HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
  • LibraryThing
  • Book discussions
  • Your LibraryThing
  • Join to start using.

Scandal Watch VIII

This is a continuation of the topic Scandal Watch VII.

Pro and Con

Join LibraryThing to post.

1margd
Jan 17, 12:59pm Top

Federal agency ‘improperly’ ignored constitutional concerns before allowing Trump to keep lease to his hotel, internal watchdog says
Jonathan O'Connell and David A. Fahrenthold | Jan 16, 2019

The General Services Administration “ignored” concerns that President Trump’s lease on a government-owned building — the one that houses his Trump International Hotel in Washington — might violate the Constitution when it allowed Trump to keep the lease after he took office, according to a new report from the agency’s inspector general.

Trump’s company won the lease several years before he became president. After Trump was elected, the agency had to decide whether his company would be allowed to keep its lease.

At that time, the inspector general found, the agency should have determined whether the lease violates the Constitution’s emoluments clauses, which bar presidents from taking payments from foreign governments or individual U.S. states. But it did not, according to the report issued Wednesday.

“We. . . found that the agency improperly ignored these Emoluments Clauses, even though the lease itself requires compliance with the laws of the United States, including the Constitution,” the report said.

The findings provide a fresh example of how Trump’s unprecedented decision to maintain ownership of his business while serving in the White House has prompted concerns about potential conflicts of interest and sown confusion among federal regulators, who have struggled to enforce ethical norms related to the presidency...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-agency-improperly-ignored-consti...

2margd
Jan 18, 3:45am Top

President Trump Directed His Attorney Michael Cohen To Lie To Congress About The Moscow Tower Project
Anthony Cormier | January 17, 2019
Trump received 10 personal updates from Michael Cohen and encouraged a planned meeting with Vladimir Putin.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-towe...

Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand | 7:29 PM - 17 Jan 2019:
Mueller has receipts... "The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Org and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents."

18 U.S.C. 2(a)
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2

@LindseyGrahamSC: "If there was some reason to believe that the president tried to coach somebody not to testify or to testify falsely that could be obstruction of justice?"
William Barr: "YES”

Klobuchar: "A president persuading a person to commit perjury would be obstruction. Is that right?"
Barr: "Yes."
Klobuchar: "You also said that a president — or any person — convincing a witness to change testimony would be obstruction. Is that right?"
Barr: "Yes."

Alternative NOAA @altNOAA 12:04 AM - 18 Jan 2019:
Tomorrow morning @realDonaldTrump will be asking his aides if they have any ideas on how he can get @SpeakerPelosi out of the country for a few days...

3proximity1
Edited: Jan 19, 7:07am Top

>2 margd:


President Trump Directed His Attorney Michael Cohen To Lie To Congress About The Moscow Tower Project

Anthony Cormier | January 17, 2019
Trump received 10 personal updates from Michael Cohen and encouraged a planned meeting with Vladimir Putin.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-towe...

Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand | 7:29 PM - 17 Jan 2019:

Mueller has receipts... "The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Org and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents."



"IF true, this is BIG!"

(Fox News panel mocking the journalistic respectability of the latest bombshell report (from BuzzFeed) concerning allegations of Trump's malfeasance.)

LOL!

Of course, you dearly hope that every such "bombshell", "breaking-news", alleging some criminal act on the part of Donald Trump is true. You've been so convinced for so long that Trump is just no good that every new report of some alleged foul deed by him is like cat-nip to you.

That makes your posts here obsessive, over-eager and fucking foolish in addition to being inspired by pure malice.

Once again, you've leapt on a news report without the slightest concern for consideration of how and why the acts alleged might not make sense.

Once again, as in your premature embrace of the bullshit spewed by the most of the panel of idiots on ABC's "The View," you traffic in crap--because it serves your convictions about Trump.

So I have a fresh occasion to point up your having leapt aboard another bullshit report:



(CNN) Special counsel Robert Mueller's office disputed an explosive story from BuzzFeed News as "not accurate" Friday night, after the news outlet reported the President had directed his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, for which Cohen was later prosecuted.

"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller's office, in a statement.
It's highly unusual for the special counsel's office to provide a statement to the media -- outside of court filings and judicial hearings -- about any of its ongoing investigative activities.

In response, BuzzFeed said in its own statement, "We are continuing to report and determine what the special counsel is disputing. We remain confident in the accuracy of our report."

Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief at Buzzfeed, echoed similar sentiments.
"We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing," he tweeted.

But following the story's publication late Thursday night, Democratic members of Congress began pointing to the report as grounds for the President's impeachment. The clamor grew throughout the day and into Friday night.

"The BuzzFeed story, by reporters Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier, asserted that Cohen had told special counsel investigators that 'after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie — by claiming that negotiations (for a Trump development project in Moscow) ended months earlier than they actually did — in order to obscure Trump's involvement,' BuzzFeed wrote, attributing its assertion to two law enforcement sources.

"The sources also said the special counsel's office had corroborating Trump company emails, text messages and other documents, though the BuzzFeed reporters were unclear Friday in television interviews about whether they had seen the documents described in their story.

"The special counsel's office did not go into detail about which parts of the BuzzFeed story they were calling untrue. The BuzzFeed story made several other claims that remain uncorroborated by other media outlets regarding Cohen's lies to Congress and communications with Mueller.



We know from this that there are at least some inaccuracies in recent reports coming out of BuzzFeed of allegations of crimes committed by Trump though it isn't clear precisely what is inaccurate and why, the fact that Mueller's office even responded to the BuzzFeed story suggests that the allegations' inaccuracy were so serious and defamatory that the office could not leave them uncorrected.


Edited to add:

Anthony Cormier—speaking in a phone interview with CNN news staff broadcast on 18 January, 2019):



(excerpt)

… “Ahm, we (i.e. at BuzzFeed involved in this report) don’t know at this point—and our sources haven’t told us—what exactly he—how exactly that directive was handed down—was it in person? On the telephone? We’re not clear. But it is our understanding that this is, uhhh, rock-solid information….

Q. : “Do your sources have any sense of why President Trump would want Michael Cohen to lie about this?”

Cormier: “It’s a really good question” ….

______________________________

Yes, indeed!, it is a 'really good question.' And it should have been a 'really good idea' to have gotten to the bottom of that really good question before running with their report, for, what they did was run with a story about which there was a very important issue--Why?--without any good, clear, answer either in their own understanding or in information from any of the sources on whose information their story is based. That's quite remarkable as lousy journalistic practice. Nor did they bother to get a direct comment from Michael Cohen either confirming or denying the truth of the allegation. It seems that they failed to obtain a sufficient number of independent sources and, instead, relied on two sources who were, in effect, part of one and the same "connection" to the information being relayed. Thus, rather than getting a corroboration of these claims, they had what amounted to only once ultimate source--two people, both of whom (they claim and believe) had been "read in" to the details of the Mueller investigations.

_____________________________

Alan Dershowitz speaking on Fox News :



"Even before the Office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued a statement Friday night (18 January) saying that the BuzzFeed account was “not accurate,” I wrote an op-ed for the New York Daily News raising questions about whether there was actually credible evidence that Trump suborned perjury or obstructed justice by telling Cohen to lie to lawmakers. ...

... "The anti-Trump pundits have been wrong so often that the only people who persist in believing them are Trump opponents who dream of seeing him forced out of office and maybe even winding up in prison."





Your efforts here are laughable junk, replete with serial blunders in reasoning and in a failure to exercise just some minimal respectable perspective on the things which obviously obsess you. And, clearly, you learn nothing from those blunders.

4margd
Edited: Jan 19, 8:44am Top

Unpacking the Special Counsel's Denial of BuzzFeed Story
Philip Rotner Jan 18, 2019
www.philiprotner.com/2019

Giuliani and Trump on Fox: Whitaker pay off?
(With yet another veiled threat against Cohen's FIL.)

I understand Russian bots have been out in full force.

5proximity1
Edited: Jan 19, 9:11am Top

>4 margd:

Thus, either BuzzFeed's reporters or editors (or both) misunderstood and, then, mis-stated the "sources'" 'accurate' information--as they related it to BuzzFeed,

Or

The sources' accounts were in some respect inaccurate, and the BuzzFeed reporters or editors (or both) then faithfully reported what their erroneous sources had told them,

Or some of both of the above.

Thus, either BuzzFeed's reporters and editors did not do their work as journalists competently--i.e. they're incompetent-- or their sources failed to provide accurate information--they're incompetent.

or some of both of these.

"Thank you!"

_____________________________

Riddle me this:

Question:

Why would someone's personal attorney, testifying under oath, give false or misleading answers to questions that relate to criminal investigations of suspected criminal activity on the part of the attorney's client when, as counsel for the person under investigation, the attorney is under no legal obligation to even reply to questions about his client's alleged involvement in criminal activity?

Mueller investigation to Michael Cohen:

Did Mr. Trump instruct you to lie in giving testimony before Congress concerning Mr. Trump's business plans in Russia?

M. C. :

You want me to answer a question in which you ask that I confirm or deny an allegation that my client has committed a criminal offense, is that correct?

Mueller investigation to Michael Cohen:

That's right.

M. C. :

I decline answering any and all such questions about my present or former clients supposed criminal acts. Next?

___________________

Does anyone here seriously suppose that Trump was not aware of what is known as the attorney-client privilege (of confidentiality)? Would Trump suborn his attorney's perjury when he, Trump, knew that his attorney's knowledge of Trump's potential criminal liability for past acts is knowledge privileged to the client's attorney and may not be compelled under sworn testimony?

6margd
Jan 20, 7:46am Top

Inside the Mueller team’s decision to dispute BuzzFeed’s explosive story on Trump and Cohen
Matt Zapotosky and Devlin Barrett | January 19, 2019

The office of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III rarely issues public statements about reporting, but denied the accuracy of a story from BuzzFeed on Friday. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

...The (BuzzFeed) reporter informed Mueller’s spokesman, Peter Carr, that he and a colleague had “a story coming stating that Michael Cohen was directed by President Trump himself to lie to Congress about his negotiations related to the Trump Moscow project,” according to copies of their emails provided by a BuzzFeed spokesman. Importantly, the reporter made no reference to the special counsel’s office specifically or evidence that Mueller’s investigators had uncovered.

“We’ll decline to comment,” Carr responded, a familiar refrain for those in the media who cover Mueller’s work.

When BuzzFeed published the story hours later, it far exceeded Carr’s initial impression, people familiar with the matter said, in that the reporting alleged that Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and self-described fixer, “told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie,” and that Mueller’s office learned of the directive “through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.”

In the view of the special counsel’s office, that was wrong, two people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. And with Democrats raising the specter of investigation and impeachment, Mueller’s team started discussing a step they had never before taken: publicly disputing reporting on evidence in their ongoing investigation.

...BuzzFeed, though, asserted that the language was not specific about what was being contested.

“We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he’s disputing,” BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith said in response to the special counsel's statement...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inside-the-mueller-teams-...

7proximity1
Edited: Jan 20, 8:37am Top

"“We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he’s disputing,” BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith said in response to the special counsel's statement..." (emphasis added)

LOL! Fucking hell! It was their job--and responsibility--to figure that out and understand it before, not after running the story.

Why doesn't BuzzFeed simply ask its anonymous sources to explain what the Special Counsel's statement disputes? They can't? Why not? If they're "read in" to the full details of this endless fishing-expedition, they should be able to learn--without even asking Mueller directly--what it is that Mueller finds inaccurate in BuzzFeed's account.

When the Watergate scandal was unfolding, The Washington Post's and The New York Times' editors and reporters had to constantly be on their guard against phony, planted leads which were intended to deliberately trip up and discredit their reporting and their reporters. Sources' claims had to be corroborated by other independent sources. And before the stories ran, the principals concerned--those inside the Nixon administration, named in the stories, -- had to be reached or at least given a real opportunity to confirm or deny the details being reported about themselves. Only after that opportunity had be extended and declined or ignored could the reporters assess the likely veracity of their reporting. At that point, the newspapers' editors and reporters had to form a judgement: were the principals, when they declined any comment, when they refused to confirm or deny, doing that because the report's details were completely accurate as far as they went?-- and, thus, the insiders did not want to admit that? Or, was it a case of the reports' having included some details which were seriously in error--and, thus, the insiders, rather than point them out, wanted to see these errors reported as accurate, to the embarrassment and discredit of the paper's editors and reporters? Which of these explained a refusal to comment?

There's no sure-fire way to be sure. In each case, the editors and reporters can only double-check sources, try and find other corroborating sources, and look for flaws in their leg-work, their reasonings and the way they've "connected the dots." Only then would they go to press with allegations against administration-insiders which had neither been confirmed nor denied.

If the administration couldn't and wouldn't issue a categorical denial--trying instead to issue flimsy responses which fell short of any direct, clear, "This report is not true," then the editors and reporters could be confident that they'd not been mislead, confident that they'd gotten the facts right at least as far as they went.

To have to publicly ask, "What's not true about it?" is laughably amateurish. It's their damned task to sort fact from fiction, to discover-- sooner, not later-- which is which. Those they're investigating have neither a duty nor a good reason to help them accomplish these tasks; and for them to wonder aloud where they may have gotten things wrong is clownish.

Woodward and Bernstein constantly went back to their best confidential sources to ask them if and where and how they were being mislead in a report they were working on. In the course of their work, both The Post and The Times editors found themselves in the position where they had to reply, "We stand by our story." I cannot recall a single occasion where their standing by a published story on the Watergate scandal was later shown to have been seriously wrong in its key elements-- that their claims were shown to have been in error when everything was said and done.

Here, we're in practically the reverse circumstances--trying to come up with an example of an important allegation which hasn't so far turned out to have been premature or simply flat out bullshit.

8margd
Jan 20, 12:26pm Top

Giuliani says Trump might have talked to Cohen about his testimony: 'So what?'
Alicia Cohn - 01/20/19

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/426202-guiliani-says-trump-might-hav...

9margd
Jan 21, 9:34am Top

‘Perfectly Insane’: George Conway Scorches Any Testimony Talk Between Trump And Cohen
Mary Papenfuss | 01/20/2019 09:27 pm ET

Conway calls it “perfectly criminal,” not “perfectly normal,” as Rudy Giuliani insists...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/george-conway-slams-any-testimony-talk-betw...

10proximity1
Edited: Jan 21, 10:53am Top

Your lawyer has a legal duty, an obligation, to keep all information about you, his client, confidential. He may not divulge any information about you without your prior consent, or about any others of his clientele without their prior expressed consent.

Clients do not have to invoke this confidentiality; it's assumed, it's automatic; from the moment you engage an attorney, he or she is under the attorney-client privilege obligations --whether you ever explicitly request this or not.

Thus, like your relationship with your medical doctor, in your relationship with an attorney, your lawyer cannot legally divulge any knowledge he may have gained from you, about you to a third-party--whether that information concerns legal or illegal acts you have or may have committed..

There is one exception. Your lawyer's attorney-client-privilege-obligations do not prohibit him from revealing his knowledge of crimes you have indicated you intend to commit but have not yet committed. He may be professionally obliged to notify law-enforcement authorities of information he has gained from you about a crime you plan and intend to commit.

NO CLIENT EVER HAS TO ASK HIS ATTORNEY TO LIE TO THE AUTHORITIES ABOUT HIS PAST BEHAVIOR, PAST ACTS, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL--WHETHER UNDER OATH OR NOT--SIMPLY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE CLIENT'S BEING INVESTIGATED, CHARGED, OR TRIED FOR A CRIMINAL ACT.

THE ATTORNEY IS ALREADY BARRED FROM DIVULGING INFORMATION ON HIS CLIENTS' PAST BEHAVIOR TO THEIR LEGAL DETRIMENT BECAUSE HE IS THEIR ATTORNEY.

Got it?, MORONS!?

EVEN DONALD TRUMP UNDERSTANDS THIS.

Are you actually a greater dumb-shit than Donald Trump?!?! Really!?

__________________________________________________​

11margd
Edited: Jan 21, 6:25pm Top

Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 10:53 AM - 21 Jan 2019:

Why do so many people think that Trump directing his LAWYER to lie to CONGRESS about Trump’s Moscow project would end his presidency while lying to all 320 million Americans about the same thing is no big deal? Only because of the myth that criminal law holds the key! It doesn’t.

12margd
Jan 21, 6:47pm Top

BuzzFeed journalist: 'Our reporting is going to be borne out'
Jackie Wattles | January 21, 2019

New York (CNN Business)BuzzFeed says its sources are "standing behind" the bombshell report about the special counsel investigation.

"We're being told to stand our ground. Our reporting is going to be borne out to be accurate, and we're 100% behind it," investigative reporter Anthony Cormier told CNN's Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday.

Cormier was joined by BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith on "Reliable."

The pair defended a story published on Thursday that said President Donald Trump directed his longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a potential hotel construction project in Moscow. The information was attributed to two unnamed "federal law enforcement officials" involved in the investigation.

Cormier, who wouldn't reveal his sources when asked, said the story had been in the works for months and went through a "rigorous" vetting process. The story was reviewed by at least three editors, Smith said...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/media/buzzfeed-ben-smith-anthony-cormier/index.ht...

13margd
Edited: Jan 22, 6:43am Top

“Even If He Did Do It, It Wouldn’t Be a Crime”: Rudy Giuliani on President Trump
Isaac Chotiner | January 21, 2019

...The President has called this a witch hunt. If that’s the case, were you surprised the Mueller team said that the BuzzFeed story was flawed?

I think they had no choice but to do that...they were basically being victimized. The story said two federal agents gave this information out. The federal agents would have had to work for them.

It could have been people from the Southern District of New York office.

Kinda. It could have been, but everything pointed back to . . . BuzzFeed made it sound like it came out of the special counsel’s office. I think they were angry on their own. It didn’t take us to get them angry. I would have been angry.

...Saying things for Trump, not always being truthful about it—do you ever worry that this will be your legacy? Does that ever worry you in any way?

Absolutely. I am afraid it will be on my gravestone. “Rudy Giuliani: He lied for Trump.” Somehow, I don’t think that will be it. But, if it is, so what do I care? I’ll be dead. I figure I can explain it to St. Peter. He will be on my side, because I am, so far . . . I don’t think, as a lawyer, I ever said anything that’s untruthful...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/even-if-he-did-do-it-it-...

ETA__________________________________________

Kyle Griffin (MSNBC) @kylegriffin1 | 8:10 PM - 21 Jan 2019:

Giuliani tells NYer he's "been through all the tapes" and that's how he knew BuzzFeed misreported. Pressed on what he means by tapes, Giuliani: "I shouldn’t have said tapes." Pressed again, says, "I have listened to tapes, but none of them concern this."

14proximity1
Edited: Jan 22, 7:29am Top

>13 margd:



...The President has called this a witch hunt. If that’s the case, were you surprised the Mueller team said that the BuzzFeed story was flawed?

I think they had no choice but to do that...they were basically being victimized. The story said two federal agents gave this information out. The federal agents would have had to work for them.


LOL!

Mueller--poor victim, he!



misdirection / (mis●di●rec●tion)
/ˌmɪsdʌɪˈrɛkʃ(ə)n,mɪsdɪˈrɛkʃ(ə)n/

noun
1.
the action or process of directing someone to the wrong place or in the wrong direction.
"the deliberate misdirection that had put me off the track"
2.
a wrong instruction given by a judge to a jury.
"he won his appeal on the basis of a misdirection by the trial judge"



Consider the possibility that Mueller's own office, with or without his own personal awareness, were instrumental at all points and on all "sides" of this--i.e. allowing BuzzFeed's moron-reporters to believe that they'd been given fully true and accurate information when it was carefully manipulated (by Mueller's office) to contain subtle inaccuracies which opened the way for these same manipulators to issue a self-serving 'fair-minded-looking' public statement casting ambiguous doubts on the accuracy of BuzzFeed's work.

None of which, of course, means that BuzzFeed's story's authors aren't the incompetent morons which they appear to be.

15margd
Edited: Jan 24, 6:41am Top

Footage of 'Nastya Rybka' arrest upon arriving in Russia, poor thing, Deripaska and the rest of the story:

Model With 2016 Secret Fights To Escape Russia, Oleg Deripaska's Reach | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
MSNBC | Published on Jan 21, 2019

Rachel Maddow revisits the story of Belarusian model Anastasia Vashukevich, whose apparently accidental exposure of oligarch Oleg Deripaska's role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has been met with legal pressure and personal peril as questions linger about the existence of further evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ5SFLHm9Fg

16margd
Jan 25, 9:15am Top

Roger Stone, Adviser to Trump, Is Indicted in Mueller Investigation
Mark Mazzetti, Eileen Sullivan and Maggie Haberman | Jan. 25, 2019

Roger J. Stone Jr., long an informal adviser to President Trump, has changed his story about whether he had advance knowledge in 2016 of leaks of emails aimed at hurting Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

WASHINGTON — Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime informal adviser to President Trump, was charged as part of the special counsel investigation over his communications with WikiLeaks, the organization behind the release of thousands of stolen Democratic emails during the 2016 campaign, in an indictment unsealed Friday.

Mr. Stone was charged with seven counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding, making false statements and witness tampering, according to the special counsel’s office.

F.B.I. agents arrested Mr. Stone before dawn on Friday at his home in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and he was expected to appear in a federal courthouse there later in the morning. F.B.I. agents were also seen carting hard drives and other evidence from Mr. Stone’s apartment in Harlem.

The indictment is the first in months by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination with Trump campaign associates. Citing details in emails and other forms of communications, the indictment suggests Mr. Trump’s campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/us/politics/roger-stone-trump-indictment-arre...

17proximity1
Edited: Jan 26, 5:07am Top

>16 margd:

"Citing details in emails and other forms of communications, the indictment suggests Mr. Trump’s campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them..."

(emphasis added)
_______________

So, again, nothing on Donald Trump before or since he took office.

Get back to us when a Mueller-sourced indictment actually alleges Mr. Trump knew .

By the way, this:

a suggestion that "Mr. Trump’s campaign knew (i.e. heard) about additional stolen emails before they were released"

-- even true and borne out--

is not a crime.

______________________________________________

Roger Stone to plead "not guilty."

Finally! someone refuses to roll over for Robert Mueller's bullying. At last we'll have a chance to see Mueller's allegations obliged to meet their legal burdens in open court.

18margd
Edited: Jan 26, 5:29am Top

Maddow Blog @MaddowBlog | 10:13 PM - 25 Jan 2019:

It tells you something about this time period we are living through, and this presidency we are living through, that the sitting president's campaign chairman appearing in court today trying to avoid an extra decade in prison doesn't make the front page today.

https://www.nbcnews.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-team-lying-perplexes-as-muelle...

19margd
Edited: Jan 26, 5:47am Top

Katy Tur @KatyTurNBC | 1:06 PM - 25 Jan 2019:

Good reminder of how important Wikileaks was to the Trump campaign. By ⁦@NBCNews⁩ count he invoked it 141 times. Here they are:

Watch Trump's mentions of WikiLeaks in days leading up to election
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-trump-s-mentions-of-wikileaks-in-days-leadin...

20margd
Edited: Jan 26, 5:45am Top

Maddow Blog @MaddowBlog | 6:38 PM - 25 Jan 2019:

NEWS: Single source close to the investigation tells The Rachel Maddow Show that the special counsel has viewed a number of transcripts from witnesses testifying before the Senate in the Russia investigation.

Maddow Blog @MaddowBlog | 6:48 PM - 25 Jan 2019:

The House Intelligence Committee can't send testimony transcripts to Robert Mueller until they have a full set of members. So far, Republicans are not naming any members to the Intelligence Committee. They managed it for 23 other committees, but...

https://twitter.com/MaddowBlog
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/republicans-slow-to-staff-key-committee...

21proximity1
Edited: Jan 27, 6:46am Top

the "Watergate affair", 47 years on, 'turned on its head' ---

Then versus now;

Forty-seven years ago, in the run-up to the 1972 presidential election, the incumbent, Richard Nixon, had carefully created a re-election campaign organization which was, in essence, premised on an elaborate conspiracy in which false and propagandistic operations sought to discredit and smear Nixon's political opponents. As part of this effort, people involved in the re-election campaign set up a clandestine group (the infamous "White House 'Plumbers'") the activities of which included the break-in at the Watergate Hotel complex where the Democratic National Committee had some of its offices.

Once the botched break-in was foiled by an alert security-guard's discovery ( Frank Wills), the whole re-election campaign's sordid character began a slow process of unfolding. It was the attempt by Nixon and his most senior staff--both cabinet officials and top White House staff--to thwart the investigation into the campaign's illegal activities which led to serious efforts to turn the Justice Department to Nixon's use to impede the press and courts' attempts to learn the full details. In fact, it was revealed that Nixon had already become accustomed to using the Justice Department as his own personal "enforcer", leaning on all sorts of people, groups and institutions which had, in various ways, projects, programs and purposes which were inherently at odds with the Nixon administration's foreign and domestic agendas--ever since Nixon's first election in 1968.

The attempt to abuse the Justice Department, turning it into an agency which protected Nixon's partisan and corrupt endeavors to "get" and "punish" his "enemies" was the feature which proved most scandalous about the Watergate affair--even more scandalous than the cover-up efforts themselves. Not only liberals of that day, but, especially liberals, were shocked and amazed at the extent to which Nixon had actually succeeded in using the Justice Department to undermine, harass, smear and, in many cases, ruin, Nixon's political adversaries. It was in this political 'climate' that the office of Special Prosecutor (later, codified as Special Counsel) came into being.

Today, we are witness to a strange reversal by which so-called "liberals"--this time, partisans not of the incumbent president but, rather, of the losing-party in the last presidential election-- have enthusiastically embraced and promoted a similar effort, only, this time, one more sophisticated, more extensive in reach and one far, far better-protected and more-favoured by an even more entrenched power-structure, to make the Justice Department, and, specifically, the office of special counsel, the avant-garde of a partisan vendetta against the presidential election's victors, and a rear-guard protection-service for the 2016 losing Democrats whose corruption of the primary and general-election procedures far out-strips anything actually claimed about or done by the Trump campaign.

Now, the supposedly "right-thinking" people are in the roles of Nixon's 'plumbers' and the "Committee to Re-Elect the President", championing the partisan use of the Justice Department's authority to go after and "get", by any means necessary, legal or not, those who these partisans regard as having been instrumental in their electoral defeat--with, ultimately, the elected president the most-prized target. Stung, "cheated" of the victory they'd assumed was theirs, these liberals now intend to go Nixon's 1972 corruption-efforts one step (or several steps) 'better.' Because, as was the case with Nixon and his associates, failure threatens to expose an entire elaborate program of dirty-dealing, fix-making and corruption in and around the Clinton campaign and the national Democratic party's administration as well as within the State and Justice Departments--whose career officials were expecting, indeed, counting on, for their own corrupt 'good', a Clinton victory.

There's special irony for Roger Stone in his recent media-extravaganza-arrest by the F.B.I.: Stone was, in 1972, one of the prominent members of Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President.



John N. Mitchell, Director and former United States Attorney General. (Convicted)
(found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury (Wikipedia))

Jeb Stuart Magruder, Deputy Director (Pled guilty)
(plead guilty in August 1973 to a one-count indictment of conspiracy to obstruct justice, to defraud the United States, and to illegally eavesdrop on the Democratic Party's national headquarters at the Watergate Hotel (Wikipedia))

Fred Malek, Manager and former Deputy Undersecretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
("Malek provided the data on Democrats after a check of voter registration rolls, but balked at fulfilling the rest of Nixon's query. "I refused four times. The fifth time he came back and gave me a direct order through Haldeman, so I gave him a number. I regret my compliance. It was a mistake." (Wikipedia))

Francis L. Dale, Chairman, publisher of The Cincinnati Enquirer and owner of the Cincinnati Reds.
(was not charged with any crimes)

Maurice Stans, Finance Chairman and former United States Secretary of Commerce. (Pled guilty (1975))
(indicted in 1973 for perjury and obstruction of justice, but was acquitted the following year.)

("On 12 March 1975, Stans pleaded guilty to three counts of violating the reporting sections of the Federal Election Campaign Act and two counts of accepting illegal campaign contributions and was fined $5,000.7 The convictions were related to improperly giving campaign funds to G. Gordon Liddy, though Stans insisted that his guilt ended there and that he was not aware of Liddy's plan to use the money for what became the Watergate break in." (Wikipedia))

Herbert W. Kalmbach, Deputy Finance Chairman and the President's personal attorney. (Convicted)
( "Kalmbach served six months in jail and was fined $10,000 for operating an illegal campaign committee and for offering an ambassadorship in return for political support. He also handled a secret $500,000 fund to finance sabotage and espionage operations in the salary of Donald H. Segretti, a lawyer, whose job it was to discredit the Democrats." (Wikipedia))

Kenneth H. Dahlberg, Midwest Finance Chairman and developer of the Miracle-Ear hearing aid.
(Dahlberg was never charged with any wrongdoing in the Watergate scandal. (Wikipedia))

Judy Hoback Miller, Bookkeeper
("Hoback was one of the few people who would talk freely with Woodward and Bernstein, allowing them to come to her home, although she has stated she was "pretty nervous and scared" and was also "frustrated that the truth wasn't coming out". She had already notified the FBI and felt they were not handling the investigation properly." (Wikipedia))

Hugh W. Sloan, Jr., Treasurer and former aide to White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman.
("Sloan resigned when he found out what the White House Plumbers were up to and became a source for Woodward and Bernstein." (Wikipedia))
(was not charged with any crimes)

James W. McCord, Jr., Security Coordinator and former director of security at the Central Intelligence Agency.
("McCord was one of the first men convicted in the Watergate criminal trial; on eight counts of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping." (Wikipedia))

G. Gordon Liddy, Finance Counsel and former aide to John Ehrlichman. (Convicted)
("Liddy was sentenced to a 20-year prison term and was ordered to pay $40,000 in fines. He began serving the sentence on January 30, 1973. On April 12, 1977, President Jimmy Carter commuted Liddy's sentence to eight years" (Wikipedia))

E. Howard Hunt, Consultant to the White House and retired CIA operative. (Convicted)
("Hunt eventually spent 33 months in prison at Federal Correctional Complex, Allenwood and the low-security Federal Prison Camp at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, on a conspiracy charge, arriving at the latter institution on April 25, 1975" (Wikipedia))

Donald Segretti, Attorney involved. Was hired by Herbert Kalmbach. (Pled guilty)
("In 1974, Segretti pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of distributing illegal (in fact, forged) campaign literature and was sentenced to six months in prison. Segretti served four months." (Wikipedia))

Fred LaRue, Deputy Director and aide to John Mitchell (Pled guilty)
("He pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in July 1973 and served four and a half months in custody at the Maxwell Air Force Base near Montgomery, Alabama." (Wikipedia))

Charles Colson, Special Counsel to the President (Convicted)
("On June 21, 1974, Colson was given a one-to- three-year sentence and fined $5,000." (Wikipedia))

DeVan L. Shumway, Spokesman
("director of public relations on Nixon's re-election committee in 1972. He was one of three original recipients of Nixon's "enemies list" memo." (Wikipedia))
(was not charged with any crimes)

Roger Stone, political operative
("Stone maintains he never did anything illegal during Watergate" (Wikipedia))
(was not charged with any crimes)

___________________________________

John Erlichman: former Nixon White House Counsel (!), then Domestic Affairs advisor to the president. (Not a member of the Committee to Re-Elect the President) (convicted)

("convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury and other charges on January 1, 1975 (along with John N. Mitchell and Haldeman). All three men were initially sentenced to between two and a half and eight years in prison" ... (Wikipedia))



22margd
Jan 26, 8:33am Top

President Trump: Don't be too nice
CNN | Jul 28, 2017

President Donald Trump traveled to Long Island Friday to discuss efforts to combat the violent MS-13 gang, telling law enforcement "don't be too nice" and warning immigrant criminals he is seeking to deport them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eVPKpBKGCE&feature=youtu.be&t=17

23margd
Jan 27, 12:18pm Top

Chart alone makes this article worth a read:

Trump and His Associates Had More Than 100 Contacts With Russians Before the Inauguration
KAREN YOURISH and LARRY BUCHANAN | JAN. 26, 2019

During the 2016 presidential campaign and transition, Donald J. Trump and at least 17 campaign officials and advisers had contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, a New York Times analysis has found. At least 10 other associates were told about interactions but did not have any themselves.

Knowledge of these interactions is based on New York Times reporting, documents submitted to Congress, and court records and accusations related to the special counsel investigating foreign interference in the election...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russia...

24proximity1
Edited: Jan 28, 5:23am Top

>23 margd:

"During the 2016 presidential campaign and transition, Donald J. Trump and at least 17 campaign officials and advisers had contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, a New York Times analysis has found. At least 10 other associates were told about interactions but did not have any themselves."



Not only is there no crime in this, there isn't even an impeachable offense in any of this--per se.


People bent on "getting Trump" at any cost are shredding the Constitution just to gratify their sick, demented bigoted, partisan, obsessions.


________________________________________

"One sees more devils than vast Hell can hold.
That is the madman."
A Midsummer Night’s Dream

25margd
Jan 28, 10:55am Top

Kamala Harris Slams Donald Trump's Russia Connections, Says Foreign Powers Are 'Infecting the White House Like Malware'
Cristina Maza On 1/28/19

...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California like Harris, noted that, “it’s very interesting to see the kinds of people the president of the U.S. surrounded himself with,” and added that it is “bothersome” that Trump appears to be giving Russian President Vladimir Putin much of what he wants, including questioning the value of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

On Sunday, the Trump administration lifted sanctions on the companies belonging to Kremlin ally Oleg Deripaska, who is sanctioned over Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Reports have demonstrated that the Treasury Department’s decision will benefit Deripaska and, by extension, his ally Vladimir Putin.

Shares in two of Deripaska’s firms, Rusal and EN+, shot up by around 10 percent on Monday after the sanctions were lifted. Some critics have pointed to the Treasury Department’s decision as evidence that the Trump administration is implementing policies that will directly benefit Russia. Even 136 House Republicans broke ranks and voted against the lifting of sanctions.

https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-slams-donald-trump-russia-connections-for...

26JGL53
Jan 28, 7:03pm Top

If all the Russian contacts were so innocent and crime-free then why did all these people go balls to the wall denying it ever happened until they were forced by the evidence to admit they had been lying?

trump apologists have no logical or rational answer to this, just more smoke and bullshit.

27margd
Jan 29, 3:57am Top

Mitch McConnell’s Ties to Russian Oil Money
The Democratic Coalition | Jan 28, 2019

...(GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)) recently voted to drop sanctions against Russian aluminum company RusAl which is still owned by one of Vladimir Putin’s sanctioned oligarchs, Oleg Deripaska. His action directly benefits one of the GOP leader’s major donors, whose fortune comes from Russian oil.

The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC run by Sen. McConnell’s former Chief of Staff, received a total of $3,500,000 ($2,500,000 in 2016 and $1,000,000 in 2017) via Access Industries and a subsidiary. Len Blavatnik is a Russian oligarch with US and UK citizenship who owns Access Industries and donated to Sen. McConnell’s 2016 Senate campaign vehicles...

https://medium.com/@TheDemCoalition/mitch-mcconnells-ties-to-russian-oil-money-d...

28margd
Edited: Jan 30, 4:13am Top

Kenneth P. Vogel @kenvogel (NYT)| 11:15 AM - 29 Jan 2019:
NEW: The billionaire donor LEN BLAVATNIK stands to make $$$$$ from @USTreasury’s move on Sunday
to lift sanctions on OLEG DERIPASKA’s @UC_RUSAL.
* In 2017, Blavatnik announced an investment in a film company that was owned partly by … STEVE MNUCHIN.

Steven Mnuchin Draws Claims of Conflict of Interest in Decision on Russian Oligarch
Kenneth P. Vogel | Jan. 29, 2019

...Len Blavatnik (is) a major investor in (Oleg) Deripaska’s giant aluminum company...

“We are seeking an explanation as to how you managed your own potential conflicts of interest arising from your personal and professional relationships with major Rusal shareholder Len Blavatnik, a key beneficiary from your decision to delist Rusal,” the lawmakers, Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said in the letter...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/us/politics/steven-mnuchin-russia-sanctions.h...

29proximity1
Jan 31, 6:05am Top



the once-proud American "Left" stands shamed for its now obvious self-serving bias --


Why Was Stone Arrested Instead of Being Asked to Surrender? | by Alan M. Dershowitz | January 29, 2019 at 3:00 pm


"If there was no legitimate reason for the arrest and handcuffing of this presumed innocent defendant, what was the illegitimate reason? The illegitimate purpose of the arrest was to intimidate the potential witness—namely Stone—into not invoking his constitutional right to remain silent, rather than to testify as a government witness.

"The ACLU has been absolutely silent in regard to the questionable tactics employed by Mueller. They, too, would have been up in arms had these tactics been employed against their favorite candidate and mine, Hillary Clinton. Their silence speaks volumes about their partisanship and lack of neutral standards of civil liberties."


30margd
Jan 31, 2:06pm Top

Mueller: Shared evidence was used to discredit special counsel probe
DARREN SAMUELSOHN | 01/30/2019

Robert Mueller’s office on Wednesday accused a Twitter account with apparent ties to Russia of disclosing more than 1,000 files that the special counsel shared in an active criminal case, all in a bid to discredit his investigation.

...Mueller lodged the complaint in an 18-page court filing that objects to a discovery request from the Russian company Concord Management and Consulting, which has been charged with helping orchestrate the massive online campaign to interfere with the election.

According to the Mueller filing, the Twitter handle @HackingRedstone posted a message in late October 2018 claiming access to the special counsel investigation’s database “as we hacked Russian server with info from the Russian troll case Concord LLC v. Mueller. You can view all the files Mueller had about the IRA Internet Research Agency and Russian collusion. Enjoy the reading!”

On the same day as the tweet, Mueller’s office said, an unidentified reporter contacted the special counsel and explained the receipt of a direct message via Twitter from an individual “who stated that they had received discovery material by hacking into a Russian legal company that had obtained discovery material from Reed Smith,” the U.S.-based law firm representing Concord.

...more than 1,000 of the 300,000 files on the website linked from the @HackingRedstone tweet included markings unique to materials that it had shared with Concord during earlier rounds of discovery. The FBI also determined that the website was registered about a week before the at-issue tweet, with an IP address in Russia.

...motive: “to discredit the investigation” by the special counsel.

Concord, owned by Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a Russian businessman and restaurateur known as Putin’s chef, is the sole defendant to officially come forward in the Mueller social media case. That indictment, brought in February 2018, also charged two other Russian companies and 13 Russian individuals in a conspiracy to set up a secretive social media campaign and organizing effort to disrupt the 2016 U.S. election.

In preparing its defense, Concord’s Washington-based lawyers have used U.S. laws and constitutional rights to secure access to about four million documents from Mueller’s office through discovery, a majority of which have been dubbed “sensitive” and come with additional restrictions for their review.

Last June, a federal judge in Washington issued an order telling Concord’s lawyers they were the only ones allowed to access, share or discuss the “sensitive” materials unless they got court approval. The order also mandated that the discovery materials could be stored only in an offline location at Reed Smith’s U.S. offices and couldn’t be “disclosed, transported or transmitted outside the United States.”

Concord in December took issue with those restrictions on “sensitive” materials and filed a motion seeking to share the materials in Russia with Concord’s officers and employees “for purpose of preparing for trial.”...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/30/mueller-special-counsel-russia-twitter...
__________________________________________________​

Darren Samuelsohn @dsamuelsohnn | 8:03 AM - 31 Jan 2019:

Reed Smith today denied responsibility for the breach Mueller’s team raised in court. The Pittsburgh-based international law firm said it had “never hosted or maintained any of the data at issue” in the Concord case on its internal computer systems. 1/2

“Reed Smith and its lawyers have at all times complied with the protective order in this case. As such, no data was obtained via a breach of Reed Smith systems and we are confident that Reed Smith systems have not been breached.” 2/2 https://politi.co/2GfT0Mp via @politico

31StormRaven
Jan 31, 2:39pm Top

29: It is hilarious to see proximity reduced to whining about how accused felons were arrested, especially after they have spent so much time warning about how Obama, Clinton, and a host of others were "in jeopardy" of criminal charges (that seem to have not materialized despite the DoJ and FBI having been controlled by their political opponents for two years now).

32StormRaven
Jan 31, 8:04pm Top

10: Thus, like your relationship with your medical doctor, in your relationship with an attorney, your lawyer cannot legally divulge any knowledge he may have gained from you, about you to a third-party--whether that information concerns legal or illegal acts you have or may have committed..

There is one exception. Your lawyer's attorney-client-privilege-obligations do not prohibit him from revealing his knowledge of crimes you have indicated you intend to commit but have not yet committed. He may be professionally obliged to notify law-enforcement authorities of information he has gained from you about a crime you plan and intend to commit.

NO CLIENT EVER HAS TO ASK HIS ATTORNEY TO LIE TO THE AUTHORITIES ABOUT HIS PAST BEHAVIOR, PAST ACTS, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL--WHETHER UNDER OATH OR NOT--SIMPLY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE CLIENT'S BEING INVESTIGATED, CHARGED, OR TRIED FOR A CRIMINAL ACT.

THE ATTORNEY IS ALREADY BARRED FROM DIVULGING INFORMATION ON HIS CLIENTS' PAST BEHAVIOR TO THEIR LEGAL DETRIMENT BECAUSE HE IS THEIR ATTORNEY.


As usual, proximity knows just enough to make himself look stupid. The crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege not only applies when a client indicates that they intend to commit a crime in the future, but when they reveal that they intend to further an already committed crime or attempt to cover it up. So, for example, if Trump came to Cohen and asked him to do something to help prevent a campaign finance violation from being revealed, that's not covered by attorney-client privilege, as concealing campaign finance violations is a crime. Even if all of the activity done to that end is now in the past, none of it is subject to attorney-client privilege.

In addition, there are several instances in which communications between an attorney and a client simply aren't covered by attorney-client privilege. The first limitation is that the privilege only extends to matters related to the attorney's representation of the client. Matters outside the scope of the representation are not subject to privilege - and the courts have been pretty clear that an attorney can't represent someone "on everything". Hence, anything Trump may have told Cohen that was outside the scope of Cohen's legal work for Trump is not subject to attorney-client privilege. Given that a lot of what Cohen did for Trump seems to have been "not legal work", that could cover a lot of ground. Trump has said, for example, that he didn't know what Cohen was doing with respect to Stormy Daniels, a statement that weighs against Cohen's work in that area being legal representation of Trump.

Further, communications that have been shared with third parties are not subject to attorney-client privilege. Therefore, anything Cohen may have communicated to Stormy Daniels are her attorney is not subject to privilege. Anything communicated between Trump and Cohen that included a third party neither employed by or represented by Cohen is not subject to privilege. For example, if Jared Kushner was included on any communications between Trump and Cohen, the communication would not be privileged unless Kushner was also represented by Cohen at the time. If Trump ever had one of his secretaries sit in one a meeting with Cohen, none of those communications are privileged (because Cohen represented Trump, not Trump's company).

There are a couple of other ways that privilege can be waived or broken, but I think the point is clear - attorney-client privilege is not nearly as airtight as proximity would have you believe, and there are several ways that it would plausibly not apply to communications between Trump and Cohen. The idea that there would be no reason for Trump to threaten Cohen because attorney-client privilege exists is simply ludicrous on its face.

33margd
Feb 1, 4:28am Top

Exclusive: Trump Jr.'s mysterious calls weren't with his father
Pamela Brown, Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb | February 1, 2019

...Records provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee show the calls were between Trump Jr. and two of his business associates, the sources said, and appear to contradict Democrats' long-held suspicions that the blocked number was from then-candidate Donald Trump.

...Trump Jr.'s phone records included calls with two blocked phone numbers the same day he exchanged calls with Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, the son of a Russian oligarch who spearheaded the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. The calls came three days before the Trump Tower meeting, and an additional call with a private number occurred several hours after the meeting.

CNN has not confirmed the identity of the business associates who spoke with Trump Jr. nor what they discussed on the calls. The purpose of the calls and their relevance to the Trump Tower meeting and the Russia investigation is still unclear. Trump Jr. attorney Alan Futerfas declined to comment...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/senate-investigators-blocked-phone-calls...

34proximity1
Edited: Feb 1, 6:01am Top

>32 StormRaven:



"The crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege not only applies when a client indicates that they intend to commit a crime in the future, but when they reveal that they intend to further an already committed crime or attempt to cover it up."


Yeah, well, I never asserted that the privilege extended to an obligation on the attorney's part to make himself nothing less than an "accessory-to the crime(s) at issue-after-the-fact."

But these objections are simply beside the point and introduce falsely-based complications where there aren't any.

It's like this: you do or you may face questioning before, during or after actual arrest on on criminal charges. At that questioning, you have a right to the presence and counsel of an attorney, upon your request; you also have a Miranda-right to be informed of your right to the presence of legal counsel prior to the start of the questioning.

You, the subject of examination, may not have been clearly informed of the charges, actual or potential, which are behind the authorities' questions; be that as it may, any competent attorney advising you shall immediately recognize any questions put to you which could, if answered, contribute to incriminating yourself. The immediate foundation of the question is beside the point, You have no obligation to respond to any potentially-incriminating question. A professional capacity to recognize these is beyond what many people untrained in the law have; thus the importance of having the counsel of a good lawyer.

Suppose then, that, despite your careful replies, the authorities proceed to charge you with a crime. Now, both you and your lawyer know the basis for your questioning. Your lawyer's duty to you has of course preceded the moment of the formal arrest and charge. His job is to help you keep from incriminating yourself in whatever manner it may be --since it can and does happen that completely innocent people are stopped, brought in for questioning and even charged with a crime over matters that not only have nothing to do with them but about which they have no knowledge.

It's always your attorney's prerogative to determine whether or not he'll continue to represent you as the facts of the case unfold. But the point here is that, even if you confessed your guilt in private conference with your lawyer, he can't divulge that fact or his knowledge of it to anyone--especially the police.

You, of course, have to--or, well, you ought to, if you have any sense-- tell your lawyer everything he needs to know in order to defend you. And in doing so, it can seem that, just to adequately defend you, your lawyer is doing what resembles "attempt(ing) to cover it up." But, since the authorities have the burden of proving the defendant's guilt, virtually everything his lawyer does to defend him can fit what strikes some people as "attempt to cover it up." FFS! Your lawyer's job is to do everything legally possible to prevent his client's conviction based on evidence which is not properly and legally obtained from the defendant himself.

But you don't have to reveal anything else to your lawyer concerning other things you've done--or even may be planning to do.

It can look to a lay person like a lawyer who keep's his knowledge of his client's guilt confidential is in some way participating in the principal crime on which the charges are based--like he's "further(ing) an already committed crime or attempt to cover it up". But, as your lawyer, he's excused of liability for defending your rights to a fair trial--one in which the authorities bear their burden to prove your guilt without forcing your own direct cooperation with their efforts to convict you.


"So, for example, if Trump came to Cohen and asked him to do something to help prevent a campaign finance violation from being revealed, that's not covered by attorney-client privilege, as concealing campaign finance violations is a crime."


He'd be stupid to do that, And, clearly, he's just not that stupid. You haven't explained a sane scenario by which he'd ever do such a thing. Moreover, again, Trump's lawyer wouldn't be aware of any such violation was under investigation unless either the authorities or Trump or someone under Trump informed the lawyer. As soon as the lawyer is aware of a potential criminal liability, his duty to Trump vests--just as always.

So, there are only two possible scenarios:

You, an attorney, are questioned about matters relating to your client and you either have no knowledge of them, in which case, your honest answers to all such questions are, "I'm not aware of anything relating to this"; or you are aware of your client's involvement--real or potential--in which case your honest answer is determined by your duty to your client: "I'm not at liberty to answer your question as it concerns a matter of attorney-client privilege. If asked, I'll advise my client to invoke his 5th-amendment-right to refuse to answer"



"Even if all of the activity done to that end is now in the past, none of it is subject to attorney-client privilege."

Really? Then please cite the as-yet-missing controlling statute or case-law which supports that claim.

"In addition, there are several instances in which communications between an attorney and a client simply aren't covered by attorney-client privilege. The first limitation is that the privilege only extends to matters related to the attorney's representation of the client."

True. And that's ALL we're concerned with here: "matters related to the attorney's representation of the client." Because, whenever an attorney is placed under oath and asked questions which relate to his knowledge of his client's acts, these questions directly and necessarily concern "matters related to the attorney's representation of the client."--otherwise, the attorney either would, again, know nothing about them or he wouldn't be facing the questions under oath in the first place.

"Matters outside the scope of the representation are not subject to privilege - and the courts have been pretty clear that an attorney can't represent someone "on everything". Hence, anything Trump may have told Cohen that was outside the scope of Cohen's legal work for Trump is not subject to attorney-client privilege. "

Again, please cite the missing supporting controlling case-law or statute which properly applies to the context being discussed here. "Thank you!"


Given that a lot of what Cohen did for Trump seems to have been "not legal work", that could cover a lot of ground. Trump has said, for example, that he didn't know what Cohen was doing with respect to Stormy Daniels, a statement that weighs against Cohen's work in that area being legal representation of Trump.


Again, since when it it illegal to offer payment and have that payment voluntarily-accepted in return for a pledge to silence about it on the part of someone with whom one has had an extra-marital affair?

I've repeatedly asked this and I'm still waiting for the first clear answer.

GOT ONE!?!?

35StormRaven
Edited: Feb 1, 8:58am Top

Moreover, again, Trump's lawyer wouldn't be aware of any such violation was under investigation unless either the authorities or Trump or someone under Trump informed the lawyer. As soon as the lawyer is aware of a potential criminal liability, his duty to Trump vests--just as always.

Incorrect. If a client uses the representation to further or cover up a crime - even if the lawyer does not know it is being used to further or cover up a crime at the time - the attorney-client privilege does not apply.

Again, please cite the missing supporting controlling case-law or statute which properly applies to the context being discussed here.

Try Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 299 (1990) for a start.

Because, whenever an attorney is placed under oath and asked questions which relate to his knowledge of his client's acts, these questions directly and necessarily concern "matters related to the attorney's representation of the client."

Incorrect. For example, look at John Gotti's effort to claim that his lawyer represented him "in all matters" in an effort to prevent material gained via wiretapping from being admissible against him, a claim that was rejected by the courts.

Again, since when it it illegal to offer payment and have that payment voluntarily-accepted in return for a pledge to silence about it on the part of someone with whom one has had an extra-marital affair?

If that payment was made using campaign funds, that would be illegal. If the payment was made to cover up a crime, that would be illegal (and in many states, extra-marital affairs are technically crimes). There are a variety of ways in which payments to Daniels could be a crime, the fact that you seem to be continuously perplexed by this is just an indication that you are entirely out of your depth when discussing these sorts of issues, but then again, you seem to be entirely out of your depth when discussing almost anything, so that's not really a surprise.

Once again, you know just enough to make yourself look stupid. The lawyers of the world are laughing at you right now.

36margd
Edited: Feb 1, 10:35am Top

33 contd.

...Their signature slime might have also evolved as a result of that lifestyle, as a way of fending off predators that were competing for cadavers. “Everything about hagfish is weird,” says Fudge, “but it all kind of fits.”... (Oops, slip of the copy-and-paste--I seem to have conflated hagfish and trumps! Mybad. ;-)

Reports: Don Jr.'s blocked phone calls before Russia meeting weren't to Trump
Zachary Basu | Jan 13, 2019

...Three sources familiar with the calls tell ABC News that the blocked numbers belong to NASCAR CEO Brian France and real estate developer Howard Lorber, longtime Trump family friends who supported the president during the 2016 campaign. Lorber has extensive business dealings in Russia and brought Trump to Moscow in 1996 to explore real estate options, according to the Washington Post...

https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-jr-blocked-phone-calls-2016-russia-meeting-75...

ETA_______________________________________________​

Another Trump adviser with deep ties to Russia
Josh Rogin | August 10, 2016

(Businessman and investor Howard Lorber)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/08/10/another-trump-advis...

37StormRaven
Feb 1, 9:28am Top

Really? Then please cite the as-yet-missing controlling statute or case-law which supports that claim.

Here's the relevant section of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility:

Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.6(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
. . .
(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services;


And here is the explanatory note provided by the ABA concerning that section:

Paragraph (b)(3) addresses the situation in which the lawyer does not learn of the client’s crime or fraud until after it has been consummated. Although the client no longer has the option of preventing disclosure by refraining from the wrongful conduct, there will be situations in which the loss suffered by the affected person can be prevented, rectified or mitigated. In such situations, the lawyer may disclose information relating to the representation to the extent necessary to enable the affected persons to prevent or mitigate reasonably certain losses or to attempt to recoup their losses. Paragraph (b)(3) does not apply when a person who has committed a crime or fraud thereafter employs a lawyer for representation concerning that offense.


This rule specifically relates to crimes or frauds that happened in the past, and for which the lawyer's services were used to further that crime or fraud. Thus, if Trump asked Cohen to help him cover up or perpetuate a crime - for example, using campaign funds to pay off a porn star - then nothing about that transaction is protected by attorney-client privilege.

38proximity1
Edited: Feb 1, 11:42am Top

>35 StormRaven:

Just as I expected.

Please explain to us V E R Y S L O W L Y and C L E A R L Y how the following is at all analogous to the circumstances and context of Trump and his lawyer-client privilege.

As an IMPORTANT part of that, you're going to have to show us where an attorney-client privilege is involved in Illinois v. Perkins Hmm? Because this is integral to this discussion.

Lawyers are laughing at me in this matter?! Bring them on--- if you can!



I'd love to be in court as you try and convince a judge who is both awake and mentally-competent of the applicabilty Illinois v. Perkins!, LOL!

U.S. Supreme Court
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)
Illinois v. Perkins

No. 88-1972

Argued Feb. 20, 1990

Decided June 4, 1990

496 U.S. 292

Syllabus

Police placed undercover agent Parisi in a jail cellblock with respondent Perkins, who was incarcerated on charges unrelated to the murder that Parisi was investigating. When Parisi asked him if he had ever killed anybody, Perkins made statements implicating himself in the murder. He was then charged with the murder. The trial court granted respondent's motion to suppress his statements on the ground that Parisi had not given him the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, before their conversations. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed, holding that Miranda prohibits all undercover contacts with incarcerated suspects that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

Held: An undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate need not give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that may elicit an incriminating response. The Miranda doctrine must be enforced strictly, but only in situations where the concerns underlying that decision are present. Those concerns are not implicated here, since the essential ingredients of a "police dominated atmosphere" and compulsion are lacking. It is Miranda's premise that the danger of coercion results from the interaction of custody and official interrogation, whereby the suspect may feel compelled to speak by the fear of reprisal for remaining silent or in the hope of more lenient treatment should he confess. That coercive atmosphere is not present when an incarcerated person speaks freely to someone whom he believes to be a fellow inmate and whom he assumes is not an officer having official power over him. In such circumstances, Miranda does not forbid mere strategic deception by taking advantage of a suspect's misplaced trust. The only difference between this case and Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293 -- which upheld the placing of an undercover agent near a suspect in order to gather incriminating information -- is that Perkins was incarcerated. Detention, however, whether or not for the crime in question, does not warrant a presumption that such use of an undercover agent renders involuntary the incarcerated suspect's resulting confession. Mathis v. United States, 391 U. S. 1 -- which held that an inmate's statements to a known agent were inadmissible because no Miranda warnings were given -- is distinguishable. Where the suspect does not

Page 496 U. S. 293

know that he is speaking to a government agent, there is no reason to assume the possibility of coercion. Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201, and similar cases -- which held that the government may not use an undercover agent to circumvent the Sixth Amendment right to counsel once a suspect has been charged -- are inapplicable, since, here, no murder charges had been filed at the time of interrogation. Also unavailing is Perkins' argument that a bright-line rule for the application of Miranda is desirable, since law enforcement officers will have little difficulty applying the holding of this case. Pp. 496 U. S. 296-300.

176 Ill.App.3d 443, 126 Ill.Dec. 8, 531 N.E.2d 141 (1988), reversed and remanded.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 496 U. S. 300. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 496 U. S. 303.



Did you read Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion?

I bet you didn't.



JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.

This Court clearly and simply stated its holding in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966): "(T)he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." Id., at 444. The conditions that require the police to apprise a defendant of his constitutional rights - custodial interrogation conducted by an agent of the police - were present in this (496 U.S. 292, 304) case. Because Lloyd Perkins received no Miranda warnings before he was subjected to custodial interrogation, his confession was not admissible.

The Court reaches the contrary conclusion by fashioning an exception to the Miranda rule that applies whenever "an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate . . . ask(s) questions that may elicit an incriminating response" from an incarcerated suspect. Ante, at 300. This exception is inconsistent with the rationale supporting Miranda and allows police officers intentionally to take advantage of suspects unaware of their constitutional rights. I therefore dissent.

The Court does not dispute that the police officer here conducted a custodial interrogation of a criminal suspect. Perkins was incarcerated in county jail during the questioning at issue here; under these circumstances, he was in custody as that term is defined in Miranda. 384 U.S., at 444 ; Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 4 -5 (1968) (holding that defendant incarcerated on charges different from the crime about which he is questioned was in custody for purposes of Miranda). The United States argues that Perkins was not in custody for purpose of Miranda because he was familiar with the custodial environment as a result of being in jail for two days and previously spending time in prison. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11. Perkins' familiarity with confinement, however, does not transform his incarceration into some sort of noncustodial arrangement. Cf. Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (1969) (holding that suspect who had been arrested in his home and then questioned in his bedroom was in custody, notwithstanding his familiarity with the surroundings).

While Perkins was confined, an undercover police officer. with the help of a police informant, questioned him about a serious crime. Although the Court does not dispute that Perkins was interrogated, it downplays the nature of the 35-minute questioning by disingenuously referring to it as a (496 U.S. 292, 305) "conversatio(n)." Ante, at 295, 296. The officer's narration of the "conversation" at Perkins' suppression hearing, however, reveals that it clearly was an interrogation.


"(Agent:) You ever do anyone?
"(Perkins:) Yeah, once in East St. Louis, in a rich white neighborhood.
"Informant: I didn't know they had any rich white neighborhoods in East St. Louis.
"Perkins: It wasn't in East St. Louis, it was by a race track in Fairview Heights. . . .
"(Agent): You did a guy in Fairview Heights?
"Perkins: Yeah in a rich white section where most of the houses look the same.
"(Informant): If all the houses look the same, how did you know you had the right house?
"Perkins: Me and two guys cased the house for about a week. I knew exactly which house, the second house on the left from the corner.
"(Agent): How long ago did this happen?
"Perkins: Approximately about two years ago. I got paid $5,000 for that job.
"(Agent): How did it go down?
"Perkins: I walked up (to) this guy('s) house with a sawed-off under my trench coat.
"(Agent): What type gun(?)
"Perkins: A .12 gauge Remmington (sic) Automatic Model 1100 sawed-off." App. 49-50.


The police officer continued the inquiry, asking a series of questions designed to elicit specific information about the victim, the crime scene, the weapon, Perkins' motive, and his actions during and after the shooting. Id., at 50-52. This interaction was not a "conversation"; Perkins, the officer, and the informant were not equal participants in a free-ranging discussion, with each man offering his views on different topics. Rather, it was an interrogation: Perkins was subjected to express questioning likely to evoke an incriminating response. (496 U.S. 292, 306) Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 -301 (1980).

Because Perkins was interrogated by police while he was in custody, Miranda required that the officer inform him of his rights. In rejecting that conclusion, the Court finds that "conversations" between undercover agents and suspects are devoid of the coercion inherent in station house interrogations conducted by law enforcement officials who openly represent the State. Ante, at 296.

Miranda was not, however, concerned solely with police coercion. It dealt with any police tactics that may operate to compel a suspect in custody to make incriminating statements without full awareness of his constitutional rights. See Miranda, supra, at 468 (referring to "inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere"); Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 467 (1981) ("The purpose of (the Miranda) admonitions is to combat what the Court saw as `inherently compelling pressures' at work on the person and to provide him with an awareness of the Fifth Amendment privilege and the consequences of forgoing it") (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S., at 467 ).

Thus, when a law enforcement agent structures a custodial interrogation so that a suspect feels compelled to reveal incriminating information, he must inform the suspect of his constitutional rights and give him an opportunity to decide whether or not to talk.


The compulsion proscribed by Miranda includes deception by the police. See Miranda, supra, at 453 (indicting police tactics "to induce a confession out of trickery," such as using fictitious witnesses or false accusations); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 433 (1984) ("The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda are to ensure that the police do not coerce or trick captive suspects into confessing") (emphasis deleted and added (Note: this is in the original) ). Cf. Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986)

("(T)he relinquishment of the right (protected by the Miranda warnings) must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception") (emphasis (496 U.S. 292, 307) added). Although the Court did not find trickery by itself sufficient to constitute compulsion in Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966), the defendant in that case was not in custody. Perkins, however, was interrogated while incarcerated. As the Court has acknowledged in the Sixth Amendment context: "(T)he mere fact of custody imposes pressures on the accused; confinement may bring into play subtle influences that will make him particularly susceptible to the ploys of undercover Government agents." United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 274 (1980). See also Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 206 (1964) (holding, in the context of the Sixth Amendment, that defendant's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination was "more seriously imposed upon . . . because he did not even know that he was under interrogation by a government agent") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Custody works to the State's advantage in obtaining incriminating information. The psychological pressures inherent in confinement increase the suspect's anxiety, making him likely to seek relief by talking with others. Dix, Undercover Investigations and Police Rulemaking, 53 Texas L. Rev. 203, 230 (1975). See also Gibbs, The First Cut is the Deepest: Psychological Breakdown and Survival in the Detention Setting, in The Pains of Imprisonment 97, 107 (R. Johnson & H. Toch eds. 1982); Hagel-Seymour, Environmental Sanctuaries for Susceptible Prisoners, in The Pains of Imprisonment, supra, at 267, 279; Chicago Tribune, Apr. 15, 1990, p. D3 (prosecutors have found that prisoners often talk freely with fellow inmates). The inmate is thus more susceptible to efforts by undercover agents to elicit information from him. Similarly, where the suspect is incarcerated, the constant threat of physical danger peculiar to the prison environment may make him demonstrate his toughness to other inmates by recounting or inventing past violent acts. "Because the suspect's ability to select people with whom he can confide is completely within their control, the police have a (496 U.S. 292, 308) unique opportunity to exploit the suspect's vulnerability. In short, the police can insure that if the pressures of confinement lead the suspect to confide in anyone, it will be a police agent." (Footnote omitted.) White, "Police Trickery in Inducing Confessions", 127 U. Pa. L. Rev. 581, 605 (1979). In this case, the police deceptively took advantage of Perkins' psychological vulnerability by including him in a sham escape plot, a situation in which he would feel compelled to demonstrate his willingness to shoot a prison guard by revealing his past involvement in a murder. See App. 49 (agent stressed that a killing might be necessary in the escape and then asked Perkins if he had ever murdered someone).

Thus, the pressures unique to custody allow the police to use deceptive interrogation tactics to compel a suspect to make an incriminating statement. The compulsion is not eliminated by the suspect's ignorance of his interrogator's true identity. The Court therefore need not inquire past the bare facts of custody and interrogation to determine whether Miranda warnings are required.

The Court's adoption of an exception to the Miranda doctrine is incompatible with the principle, consistently applied by this Court, that the doctrine should remain simple and clear. See, e. g., Miranda, supra, at 441-442 (noting that one reason certiorari was granted was "to give concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow"); McCarty, supra, at 430 (noting that one of "the principal advantages of the (Miranda) doctrine . . . is the clarity of that rule"); Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 680 (1988) (same). See also New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 657 -658 (1984) (recognizing need for clarity in Miranda doctrine and finding that narrow "public safety" exception would not significantly lessen clarity and would be easy for police to apply). We explained the benefits of a bright-line rule in Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979): "Miranda's holding has the virtue of informing police and prosecutors with specificity as to what they may do in conducting custodial (496 U.S. 292, 309) interrogation, and of informing courts under what circumstances statements obtained during such interrogation are not admissible." Id., at 718.

The Court's holding today complicates a previously clear and straightforward doctrine. The Court opines that "(l)aw enforcement officers will have little difficulty putting into practice our holding that undercover agents need not give Miranda warnings to incarcerated suspects." Ante, at 299-300.

Perhaps this prediction is true with respect to fact patterns virtually identical to the one before the Court today. But the outer boundaries of the exception created by the Court are by no means clear.

Would Miranda be violated, for instance, if an undercover police officer beat a confession out of a suspect, but the suspect thought the officer was another prisoner who wanted the information for his own purposes?


Even if Miranda, as interpreted by the Court, would not permit such obviously compelled confessions, the ramifications of today's opinion are still disturbing. The exception carved out of the Miranda doctrine today may well result in a proliferation of departmental policies to encourage police officers to conduct interrogations of confined suspects through undercover agents, thereby circumventing the need to administer Miranda warnings. Indeed, if Miranda now requires a police officer to issue warnings only in those situations in which the suspect might feel compelled "to speak by the fear of reprisal for remaining silent or in the hope of more lenient treatment should he confess," ante, at 296-297, presumably it allows custodial interrogation by an undercover officer posing as a member of the clergy or a suspect's defense attorney. Although such abhorrent tricks would play on a suspect's need to confide in a trusted adviser, neither would cause the suspect to "think that the listeners have official power over him," ante, at 297. The Court's adoption of the "undercover agent" exception to the Miranda rule thus is necessarily also the adoption of a substantial loophole in our jurisprudence protecting suspects' Fifth Amendment rights.

I dissent. (496 U.S. 292, 310 )



Your view, which I regard as not only morally repugnant but viciously so, amounts to (surreptitiously) amending the 5th Amendment to read (in part):

..."nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself--except in so far as the authorities are able, through trickery, deception and any other false pretenses, to induce such person
to unwittingly bear witness against himself."


How do youreply to Marshall's objection that, by such logic as founds the court's opinion in this case, it would serve just as well to send in a phony doctor, lawyer--posing, falsely as the suspects 'newly-assigned defender', or clergy and by such impersonation, gain a so-called legally-valid admission of guilt or confession?

And, in a similar vein, what is now to stop the wholesale use of sworn questioning of any and all attorneys by asking them,


"Now, recalling that you are under oath, I ask you to reflect on all the individuals you do represent or have in the past represented in any capacity: are there, among these, any instances you recall in which one or more of these clients has divulged to you an admission of criminal acts--acts which were not within the scope of the representation for which you were, at the time, associated with the client(s)?

"Which clients were they? And in what crimes did they, by their statements, incriminate themselves?"


The more I read of your views, the more I'm relieved to be so often at so total opposition to them. They disgust me.

39StormRaven
Feb 1, 6:07pm Top

Did you read Justice Marshall's dissenting opinion?

The fact that you spent almost all of your post wailing about a dissenting opinion which has no legal weight at all is why lawyers are laughing at you. At this point, you're as much as wearing a red rubber nose and giant floppy clown shoes.

The reason the case matters here is that the defendant was represented by counsel in another matter at the time the incident dealt with in the opinion occurred. The defendant attempted to argue that this meant that the agent could not question him without his attorney present, but the court ruled against that defense. The scope of his attorney's representation was held to be limited to the other criminal charge against the defendant. This is a clear statement by the U.S. Supreme Court that the scope of an attorney's representation doesn't extend to "everything", and is in fact limited. Nothing Marshall wrote changes any of the conclusions reached by the majority. Citing Marshall's opinion is all but worthless in law, since it is the majority opinion that controls, not his dissent.

Your view, which I regard as not only morally repugnant but viciously so, amounts to (surreptitiously) amending the 5th Amendment to read (in part):

..."nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself--except in so far as the authorities are able, through trickery, deception and any other false pretenses, to induce such person
to unwittingly bear witness against himself."


That's not my view. That's the view of the Supreme Court of the United States, and has been for many decades. Tricking witnesses into making admissions against their own interests is part and parcel of the judicial system, and has been for longer than anyone posting on this forum has been alive. That's simply what the law is. If you're mad about that, you're mad at decades worth of Federal jurisprudence. Even if you don't like it, it doesn't change the fact that that is what the law is as applied, and as a result, is the standard that will be applied to Cohen.

We aren't talking about what you think the standards should be here, we are talking about what the standard applied by the law actually is, and that is not the standard that you have claimed that it is. Cohen has far broader latitude to testify than you have asserted, and attorney-client privilege is more limited than you have claimed. If you had any credibility left, I'd say you were draining it away by continually saying stupid things in this thread, but you are already have negative credibility on every subject, so all you're doing is piling up more negatives at this point.

40proximity1
Edited: Feb 2, 5:39am Top

>39 StormRaven:

"The reason the case matters here is that the defendant was represented by counsel in another matter at the time the incident dealt with in the opinion occurred. The defendant attempted to argue that this meant that the agent could not question him without his attorney present, but the court ruled against that defense."

I'll state the fucking OBVIOUS ONE MORE TIME --though you don't have the sense to get this straight:

That scenario, just summarized in your own words, has NOTHING to do with Trump or his lawyer-client privilege--nothing.

Every two-bit criminal with a rap-sheet has "had a lawyer represent him" and some, out on bail, pending trial, probably have a lawyer defending them. Those still get Miranda-warnings at their arrest and they still get the presumption of innocence--which means that they cannot properly be deprived of their right to refrain from becoming, by any ruse or other means. a witness against themselves. or, of course, it's a dead-letter in these instances.

My point was never about which "side's views" prevailed as the opinion of the court in Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990). It was, rather, that your citing this case as supporting precedent is fucking laughable in the context of Trump and his lawyer-matters. You don't, haven't and can't show reasonably that there's any sound relation in the two sets of circumstances.

You claim--or, actually, rather, you suggest, suppose or imply that the court's holding in Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990) supports your views on Trump's circumstances vis-à-vis Michael Cohen's duties toward Trump under the attorney-client privilege when, as a matter of fact, that is simply not known at this point since there has been no review and no ruling on the relationship from any court so far.

So, figuratively speaking, Trump and I shall "see you in court."

On its own demerits, Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990) is a disgraceful ruling and shall eventually be overturned by a court with better sense about justice and fundamental Constitutional rights. In the meantime, it still has nothing to do with Trump.

"you are already have negative credibility "

LOL! Fuck your estimate of my "credibility"! Your view of that has no interest or value to me.

"Tricking witnesses into making admissions against their own interests is part and parcel of the judicial system, and has been for longer than anyone posting on this forum has been alive."

So what? We can say the same about clandestine use of torture.

Trump won't be "rolled" like those Mueller has entrapped for "process crimes." He'll fight the charges in court. We'll then see which of these positions prevails. if prosecutors attempt to found part of their case against him on Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990), that may afford the current court a fine opportunity to strike down this holding's effect for purposes of attorney-client privilege.

YOU IGNORED JUSTICE MARSHALL's OBJECTIONS. I guess that's because you have no good argument against them and you retreat, instead, into such bullshit as,


"That's not my view. That's the view of the Supreme Court of the United States, and has been for many decades. Tricking witnesses into making admissions against their own interests is part and parcel of the judicial system, and has been for longer than anyone posting on this forum has been alive. That's simply what the law is."


41StormRaven
Feb 2, 11:21am Top

That scenario, just summarized in your own words, has NOTHING to do with Trump or his lawyer-client privilege--nothing.

It has to do with the scope of an attorney's representation, something you have repeatedly claimed somehow extends to everything.

It was, rather, that your citing this case as supporting precedent is fucking laughable in the context of Trump and his lawyer-matters. You don't, haven't and can't show reasonably that there's any sound relation in the two sets of circumstances.

So why did you spend 95% of your post harping on Marshall's legally completely irrelevant dissent and whining about how the majority opinion was a terrible ruling?

Those still get Miranda-warnings at their arrest and they still get the presumption of innocence--which means that they cannot properly be deprived of their right to refrain from becoming, by any ruse or other means. a witness against themselves. or, of course, it's a dead-letter in these instances.

You've gotten so worked up that you didn't notice that this is almost exactly what the Perkins decision ruled. Even if you are represented by a lawyer in one matter, you aren't entitled to have that treated as representation in another matter. You may not like it, but your objections are irrelevant as to what the law actually is.

On its own demerits, Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990) is a disgraceful ruling and shall eventually be overturned by a court with better sense about justice and fundamental Constitutional rights. In the meantime, it still has nothing to do with Trump.

Given the composition of the court, that seems unlikely for quite a while. In the meantime, those of us living in the real world and evaluating the law as it exists today have to deal with the fact that it is currently as stated in Illinois v. Perkins, whether you like it or not. And that opinion, whether you like it or not, is relevant as to the scope of an attorney's representation.

YOU IGNORED JUSTICE MARSHALL's OBJECTIONS.

I ignored Marshall's objections because, from a legal standpoint, they are irrelevant. A dissent has no precedential value. None. Any actual lawyer will tell you that. Relying upon a dissent to make your argument is a one-l level mistake, and one that will get you laughed at in the legal community. That's why you look like you are walking around in floppy clown shoes right now.

42margd
Feb 3, 8:52am Top

Trump reportedly needed a loan in 2016, but even Deutsche Bank turned him down
Amanda Sakuma Feb 2, 2019

Even Deutsche Bank — one of the final financial institutions willing to back Donald Trump — reportedly turned down the president when he needed a loan.

David Enrich, Jesse Drucker and Ben Protess report in the New York Times Saturday that while Trump was burning through cash in 2016 to self-finance his presidential campaign, he needed additional funds to keep his business growing. According to three unnamed sources familiar with the situation, Trump’s long-time financial backer took the rare move of turning him down:

Senior officials at the bank, including its future chief executive, believed that Mr. Trump’s divisive candidacy made such a loan too risky, the people said. Among their concerns was that if Mr. Trump won the election and then defaulted, Deutsche Bank would have to choose between not collecting on the debt or seizing the assets of the president of the United States.

...There are rumors that special counsel Robert Mueller has his eye on Deutsche, and that his office has reportedly asked for information and financial transactions made by Trump and members of his inner circle. The White House denies reports that Mueller has subpoenaed Trump’s bank records from Deutsche. But if Mueller hasn’t issued subpoenas, House Democrats say they will.

Reps. Maxine Waters and Adam Schiff, both California Democrats, have promised to compel Deutsche to hand over Trump’s financial records to investigate whether the president’s business dealings indicate any foreign entities are influencing him. Meanwhile, top Democrats in the Senate are pressuring Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) to open a full investigation in Deutsche Bank’s compliance history and money-laundering vulnerabilities...

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/2/18208425/deutsche-bank-reject-trump-loan-request-20...

__________________________________________________​

Deutsche Bank in Late 2016 Raced to Shed Loan It Made to Russian Bank VTB
Jenny Strasburg and Rebecca Ballhaus | Feb. 2, 2019

German lender sold a chunk of the loan to Russian financial institution Alfa Bank but Citigroup took a pass, documents and people familiar with the matter indicate

Deutsche Bank AG, seeking to slash its exposure to Russia in late 2016, scrambled to shed a $600 million loan it had outstanding to VTB Group, a large Russian state-owned bank, according to documents and people familiar with the funding...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/deutsche-bank-in-late-2016-raced-to-shed-loan-it-ma...

43margd
Feb 5, 9:06am Top

Trump Inaugural Committee Ordered to Hand Over Documents to Federal Investigators
Maggie Haberman and Ben Protess | Feb. 4, 2019

The (SDNY FBI) subpoena seeks documents related to all of the (Trump inaugural) committee’s donors and guests; any benefits handed out, including tickets and photo opportunities with the president; federal disclosure filings; vendors; contracts; and more, one of the people said.

...whether any foreigners illegally donated to the committee, as well as whether committee staff members knew that such donations were illegal, asking for documents laying out legal requirements for donations.

...all documents related to vendors and contractors with the inaugural committee, which raised a record $107 million and spent lavishly.

...prosecutors are interested in potential money laundering as well as election fraud

...The inaugural committee’s chairman was Thomas J. Barrack, a close friend of the president’s. Mr. Barrack’s close aide working on the committee was Rick Gates

...The Manhattan investigation into the inaugural committee grew out of the investigation into Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer.

...Mr. Cohen (recording) spoke to Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, who was a top official on the inaugural committee...entities controlled by Ms. Winston Wolkoff were paid $26 million. The vast majority of those funds went to a subcontractor (pay 14 people)...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/us/politics/trump-inaugural-committee-subpoen...

44margd
Feb 5, 9:57am Top

Perjury Chart: Trump Associates’ Lies, False, or Misleading Statements on Russia to Federal Authorities
Ryan Goodman | December 3, 2018

It is a federal offense to intentionally make false statements to Congress, the FBI, and other federal authorities. It is also a crime to encourage others to do so (that is, in technical terms, to “suborn perjury”). It is also a crime to engage in a conspiracy to lie to federal authorities. A conspiracy can involve a tacit or explicit agreement to commit the criminal activity.

Here is a summary of the 19-page Chart which is below (as a PDF document). It will be updated as new information becomes public. Major updates will be announced on Twitter and Facebook...

https://www.justsecurity.org/61682/perjury-chart-trump-associates-lies-false-sta...

45margd
Feb 5, 10:07am Top

A Lobbyist At The Trump Tower Meeting Received Half A Million Dollars In Suspicious Payments
Anthony Cormier, Jason Leopold, Tanya Kozyreva, John Templon | February 4, 2019

A bank flagged transactions, including large cash deposits, made before and after Rinat Akhmetshin attended the 2016 Trump Tower meeting.

...Rinat Akhmetshin, a Soviet military officer turned Washington lobbyist, deposited large, round-number amounts of cash in the months preceding and following the meeting, where a Russian lawyer offered senior Trump campaign officials dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The lobbyist also received a large payment that bank investigators deemed suspicious from Denis Katsyv, whose company Prevezon Holdings was accused by the US Justice Department of laundering the proceeds of a $230 million Russian tax fraud...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emmaloop/trump-tower-meeting-russian-lobbyi...

46proximity1
Edited: Feb 5, 10:37am Top

>44 margd: "Trump Associates’ Lies, False, or Misleading Statements on Russia to Federal Authorities"

Your posts are fucking bullshit, the lowest-grade of innuendo---criminal-conspiracy-mongering "porn"



excerpted from
Findlaw.com | On Conspiracy


"The "Agreement" Requirement

"You might be wondering how exactly the agreement between two co-conspirators actually takes place. First, the agreement does not need to be expressly conveyed. For instance, in the above example, Andy isn't required to tell Dan and Alice in unequivocal terms, "I agree to commit a conspiracy with you," (although, that statement would surely be a prosecutor's dream and strong evidence of a criminal conspiracy).

"Instead, the agreement may be implicit or shown by the action of "two or more guilty minds," as required under common law. Examples of evidence of an implicit agreement can include the appearance of the co-defendants at transactions and negotiations in furtherance of the conspiracy such as a planning meeting.

"It is important to note that courts have found that mere presence or association with those committing a crime doesn't, by itself, make someone a co-conspirator

unless there are other factors that collectively point to an implicit agreement.


"The Element of "Intent"

"As with other specific intent crimes, your intention means everything. But that's not the only intent the court will care about. Not only does one other individual in the conspiracy need to intend to agree, all parties must intend to achieve the (same) outcome.

"Simply put, knowledge of a crime isn't enough to get you thrown behind bars. For instance, just because your friend tells you he is going to burglarize a house, doesn't mean you are part of the conspiracy to burglarize it. Not unless you also agree to help by acting as a getaway car or helping him scope out the property ahead of time."

47lriley
Feb 5, 12:18pm Top

#46--it just seems that this addition of yours is pointless. I think most people here have a general grasp of what criminal conspiracy is. I'm not sure you do or it's just that you cannot or you refuse to take the leap that all the president's men falling like dominoes around him has not a thing to do with the criminal activities he seems to have very much played a part in and that were coordinated on his behalf and while refusing to do that you can't help taking potshots at whoever doesn't agree with you which has turned into just about everybody.....and meanwhile we're waiting for Trump and lackeys like Dershowitz and Giuliani to move his goalposts for him again whilst at the same time Mueller and SDNY circle even closer.

May as well mention that apparently the thing that Trump does best is watch TV all day long when he's not making dipshit remarks on twitter or at a golf course and it appears to me that he's given John Bolton carte blanche to overthrow the govt. of Venezuela....more than less letting that fucking idiot (who is not happy unless he's fomenting a conflict) run our foreign policy with an assist from the Secretary of State Pompeo.

48proximity1
Edited: Feb 5, 12:46pm Top

>47 lriley:

"I think most people here have a general grasp of what criminal conspiracy is."

I'm not so sure they do. And even if they do, I think some of "margd's" obsessive postings which contain blatant distortions are worth knocking down.

Though I may read them now and then, I'm going to drop replying to you after this comment, LR;
that's because I see no point in engaging in a discussion with someone who has made it very
clear that he won't defend or explain his points of view when challenged and he has no more respectable answer than,
in effect, "Don't agree, don't like it? Tough." Then, if things go on like that, I'll just drop opening & reading your comments altogether.

As with others here whose comments I've never looked at since I dropped reading them, there's no point wasting time reading
others' comments when the avenue to an interesting, open and honest discussion is closed in advance.

49margd
Feb 5, 4:36pm Top

Trump’s 2020 campaign just got accused of breaking the law and an Attorney General is on the case
Grant Stern | February 4, 2019

A new report says that New York’s new Attorney General is set to investigate the Trump 2020 Campaign – already – for the illegal practice of law after a Massachusetts lawyer filed a complaint with her office.

Attorney J. Whitfield Larrabee filed the complaint after determining that Trump 2020 is paying the Trump Organization for “legal consulting” even though New York state law prohibits corporations from practicing law and can result in a criminal conviction and penalties...

https://washingtonpress.com/2019/02/04/trumps-2020-campaign-just-got-accused-of-...

50lriley
Feb 5, 6:02pm Top

#48--you should do as you please and I'll do as I please.

51margd
Feb 6, 5:26am Top

Presidential Travel: Secret Service and DOD Need to Ensure That Expenditure Reports Are Prepared and Submitted to Congress http://bit.ly/2ScXMkE

Sen Dianne Feinstein @SenFeinstein | 1:28 PM - 5 Feb 2019
BREAKING: New GAO report shows President Trump spends tens of millions of dollars to travel to Mar-a-Lago at taxpayer expense – including government funds paid directly to his own business. Trump’s first 4 trips cost $13.6 million, including $60,000 paid directly to Mar-a-Lago.

Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 5:22 PM - 5 Feb 2019:
This could violate the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause, which flatly forbids any US government enrichment of a sitting president even if Congress consents.

52margd
Feb 6, 3:22pm Top

>44 margd: perjury, contd.

Adam Schiff @RepAdamSchiff | 8:42 AM - 6 Feb 2019

BREAKING: The House Intelligence Committee just voted to release all witness transcripts from our Russia investigation to the Department of Justice and Special Counsel Mueller.

53margd
Feb 8, 5:59pm Top

New Evidence Emerges of Possible Wrongdoing by Trump Inaugural Committee
Justin Elliott, ProPublica, and Ilya Marritz | Feb. 8, 2019

The Trump inaugural appears to have overpaid for space at Trump’s Washington hotel, a possible violation of the law. Federal prosecutors are probing the festivities.

...the nonprofit 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee paid the Trump International Hotel a rate of $175,000 per day for event space — in spite of internal objections at the time that the rate was far too high. If the committee is deemed by auditors or prosecutors to have paid an above-market rate, that could violate tax laws prohibiting self-dealing, according to experts...

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-new-evidence-emerges-of-possible-wr...

__________________________________________________​

He could wrie a book! (He was with Trump in Russia when pee party was purported to have occurred.)

Firm owned by Trump's longtime bodyguard Keith Schiller has received $225,000 from Republican National Committee
Christina Wilkie | Feb 8, 2019

A company owned by Keith Schiller, President Donald Trump's former longtime bodyguard, has received $225,000 from the RNC for security consulting since he left his White House job in September 2017.

Schiller was originally hired by the RNC to help select a site for the 2020 convention. But once Charlotte was announced in July, Schiller's firm was kept on to "work on other security needs for the committee," a party official told CNBC.

The official declined to go into detail about what the committee's security needs might be but confirmed that the work is ongoing.

The RNC's characterization of Schiller is different from how the committee described his work a year ago, when CNBC first inquired about it...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/08/firm-owned-by-trumps-longtime-bodyguard-has-rece...

54margd
Feb 12, 9:51am Top

Trump calls to save coal plant supplied by major supporter
ALEX GUILLÉN | 02/11/2019

President Donald Trump on Monday publicly pushed the Tennessee Valley Authority to save an aging coal plant in Kentucky that buys its fuel from one of the president’s top supporters. (Robert Murray, the CEO of mining company, is a major Trump supporter who has personally lobbied the president...)

“Coal is an important part of our electricity generation mix and @TVAnews should give serious consideration to all factors before voting to close viable power plants, like Paradise #3 in Kentucky!” Trump tweeted...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/11/trump-coal-1163128

55margd
Edited: Feb 16, 2:59am Top

How Manafort’s 2016 meeting with a Russian employee at New York cigar club goes to ‘the heart’ of Mueller’s probe
Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger | February 12, 2019

...The 2016 nominating conventions had recently concluded and the presidential race was hitting a new level of intensity when Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, ducked into an unusual dinner meeting at a private cigar room a few blocks away from the campaign’s Trump Tower headquarters in Manhattan.

Court records show that Manafort was joined at some point by his campaign deputy, Rick Gates, at the session at the Grand Havana Room, a mahogany-paneled space with floor-to-ceiling windows offering panoramic views of the city.

The two Americans met with an overseas guest, a longtime employee of their international consulting business who had flown to the United States for the gathering: a Russian political operative named Konstantin Kilimnik.

The Aug. 2, 2016, encounter between the senior Trump campaign officials and Kilimnik, who prosecutors allege has ties to Russian intelligence, has emerged in recent days as a potential fulcrum in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation.

It was at that meeting that prosecutors believe Manafort and Kilimnik may have exchanged key information relevant to Russia and Trump’s presidential bid...a proposed resolution to the conflict over Ukraine...a handoff by Manafort of internal polling data from Trump’s presidential campaign to his Russian associate...ended with the three men leaving through separate doors...(lied to prosecutors)...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-manaforts-2016-meeting-with-a-russia...

__________________________________________________​

Katelyn Polantz (CNN) @kpolantz | 5:52 PM - 15 Feb 2019:

Man, this line in Robert Mueller's sentencing memo for Paul Manafort.

"Given the breadth of Manafort’s criminal activity, the government has not located a comparable case with the unique array of crimes and aggravating factors."

🔥🔥🔥

__________________________________________________​

Kyle Griffin (MSNBC) @kylegriffin1 | 6:25 PM - 15 Feb 2019

Judge Jackson questioned where Manafort's loyalties lie in trying to shield Kilimnik's pro-Russian lobbying efforts.

"This is a problematic attempt to shield his Russian conspirator from liability and it gives rise to legitimate questions about where his loyalties lie."

Judge Amy Berman Jackson: Manafort made "multiple clusters of false or misleading or incomplete or needed-to-be-prodded-by-counsel statements ... around the defendant's relationship or communications with Mr. Kilimnik. This is a topic at the undisputed core of" Mueller's probe.

56margd
Feb 16, 2:48am Top

Rachel Maddow MSNBC @maddow | 2 hours ago, 18 tweets, 3 min read Read on Twitter
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1096639171429568514.html

Manafort transcript unsealed tonight in which DC District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson rules that Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort lied intentionally after entering a plea agreement:
p.10: “My concern isn’t with non-answers or simply denials but times he affirmatively advanced a detailed alternative story that was inconsistent with the facts.”
p. 11: Judge then says Manafort’s claims about his declining health in prison were simply asserted by his lawyers with no effort to back the claims up with any support.

Judge: “It left the impression that the issue was left in the pleading for public consumption, but not mine.”
p.16 On the $125k payment toward Manafort’s legal fees...

Judge: “The record doesn’t seem to reflect confusion and the defendant didn’t profess to be confused. He does appear, though, to be making a concerted effort to avoid saying what really took place.”
p.23 On that same $125k payment...

Judge: “I find this was a matter about which he provided intentionally false information to the Office of Special Counsel, the FBI, and the grand jury.

I also note — without deciding whether I have to make this finding or not —...
“... that the record supports a finding that the Office of Special Counsel’s interest in tracing the flow of funds to Manafort particularly from REDACTED and vendors associated with the campaign, was material to this investigation.”
p. 26 On Manafort attesting as to Kilimnik’s state of mind...

Judge: “I think it’s also fair to say that advancing that version was not just relaying what Kilimnik said, it appears to be an attempt to exonerate him.”
p. 27

“This is an example of a situation in which the OSC legitimately concluded he’s lying to minimize things here...

This is a problematic attempt to shield his Russian conspirator from liability and it gives rise to legitimate questions about where his loyalties lie.”
p.30

On what the judge describes as Manafort’s “pattern” of “dissembling” about Kilimnik:

Judge: “Denying the meeting REDACTED was denying a contact that was part of what the Office of Special Counsel was investigating.”
p.40

Judge: “We’ve now spent considerable time talking about multiple clusters of false or misleading or incomplete or needed-to-be-prodded-by-counsel statements, all of which center around the defendant’s relationship or communications with Mr. Kilimnik”...
“... This is a topic at the undisputed core of the Special Counsel’s investigation into — as paragraph B of the appointment order put it — ‘any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign.’ Mr. Kilimnik...
“...doesn’t have to be in the government or even be an active spy to be a link.”
p. 41

This is new. This suggests the mysterious “other” DOJ investigation Manafort lied about is an investigation that also relates to the Trump campaign:

Judge: “Defendant suggests that it’s not really that important because it wasn’t about his own wrongdoing...”
“... I’m not sure I buy that because the point of seeking cooperation from a person at the highest level of the campaign was to obtain accurate information about the acts of others, in particular what transpired REDACTED. So it’s very troubling to me.”
p.44 On the (apparently campaign related) other DOJ investigation Manafort lied about...

Judge: “The evidence suggests that he decided to obscure what had taken place to shield possibly Mr. REDACTED. This withholding of facts, this begrudging behavior...”
“...advancing a new version that’s less inculpatory of REDACTED was significant enough to set off alarm bells with his own lawyers.”
And then starting on p.50 a whole bunch of pages that look like this: (margd: entire page of redacted material)
And then one last intrigue on p.66:

Judge: “All right. I just have one question for my public minute order. The REDACTED, the fact that REDACTED is still sealed. So I should not use that in my minute order, is that correct?”

Both sides agree, correct.

But what could that be?

57margd
Edited: Feb 16, 3:35am Top

Preet Bharara @PreetBharara | 5:55 PM - 15 Feb 2019:

...Mueller has proof Roger Stone had direct contact with Wikileaks. That’s big

ETA_______________________________________________​

Special counsel prosecutors say they have communications of Stone with WikiLeaks
Katelyn Polantz | February 15, 2019

...During its investigation of the Russian hack of the Democrats, "the government obtained and executed dozens of search warrants on various accounts used to facilitate the transfer of stolen documents for release, as well as to discuss the timing and promotion of their release," the prosecutors wrote Friday to a federal judge.

"Several of those search warrants were executed on accounts that contained Stone's communications with Guccifer 2.0 and with Organization 1," which is WikiLeaks.

...The prosecutors have not yet explained in full the extent to which Stone actually reached WikiLeaks or Assange, or levied public charges against them for their role in the distribution of the hacked data.

Friday's filing is the strongest detail yet provided by the prosecutors that Stone and WikiLeaks were in touch.

Prosecutors stated that in obtaining the accounts, they found communications between Stone and WikiLeaks, which is only described as Organization 1, as well as Guccifer 2.0 which is the alias used by Russian intelligence to disseminate the documents...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/politics/roger-stone-wikileaks/index.html

58davidgn
Feb 16, 3:06am Top

>57 margd: All right. I'll be interested to see this.

59margd
Feb 16, 3:25am Top

>54 margd: Trump calls to save coal plant supplied by major supporter

TVA defies Trump, votes to shut down two aging coal-fired power plants
Steven Mufson | February 14, 2019

The Tennessee Valley Authority board of directors voted to shut down two aging coal-fired power plants, defying a tweet from President Trump on Monday urging the agency to keep one of them open.

The TVA directors voted overwhelmingly to close the Paradise 3 plant in Kentucky and the Bull Run plant in Tennessee. Three of the four people appointed by Trump to the TVA board joined the 6-1 majority voting to close down the Paradise coal unit, and all four joined the unanimous vote to retire Bull Run.

“It is not about coal. This decision is about economics,” TVA chief executive William D. Johnson said. “It’s about keeping rates as low as feasible.”...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/tva-defies-trump-votes-to...

60davidgn
Feb 16, 6:13am Top

>57 margd: >58 davidgn:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1096597674307006464

WikiLeaks
Verified account
@wikileaks
Replying to CNN
The communications are the @WikiLeaks account telling Roger Stone to stop going around falsely claiming that he was in contact with Assange. They were provided to Congress and the public over a year ago. There can be little excuse for concealing the true context.


Make of that what you will.

61margd
Feb 16, 8:57am Top

Rachel Maddow says Stone indictment has been linked to GRU (Russia military officers) case, so will be heard by the same judge.
Reason is that Stone interacted directly with GRU officials re release of stolen e-mails by WikiLeaks? Also interacted with WikiLeaks?

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/developments-in-three-mueller-related-...

62proximity1
Edited: Feb 16, 11:31am Top

>61 margd:

Rachel Maddow, like the rest of MSNBC's pseudo-news celebrities, is a panderer for ratings. Her program is the cable TV equivalent of the cheapest internet click-bait, empty-calories for assholes and rumor-mongers who crave idiotic sensationalist reports of things usually wrongly labelled "important" "breaking" "news." She's moronically positively giddy in her pre-show banter with side-kick-idiot Chris Hayes.

No one who grew up watching Walter Cronkite deliver the news could imagine him behaving in such a shockingly biased fashion---right on camera! because she's a clown who plays to her "fans"! who, as she knows, tune in for Trump-scandal gore. There are television game-shows with more gravity to them than such shit as Hayes and Maddow deliver to their partisan-scandal-hungry fans.

This head-line text speaks volumes about the tabloid character of MSNBC:

"Developments in three Mueller-related cases advance Trump scandal" (Emphasis added)

Clearly shows us what are MSNBC's priorities and what they're all about: "advance(ing)" the "scandal". That's what ratings-driven TV pseudo-news reporters do.

"MUST-SEE TV" for morons.

________________

NOTE: Maddow, born in 1973, would have been almost eight years old when Cronkite delivered his final news-anchor presentation of The CBS Evening News on Friday, March 6, 1981--thus, she probably never had any experience of Cronkite's (or his peers') work as a reporter or news-anchor other than by watching old tapes or film of past broadcasts. Maybe this goes for "margd", as well. That would figure.

63JGL53
Feb 16, 12:47pm Top

MSNBC's ratings keep climbing, year to year, and foxx noise viewers keep dying as the actuarial tables keep working their magic.

The future looks bright for the higher I.Q. and the educated amongst the populace.

Insults and nay-saying will have no real effect. But enjoy. Let it out, don't hold it in. lol.

642wonderY
Feb 18, 8:31pm Top

oopsy! Stone says it was an innocent mistake.

Roger Stone Shares a Photo of Judge With Crosshairs Near Her Head

65margd
Edited: Feb 18, 9:46pm Top

>64 2wonderY: contd.

Kyle Cheney (Politico) @kyledcheney | 4:31 PM - 18 Feb 2019:
A formal apology from Roger Stone filed in court this evening. Stone seems to recognize how much trouble he got himself into by attacking the judge in his case on Instagram.

Ted Lieu @tedlieu Congressional Rep| 12:49 PM - 18 Feb 2019
18 USC § 115: Whoever "threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a ... US judge ... with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge ... while engaged in the performance of official duties ..." commits a felony.

Does this post from Roger Stone qualify?

66proximity1
Edited: Yesterday, 9:30am Top




...
"And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again, no no"
________________________

"Won't Get Fooled Again" — by Pete Townshend, of the band, The Who, from their album, Who's next (1971)



Yeah: this post definitely belongs in a thread entitled ""Scandal Watch VIII" (!!!):



" ... In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.

"Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.

"Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare#Second_Red_Scare_(1947%E2%80%9360)
____________________________________
Victor Davis Hanson, "Autopsy of a dead coup" (February 17th, 2019)




Prior to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the infamy of the U.S. American political right-wing's hysterical witch-hunts of the Red Scare period (Second Red Scare (1947–60)) (a.k.a. "McCarthyism) had no comparable disgraceful counterpart on the American political left-wing.

Alas, there is now a "book-end" to the McCarthy-Red Scare period and the U.S. political left-wing has provided it.

NOW PLAYING, across America in communities everywhere:

The anti-Trump vendetta—a moral failing only equaled by McCarthyism—in its 40th+ smash month!


So-called "liberals," you were faced with a moral-challenge testing your faith in popular democracy and you disgraced yourselves. At what point do you come to recognize the shame that you deserve to feel?

67davidgn
Edited: Yesterday, 7:18am Top

Here's Kiriakou.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/16/the-fbi-came-close-to-staging-a-coup/

The intelligence community—the FBI, CIA, the NSA and other three-letter agencies—are too powerful, too entrenched and two well-funded. And they have far too little oversight. They’re a threat to our democracy, not the saviors of it. That is why it pains me to see Democrats lining up behind them to attack Trump.

Presidents Come and Go

I was a member of that “Deep State” throughout my 15 years at the CIA. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the CIA doesn’t care who the president is. Neither does the FBI. Senior CIA and FBI officers are there for decades, while presidents come and go. They know that they can outwait any president they don’t like. At the very least, at the CIA, they could made administrative decisions that would hamstring a president: Perhaps they don’t carry out that risky operation. Maybe they don’t target that well-placed source. Maybe they ignore the president’s orders knowing that in four years or eight years he or she will just go away.

Even worse, these same organizations—the FBI and the CIA—are the ones that have sought to undermine our democracy over the years. Don’t forget programs like COINTELPRO, the FBI’s operation to force Martin Luther King Jr. to commit suicide; the infiltration of peace groups; the CIA’s efforts to control the media with Operation Mockingbird; the CIA’s illegal spying on American citizens; the CIA hacking into the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and the Agency’s extrajudicial assassination program; to name a few.

McCabe’s almost offhanded comments on “60 Minutes,” that the FBI actively considered deposing a sitting president should be cause for alarm. Set partisan politics aside for a moment. We’re talking about deposing a sitting president. We’re talking about wearing a wireto catch a sitting president saying something because you’re angry that he fired your boss. Even the idea of it is unprecedented in American history.

The FBI is perfectly free to investigate collusion. That’s what they ought to be doing. But they ought not plot the overthrow of a president, no matter how quirky and offensive he may be. That’s anti-democratic and illegal and it harkens back to the bad old days of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover and the CIA before the reforms of the Church Committee.

We have a way to depose presidents. They’re called “elections.” The FBI should familiarize itself with them.

John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act—a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration’s torture program.

68margd
Edited: Yesterday, 12:52pm Top

>67 davidgn: I think, if the intelligence community hadn't considered Constitutional/legislative measures to investigate and, if warranted, to share findings with other cabinet level officials in order that they COULD evaluate whether to implement 25th Amendment, we would rightfully have considered them derelict in their duty.

To brainstorm internally, before choosing the course they did seems responsible to me. Of course, Trump would seize on internal discussions revealed publicly--just as he externalizes all of his failings to other people.

I'm surprised FBI internal discussions aren't privileged, especially since they touch on on an ongoing investigation. I can understand McCabe wanting to get back on Trump who pulled his pension in the most nasty way, and thus Mccabe needs to make some $$$, but I'm surprised the book and the interviews are happening. Shame if they hurt investigation more than the Large Orange Lame Duck.

Hope the world and our Constitution survive the flailings of the Large Orange Wounded Duck...

(Queue screeching and scribbling and insults from Russian-sponsored quisling.)

69proximity1
Edited: Yesterday, 2:49pm Top

>68 margd:

Vile. Your nauseating efforts here make Joseph McCarthy's obsessive witch-hunting look like the product of a two-bit slacker.

(Youtube) In the first Face the Nation broadcast on television, Sen. Joseph McCarthy responds to questions about his infamous hearings. (CBS NEWS)

____________



“The separation and balance of powers between the three independent branches of the government is fundamental in our constitutional form of government. A congressional committee may not compel the attendance of the president of the United States while he is in office to inquire into matters pertaining to the performance of his official duties; if the constitutional principle were otherwise, the office of the president would not be independent. It is just as important to the independence of the executive that the actions of the president should not be subjected to the questioning by the Congress after he has completed his term of office as that his actions should not be questioned while he is serving as president. In either case, the office of president would be dominated by the Congress and the presidency might become a mere appendage of Congress. When I became president, I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am still bound by that oath and I will be as long as I live.” …
_____________
former-president Harry Truman, from the CBS radio address of November, 1953.



(Youtube) November 1953: Former President Harry Truman appears on CBS Radio to offer his thoughts on Senator Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism. McCarthy later responded with his own scathing attack on Truman.

__________________________________________________​



"I think, if the intelligence community hadn't considered Constitutional/legislative measures to investigate and, if warranted, to share findings with other cabinet level officials in order that they COULD evaluate whether to implement 25th Amendment, we would rightfully have considered them derelict in their duty.

"To brainstorm internally, before choosing the course they did seems responsible to me."



That deliberately falsified portrayal is a farce of the story as we all watched it unfold.

Rather than this bullshit depiction, as we know, there was no such judicious consideration prior to a full-blown determination to derail the Trump presidency by whatever rationale was most appealing to the prejudices of those concerned. Instead, there was general panic occasioned by the stupendous fact that Hillary Clinton's "sure thing" did not transpire according to plan. Recall that, before the election returns came in, so certain of a Clinton victory was press, public, and elite powers, high-ranking Democrats and the Clinton camp, above all, that the only assurance which these powers wanted or needed from Trump was his prior publicly-stated agreement to abide by the results of the election. Suddenly, everything was on the table. There was quick and direct talk about how officials could and should simply sabotage the president's directives, orders, and the legal exercise of his authority.

At no time did they bother asking "Ought we consider whether the president is a mentally sound?" Instead, they pre-emptively concluded that, as far as they were concerned, the president was not mentally sound and could not be trusted. That issue's question started and ended with, "How can we get Trump most effectively under each of the various means for removal both before and after his inauguration: challenging the election's fairness as "tainted" by "collusion" with "foreign interests"; challenge to the electoral results in swing states; find any pretext for an act on which to bring a bill of impeachment: accuse the president of being a witting agent of the Russian regime, accuse him of blatant abuse of official powers for the enrichment of his private business interests, accuse him of "bribes"--claiming he'd made illegal payments to silence former "girl-friends"; the use of 25th amendment.

The state's police authorities are supposed to act within, under and through clearly-defined statutes which set the terms and conditions by which they can place someone under police investigation. Typically, it is not sufficient merely to be outraged at the loss of an election.

Americans are today flirting with extremely dangerous nonsense concerning treating a presidential election as a trivial matter which might be reversed if enough of the 'right' (important) people are angry and determined enough to set it aside.

There's a quickly diminishing opportunity for Americans to learn some of the most basic truths and facts about practical democratic governance.

Your freedoms depend on non-partisan respect for electoral results, on defending and protecting, as a priority, the public's right to choose elective officials and to do this without threat that the losing parties shall attempt to reverse or undermine those elected to office or to vilify them by campaigns of propagandistic defamation.

Free elections--"the ballot box" and open and fair trials-by-jury--the "jury box" are the two primary pillars of our democratic freedoms. If these are allowed to be corrupted for momentary partisan designs, the entire system of democratic institutions is in peril. Once the ballot-box is dismissed as the proper place and manner for the settlement of political issues and controversies, these are then left by default to the battlefield for settlement by bloody conflict of arms.

These are serious matters and prior generations have paid dearly for the benefits they earned the hard way before vouchsafing them to us today. We are showing ourselves to be unworthy of that gift.

In our supreme ignorance and stupidity, we could squander and lose this priceless heritage. Margd's irresponsible work here contributes directly to just that kind of disastrous outcome. The price for such foolishness is extremely heavy and there is no second-chance given for failing this lesson, no forgiveness without foolishness's debt being paid in full.

70jjwilson61
Yesterday, 11:32am Top

The only way this could have been considered a coup is if the President is looked at as the sole power in the gov't, a King or Dictator. However, the people who work for the FBI don't owe their allegiance to the President but instead to the Constitution and it's their duty to uncover malfeasance anywhere, including the President. I've been disgusted for years by the Strong Executive clique of the Republican party and this is just another example of it. I'm afraid it's taken over the Supreme Court now.

71margd
Edited: Yesterday, 1:36pm Top

Gang of Eight was briefed on FBI's opening of counterintelligence investigation.

Josh Campbell (CNN) https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/following @joshscampbell | 5:24 AM - 19 Feb 2019:
McCabe says the FBI briefed congressional leaders in both parties about its investigation of President Trump in order to ensure Congress knew what the bureau was doing. They sound pretty terrible at coup-plotting.

(Video clip of interview at)
TODAY @TODAYshow https://twitter.com/TODAYshow | 4:50 AM - 19 Feb 2019:
Did you tell the “Gang of Eight” that you had opened a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump? @savannahguthrie asks Andrew McCabe

ETA_______________________________________________​

Trump: 'I don't care. I believe Putin.'

Andrew McCabe: The full 60 Minutes interview (28:11 video clip and transcript)

Former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe tells 60 Minutes about taking over for James Comey, starting investigations of President Trump, interactions with the president and his own firing

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-mccabe-60-minutes-interview-full-transcript-...

72margd
Yesterday, 2:04pm Top

Worth a read:

Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside Trump’s Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him
Mark Mazzetti, Maggie Haberman, Nicholas Fandos and Michael S. Schmidt | Feb. 19, 2019

President Trump’s efforts have exposed him to accusations of obstruction of justice as Robert S. Mueller II, the special counsel, finishes his work.

...Trying to install a perceived loyalist atop a widening inquiry is a familiar tactic for Mr. Trump, who has been struggling to beat back the investigations that have consumed his presidency.

...Mr. Trump’s public war on the inquiry has gone on long enough that it is no longer shocking. Mr. Trump rages almost daily to his 58 million Twitter followers that Mr. Mueller is on a “witch hunt” and has adopted the language of Mafia bosses by calling those who cooperate with the special counsel “rats.” His lawyer talks openly about a strategy to smear and discredit the special counsel investigation. The president’s allies in Congress and the conservative media warn of an insidious plot inside the Justice Department and the F.B.I. to subvert a democratically elected president.

An examination by The New York Times reveals the extent of an even more sustained, more secretive assault by Mr. Trump on the machinery of federal law enforcement. Interviews with dozens of current and former government officials and others close to Mr. Trump, as well as a review of confidential White House documents, reveal numerous unreported episodes in a two-year drama.

...peddling misleading information in public about the firing of Michael T. Flynn, the Trump administration’s first national security adviser. Mr. Trump had private conversations with Republican lawmakers about a campaign to attack the Mueller investigation. And, there was the episode when he asked his attorney general (Whitaker) about putting (Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Trump ally, who had already recused himself from the investigation) in charge of the Manhattan investigation.

...The story of Mr. Trump’s attempts to defang the investigations has been voluminously covered in the news media, to such a degree that many Americans have lost track of how unusual his behavior is. But fusing the strands reveals an extraordinary story of a president who has attacked the law enforcement apparatus of his own government like no other president in history, and who has turned the effort into an obsession. Mr. Trump has done it with the same tactics he once used in his business empire: demanding fierce loyalty from employees, applying pressure tactics to keep people in line, and protecting the brand — himself — at all costs.

Trump Has Publicly Attacked the Russia Investigation More Than 1,100 Times...

It is a public relations strategy as much as a legal strategy — a campaign to create a narrative of a president hounded by his “deep state” foes...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/trump-investigations.html

73StormRaven
Yesterday, 2:39pm Top

69: A congressional committee may not compel the attendance of the president of the United States while he is in office to inquire into matters pertaining to the performance of his official duties

And yet, virtually every time executive privilege has been asserted in an effort to resist Congressional inquiries, the executive branch has lost. Citing a sixty-six year old speech in which the President makes bold statements that have been proven wrong time and time again just shows how truly desperate you are with your ginned-up story about how investigating an administration is a "witch-hunt".

74davidgn
Edited: Yesterday, 3:26pm Top

>67 davidgn: >68 margd: I don't entirely buy Kiriakou's piety on the habitual political neutrality of the FBI and CIA with respect to the executive, either (though I understand it does play well rhetorically, particularly with the legacy of Hoover as notional foil).

In any case, I would be more sympathetic to such a reading of the 25th Amendment push if I didn't believe the cake was more or less pre-baked on the Russian collusion story, for primarily political reasons. In any event, whatever there may be to be found, the attendant national panic has been an order of magnitude more damaging.

Listened to this piece recently. A very pleasant interview with Barry Eisler. Worth the time.

https://shadowproof.com/2019/02/14/interview-barry-eisler-political-thriller-boo...


“If you’re writing political thrillers, you want to have the highest stakes possible, and since America is capable of doing much more damage to itself than anyone else—certainly any non-state adversary is capable of doing to us, if you want to show those stakes, you can find them easily in today’s headlines.”
...
Commenting on President Donald Trump and the way Russiagate has become the framework by which most liberals confront politics, Eisler acknowledges the shock to large segments of America.

“I wasn’t expecting it at all,” Eisler recalled. “And this is just my take on human nature, that in the face of some shocking event—an event that violates the laws of reality as we previously understood them—it’s natural for humans to reach for an external explanation.”

“If we lived in a more primitive time, and something that violated the laws of reality as we understand them happened, we would explain by reference to witchcraft or sorcery or astrology or something like that.But because we’re modern and sophisticated, we’d don’t believe in those things, but we do believe in Putin.”

While acknowledging the work of some journalists he respects, Eisler concluded, “I don’t see how anyone could reasonably claim that what we’re experiencing in American political discourse—specifically regarding Putin the mastermind, the all-powerful and omniscient—is a hysteria. It’s a modern hysteria. It’s a mania.”

“With regard to a nuclear-armed power, it’s extraordinarily to have an inaccurate framework for trying to manage a relationship and yet we do.”


>69 proximity1: Oh, put a sock in it.

>72 margd: (Last sentence you quoted): The trouble is, as self-serving as it may be, I'm still not convinced that that narrative is entirely inaccurate.

As far as a bottom line on this particular instance, though, I think New York Magazine has nailed it.

Some political observers — on both the left and right — have found McCabe’s disclosure alarming. In their view, federal law enforcement attempting to oust a (sort of) democratically elected head of state sounds uncomfortably like a coup d’état.

But such fears are unfounded. McCabe’s aborted plot to oust Trump from office was always too delusional to be a threat to democracy.

The fundamental flaw in McCabe’s plan — and the reason why the 25th Amendment is not actually the “break in case of coup” loophole in our Constitution that some fear it to be — is simple: A majority of the Cabinet can unilaterally declare a president incapable of executing his duties, and immediately remove him from office — but only if said president accepts their judgement.


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/andrew-mccabe-25th-amendment-fbi-plan-to-...

75StormRaven
Yesterday, 3:09pm Top

A majority of the Cabinet can unilaterally declare a president incapable of executing his duties, and immediately remove him from office — but only if said president accepts their judgement.

That is a weird misreading of the text of the 25th Amendment.

76davidgn
Yesterday, 3:13pm Top

>75 StormRaven:

Let me quote the next two paragraphs as well, then.

If the commander-in-chief thinks he is actually doing an amazing job, and refuses to step down, then said Cabinet officials would need the overwhelming support of both chambers of Congress to permanently oust the president. In more precise terms, a Cabinet vote, by itself, is sufficient to strip a president of his (or her) powers for four days. But if two-thirds of the House and Senate do not approve the Cabinet’s assessment during that four-day period, then the president promptly reassumes his powers.

As Michigan State law professor Brian Kalt wrote for New York in 2017, the 25th Amendment is really designed for removing a president who is incapable of upholding his duties on a very literal level — i.e., one who is in a coma or severely demented. It is more or less useless as a means of removing a president whose unfitness for office is rooted in authoritarian instincts or personality defects. Which is to say: If the president is capable of putting up a fight, then impeachment is actually a quicker and easier means of removing him (or her) from office than the 25th Amendment.


Better?

77margd
Edited: Yesterday, 3:58pm Top

>72 margd: the attendant national panic has been an order of magnitude more damaging

Agreed--in the same way that a fever sometimes kills the host as well as the pathogen.

It is possible to intentionally jolt the system into a hyper-reactive state. (Who would do that?)

Most of us would have wished better of President Trump, for the country's sake, but one can't allow his behavior to become the acceptable norm.

78proximity1
Today, 5:03am Top


>74 davidgn:

"Oh, put a sock in it. = "fuck off."

and that goes for you.

79margd
Edited: Today, 6:17am Top

>72 margd: Adam Schiff reacts to NYT's "Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside Trump’s Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him" in which Trump called Matthew G. Whitaker, his newly installed attorney general to ask whether Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Trump ally, could be put in charge of the widening investigation. "Mr. Whitaker, who had privately told associates that part of his role at the Justice Department was to “jump on a grenade” for the president, knew he could not put Mr. Berman in charge because Mr. Berman had already recused himself from the investigation. The president soon soured on Mr. Whitaker...and complained about his inability to pull levers at the Justice Department that could make the president’s many legal problems go away."

Adam Schiff @RepAdamSchiff | 3:48 PM - 19 Feb 2019

Dangling pardons.
Attempting to get a prosecutor to unrecuse.
Threatening a cooperating witness.
False public statements.
Encouraging congressional allies to investigate the investigators to protect him.

All of it a pattern of obstruction.
All of it dangerous to the rule of law.

__________________________________________________​

Takeaways From The Times’s Investigation Into Trump’s War on the Inquiries Around Him
Eileen Sullivan | Feb. 19, 2019

...Mr. Trump wanted to put a perceived loyalist in charge of a federal inquiry in New York related to hush money payments made by his former personal lawyer.

...Mr. Trump’s public attacks on the Russia investigation have evolved from a public relations strategy to a legal strategy.

...White House lawyers wrote a confidential memo about misleading public statements after the firing of Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser.

...Mr. Trump believed he put an end to the Russia investigation when he fired Mr. Flynn.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/investigating-trump-administratio...

Group: Pro and Con

421 members

127,319 messages

About

This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 132,536,806 books! | Top bar: Always visible