What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Trump-Russia Investigation Thread: Mueller Goes Terminator Edition

Reaction..

  • Huh?

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • Seriously?

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • ... are we in some crappy technothriller?

    Votes: 23 71.9%
  • WTF?

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Total voters
    32
The OP and what we know so far...
  • Aaron Fox

    SB's Minor Junker Descendant and Hunter of Nazis
    Author
    Since we've got threadmarks now, we can make it easy to get a thread consolidating all the shit that the Trump-Russia investigation has dug up and been made public.

    Most of my information will be transcribed from the SB Thread of the same nature.

    Now, let us begin:
    SB Rules and Table of Contents said:
    Table of Contents of Reserved Posts
    Post 1 – Table of Contents of Reserved Posts, Moderator Rules for the Thread, Having Baladar Add Things to the Thread, and Acceptable Content for Citations

    Post 2 – A Brief Summery of what we happened Until this Point

    Post 3 – Dramatis Personae in and Around the Investigations

    Post 4 – Timeline of Events Prior to March of 2016

    Post 5 – Timeline of Events During the 2016 Election from March Onwards

    Post 6 – Timeline of Events and Revelations After the 2016 Election

    Post 7 – Current Status of the Investigations into Russian Interference

    Post 8 – Results of the Investigations that have Led to Indictments, Plea-bargains, and Convictions.

    Post 9 – A Message from the OP

    Post 10 and Beyond – Regular Debate and Information Posts


    Moderator Rules for Thread
    As we all know in debates here things can happen. In Whitehall things happen so much that the mods stopped replaced the glass for their wall cases that read "Break Glass if Emergency Oppression is Needed." So they have set a number of rules that must be followed to a tee or large, colorful, and unfriendly letters will appear much like the dread avian beast known as the Toucan, bringing you only despair and malice.

    This is not a warning, but is a promise.

    In addition to the below are all the other rules of debate that must be followed, which can be found here: Link


    Special Rules For Special People
    1) Include Content in Citation Posts – If you post citations on new events or revelations, please include a brief description and your thoughts on it. Posting a single tweet or citation, without those things can leave some people confused as to what they are looking at, as some browsers and services block all kinds of content; moreover, make sure the citations are credible. I.e. they come from legitimate outlets that have reputable journalistic standards or for technical or legal matters have equally reputable expertise.

    2) Stay on Topic – Going on about so and so having the nuclear football or complaints about this law or policy being implemented do not belong here. So keep this in mind.

    3) No Low Content Posting – This is a debate/informational thread, so there is to be little to no reaction types of post, sans any other content. Reacting to events in progress or new revelations is acceptable so long as you include a bit of analysis of some kind or your thoughts and feelings on the matter.

    4) Don't Derail with Humor - Not to say everything has to be super serious all the time. Levity, japes, wordplay, and light snark are expected; however, everyone has to stay on topic and not make it chan like or derail things. If three or four posts in a row are joking around only, don't join in please.

    5) No Two Minute Hate Posts – There is to be no posting of anything that exists for the sole purpose of enflaming things, without a possibility of any real debate. Like so and so is a sex offender and it has almost nothing to do with the topic. There are exceptions for news updates for the Dramatis Personae.

    6) Try to Ignore Derails and Whataboutisms – There are some people that will try to derail the topics at hand on purpose with unrelated topics or complaints about things completely unrelated. Do your best to gloss over these posts and report them at your own discretion. Keep in mind that some people aren't trying to derail, but are only making an honest mistake.

    7) No Nunes Memes – While we all know the man is annoying and does terrible things, there is to be no writing silly things in giant colorful letters or overly excessive word plays on his name meaning "worse than excrement" or the like. That said things he does or says may be discussed and grumblings about those things are also permissible; however, said grumblings must be kept to a minimum.

    All of these rules are to remain in place unless an arbiter, moderator, super mod, or any other staff member alters the rules and we pray they don't alter them any further. Any alterations will be reflected on this post. In the event of super big things (such as indictments, impeachments, or firings) I fully expect some the above things to be broken to a degree, but I would rather be disappointed. So please don't break the rules in those sorts of events. Now if the mods relax rules during those times then that will be fine, but please wait for a rule change first.


    Having Baladar Add Things to the Thread
    If I have overlooked a citation or report that you feel or think should be threadmarked or should be added to the reserved posts, please PM me. I tend to be buried under a mountain of alerts, so I might overlook people mentioning or quoting me. I don't get many things in my inbox so that might be the best way of getting my attention. Getting in touch with eagle109 or Dalmity is also encouraged, as these two have spent many hours poring over this content to make things more easily understood for all of us; moreover, they have given their blessing to use their hard work from the first thread to make the backbone of the timeline info dumps, so give them mad props.

    If you want me to add something to the reserved posts the following must be included in any PM:

    Citation Title
    Publisher
    Html link
    Date of publication
    A brief one to three line description of what it covers, including which of the Dramatis Personae are involved.

    In the event that I am unable to threadmark things due to being banned, being sick, dead, or any other unexpected absence please PM a mod to threadmark your things. Also please pray that I'm not actually in the hospital, in jail, or dead. I don't want to be any of those things, but I will sort out threadmarks and the like when if and when I get back.


    Acceptable Content for Citations
    Not every article, document, or report is going to be added to the threadmarks or reserved posts. First and foremost sometimes we see multiple articles covering the same subject or event. I'm only going to add whichever comes first or whichever seems the most credible if lots of people start posting about a thing happening all at once. Secondly, editorials and opinion pieces can be threadmarked; however, they are less likely to wind up in the reserved posts. Those posts are for things we know for a fact or at least things that we credible people have reported to the authorities and/or news organizations. Thirdly, there are sources and types of articles that will require an extremely convincing argument as to why it credible enough to be added.


    Here is a partial list:

    - The Blaze
    - Infowars
    - Breitbart
    - Project Veritas
    - Anything that Looks Clickbaity
    - Chain Emails
    - That Thing From your Grandma on Facebook
    - Anything that looks like it will put Malware on Someone's Computer
    - Pictures of Toucans

    Forth and finally are videos. Videos that should be threadmarked are things like important congressional hearings, interviews or press conferences that reveal important information, video depositions under oath, or something else that is revealing but is not edited to be misleading. These are naturally a little trickier, but I am not too worried.
    Brief Summery of the Current Situation said:
    A Brief Summery of what we happened Until this Point

    The Russian Federation used their intelligence assets to break into computer systems in the United States that belonged to political parties, private individuals, and possibly some belonging to the US government. Using the stolen data the Russian Federation released out of context excerpts, altered emails, and outright false information to the US voting public via third party groups, individuals, and bot nets. This was all done in an effort to poison the well and cause tumultuous presidential term for Hillary Clinton, to possibly elect Donald Trump to the US Presidency, and possibly alter the outcome of other down ballot elections in 2016.

    This disinformation campaign was also micro targeted at vulnerable voters in key states using personal information on said voters. It is suspected that this personal information was provided to intermediaries of the Russian Federation by members of the Trump campaign and/or third parties hired by the campaign.

    The Russian Federation also electronically broke into voter registration records in many states in the weeks leading up to the election and it is presently unknown if those records were altered; however, it is known that quite a few US voters suddenly found them themselves as inactive voters on election day.

    The Ultimate goal of the Russian Federation was to cause the citizens of these United States to suffer disunity, distrust of each other, confusion, fear of our own government, and weaken the United States of America. By this metric the Russian Federation has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

    They have continued to attempt similar disinformation campaigns in other Western Nations, such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany.
    Dramatis Personae in and around the Investigation said:
    Dramatis Personae in and Around the Investigations

    Spoiler: Noteworthy Congressional Investigators
    House Intel:

    Republicans -
    Chairman Congressman Devin Nunes (CA) (Infamous on this site for many valid reasons listed in the spoiler below:

    Spoiler: This is Why He Gets His Own Rule
    Congressman Trey Gowdy (SC)

    Democrats -
    Ranking Member Congressman Adam Schiff (CA)
    Congressman Jim Himes (CT)
    Congressman Eric Swalwell (CA)


    Senate Intel:

    Republicans -
    Chairman Senator Richard Burr (NC)
    Senator Marco Rubio (FL)
    Senator Susan Collins (ME)
    Senator Tom Cotton (AR)
    Senator John Cornyn (TX)
    Senator John McCain (AZ, Ex officio means "from the office", basically "by right of office")
    Senator Mitch McConnell (KY, Ex officio)

    Democrats -
    Ranking Member Senator Mark Warner (VA)
    Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA)
    Senator Ron Wyden (OR)
    Senator Kamala Harris (CA)
    Senator Chuck Schumer (NY, Ex officio)


    Senate Judiciary:

    Republicans -
    Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley (IA)
    Senator Orrin Hatch (UT)
    Senator Lindsey Graham (SC)
    Senator John Cornyn (TX)
    Senator Ted Cruz (TX)
    Senator Jeff Flake (AZ)

    Democrats -
    Ranking Member Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA)
    Senator Patrick Leahy (VT)
    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
    Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN)
    Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT)
    Senator Kamala Harris (CA, from January 9, 2018)
    Senator Cory Booker (NJ, from January 9, 2018)
    Senator Al Franken (MN, until January 2, 2018)
    Timeline of Events up to March 2016 said:
    Event timeline leading up to the 2016 Election from March 2016 Onwards said:
     
    Last edited:
    What we Know So Far 2: The Reckoning (Warning, possible Constant Updates)
  • Timeline of Events Post-Election Up to said:
    • December, 2016:
      • December 1, 2016 - Kushner proposes secret back channel between Trump transition team and Russia, using Russian equipment and bypassing US intelligence services.
      • December 29, 2016 - Flynn discusses sanctions with Kislyak. Start of scandal that leads to Flynn's resignation and guilty plea.
    • January, 2017:
      • January 6, 2017 - US intelligence community publishes public assessment that Russia attempted to influence 2016 election.
      • January 17, 2017 - During Senate confirmation to AG, Sessions denies contacts or meetings with Russian officials.
      • January 20, 2017 - Trump is inaugurated
      • January 24, 2017 - Flynn lies to FBI. Lies about conversations with Kislyak on Russian sanctions.
      • January 27**, 2017 - Papadopoulos interviewed by FBI and lies, setting up future guilty plea in Russian investigation.
    • February: 2017:
      • February**, 2017 - FBI warns Hope Hicks about Russians.
      • February 8, 2017 - Jeff Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General.
      • February 13, 2017 - Flynn resigns to due to 'misleading' Vice President Pence on conversations with Kislyak.
      • February 14, 2017 - Spicer claims the campaign had no contact with Russian officials.
      • February 14, 2017 - Trump asks Comey to let Flynn go. Comey makes notes.
      • February 15, 2017 - Comey asks Sessions to keep Trump away from unusual contact with himself.
    • March, 2017:
      • March 1, 2017 - Both Sessions and Don Jr. deny Russian contacts.
      • March 1, 2017 - Trump calls Comey. Comey makes more notes.
      • March 2, 2017 - Sessions Recuses himself, despite the White House not wanting him to do that.
      • March 2, 2017 - Carter Page admits to meeting Russian Officials.
      • March 2, 2017 - The New York Times reports contact between the Russian Ambassador, Flynn, and Kushner.
      • March 4, 2017 - Trump Claims Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped.
      • March 4, 2017 - Stone says he never denied dealings with Wikileaks.
      • March 5, 2017 - FBI asks DoJ to refute Trump's Claims that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped.
      • March 7, 2017 - Flynn discloses unreported payments from Turkey as an agent of Turkey.
      • March 9 , 2017 - Pence claims to have no knowledge of Flynn's activities for Turkey.
      • March 10, 2017 - Stone admits to dealing with hacker, who later is found to have been working for the Russian Federation.
      • March 10, 2017 - Trump fires 46 US Federal Prosecutors.
      • March 16, 2017 - Senate Intelligence Committee says Trump's Claims that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped is without merit.
      • March 17, 2017 - Stone denies hacker works for the Russian Federation.
      • March 20, 2017 - Comey testifies before congress that the FBI is looking for links between Trump campaign and Russia. Also that there was no ordered wiretap by Obama.
      • March 20, 2017 - Manafort becomes a person of interest to congressional investigators.
      • March 21, 2017 - Spicer claims that Trump's campaign manager Manafort only had a limited role.
      • March 22, 2017 - Nunes brings classified materials to the White House, to help support the wiretap claims. He did not inform the committee he chairs and the information did not actually support the wiretap claims.
      • March 22, 2017 - Trump asks the directors of the CIA and National Intelligence to get Comey to ease his investigations into Russian interference.
      • March 24, 2017 - Nunes cancels public hearings of Clapper, Brennan, and Yates.
      • March 26, 2017 - Stone denies Russian contact.
      • March 27, 2017 - Trump says Hillary Clinton should be investigated for Russian interference.
      • March 30, 2017 - Nunes sources for what he did on March 22, 2017 are revealed to actually be from inside the White House.
      • March 30, 2017 - Trump asks Comey to "lift the cloud" of the investigation. Comey makes even more notes.
      • March 30, 2017 - Flynn offers to testify in exchange for immunity.
      • March 31, 2017 - Trump claims the Russian Investigation is both a hoax and a Witch hunt.
    • January, 2018:
    • February, 2018:
    The Investigation's Current Status as of February 2018: said:
    Current Status of the Investigations into Russian Interference

    Since the Election, the US Congress began investigations in both the House and the Senate – the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ("House Intel"), the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ("Senate Intel"), and the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary("Senate Judiciary"). The House Intel investigation was initially led by California Republican Chairman Congressman Devin Nunes, and it is suspected that he has been attempting to thwart an honest investigation. He even gave classified materials to White House personnel that were not cleared for it, and recently has worked to discredit the FBI. Both of the Senate investigations has been seemingly been honest and fair, but Senate Judiciary is also looking into things less honest, led by Senate Judiciary Chairman Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.

    Early in the Trump administration it was found that members of the President's cabinet and closest advisers has had some form of dealings with Russian officials and have been less than honest with the FBI and members of Congress. Retired US Army Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynnwas "fired" over this on February 13, 2017, and US Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III recused himself from any investigation into the Russian matter on March 2, 2017 due to having been on the transition team. Shortly after this, President Trump abruptly fired FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr. on May 9, 2017. The President would later say "the Russia thing" was on his mind when he fired the FBI Director in an interview with NBC News correspondent Lester Holt that was aired on May 11, 2017.

    Shortly thereafter the deputy Attorney General hired Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and lead an investigation. Over the next eight months a number of people involved with the Trump Campaign have pled guilty or have been charged with a host of crimes related to covering things up, conspiracy, and acting as an unregistered foreign agent. Congressional testimony has also surfaced that has shown members of the Trump campaign and family have had inappropriate contact with members of the Russian Federation and organized crime syndicates in Russia, in some of these cases the connections go back decades. One infamous meeting, during the campaign involved Donald Trump's son, his son in law, and intermediaries of the Russian Federation, was organized for the express purpose of obtaining discrediting information on Hillary Clinton that was obtained via criminal activity or through the actions of Russian Intelligence Agents. That meeting was not reported to US authorities and would be described as "treasonous" and "unpatriotic" by other members of the Trump Campaign. Further congressional testimony revealed that the FBI began to suspect the Trump Campaign was coordinating with the Russian Federation in some way and began a counter intelligence operation in the Summer of 2016.

    When then President Obama was informed of this he called on Congressional leaders to publicly denounce the actions of the Russian Federation. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate, refused for reasons unspecified.

    Congressional testimony has also revealed a strong possibility that conservative groups, such as the NRA and PACs, have received money from Russian government, private, and criminal sources for use in domestic US political campaigns. This is in addition to testimony that Donald Trump's real estate businesses may have laundered money from Russian Criminal Syndicates in the past.

    The Special Counsel's investigation has recently begun interviewing cabinet members and agency heads of the Trump administration. He will soon interview the President himself.
     
    The Indictment Post (Warning, will Change in Future)
  • Ground Rules:
  • Alright, this will be the final post. If you find something on the net that has credible weight to it and might be part of -or related to- the investigation, please signal me or one of the forum staff so we can take a look and see if it is worthy of a threadmark. Also, there will be no Nunes memes, just like the SB thread.

    Please keep hysteria and flaming down to a minimum.
     
    Federal Judge Forces Partial Unveil of Watergate Impeachment 'Roadmap' Documents
  • Convervatives try to manufacture False Sex Scandal (Business Insider Article)
  • Russia claims their Active Measures operation is a MILITARY operation
  • So there's this.

    Eric Geller on Twitter

    The Russian government recently responded to the DNC's hacking lawsuit, saying that even if it did hack the DNC, that was a military activity exempt from prosecution due to Moscow's sovereign immunity.


    Russia is saying that their election fuckery was a military operation, AKA an act of war. That would mean that any American who cooperated with them is legally guilty of treason.

    I think Putin might have just burned Trump.
     
    Julian Assange -of Wikileaks fame- has been charged, inadvertent reveal via court filing
  • Text Message shows Roger Stone Talking to a DEAD MAN...
  • Text messages show Roger Stone and friend discussing WikiLeaks plans

    181114-roger-stone-randy-credico-chat-8-se-624p_33a6946ed53920e3fe6f1964f3ef939d.fit-760w.png

    Credico turned out to be wrong on one count — nothing incriminating about Clinton came out that Wednesday. But two days later, on Oct. 7, WikiLeaks released its first dump of emails stolen from Podesta, altering the trajectory of the 2016 presidential election.

    Stone, a confidante of then-candidate Donald Trump and notorious political trickster, has denied any collusion with WikiLeaks.

    But the text messages provided by Stone to NBC News show that Credico appeared to be providing regular updates to Stone on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's plans in the days before the hacked emails were released. In the texts, Credico told Stone he had insights into Assange's plans through a longtime friend, who was also Assange's lawyer, according to the text messages.
    ... holy shit...
     
    Thanksgiving Prelude (lifted straight off of Spacebattles)
  • Given that it's going to be Thanksgiving holiday weekend for those of us in the US, news might be a bit slower, except for the workaholics.

    Thing 1:

    Texas businessman challenges acting AG's legality - Politico, November 15, 2018, 4:21 PM EST
    Lawyers for former agricultural products executive Doug Haning quietly filed a motion Tuesday asking a federal court in St. Louis to rule that Whitaker's installation atop the Justice Department, made in the wake of Trump's ouster of Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week, was illegal.

    In theory, such a legal challenge could be pursued by any defendant under federal prosecution. However, Haning's move may have added traction because of the unusual role the former attorney general has played in his case. Because of a recusal by the local federal prosecutor in the case — St. Louis-based U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen — the government's filings in Haning's case bear Sessions' name as ultimately responsible for the prosecution.

    ...

    On Tuesday, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh fired what appears to be the first shot in that battle by seeking to have a judge declare that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and not Whitaker, is in fact the acting attorney general. Frosh brought the motion as part of a lawsuit the state filed in September, accusing Sessions of dereliction of duty for failing to defend parts of the Obamacare law.

    ...

    However, a court filing earlier this year in another case involving a recusal of local federal prosecutors provides some insight into the process.

    ...

    The memo specifically says that all future court pleadings in the case should include the name of the attorney general. It also says if the Kentucky team wants to use prosecutors from the West Virginia office previously handling the matter, such an arrangement would require "a detailed justification of the need" as well as approval from DOJ headquarters.
    Legal loopholes ahoy?


    Thing 2:

    Graham: 'Too early to tell' if Whitaker good choice for attorney general - Politico, November 18, 2018, 11:47 AM EST
    Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday cast doubt on whether he could support the confirmation of acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to lead the Justice Department if he were nominated for the post on a permanent basis.

    ...

    "I have nothing against him," Graham said of Whitaker on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I don't know if he's the best choice."

    Graham said Whitaker "said some things that would be probably problematic to be confirmed" but that he had a "very solid résumé" and had shown professionalism.

    ...

    "He said that he's going to support the regular order process," Graham said.
    Bull and Shite, Graham. Where's your GD spine, coward? This is like DeVos's "I support accountability" at her confirmation hearing.


    Thing 3:

    Trump Says He's Unlikely to Sit for Interview in Russia Investigation - New York Times, November 18, 2018, 1:57 PM EST
    President Trump said in an interview aired Sunday that he most likely would not sit for an interview with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, asserting that "we've wasted enough time on this witch hunt and the answer is, probably, we're finished."

    The president also claimed that he had no idea that his acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, viewed the Mueller investigation skeptically, despite reports that the two had multiple conversations about the inquiry over the past year.

    ...

    Several news outlets have reported that Mr. Trump and Mr. Whitaker discussed the inquiry in the Oval Office while Mr. Whitaker served as the chief of staff to the attorney general, Jeff Sessions. The day after the midterm elections, Mr. Trump forced out Mr. Sessions, who had long endured the president's wrath over his recusal from the investigation.

    When Mr. Wallace pointed out to Mr. Trump that Mr. Whitaker had predetermined that there was no collusion in his public commentary over the last two years, Mr. Trump said: "He's right. What do you do when a person's right? There is no collusion. He happened to be right. I mean, he said it. So if he said there is collusion, I'm supposed to be taking somebody that says there is?"
    So how do you know that Whitaker's right, Cheatous?


    Thing 4:

    What the Watergate 'Road Map' Reveals about Improper Contact between the White House and the Justice Department - Lawfare, November 19, 2018, 10:13 AM EST
    In a conversation between the president of the United States and senior Justice Department officials, the officials informed the president that two of his senior White House staff were under investigation. One of the officials later testified: "He said he couldn't believe it. You know, just these are fine upstanding guys. Just couldn't be, you know." He impressed on the president, "We are here to alert you. We think we've got something. We could be wrong, but we are telling you it's time for you to move to protect yourself and the presidency." And he urged the president to "get rid" of the staffers in question; the president responded, "'Yeah, and I don't think I should. I've got to think about this and that and a thousand other things.'"

    This happened in 1973.

    One of the aspects of the recently released Watergate "road map" and related documents that attracted our attention is the set of materials pertaining to interactions, direct and indirect, between President Richard M. Nixon and two senior Department of Justice officials. The interactions cited in the road map occurred during March and April 1973. During that period, the president and his subordinates at the White House had contacts with Attorney General Richard Kleindienst and Henry E. Petersen, who was assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Criminal Division and is the official quoted above regarding the interaction with President Nixon. From June 1972 to May 1973, Petersen supervised the Watergate investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). President Nixon was in touch with him frequently about the investigation, his future career and other matters along the way.

    ...

    Archibald Cox and another prosecutor interviewed Petersen regarding this interaction with President Nixon. Cox asked Petersen whether "the President [was] surprised when you said that Ehrlichman and Haldeman were implicated, so far as you could judge?" Petersen stated: "He said he couldn't believe it. You know, just these are fine upstanding guys. Just couldn't be, you know." Petersen explained that the investigators had not corroborated information regarding Haldeman and Ehrlichman, but, "We are here to alert you. We think we've got something. We could be wrong, but we are telling you it's time for you to move to protect yourself and the presidency." Petersen also said when he urged the president to "get rid" of Haldeman and Ehrlichman, President Nixon said, "Yeah, and I don't think I should. I've got to think about this and that and a thousand other things." Petersen then said, "Fine. My viewpoint is parochial. I think you ought to do it. We went around and around on that issue."
    History seriously is rhyming here. Speaking of Nixon, Rachel Maddow hosted a MSNBC special called "Betrayal: The Plot That Won the White House" on how Nixon f**ked up the peace talks to end the Vietnam War prior to his election and Lyndon B. Johnson's term ending. Gives a whole new perspective of the ridiculous parallels between then and now, not just Watergate. (May need to find mirrored links to that special in the future.)


    Thing 5:

    Senate Democrats sue to block Whitaker from serving as acting AG - Politico, November 19, 2018, 11:49 AM EST, updated 2:26 PM EST
    Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), all members of the Judiciary Committee, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday, claiming that Trump violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by choosing Whitaker for a Cabinet-level position even though Whitaker has never been Senate confirmed for a position. The complaint seeks to block Whitaker from serving in the role, which includes overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    ...

    Monday's suit is the second legal challenge to the constitutionality of Whitaker's appointment, after the state of Maryland petitioned a federal judge last week to block Whitaker from serving on the same grounds.

    "Installing Matthew Whitaker so flagrantly defies constitutional law that any viewer of School House Rock would recognize it. Americans prize a system of checks and balances, which President Trump's dictatorial appointment betrays," Blumenthal said, claiming that Trump skirted the issue of having Whitaker confirmed because "Whitaker would never pass the advice-and-consent test."
    Phone calling time again, especially those of us with Senators in either Senate Judiciary and/or Senate Intel.


    Thing 6:

    Trump to give Mueller written answers by Thanksgiving - Politico, November 19, 2018, 2:02 PM EST
    Trump's lawyers set an informal Thanksgiving deadline for the president to finalize his responses on topics surrounding the Russian hacking of the 2016 election, and he's almost ready to submit them, according to two sources familiar with the conversations.

    The president's written answers — which carry the same legal burden for truthfulness as an in-person interview — are likely to be submitted as Trump settles into his Mar-a-Lago club in South Florida for the Thanksgiving holiday. Trump is scheduled to depart Washington, D.C., on Tuesday afternoon.

    ...

    Trump told Fox News' Chris Wallace in an interview broadcast Sunday that he is unlikely to sit down for a face-to-face interview with Mueller.

    "We gave very, very complete answers to a lot of questions that I shouldn't have even been asked, and I think that should solve the problem. I hope it solves the problem. If it doesn't, you know, I'll be told and we'll make a decision at that time. But probably this is the end," the president said.
    ORLY?


    Thing 7:

    New Resource Page: Litigation Documents on the Appointment of Matthew Whitaker - Lawfare, November 19, 2018, 5:03 PM EST
    As Lawfare readers have probably noticed, there has been a fair amount of controversy over Matthew Whitaker's designation as acting attorney general as of late. To keep track of it all, we at Lawfare have put together a resource page collecting all litigation documents regarding Whitaker's appointment, ranging from outright challenges to Whitaker's role as acting attorney general (Maryland v. U.S., Blumenthal v. Whitaker, and Michaels v. Whitaker) to a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has requested supplementary briefing on the matter (In re Grand Jury Investigation). We'll be keeping the page updated as the litigation moves forward.
    Great place for those of us who can wrap our heads around the legalese on the practically cases of "v. Whitaker" and such.


    Thing 8:

    Mueller says powers still intact amid DOJ overhaul - Politico, November 19, 2018, 5:47 PM EST
    Michael Dreeben, the deputy solicitor general who represents Mueller, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker taking charge of the Russia probe "neither alters the special counsel's authority to represent the United States nor raises any jurisdictional issue."

    ...

    "The Special Counsel continues to exercise the same authority, and the jurisdiction of the district court and this Court is intact," Dreeben added in his 17-page legal brief.

    Dreeben's explanation of the new DOJ arrangement came in response to an order from the federal appellate court requesting last-minute briefs in a case brought by a former aide to Roger Stone designed to knock Mueller from his job on legal and constitutional grounds.

    ...

    To date, challenges against Mueller's authority have gone nowhere. The federal judges presiding over separate criminal cases against Paul Manafort issued rulings rejecting the former Trump campaign chairman's bid to toss out the charges by claiming Mueller's appointment was flawed.

    And a federal judge appointed by Trump rejected an attempt by a Russian company challenging Mueller's jurisdiction after the firm was charged in connection with a Kremlin-linked online troll farm accused of targeting the 2016 U.S. election.
    Now, the thing to keep in mind is that Whitaker's "appointment" as Acting AG has no affect on this particular case of Andrew Miller's challenging Mueller's appointment at the Court of Appeals for District of Columbia, Case No. 18-3052. We don't know yet if Whitaker will have an effect on the other cases, like Manafort, Gates, Flynn, and lord knows the other sealed cases.



    Thing 9:

    Prosecuting Wikileaks, Protecting Press Freedoms: Drawing the Line at Knowing Collaboration with a Foreign Intelligence Agency - Just Security, November 19, 2018
    The inadvertent disclosure of the likely existence of a sealed indictment against Julian Assange raises the question of what the constitutional implications of such an indictment might be. Only an indictment narrowly focused on knowing collaboration with a foreign intelligence agency, if in fact the evidence supports such a finding, would avoid the broad threat that such a prosecution would otherwise pose to First Amendment rights and press freedoms.

    ...

    What's more, the long history of rabid partisan presses in the nineteenth century, and the rise of frankly partisan media in the present media environment, mean that we cannot anchor the limits of press freedom in the organizational habits and institutional forms of professional journalism of the few decades between World War I and the rise of Fox News. The explosion of online journalism, by individuals and small teams, relying on diverse motivations—commercial, political, or social—makes any legal regime that enables prosecutors to finely thread needles and identify targets for prosecution because they are "not really media" inadequate to the times and the models that pervade contemporary media. The touchstone used in the journalists' privilege cases from the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits was intent and function at the time of gathering information, not the mode of dissemination. As long as there is intent to gather information for public dissemination, the actor is acting as the role of the press.

    ...

    So if Wikileaks knew and coordinated in advance around the DNC hacking and leaking, the case would be within the zone that most commentators see as prosecutable. But I doubt that the GRU needed much encouragement or help from Wikileaks before the hack or while continuing to hack. Assuming prosecutors cannot prove such prior active collaboration, under the normal interpretation of Bartnicki, that would be the end of the story. The only question that remains in my mind is whether Wikileaks can be prosecuted if it knowingly coordinated afterthe hack, knowing specifically that the source was a foreign intelligence agency, beyond what would be appropriate in charging a newspaper that coordinated with a source who had committed a crime to meet in secret, or help arrange a meeting (say, renting a hotel room). Again, the reason for differentiating domestic leakers and whistleblowers from foreign intelligence agencies is that the likely motivations and risks they undertake suggest that the public interest in the disclosures of the former are likely high, whereas the public interest in the latter case will more commonly be that they not reach the public sphere. Or at least we have no systematic reason to think that such disclosures will be aimed toward abuses of power.
    A ton of legal hypotheticals in this one on the power of the press and those claiming to be "journalists" trying to hide behind the US's First Amendment.


    Which reminds me, Flynn has a sentencing hearing scheduled on December 18 with the District Court of District Columbia before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, Case #17-cr-0232 (or "17-cr-00232" if going by Document Cloud, and "1:17-cr-00232-RC"). November 20 is apparently for both teams to file their pre-trial hearing statements, so who knows what'll come out.
     
    Stone Associate Jerome Corsi entered plea negotiations with Mueller, according to insider
  • Stone associate Jerome Corsi is in plea negotiations with special counsel, according to a person with knowledge of the talks (Washington Post)

    Former Info Wars bureau chief and right wing media figure Jerome Corsi is in the process of working out a plea agreement with Mueller. We don't know at this time what the plea deal will involve, but earlier comments hinted at possible charges of perjury against Corsi. Given that Mueller's team doesn't leak, I would presume this information is coming from Corsi's side of the equation. The net appears to be closing around Stone. If Corsi does end up making a guilty plea, he would end up being the first American charged in connection to the leak of the hacked Democratic documents.
     
    Roger Stone associate says he won't agree to plea deal - CNN
  • Roger Stone associate says he won't agree to plea deal

    An associate of Roger Stone said Monday he is refusing to sign a plea deal offered by special counsel Robert Mueller.

    Jerome Corsi, whose role in Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election largely revolves around the possibility that he was an intermediary between Stone and WikiLeaks, said he was offered a deal to plea on one count of perjury.

    "They can put me in prison the rest of my life. I am not going to sign a lie," Corsi told CNN in a phone call.

    Asked what happens now that he is refusing, Corsi responded: "I don't know."

    ...

    Stone has denied wrongdoing regarding WikiLeaks' releases during the 2016 campaign, and several of his associates have been brought before a grand jury as Mueller's team continued its investigation of Stone.

    "I never received advance notice, from anyone, that Podesta's emails had been 'nicked,' as the Brits would say, and would be published," Stone said Monday. "Any and all research I received from Dr. Corsi came from public legal sources. As Dr. Corsi has said I have no knowledge of any contact or communication with Julian Assange or WikiLeaks by Dr. Corsi."

    For his part, Stone released a series of text messages between himself and New York radio host Randy Credico last week, showing the two discussing a coming threat to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign shortly before WikiLeaks' Podesta publications.

    Well... someone is going to get slammed... hard...
     
    Mueller says Manafort breached plea deal by lying -Politico, aka "Manafort is Manafucked"...
  • Mueller says Manafort breached plea deal by lying - Politico

    Special counsel Robert Mueller is accusing former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of violating the plea deal he agreed to earlier this year by repeatedly lying to prosecutors and FBI agents during recent debriefing sessions.

    In a report filed with a federal judge Monday evening, Mueller's office alleged that Manafort "committed federal crimes by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel's Office on a variety of subject matters." Prosecutors said the alleged lies leave Manafort exposed to the possibility of a more severe prison sentence under federal guidelines, but they did not elaborate on what exactly he allegedly lied about.

    ...

    Earlier this month, however, ABC News reported that tensions between Mueller's team and Manafort's defense were rising over the former Trump campaign official's level of cooperation.

    About a week later, prosecutors and defense attorneys asked a judge for a 10-day extension of a deadline to suggest next steps for sentencing in the D.C. case. That's the report that was submitted Monday.

    The defense and prosecution did agree on one thing: They are ready for U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to set a sentencing date in the D.C. case. Manafort's sentencing in the Virginia case is already set for Feb. 8 before U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III.

    Manafort is Manafucked. What has gotten you so scared Manafort that you are willing to be effectively executed for?
     
    Corsi Provided Early alert to Stone About Wikileaks release according to draft special counsel document - Washington Post
  • Corsi provided early alert to Stone about WikiLeaks release, according to draft special counsel document - Washington Post, November 27, 2018, 7:44 PM EST
    Corsi emailed Stone about WikiLeaks's plans nearly 10 weeks before the group published Podesta's hacked emails in October, according to the document, which was prepared by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team as part of plea negotiations with Corsi that have collapsed.

    "Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I'm back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging," Corsi wrote in the email quoted in the draft document, referring to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been living in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since 2012. The email was sent while Corsi was traveling with his wife in Italy.

    The draft filing, first reported by NBC News and provided by Corsi to The Washington Post, provides a remarkable look at the case Mueller is building related to WikiLeaks and the most detailed allegations yet that a key associate in Trump's orbit was provided advance knowledge of the group's plans.

    ...

    Corsi's release of the draft filing provides a rare window into the evidence gathered by Mueller's team, which has conducted its investigation in extraordinary secrecy.

    It is unclear what effect the disclosure will have on the case. Making such documents public before a court filing would infuriate most prosecutors, because sharing such details could compromise ongoing investigative work and tip off other suspects about what the FBI knows.
    Leaking of privileged information unless otherwise FOIAed/subpoenaed/cleared, that's a major legal no-no. Mueller gotta be even more slow-burned pissed.​
     
    Comey challenges House GOP subpoena in federal court - The Hill
  • Comey challenges House GOP subpoena in federal court - The Hill

    Former FBI Director James Comey is challenging a subpoena from House Republicans for his closed-door testimony in federal court.

    Court records show that Comey filed a motion in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday to quash a subpoena from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Judiciary Committee for his testimony on Dec. 3.

    ...

    House Republicans are interested in Comey's testimony as part of their inquiry into allegations of bias at the Justice Department and FBI ahead of the 2016 presidential elections. GOP lawmakers accuse top officials of exhibiting bias against then-candidate Donald Trump in their decisions with respect to investigating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email and the counterintelligence investigation into ties between Trump's campaign and Russia.
    ... [facepalm] GOP, what sort of dirt has this investigation dug up to make you go this crazy?
     
    News Roundup - straight from SB
  • Thing 1:

    A New Lawsuit Against Whitaker's Appointment Is a Brushback Pitch - Lawfare, November 21, 2018
    The plaintiffs in Blumenthal v. Whitaker allege that Trump and Whitaker have violated the Appointments Clause by, respectively, installing and serving as a "principal officer" without the advice and consent of the Senate. According to the complaint, the defendants have denied the senators their constitutional right to vote on Whitaker's appointment. While the senators acknowledge the recently released Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion defending Whitaker's appointment under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), they contend that, since the Senate has not given its advice and consent to Whitaker in any role, let alone as head of the Justice Department, he and the president stand in violation of the Appointments Clause. To drive home this point, the plaintiffs cite Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. in which he states that "[a]ppointing principal officers under the FVRA raises grave constitutional concerns because the Appointments Clause forbids the President to appoint principal officers without the advice and consent of the Senate."

    ...

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, whose precedent will govern Blumenthal v. Whitaker, has recognized that both Congress as a whole and individual chambers within Congress can authorize individual legislators to pursue litigation on their behalf in order to vindicate institutional interests. For example, in United States v. AT&T the D.C. Circuit ruled that a resolution by the House of Representatives authorizing litigation on its behalf was sufficient to give an individual member of Congress standing to sue on the House's behalf in a regulatory matter. In other cases, congressional committees seeking to enforce congressional subpoenas have also fared reasonably well so long as they have received authorization from the House. But the plaintiffs in the current case are not Congress, or a chamber of Congress, or even a full committee—nor have they been authorized to act on behalf of any such entity. Instead, they are individual legislators, for whom standing can be more difficult to achieve.

    The leading case on individual-legislator standing is the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Raines v. Byrd, which rejected an argument by six members of Congress that they had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 on the grounds that it would dilute their legislative authority. The justices held that individual legislators have standing to challenge such actions only in two scenarios: where they have suffered a personal injury, such as the denial of a benefit or incident of holding public office that accrues to them personally; or where they have suffered an institutional injury that is concrete and particularized to the plaintiffs, not shared widely with other members of Congress. As an example of the latter, the Supreme Court cited its holding in Coleman v. Miller, noting that "legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat (or enact) a specific legislative Act have standing to sue if that legislative action goes into effect (or does not go into effect), on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified." The majority opinion also highlighted other factors that may weigh against granting standing to legislators, including the absence of historical precedent, lack of authorization by any individual chamber of Congress and the availability of other remedies through the legislative process.
    Thing 2:

    A brief guide to the legal challenges against acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker - Vox, November 21, 2018, 4:50 PM EST; updated November 28, 2018, 3:40 PM EST
    Senate Democrats are suing to block Whitaker
    The case: Blumenthal v. Whitaker

    ...

    Maryland fights a health care case — and Whitaker's appointment
    The case: Maryland v. US

    ...

    A gun rights case
    The case: Michaels v. Whitaker

    ...

    A Texas business leader finds a creative way to fight an indictment
    The case: US v. William Douglas Haning

    ...

    ... and so does another Texan
    The case: US v. Luis Valencia

    ...

    An asylum ban challenge takes on Whitaker
    The case: O.A. v. Trump

    ...

    And the most meta: a Mueller challenge
    The case: Andrew Miller v. United States
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...7305f6-e1db-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html
    JFC, that's a lot of suits.


    Thing 3:

    Ideas: Mueller and a Blue House Could Bring Down Trump - The Atlantic, November 23, 2018, 7:00 AM EST
    On May 17, 1973, Senator Sam Ervin Jr. opened Senate hearings into the Watergate affair. "It is the constitutional duty of this committee," he said, to expeditiously investigate allegations that American democracy "has been subverted and its foundations shaken." Ervin, a Democrat, did not mince words in characterizing the gravity of the accusations leveled against Richard Nixon's campaign and administration. At stake were "the workings of the democratic process under which we operate in a nation that still is the last, best hope of mankind."

    ...

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation has picked off a few campaign aides and charged Russian operatives, but it has yet to breach the inner sanctum of the Oval Office. If Mueller follows existing Department of Justice precedent, Trump will remain safe from indictment. A Democrat-controlled Congress, however, will show no such restraint when it comes to the president and those closest to him.

    ...

    If Congress and Mueller can cooperate, though, both stand to gain from parallel investigations. As the Watergate Special Prosecution Force put it in its final report, "In the end, the continuation of public hearings through the summer of 1973 … brought to public attention testimony relating to alleged White House involvement in the Watergate cover-up and other crimes and thereby helped create for the Special Prosecutor's investigation a base of public and congressional support."
    Thing 4:

    Why Americans Should Care About Mueller's Counterintelligence Probe—Aside from any Criminal or Political Implications - Just Security, November 26, 2018
    The primary mandate of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is to determine if there are "any links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." That specific task has nothing directly to do with criminal liability for any Americans or Russians, nor anything to do with the potential political implications for the President whether in the form of an impeachment report or something else. The primary mandate of the Special Counsel is, instead, a counterintelligence investigation. With all the media focus on potential criminal and political implications, we often forget this critically important, core mission for Mueller. We should concentrate far more on that dimension—the counterintelligence effort–as the country prepares for the release of the Special Counsel's report.

    Mueller's counterintelligence effort can answer nationally important questions like: Why were the Russians so successful in impacting the 2016 presidential election? For the last year and half, the Special Counsel has undertaken a broad scoped investigation into allegations regarding "collusion" on the part of then candidate Donald Trump's campaign and matters that arise from that investigation. While the political and criminal investigative efforts make for great media, the critically important counterintelligence part of the Special Counsel's investigation is being undertaken much more discretely. Of course, the Special Counsel is looking to determine if criminal wrongdoing happened, but he will be working to identify and understand the more complex intentions and actions undertaken at the direction or, at the least, with the concurrence of one of America's most significant adversaries, the Russian government.

    ...

    The Russian influence campaign has caused all of us to question significant parts of trusted American processes and institutions. In hindsight, however, much of that trust was already waning. The Russians just made the most of it. I wonder how successful the Russians would have been, had we been more willing to have civil discussions over issues as opposed to eagerly fueling political rancor and partisan drama. They took advantage of us fully and the effectiveness of their efforts is much broader than even they could have imagined. Some Americans distrust our intelligence community and law enforcement. Some distrust a prior presidential campaign and a current White House administration. Some distrust our media and our technology sector. We have allowed Russian created false narratives to stoke racial and political discord. Most of all, the Russians have been successful at causing us to distrust each other.

    Thing 5:

    White House lacks lawyers to deal with empowered Democrats - Politico, November 26, 2018, 5:08 AM EST
    The White House counsel's office is down to a skeletal staff, potentially leaving it unprepared to deal with a flood of subpoenas for documents and witnesses when Democrats take control of the House.

    The office has been without a permanent leader since White House senior attorney Don McGahn left the administration in mid-October. His replacement, Pat Cipollone, is caught up in an extended background check that's prevented him from starting. And in the coming weeks, deputy counsel Annie Donaldson, who served as McGahn's most trusted aide and as the office's chief of staff, is expected to leave the administration, according to two Republicans close to the White House. Donaldson is moving to Alabama with her husband, Brett Talley, whose nomination for a federal judgeship the White House withdrew in December 2017.

    ...

    But hiring a bevy of lawyers and former Supreme Court clerks to handle an onslaught of investigations presumes that the Trump White House will respond to subpoenas in a typical fashion; it could just as easily ignore them and claim executive privilege, a move that would ultimately land them in court but would fit with the Trump White House's atypical approach to governing and politics.
    Thing 6:

    House Dem: Impeaching Trump on party lines would 'tear the country apart' - Politico, November 26, 2018, 9:48 AM EST, updated 9:55 AM EST
    Rep. Jerry Nadler warned Monday that any impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump that begin in the new, Democrat-controlled House of Representatives would need to clear an obvious partisan bar.

    ...

    Once it's determined that a president has committed an impeachable offense, Nadler said, lawmakers need to consider whether the offense will "rise to the gravity where it's worth putting the country through the trauma of an impeachment proceeding."

    ...

    "If Mueller shows us that the president has committed impeachable offenses, we'll have to make judgments as to how serious those impeachable offenses are and whether we should undertake an impeachment. If we see evidence of impeachable offenses not from Mueller the same question will arise," he said, noting that not all crimes are considered an impeachable offense and vice versa.

    Thing 7:

    Trump accuses Mueller of ignoring 2016 staffers who 'want to be' questioned - Politico, November 26, 2018, 10:27 AM EST
    "[W]ill he be putting in statements from hundreds of people closely involved with my campaign who never met, saw or spoke to a Russian during this period?" the president wrote, referring to Mueller's expected final report. "So many campaign workers, people inside from the beginning, ask me why they have not been called (they want to be)."

    ...

    "When Mueller does his final report, will he be covering all of his conflicts of interest in a preamble, will he be recommending action on all of the crimes of many kinds from those 'on the other side'(whatever happened to Podesta?)" Trump also wrote on Twitter.

    It is unclear whether the president was referring to Hillary Clinton's former campaign chairman John Podesta, or his brother and lobbyist Tony Podesta, who currently is under federal investigation as a result of a referral from Mueller's office.

    Thing 8:

    A Path Forward for Post-Trump Reforms - Lawfare, November 26, 2018, 11:58 AM EST
    While this presidency is far from over, the incoming [Democratic] Congress offers an opportunity to compare that past with this present, to examine what Congress did after Nixon departed, and to prescribe steps that the next president and future Congresses must take to insulate the nation from similar misconduct.

    ...

    For starters, the next president could enshrine in an executive order the previously unremarkable notion that law enforcement and intelligence professionals have an obligation to protect sensitive sources and methods, even in the context of congressional inquiries. A simple articulation of longstanding and ordinary practice could offer future national security principals cover to push back on politically-driven congressional requests.

    Regarding declassification authority, the next president could also delegate these decisions to the relevant Cabinet official, like the attorney general or director of national intelligence. (Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats apparently had deep concerns with Trump's efforts to release the Nunes memo.) This is essentially what the Obama administration did when declassifying intelligence on Russia's election interference. It was the director of national intelligence who put his name to these efforts—in part to underscore that these decisions transcended politics.
    Stupid Watergate...


    Thing 9:

    A New Indictment Looms in the Mueller Probe - The Atlantic, November 26, 2018, 12:59 PM EST; updated November 27, 2018, 6:00 PM EST
    Corsi, who was working on opposition research with Stone throughout 2016, said he shared his "hunch" with Stone at the time, but has denied having any inside information from Assange. Instead, he says, he figured that Podesta "had to be next" if he was left out of the July 22, 2016, email dump of Democratic National Committee emails. "I had sources who had shown me how [the] Democratic Party had put their systems together, and gave me thousands of pages of information over the summer on how the DNC's computers worked," Corsi said. "So when Assange on July 22 dropped the Democratic National Committee emails, which included messages from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I did a forensic analysis and determined that there were no Podesta emails in there." It isn't clear who Corsi's "sources" were, or why he considered Podesta, who had no role at the DNC, to be conspicuously missing from a DNC email release. But Corsi claims that he simply "connected the dots and figured Podesta must be next. Mueller doesn't want to believe that."

    Stone, for his part, denies having had any such conversations about Podesta with Corsi. But he famously predicted in a tweet months before the election, around the time that he was "conducting research" with Corsi, that damaging information would soon emerge about Podesta. "It will soon [be] Podesta's time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary," he wrote on August 21, 2016.

    ...

    "Get to (Assange) [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending (WikiLeaks) emails," Stone wrote to Corsi, according to the draft court documents. Corsi told prosecutors that he turned down Stone's request, but that was apparently a lie—he passed along the request to a conservative author Ted Malloch and responded to Stone eight days later. "Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps," Corsi wrote on Aug. 2, 2016, referring to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. "One shortly after I'm back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging." WikiLeaks began releasing the Podesta emails on October 7, 2016.
    Thing 10:

    Jerome Corsi's public dramatics about the Mueller investigation continue - Vox, November 26, 2018, 2:35 PM EST
    Corsi told various media outlets Monday that Mueller offered him a deal in which Corsi would have to plead guilty to one count of perjury — but that he intended to reject the deal. This comes two weeks after Corsi claimed he was about to be indicted for perjury.

    ...

    He told NBC News on Monday that he just "forgot" to tell Mueller certain things. "They want me to say I willfully lied. I did not intentionally lie to the special counsel," he said. "I will not lie to save my life. I'd rather sit in prison and rot for as long as these thugs want me to."

    Former Trump advisers George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn both pleaded guilty to making false statements to investigators in connection with the Russia investigation last year.

    Thing 11:

    Russia inquiry: House Democrats aim to unmask Trump Jr.'s blocked call - USA Today, November 27, 2018, 7:00 AM EST, updated 5:05 PM EST
    Rep. Adam Schiff, who is poised to lead the committee when Democrats take over the House majority, told USA TODAY his committee will have to prioritize the most important witnesses and records that Republicans blocked them from pursuing. The "clearest example" of that obstruction, he said, is phone records that would show whether the blocked phone number – logged as Trump Jr. arranged a meeting in 2016 with a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower – belonged to presidential candidate Donald Trump.

    ...

    Democrats will revisit witnesses Republicans wouldn't call, records they wouldn't obtain and witnesses that showed up but refused to answer questions without any legal basis for doing so, Schiff said.

    ...

    "We can't obviously force them to work with us," he said. "They'll have to make the decision for themselves whether they're interested in finding out the truth or they're interested in merely being extensions of (Trump attorney) Rudy Giuliani."
    "New phone, who dis?" /s


    Thing 12:

    Unkempt, Heavily Bearded Julian Assange No Longer Has Embassy Cat For Company - The Daily Beast, November 27, 2018, 7:23 AM EST
    It has been six long years since Australian secret-spiller Julian Assange jumped bail and sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to escape an international arrest warrant for alleged sex abuse and rape in Sweden. During that time, he has gained Ecuadorian citizenship and the Swedish charges have been dropped, but if he leaves the embassy, he risks arrest for breaching bail and the possibility of extradition to the United States, where federal charges appear to have been filed against him in secret.

    ...

    But last week, journalists from the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, who have visited Assange annually for the last six years, were able to once again gain access—on the condition that they do not print an interview that might provoke even more pressure on Ecuador to kick him out.

    What they found was a depleted man on the verge of going mad.

    "As soon as we saw him, we realized he has lost a lot of weight," the La Repubblica reporters write. "He is so skinny. Not even his winter sweater can hide his skinny shoulders. His nice-looking face, captured by photographers all around the world, is very tense. His long hair and beard make him look like a hermit, though not a nutter: As we exchange greetings, he seems very lucid and rational."
    Could not happen to a nicer man. /s *sips tea*


    Things 13 and 14:

    "It Might Be the Biggest Get This Year": How The Guardian's Bombshell Set Off Its Own Little Media World War - Vanity Fair, November 27, 2018, 6:25 PM EST
    If true, the revelation would be the closest thing to a smoking gun yet uncovered in the highly secretive and impossibly murky Russian collusion codex. But among some prominent followers of law enforcement and national-security arcana, "if true" appeared to be the operative wording as the report ricocheted around the Internet on Tuesday afternoon. "I'd like to see some corroboration of this," tweeted Preet Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who was famously fired by Donald Trump in early 2017, only to emerge as America's pre-eminent seer of all things related to the Mueller probe. "Put this in the category of huge if true," agreed Benjamin Wittes, the Brookings senior fellow and editor in chief of Lawfare. "Because of the way this is sourced, color me a little skeptical. Let's see if other news organizations confirm/match it."

    ...

    The same could surely be said of Harding and his sources in the Assange piece. The person to whom the information about the alleged March 2016 meeting was attributed was described only as "a well-placed source." In other references, "sources" was as specific as it got in terms of identifying what types of people these might be and why they'd be in a position to know things about Manafort allegedly meeting with Assange. It's worth noting that British sourcing conventions generally are not as rigid as they are in the U.S., where newspapers like, say, the Times and Post—which have led the charge on Mueller scoops—would at the very least be required to identify "people familiar with the matter" or "people with knowledge of the matter." It's also worth noting that The Guardian story, which was co-bylined with Dan Collyns in Quito, contained some key details with a level of specificity that would seem to hint at a high level of confidence in the sourcing: "Manafort's 2016 visit to Assange lasted about 40 minutes, one source said, adding that the American was casually dressed when he exited the embassy, wearing sandy colored chinos, a cardigan, and a light-colored shirt."

    There's a lot at stake here. If The Guardian did get anything wrong, it would be an unwanted black eye for one of the English-speaking world's most venerable news organizations, and it would help fuel the "fake news" narrative that Trumpworld so often resorts to when confronted with critical journalism. At the same time, if The Guardian stands by the piece but no other outlets corroborate it, the story won't have the same level of impact as some of the other Russia-related bombshells that have come to light so far. That said, if any other major news outlet does match The Guardian's reporting, it would take the scoop to the next level, possibly with major implications for the Mueller probe and, by extension, Trump's presidency. A national-security reporter at a major U.S. news outlet summed the situation up like this: "If it's right, it might be the biggest get this year. If it's wrong, it might be the biggest gaffe."

    Did Someone Plant a Story Tying Paul Manafort to Julian Assange? - POLITICO Magazine, November 28, 2018, 2:51 AM EST
    While the immediate reaction to the story was a collective "Wow!", it is fair to take a step back and remain wary. Rather than being the bombshell smoking gun that directly connects the Trump campaign to WikiLeaks, perhaps the report is something else entirely: a disinformation campaign. Is it possible someone planted this story as a means to discredit the journalists?

    ...

    Harding is likely a major target for anyone wrapped up in Russia's intelligence operation against the West's democratic institutions. He has written a book about the Trump campaign's ties to Russia—literally titled Collusion, as well as numerous articles related to the case, including about the Steele Dossier, Russia's plans to help rescue Assange from London and spirit him away to Moscow, Russia's novichok poisoning operation against Sergei Skripal, and a slew of other "Russia-is-up-to-no-good" stories.

    ...

    As of this writing, no other news outlet has confirmed the Guardian's story about Manafort meeting Assange. So is it fake or is it real? If it is real and others confirm it, it would be damning, and many people have an interest in trying to discredit it. On the other hand, if someone managed to dupe Harding and his colleague, it would mean someone was ready to put a lot of effort into discrediting the journalists in order to sow doubt about a wide swath of reporting. In either case, someone has already primed a large audience to dismiss this Manafort-Assange story and any other information that might tie the Trump campaign to Russia. That implies more bad news is coming for Trump and Manafort.
    This is kinda reminiscent of how Maddow and her team received fake NSA documents that she warned back in July 2017.


    Thing 15:

    Mueller's Targets Are Blowing Up Their Deals. He'll Make Them Pay. - POLITICO Magazine, November 28, 2018, 5:43 AM EST
    But it won't be for long. In fact, the stalling tactics might end up costing the defendants more time in prison.

    ...

    For obvious reasons, criminals rarely reveal their plans to people who aren't in on the scheme—they don't want to be caught. But, as a legal matter, knowing in advance about hacking is not itself sufficient to charge someone with a crime unless the person lied about that knowledge to the FBI, to Congress, or under oath.

    ...

    But Mueller will have an opportunity to respond. Mueller will "file a detailed sentencing submission" that "sets forth the nature of the defendant's crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement," so the judge can consider them at sentencing. This sentencing submission could also detail the efforts of Manafort's attorney to provide inside information about Mueller's conversations with Manafort to the Trump team, which would reveal those activities to the public in detail.
    Thing 16:

    Republicans block Mueller protection bill from Senate floor vote - Politico, November 28, 2018, 9:25 AM EST, updated 12:49 AM EST
    After Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) sought to bring the bill to the floor, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) objected to the request and argued the bill was unconstitutional.

    ...

    Asked directly on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" whether McConnell was trying to protect President Donald Trump, Coons quickly replied "yes," citing support for legislation to shield Mueller from Senate Republicans across the ideological spectrum, including Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

    ...

    "A number of senators of both parties have privately agreed that Whitaker is a less reliable supervisor and may well stumble into interfering with the Mueller investigation or may do it intentionally," [Coons] said. "Here is one of the things that worries me the most, which will, yeah, we wouldn't know until after he had taken steps that would constrain the Mueller investigation in ways that would prevent it from concluding appropriately."
    And a continual "f**k you" to Yertle and any other GOP who continues to block bills that'll protect Mueller. Like, WHAT THE ABSOLUTE FARK have these GOP by the balls?


    Thing 17:

    Trump says pardon for Paul Manafort still a possibility - New York Post, November 28, 2018, 9:41 AM EST, updated 5:09 PM EST
    He's never discussed a pardon for Paul Manafort, President Trump said Wednesday — but it's "not off the table."

    "It was never discussed, but I wouldn't take it off the table. Why would I take it off the table?" the president said during an Oval Office interview.

    ...

    "But I had three people: Manafort, Corsi — I don't know Corsi, but he refuses to say what they demanded. Manafort, Corsi and Roger Stone."

    "It's actually very brave," he said of the trio. "And I'm telling you, this is McCarthyism. We are in the McCarthy era. This is no better than McCarthy. And that was a bad situation for the country. But this is where we are. And it's a terrible thing," Trump added.
    Yes, you're reading this right. The New York Post, once founded by Alexander Hamilton, now controlled by Murdoch. Dankest timeline, indeed.


    Thing 18:

    Trump slams special counsel after retweeting image of Rosenstein behind bars - New York Post, November 28, 2018, 1:16 PM EST, updated 7:28 PM EST
    WASHINGTON – It was no accident that President Trump Wednesday retweeted an image of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein locked up.

    When asked during an interview with The Post: "Why do you think he belongs behind bars?" Trump responded: "He should have never picked a Special Counsel."

    Earlier Wednesday, the commander-in-chief retweeted an image of his so-called enemies behind bars that said: "Now that Russian collusion is a proven lie, when do the trials for treason begin?"

    Along with Rosenstein, the imprisoned foes include former Presidents Clinton and Obama, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, John Podesta, Huma Abedin, Eric Holder, James Clapper and Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
    "Party of law and order," they farking said.


    Thing 19:

    Trump adviser sought WikiLeaks emails via Farage ally, Mueller document alleges - The Guardian, November 28, 2018, 3:05 PM EST
    , a London-based academic close to Farage, was allegedly passed a request from a longtime Trump adviser to get advance copies of emails stolen from Trump's opponents by Russian hackers and later published by WikiLeaks.

    The allegation emerged in a draft legal document drawn up by Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election and any collusion with Trump's campaign team.

    ...

    "Get to Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending WikiLeaks emails," the email said, according to Mueller's document. The email was sent by Stone to Jerome Corsi, a conservative author, who promptly forwarded it to his friend Malloch.
    Thing 20:

    Papadopoulos's Russia Ties Continue to Intrigue the FBI - The Atlantic, November 28, 2018, 5:57 PM EST, updated 10:39 PM EST
    George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents about his interactions with a Russia-linked professor in 2016, went to jail on Monday after fighting, and failing, to delay the start of his two-week prison sentence. But a letter now being investigated by the House Intelligence Committee and the FBI indicates that Papadopoulos is still in the crosshairs of investigators probing a potential conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    The letter, dated November 19 and obtained last week by The Atlantic, was sent to Democratic Representative Adam Schiff's office by an individual who claims to have been close to Papadopoulos in late 2016 and early 2017. The letter was brought to the attention of Schiff and House Intelligence Committee staff, according to an aide who requested anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. The letter was also obtained by federal authorities, who are taking its claims "very seriously," said two U.S. officials who also requested anonymity due to the sensitivities of the probe.

    ...

    It remains to be seen whether Schiff, the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, will subpoena Papadopoulos to appear before the panel once the Democrats take control in January. Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff, told The Atlantic that, "at the appropriate time," the congressman hopes to get "full answers on the range" of Papadopoulos's "contacts with the Russians and their intermediaries." Boland said that Schiff and his staff "evaluate all information brought to our attention, and remain concerned about the conduct that formed the basis of Mr. Papadopoulos' guilty plea, as well as his subsequent and apparently contradictory statements." Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to investigators about "the timing, extent, and nature of his relationships and interactions with certain foreign nationals whom he understood to have close connections with senior Russian government officials."
    So much for being "just a coffee boy", eh.


    Thing 21:

    Court rejects accused Russian spy Maria Butina's request to be moved from solitary confinement - CBS News, November 28, 2018, 6:08 PM EST
    A federal court rejected accused Russian spy Maria Butina's request that she be removed from solitary confinement and into general population. Judge Tanya Chutkan said that Butina's lawyers failed to provide substantial evidence to back up the request. They cited no case law, no statutes and only asserted their understanding, "based on hearsay and speculation," as to why Butina had been segregated from the rest of the prison population.

    ...

    In a filing Tuesday, her lawyers had complained about the conditions of her confinement, being imprisoned in a cell the size of "a parking space," with no "meaningful human contact of sensory stimulation for 22 hours a day."

    ...

    Her lawyers said the deprivation of human contact was "starting to have a profound psychological impact" on Butina, who they warned might require mental health treatment if she continues to be held in isolation.
    My sympathies. /s


    Thing 22:

    Senate Judiciary cancels nominee hearings over Flake's Mueller stand - Politico, November 28, 2018, 6:23 PM EST
    The Senate Judiciary Committee cancelled a Thursday hearing on judicial nominees as Jeff Flake's stand for a bill to protect special counsel Robert Mueller continues to wreak havoc in the lame duck session.

    The panel was scheduled to advance six Circuit Court nominees, 15 District Court nominees and several bipartisan bills on Thursday to prepare them for possible floor action over the next month. But Flake, who is retiring at the end of this year, is holding firm to his vow to vote against judicial nominees on the floor and in committee unless Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) schedules a vote on the bipartisan special counsel legislation.

    ...

    GOP leaders are assessing GOP support for the special counsel bill to evaluate its level of support in hopes of appeasing Flake, but he said in an interview on Tuesday that only a binding floor vote would satisfy him.
    Oh, NOW you find your spine. *sarcastic clapping* Way to go, Flake.


    Thing 23:

    Trump's legal team has joint defense agreement with Stone ally Corsi - NBC News, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM EST
    President Donald Trump's legal team has a mutual defense agreement in place with conservative author Jerome Corsi amid special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into the 2016 election, according to Corsi and a source familiar with the arrangement.

    ...

    "I wanted Jay Sekulow as the president's attorney to know what was happening to me with the Mueller investigation," said Corsi.

    ...

    Corsi said he spoke to Trump only one time since then when the pair had a phone conversation following the president's speech at the United Nations in September. Corsi said he told Trump about his book, "Killing the Deep State."
    Just a quick reminder to our non-US SBers: the fact that the POTUS* has a joint defense agreement is absolutely f**king not normal. At all. Also, f**k you, Corsi, for keeping up the birther BS.


    Thing 24:

    Manafort Lied About Business Dealings, Mueller's Team Believes - Wall Street Journal, November 28, 2018, 7:41 PM EST (paywall'd)
    Paul Manafort's alleged misstatements to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators include comments about his personal business dealings and about his contacts with a former associate in Ukraine, say people familiar with the matter.
    From Kyle Griffin:
    Kyle Griffn on Twitter said:
    Mueller has questioned witnesses about a boat trip Manafort took with Tom Barrack after Manafort left the Trump campaign, WSJ reports. Witnesses believed investigators were seeking to determine whether Manafort met with Kilimnik on that trip.

    8:00 PM EST 28 Nov 2018​

    Thing 25:

    Trump's night-owl calls to Roger Stone in 2016 draw scrutiny in Mueller probe - Washington Post, November 28, 2018, 8:31 PM ESTn
    Caller ID labeled them "unknown," but Roger Stone said he knew to pick up quickly during those harried months of the 2016 presidential campaign. There would be a good chance that the voice on the other end of the line would belong to his decades-long friend — the restless, insomniac candidate Donald Trump — dialing from a blocked phone number.

    Those nocturnal chats and other contacts between the man who now occupies the Oval Office and an infamous political trickster have come under intensifying scrutiny as special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation bores into whether Stone served as a bridge between Trump and WikiLeaks as the group was publishing hacked Democratic emails.

    ...

    Stone said he never discussed WikiLeaks with Trump and diminished the importance of any phone records, saying "unless Mueller has tape recordings of the phone calls, what would that prove?"
    Stone's line there of "unless Mueller has tape recordings" has me wanting to go "you're some kind of special", but it's just so mind Gordian-knot bending that I can't think up of a witty remark.
     
    Day 683 of 'Stupid Watergate'
  • Quick round-up of Day 683, but quite a bit of legalese because of, well, possible Stupid Watergate.

    -0-0-0-0-

    Thing 1:

    So, Trump apparently did a stupid. Possibly Nixon Articles of Impeachment level of stupid on bashing Cohen and Mueller while praising Stone:
    Dinkie Donnie on Twitter said:
    "Michael Cohen asks judge for no Prison Time." You mean he can do all of the TERRIBLE, unrelated to Trump, things having to do with fraud, big loans, Taxis, etc., and not serve a long prison term? He makes up stories to get a GREAT & ALREADY reduced deal for himself, and get..... - 10:24 AM EST Dec 3, 2018 · Twitter for iPhone​
    ....his wife and father-in-law (who has the money?) off Scott Free. He lied for this outcome and should, in my opinion, serve a full and complete sentence. - 10:29 AM EST Dec 3, 2018 · Twitter for iPhone​
    "I will never testify against Trump." This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about "President Trump." Nice to know that some people still have "guts!" - 10:48 AM EST Dec 3, 2018 · Twitter for iPhone​
    Bob Mueller (who is a much different man than people think) and his out of control band of Angry Democrats, don't want the truth, they only want lies. The truth is very bad for their mission! - 10:56 AM EST Dec 3, 2018 · Twitter for iPhone​

    George Conway subtweets him on the possible charges of influencing an officer/juror and witness tampering in regards to Trump's Stone tweet:
    George Conway on Twitter said:
    File under "18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512"​
    11:02 AM EST 3 Dec 2018​
    Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti recognized the signs of "something a criminal would say":
    Renato Mariotti on Twitter said:
    I've never heard a public official speak this way before Trump. This sounds like something the criminals I used to prosecute would say.​
    11:01 AM EST 3 Dec 2018​
    And former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal added his two cents that Trump is pretty much, well, screwed:
    Neal Katyal on Twitter said:
    George is right. This is genuinely looking like witness tampering. DOJ (at least with a nonfake AG) prosecutes cases like these all the time. The fact it's done out in the open is no defense. Trump is genuinely melting down, and no good lawyer can represent him under these circs​
    11:16 AM EST 3 Dec 2018​
    From Lawrence O'Donnell's December 3, 2018 episode, he lays out how Trump's above tweets are grounds on almost violation to violation to Article 1 of Impeachment against Nixon:



    Regarding the tweets on praising Stone and bashing Cohen:
    ARTICLE 1
    In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice,​
    ...​
    Count 9: endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.​
    On the tweet bashing Mueller:
    ARTICLE 1​
    ...​
    Count 4: interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;​
    Basically, if we had an actually functioning Congress with actually sane Republicans in both House and Senate, the Articles and counts would be piling up fast.

    Also, Eric Trump continues to prove the late-night comedians right of him being... not all there, in regards to George Conway's subtweet:
    Eric Trump on Twitter said:
    Of all the ugliness in politics, the utter disrespect George Conway shows toward his wife, her career, place of work, and everything she has fought SO hard to achieve, might top them all. @KellyannePolls is great person and frankly his actions are horrible.​
    8:30 PM EST 3 Dec 2018​
    To which Renato claps back about "dude, witness tampering":
    Renato Mariotti on Twitter said:
    How does noting that your father engaged in witness tampering today disrespect Kellyanne Conway?​
    8:59 PM EST 3 Dec 2018​
    And lest we forget, Mieke Eoyang, formerly staff on House Intel, put out this laundry list of charges we might be hearing about on the others snared up in this net:
    Mieke Eoyang on Twitter said:
    Criminal statutes for this news cycle:​
    18 USC 1512 -witness tampering​
    15 USC 78dd-1 -FCPA​
    18 USC 1503 -obstruction of justice​
    18 USC 1505 -obstruction of Congressional proceedings​
    18 USC 371 -conspiracy to obstruct​
    18 USC 1622 -suborning perjury​
    18 USC 1001 -false statements - 11:22 AM EST 3 Dec 2018​
    Additional statutes you may hear about:​
    26 USC 7201 - tax evasion​
    52 USC 31201 - prohibition on campaign contributions by foreign nationals​
    52 USC 30116 - limitations on campaign contributions​
    22 USC 614 - Foreign Agent Registration Act​
    18 USC 1956 - Money Laundering - 11:56 AM EST 3 Dec 2018​
    -0-0-0-0-

    Thing 2:

    Is Donald Trump's Tweet About Roger Stone Witness Tampering? - Lawfare, December 3, 2018, 4:17 PM EST, updated 7:14 PM EST
    As the group wrote then, Trump's tweet about Cohen and Manafort raised serious questions under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)—better known as the statute criminalizing witness tampering. Under § 1512(b), it is illegal to "knowingly … corruptly persuade[] another person"—or to attempt to do so—"with intent to … influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding" or "cause or induce any person to withhold testimony . . . from an official proceeding." The authors concluded then that, while the specific Manafort tweet in question might not in and of itself constitute witness tampering, the tweet fit into a larger pattern of obstructive conduct by the president that could well fit that bill.
    ...​
    For this reason, a prosecutor would have a much easier time arguing for Trump's August tweet praising Manafort as an example of witness tampering under the approach of the Second and Eleventh Circuits. The same is true of Trump's Dec. 3 tweet on Roger Stone. The president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani reportedly argued to a journalist in response to Trump's Stone tweet that the message could not constitute obstruction "because the president is only encouraging someone not to lie"—and this is not a crazy argument, if that's what Trump was really doing. However, prosecutors wouldn't need to simply take Trump's admonition that Stone and Manafort not "make up stories" at face value; telling someone to not "lie" and make incriminating statements has an altogether different meaning if incriminating facts exist and both parties know it. (The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Ninth Circuits agree that actually encouraging someone to provide false information to investigators would, indeed, constitute corrupt persuasion.)​
    Roger Stone has also weighed in, suggesting that:​
    Saagar Enjeti on Twitter said:​
    ROGER STONE to me on todays presidential tweet: "Those who said the presidents warm and complementary tweet constitutes witness tampering should be reminded that I have never been contacted by any investigative body And therefore by definition this cannot be true"
    Dtg9ya-X4AcUcqu.jpg
    2:20 PM EST 3 Dec 2018​

    Stone is wrong. Even if we believe his representations about having not been contacted, Stone is at an absolute minimum aware of the existence of grand jury proceedings—whether investigators have contacted him personally isn't legally relevant here. Additionally, to the extent Stone wants to brush up on his legal research, legislative history suggests that Congress specifically wrote § 1512 so as not to include any particular standard for who constitutes a "witness"—in fact, the statute refers only to "another person" or "any person." The Second Circuit has held explicitly that § 1512(b) covers potential witnesses—even those who, as the earlier Lawfare group wrote, "have neither previously cooperated with the government nor expressed any intention or desire to cooperate." And judging by his comments to the press, this would certainly seem to describe Stone.​
    Still, calling Trump's tweets witness tampering is far from a slam dunk. Any prosecutor actually pursuing these charges would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump specifically intended to intimidate witnesses or dissuade them from testifying against him through his tweets. And there are many more questions raised by the potential application of § 1512(b) to the president's statements, including whether the statute could be implicated by a publicly posted tweet and whether Trump's "encouraging someone not to lie" at some point becomes an implicit promise of a pardon if that person stays strong, a fact pattern that would bear a resemblance to the promise of financial reward that the even Third and Ninth Circuits understand as "corrupt." Interested readers can take a look at the August Lawfare piece for more on those issues as well.​
    Click to expand...​
    -0-0-0-0-

    Thing 3:

    What a Judge Should Ask Mueller About Trump's Tweets - Lawfare, December 3, 2018, 5:11 PM EST
    In response, my colleague at Lawfare, former FBI General Counsel James Baker, observed that the president is the chief legal officer of the government and that his legal views on a matter typically bind the executive branch:
    So, what to make of the president's tweet that he does not think that what Michael Cohen did was a crime? Is that a legal determination by the president that is binding on the executive branch, including the U.S. attorney's office? Are government attorneys now precluded from prosecuting anyone else who might have been involved in this conduct, including the president himself? Is the FBI precluded from even investigating something that the president says is not a crime? Does the U.S. attorney's office have to move to allow Cohen to withdraw his guilty plea and have the court dismiss the information?​
    Baker rightly predicted the way the system would, in fact, handle this matter:​
    Or will everyone in the Department of Justice simply ignore the president's tweet? To my mind, that is the most likely outcome here. The Justice Department is likely to assess that whatever it is, the tweet is not a legal determination by the president and is not binding on the agency. But what does that say about the functioning of the executive branch today? What are the long-term implications for the department of simply ignoring the president? What does that mean for the rule of law in the United States?​
    ...​
    Over the next few days, attorneys representing the special counsel's office will make a presumably different recommendation regarding Cohen's sentencing to Judge William Pauley III of the Southern District of New York.​
    If I were [Judge] Pauley, I would not ignore the president's tweets. The special counsel's office is, after all, part of the Justice Department. Robert Mueller is an appointee of the department and bound by Justice Department policies. So if I were Pauley, I would ask the attorney representing the executive branch, of which President Trump is the embodiment, why he or she is not bound by the policy view and legal position that Cohen "should . . . serve a full and complete sentence." I would also ask what business the Justice Department has prosecuting Cohen at all for what the president has described as "two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime." I would demand to know what business a lowly line attorney for the government has in contradicting the president on a matter about which the executive branch has taken a position. I might even force the special counsel's office to brief the question of its authority to take a position directly adverse to the president's own.​

    -0-0-0-0-

    Thing 4:

    Mueller preparing endgame for Russia investigation - Yahoo! News, December 3, 2018, 5:57 PM EST
    Special counsel Robert Mueller's prosecutors have told defense lawyers in recent weeks that they are "tying up loose ends" in their investigation, providing the clearest clues yet that the long-running probe into Russia's interference in the 2016 election may be coming to its climax, potentially in the next few weeks, according to multiple sources close to the matter.
    The new information about the state of Mueller's investigation comes during a pivotal week when the special counsel's prosecutors are planning to file memos about three of their most high profile defendants — former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen.​
    A Flynn sentencing memo is due Tuesday, and memos about Manafort and Cohen are slated for Friday. All three documents are expected to yield significant new details on what cooperation the three of them provided to the Russia investigation.​
    ...​
    But Peter Carr, spokesman for the special counsel, confirmed to Yahoo News on Monday that the Manafort memo "will be public," although he added there could be some portions that are redacted or filed as a sealed addendum. The Manafort memo has been requested by the federal judge in his case so that prosecutors could, for the first time, spell out what matters they believe Manafort has lied to them about.​
    Get your snacks of choice ready.

    -0-0-0-0-

    Thing 5:

    Manafort Tried to Broker Deal With Ecuador to Hand Assange Over to U.S. - New York Times, December 3, 2018, 8:27 PM EST; updated December 4, 2018, 12:34 AM EST
    WASHINGTON — In mid-May 2017, Paul Manafort, facing intensifying pressure to settle debts and pay mounting legal bills, flew to Ecuador to offer his services to a potentially lucrative new client — the country's incoming president, Lenín Moreno.
    ...​
    In at least two meetings with Mr. Manafort, Mr. Moreno and his aides discussed their desire to rid themselves of Mr. Assange, who has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, in exchange for concessions like debt relief from the United States, according to three people familiar with the talks, the details of which have not been previously reported.​
    ...​
    There is no evidence that Mr. Manafort was working with — or even briefing — President Trump or other administration officials on his discussions with the Ecuadoreans about Mr. Assange. Nor is there any evidence that his brief involvement in the talks was motivated by concerns about the role that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks played in facilitating the Russian effort to help Mr. Trump in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation into possible coordination between Mr. Assange and Mr. Trump's associates, which has become a focus for Mr. Mueller.​
    ...​
    Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Mr. Manafort, said that it was Mr. Moreno — not Mr. Manafort — who broached the issue of Mr. Assange and "his desire to remove Julian Assange from Ecuador's embassy." Mr. Manafort "listened but made no promises as this was ancillary to the purpose of the meeting," said Mr. Maloni, adding, "There was no mention of Russia at the meeting."​
    *facepalms, then headdesks until blood starts showing up*

    -0-0-0-0-

    Thing 6:

    Why Michael Cohen, Trump's Fixer, Confessed to It All - New York Times, December 3, 2018, 8:50 PM EST; updated December 4, 2018, 3:25 AM EST
    He has told friends that he is mystified that he is taking the fall for actions he carried out on behalf of Mr. Trump, who remains unscathed. Still, he is resigned to accepting responsibility.
    ...​
    Now, as Judge Pauley considers how severe a sentence to impose on Mr. Cohen in both cases, he will be able to weigh Mr. Cohen's cooperation with the Russia investigation. The Southern District is expected to join with Mr. Mueller in making that presentation, the plea agreement states.​
    Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School, called Mr. Cohen's maneuver "an unusual and creative way to get what he wants out of a situation that's unorthodox."​
    Another legal expert, William J. Harrington, a former Southern District corruption prosecutor who is now in private practice, said, "Tying it up in a bow gives Cohen the best chance at getting significant credit for his cooperation — and a good sentence."​
    S'what happens when you work for a conman who has only cared about himself and barely about his family. Pity, pity, Cohen.

    -0-0-0-0-

    We're all gonna need a stiff drink...
     
    Have you forgotten the NRA Front? Mueller hasn't...
  • With Maria Butina trying to get a plea deal out of this mess (CNN) [not likely given that her charges are espionage, and that usually has two options: be an exchange pawn or shot], documents have surfaced that the NRA and Trump have done illegal coordination during the campaign...

    Man, Stupid Watergate isn't going to cut it anymore... and we'll probably going to need a very stiff drink at this point... I'll say it once, and I'll say it again, you'll need to be drunk for this to make sense.
     
    Hannity Tells Potential Witnesses to not to Talk With The FBI (aka Witness Tampering)
  • FOX NEWS HOST, DONALD TRUMP ALLY SEAN HANNITY TELLS POTENTIAL WITNESSES NOT TO TALK TO THE FBI AMID MUELLER PROBE
    Fox News pundit Sean Hannity—who has been a regular champion of President Donald Trump—urged folks on his radio show on Wednesday who may know of crimes not to talk to the FBI.

    Hannity made the comments amid the ongoing investigation from special counsel Robert Mueller. Like Trump, the Fox host has been openly critical of the ongoing probe.

    "If you're like me, and you were—grew up to revere an FBI agent, and the FBI comes to your house, and maybe some crime took place in the neighborhood, and maybe you have a little bit of information, but you don't quite fully recall everything, but you're pretty sure you do—the advice I have to give you now is: 'Don't talk to the FBI,'" Hannity said, via a clip posted by the liberal group Media Matters for America. "How awful is that?"
    At this rate I want witness tampering to be an execution worthy offense...
     
    Reminder of the December 12th Open Court Session with Michael Cohen
  • 48364119_1939819976073926_7931201842766151680_n.png
    Just letting everyone know that in about three days (December 12th, 2018), Cohen is going to be testifying in OPEN COURT about pretty much anything related to Trump. So mark it on your calendars people!
     
    Alleged Russian agent Maria Butina poised to plead guilty in case involving suspected Kremlin attempts to influence NRA -The Washington Post
  • Maria Butina, a Russian gun rights activist, is poised to plead guilty in a case involving accusations that she was working as an agent for the Kremlin in the United States, according to a new court filing.

    Attorneys for Butina and federal prosecutors jointly requested in court documents Monday that U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan set a time for Butina to withdraw her previous plea of not guilty. They said they could be available for her to enter her plea as early as Tuesday. "The parties have resolved this matter," Butina's lawyers and D.C.-based prosecutors wrote in their joint filing. A plea is not final until it is entered in court and accepted by a judge. Monday's filing did not indicate to what charge she will plead. Butina was accused of working to push the Kremlin's agenda by forming bonds with National Rifle Association officials and other conservative leaders and making outreach to 2016 presidential candidates.
    ...
    ['She was like a novelty': How alleged Russian agent Maria Butina gained access to elite conservative circles]
    ...
    Her lawyers had said her interactions with the NRA and others were typical of an ambitious student anxious to network and eager to build better relations between the United States and her country. They had at one point argued her outreach should be covered by constitutional protections for free speech and noted that she was not accused of attempting to steal U.S. secrets or working with Russian intelligence.
    ... well, despite what the naysayers are saying, looks like our Real Life Red Robbin is going to plead guilty.
     
    BREAKING NEWS: Cohen Sentenced to Three Years in Prison - Axios
  • Michael Cohen sentenced to 3 years in prison - Axios

    President Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen has been sentenced in a New York federal court to 3 years in prison on Wednesday on charges involving campaign finance violations, tax evasion and lying to Congress. He will report to federal prison on March 6.

    The big picture: Cohen's sentence involves his plea agreements with prosecutors in both the Southern District of New York and the Mueller investigation, which took starkly different views on his cooperation last week. The New York prosecutors recommended about 4 years in prison, while Mueller's team had a more positive view, arguing that Cohen deserved credit for substantially assisting their investigation.
    ...
    The disconnect between the Southern District of New York and Mueller's team was evident during the statements from lawyers from both teams. Jeannie S. Rhee, who works for Mueller, said Cohen provided "credible" information regarding "any links between a campaign and a foreign government."
    • Meanwhile, Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicolas Roos, part of the New York prosecutorial team, said that Cohen's "charges portray a pattern of deception, of brazenness and of greed." He added that they harmed "free and transparent elections, and in committing these crimes, Cohen has eroded faith in the electoral process."
    Go deeper: What we now know about Trump and Russia
    It had to be rather juicy intel for Cohen to get a reduced sentence...
     
    Maria Butina pleas Guilty for Conspiracy against the United States - CNN
  • Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher - NBC News
  • A source confirmed to NBC News that Trump was the "other member of the campaign" present when Michael Cohen and David Pecker agreed to silence women.

    Donald Trump was the third person in the room in August 2015 when his lawyer Michael Cohen and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker discussed ways Pecker could help counter negative stories about Trump's relationships with women, NBC News has confirmed.

    As part of a nonprosecution agreement disclosed Wednesday by federal prosecutors, American Media Inc., the Enquirer's parent company, admitted that "Pecker offered to help deal with negative stories about that presidential candidate's relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided."

    The "statement of admitted facts" says that AMI admitted making a $150,000 payment "in concert with the campaign," and says that Pecker, Cohen and "at least one other member of the campaign" were in the meeting. According to a person familiar with the matter, the "other member" was Trump.
    Good lordy, Trump is covering a lot of shit...
     
    Back
    Top Bottom