The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[El Guapo]

This is pretty scary shit.

The 2018 elections couldn't be more important. If the GOP holds on to both chambers of Congress, I'm honestly not sure that the 2020 elections will be fully free. At a minimum it seems pretty likely that we'll have very onerous voting restrictions (targeted to minority / democratic leaning voters), and a fully weaponized DOJ targeting whomever the Democratic nominee is (along with Russian cyberwarfare).

[Kraken]

I agree that the '18 elections are probably going to be democracy's last gasp, if it's not suffocated already. The Kochs have committed $400m to make sure Democrats don't change the trajectory. It's going to take a huge groundswell to overcome the many obstacles, and I am skeptical that voters will mass in the necessary numbers if the economy keeps chugging merrily along. Next month we'll all see our paychecks get fatter when withholding is reduced, and we won't see the bill for that come due until after the election.

Already the courts are being packed, a SC seat was stolen, law enforcement is taking it on the chin, the press is struggling, and we're acquiescing in foreign collusion. We are well on the way to being a permanent one-party state. People will take to the streets if Mueller is fired...but will it matter? That's going to be up to the R Party, and they do not inspire hope.

[YellowKing]

My biggest disappointment in all this is that aside from a couple of rare exceptions, no moderate Republican has had the spine to stand up to Trump. I truly thought they would use him for a bit to get something they wanted (tax cuts), then dump him, realizing he was toxic for the party and they would be much better off under Pence.

What I didn't count on is that they would buck every political norm in their thirst for power. The corruption we're seeing here is frightening. I saw it happening at the state level, but never in my wildest dreams did I think it would become the new standard for the GOP. What a naive fool I was.

I just hope something happens before the elections for people to wake up. The American people have suffered a year-long DDOS attack of corruption and shady tactics, and we've become numb to it.

[Zarathud]

Trevor Potter gave an interesting explanation last week of how the Supreme Court made the assumption that corporate and social welfare organizations would be policed by citizens "who would know where the money is coming from" in our democracy. He then made a damning explanation of how the Federal Election Commission, Congress and IRS were entirely ineffectual at forcing dark money to come forward and identify who funded them.

The floodgates of unregulated, unsourced money enabled Trump and requires Republicans to support him or resign.

[El Guapo]

I agree that the '18 elections are probably going to be democracy's last gasp, if it's not suffocated already. The Kochs have committed $400m to make sure Democrats don't change the trajectory. It's going to take a huge groundswell to overcome the many obstacles, and I am skeptical that voters will mass in the necessary numbers if the economy keeps chugging merrily along. Next month we'll all see our paychecks get fatter when withholding is reduced, and we won't see the bill for that come due until after the election.

Already the courts are being packed, a SC seat was stolen, law enforcement is taking it on the chin, the press is struggling, and we're acquiescing in foreign collusion. We are well on the way to being a permanent one-party state. People will take to the streets if Mueller is fired...but will it matter? That's going to be up to the R Party, and they do not inspire hope.

What's scaring me now is that the GOP leadership (especially Ryan) is clearly all-in on backing Trump, and people like Ryan and McConnell are probably smart enough to at least potentially pull off a libertarian one-party autocracy. Like, I kind of doubt that Trump will fire Mueller (though all it takes is one impulsive move from Trump to do that), because it's too risky - the public knows to pay attention to that, and even if Fox News persuades the base, there's enough people out there to flood the streets. Even then there's a pretty decent chance the Republicans would insulate Trump from accountability, but the whole thing would still be fairly risky.

This is why the Nunes memo is much more clever. It's basically targeting Rosenstein, who most people don't know. If and when Rosenstein gets fired, will anyone march in the streets? Probably not, at least not in large numbers. It will get some media attention, but enough media outlets won't understand the whole situation to really alert people of the real danger involved. Then Trump replaces Rosenstein with a lackey with sufficient-looking credentials (say, some partner from Guiliani's old firm) to get confirmed by the Senate. Then said lackey kneecaps Mueller's investigation in ways that don't generate headlines - budgets get cut, staff gets reduced, certain charges get ruled out. Whatever gimpy report or whatnot that eventually trickles out is easy for the Republicans to squash / ignore as partisan scrum. No accountability, but there's no "Trump fires Mueller" moment that alerts the masses to what's going on.

[Paingod]

At what point do we reach this?

Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.

[El Guapo]

At what point do we reach this?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Never. That's what annoying about 2nd amendment patriot fantasies. Even if the government goes authoritarian, it will never be a good idea to start a civil war (as opposed to a nonviolent resistance movement).

[Kraken]

My biggest disappointment in all this is that aside from a couple of rare exceptions, no moderate Republican has had the spine to stand up to Trump. I truly thought they would use him for a bit to get something they wanted (tax cuts), then dump him, realizing he was toxic for the party and they would be much better off under Pence.

I made the same mistake. I never expected them to put country ahead of party ahead of self, but I didn't foresee that self-preservation would entail joining the dark side.

[Paingod]

At what point do we reach this?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Never. That's what annoying about 2nd amendment patriot fantasies. Even if the government goes authoritarian, it will never be a good idea to start a civil war (as opposed to a nonviolent resistance movement).

I'd agree that it seems a fantasy in this day and age in the USA. But what recourse does the population have against leaders that move against the wishes of the people? Leaders that work to diminish our rights, and try and prop themselves up unopposed to rule? Peaceful protest won't matter as much as a fart in a hurricane. They already aren't listening. When 80+% of the nation is in favor or against something and the politicians go in opposition to the people they represent, that seems good cause for concern.

[hepcat]

We're not even close to that kind of talk. We still exist in a democracy, even though some of the more politically biased media outlets play Chicken Little a little too frequently (just as others downplay the seeming lack of ethics in the WH).

Trump is making money hand over fist in this endeavor, and he's a moron. Those aren't intentional threats to democracy on his part, although they are troubling. His end goal isn't a dictatorship, he's just too stupid to realize that America isn't a company, and that the president isn't a boss. He's supposed to be a leader. I doubt he'll ever be able to make that distinction (have I mentioned he's an idiot?).

My worry isn't that our president is a threat to democracy, it's that his supporters are. And not because they want a dictatorship, but because they're too gullible to understand empty promises, and they're easily lead by their baser emotions. That's all it takes to let an actual dictator take power.

But the ship will right itself, I feel. The water may come up to the railings at time, but I'm confident that even those dumb enough to believe Trump's every word will either come to a realization that they have been naive and/or just too dumb to get it, or they'll be outnumbered by those with more common sense.

[El Guapo]

My biggest disappointment in all this is that aside from a couple of rare exceptions, no moderate Republican has had the spine to stand up to Trump. I truly thought they would use him for a bit to get something they wanted (tax cuts), then dump him, realizing he was toxic for the party and they would be much better off under Pence.

I made the same mistake. I never expected them to put country ahead of party ahead of self, but I didn't foresee that self-preservation would entail joining the dark side.

One wild card in all this is how much is the GOP congress implicated in Russian election meddling? After all, among other things a GOP super PAC linked to Paul Ryan used illegally hacked material against Democratic House candidates in the 2016 elections. What if Ryan is actively complicit in the wrongdoing? It would certainly explain a lot (and also why the House has been way more aggressive than the Senate in backing Trump in all this mess. It's also terrifying, because it would suggest that there really is no point at which the House would break with Trump, because Ryan (and others) might wind up going down (and going to jail) as well.

[El Guapo]

At what point do we reach this?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Never. That's what annoying about 2nd amendment patriot fantasies. Even if the government goes authoritarian, it will never be a good idea to start a civil war (as opposed to a nonviolent resistance movement).

I'd agree that it seems a fantasy in this day and age in the USA. But what recourse does the population have against leaders that move against the wishes of the people? Leaders that work to diminish our rights, and try and prop themselves up unopposed to rule? Peaceful protest won't matter as much as a fart in a hurricane. They already aren't listening. When 80+% of the nation is in favor or against something and the politicians go in opposition to the people they represent, that seems good cause for concern.

Oh, peaceful protest matters. It can take a long time (sometimes decades), but (in addition to having the upside of way fewer people dying) it works much, much better over the long run. You avoid becoming a Syria. Plus even when armed revolutions do succeed, they usually just wind up putting the revolution leader in as the next dictator.

[El Guapo]

There's No Way Mueller Will Indict Trump.

Shit, this is going to be even easier for the GOP than I thought:

The latest revelations about President Trump have, once again, excited the interest of the public, leading to speculation that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may have amassed sufficient evidence to charge the president with obstruction of justice. Trump’s attempt to fire Mueller (which happened last June, but is only now being publicly reported) is, under this line of thinking, the final straw.

Color me deeply skeptical.

Mueller will not indict Trump for obstruction of justice or for any other crime. Period. Full stop. End of story. Speculations to the contrary are just fantasy.

He won’t do it for the good and sufficient reason that the Department of Justice has a long-standing legal opinion that sitting presidents may not be indicted. First issued in 1973 during the Nixon era, the policy was reaffirmed in 2000, during the Clinton era. These rules bind all Department of Justice employees, and Mueller, in the end, is a Department of Justice employee. More to the point, if we know anything about Mueller, we think we know that he follows the rules—all of them. Even the ones that restrict him in ways he would prefer they not. And if he were to choose not to follow the rules, that, in turn, would be a reasonable justification for firing him. So … the special counsel will not indict the president.

What can Mueller do if he finds evidence of criminality involving the president? He can and will (as authorized by Department of Justice regulations) file a report on his findings with the attorney general (or, since Attorney General Sessions is, in this case, recused, with the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein). Rosenstein will then be faced with the important decision of whether and how to make that report public—whether to convey it to Congress or not; whether to release it publicly or not. The regulations are so vague (they say only that he “may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions”) that they, in effect, give Rosenstein plenary discretion to do whatever he thinks is in the best interest of the country.

So, every time you read about the threat to fire Mueller, remember this—the critical actor in most future scenarios is not Mueller, but Rosenstein. Knowing Rosenstein personally, I have high confidence that he will make what he thinks is the best decision for the country—the same may not be true of his replacement (or of the replacement attorney general, should Sessions be fired). That, of course, is why the highly dubious “secret memo” prepared by House Republicans reportedly targets Rosenstein—even though he is a Trump appointee who advocated firing Comey, Trump supporters fear he will follow the rule of law.

So:

(1) Trump fires Rosenstein based on the #ReleaseTheMemo bullshit;
(2) Trump replaces Rosenstein with lackey;
(3) Lackey handicaps Mueller's investigation;
(4) Once Lackey receives Mueller's report, he sits on it and does absolutely nothing.

One thing I wonder is that Mueller and Rosenstein have to be aware of the danger here, and they're pretty smart and have a solid team. I would think that they would be engaging in some contingency planning around this stuff.

[Carpet_pissr]

Let's not forget that Mueller is a Republican, as impartial as he allegedly is. Still going to have some bias creep in.

[hepcat]

For impeachment to happen in this day and age, he needs to have a cigar and a willing sexual partner....

[Remus West]

Peaceful protests are not always bloodless. Kent State comes to mind.

[El Guapo]

Peaceful protests are not always bloodless. Kent State comes to mind.

Oh, I know - the protestees tend not to take that kind of stuff lying down. But they're way less bloody than, say, armed revolt.

[El Guapo]

Let's not forget that Mueller is a Republican, as impartial as he allegedly is. Still going to have some bias creep in.

eh, I don't really worry about that. He's a law and order guy faced with one of the most significant criminal conspiracies in U.S. history. Plus as a matter of self-interest, breaking this case would give him a prominent role in the history books. Plus there's really been no indication to date that he's conducting this investigation with anything less than full vigor.

[Skinypupy]

But the ship will right itself, I feel. The water may come up to the railings at time, but I'm confident that even those dumb enough to believe Trump's every word will either come to a realization that they have been naive and/or just too dumb to get it, or they'll be outnumbered by those with more common sense.

You have far more faith in the average American than I do.

While it seems crazy to most of us here, there are a huge number of people who are not paying attention at all and simply don't care about any of this.

[msteelers]

While it seems crazy to most of us here, there are a huge number of people who are not paying attention at all and simply don't care about any of this.

This. A large chunk of the Trump voters I know fall into this camp. They barely pay attention, and only knew that Hillary was corrupt and maybe it's time for a businessman to be president.

Ignorance will be our downfall.

[El Guapo]

While it seems crazy to most of us here, there are a huge number of people who are not paying attention at all and simply don't care about any of this.

This. A large chunk of the Trump voters I know fall into this camp. They barely pay attention, and only knew that Hillary was corrupt and maybe it's time for a businessman to be president.

Ignorance will be our downfall.

I sort of get the political logic of passing a wildly unpopular tax bill now. The economy is doing pretty well. No thanks to Trump, of course, but passing a tax bill lets the GOP helps the GOP (wrongly) claim credit for it. "We passed the tax bill --> you're doing ok economically --> vote for us."

A good economy plus that plus voting restrictions plus some Russian electoral interference could potentially be enough for the GOP to hang onto a narrow House majority.

[Captain Caveman]

What's critical here is that the GOP has become more protective of the president, not less, as he's taken more steps towards authoritarianism and as evidence of Russian collusion builds. We've had members of his team indicted, smoking gun evidence like the Trump Tower meeting, purging of leadership at institutions that can hold him accountable, and the GOP is more on board with him then ever. What's going on here? Are they maybe not only complicit but explicit beneficiaries of Russian interference? Do they see it as a safe-guard against a 2018 Democratic wave? I'm not sure what's going on but it isn't pretty and it's starting to get scary. The Russian sanctions passed in the House 419-3 and in the Senate 98-2, but now the White House not implementing them is just going to be shrugged off?

[El Guapo]

My biggest disappointment in all this is that aside from a couple of rare exceptions, no moderate Republican has had the spine to stand up to Trump. I truly thought they would use him for a bit to get something they wanted (tax cuts), then dump him, realizing he was toxic for the party and they would be much better off under Pence.

I made the same mistake. I never expected them to put country ahead of party ahead of self, but I didn't foresee that self-preservation would entail joining the dark side.

One wild card in all this is how much is the GOP congress implicated in Russian election meddling? After all, among other things a GOP super PAC linked to Paul Ryan used illegally hacked material against Democratic House candidates in the 2016 elections. What if Ryan is actively complicit in the wrongdoing? It would certainly explain a lot (and also why the House has been way more aggressive than the Senate in backing Trump in all this mess. It's also terrifying, because it would suggest that there really is no point at which the House would break with Trump, because Ryan (and others) might wind up going down (and going to jail) as well.

[Skinypupy]

While it seems crazy to most of us here, there are a huge number of people who are not paying attention at all and simply don't care about any of this.

This. A large chunk of the Trump voters I know fall into this camp. They barely pay attention, and only knew that Hillary was corrupt and maybe it's time for a businessman to be president.

Ignorance will be our downfall.

Quick anecdote. I was talking to the woman who books all my corporate travel the day before the shutdown, letting her know that if the government shut down on Friday, I might need to cancel my flight to DC on Monday. She asked when I would know for sure, and I joked with her that she just needs to watch the news. If the government shuts down, go ahead and cancel my flight.

Her response, "Please be sure to send me an e-mail to confirm. I don't watch any news at all, so I wouldn't know if there was a shutdown. But I'm glad to hear that Trump is doing something about the stupid government!"

And her vote counts just as much as mine.

[El Guapo]

In addition to the potential complicity of GOP figures in the 2016 meddling, another plausible factor is the libertarian-authoritarian ideological alliance within the GOP - the linked column does a great job explaining it. Basically, you have a lot of Randian ideologues in the GOP (of whom the most prominent is Paul Ryan), who believe that the most important part of liberty is protecting "maker" property rights from the unwashed masses. One thing that follows pretty readily from that belief is a suspicion (or outright hostility) towards democracy, because the "takers" all get votes, and they dramatically outnumber the makers. So democracy is a potential problem because it provides a legal means for the takers to basically steal the fruits of the makers sweat and labor. Hence, anti-democratic measures (ranging from voting restrictions to outright authoritarianism) are at least somewhat justified by the need to protect true liberty, in the form of untrammeled property rights (and non-progressive taxation and the like).

[El Guapo]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I really miss Boehner.

[El Guapo]

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status ... 6144419840

[Pyperkub]

The link is that attacking a nation's major banking institutions is a shot across their bow. I'm seeing private CTI that the botnet involved was from Russia. Attribution is difficult still but there are some indicators here. First, we hear that the Dutch watched and helped identify the Cozy Bear intrusion into the DNC. That they had watched it for years and it was the basis of the FBI investigation. Suddenly within a span of a day or two, several major Dutch banks and their tax service are attacked by a Russian botnet. This isn't much of a stretch.

I'm just not making the same connection between the banks and the Cozy Bear hack surveillance. Maybe the tax service, but it still strikes me as a bit of a reach.

[LawBeefaroni]

The link is that attacking a nation's major banking institutions is a shot across their bow. I'm seeing private CTI that the botnet involved was from Russia. Attribution is difficult still but there are some indicators here. First, we hear that the Dutch watched and helped identify the Cozy Bear intrusion into the DNC. That they had watched it for years and it was the basis of the FBI investigation. Suddenly within a span of a day or two, several major Dutch banks and their tax service are attacked by a Russian botnet. This isn't much of a stretch.

I'm just not making the same connection between the banks and the Cozy Bear hack surveillance. Maybe the tax service, but it still strikes me as a bit of a reach.

It's not punishment directed at the Dutch. It's intimidation directed at everyone else.

[El Guapo]

This shit just keeps getting worse. So in addition to the Russian sanctions that Trump elected to ignore, the administration was supposed to identify individuals who made their money via illicit contacts with the Russian government. By press accounts, government staffers diligently did the work to compile the list. But then a funny thing happened on the way to the circus:

https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/statu ... 3509059585

[Isgrimnur]

The Forbes list of richest Russian includes those that have no economic dependence on the oligarchy, and some that have run against Putin in elections.

[El Guapo]

The Forbes list of richest Russian includes those that have no economic dependence on the oligarchy, and some that have run against Putin in elections.

Yeah, my understanding (from the article I linked to) is that this actively perverts one key part of the sanctions. It's supposed to divide the Russian elite, and allow those not connected to the Kremlin to seek refuge in the U.S. This does the opposite - it basically bars rich Russians who have opposed Putin from coming to the U.S., and basically ties the Russian elite as a group to the Kremlin.

I still doubt that Trump is really anything like a Russian agent, i.e. under Putin's effective control and more like an ally. BUT the case for Trump as a Russian agent is uncomfortably strong.

[LordMortis]

Russian agent?

[El Guapo]

Trump’s Law Enforcement Purge Is Now Republican Policy.

This is going to be a rough fucking year.

[Holman]

The Forbes list of richest Russian includes those that have no economic dependence on the oligarchy, and some that have run against Putin in elections.

Yeah, my understanding (from the article I linked to) is that this actively perverts one key part of the sanctions. It's supposed to divide the Russian elite, and allow those not connected to the Kremlin to seek refuge in the U.S. This does the opposite - it basically bars rich Russians who have opposed Putin from coming to the U.S., and basically ties the Russian elite as a group to the Kremlin.

I still doubt that Trump is really anything like a Russian agent, i.e. under Putin's effective control and more like an ally. BUT the case for Trump as a Russian agent is uncomfortably strong.

And of course he doesn't have to be a Russian agent as such. He just has to know that acting against Moscow will persuade Putin to drop the hammer: sex tapes, proof of financial crimes, and proof of collusion.

[Skinypupy]

Let us hearken back to the height of Black Lives Matter, when the response was "Blue Lives Matter" and how dare we ever question the honor and impeccable integrity of law enforcement officers.

Fast forward to today when the same people who screamed the loudest about Blue Lives Matter are now now actively throwing the entire US Department of Justice under suspicion for wholly partisan purposes.

Good times, man. Good times.

[Holman]

Trump’s Law Enforcement Purge Is Now Republican Policy.

This is going to be a rough fucking year.

You said it.

For a while it looked like Paul Ryan was keeping his distance in the hope of salvaging a post-Trump GOP. Now that he has thrown in for Nunes and has directly called for the FBI to be purged of anti-Trump elements, that's impossible.

November is our only chance.

[malchior]

The link is that attacking a nation's major banking institutions is a shot across their bow. I'm seeing private CTI that the botnet involved was from Russia. Attribution is difficult still but there are some indicators here. First, we hear that the Dutch watched and helped identify the Cozy Bear intrusion into the DNC. That they had watched it for years and it was the basis of the FBI investigation. Suddenly within a span of a day or two, several major Dutch banks and their tax service are attacked by a Russian botnet. This isn't much of a stretch.

I'm just not making the same connection between the banks and the Cozy Bear hack surveillance. Maybe the tax service, but it still strikes me as a bit of a reach.

The connection is this is a pattern with the Russians. You mess with them and they attack. The government of a nation is intimately tied to their major financial institutions. Almost all the private Intel I saw around these particular attacks came to the conclusion they were related. The timing of the attacks was hours after the Dutch Intel story broke.

[malchior]

I still doubt that Trump is really anything like a Russian agent, i.e. under Putin's effective control and more like an ally. BUT the case for Trump as a Russian agent is uncomfortably strong.

At some point we have to reconcile that he is an idiot with the idea he was compromised. Even if only by the emails. There is just so, so much smoke here. He fucks everything up except things that help Russia. That is almost the smoking gun.

[Holman]

link

BREAKING: Peter Strzok, the FBI agent accused by GOP of having "treasonous" anti-Trump bias, supported re-opening the Clinton email investigation in fall 2016 and helped write the letter (signed by Comey) that was released days before the election.

ANTI-TRUMP DEEEEEP STAAAAAAAAAATE!!1!