The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Grifman]

Thought it would be good to get a new thread on all things related to the upcoming special counsel investigation in one place, starting with the announcement:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/ ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/18/politics/ ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/ ... index.html

Apologies for the fake news links.

[Skinypupy]

There seems to be unilateral support for Mueller being the right guy for this job. They had two republican congressmen on NPR this morning, and both were singing his praises as an impartial player with an impeccable track record. That's a very encouraging sign.

It was funny to hear them dance around the question of whether or not they would accept any findings that were not in Trump's favor. "We can't talk about hypotheticals..." and "We'll have to wait and see..." seemed to be the consensus. However, both democrats they posed the inverse question to ("Would you accept a ruling that confirmed Trump was innocent in all of this?") answered with a simple "Of course".

[Holman]

Um, shouldn't this thread be titled "Greatest Witch Hunt in American History"?

In any case, Your Guide To All The Committees Probing Trump, Comey And Russia.

Four so far:

House Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Senate Judiciary Committee

All controlled by Republicans, of course.

[Paingod]

All controlled by Republicans, of course.

... and thus, four completely bogged down investigations going nowhere fast and making a spectacle of themselves trying super hard. I look forward to some outside views and results.

[LordMortis]

There seems to be unilateral support for Mueller being the right guy for this job. They had two republican congressmen on NPR this morning, and both were singing his praises as an impartial player with an impeccable track record. That's a very encouraging sign.

It was funny to hear them dance around the question of whether or not they would accept any findings that were not in Trump's favor. "We can't talk about hypotheticals..." and "We'll have to wait and see..." seemed to be the consensus. However, both democrats they posed the inverse question to ("Would you accept a ruling that confirmed Trump was innocent in all of this?") answered with a simple "Of course".

They had a slew of Rs on PBS last night and they were all in favor of both a Congressional and Special Counsel investigation with the jury still being out on independent investigation. They also all concurred that wheels of justice will spin slowly on this as it should.

Of more interest to me, was that there has been more than a little focus on this Nightly Business Reports for the last few nights. They've only reported direct correlations of specific presidential... intereference?... weight?... whatever, until now, but the suggestion on this focus is that Wallstreet has turned on him. Irrespective of a 1.5% drop yesterday, investigation news is taken seriously and being negatively scrutinized by "the investor", or least by non-partisan investor news.

[Max Peck]

Wallstreet has turned on him.

The market is simply responding to Trump's magnificence by creating buying opportunities. All is well.

[tgb]

I've heard Mueller referred to as both a Special Counsel and a Special Prosecutor. There's a big difference between the two, so which is correct?

[LordMortis]

Wallstreet has turned on him.

The market is simply responding to Trump's magnificence by creating buying opportunities. All is well.

I'm not talking the market. I'm talking about the WallStreet, if that makes any sense. The people who report on the market and the people who try to act on behalf of investors are letting their concern and disapproval be seen. Before this week, they were focused on specific actions and reactions with the only general thing being "Trump + R Congress will mean tax cuts and deregulation". That unshakable message was shaken this week.

[Paingod]

I've heard Mueller referred to as both a Special Counsel and a Special Prosecutor. There's a big difference between the two, so which is correct?

CBS News says it's "Special Counsel" but people are using it interchangeably.

What are the limitations of the Special Counsel?
Peter Zeidenberg, who served as the assistant special counsel in the investigation of former White House aide Scooter Libby, argued in the Washington Post that appointing one would be a mistake.

"Prosecutors are not journalists, and their job is not to inform the public of the results of their investigations," Zeidenberg wrote. "Rather, their mission is to gather all of the relevant facts and determine whether a crime was committed and, if so, whether it can be proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Their work, when done properly, is done in secret."

That means that if critical evidence was found in the case but it was in, say, Russia and therefore unobtainable, "then it would be improper to seek an indictment. Critically, the entire investigation would then remain secret. It would be a violation of law for a prosecutor to make public the results of a grand jury investigation that did not result in an indictment."

So a special counsel could find incriminating information and keep it secret forever. Alternatively, a special counsel, in an effort to justify its efforts and expenditures, would have a tremendous incentive to get a prosecution even if it's unnecessary or unwarranted.

[Defiant]

Um, shouldn't this thread be titled "Greatest Witch Hunt in American History"?

So are we saying Trump is a witch?

[gilraen]

I've heard Mueller referred to as both a Special Counsel and a Special Prosecutor. There's a big difference between the two, so which is correct?

News outlets, such as USA Today or CBS News, seem to think that the term here is used interchangeably. Most news articles call Mueller "special counsel".

[dfs]

All controlled by Republicans, of course.

... and thus, four completely bogged down investigations going nowhere fast and making a spectacle of themselves trying super hard.

To me that's actually the best of all possible worlds. Anything that keeps Pence out of office AND keeps the red reps in Washington from actually being able do anything is the best I can hope for till the mid term elections.

[Max Peck]

I've heard Mueller referred to as both a Special Counsel and a Special Prosecutor. There's a big difference between the two, so which is correct?

CBS News says it's "Special Counsel" but people are using it interchangeably despite the difference.

The confusion in terminology may be due to the text of the order, which authorizes him to prosecute federal crimes as appropriate:

“If the special counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the special counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters,’’ the order states.

[Default]

Um, shouldn't this thread be titled "Greatest Witch Hunt in American History"?

So are we saying Trump is a witch?

If he weighs as much as a duck, yes.

[Kurth]

For all those arm chair doctor folks asserting Trump has dementia or Alzheimer's, be warned: Roger Stone is on to you!

And speaking of Roger Stone, anyone see Get Me Roger Stone! on Netflix? Watched it last night. What a vile human being.

[Holman]

And speaking of Roger Stone, anyone see Get Me Roger Stone! on Netflix? Watched it last night. What a vile human being.

I started, but it was physically painful. I'll need to steel myself for another go at it.

[malchior]

[sarcasm]I'm sure this is *totally* unrelated to all this[/sarcasm] but Politico is reporting that Chaffetz is going to announce an early retirement from Congress. Probably to go to Fox News. Get the money while the money is still good?

[El Guapo]

Apparently Flynn's lawyers are saying that he won't honor the subpoena. Pretty sure the potential remedy for that is contempt, right?

[Paingod]

Apparently Flynn's lawyers are saying that he won't honor the subpoena. Pretty sure the potential remedy for that is contempt, right?

It might be a smart move. If you're in jail for Contempt of Court, is your room even a smidgen better than the one you get serving a life sentence for Treason?

[gilraen]

[sarcasm]I'm sure this is *totally* unrelated to all this[/sarcasm] but Politico is reporting that Chaffetz is going to announce an early retirement from Congress. Probably to go to Fox News. Get the money while the money is still good?

I think it's more that Chaffetz is looking ahead to bigger and better things. He needs to avoid getting so tainted by association that the stink would carry over to a potential Utah governor run. This way he gets the best of both worlds: be a "hero" for his constituents (who are conservative but mostly not Trump fans) by showing the same doggedness in this investigation as he did in the (waste of a) Clinton investigation, AND potentially make some money in the private sector before 2020.

[Remus West]

Apparently Flynn's lawyers are saying that he won't honor the subpoena. Pretty sure the potential remedy for that is contempt, right?

and wouldn't look at all guilty.

[msteelers]

So let's assume for a second that those sealed indictments are real. Does the appointment of a special counsel change them at all? Would they still be pursued, or would they be put on hold?

[El Guapo]

Apparently Flynn's lawyers are saying that he won't honor the subpoena. Pretty sure the potential remedy for that is contempt, right?

and wouldn't look at all guilty.

In totally unrelated news, there are reports today that Trump sent a private message to Flynn to "stay strong."

[Paingod]

So let's assume for a second that those sealed indictments are real. Does the appointment of a special counsel change them at all? Would they still be pursued, or would they be put on hold?

I imagine he'll have the authority to review those, look over the evidence, and decide to carry them forth into grand jury and criminal trial as needed without having to start over completely.

His scope is strictly "Russian Election Tampering and Trump Team Collusion" right? Anything outside that is off limits? No charges for handing allied secrets to hostile entities. No checking the mental health of the President. No prosecution for obstruction of justice... We're all the way back to October of 2016 for this one, and it stops at November 7th?

[Max Peck]

So let's assume for a second that those sealed indictments are real. Does the appointment of a special counsel change them at all? Would they still be pursued, or would they be put on hold?

I imagine he'll have the authority to review those, look over the evidence, and decide to carry them forth into grand jury and criminal trial as needed without having to start over completely.

His scope is strictly "Russian Election Tampering and Trump Team Collusion" right? Anything outside that is off limits? No charges for handing allied secrets to hostile entities. No checking the mental health of the President. No prosecution for obstruction of justice... We're all the way back to October of 2016 for this one, and it stops at November 7th?

As I read it, obstruction of justice isn't off the table if it involves the investigation into the election tampering.

Q: What can the special counsel investigate?

A: In this case, Mueller was tasked with investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” according to Rosenstein’s order. He also has authority to investigate “any matters that arose or may directly arise from that investigation.”

That would seem to include possible efforts to impede the investigation, including Trump’s alleged request to shut down a probe related to former national security adviser Michael Flynn. The law also allows the special counsel to investigate efforts to impede his own work.

But no, it isn't a wide-open license to go after Trump on unrelated grounds, such as whether or not he's cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

[LordMortis]

HuffPo has same Flynn headlines but different story.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mic ... 684b0a3a83

"“Michael Flynn has not cooperated with the committee up to this point,” Burr said, adding, however, that he has not received a “definitive answer” on whether he and his lawyers will comply. "

[Max Peck]

Remember when it was difficult to keep track of what happened in the last week or so? The ever-helpful WaPo has a recap of what happened in the last day, to help us keep up.

The White House’s absolutely brutal night, in 6 headlines

For any president, one of these headlines would be very bad news. For President Trump, they all came in a span of 12 hours:

• “Justice Department to appoint special counsel to oversee probe of Russian meddling in 2016 election”
• “House majority leader told colleagues last year: ‘I think Putin pays’ Trump”
• “Flynn stopped military plan Turkey opposed — after being paid as its agent”
• “Trump Team Knew Flynn Was Under Investigation Before He Came to White House”
• “Israeli Source Seen as Key to Countering Islamic State Threat”
• “Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians — sources”

It was a dizzying Wednesday night for political reporters and followers alike, with a bevy of new information being thrown at them on multiple fronts. And it continued into early Thursday morning with that last headline, from Reuters.

Trump's opponents have often accused the media of allowing Trump to distract them with the insignificant, shiny objects that Trump dangles in front of them. At this point, the bigger problem may be that there are too many very real stories to keep up with.

[Smoove_B]

Message to people currently working for Trump? Run for your lives.

I’ve been a Republican political consultant for almost 30 years, and I’ve dispensed a lot of private advice. But now it’s time for me to reach out publicly to my fellow Republicans working in the Trump administration.

We really need to talk.

...

Sticking with Trump to the bitter end and pretending the unfolding chaos is just “fake news” won’t save your reputation as the walls close in. It won’t ease the judgment of history. It won’t do anything to polish up your future Wikipedia entry.

Cutting ties with a man who is destructive to our values, profoundly divisive, contemptuous of the rule of law and incontrovertibly unfit to serve in the highest office in the land just might. Do it now.

Cracks deepening.

[El Guapo]

So let's assume for a second that those sealed indictments are real. Does the appointment of a special counsel change them at all? Would they still be pursued, or would they be put on hold?

I imagine he'll have the authority to review those, look over the evidence, and decide to carry them forth into grand jury and criminal trial as needed without having to start over completely.

His scope is strictly "Russian Election Tampering and Trump Team Collusion" right? Anything outside that is off limits? No charges for handing allied secrets to hostile entities. No checking the mental health of the President. No prosecution for obstruction of justice... We're all the way back to October of 2016 for this one, and it stops at November 7th?

At this point I think there's like a 0.5% that what Taylor and Mensch are tweeting is correct as is. As much as I want that stuff to be true, it's just unfathomable that it's going down so soon to the extent that they are claiming without *anyone* beyond the two of them hearing about it.

Now, I wouldn't be shocked if Flynn, and to a slightly lesser degree Manafort, were arrested tomorrow. But that there's a sealed indictment out with Trump's name on it......it's not literally *impossible*, if the underlying facts are grim enough. But....really really unlikely.

Anyway, but to get to your actual question, if Taylor / Mensch are to be believed, the sealed indictments have already been issued (by grand juries), they just haven't been acted on (i.e. the defendants have not yet been arrested). The relevant U.S. Attorney / the Attorney General or Deputy AG could presumably pull them back, I think. However, since the grand jury has already issued them, I strongly suspect that there would be some process first - the U.S. Attorney's Office / DoJ would probably need to go to court to do that.

[Brian]

Would a President who was impeached and subsequently removed from office still be entitled to Secret Service protection under the Former Presidents Act?

Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed from office so is still given protection. Nixon was impeached but retired before being removed from office so was still given protection.

So, if President Trump were to be impeached and then removed from office, is the SS on the hook to protect him according to the FPA?

[Paingod]

Entitled or not, I feel badly for his agents as it is. I mean, most of the time they have enough on their hands watching everything for threats without their "package" running at people while screaming "Come at me, Bro!" ...

... but damn I pity the poor bastards that might have to babysit Trump for the rest of his life because he was President for a few months. Your link suggests that Trump could wave his tiny hands and dismiss them of their duty, though, so that's something.

[Enough]

Would a President who was impeached and subsequently removed from office still be entitled to Secret Service protection under the Former Presidents Act?

Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed from office so is still given protection. Nixon was impeached but retired before being removed from office so was still given protection.

So, if President Trump were to be impeached and then removed from office, is the SS on the hook to protect him according to the FPA?

If impeached and he remains in the USA then probably we should/would. If he decides to move to Dubai or Russia then I think we have no ethical requirement to provide the protection.

[msteelers]

Anyway, but to get to your actual question, if Taylor / Mensch are to be believed, the sealed indictments have already been issued (by grand juries), they just haven't been acted on (i.e. the defendants have not yet been arrested). The relevant U.S. Attorney / the Attorney General or Deputy AG could presumably pull them back, I think. However, since the grand jury has already issued them, I strongly suspect that there would be some process first - the U.S. Attorney's Office / DoJ would probably need to go to court to do that.

Thanks.

And for the record, I agree that it's extremely unlikely the sealed indictments actually exist. I was just curious on what the process would be.

[YellowKing]

There's no way he'd actually wait until he was impeached. If the noose tightens to that point, he'll come up with some bullshit excuse and resign. Then somehow blame Hillary while simultaneously telling people it was a personal choice he had already decided on long before the impeachment process.

[Holman]

Secret Service protection or not, he'll still get to call himself "President Trump" for the rest of his life.

"President Trump Casino"
"President Trump Steaks"
"President Trump Tower Krasnoyarsk"

[El Guapo]

Anyway, but to get to your actual question, if Taylor / Mensch are to be believed, the sealed indictments have already been issued (by grand juries), they just haven't been acted on (i.e. the defendants have not yet been arrested). The relevant U.S. Attorney / the Attorney General or Deputy AG could presumably pull them back, I think. However, since the grand jury has already issued them, I strongly suspect that there would be some process first - the U.S. Attorney's Office / DoJ would probably need to go to court to do that.

Thanks.

And for the record, I agree that it's extremely unlikely the sealed indictments actually exist. I was just curious on what the process would be.

For what it's worth from what Claude Taylor is tweeting, it sounds like (if what he's saying is legit) we should know pretty soon. Supposedly marshalls are out doing searches and seizing evidence. Which again, how on earth would he be the only person to have a good sources on this. But regardless, if he is right seems like we'll know before too long.

[tgb]

Apparently Flynn's lawyers are saying that he won't honor the subpoena. Pretty sure the potential remedy for that is contempt, right?

and wouldn't look at all guilty.

In totally unrelated news, there are reports today that Trump sent a private message to Flynn to "stay strong."

Trump to Flynn: "You learned the two greatest thing in life, never rat on your friends, and always keep your mouth shut."

[Holman]

WikiLeaks is now attacking Mueller, claiming to have documentation of him delivering "stolen uranium" to Russia in 2009.



Legitimate context: apparently the documents have to do with shipments of Uranium seized by U.S. officials in Georgia, with samples delivered to Russia for analysis. But WikiLeaks is spinning it for pure suspicion.

Someone isn't happy with the way TrumpRussia has turned.

[Sepiche]

WikiLeaks is now attacking Mueller, claiming to have documentation of him delivering "stolen uranium" to Russia in 2009.

Yet more proof Wikileaks is now just a propaganda arm of the Kremlin.

[YellowKing]

The only thing more telling than all this smoke is the number of people trying frantically to put it out.