The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Holman]

When Fox can't even find a way to spin his nonsense, he's gone too far.

And? Does he retire out of embarrassment? What is it that you expect to happen?

Not embarrassment. He'll take his ball and go home, just like all bullies when they lose their gang.

If he quits, he loses his pardon power and his (presumed) immunity from indictment.

[LordMortis]

If he quits, he loses his pardon power and his (presumed) immunity from indictment.

When all your investments are in Rubles, you just move to Russia and be Putin's dancing monkey unless he considers your expendable.

[Holman]

Apparently Rosenstein is meeting with Paul Ryan now on the Russia investigation. Who knows if that means anything or not.

link

[msteelers]

This is amazing.

https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status ... 8881242112

Looks like Trump is taking this seriously (in his way).

I'm having a hard time coming to grips with the idea that this is a real statement released by the President. Somehow this is even crazier than his recent tweets about nuclear buttons and media awards.

[Pyperkub]

Yeah, but....the only actual mechanisms to force him to leave are impeachment or the 25th amendment. Do you see a majority vote in the House and 2/3rds of the Senate voting for that this year? Do you see a majority of cabinet officials potentially invoking the 25th amendment?

I think both of those are possible when he's comparing nuclear arsenals on twitter with North Korea.

I think nearly all the Republicans turn on him and he has an aneurysm. Because of that press release today on Bannon, everyone is going to believe what's in Michael Wolff's book. The Fusion GPS Op ed is a big deal and can't be dismissed. They didn't argue. They said release the transcripts.

You can't claim Fake News when it's in black and white.

Uh, have you not been paying attention for the past 18 months?

[Max Peck]

When the facts are unassailable is exactly when you play the Fake News card.

[Blackhawk]

Bannon was leaking false information?

[Holman]

Bannon was leaking false information?

Well, he was leaking information.

Bannon loves feeling in control of the narrative, so he frequently leaked to reporters about his rivals Kushner and Priebus. This is pretty well attested.

[Holman]

Apparently Rosenstein is meeting with Paul Ryan now on the Russia investigation. Who knows if that means anything or not.

link

link

[GreenGoo]

Well that's no fun.

Plus, would the public stand for defunding the justice department?

[pr0ner]

Bannon was leaking false information?

Well, he was leaking information.

Bannon loves feeling in control of the narrative, so he frequently leaked to reporters about his rivals Kushner and Priebus. This is pretty well attested.

Bannon also ran the @RoguePOTUSStaff twitter account.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Bannon was leaking false information?

Well, he was leaking information.

Bannon loves feeling in control of the narrative, so he frequently leaked to reporters about his rivals Kushner and Priebus. This is pretty well attested.

Bannon also ran the @RoguePOTUSStaff twitter account.

Has that been confirmed or just speculation?

[pr0ner]

Bannon was leaking false information?

Well, he was leaking information.

Bannon loves feeling in control of the narrative, so he frequently leaked to reporters about his rivals Kushner and Priebus. This is pretty well attested.

Bannon also ran the @RoguePOTUSStaff twitter account.

Has that been confirmed or just speculation?

Speculation, but from many different arenas.

[Zarathud]

If Bannon turns on Trump, it's getting ugly. But I could see Bannon pulling Trump down faster than the FBI.

[Blackhawk]

It wasn't him leaking information I was commenting on, it was the idea of leaking false information that I found kind of humorous. Was it classified false information?

[gilraen]

If Bannon turns on Trump, it's getting ugly. But I could see Bannon pulling Trump down faster than the FBI.

Trump's lawyers have now sent cease-and-desist letters to Bannon, claiming that Bannon is in breach of the NDA he signed when he was employed by the Trump's campaign.

Overall, it's a pretty good indicator that Bannon's account of events is at least mostly true.

[El Guapo]

If Bannon turns on Trump, it's getting ugly. But I could see Bannon pulling Trump down faster than the FBI.

Trump's lawyers have now sent cease-and-desist letters to Bannon, claiming that Bannon is in breach of the NDA he signed when he was employed by the Trump's campaign.

Overall, it's a pretty good indicator that Bannon's account of events is at least mostly true.

What's interesting is that from what I can tell online, it seems like the book's author (Wolff) has been credibly accused of fabulism and fabricating quotes in the past. So this is one area where Bannon, Trump, etc. could credibly accuse someone of lying. But then, the Trump campaign completely flipping out over this does, as you say, strongly suggest that at least Bannon's part is true.

[Holman]

If Bannon turns on Trump, it's getting ugly. But I could see Bannon pulling Trump down faster than the FBI.

Trump's lawyers have now sent cease-and-desist letters to Bannon, claiming that Bannon is in breach of the NDA he signed when he was employed by the Trump's campaign.

Overall, it's a pretty good indicator that Bannon's account of events is at least mostly true.

What's interesting is that from what I can tell online, it seems like the book's author (Wolff) has been credibly accused of fabulism and fabricating quotes in the past. So this is one area where Bannon, Trump, etc. could credibly accuse someone of lying. But then, the Trump campaign completely flipping out over this does, as you say, strongly suggest that at least Bannon's part is true.

Yeah, I hear Wolff isn't the most reliable journalist. The article excerpted from the book is definitely worth a read, though.

(As in, seriously, go read it right now.)

He names a lot of his sources, and so far there hasn't (that I've seen) been a flurry of denials. Presumably he has notes and perhaps tapes to back up his quotes.

EDIT: Apparently there has been some denial, but conspicuously none from Bannon, and Trump's lawsuit threats amount to all-but-confirmation of what Bannon said.

[Holman]

Have you ever heard of anyone ever questioning the racial makeup of a Federal grand jury before? Now you have - all to protect a terrible awful unfit person - we are at all-time lows here. Especially with the tweets yesterday. The danger is real here.

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/948333473332432896

Extra irony: The page six article is self-tagged racism.

This thread is interesting...

[malchior]

Even if not true - threats to sue him are hilarious and incredibly inept. I imagine that enforcing that NDA would be like opening a box of demons.

[Holman]

Even if not true - threats to sue him are hilarious and incredibly inept. I imagine that enforcing that NDA would be like opening a box of demons.

Yeah. Actually suing Bannon would allow Bannon's lawyers to call everyone in the WH as a witness. It would be madness, and everyone would be under oath.

I think the damage is already done. Trump is famous for threatening suits that never materialize, but they've really shot themselves in the foot here. If the suit happens, the end result will probably be a ruling the personal NDA's are illegal in federal positions. If it doesn't happen, everyone made to sign one knows they're meaningless.

[pr0ner]

If Bannon turns on Trump, it's getting ugly. But I could see Bannon pulling Trump down faster than the FBI.

Trump's lawyers have now sent cease-and-desist letters to Bannon, claiming that Bannon is in breach of the NDA he signed when he was employed by the Trump's campaign.

Overall, it's a pretty good indicator that Bannon's account of events is at least mostly true.

What's interesting is that from what I can tell online, it seems like the book's author (Wolff) has been credibly accused of fabulism and fabricating quotes in the past. So this is one area where Bannon, Trump, etc. could credibly accuse someone of lying. But then, the Trump campaign completely flipping out over this does, as you say, strongly suggest that at least Bannon's part is true.

Yeah, I hear Wolff isn't the most reliable journalist. The article excerpted from the book is definitely worth a read, though.

(As in, seriously, go read it right now.)

He names a lot of his sources, and so far there hasn't (that I've seen) been a flurry of denials. Presumably he has notes and perhaps tapes to back up his quotes.

EDIT: Apparently there has been some denial, but conspicuously none from Bannon, and Trump's lawsuit threats amount to all-but-confirmation of what Bannon said.

Unlike Trump, Wolff actually has tapes:

https://twitter.com/axios/status/948875978205483008

[ImLawBoy]

Even if not true - threats to sue him are hilarious and incredibly inept. I imagine that enforcing that NDA would be like opening a box of demons.

Yeah. Actually suing Bannon would allow Bannon's lawyers to call everyone in the WH as a witness. It would be madness, and everyone would be under oath.

I think the damage is already done. Trump is famous for threatening suits that never materialize, but they've really shot themselves in the foot here. If the suit happens, the end result will probably be a ruling the personal NDA's are illegal in federal positions. If it doesn't happen, everyone made to sign one knows they're meaningless.

Why would the ruling be that personal NDAs are illegal in federal positions, and why would that impact the personal NDA signed by Bannon as Trump's campaign manager (which is not a federal position)?

[Holman]

Even if not true - threats to sue him are hilarious and incredibly inept. I imagine that enforcing that NDA would be like opening a box of demons.

Yeah. Actually suing Bannon would allow Bannon's lawyers to call everyone in the WH as a witness. It would be madness, and everyone would be under oath.

I think the damage is already done. Trump is famous for threatening suits that never materialize, but they've really shot themselves in the foot here. If the suit happens, the end result will probably be a ruling the personal NDA's are illegal in federal positions. If it doesn't happen, everyone made to sign one knows they're meaningless.

Why would the ruling be that personal NDAs are illegal in federal positions, and why would that impact the personal NDA signed by Bannon as Trump's campaign manager (which is not a federal position)?

IANAL, obvs, but

(1) I thought I'd heard (back when leaks first became an issue in January/February '17) that leaks were especially hard to prosecute precisely because the rules are murky, and that Trump's famous NDA's would do nothing to change that. (Has any federal official ever held employees to *personal* NDA's in the past?)

(2) Wolff's interviews were all conducted after everyone was in the WH, and the most incendiary material (quoted so far, anyway) is about the infighting and incompetence of the administration itself, not the campaign. I suppose an NDA could be held to be valid for the workings of the campaign itself, but a suit would still open the cans of worms described above.

[Kurth]

It’s raining C&Ds! Now Trump’s lawyers are trying to actually stop publication of the Wolf book. In addition to the cease and desist letter they sent Bannon, now they’ve sent one to the publisher of the book.

Between the Trump statement against Bannon and these C&Ds, it’s almost like they’re doing everything in their power short of executive order to make sure everyone pays attention to this book and what it says about Trump.

[ImLawBoy]

I don't know wheter any special laws apply to federal employees with respect to NDAs, but the ability to enforce Trump's NDAs probably depends on how well they are written. Unless there is something that specifically applies to federal employees and NDAs, you're most likely to find success by challenging the specific NDA rather than seeking a new ruling that NDAs are unenforceable against public employees.

Regarding Bannon's NDA (or NDAs), it depends when they were signed and what they cover. If they were signed in Bannon's capacity as campaign manager, they would likely apply to his role as campaign manager only, and that would include the Don Jr./Russia meeting. Assuming for purposes of argument that the NDA was well written enough to be enforceable, then Trump may have a claim here. I'll also note that having a claim here and filing suit are not an admission that what Bannon is saying is true. If he's discussing topics he's not supposed to discuss, regardless of whether he's telling the truth, Trump would reasonably want him to stop. You don't just let the disclosing party keep lying until he hits on the truth, and then try to enforce - that would force the enforcing party to essentially wait until the confidential material has been disclosed before asserting its rights.

BTW, and I apologize in advance for the grammar Nazism, but you don't use an apostrophe to pluralize an acronym - it's NDAs, not NDA's.

[RunningMn9]

Do NDAs cover not talking about treasonous crimes? I would think that you can provide evidence of a crime regardless of signing an NDA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jaymann]

Do NDAs cover not talking about treasonous crimes? I would think that you can provide evidence of a crime regardless of signing an NDA.

No, but he is specifically prohibited from releasing Trump's golf scores.

[ImLawBoy]

Do NDAs cover not talking about treasonous crimes? I would think that you can provide evidence of a crime regardless of signing an NDA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

A court is not likely to enforce an NDA covering up crimes, but it's a fine line here between the criminal definition of treason and the casual definition of treason. In this case, it's not clear that Trump committed criminal treason here. I don't know what standard a court would use to determine when discussion of potential crimes would be covered by the NDA. In any event, to be clear, an NDA would not protect in the event of criminal investigation with subpoenas and all that jazz.

Sent from my computer where I typed this message.

[Rip]

It would seem all Fusion has to do is go testify publicly and releasing transcripts becomes unnecessary.

If they want the truth out it is as easy as that.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/04/dem-s ... cly-video/

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissed a complaint made this week by Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm behind the infamous Trump dossier.

In an op-ed at The New York Times, two of Fusion’s co-founders called on three congressional committees to release transcripts of 21 hours of testimony that members of the firm have provided as part of the ongoing Russia investigations.

“Republicans have refused to release full transcripts of our firm’s testimony, even as they selectively leak details to media outlets on the far right. It’s time to share what our company told investigators,” wrote Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, two of Fusion’s partners.

But Virginia Sen. Mark Warner suggested on Wednesday that releasing transcripts is not a feasible idea.

“We don’t normally release prior testimony because it my further impugn witnesses from coming forward,” Warner told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

Instead, Warner suggested an alternative: call Fusion GPS partners back to testify in public.

“What may even be a better option is to bring back the Fusion GPS folks and let them testify in public and lay out to the American public what they believe happened,” the Democrat said earlier in the day during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Warner’s comments echo those of Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[ImLawBoy]

It would seem all Fusion has to do is go testify publicly and releasing transcripts becomes unnecessary.

If they want the truth out it is as easy as that.

Well, I don't think they get to call themselves to testify. I read the asking for transcripts to be released as a counter to what they claim are selective leaks to conservative media outlets. In other words, put it all out there, or stop leaking just bits of it. I doubt they'd object to public testimony if called to do so.

[noxiousdog]

It would seem all Fusion has to do is go testify publicly and releasing transcripts becomes unnecessary.

If they want the truth out it is as easy as that.

Well, I don't think they get to call themselves to testify. I read the asking for transcripts to be released as a counter to what they claim are selective leaks to conservative media outlets. In other words, put it all out there, or stop leaking just bits of it. I doubt they'd object to public testimony if called to do so.

Especially now.

[Holman]

I don't know wheter any special laws apply to federal employees with respect to NDAs, but the ability to enforce Trump's NDAs probably depends on how well they are written. Unless there is something that specifically applies to federal employees and NDAs, you're most likely to find success by challenging the specific NDA rather than seeking a new ruling that NDAs are unenforceable against public employees.

Regarding Bannon's NDA (or NDAs), it depends when they were signed and what they cover. If they were signed in Bannon's capacity as campaign manager, they would likely apply to his role as campaign manager only, and that would include the Don Jr./Russia meeting. Assuming for purposes of argument that the NDA was well written enough to be enforceable, then Trump may have a claim here. I'll also note that having a claim here and filing suit are not an admission that what Bannon is saying is true. If he's discussing topics he's not supposed to discuss, regardless of whether he's telling the truth, Trump would reasonably want him to stop. You don't just let the disclosing party keep lying until he hits on the truth, and then try to enforce - that would force the enforcing party to essentially wait until the confidential material has been disclosed before asserting its rights.

Point taken.

BTW, and I apologize in advance for the grammar Nazism, but you don't use an apostrophe to pluralize an acronym - it's NDAs, not NDA's.

[Dies a thousand deaths.]

[LordMortis]

Do NDAs cover not talking about treasonous crimes? I would think that you can provide evidence of a crime regardless of signing an NDA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

We're not at war so it's not treason and if it were collusion it's not a crime even though it a happen... because suddenly saying what you mean and meaning what you say matter. Yer'a puppet. And now it's off the threaten OO with cease and desist for posting a page from a book in which were revealed details I told someone confidentially under contract in a conversation that never happened where lawyers may or may not have been present somewhere at the time.

[RunningMn9]

Let me rephrase. If you think a crime was committed, it seems easy to argue that an NDA doesn’t bar you from that disclosure. Either way, this isn’t going to court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ImLawBoy]

Let me rephrase. If you think a crime was committed, it seems easy to argue that an NDA doesn’t bar you from that disclosure. Either way, this isn’t going to court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The problem is that you thinking a crime was committed is not the same thing as a crime actually being committed. A court would probably be reluctant to enforce an NDA covering clearly illegal activity, but if it's open to question, that's a different story. In this case, I don't think it's so clear-cut that you can hand waive away the NDA.

And I agree that it's unlikely to go to court, although it's folly on the part of Trump to issue C&Ds if he has no intent of actually following up on them. That might work where you have something flying below the public radar, but it only serves to amplify the Streisand Effect here.

[Rip]

It would seem all Fusion has to do is go testify publicly and releasing transcripts becomes unnecessary.

If they want the truth out it is as easy as that.

Well, I don't think they get to call themselves to testify. I read the asking for transcripts to be released as a counter to what they claim are selective leaks to conservative media outlets. In other words, put it all out there, or stop leaking just bits of it. I doubt they'd object to public testimony if called to do so.

In his statement, Foy also noted that Simpson invoked the fifth when facing a subpoena from the Judiciary panel. As Warner did on CNN, Foy reiterated the committee’s invitation to Simpson to testify publicly.

“The Committee’s invitation for Mr. Simpson to testify at a public hearing remains on the table,” he said.

They have a standing invitation. No need to "call themselves".

[ImLawBoy]

It would seem all Fusion has to do is go testify publicly and releasing transcripts becomes unnecessary.

If they want the truth out it is as easy as that.

Well, I don't think they get to call themselves to testify. I read the asking for transcripts to be released as a counter to what they claim are selective leaks to conservative media outlets. In other words, put it all out there, or stop leaking just bits of it. I doubt they'd object to public testimony if called to do so.

In his statement, Foy also noted that Simpson invoked the fifth when facing a subpoena from the Judiciary panel. As Warner did on CNN, Foy reiterated the committee’s invitation to Simpson to testify publicly.

“The Committee’s invitation for Mr. Simpson to testify at a public hearing remains on the table,” he said.

They have a standing invitation. No need to "call themselves".

I can do big letters, too.

I read the asking for transcripts to be released as a counter to what they claim are selective leaks to conservative media outlets. In other words, put it all out there, or stop leaking just bits of it.

So I may be wrong that they don't want to do public testimony, but the point above still stands. They're asking for the transcripts to be released in their entirety, and not selectively. In other words, here's my presumed order of preference from Fusion:

1) Private testimony, no leaks
2) If there are leaks to the private testimony, then make the whole thing public
3) Private testimony, selective leaks
4) Public testimony

The last two can probably be switched up there - I don't know if their aversion to public testimony is stronger than their desire to prevent selective leaks.

[pr0ner]

Publication of Wolff's book FIRE AND FURY has been accelerated to tomorrow.

[Holman]

Someone should offer to ghostwrite Trump's own account of his presidency, a la ART OF THE DEAL, and then just publish the interviews unedited.