anyone Gates/Flynn are helping the feds nail cracks; if Congress gets new intel; if/when Trump keeps criming—*all new intel* will be used by law enforcement. /end
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status ... 3358416896


AFTER MUELLER: AN OFF-RAMP ON RUSSIA FOR THE VENAL FUCKS

March 23, 2019/92 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
We don’t know what the Mueller report says, though given William Barr’s promise to brief the Judiciary Committee leaders this weekend and follow it with a public summary, it’s not likely to be that damning to Trump. But I can think of five mutually non-exclusive possibilities for the report:

Mueller ultimately found there was little fire behind the considerable amounts of smoke generated by Trump’s paranoia

The report will be very damning — showing a great deal of corruption — which nevertheless doesn’t amount to criminal behavior

Evidence that Manafort and Stone conspired with Russia to affect the election, but Mueller decided not to prosecute conspiracy itself because they’re both on the hook for the same prison sentence a conspiracy would net anyway, with far less evidentiary exposure

There’s evidence that others entered into a conspiracy with Russia to affect the election, but that couldn’t be charged because of evidentiary reasons that include classification concerns and presidential prerogatives over foreign policy, pardons, and firing employees

Mueller found strong evidence of a conspiracy with Russia, but Corsi, Manafort, and Stone’s lies (and Trump’s limited cooperation) prevented charging it

As many people have pointed out, this doesn’t mean Trump and his kin are out of jeopardy. This NYT piece summarizes a breathtaking number of known investigations, spanning at least four US Attorneys offices plus New York state, but I believe even it is not comprehensive.

All that said, we can anticipate a great deal of what the Mueller report will say by unpacking the lies Trump’s aides told to hide various ties to Russia: The report will show:

Trump pursued a ridiculously lucrative $300 million real estate deal even though the deal would use sanctioned banks, involve a former GRU officer as a broker, and require Putin’s personal involvement at least through July 2016.

The Russians chose to alert the campaign that they planned to dump Hillary emails, again packaging it with the promise of a meeting with Putin.

After the Russians had offered those emails and at a time when the family was pursuing that $300 million real estate deal, Don Jr took a meeting offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” At the end (per the sworn testimony of four people at the meeting) he said his father would revisit Magnitsky sanctions relief if he won. Contrary to the claim made in a statement authored by Trump, there was some effort to follow up on Jr’s assurances after the election.

The campaign asked rat-fucker Roger Stone to optimize the WikiLeaks releases and according to Jerome Corsi he had some success doing so.

In what Andrew Weissmann called a win-win (presumably meaning it could help Trump’s campaign or lead to a future business gig for him), Manafort provided Konstantin Kilimnik with polling data that got shared with Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs. At the same meeting, he discussed a “peace” plan for Ukraine that would amount to sanctions relief.

Trump undercut Obama’s response to the Russian hacks in December 2016, in part because he believed retaliation for the hacks devalued his victory. Either for that reason, to pay off Russia, and/or to pursue his preferred policy, Trump tried to mitigate any sanctions, an attempt that has (with the notable exception of those targeting Oleg Deripaska) been thwarted by Congress.

We know all of these things — save the Stone optimization detail, which will be litigated at trial unless Trump pardons him first — to be true, either because Trump’s aides and others have already sworn they are true, and/or because we’ve seen documentary evidence proving it.

That’s a great deal of evidence of a quid pro quo — of Trump trading campaign assistance for sanctions relief. All the reasons above may explain why Mueller didn’t charge it, with the added important detail that Trump has long been a fan of Putin. Trump ran openly on sanctions relief and Presidents get broad authority to set their own foreign policy, and that may be why all this coziness didn’t amount to criminal behavior: because a majority of the electoral college voted (with Russia’s involvement) to support those policies.

Whatever reason this didn’t get charged as a crime (it may well have been for several involved, including Trump), several things are clear.

First, consider all this from the perspective of Russia: over and over, they exploited Trump’s epic narcissism and venality. Particularly with regards to the Trump Tower deal, they did so in a way that would be especially damaging, particularly given that even while a former GRU officer was brokering the deal, the GRU was hacking Trump’s opponent. They often did so in ways that would be readily discovered, once the FBI decided to check Kilimnik’s Gmail account. Russia did this in ways that would make it especially difficult for Trump to come clean about it, even if he were an upstanding honest person.

Partly as a result, partly because he’s a narcissist who wanted to deny that he had illicit help to win, and partly because he’s a compulsive liar, Trump and his aides all lied about what they’ve now sworn to be true. Over and over again.

And that raised the stakes of the Russian investigation, which in turn further polarized the country.

As I noted here, that only added to the value of Russia’s intervention. Not only did Trump’s defensiveness make him prefer what Putin told him to what American Russian experts and his intelligence community would tell him, but he set about destroying the FBI in an effort to deny the facts that his aides ultimately swore were true. Sure, Russia hasn’t gotten its sanctions relief, yet. But it has gotten the President himself to attack the American justice system, something Putin loves to do.

We don’t know what the Mueller report will say about Trump’s role in all this, and how that will affect the rest of his presidency. We do know he remains under investigation for his cheating (as an unindicted co-conspirator in the ongoing hush money investigation) and his venality (in the inauguration investigation, at a minimum).

We do know, however, that whatever is in that report is what Mueller wants in it; none of the (Acting) Attorneys General supervising him thwarted his work, though Trump’s refusal to be interviewed may have.

But we also know that Russia succeeded wildly with its attack in 2016 and since.

Democrats and Republicans are going to continue being at each other’s throats over Trump’s policies and judges. Trump will continue to be a venal narcissist who obstructs legitimate oversight into his mismanagement of government.

Both sides, however, would do well to take this report — whatever it says — as the final word on this part of the Russian attack in 2016, and set about protecting the country from the next attack it will launch.

An unbelievable swath of this country — including the denialists who say all those things that Trump’s own aides swore to doesn’t amount to evidence of wrongdoing — have chosen for tribal reasons (and sometimes venal ones) to side with kleptocratic Russians over the protection of America. Now that the report is done, it’s time to focus on protecting the United States again.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/03/23/a ... nal-fucks/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:37 am

.

Is Trump a national security threat?

[That is what Abramson suggests in recapitulating all the usual stuff about Stone and Manafort as the back-channels to Moscow-Mordor.]

Trump threatened to start a nuclear war in front of the United Nations, and he withdrew from the Iran deal and the INF treaty, raising the odds of nuclear conflict by happenstance. These things were done on live TV. Does that rise above the 90% evidence level? The initial hostility to peace in Korea and the Iran and IMF moves both received some Democratic Party backing.

He IS in bed with two belligerent foreign powers, and he tells you this every day. Regarding the Saudi case, he even details the sums he's claiming to get for supporting their barbaric acts and their ongoing genocidal wars in the Middle East. As for Israel, they are the light of the world and the only democracy in the region, don't you know? I'm sure Kushner was soliciting or receiving bids for the 666 rescue from Saudi and Qatar while they were having their near war, and negotiating it on hot phone lines. #Russiagate and Mueller, I submit, is not the reason why this has will become judicially actionable. On the contrary, #Russiagate is the reason why it hasn't been Scandal #1 since 2017. The problem with Kushner's almost starting a war between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, or other Trump Org or regime crimes, is that these are capitalist business as usual or imperialist business as usual. Catering to Saudi and Israeli insanity is considered a boon to "national security." It's too real and connected to the system, and to the leadership of the so-called "opposition." The #Russiagate construct was highly preferable, and its effect was to degrade "security" by any credible definition of the term.

The accomplishment of #Russiagate was to make all of this worse, by escalating tension with a nuclear power on bullshit grounds invented to exonerate the incompetence of Clinton and serve imperialist and natsec/deep state interests, and by distracting away from everything that Trump Org (the criminal business) and the Trump-Pence regime (the "national security" threat or rather active danger to all humanity as a matter of policy) actually do and should be fought on.

Sure, I'm all for the spinoff state-federal investigations of Trump business and emoluments -- which should have been the ORIGINAL MOVE, and almost none of which has jackshit to do with the "Russian collusion" myth concocted by a coalition of dubious interests. What this guy Abramson is urging is to continue to downplay political opposition that can actually defeat Trump, and instead keep vesting all trust in the patriotic CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., whom he is confident can and should also deliver righteous "extra-judicial" neutralizations of threats.

Abramson wrote:11/ No—a counterintel investigation continues until a) a threat is neutralized by one means or another (i.e., with certain foreign nationals neutralizing can take extra-judicial forms) or b) the threat has be translated into an ongoing criminal prosecution with 90% proof or more.


.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby RocketMan » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:52 pm

Whoops.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:09 pm

trump has NOT been cleared of obstruction

looking forward to the complete report and trump's tax returns


Neal Katyal

The Barr Letter says Mueller did not make a determination of whether Trump obstructed justice. It sets out both sides. But Barr concludes— on his determination — that there was no obstruction. How did he do that without trying to interview Trump? Full report now needs to come out
https://mobile.twitter.com/neal_katyal/ ... 1178704897




(((Rep. Nadler)))
@RepJerryNadler
“The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

In light of the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report, where Mueller did not exonerate the President, we will be calling Attorney General Barr in to testify before
@HouseJudiciary
in the near future.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RepJerryNadl ... 8743196674




————————-

PUBLIC CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS


OBSTRUCTION IS DEALT WITH BY THE HOUSE

come on down Mr.Barr......Mr. Mueller

See ya Wednesday when Felix Sater testifies in public :partydance:

Who Is Felix Sater, and Why Is Donald Trump So Afraid of Him?
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... er#p643433



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSpFtCmoD5o


it is going to be a very long year :)



The full letter

March 24, 2019

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel’s Report
On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans –including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” [See footnote 1 at bottom]

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Obstruction of Justice
The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President — most of which have been the subject of public reporting — that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. [See footnote 2 at bottom]

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction of ­justice offense.

Status of the Department’s Review
The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

* * *

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,
William P. Barr
Attorney General


Footnote #1: In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

Footnote #2: See A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:49 pm

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said it best in response to the Barr summary:

“Special Counsel Mueller clearly and explicitly is not exonerating the President, and we must hear from AG Barr about his decision making and see all the underlying evidence for the American people to know all the facts. There must be full transparency in what Special Counsel Mueller uncovered to not exonerate the President from wrongdoing. DOJ owes the public more than just a brief synopsis and decision not to go any further in their work. Special Counsel Mueller worked for 22 months to determine the extent to which President Trump obstructed justice. Attorney General Barr took 2 days to tell the American people that while the President is not exonerated, there will be no action by DOJ.”


-------------------

today vindicates Mueller's wisdom in farming out evidence to 10 other venues


Mueller: trump cannot be exonerated of obstruction of justice

Barr: I exonerate him


the full report has not been released yet..I am not sure how anyone can comment on it's contents



The Many Problems With the Barr Letter
By unilaterally concluding that Mr. Trump did not obstruct justice, the attorney general has made it imperative that the public see the Mueller report.

By Neal K. Katyal
Mr. Katyal is a law professor at Georgetown. He drafted the special counsel regulations under which Robert Mueller was appointed.

March 24, 2019

Attorney General William Barr said that Robert Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether President Trump illegally obstructed justice.
Credit
T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

Attorney General William Barr said that Robert Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether President Trump illegally obstructed justice.CreditCreditT.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times
On Sunday afternoon, soon after Attorney General Bill Barr released a letter outlining the Mueller investigation report, President Trump tweeted “Total EXONERATION!” But there are any number of reasons the president should not be taking a victory lap.

First, obviously, he still faces the New York investigations into campaign finance violations by the Trump team and the various investigations into the Trump organization. And Mr. Barr, in his letter, acknowledges that the Mueller report “does not exonerate” Mr. Trump on the issue of obstruction, even if it does not recommend an indictment.

But the critical part of the letter is that it now creates a whole new mess. After laying out the scope of the investigation and noting that Mr. Mueller’s report does not offer any legal recommendations, Mr. Barr declares that it therefore “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” He then concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey.

Such a conclusion would be momentous in any event. But to do so within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American.

The special counsel regulations were written to provide the public with confidence that justice was done. It is impossible for the public to reach that determination without knowing two things. First, what did the Mueller report conclude, and what was the evidence on obstruction of justice? And second, how could Mr. Barr have reached his conclusion so quickly?

Mr. Barr’s letter raises far more questions than it answers, both on the facts and the law.

His letter says Mr. Mueller set “out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.” Yet we don’t know what those “difficult issues” were, because Mr. Barr doesn’t say, or why Mr. Mueller, after deciding not to charge on conspiracy, let Mr. Barr make the decision on obstruction.

On the facts, Mr. Barr says that the government would need to prove that Mr. Trump acted with “corrupt intent” and there were no such actions. But how would Mr. Barr know? Did he even attempt to interview Mr. Trump about his intentions?

What kind of prosecutor would make a decision about someone’s intent without even trying to talk to him? Particularly in light of Mr. Mueller’s pointed statement that his report does not “exonerate” Mr. Trump. Mr. Mueller didn’t have to say anything like that. He did so for a reason. And that reason may well be that there is troubling evidence in the substantial record that he compiled.

Furthermore, we do not know why Mr. Mueller did not try to force an interview with the president. The reason matters greatly. Mr. Mueller could have concluded that interviews of sitting presidents for obstruction matters are better done within the context of a congressional impeachment investigation (perhaps because a sitting president cannot be indicted, the Barr letter says this legal argument didn’t influence Mr. Barr’s conclusion but again is pointedly silent as to Mr. Mueller).

Or Mr. Barr could have concluded that the attorney general, not a special counsel, should carry out such an interview. The fact that Mr. Barr rushed to judgment, within 48 hours, after a 22 month investigation, is deeply worrisome.

The opening lines of the obstruction section of Mr. Barr’s letter are even more concerning. It says that the special counsel investigated “a number of actions by the president — most of which have been the subject of public reporting.” That suggests that at least some of the foundation for an obstruction of justice charge has not yet been made public. There will be no way to have confidence in such a quick judgment about previously unreported actions without knowing what those actions were.

On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year.

That memo made the argument that the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president. Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel had previously concluded that such an argument to interpret another criminal statute, the bribery law, was wrong.

As such, Mr. Barr’s reference to the office raises the question of whether he tried to enshrine his idiosyncratic view into the law and bar Mr. Trump’s prosecution. His unsolicited memo should be understood for what it is, a badly argued attempt to put presidents above the law. If he used that legal fiction to let President Trump off the hook, Congress would have to begin an impeachment investigation to vindicate the rule of law.

Sometimes momentous government action leaves everyone uncertain about the next move. This is not one of those times. Congress now has a clear path of action. It must first demand the release of the Mueller report, so that Americans can see the evidence for themselves. Then, it must call Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller to testify. Mr. Barr in particular must explain his rationale for reaching the obstruction judgment he made.

No one wants a president to be guilty of obstruction of justice. The only thing worse than that is a guilty president who goes without punishment. The Barr letter raises the specter that we are living in such times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/opin ... e=Homepage


William Barr Did What He Was Hired to Do
He summarized the Mueller Report in the most favorable light possible to the Trump administration*.

BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
MAR 24, 2019
Key Players In Russia Investigation Prepare For Release Of Mueller ReportWIN MCNAMEEGETTY IMAGES
If the president* really had an ounce of empathy in him, he'd issue mass pardons immediately because, otherwise, a number of people are going to feel really stupid going off to federal prison. They will be going off to federal prison knowing that they committed their crimes in defense of nothing. William Barr on Sunday did what he was hired to do. He summarized Robert Mueller's report in the most favorable light possible to the administration* and, where he couldn't do that—specifically, on the crime of obstruction of justice—he just decided to turn Mueller's own conclusion completely upside down. But, in any case, if Barr's summary is taken whole, Paul Manafort et. al. got caught up in a criminal conspiracy in which the only crimes were their own.

To refresh everyone's memory, prior to being appointed Jefferson Beauregard Sessions's successor, Barr wrote a 19-page memo regarding the Mueller investigation in which he pretty much predicted his own summary.

Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction. Apart from whether Mueller a strong enough factual basis for doing so, Mueller’s obstruction theory is fatally misconceived. As I understand it, his theory is premised on a novel and legally insupportable reading of the law. Moreover, in my view, if credited by the Department, it would have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and would do lasting damage to the Presidency and to the administration of law within the Executive branch.
...in a further unprecedented step, Mueller would apply this sweeping prohibition to facially-lawful acts taken by public officials exercising of their discretionary powers if those acts influence a proceeding. Thus, under this theory, simply by exercising his Constitutional discretion in a facially-lawful way — for example, by removing or appointing an official; using his prosecutorial discretion to give direction on a case; or using his pardoning power ~ a President can be accused of committing a crime based solely on his subjective state of mind. As a result, any discretionary act by a President that influences a proceeding can become the subject of a criminal grand jury investigation, probing whether the President acted with an improper motive.
So, when you get to the following passage in Barr's summary, you can't possibly be surprised.

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction.
And thereby hangs the upcoming brawl. Mueller says essentially that he is drawing no conclusions on obstruction of justice. Meanwhile, Barr—and Rod Rosenstein—are saying that, because Mueller drew no conclusions, he did in fact draw a conclusion. The law, as it has been said, is an ass.

Special Counsel Mueller's Trump-Russia Probe Report Reviewed By Attorney General William Barr
Robert Mueller walks in Washington on Sunday.
Tasos KatopodisGetty Images
There will be insufferable cock-a-doodle-doo'ing from the usual suspects for the next two years, and we all better get used to it. I suspect that both Barr and Mueller will get hauled before various congressional committees. In fact, the basic overriding result of Barr's summary is that the whole matter now has been dumped into the laps of a divided and hyper-partisan Congress in such a way as to guarantee that the Congress will be more divided and more hyper-partisan than ever before. The Democratic House will hold hearings and the Republican Senate will yell about Hillary Clinton. The Internet will be indiscriminately insane for the foreseeable future.

For those of us who are Iran-Contra obsessives—and you know who you are out there—this summary carries a similar aroma. A lot of important people are going to pass the buck around to each other, over and over again, until the country forgets what all the fuss was in the first place. This should be no surprise, again, because, back in 1992, when he was George H.W. Bush's AG, Barr advised that president to pardon all of the people convicted in Iran-Contra—people who, unsurprisingly, all could have testified that Bush's non-involvement was a self-serving lie. Maybe he'll give this president* the same advice. Who knows?

The wild card, of course, is the president* himself. He's got another wankfest scheduled this week and he's liable to say anything. And Paul Manafort still will be in jail simply because he got tied up with a guy who opened the floodgates on Manafort's crimes. He'll sit there forever, hoping for a pardon that will never come because he's not the guy who got to appoint his own attorney general to bail him out.

Sucker.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/p ... ald-trump/


Pelosi, Schumer Joint Statement On Attorney General Barr’s Summary Of The Mueller Report

MARCH 24, 2019

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer released the following statement regarding Attorney General Barr’s summary of the Mueller report:

“Attorney General Barr’s letter raises as many questions as it answers. The fact that Special Counsel Mueller’s report does not exonerate the president on a charge as serious as obstruction of justice demonstrates how urgent it is that the full report and underlying documentation be made public without any further delay. Given Mr. Barr’s public record of bias against the Special Counsel’s inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report.

“And most obviously, for the president to say he is completely exonerated directly contradicts the words of Mr. Mueller and is not to be taken with any degree of credibility.

“Congress requires the full report and the underlying documents so that the Committees can proceed with their independent work, including oversight and legislating to address any issues the Mueller report may raise. The American people have a right to know.”




Mueller was clear in finding no collusion, but punted on the matter of obstruction
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... ue-n986811


Mueller’s Unknown Reasoning Could Endanger American Democracy in 2020
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... -2020.html


Mueller's conclusion raises new questions
Why didn’t Mueller make a judgment on obstruction of justice?
https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... -questions


Barr’s Startling and Unseemly Haste
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... er/585628/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:13 pm

SDNY Makes a Major Move to Prosecute the Trump Crime Family
Leo VidalSat, Mar 23rd, 2019
Now that Bob Mueller has delivered his report to William Barr, the fight against Donald Trump and his criminal family and businesses will move to the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

Not coincidentally, the SDNY has just made a major new hire, bringing in one of the top lawyers in the country with experience in prosecuting mob figures and white collar criminals.

Yesterday it was announced that the new #2 attorney at SDNY is Audrey Strauss, who has had a legendary career. Many years ago she defeated Donald Trump’s mentor Roy Cohn in taking down a mafia leader. Since that time her career has been focused on aggressive white collar criminal enforcement.

Democratic Leaders Believe More Indictments Are Coming

Mueller reportedly will not issue any more indictments himself, but last night Democratic leaders in Congress made very clear that they are expecting additional indictments from other sources.

It is expected that these additional indictments — and the subsequent prosecutions — will come very soon from federal prosecutors in the SDNY.

Since the top U.S. attorney in the SDNY, Geoffrey Berman, recused himself from any investigations that have to do with Donald Trump, Audrey Strauss will now have authority over any Trump-related criminal prosecutions going forward.

She was brought in because her experience and her expertise has been in taking down organized crime families and white collar criminals. Which makes her the perfect person to lead the prosecutions against the Trump crime family and their businesses.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff seems to have confirmed this by saying last night:

“What Mueller is reporting, as best we can tell, are his conclusions on the criminal side of the house, who should be indicted and who shouldn’t be indicted, and why he reached those conclusions.”

Then Schiff added that he thinks it’s “entirely possible if not likely that there will be other indictments” forthcoming.

The Cohen Case Proves Mueller Refers Criminal Prosecutions to the SDNY

When Robert Mueller investigated Michael Cohen he determined that Cohen didn’t commit crimes central to the Trump-Russia election scandal, but he did commit other Trump-related crimes. So he then referred the case to the SDNY, which had jurisdiction over those crimes, for prosecution.

SDNY then brought the criminal case against Cohen, and now he’s going to prison.

Nobody believes that Michael Cohen is the only person in Trump’s orbit who fit this pattern. Bob Mueller’s investigation reportedly has uncovered many other crimes involving Donald Trump, his children, and his businesses. And these crimes also were not directly connected to the Trump-Russia election scandal.

Which means other SDNY indictments will likely be unsealed and delivered very soon, and they will likely involve the President of the United States, his children, and his entire criminal enterprise.


https://www.politicususa.com/2019/03/23 ... 6ozVJUEKEA
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:48 am

THE BARR LETTER IS NOT THE MUELLER REPORT


Trump revealed intelligence secrets to Russians in Oval Office: officials
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN18B2MX

Trump:
"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump said, according to the Times. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off.

Image

If there was no collusion, why did trump and associates lie about Russia?

Barb McQuade

Odd that (1) #Mueller would reach no conclusion on obstruction and (2) AG would decide the issue for him. This defeats the whole purpose of a special counsel, which is to avoid conflicts of interest by those in the executive branch chain of command.


Joyce Alene


Barr weighed in & cleared Trump of obstruction after 48 hours’ review, when Mueller declined to make a judgment, in essence, leaving it to Congress to do so.



Seth Abramson


(THREAD) The Barr Summary—a very different document from the Mueller Report—is being woefully misread by media. It doesn't import what media is suggesting it does. Lawyers are welcome to comment on this thread as I report the Summary accurately. I hope you'll read on and retweet.


1/ Mueller was supposed to decide if Donald Trump could be charged with Obstruction of Justice—or, if not chargeable, whether he should be referred to Congress for impeachment for Obstruction of Justice. But AG Barr usurped Mueller's job and decided to make that decision himself.


2/ Barr was selected by Donald Trump upon Trump's reading of documents written by Barr and sent to Trump allies arguing Trump *couldn't* be charged with Obstruction of Justice. So in not forcing Mueller to make the decision his appointment obligated him to make, Barr saved Trump.


3/ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, a witness in the Obstruction of Justice investigation against Trump, appears to have assisted Barr—who had already put his position on Obstruction in writing prior to his nomination—in usurping Mueller's obligation to make a decision on that question.


4/ Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense, and therefore we now have a *witness* in a case and a man who made his views known on the case *before he had any evidence on it*—and who *got his job* because of his view on the question—saving Trump from impeachment for that.


5/ On "collusion," investigative reporters and independent journalists just spent years gathering evidence on a very specific allegation of collusion: that for his own enrichment, Trump traded away our foreign policy on Russian sanctions at a time he knew Russia was attacking us.


6/ We are now being told that *Mueller never investigated* the collusion allegation Trump was facing—on a money-for-sanctions-relief quid pro quo—and *instead* investigated the allegation *as Trump saw it*, which was whether he struck an agreement with the IRA or Russian hackers.


7/ For two years, as Trump's team defined the collusion allegation against him *falsely*—saying he'd been accused of striking a secret accord with the Internet Research Agency and/or Russian hackers before-the-fact—his critics shrugged and said, "Yeah, we're not looking at that."


8/ On this collusion allegation no one was even making against Trump, the Special Counsel *didn't* find "no evidence"—which I would've been fine with, as I've never accused Trump of that type of collusion—he actually just found he didn't have 90%+ proof of that form of collusion.


9/ This isn't backpedaling: *anyone* who reads this feed—or anyone else researching and reporting on collusion—will *know* that we did *not* accuse Trump of striking a *secret deal with the IRA or Russian hackers before-the-fact*, and that "collusion" has *never* been about that.


10/ So we alleged Obstruction—and people *ineligible to make a decision on that issue* made the decision. We alleged collusive activity—and it appears the activity we alleged was *never investigated*. *That* is how critics of Trump should be seeing what has just happened. *That*.


11/ What will happen now is that Trump will say that Mueller found no Obstruction—false, because Mueller made no conclusion on that (though he was supposed to). Trump will then say that Mueller found no *collusion*, and *that* will be wrong on *two* separate and distinct grounds.


12/ The *first* way in which Trump's coming statement will be wrong on collusion is that the collusion he was actually *accused* of wasn't fully investigated—or perhaps not investigated at all. The *second* issue is, Mueller said he "didn't exonerate" Trump as to *any* collusion.


13/ American discourse surrounding Mueller's investigation is at this moment in *dire* danger—because most in the media don't understand either point I've made here: that a proper Obstruction finding *was never made*, and that a full collusion investigation *was never conducted*.


14/ So what does it all mean? Well, as the Obstruction determination was *not* made by Mueller—and was improperly made by Barr and Rosenstein—it now falls to Congress to review the underlying evidence and, if House Judiciary finds it appropriate, initiate impeachment proceedings.


15/ As to collusion, 1) it continues to be *properly* investigated—not in the narrow way Trump demanded and apparently Mueller's team acceded to—in *multiple other federal jurisdictions*; 2) the inability to indict on the *investigated* collusion is *not* an inability to impeach.


16/ So what's my reaction to today's news? Well, I thought there was *no* evidence Trump colluded *via secret agreement with the IRA or Russian hackers*—I always said that—so *now* I want to know why Mueller said he wasn't able to "exonerate" Trump on that allegation. I mean—wow.


17/ As to the collusion allegations never investigated—as opposed to the ones Trump self-servingly *himself* raised only because he knew he wasn't guilty of *those*—my feeling is that there are now *19 federal jurisdictions* working on Trump probes that could resolve that issue.


18/ Moreover, some of those jurisdictions being Congressional, and many working on cases involving people never interviewed by the SCO face-to-face—Trump, Trump Jr., Prince, Ivanka, and so many others—I feel like we're only at the *beginning* of the real collusion investigation.


19/ On Obstruction, once Congress gets all Mueller's hard evidence, they should proceed with impeachment (or at worst, wait for other federal prosecutors to finish their collusion investigations). Why? Because if the *public evidence* made a prima face case—it did—so did Mueller.


20/ I ask people to retweet this thread. Misinformation spreads fast—the nation already misunderstands what happened today, as media wrongly uses terms like "exoneration," "vindication," and "collusion." As for fellow lawyers? Come at me if you disagree with anything I said. /end


PS/ As ever, my concern about the media *isn't* an accusation of bad faith: I think people are rushing—and don't understand certain things they *need* to understand to do their jobs well tonight, like *what the collusion allegation actually was*—so threads like this are critical.


PS2/ That the first "defense" to the Mueller Report from Team Trump is Giuliani saying you can't commit Obstruction of Justice if there's no (beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-proof-level) crime—a *flatly false legal statement no attorney agrees with*—tells you that they have *concerns*.

PS3/ The *second* defense—a Trump tweet, "No obstruction. No collusion. Total and complete exoneration!"—is also completely false, which *again* should communicate to everyone that Team Trump is terrified about not just the truth of the Report but even the truth of Barr's letter.

PS4/ For two years, I said we needed a *clear* definition of "collusion" or we would pay the price down the line, and now here we are—with Mueller narrowly defining collusion not just as "conspiracy" but only *one narrow breed* of conspiracy (with the IRA and/or Russian hackers).


PS5/ Mueller wasn't even *consulted* on Barr's letter, as we'd been promised he would. Folks, Trump is now on TV saying "no collusion with Russia"—again, a far broader issue than Mueller conducted—and if people of sense don't talk back publicly *now*, we will all regret it later.


NOTE/ The answer to sensible questions like the one below is simple: the accusation of collusion Trump faced, and was terrified of, is *not* the one that the Mueller Report appears to have looked at. Instead, Mueller focused on the IRA and Russian hackers.

Joe Scarborough on @MSNBC: "If there was no collusion ... Why did Donald Trump, why did Mike Pence, why did Jeff Sessions, why did the president's first national security adviser, why did the president's campaign chairman ... Why did they all lie about contacts with Russians?"


NOTE2/ No fellow attorneys are questioning this thread thus far—either on the law or the facts of the collusion investigation as we know it to exist. On Obstruction, what I've expressed here is already becoming key legal analysts' view; on collusion, I hear no contradictions yet.


NOTE3/ Some folks add, rightly, that Mueller only found no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of collusion with the Russian "government"—the IRA, GRU officials, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—none of whom Trump was ever accused of colluding with. Rep. Heck just said this on CNN.


NOTE4/ Barr appears to have *avoided* any reference to Team Trump collusion with Russian foreign nationals and Kremlin cutouts like Agalarov, Rozov, Vekselberg, Deripaska, Firtash, Sater, Kilimnik, Boyarkin, Akhmetshin, and *so many others* who are *not* "the Russian government."

NOTE5/ We have an *indication* from today's "Barr Summary"—but we'll need to see the Mueller Report—that the Barr Summary mentioned the "Russian government" only because Mueller's focus was on the IRA and GRU alone, which again is *not* what Trump stood accused of collusion-wise.

DEFINITIONS/ If I were CNN and someone came on my air today and said there's no "evidence" of collusion because Mueller didn't *indict* someone for Conspiracy, that'd be their last appearance. If you don't know what "evidence" is or what "standard of proof" means, don't go on TV.
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status ... 8333210629



HOW WILLIAM BARR DID OLD MAN BACK-FLIPS TO AVOID ARRESTING DONALD TRUMP

March 24, 2019/207 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
Attorney General William Barr just engaged in utterly cowardly dereliction of duty.

DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING, BARR CONFIRMED THAT THINGS TRUMP HAS DONE ARE OBSTRUCTION

When we were awaiting the Mueller report yesterday, I wondered whether William Barr was thinking about two things he had said as part of his confirmation process. First, in his column that has always been interpreted to say that a President can’t obstruct justice, at the bottom of the first page, he instead acknowledged that a President actually could obstruct justice.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.


Barr — who at the time had no understanding of the evidence — made three comments in his confirmation hearing about obstruction. Among others, he point blank said that a person could not lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for someone’s promise not to incriminate him.

“Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise not incriminate him?” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Barr during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“No, that would be a crime,” Barr said.


We know Trump has repeatedly floated pardons to witnesses who have, in hopes of obtaining a pardon, not incriminated him.

That’s true of Paul Manafort most of all.

So on the basis of what he said to get this job, Barr is already on the record saying that Trump obstructed justice.

BARR IGNORES THE CRIMES IN FRONT OF HIM TO AVOID CONSIDERING WHETHER TRUMP OBSTRUCTED THOSE CRIMES

Now consider how Barr — having been given the job by Mueller of deciding whether Trump obstructed justice — avoided holding himself to sworn views he expressed during confirmation.

In the letter sent to Jerry Nadler (who surely just kicked off an impeachment inquiry in earnest) and others, his analysis consists of the following.

The guts of the letter describe the two parts of Mueller’s report. The first part reviews the results of Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election. It describes the conclusions this way:

[T]he Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts

[T]he Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in [its] efforts … to gather and disseminate information to influence the election

Note that the second bullet does not even exonerate Roger Stone, as it pertains only to the Russian government, not Russians generally or WikiLeaks or anyone else. This is important given that we know the Trump campaign knew of and encouraged Roger Stone’s coordination with WikiLeaks.

Then Barr moves along to the second section, in which Mueller considered whether Trump obstructed justice. In it, Barr doesn’t mention the scope of the activities that Mueller considered evidence of obstruction of justice. He notes that, after laying out a case for and against accusing the President of a crime, Mueller’s report,

states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”


Barr and Rod Rosenstein have spent less than 48 whole hours considering that evidence to come up with this judgment:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

[snip]

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding.


Here’s the thing, though: at least given what they lay out here, they only considered whether Trump was covering up his involvement in the hack-and-leak operation. It doesn’t consider whether Trump was covering up a quid pro quo, which is what there is abundant evidence of.

They didn’t consider whether Trump obstructed the crime that he appears to have obstructed. They considered whether he obstructed a different crime. And having considered whether Trump obstructed the crime he didn’t commit, rather than considering whether he obstructed the crime he did commit, they decided not to charge him with a crime.

Update: Corrected that these fuckers didn’t even spend two days reviewing the report.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/03/24/h ... ald-trump/



Here's why William Barr's letter is so cowardly
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4775125/ ... on-justice

On the Mueller Investigation, the Barr Letter Is Not Enough
John Cassidy
It took the White House about a half hour to start misrepresenting the contents of Attorney General William Barr’s letter to Congress about the results of the Mueller investigation. “The Special Counsel did not find any collusion and did not find any obstruction. AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein further determined there was no obstruction,” Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, tweeted shortly after 4 P.M. on Sunday. “The findings of the Department of Justice are a total and complete exoneration of the President of the United States.”

Actually, on the subject of Robert Mueller’s probe into whether Donald Trump obstructed justice, Barr’s letter said this: “The Special Counsel . . . did not draw a conclusion—one way or another—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” The letter went on, “The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’ ” Barr’s letter, however, did contain a determination that Trump’s actions—which might include the firing of James Comey, the head of the F.B.I., and trying to fire Jeff Sessions, Barr’s predecessor—failed to rise to the level of obstruction of justice. But it was Barr and Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, who made that determination. As it has done so often in the past, the White House was lying, when it said that Mueller exonerated Trump on the obstruction question.

Trump and his allies did, however, have good reason to be mightily relieved by other elements of Mueller’s findings, at least as they have been interpreted and communicated by Barr. Legally and politically, this was a very big weekend for the White House. In deciding not to recommend any more indictments, Mueller lifted a great weight from the shoulders of Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner, both of whom, on June 9, 2016, had a meeting, at Trump Tower, with a Russian lawyer who, through an intermediary, had said that she would provide dirt on Hillary Clinton. Evidently, Mueller and his investigators decided that expressing an eagerness to collude with the Russians doesn’t amount to engaging in a criminal conspiracy. As far as allegations of collusion go, the son and the dauphin seem to be off the hook.

So do others associated with the Trump campaign. Barr’s letter states, “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.” The letter goes on to quote a bit of the actual Mueller report: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” We need to know a lot more about the context of this quote in the report, and about what Mueller’s investigators did establish. But, for now, this is manna for the Trump camp.

The special counsel’s decision not to reach a conclusion, or render any opinion at all, about whether Trump obstructed justice will also have been a source of great relief at the White House. In the first place, it allowed Barr, a conservative lawyer whom Trump handpicked to replace Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, to claim that the President is in the clear. “After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions,” Barr wrote, “Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offence.”

But what about Mueller, who has been looking into the obstruction question for almost two years? What’s his judgment? According to Barr, he doesn’t have one. “After making a ‘thorough factual investigation’ into these matters,” Barr’s letter said, “the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

Mueller’s defenders will claim that he was only following Justice Department guidelines, which say that a sitting President cannot be indicted. They will also say that it is ultimately Congress’s job to hold the President accountable, and that Congress will soon be able to examine at least some of the evidence gathered by Mueller’s team. That may all be true. But what are independent prosecutors for if not to figure out, free from political pressure, whether crimes have been committed, and to let the public know? Especially when, as in this case, the President has gone on national television and admitted that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

I hesitate to say it, but Mueller’s decision not to issue any guidance at all on the obstruction question looks like a cop-out, as does his decision not to issue a subpoena to question Trump in person. In any case, the urgent thing now is to get the full Mueller report released and examine its contents. Only then will we get the complete picture of the investigation and its findings.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... of-justice




The Rude Pundit

My first reaction when I heard about Barr's letter was "Yeah, and?" I mean, at this point with Trump, it's like saying to Jeffrey Dahmer, "Okay, fine, maybe you didn't fuck that one corpse. But I'm seeing a lot of fucked corpses around your place. You fucked some of 'em."


And fuck William Barr. That motherfucker has been covering up for Republican criminal assholes since at least the Reagan era. Why the fuck trust him now?
https://twitter.com/rudepundit/status/1 ... 5836910593
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby Elvis » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:09 am

I sure would like to know what Trump and Putin said in their private meetings.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:35 am

Elvis » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:09 am wrote:I sure would like to know what Trump and Putin said in their private meetings.


Sure, but the fact of the private meetings does not sustain the speculation around them.

And the fact of the private meetings is meaningless in the face of actual US policy: selling heavy arms to Kiev, trying to block a German-Russian pipeline deal, ending the intermediate nuclear treaty, starting the next generation of nuclear weapons, tanking the Iran agreement, massively increasing the military budget, maintaining the anti-Russian sanctions, initiating a regime change operation against Venezuela (where the Russians are invested). He also bombed Russia's ally in Syria. This is Putin's puppet? No. This is an aggressive US president escalating imperialist moves and increasing the chances of new wars. Three is no concern for what Russia thinks about these moves. And one reason he can do it was #Russiagate. It distracted from real policy and real crimes. #Russiagate helped Trump. It can't be said enough. #Russiagate helped Trump.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:54 am

if it wasn't for trump no one would be talking about Putin ....trump brought this baby to the table



Jack
It distracted from real policy and real crimes.


as this thread proves I was not distracted by Russia .....I followed ALL of the trump family crimes/policy and now Congress will be checking that

135 pages ...2034 replies

81 replies mention Russia

47 replies mention Putin

2034 - 128 = 1906 replies not mentioning Putin or Russia


STILL WAITING TO READ THE MUELLER REPORT - 3/25/2019


Watergate Figure John Dean Suspects Barr May Be Hiding Something ‘Fairly Ugly’
Nixon’s “master manipulator” says the attorney general may be trying to cover something up.

Ed Mazza
John Dean, former White House counsel to President Richard M. Nixon, warned that Attorney General William Barr may be hiding something “fairly ugly” inside the report filed by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Barr’s summary of the report said Mueller had found no evidence of collusion between Russia and the 2016 campaign of President Donald Trump.

Mueller, Barr wrote, did not exonerate Trump of obstruction allegations. However, Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had concluded there wasn’t sufficient evidence to make that accusation against the president.

But Dean found the conclusion ― and the phrasing ― to be very curious.

“He put a little lipstick on something that might’ve been fairly ugly,” he told CNN’s Don Lemon, adding:

“We haven’t really seen the underlying report, but I have some suspicions that the reason he boiled this down the way he did is because it’s not very attractive, Don. [Mueller’s] words are very different than Barr’s, I suspect.”

He also said Mueller might have backed off the obstruction issue because of a “fundamental disagreement” with the Department of Justice on whether or not a president is even capable of obstruction:


“Those issues will be sorted out as this report slowly, hopefully, surfaces,” Dean said.

Dean was dubbed the “master manipulator” of the Watergate scandal by the FBI. He eventually turned on Nixon and cooperated with the investigation, a move that ultimately helped to end the presidency.

However, Dean wrote on Twitter that the scandal might’ve had a very different outcome had Barr been attorney general at the time:


John Dean

Having re-read William Barr’s June 2018 Memo critiquing Mueller’s obstruction investigation and now his summary of Mueller’s Report, it is clear that Richard Nixon would not have been forced to resign his office if Barr had been Attorney General. Barr wants a POTUS above the law.
https://twitter.com/JohnWDean/status/11 ... f7330c833d


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-dea ... f7330c833d
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:59 am

Meanwhile, In Jerusalem:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu ... gton-trip/

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the exceptionalism of US-Israel relations as he headed early Sunday morning to Washington, where he will meet with US President Donald Trump and deliver an address at AIPAC’s annual Policy Conference two weeks before Israeli elections.

Addressing reporters as he boarded his Boeing 777 en route to Washington, Netanyahu said his relationship with Trump surpassed his ties with any world leaders and with any bond between Israel and the US before.

“Never — never — has there been a relationship like this between an Israeli prime minister and an American president. It’s a very, very important asset for the State of Israel, and it is important that [this relationship] continues to serve us.”
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:42 pm

thanks for that

from Haaretz

Cleared of Collusion With Russia, Trump Can Now Collude Shamelessly With Netanyahu
Netanyahu is breathing a sigh of relief: Now Trump is free to campaign for him, joining a long line of U.S. presidents who've interfered in Israel's elections. The only downside is what Trump will expect in return

Jonathan S. Tobin
Mar 25, 2019 12:05 PM

Image
U.S. President Donald Trump embraces Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after his remarks at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. May 23, 2017\ JONATHAN ERNST/ REUTERS

Netanyahu goes full Trump, posts 'Fox & Friends' clip claiming 'Israeli deep state' behind pending indictment

Netanyahu heads into eye of Mueller storm. He may repay twin brother Trump

The world held its collective breath this past weekend waiting to hear the verdict of the probe being led by Robert Mueller into alleged collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump and his campaign.

But no foreign leader was more invested in the outcome or likely to be happier when Mueller confirmed Trumps oft-repeated insistence that he hadn’t colluded with a Russian effort to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.



This makes Netanyahu’s fortuitously timed visit to the White House on Monday even more celebratory than it might otherwise have been. But more than being able to share in the glow of his ally’s survival after two years of the Mueller probe hanging over the president's head, Netanyahu had more at stake in Trump’s fortune than almost anyone outside of the president’s inner circle.

Had Mueller’s investigation ended in a finding that the president had conspired with Moscow, or issued something more than a shrug of the shoulders about the charge that he had obstructed justice, it would not only have placed Netanyahu’s friend in legal peril. It would have also sabotaged Trump’s shameless campaign to anoint Netanyahu as the American government’s clear preference in the upcoming Knesset election.

Likud campaign billboard showing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu with U.S. President Donald Trump. Tel Aviv, 3 Feb 2019

The Trump-Netanyahu alliance was one of the more unexpected outcomes of the 2016 U.S. election, but its impact on the Middle East cannot be overestimated. Trump has changed American foreign policy so as to make the positions of the U.S. and Israel on issues like Jerusalem, Iran and how to treat the Palestinian Authority more closely aligned than at any other point in the 70 years of the Jewish state’s existence.

Now, with Netanyahu’s political fate hanging in the balance, Trump has also gone all out to convince Israelis to keep his ally in office.
That is the main reason for Trump to decide to signal his support for Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights as he did in a tweet last week. Nor was there any other plausible explanation for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to Israel last week (including an unprecedented joint photo-op at the Western Wall) or for Netanyahu’s White House invitation so close to the election.

Trump calls for U.S. recognition of Israeli control over Golan HeightsDonald Trump / Twitter

The full-on preferential treatment for Netanyahu was compounded by the fact that neither Pompeo nor Trump are giving the prime minister’s leading rival — Kachol Lavan party leader Benny Gantz - the courtesy of a meeting, or even acknowledging the possibility that he might be the victor on April 9th.


If the Democrats’ fantasy had come true - that Mueller would make the bad dream of 2016 go away by declaring Trump guilty of collusion - it would have undermined Netanyahu’s efforts to tie himself to Trump, and lessened the value of the president’s endorsement. Trump isn’t completely in the clear with House Democrats and other prosecutors vowing to continue their investigations. But Mueller’s verdict makes those threats a problem for another day, and allows Netanyahu to accept Trump’s gifts - without having to worry that it reminds Israeli voters of his own legal woes.

But the greatest irony here is that having been judged innocent of colluding in Russian interference in U.S. politics, Trump is now free to go on trying to interfere in those of Israel.
Netanyahu’s opponents are within their rights to cry foul about this. But if that complaint falls on deaf ears, it’s because far from being another example of Trump trashing norms and traditions, his willingness to intervene in an Israeli election gives him something in common with his White House predecessors.

In 1992, the first President George Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker worked hard to undermine the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir because of differences about settlements and the peace process.

Four years later, U.S. efforts to interfere in the 1996 Israeli election were far more blatant. President Bill Clinton committed his prestige to the success of the Oslo Accords and was determined to do everything he could to prevent Netanyahu and the Likud from defeating Shimon Peres, who had succeeded Yitzhak Rabin after his tragic assassination. Clinton has admitted that he had pulled out the stops to boost Peres’ chances, including staging a summit with him prior to the election and then hosting him at the White House.

Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres writes U.S. President Bill Clinton's name in Hebrew after they sign a joint declaration on terrorism, April 30, 1996, less than a month before Israeli electionsAssociated Press

Netanyahu won anyway and, as Clinton subsequently noted, made it clear to the president that he knew the president had tried to prevent his election. But that didn’t stop Clinton from trying again in 1999, and with more success, when Ehud Barak ousted Netanyahu.

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 brought a man who viewed Netanyahu as both an obstacle to peace and a personal bête noire into the equation.
Obama openly schemed to topple Netanyahu in favor of Tzipi Livni after he emerged as prime minister after the 2009 election. When that effort failed and Netanyahu ran for re-election in 2013 and 2015, Obama made no effort to hide his desire that Israelis would reject him - or his dismay, when the voters decided otherwise.


It’s unlikely that many Israelis have ever voted on the basis of White House endorsements. But if Netanyahu seemed to be strengthened by his spats with Obama it was because the latter was unpopular in Israel. The close relationship that Netanyahu has forged with Trump makes the majority of American Jews cringe.


But Gantz’s problem is that now, for the first time, the American administration is supporting Netanyahu, and Trump’s popularity in the Jewish state must be considered an asset for the prime minister.
The only downside to this for Netanyahu is what Trump will expect in return after April 9th. But that’s a problem that the prime minister will gladly worry about after he is returned to office.
After benefiting so many times in the past from American interventions, Netanyahu’s foes are in no position to complain about anything Trump does to help Netanyahu. But like the Democrats who were hoping Mueller would solve one of their chief problems for them, it turns out that Gantz was among the big losers when the special counsel’s report was handed down.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS (the Jewish News Syndicate) and a contributing writer for National Review. Twitter: @jonathans_tobin
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premiu ... -1.7048306



Zionism’s Lost Shine
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36886



Yes, Trump Obstructed Justice. And William Barr Is Helping Him Cover It Up.
The attorney general's take on the Mueller report goes through contortions to avoid charging the president with a crime.

Marcy WheelerMarch 24, 2019
In a letter to House and Senate leaders on Sunday, Attorney General William Barr revealed that he would not charge President Trump with obstruction of justice over his efforts to thwart the investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russia to swing the 2016 election. In order to do so, Barr performed a remarkable gimmick that allowed him to not only break promises he made during his confirmation process, but also gloss over the crimes that Trump is suspected of committing.

It is widely believed that Barr had already categorically ruled out charging a president with obstruction. In a June 2018 memo, shared with Trump’s lawyer before his nomination, Barr argued that the theory of obstruction he believed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to be adopting would not be proper. But in that very same memo—on the very first page!—Barr conceded, “Obviously, the President … can commit obstruction in [a] classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function.” Barr envisioned that if a president “suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony … then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.”

That’s important, because we know that Trump has been involved in getting his aides to lie. His own lawyer, Jay Sekulow, reportedly edited the prepared statement Trump’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen gave to Congress about an effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Cohen goes to prison in May, in part, for telling lies that Sekulow reviewed.

And Trump has repeatedly dangled pardons to subordinates under investigation, reportedly including former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, former campaign chair Paul Manafort, and Cohen. Indeed, in a hearing in February, Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann argued that Manafort lied about the details of sharing Trump campaign polling data with the Russian political operative Konstantin Kilimnik on August 2, 2016—knowing that the data would be passed on to others including other Russians—specifically to “augment his chances for a pardon.”

In Barr’s confirmation hearing in January, Senator Amy Klobuchar asked him whether a president “persuading a person to commit perjury [or] convincing a witness to change testimony would be obstruction.” He said yes, both would.

And yet he just decided that a president who has apparently done both of those things did not commit obstruction of justice. Why?

Get the latest from TNR. Sign up for the newsletter.
Controversially, Mueller didn’t decide whether Trump obstructed justice. His report stated, “[W]hile this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Instead, Mueller provided Barr with the evidence for and against charging Trump with obstruction, leaving the decision up to the attorney general.

The contortions Barr goes through in his letter to renege on his confirmation hearing promises are extraordinary.

First, Barr describes the conclusions about the main crimes he says that Mueller investigated. “[T]he Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts,” Barr wrote. (The IRA, or Internet Research Agency, is a Russian troll farm with ties to the Kremlin.) He continued, “The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in [its] efforts ... to gather and disseminate information to influence the election.”

This language doesn’t even bother to exonerate Trump’s associate Roger Stone, who during the campaign was in cahoots with WikiLeaks as it dumped Russian-hacked emails that damaged Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Barr’s statements only pertain to the Russian government, not Russian individuals or WikiLeaks or anyone else. This is a crucial distinction, given that we know the Trump campaign knew of and encouraged Stone’s coordination with WikiLeaks.

In his testimony to Congress, Cohen revealed that Stone called Trump around July 19, 2016, to tell him about the upcoming WikiLeaks dump. “Wouldn’t that be nice,” Cohen describes Trump responding. After the July 22 release of the emails, “a senior Trump Campaign official was directed,” Stone’s indictment describes, without saying who did the directing, “to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information” WikiLeaks had on the Clinton campaign. In October 2016, WikiLeaks released emails stolen from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, deflecting attention away from a damning video showing Trump making sexually abusive comments; in response, “an associate of [a] high-ranking Trump Campaign official sent a text message to STONE that read ‘well done,’” the indictment says.

More importantly, Barr’s letter doesn’t address something else Mueller investigated: whether a series of exchanges between Trump’s campaign and Russians amounted to a crime. The sworn testimony of Trump’s aides reveal that, at least through June 2016, he continued to pursue a $300 million real estate deal in Moscow that required Vladimir Putin’s assistance. While hoping to land that deal, Trump’s son, Don Jr., took a meeting with some Russians offering dirt on Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” At the end of the meeting, Don Jr. said his father would consider sanctions relief for Russia if he won.

Then, on August 2, 2016, in the same meeting where Manafort gave Kilimnik polling data, he discussed a “peace” deal in Ukraine that would also amount to sanctions relief for the Russians. Finally, after he was elected but before he was president, Trump undercut President Obama’s response to the Russian hacks, suggesting that he would give Russia sanctions relief.

The hack-and-leak is not the crime Trump may have committed. It is, instead, a quid pro quo deal by which Russia would help Trump win and Trump would relieve Russia of the sanctions imposed for engaging in human rights violations, annexing Crimea, and hacking the election to help Trump win.

In deciding that Trump didn’t obstruct justice after a paltry 48 hours of review, Barr “concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” He came to this conclusion—in spite of saying during his confirmation hearings that what Trump is known to have done amounts to obstruction—because Mueller found that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.”

That’s not the crime that, the evidence quite clearly shows, Trump may have committed. This is not the crime that Manafort appears to have lied about in hopes of getting a pardon.

In giving Trump the all-clear on obstruction charges, Barr appears not to have considered whether Trump obstructed the actual crime in question. He instead considered whether the president obstructed a different crime. This is the legal sleight of hand that has allowed Barr to proclaim that Trump will not be charged.

The Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee now has abundant reason to get all the underlying materials from the Mueller inquiry, because the attorney general just cleared the president of something he agreed constituted a crime just a few months ago.
https://newrepublic.com/article/153384/ ... g-cover-up
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby BenDhyan » Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:28 pm

Hmmm,,,,,now that is one quick U turn....

Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby Elvis » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:04 pm

The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.


I look forward to comparing the SC report on that to the VIPS analysis.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests