Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:14 am
RocketMan » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:58 am wrote:...
by RocketMan » Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:33 am
by seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 8:35 am
by RocketMan » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:02 am
by seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:04 am
Peter Daou
Verified account
@peterdaou
Follow Follow @peterdaou
More
As we begin our day and try to address real-world problems, there's an entire industry of Clinton-obsessed rightwingers in a frenzy today claiming the Clintons tried to kill #JeffreyEpstein.
4:51 AM - 25 Jul 2019
Peter Daou
Verified account
@peterdaou
12h12 hours ago
More
Peter Daou Retweeted David Cicilline
This is how you do it.
David Cicilline
Verified account
@davidcicilline
Follow Follow @davidcicilline
More
To not open an impeachment inquiry now in the face of such obvious corruption is an abdication of the oath we took to defend our country, uphold the rule of law, and hold the President accountable for his misconduct.
Peter Daou
Verified account
@peterdaou
16h16 hours ago
More
Peter Daou Retweeted Sunny Hostin
JUST.
IMPEACH.
THE.
RACIST.
#Mueller #ImpeachNow
Amee Vanderpool
According to reports about a closed door Dem meeting, Pelosi has given Dems the green light to support impeachment if they think it's best and to publicly do what they have to do.
This is the time to call your Reps, it will make the most difference now if you want impeachment.https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/sta ... 5890627591
by RocketMan » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:23 am
by seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:25 am
Peter Daou continues to embarrass Hillary Clinton.Over the weekend, the Clinton uber-loyalist announced the launch of a new website, Verrit. Daou, a former Clinton campaign aide, claimed that Verrit is intended for the “68.5 million,” a nod to Clinton’s share of the popular vote last November. It purportedly allows users to submit facts, which the site then verifies and posts, but it sure seems like a way for Daou to continue to grind various axes with Clinton’s critics. Then, Clinton herself endorsed the site.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/144685/ ... ry-clinton
Also, I'm not invested in the farcical US party system, as I'm not invested even in the party system of my own country.
by RocketMan » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:27 am
seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:25 pm wrote:but he is a Democrat!Also, I'm not invested in the farcical US party system, as I'm not invested even in the party system of my own country.
you seem to be very invested in our system according to your posts here
by seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:28 am
by RocketMan » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:34 am
by seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:36 am
not invested
keep flapping your gums
Fernand R. Amandi
An #ImpeachmentInquiryNow is long overdue & the only way to hold this corrupt, criminal, racist traitor, @realDonaldTrump Constitutionally accountable
If your Member of Congress doesn’t support an impeachment inquiry call them NOW at 202-224-3121 & urge them to do so immediately
https://twitter.com/TeaPainUSA?ref_src= ... r%5Eauthor
Lincoln's Bible
When I call dotard a "mobster," I'm not being cute.
Or provocative.
Or jumping on MSM's sudden embrace of what they've always known & obfuscated.
NO.
I'm bringing U the truth.
Donald Trump was born into a front organization of the Genovese crime family.
He was theirs from birth..https://twitter.com/LincolnsBible?ref_s ... r%5Eauthor
XeniVerified account
@xeni
Recovering oldschool internet journalist. Support my voice:
https://twitter.com/xeni
southpaw
@nycsouthpaw
Writer, lawyer, Dodger fan, idealist, hater. nycsouthpaw18 at gmail. RTs = endorsement or scorn.
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw
Polly Sigh
@dcpoll
Loudmouth writer. “If I were to remain silent, I'd be guilty of complicity.” -Albert Einstein
https://twitter.com/dcpoll?lang=en
1000/24thHat
@Popehat
Most tweets by Ken White. I do the RICO. Host, Make No Law https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/ …, co-host, All The President's Lawyers @KCRW
https://twitter.com/Popehat?ref_src=tws ... r%5Eauthor
Neal KatyalVerified account
@neal_katyal
Supreme Court lawyer; law professor; extremist centrist. Former Acting Solicitor General of United Sts. All views mine, no one else's. http://instagram.com/nealkatyal
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal
Caroline Orr
@RVAwonk
#Feminist. Behavioral Scientist. Peripatetic. Reporter @NatObserver focusing on disinformation & the rise of hate. Also find me @ArcDigi & @BylineTimes.
https://twitter.com/RVAwonk?ref_src=tws ... r%5Eauthor
Seth AbramsonVerified account
@SethAbramson
Attorney. Professor @UofNH. Columnist @Newsweek. NYT bestselling author. Proof of Conspiracy @StMartinsPress: http://tinyurl.com/y484j4ku . Analyses @BBC. Views mine.
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_sr ... r%5Eauthor
by seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:58 am
Natasha Bertrand
Mueller may be done, but Democrats still have a packed oversight plan. They're digging into Mueller’s counterintel findings and fighting to interview Don McGahn & others, all while Trump battles their subpoenas to his banks, Deutsche Bank and Capital One.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has signaled support for the House’s bid to gain access to financial records from Trump's accounting firm. Nadler also said he'll be heading to court in next few days to get the grand jury information in Mueller's report.
And of course, the biggest outstanding case from the Mueller era involves Roger Stone. He's set to go on trial Nov. 5 on charges of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering. Stone pleaded not guilty. He's been banned from all social media by Judge Amy Berman Jackson.
NY prosecutors also still haven’t given any recent updates on the Trump inaugural investigation. A source familiar with the probe told POLITICO this week that the inaugural committee submitted the last of requested documents in April to comply with SDNY's subpoena from February.
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/sta ... 1297227777
Mueller's finally done. Here's how his probe lives on.
From ongoing congressional probes, to unsettled court fights, to an expected memoir from one of Mueller's deputies, the Russia probe will keep popping up in the news.
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN, NATASHA BERTRAND and JOSH GERSTEIN
07/24/2019 06:30 PM EDT
Robert Mueller
Former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before a House Judiciary Committee hearing about his report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. | Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images
Robert Mueller may be done, but his probe will live on in ways big and small — keeping alive the Russia story that has at times consumed Donald Trump’s presidency.
The Democratic-led House still has oversight plans of its own, not to mention an impeachment fight that isn’t going away anytime soon. Cases spawned and inspired by the special counsel’s investigators continue to move through the courts, and Mueller himself confirmed on Wednesday during a long-awaited House Judiciary Committee hearing that a post-presidency indictment against Trump is hypothetically possible. Federal investigators are also still examining how the whole Russia thing got started.
And then there’s this: One of Mueller’s former prosecutors is penning a memoir sure to generate buzz.
Here’s a POLITICO guide to what’s still out there in Muellerland:
Capitol Hill
Pro-impeachment Democrats face an uphill climb to build support following the Mueller hearing. But Democrats still have a packed oversight plan that includes digging into Mueller’s counterintelligence findings about Trump and attempts to draw information from the special counsel’s witnesses.
Several deadlines are approaching.
Hope Hicks, the former White House communications director and longtime Trump spokeswoman, must submit follow-up questions to the House Judiciary Committee by Aug. 15 to address what the panel has described as “inconsistent” testimony about Donald Trump’s hush-money payments to an adult film actress.
Annie Donaldson, a former Trump White House counsel deputy, is also due back before the panel after Nov. 1 for public testimony.
Other players central to the Mueller report can’t rest easy, either.
Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates have missed deadlines to turn over documents to the House Intelligence Committee and then sit for sworn testimony. And Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler has outstanding subpoenas ready for a dozen other witnesses in the probe.
There are live-fire court cases, too. Nadler has the green light to file lawsuits any time now against Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn — the former to gain access to Mueller’s unredacted final findings and the latter to collect testimony from the most cited witness in the Mueller report.
Shortly after Mueller’s testimony concluded Wednesday, Nadler announced that his panel plans to head to court in the next few days to demand access to the grand jury information contained in Mueller’s report. Based on previous court rulings, the strategy might be an uphill battle unless House leaders are willing to formally declare an impeachment inquiry.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit earlier this month signaled support for the House’s bid to gain access to financial records from an accounting firm Trump used.
And oral arguments are coming up Aug. 23 in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in another case involving House subpoenas to two banks — Deutsche Bank and Capital One — that extended loans to Trump. The president already lost in May in federal district court in his bid to stop the banks from turning over their materials.
The Justice Department probes
A Justice Department review of the underlying reasons for the Russia probe is expected to land early this fall.
The document will likely take aim at Christopher Steele, the former British spy behind an infamous dossier on Trump’s ties to Russia, as part of an examination into the early stages of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation.
For over a year, the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, has been examining the FBI’s efforts to surveil a one-time Trump campaign adviser. That action was based in part on information from Steele, a former British MI6 agent who had worked with the bureau as a confidential source since 2010.
Several people interviewed as part of the IG’s probe have told POLITICO that Horowitz’s team is focused on gauging Steele’s credibility as a source for the bureau. The team also interviewed Steele for 16 hours in June, delving into his extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, whom the FBI ultimately surveilled.
The president and other critics of the Russia investigation have long maintained that the bureau inappropriately “spied” on the Trump campaign using unverified information provided by Steele. And Barr poured gas on those complaints in March, telling lawmakers that he believes “spying did occur” on the campaign in 2016.
Barr is now conducting his own review of those efforts, led by the U.S. attorney John Durham, into the FBI’s conduct in 2016. Trump turbocharged Barr’s separate probe, giving the attorney general sweeping declassification authority for intelligence findings, a power usually delegated to intelligence agency leaders for their own evidence.
Durham is also helming yet another probe that is looking at whether the intelligence community acted improperly in 2016, and whether it was wrong to conclude that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help Trump get elected in 2016. Durham’s wide latitude has alarmed some in the national security community who worry about its effect on the apolitical nature of intelligence gathering.
And given former CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s prior review — not to mention that of Mueller and Congress — the move has also sparked cries of hypocrisy from those who say Trump is seeking his own “do-over,” something the president frequently accuses Democrats of attempting with their ongoing congressional hearings on the subject and mounting subpoenas of Mueller’s witnesses.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff said in June that the panel has “very little visibility” into the three investigations, despite asking the administration to keep his committee informed.
Roger Stone
The biggest outstanding case from the Mueller era involves Stone, the longtime Trump adviser who is set to go on trial Nov. 5 on charges of lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering. Stone pleaded not guilty in the case, which was originally brought by the special counsel but has since been handed off to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C.
So far, Stone’s outspoken social media posts attacking the government’s case has drawn the most media attention. A judge eventually banned Stone from social media for some of the posts, ruling that they defied a court-imposed gag order.
Rick Gates
The former Trump campaign deputy chairman still awaits sentencing for pleading guilty to Mueller in February 2018 on charges of financial fraud and lying to investigators.
Gates already served as a star witness helping the government secure a conviction against his former boss, Paul Manafort. And he may get called again in the Stone trial, as well as in the Justice Department’s other upcoming case against former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig.
Federal prosecutors and an attorney for Gates don’t have to update the court again about their plans until Aug. 30.
Michael Flynn
It’s been more than 18 months since former national security adviser Michael Flynn became Trump’s highest-ranking ex-official to plead guilty,
Flynn — who in December 2017 admitted making false statements to the FBI about his remarks about contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition — has had his sentencing delayed for more than a year at Mueller’s request, as the retired general and former Defense Intelligence Agency chief submitted to about 20 interviews in various other investigations.
He still doesn’t have a sentencing date. U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan pushed back imposing a sentence on Flynn last December so that he could demonstrate further cooperation with prosecutors by testifying against his former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian, who faced charges over unregistered lobbying work the two men did relating to Turkey during the Trump campaign.
But Flynn’s testimony never happened. Instead, early last month, Flynn dropped the D.C.-based white-collar attorneys who negotiated his plea and switched to a new team headed by Mueller critic Sidney Powell. Within weeks, Flynn’s cooperative relationship with prosecutors appeared to break down and they abandoned plans to call Flynn at the Rafiekian trial.
Prosecutors managed to win the case against Rafiekian on Tuesday as a jury in Alexandria, Va., returned two guilty verdicts. He’s set for sentencing Oct. 18.
The impact of the recent drama on Flynn’s plea deal and ultimate sentence is uncertain. Rafiekian’s trial brought a cryptic disclosure by the government that the lobbying contract may have been a deliberate attempt by the Turkish government to curry favor with Flynn because of his senior role in the Trump campaign.
Flynn’s team says he’s still cooperating, but prosecutors and Sullivan may disagree, increasing the prospects of a prison sentence for the former Trump White House official — unless Trump steps in with a pardon. A court hearing on next steps for Flynn is set for Aug. 27.
Greg Craig
Craig, a highly-regarded attorney who served as President Barack Obama’s first White House counsel, is an unlikely figure to be enmeshed in Mueller’s probe. But the special counsel investigation set in motion inquiries that have left Craig facing trial next month on a pair of felony false-statement charges.
The case stems from a report Craig was hired to prepare in 2012 reviewing Ukraine’s prosecution of former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko for corruption. Manafort played a key role in commissioning the report, which was requested by the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice, but U.S. prosecutors say almost all of the $4 million bill for the report was secretly paid by a Ukrainian steel magnate, Victor Pinchuk.
Craig was indicted in April on charges he lied, misled and caused others at his former law firm, Skadden Arps, to make false statements and omissions to the Justice Department about his role in publicizing the report. Craig’s defense claims he never lied to DOJ officials and had no legal obligation to provide them with greater detail about his work.
Craig is set to face a jury trial beginning Aug. 12 in Washington, but his defense hopes the judge will grant pending motions to cut back the case or throw it out entirely.
Other cases
Manafort, already serving 7½ years for his conviction and guilty plea from the Mueller probe, will be back in the news in early September.
That’s when his legal team must file its first defense motions in New York State Supreme Court, where Manafort has pleaded not guilty to a series of state-level bank- and financial-fraud charges that echo the case he fought against Mueller.
Meanwhile, several other federal investigations with Mueller’s fingerprints still remain in the air.
Mueller mentioned in his report a dozen other instances where it “identified evidence of potential criminal activity” that were beyond the scope of his Russia probe — referring matters over to others at DOJ, the FBI or other “appropriate law enforcement authorities.” Details about each of those cases were blacked out in the final report, and no new information about any of them has since come to light.
During his testimony on Wednesday, Mueller repeatedly deferred on questions from lawmakers because of unspecified ongoing law enforcement actions.
That also remains the rationale DOJ is using to reject transparency in other cases, including a federal magistrate judge’s opinion released Monday denying a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by The New York Times seeking communications between DOJ and a pro-Kremlin political party that paid Manafort. The judge’s ruling cites DOJ, which “maintains that releasing the records reasonably is likely to cause interference with pending or prospective law enforcement proceedings.”
Team Trump itself isn’t in the clear just yet, even as the Southern District of New York earlier this month said it was done with a portion of its probe dealing with potential campaign finance violations tied to the campaign’s 2016 hush money payments.
Mueller, for one, answered in the affirmative when asked by Colorado GOP Rep. Ken Buck on Wednesday if he believed Trump could still be charged with obstruction of justice after he left office. That’s a notion the president dismisses, calling out a reporter who asked him about the special counsel’s testimony on the topic as “fake news” and “one of the worst.”
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan also still haven’t given any recent updates on other potential Trump-themed investigations, including an examination of foreign donations to Trump’s January 2017 inauguration. A source familiar with the probe told POLITICO earlier this week that the inaugural committee submitted the last of the requested documents in April to comply with a subpoena that the Southern District of New York sent in February.
Andrew Weissmann
Mueller’s efforts are also going to get the book treatment. And the comic book treatment.
Andrew Weissmann, a former special counsel deputy who Mueller praised Wednesday as “one of the more talented attorneys we have on board,” is reportedly writing a memoir for a big-time publisher and an eager audience hopeful he’ll spill dirt on the inner workings of the probe.
A graphic novel is also coming next April. And a Hollywood production also seems next. After all, there’s already been one dramatic Broadway reading with celebrities playing the part of key figures in the investigation. And BuzzFeed long ago cast the inevitable film, with their suggestions of James Cromwell starring as Mueller, Alec Baldwin playing Trump and Steve Carell in the role of Flynn.
Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.
Show Comments
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/ ... be-1432798
by seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:11 am
Peter Daou
MOVING LEFT = Universal health care, climate action, equal justice, affordable college, living wage, gun sense...
MOVING RIGHT = Stealing babies, arming teachers, oppressing women, enriching billionaires, coddling white supremacists...
I KNOW WHICH ONE I CHOOSE.
https://twitter.com/peterdaou
Deutsche Bank: A Global Bank for Oligarchs
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40823&p=674932&hilit=Deutsche+Bank#p674932
Sandi Bachom
On January 11, 2017 I filmed Trump's first press conference at Trump Tower, he refused to call on @Acosta said he was fake news, and said he had 'no ties or loans with Russia' NINE times in 60 seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=ETOt3xqJ80I
Sandi Bachom
I was in the courtroom yesterday during the Deutsche Bank arguments. They pretty much said Russian Oligarchs money laundered through Trump and Jared, I think he will act crazier and crazier to get out of this, he knew the argument was WEAK and what was coming. It's over
Thread coming when I can decipher my handwriting. “The American people need to know Russian oligarchs are not using the US banking system to launder money or if our government is beholden to foreign interests and influencing president Trump”
THREAD: In 1986 I produced TV commercials for Trump Casinos. In NYC, Trump was basically a punch line. It was well known, no banks would loan to him because he stiffed them all. So it was with great interested I entered Manhattan federal court on May 22.
1) The reason for the hearings, Trump sued Deutsche Bank/Capitol trying to block Congressional subpoenas to attain his financial records. The face off, pitted House's general council Douglas Letter and Trump's lawyer Strawbridge. Presiding, US District Judge Edgardo Ramos.
2) So, here are my notes, as no phones are allowed in Federal court. I hope it makes sense. Take away: Trump does NOT understand there are two separate but equal branches of government and Congress is a check on the Executive Branch.
3) Strawbridge suggests Congress' case was too broad. 'the outer reaches of the House of Rep, Congress powers are not unlimited' and he questioned the scope of subpoenas for private and personal information for all of Trump's family and 'minors' for no 'valid legislative reason'
4) he kept saying the subpoenas to investigate 'money laundering' was a legislative law enforcement issue and should be thrown out of this court. Judge Ramos responded, 'Part of Congress' job is to look at corruption of the law'
5) Trump's lawyer continued it was an 'ethical violation' and 'crossed the line to law enforcement'. He argued the breadth of the subpoena was too broad.
6) Judge Ramos responded the subpoenas require the reaches of family members because of the structure of the Trump org included his children. Letter interjected in organized crime cases of money laundering, it was often put in the names of the grandchildren.
7) Judge Ramos suggests 'a subpoena is a way to see if foreign governments and agents are infiltrating and are interfering in our country' gave example of Fusion GPS.I wrote in my notes, 'At 2:50pm, Trump's lawyers lost their case'
9) Trump's lawyers argued Congress is overstepping their power and exceeding RFDA? Not sure what that is. Then they brought in the HUAC hearings for some reason. The Judge references Tea Pot Dome and I'm officially lost.
10) Trump's lawyers wanted to know why they wanted to 'go back so far' and Judge referenced Deutsche Bank had to pay 'heavy fines' regarding Russian oligarchs and money laundering.
11) 'WHY WOULD YOU GIVE MONEY TO TRUMP WHEN NO OTHER BANK WOULD TOUCH HIM?' Then a bunch of case law was referenced as my eyes glazed over. Strawbrige for the scope of the subpoenas be narrowed.
12) At this point, Letter said it wasn't just Trump and his family they were 'going after' there were NINE OR TEN others which were redacted!
13) Judge Ramos, 'On behalf of the American people courts do not look at motives. There is a separation of powers here. 'CONGRESS IS A CHECK'.
14) Letter 'WHY WE'RE HERE IS BECAUSE OF THE BASIC MISUNDERSTANDING BY MR TRUMP, THE REASON FOR CONGRESS'
15) Letter, 'the reason to subpoena inlaws and children, the drug lords put their companies in the names of their children, Mr Kuschner is the presidents son in law in the family business'
16) Trump's lawyers argued the disclosure of family members would cause 'irreparable harm' the judge kept referencing this is about the 'separation of powers' and Trump's right to financial privacy does not apply here.
17) 'The American people need to know Russian oligarchs not usie the US banking system to launder money and is our governments beholden to foreign financial interest. If they are THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW IMMEDIATELY'
18) 'We need you to uphold the Constitution and stop the obstruction. WE need you to uphold the house oversight. CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW'
19) 'The court is unpersuaded' the Judge repeated over and over to each point brought by Trump. The court denied consolidation and unlikely to 'succeed on the merits' 'irreparable damage' is inappropriate, there are 'TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT'
20) 'The court is unpersuaded' re RFPA. 'the court disagrees RFPA DOES NOT APPLY TO CONGRESS' I don't know what RFPA is if someone can explain.
21) Judge, 'Article 1, INVESTIGATIVE POWERS ARE BEYOND DEBATE. IT IS WITHIN CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO INVESTIGATE'
22) Judge 'The power of Congress inherent in the legislative process is to EXPOSE CORRUPTION AND PUBLICATION OF CORRUPTION' in the Bill of Rights, 'public entitled to be informed and there is no time limit to foreign intervention'
23) 'Deutsche Bank loaned Trump $2 billion when they knew it was not properly underwritten' 'money laundering is a threat to our national security'
24) So Judge Ramos ruled 'against the plaintiff' Trump's attorney requested a stay which was refused. Judges final words, 'The legislative powers are left to the voters'
5:24 PM - 26 May 2019 from Manhattan, NY
https://twitter.com/sandibachom/status/ ... 0142368768
by seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:27 pm
Anna Massoglia
New FARA disclosures from big Trump fundraiser Brian Ballard's lobbying firm add former Florida AG Pam Bondi as a foreign agent for Qatar "in matters related to combating human trafficking" with a $115,000-per-month consulting fee http://crp.org/bppmq1 http://crp.org/bppmqsf
Trump Foundation, which donated $25K to Florida AG Pam Bondi, ordered to dissolve for illegal activity
Posted By Colin Wolf on Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:39 pm
https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/arc ... l-activity
Is Pam Bondi auditioning for Fox News while still working for Florida taxpayers?
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politi ... taxpayers/
Trump to meet with Florida’s Bondi as he searches for new attorney general
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politi ... rylink=cpy
by seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:41 pm
Ed Markey calls for Trump impeachment in Senate speech
By Christina Prignano Globe staff,July 25, 2019, 10:49 a.m.
Senator Ed Markey. (Zach Gibson/Getty Images)
Senator Ed Markey called Thursday for the House to begin an impeachment inquiry in a Senate floor speech Thursday, a day after former special counsel Robert Mueller testified before a pair of House committees.
“Taken together, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony and the president’s obstruction of the congressional investigation compel us to immediately begin a formal impeachment inquiry,” Markey said on the Senate floor. “I do not come to this decision lightly.”
Markey is the second member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation to come out publicly in support of impeachment in the wake of the Mueller testimony, after Representative Lori Trahan issued a statement in favor of beginning an inquiry Wednesday.
More members of the state’s all-Democratic congressional delegation have come out in favor of impeachment in recent months in the wake of Mueller’s investigation and subsequent congressional probes.
In his speech, Markey pointed to the Trump administration’s refusal to cooperate with ongoing House investigations as part of his reasoning, in addition to the episodes of possible obstruction outlined in the Mueller report, which he called impeachable offenses.
“Indeed, in the face of evidence of serious and persistent misconduct that is harmful to the nation, Congress would be abusing its constitutional discretion and setting a dangerous precedent if it did not begin an impeachment inquiry,” he said.
Though impeachment proceedings do not originate in the Senate, if the House votes to pass one or more articles of impeachment, a trial would be held in the Senate. It would take a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove the president, which is highly unlikely given the Republican majority.
Markey acknowledged that political dynamic, saying “I have no illusions about where an impeachment inquiry will lead.” Still, he called on the House to move forward with one.
Mueller testified for more than six hours Wednesday before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, dismissing Trump’s claims of exoneration and warning of continued election interference.
‘‘We spent substantial time assuring the integrity of the report, understanding that it would be our living message to those who come after us,’’ Mueller said. ‘‘But it also is a signal, a flag to those of us who have some responsibility in this area to exercise those responsibilities swiftly and don’t let this problem continue to linger as it has over so many years.”
Markey faces two declared Democratic primary challengers, who also have called for impeachment.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi ... story.html
Mueller acted like a man terrified to state the obvious. The question remains: Why?
Published July 24, 2019
Sarah Kendzior is the author of The View From Flyover Country and the co-host of the podcast Gaslit Nation.
At the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Congressman Guy Reschenthaler asked former special counsel Robert Mueller about the matter of indicting Trump.
“You made a decision not to prosecute, correct?”
“No,” said Mr. Mueller, “We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not.”
“We made a decision not to decide” is the Mueller motto. His two-year probe was marked by witness interviews that were never held, probable criminals who were never prosecuted, and troubling questions that were never answered – and may never be, if Wednesday’s testimony is any indication.
This is a pattern for Mr. Mueller. The Mueller Report, while lengthy, shed little light on why Trump associates apparently complicit in foreign interference in a U.S. election – such as Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. – were not charged, or why criminals such as Michael Flynn walk free after plea deals that seemingly led nowhere. The rollout of the report in March, tarnished by the misleading memo of Attorney General William Barr, further muddied the matter – particularly since the April release of the report allowed Barr’s deceitful summary to dominate discourse for a month.
Americans were looking for clarity, but they did not find it on Wednesday. Long hailed as the strong and silent type, Mr. Mueller came off as meek and reticent. He was reluctant to answer questions about a report to which he had devoted two years of his life – a report critical to America’s national security. According to NBC News, he deflected or declined to answer a question 155 times.
Mueller says Russia probe did not exonerate Trump
Globe editorial: After Mueller fiasco, the only way left to defeat Trump is at the ballot box
Opinion: Robert Mueller: Man of integrity, terrible on TV
The Mueller hearings: a guide to what you missed at today’s testimony and how we got here
Over the course of the probe, Mr. Mueller never spoke to the press, and his silence allowed him to be a blank slate onto which Americans projected their hopes and fears. As institutions crumbled, many Americans embraced deus ex Mueller: a belief that the apparent criminality of those close to Donald Trump was being secretly and effectively fought by a team of seasoned patriots. The cult of Mueller decreed every bad decision or obvious injustice to be part of “3-D chess,” a term frightened people use when their heroes inexplicably fail them.
In reality, Mr. Mueller seems as frightened as everyone else. When asked if hostile foreign powers interfering in U.S. elections was “the new normal,” he replied: “I hope this is not the new normal. But I fear it is.” The special counsel who was supposed to have the solutions is resigned to mere hope on the matter of his country’s sovereignty.
Throughout the hearings, Mr. Mueller acted as if outside forces constrained his ability to answer questions. But he is no longer an employee of the Department of Justice, and they can no longer tell him what to say. The decision to narrow the scope of the questions and even his method of response (he refused to read his own report out loud) was Robert Mueller’s.
As a result, key topics – such as Mr. Trump’s possible involvement with organized crime or the influence of other foreign countries in the 2016 election – went unmentioned. Other issues, such as Mr. Trump’s shady finances or the prospect of impeachment, were largely avoided.
In the first hearing, Mr. Mueller had his most damning moment of legal clarity, when he told Congressman Ted Lieu that Mr. Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office. In the second hearing, Mr. Mueller walked it back.
He acted like a man terrified to speak the obvious.
The question remains: why? An informed public is a powerful public, and a powerful public is crucial when a country is transitioning into autocracy. Any attempt of officials to hide the truth – whether through deliberate lies, institutional obfuscation, or pure gutlessness – hurts the body politic. Mr. Mueller had the opportunity to deliver insight and validate his own work. Instead, he was timid in the face of both Republican smears and Democratic inquiries. He kept noting that he knew the answers to questions that are of great public interest, but that he had no intention of revealing them.
The public has the right to know whether its own government constitutes a threat to national security and if the president is complicit in a crime. Testifying to Congress was Mr. Mueller’s patriotic obligation, and he should not have required a subpoena to show up. His question-dodging mirrored the reticence of his probe: he did not want to indict anyone even when their offences were blatant, and he did not want to explain why. It is disconcerting that one of the few things Mr. Mueller would confirm is that Americans are not safe.
Mr. Mueller decided not to decide, but in the immortal words of Rush, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” His bad choice could mean that Americans lose their own free will in the years to come.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... icle+Links
Meghan McCain gets more than she bargained for after demanding ‘smoking gun’ evidence from Adam Schiff
By Travis GettysJuly 25, 2019
Meghan McCain complained that special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t offer “smoking gun” proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia — but Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) set her straight.
The former FBI director testified at length Wednesday before two House panels, and Schiff walked him through his findings that Russia had offered to help elect Donald Trump — whose family members and other associates accepted that help and actively promoted emails stolen by Kremlin operatives, and then lied to cover up those efforts.
“Congressman,” McCain said, “you have claimed for years now you have a smoking gun of evidence of collusion. Your quote is, ‘ample evidence of collusion.’ You said that, but Robert Mueller and his investigation found that there was no collusion. So can you share with us right here, right now on ‘The View,’ the evidence that you have and explain why Mueller was wrong yesterday?”
The California Democrat then patiently walked McCain through the same evidence that Mueller had confirmed was accurate during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that Schiff leads.
“Well, first of all, Mueller wasn’t wrong,” Schiff said. “He started out by saying we didn’t address the issue of collusion.”
00:06 00:44
McCain immediately interrupted to challenge Schiff’s claims.
“What’s your evidence?” she said. “You’ve been saying that on TV for years.”
Schiff was undeterred, and continued to lay out his case.
Report Advertisement
“I will tell you,” he said, “and we have also been saying that the evidence is in plain sight, not hidden anywhere, and we went through that evidence. The Russians offered dirt on Hillary Clinton in writing and sent it to Don Jr., and Don Jr.’s response was in writing and said, as for your offer of foreign illegal help, I would love it. He accepted the offer.”
“They set up a furtherance of that, and they lied about it,” Schiff continued. “You have an offering of illegal help, an acceptance of that, an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy. That is, I think, by any rational American’s expectation is the personification of collusion.”
“Now Bob Mueller had a different question he needed to analyze, which is, can I prove each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt?” he added. “As you know, well before the Mueller report I was pointing out to the public, there is a difference between what we understand is collusion and whether you can prove all the elements of crime.”
McCain interrupted again and asked whether Mueller’s testimony was a win for Democrats, but Schiff didn’t take the bait.
“You know, I would consider it a win for the American people that they got to hear from the person who did the investigation,” he said. “They got to hear unfiltered by anybody else, what he found, you know, for the former director of the FBI, and the special counsel, to say effectively the president acted immorally, unethically, unpatriotically and likely in a criminal fashion, the American people needed to hear. If you are measuring whether this is a success in terms of whether it brings us closer to impeachment or not, that was not my object with wanting him to come in.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/meghan ... am-schiff/
Why Did Trump Make the ‘OK’ Sign While Talking about AOC?
That gesture is traditionally the symbol for “OK,” but it has taken on some uglier meanings in recent years
Tessa Stuart July 23, 2019 2:31PM ET
While referring to New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a speech on Tuesday, President Trump flashed a distinctive hand gesture. Here’s a video, captured and shared on Twitter by Vox reporter Aaron Rupar.
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
· Jul 23, 2019
Replying to @atrupar
Fox News cut away from Trump's speech right as it started getting really weird
Embedded video
Aaron Rupar
✔
@atrupar
Trump makes a hand gesture while saying AOC's name
Embedded video
7,544
10:50 AM - Jul 23, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
8,035 people are talking about this
The gesture is traditionally the symbol for “OK,” but, mutated by a wildly successful 4chan hoax and stripped of its irony by white supremacists, it’s now also used as an earnest “white power” symbol.
So when does it mean what? As the Anti-Defamation League writes in an explainer, “The overwhelming usage of the ‘OK’ hand gesture today is still its traditional purpose as a gesture signifying assent or approval. As a result, someone who uses the symbol cannot be assumed to be using the symbol in either a trolling or, especially, white supremacist context unless other contextual evidence exists to support the contention.”
So let’s evaluate the context here, shall we?
First, the location: Trump made the gesture while addressing throngs of cheering, MAGA-cap wearing teens at the Turning Point USA’s Teen Student Action Summit 2019 at downtown Washington, D.C. Marriott.
Two months ago, the leader of Turning Point USA’s chapter at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas was filmed flashing the same hand gesture, while saying “White Power.” (Turning Point USA severed ties with the student after the video went viral, saying it has “a zero-tolerance policy for hate.”) At the start of his speech, Trump gave a shout out to Turning Point’s founder, Charlie Kirk, who has been photographed flashing the gesture alongside a Trump poster.
And, second, the subject: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Ocasio-Cortez is one of the four Congresswomen the president recently said should “go back to their countries,” remarks were officially condemned by the House of Representatives as racist.
So, was Trump simply making a gesture signifying assent or approval?
He was either using the OK sign for no apparent reason, or ironically as a symbol to trigger snowflake libs who would believe it was a symbol for white power, or unironically because it actually is a symbol for white power.
You’ll have to be the judge; the White House did not respond to a request for comment.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... re-860776/
Republicans Embrace Fake News to Cover for Trump
Trump’s racist attacks on Democratic congresswomen are indefensible. So Republicans are defending them with lies.
William Saletan
July 24, 201912:05 PM
Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during a press conference at the Capitol on July 15..
Alex Wroblewski/Getty Images
President Donald Trump is absolutely, positively not a racist. That’s the message Republican leaders have delivered since July 14, when Trump told four Democratic congresswomen of color to “go back” to the countries from which their families came. Trump’s real beef, according to Republicans, is that these congresswomen keep praising al-Qaida, condemning Jews, and calling America garbage. “They’re wrong when they espouse … vile anti-Semitism,” Rep. Liz Cheney, the chair of the House Republican Conference, declared at a press conference on July 16. “Our opposition to our colleagues’ beliefs has absolutely nothing to do with race or gender or religion.”
It’s an odd defense, because the principal allegations against the four congresswomen are lies. Some are pure fabrications. Others are inversions of what they said. The lies were fact-checked and debunked more than a week ago, but Republicans continue to repeat them. That’s because the GOP is desperate to mask Trump’s bigotry and, emboldened by his successful use of disinformation as a political strategy, has lost all compunction about making things up.
Trump’s “go back” tweets, posted on July 14, didn’t specify any offensive statements by the congresswomen. He accused them of only two things: coming from “broken and crime infested” countries and “telling the people of the United States … how our government is to be run.” His argument was naked: If you’re a minority immigrant or a child of minority immigrants, don’t meddle in “our” country.
Trump has installed an authoritarian culture of raw disinformation, and his party has bought into it.
The racism of the tweets was too overt for Republican leaders. So they concocted a more palatable story. According to a Washington Post account drawn from interviews with more than two dozen “White House aides, advisers, lawmakers and others,” Republican politicians and operatives “urged Trump to reframe away from the racist notion at the core of the tweets … Advisers wrote new talking points and handed him reams of opposition research on the four congresswomen.” The new script was that “the four congresswomen hated America.” On July 15, the Republican National Committee posted the opposition research on one of its Twitter accounts. At a Cabinet meeting on July 16, Trump gestured to papers in front of him. “I have a list of things here said by the congresswomen that is so bad,” he told reporters. “They hate our country.” Two days later, Trump added, “I could go page over page over page—many, many statements … I’ve seen statements that they made with such hatred toward our country.”
And what were those statements? At a July 15 White House event, Trump pulled a sheet of talking points from his jacket and began to read them. He claimed that one of the four congresswomen, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, had said, “When I think of al-Qaida, I can hold my chest out.” He accused Omar of “speaking about how wonderful al-Qaida is” and “talking about how great al-Qaida is.” Twice, he claimed that Omar “hates Jews.” Trump also denounced Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, for daring to “call our country and our people ‘garbage.’ ” He added that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had “said, ‘Make America white again.’ … That’s a very racist statement.”
None of this is true. What Pelosi had actually written, in rebuttal to Trump’s “go back” tweets, was that “his plan to ‘Make America Great Again’ has always been about making America white again.” She was accusing the president of racism.
Trump’s talking points also twisted Omar’s words. In a 2013 interview, Omar condemned Islamic terrorists, drawing a distinction between “normal people” like herself and “the people that are carrying on the evil acts—because it is an evil act.” She denounced Al-Shabab, a violent Islamist group, for “terrorizing” her country of birth, Somalia. In the interview, Omar also mocked a professor for lifting his shoulders and raising his intensity when speaking the words al-Qaida. Trump took her mockery of the professor and perverted it into a fake, first-person statement of pride.
The president also lied about Ocasio-Cortez. In an interview four months ago, she was asked about the difficulty of getting politicians to support ambitious changes like “Medicare for All” and a $15 minimum wage. She replied that progressives shouldn’t settle for “10 percent better from garbage.” She was criticizing incrementalism, and by “garbage,” she was referring to policies she deemed inadequate. The full transcript of her remarks shows no basis to claim, as Trump does, that she was disparaging “our country and our people.”
Three major media outlets—CNN, ABC News, and the New York Times—debunked Trump’s slanders on July 15. Over the next three days, other outlets—PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, the Post, the Associated Press, USA Today, and NBC News—published further evidence that the charges were false. But on July 19, Trump repeated the same smears. He claimed six times that the congresswomen had called “our country and our people ‘garbage.’ ”
There’s nothing new about Trump telling lies. What’s new is the boldness with which the rest of Trump’s party is embracing his practice of complete fabrication. On Sunday, Mercedes Schlapp, a senior adviser to Trump’s reelection campaign, went on ABC News to denounce “the chants of ‘the Squad,’ the … anti-Semitic chants that they push forward.” There are no such chants. On Fox News Sunday, when senior White House policy adviser Stephen Miller repeated Trump’s false allegations, Chris Wallace showed viewers the Ocasio-Cortez “garbage” quote and explained its meaning: “She didn’t say the country was garbage. She said some of the policies she opposes are garbage.” Miller refused to back down. “It’s literally impossible to read the quote that way,” Miller insisted. “She’s saying that America in her view, right now, is garbage.”
Congressional leaders and GOP officials have joined the smear campaign. At the press conference with Cheney on July 16, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed that Omar had questioned whether “somebody of the Jewish faith could support America.” (That’s false.) Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel asserted that another congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, “says she gets a ‘calming feeling’ when she thinks about the Holocaust” (a complete misrepresentation). On Sunday, long after the “garbage” quote had been debunked, Cheney again accused Ocasio-Cortez of “talking about the nation as garbage.”
The most avid liar has been Vice President Mike Pence. In a CBS News interview that aired on Sunday, Pence claimed that Ocasio-Cortez “said this country was garbage” and was “referring to our country as garbage.” He also accused Omar of vicious statements “about the Jewish people in this country”—specifically, a “reference to evil Jews.” Trump made the same allegation on July 19 at the White House: “They can’t talk about ‘evil Jews,’ which is what they say: ‘evil Jews.’ ”
That’s pure fiction. Omar has never used the phrase “evil Jews.” She has never said anything bad about Judaism or Jewish people. She has criticized some Israeli policies but has always taken care, in her words, “to distinguish between criticizing a military action by a government and attacking a particular people of faith.” She has consistently argued that no one should be targeted or disparaged on the basis of religion. Trump, Pence, and the RNC have ignored these statements. They have stuffed the words evil Jews in her mouth.
This is vile. It’s different from spin, which is based on dueling interpretations of facts. It’s also different from the political falsehoods of the past, which were surrendered in the face of evidence. When President George W. Bush found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he admitted he was wrong. That ethic is gone. Trump has installed an authoritarian culture of raw disinformation, and his party has bought into it. Republicans are fabricating quotes, ignoring corrections, and disregarding the whole idea of truth.
In this case, it’s worth asking why they have to lie so hard—and why they’ve chosen these particular lies. The answers are telling. Republicans had to invent fake quotes because in real life, nothing the congresswomen have said or done justifies Trump’s tweets. And Republicans chose these particular fictions—bashing “evil Jews,” glorifying al-Qaida, dismissing America as garbage—because those are the smears they thought they could pin on people named Omar and Ocasio-Cortez. In covering for Trump’s racism, his apologists have exposed their own.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... squad.html
Everything you need to know about Felix Sater
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40670&p=656922&hilit=Felix+Sater#p656922
Trump Associate Was FBI Source on Mafia and al-Qaida
ASSOCIATED PRESS July 25, 2019
Donald Trump talks on his cellphone after speaking at the Bixpo 2005 business convention at the Budweiser Events Center in Loveland, Colo. On the right, is Felix Sater. (Cyrus McCrimmon/The Denver Post via AP)
NEW YORK (AP) — Newly unsealed court records confirm that Felix Sater, a former business associate of President Donald Trump, was an invaluable FBI source who used his ties to the criminal underworld to rat out New York’s organized crime families and gather intelligence on al Qaida and arms dealers in Afghanistan.
But the trove of documents, made public this week after a years-long legal effort by media organizations, shed no new light on the part of the Russian-born businessman’s past that is probably of the most interest to House Democrats investigating the president.
They don’t get into his work with Trump on real estate projects in New York City and elsewhere in the years before he ran for president, and don’t deal with the time period when Sater was pushing for a deal to build a Trump Tower project in Moscow.
U.S. District Judge Leo Glasser, who ordered the records released, ruled that some documents should remain secret, but assured the public that those materials contain “not a jot or tittle that mentions the president in relation to Sater.”
A Soviet émigré who befriended Trump in the 2000s, Sater served jail time for slashing a man with a broken cocktail glass in 1991 and was convicted of racketeering in 1998 for his role in a $40 million pump-and-dump stock fraud.
That conviction was kept under seal for years as Sater provided intelligence to the FBI on a Who’s Who of criminal organizations.
Meanwhile, he reinvented himself as a real estate developer, working with a company that partnered with Trump on a hotel condominium project in Manhattan’s SoHo neighborhood and repeatedly trying to work out a deal for a Trump-branded property in Russia.
Sater’s name appears dozens of times in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference. He had multiple exchanges with Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, as he pushed a Moscow project during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The skyscraper deal was abandoned, and Cohen was sentenced to three years in federal prison after pleading guilty to tax evasion, campaign-finance violations and lying to Congress about the project.
In all the years he worked with the FBI, Sater said the authorities never asked him to provide information about Trump before Mueller inquired about the Moscow deal.
He said additional court records that Glasser ordered to be unsealed next month will provide even more details about his globe-trotting efforts to combat terrorism.
“I love this country more than anything else,” Sater told The Associated Press, saying he was not moved to cooperate by the possibility of a jail sentence. “I’m not trying to wrap myself in a flag, but I did this out of patriotism.”
Sater was interviewed this month by U.S. House Intelligence Committee staff as part of the panel’s inquiry into contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign. A spokesman for the committee chairman accused Sater of not fully cooperating, saying Sater would remain under subpoena.
Sater, however, told The AP he was forthcoming and “answered every question.”
Some details of Sater’s exploits as a government source surfaced over the years in media accounts and through his own testimony, but the court documents unsealed this week offer the perspective of prosecutors and an FBI agent who put Sater in a league of his own among government cooperators.
Among the records unsealed at the behest of The Intercept, an online news organization, is a transcript of Sater’s 2009 sentencing, in which prosecutors raved about his decade of cooperation. One FBI agent described Sater as the difference between failure and success in the bureau’s then-nascent efforts to curb organized crime on Wall Street in the mid- to late-1990s.
Before Sater turned state’s evidence, said Todd Kaminsky, then-assistant U.S. attorney, “criminal financial wizards were one step ahead of law enforcement.” The FBI, Kaminsky said, “would take any given investigation they were looking into at the time, bring it in front of Felix Sater, and he would explain to them what was going on.”
“There was nothing he wouldn’t do,” he said. “No task was too big.”
Kaminsky credited Sater with implicating several high-ranking members in La Cosa Nostra, telling a federal appeals court in a hearing that his cooperation “runs a gamut that is seldom seen.”
“It involves violent organizations such as al Qaida,” he said, according to another newly unsealed transcript. “It involves foreign governments. It involves Russian organized crime.”
Sater’s attorneys wrote in another court filing that he had given the government specific information about key leaders in al Qaida and even traveled to the Middle East at the FBI’s direction after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Sater wore a wire for so long during a decade of “constant undercover work” that it “got to a point where it became too dangerous to allow a confirmation of his cooperation to be known,” Kaminsky said.
In the end, Sater was sentenced to probation and a $25,000 fine in the stock fraud case because of his work for the government.
Federal prosecutors had argued for several years that records related to Sater’s criminal case should be sealed because his life could be in danger if his cooperation were known, but Sater himself undermined that argument by giving interviews in which he talked about his history as a cooperator on mob and terrorism cases.
Sater said he hopes any risk to his safety will fade as time goes by.
“I made a decision to risk my life and do the things I did,” he said. “There’s nothing I can do about it now.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-as ... -al-qaida/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests
