The Russian Connection 3: Mueller is Coming

[Destiny]

Continued from here:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"How bad is the Republican coverup on Trump and Russia? We may soon find out."

Spoiler

As we head into 2018, one big, looming unknown is this: Just how far will congressional Republicans go to prevent a full accounting of Russia’s interference in our election and any possible Trump campaign conspiracy with it?

Certain House Republicans are already working to frustrate the House Intelligence Committee’s ongoing investigation. Do Democrats have any recourse? The answer is yes — but within limits.

In an interview with me, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut — the No. 2 Democrat on the House intel committee — said that Democrats are seriously exploring the possibility of issuing a minority report that details (among other things) the degree to which Republicans tried to impede a full investigation, should that end up happening. In this scenario, the public would at least have a clear sense of just how far Republicans went to protect President Trump and his top officials from accountability.

“It’s in both the Democrats’ and the Republicans’ interests to … write a report based on a common set of facts,” Himes told me. “It would be a tragedy if the report has a minority section that says, ‘Look, we wanted to talk to these two dozen witnesses and weren’t able to do so.'”

In an important piece, The Post’s Karoun Demirjian reports that Rep. Devin Nunes, a Trump loyalist, may be wielding his influence as chairman of the intel committee to block critical lines of inquiry. Democrats have been alarmed by his tactics, especially the fact that despite his public recusal from the probe, he “never relinquished his sole, unchecked authority” to sign off on — or kill — efforts by Democrats to subpoena top Trump officials for more testimony:

People familiar with the committee’s work estimated that Nunes’s effective veto cost Democrats dozens of requests for interviews and documents that were never sent out, despite repeated entreaties from the minority side.

This includes requests for subpoenas to obtain additional testimony from key figures in the probe who Democrats say were not forthcoming enough in interviews — among them Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. Democrats surmise they might have compelled them to return if not for Nunes’s resistance.

In our interview, Himes confirmed that numerous Democratic requests to bring in witnesses haven’t been acted upon, though he did not confirm Nunes had killed those requests. He also confirmed that Democrats would like to bring in Sessions and Trump Jr. to ask “follow-up questions.”

Democrats want to ask Trump Jr. about a phone call he held with his father about his June 2016 meeting with the Russian lawyer, which he took in the expectation of receiving dirt on Hillary Clinton supplied by the Russian government. Trump Jr. and his dad discussed this meeting just after news of it broke in July 2017. When questioned about this call by committee Democrats, he invoked attorney-client privilege. Democrats want to subpoena Trump Jr. to compel his testimony, which could shed light on what happened at that meeting and how far Trump has gone to prevent the truth about it from coming out.

It appears Nunes may have killed that effort. Meanwhile, Nunes’s investigative zeal is directed elsewhere: Politico recently reported that Nunes is quietly leading a group of House Republicans in an effort to build a case that senior Justice Department and FBI officials improperly handled the explosive “Steele dossier,” which describes links between Trump and Russia.

Trump today called on the Justice Department to target FBI officials for unnamed acts, generally furthering the narrative — fed by Nunes and conservative media — that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia probe shows Trump is the victim of a corrupt “deep state” plot to reverse the election, and that the perpetrators of that plot should be prosecuted. Yet the New York Times has now reported that the probe came about when Trump adviser George Papadopoulos boasted to an Australian diplomat in May 2016 that he’d learned Russia had dirt on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. The Australians then passed on this information to Americans, resulting in the original FBI investigation now run by Mueller.

Himes confirmed to me that Democrats want to call Trump Jr. and Sessions back in to ask whether Papadoupoulos communicated to top campaign officials the existence of this Russian dirt on Clinton, and whether that is related to the June 2016 meeting to get said dirt from the Russian government. But it looks unlikely that Republicans will agree, and Himes said that if Republicans do end up frustrating a full inquiry more generally — and keep pushing the narrative of a deep-state coup against Trump — Democrats may issue a minority report detailing what Republicans really did here.

“If the investigation gets wound up too quickly, the minority report would be largely about outstanding questions that were never examined,” Himes told me, though he stressed that he hopes this does not happen.

To be clear, this really might not happen: It’s possible Republicans will allow the inquiry to unfold, and/or that the full truth is not that damning to Trump and his associates. There might not be any coverup. Indeed, Republicans have protested that the Democratic requests for additional testimony are frivolous. But as Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes point out, we can empirically evaluate whether Republicans are — or aren’t — making a good-faith effort to interview all the witnesses necessary to establish the full truth about Russian interference and possible conspiracy with it. So far, there is reason for concern that they aren’t.

And if they do not, a minority report might reveal this in full detail. (Meanwhile, the Mueller probe could reveal some of what Republicans did not want revealed.) Republicans may be able to prevent the full truth from coming out, but they cannot prevent the full truth about their own efforts to frustrate an accounting from seeing the light of day. At which point, the Democrats’ recourse will be political — to further the cause of accountability, they will need to win the House in 2018.

...

I so hope this dirt is exposed sooner, rather than later.

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"How bad is the Republican coverup on Trump and Russia? We may soon find out."

  Reveal hidden contents

As we head into 2018, one big, looming unknown is this: Just how far will congressional Republicans go to prevent a full accounting of Russia’s interference in our election and any possible Trump campaign conspiracy with it?

Certain House Republicans are already working to frustrate the House Intelligence Committee’s ongoing investigation. Do Democrats have any recourse? The answer is yes — but within limits.

In an interview with me, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut — the No. 2 Democrat on the House intel committee — said that Democrats are seriously exploring the possibility of issuing a minority report that details (among other things) the degree to which Republicans tried to impede a full investigation, should that end up happening. In this scenario, the public would at least have a clear sense of just how far Republicans went to protect President Trump and his top officials from accountability.

“It’s in both the Democrats’ and the Republicans’ interests to … write a report based on a common set of facts,” Himes told me. “It would be a tragedy if the report has a minority section that says, ‘Look, we wanted to talk to these two dozen witnesses and weren’t able to do so.'”

In an important piece, The Post’s Karoun Demirjian reports that Rep. Devin Nunes, a Trump loyalist, may be wielding his influence as chairman of the intel committee to block critical lines of inquiry. Democrats have been alarmed by his tactics, especially the fact that despite his public recusal from the probe, he “never relinquished his sole, unchecked authority” to sign off on — or kill — efforts by Democrats to subpoena top Trump officials for more testimony:

People familiar with the committee’s work estimated that Nunes’s effective veto cost Democrats dozens of requests for interviews and documents that were never sent out, despite repeated entreaties from the minority side.

This includes requests for subpoenas to obtain additional testimony from key figures in the probe who Democrats say were not forthcoming enough in interviews — among them Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. Democrats surmise they might have compelled them to return if not for Nunes’s resistance.

In our interview, Himes confirmed that numerous Democratic requests to bring in witnesses haven’t been acted upon, though he did not confirm Nunes had killed those requests. He also confirmed that Democrats would like to bring in Sessions and Trump Jr. to ask “follow-up questions.”

Democrats want to ask Trump Jr. about a phone call he held with his father about his June 2016 meeting with the Russian lawyer, which he took in the expectation of receiving dirt on Hillary Clinton supplied by the Russian government. Trump Jr. and his dad discussed this meeting just after news of it broke in July 2017. When questioned about this call by committee Democrats, he invoked attorney-client privilege. Democrats want to subpoena Trump Jr. to compel his testimony, which could shed light on what happened at that meeting and how far Trump has gone to prevent the truth about it from coming out.

It appears Nunes may have killed that effort. Meanwhile, Nunes’s investigative zeal is directed elsewhere: Politico recently reported that Nunes is quietly leading a group of House Republicans in an effort to build a case that senior Justice Department and FBI officials improperly handled the explosive “Steele dossier,” which describes links between Trump and Russia.

Trump today called on the Justice Department to target FBI officials for unnamed acts, generally furthering the narrative — fed by Nunes and conservative media — that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia probe shows Trump is the victim of a corrupt “deep state” plot to reverse the election, and that the perpetrators of that plot should be prosecuted. Yet the New York Times has now reported that the probe came about when Trump adviser George Papadopoulos boasted to an Australian diplomat in May 2016 that he’d learned Russia had dirt on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. The Australians then passed on this information to Americans, resulting in the original FBI investigation now run by Mueller.

Himes confirmed to me that Democrats want to call Trump Jr. and Sessions back in to ask whether Papadoupoulos communicated to top campaign officials the existence of this Russian dirt on Clinton, and whether that is related to the June 2016 meeting to get said dirt from the Russian government. But it looks unlikely that Republicans will agree, and Himes said that if Republicans do end up frustrating a full inquiry more generally — and keep pushing the narrative of a deep-state coup against Trump — Democrats may issue a minority report detailing what Republicans really did here.

“If the investigation gets wound up too quickly, the minority report would be largely about outstanding questions that were never examined,” Himes told me, though he stressed that he hopes this does not happen.

To be clear, this really might not happen: It’s possible Republicans will allow the inquiry to unfold, and/or that the full truth is not that damning to Trump and his associates. There might not be any coverup. Indeed, Republicans have protested that the Democratic requests for additional testimony are frivolous. But as Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes point out, we can empirically evaluate whether Republicans are — or aren’t — making a good-faith effort to interview all the witnesses necessary to establish the full truth about Russian interference and possible conspiracy with it. So far, there is reason for concern that they aren’t.

And if they do not, a minority report might reveal this in full detail. (Meanwhile, the Mueller probe could reveal some of what Republicans did not want revealed.) Republicans may be able to prevent the full truth from coming out, but they cannot prevent the full truth about their own efforts to frustrate an accounting from seeing the light of day. At which point, the Democrats’ recourse will be political — to further the cause of accountability, they will need to win the House in 2018.

...

I so hope this dirt is exposed sooner, rather than later.

I have to admit I'm getting tired of waiting. I need something big, soon.

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGran said:

I have to admit I'm getting tired of waiting. I need something big, soon.

Patience, dear @GrumpyGran, just a little more patience yet.

After all. we want all the dominoes to topple, not just a few. Only then can the rot currently infecting American politics be completely and utterly expunged.

So take a deep breath, my friend, and slowly exhale. It's going to be alright. It's just going to take more time, that's all.

[Howl]

Free association blathering incoherent rant moved over to the Congress thread! 

[Cleopatra7]

Unpopular opinion: I think the obsession with Russiagate is much to do about nothing for several reasons. First, the US has been interfering with the elections of other nations for decades:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/us-interfered-in-elections-of-at-least-85-countries-worldwide-since-1945/5601481/amp

 Why should we be surprised that Russia would try to do the same if they can get away with it? As Thucidydes said thousands of years ago, powerful states do what they can while the weak do what they must. Are liberals enamored with Russiagate against election meddling as a general principle or only when it affects the US? I personally think it should be the former, but I think it’s the latter for too many people.

Second, I don’t think this investigation will change anything. I get that a lot of people think that this could be a Watergate situation that might potentially decapitate the Trump administration, but the political environment in 2018 is very different than it was during the 1970s. The Republican Party was willing to sacrifice Nixon when it was clear he was a liability. The current GOP has made it clear that they’re going to ride or die with Trump. Without Republican assistance, any hope of impeaching Trump is going to be an exercise in futility. 

Third, the problem goes deeper than Trump. He is not a deviation from the norm so much as he’s the logical end of a country built on slavery and genocide. He merely says through a bullhorn what other politicians imply through dog whistles. Even after Trump leaves office, we will still have to deal with embedded white supremacy and poverty, and frankly, few people on either side of the aisle want to do that. It’s much easier to delude oneself that America was once great or is currently great than to come to the realization that any perceived “greatness” has come at the expense of millions, if not billions, of people. Russian interference, real or imagined, is not responsible for American white supremacy. It’s not crazy to think that a platform of white supremacy, toxic masculinity, and American exceptionalism could be a winning formula for a presidential candidate, because that’s exactly what did happen and has happened in the past.  

ETA It’s worth remembering that the FBI and the other alphabet agencies not the friend of progressive causes. This is the same outfit that tried to destroy the Civil Rights Movement through COINTELPRO, among other programs. It also claims that “black identity extremists” are the greatest internal threat in the US, even though the far right has been committing violent acts at a brisk pace. 

[47of74]

They're starting to turn on each other

Quote

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon called the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump campaign officials and a Russian lawyer purportedly offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton "treasonous," according to a new book obtained by The Guardian.

The book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House" by Michael Wolff, is based on hundreds of interviews, including ones with President Donald Trump and his inner circle. According to the Guardian, Bannon addressed the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr., then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner and Russian operatives that was arranged when Trump Jr. agreed to meet a "Russian government attorney" after receiving an email offering him "very high level and sensitive information" that would "incriminate" Clinton.

"The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers," Bannon continued, according to the Guardian. "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad s***, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

Oh my, it looks like 2018 is starting off with a bang. First we have the Battle of the Bullies, and now we have Fusion GPS with this:

It looks like it's going to be a heated year. Maybe that is why this evening I've constantly been humming this song, by one of my most favorite artists, the late, great Glen Frey.

 

[fraurosena]

Did I say heated? Nope, it's going to be veritably explosive!

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

If you only read one thing today here it it is. Seriously, go, read it. Now.

[Lizzybet]

6 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

If you only read one thing today here it it is. Seriously, go, read it. Now.

Is there a missing link?

[AmazonGrace]

6 minutes ago, Lizzybet said:

Is there a missing link?

In the Brian Stelter tweet. 

[onekidanddone]

5 hours ago, 47of74 said:

They're starting to turn on each other

 

It is news like this where I miss my dad so acutely. He has been gone over 11 years now, and he would have eaten up this news with glee. 

[onekidanddone]

Tune in my head

 

[fraurosena]

32 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

If you only read one thing today here it it is. Seriously, go, read it. Now.

I did. Holy fuck... 

And yet... it doesn't surprise me, not one bit.

This presiduncy is fake.

 

[fraurosena]

Whoo boy! It's turning out to be a hot news night tonight!

Rosenstein meeting with Paul Ryan about Russia investigation

Quote

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is meeting with Speaker Paul Ryan on Wednesday about the House Russia investigation, a GOP aide confirmed.

Rosenstein walked by a number of reporters who were staking out budget negotiations between top White House officials and top congressional leaders. 

The meeting came at the request of Rosenstein, the aide said. FBI Director Christopher Wray also was invited to the meeting but reporters did not see him. No other information about the meeting and what was discussed was immediately made known.

Rosenstein testified before the House Judiciary Committee late last year, as the committee conducts its own investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election.

Rosenstein faced tough questions from Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee following revelations that FBI officials on Mueller’s team had exhibited political bias. Anti-Trump texts by a former member of Mueller's special counsel team have led many Republicans in Congress to voice concerns of possible bias in the investigation. 

The House Intelligence committee is also investigating Russian interference in the election.

Ryan has said that the House will not interfere in Mueller's investigation. 

"We're not going to interfere with his investigation.  The investigation will take its course, and we will let it take its course," Ryan said in November of 2016.

"We’re also doing our own investigations here in the House – and the Senate has one as well – into Russia and into Russia’s meddling in our campaign," he added.

The meeting Wednesday comes hours after it was reported that former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has filed a lawsuit challenging the authority of special counsel Robert Mueller as well as the Justice Department and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who gave the order last year that launched the special counsel investigation.

1

I wonder what's going on here? 

[onekidanddone]

Meanwhile why does that man still have a Twitter account?

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Whoo boy! It's turning out to be a hot news night tonight!

Rosenstein meeting with Paul Ryan about Russia investigation

I wonder what's going on here? 

Rachel Maddow is saying it may be related to Devin Nunes. 

[GrumpyGran]

4 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Rachel Maddow is saying it may be related to Devin Nunes. 

FBI starting to fight back? I want them to go full bore, they've obviously thrown everything out there that they had on Hillary. Now let's see what they have on the Repubs.

[GreyhoundFan]

Op-ed from the WaPo: "What does Trump think Mueller will find?"

Spoiler

Ronald A. Klain, a Post contributing columnist, served as a senior White House aide to Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and was a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

On Nov. 22, 2016 — a few weeks after winning the presidency — Donald Trump announced a stunning reversal. After months of “lock her up,” Trump said that he opposed further investigation of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, as it would be “very, very divisive” for the country and Clinton had already “suffered greatly in many different ways.” Trump confidant Rudolph W. Giuliani said that “there’s a tradition in American politics that after you win an election, you sort of put things behind you.”

A year later, Trump is no longer “putting it behind” him. He has all but ordered his Justice Department to reopen the investigation into Clinton’s emails, and to explore the fantabulous theory that the Clinton Foundation somehow got nine federal agencies to tamper with the review of a commercial uranium transaction. This week, he called for jailing a former Clinton aide and prosecuting former FBI director James B. Comey. If that weren’t enough, Trump’s allies are calling for an investigation of “high ranking Obama government officials who might have colluded to prevent” Trump’s election.

What is going on here?

Perhaps it is an effort to confuse and deflect from the rising tide of accusations against Trump and his cohorts — including sensational new charges from former aide and ally Stephen K. Bannon. Perhaps it is just another reflection of Trump’s lack of discipline and erratic nature.

But I suspect that there is another reason Trumpland has reversed course just as special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s inquiry into Trump’s actions appears to be reaching a critical point. Trump and his allies are proposing a bargain, with a not-so-subtle message to Democrats: “If you don’t want your people to be investigated, remain quiet as we shut down the congressional investigations and undercut the special counsel. If my people are going to be investigated, then so will yours.”

This indecent proposal needs to be considered against the backdrop of what we do know — and don’t — about the Trump-Russia mess.

First, we learned last year that Trump’s narrow 2016 victory was indelibly stained by Russian help. It has been shown that millions of Americans were subjected to deceptive Russian propaganda on social media. We know that a lesser but still significant number — given the narrowness of Trump’s win — were subjected to advertisements bought by Russian sources, paid for in rubles. We know that a Russian-allied intelligence operation stole emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign officials, and then facilitated their release to maximize their influence — forcing out the DNC chair on the eve of the party’s convention, counteracting the “Access Hollywood” tape by dumping many stolen emails the day that revelation came out. Trump’s narrow victory — so small, just 80,000 votes in three states — will be forever marked in the history books with an asterisk as having been aided by Russian intervention.

Second, we know that Trump both sought help from Russia and made active use of Russian interventions in this campaign. We know that Trump’s son and campaign manager took a June 2016 meeting with Russian operatives to learn what help they could offer in the campaign. We know that Trump himself publicly called on Russia to steal and disseminate Clinton emails. Trump also made active use of the Russian-backed stolen email operation, publicly urging voters — more than 160 times in the final weeks of the campaign — to look at what WikiLeaks had released. Trump and his top advisers were distributors of the Russian social media propaganda, retweeting and distributing it widely. And much of this happened after Trump was briefed in July by top U.S. professional counterintelligence officers who warned him of a Russian effort to infiltrate the 2016 campaign.

And third, among the things that point toward the possibility that Trump and his people were engaged in as-yet undisclosed explicit collusion with Russia is the intensity of their efforts to shut down investigations into what happened. Nothing points to this more than Trump’s own bizarre actions: saying that the FBI investigation of Russian influence was “tainted,” admitting that he was thinking of “this Russia thing” when firing Comey, mobilizing surrogates to attack Mueller. Are these the acts of an innocent person?

The calls for investigations of Clinton and Obama allies are just the most recent, and most despicable, iterations of this tactic. I know Hillary Clinton; I know Barack Obama. They will not be intimidated by Trump’s threats.

Of course, we do not know whether there was some explicit agreement between the Russians and the Trump campaign — or whether both sides pursued mutually beneficial steps out of a commonality of interests. We cannot know what Mueller will find. But the actions of Trump and his allies tell us a lot about what they fear could be found. And even if nothing more turns up from this point forward, the Trump presidency will be permanently marked by what we already, irrefutably, learned in 2017.

I still believe there is a mountain of dirt all around Agent Orange. He's buried up to his neck in it.

[GreyhoundFan]

From Jennifer Rubin: "Why Trump and Sessions are now in a heap of legal trouble"

Spoiler

Michael S. Schmidt’s report in the New York Times contains so many blockbusters that it’s hard to know where to begin. Here are the most critical claims:

• Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has evidence, including a memo from former chief of staff Reince Priebus, confirming at least some of the allegations that former FBI director James B. Comey made and documented in contemporaneous memos. For instance, Priebus documents President Trump’s attempt to get Comey to publicly clear him, something Comey recounted at the time.
• The original draft of the letter firing Comey reportedly contained an introductory statement claiming that the Russia investigation was “fabricated and politically motivated.” The president’s aides prevailed upon him not to send it, but Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein (cleverly) took an original copy of the letter. He nevertheless drafted a memo setting out entirely different grounds for firing Comey (i.e. Comey’s handing of the Hillary Clinton emails and the false allegation that FBI morale was low).
• Trump was frantic to keep Attorney General Jeff Sessions in place to protect him in the Russia probe, dispatched the White House counsel to lean on Sessions not to recuse himself and then blew his stack when Sessions did recuse himself. He demanded an attorney general who would protect him the way that he imagined Robert Kennedy protected his brother President John F. Kennedy and Eric Holder protected President Barack Obama.
• A Sessions aide reportedly went looking for dirt on Comey, going to a congressional office for evidence several days before Comey was fired. Sessions apparently wanted one negative story a day on Comey in the media.
• A White House lawyer, Uttam Dhillon, reportedly lied to the president, telling him he could not fire Comey without cause, because he was afraid of what Trump would do.

Let’s look at what each item tells us.

First, Comey, as many suspected, appears to have taken accurate notes that can at least in part be corroborated. The idea that discrediting Comey or the FBI will somehow protect Trump was always daft. Now, it should rightly be seen as a ridiculous, transparent attempt to again meddle in the investigation. Republicans engaged in this gambit should cut it out. They’re enabling a grossly inappropriate plan to smear a key witness to possible criminal activity.

As for the first draft of the letter, it not only shows the “real” motivation for the firing but also suggests a deliberate attempt by Trump and others present at his Bedminster, N.J., property to conceal the real reason for firing Comey. Those advisers include Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller. All are now arguably implicated in a potential obstruction scheme, as is Rosenstein, who knew the real reason for the firing. Everyone from the president on down who sought to fire Comey to stymie the Russia probe, if that is the case, and come up with a false rationale arguably committed obstruction of justice. 

The effort to keep Sessions in place may in and of itself be problematic. But Trump’s insistence on personal loyalty bolsters Comey’s claim that Trump demanded the same of him. It also reveals an intent to remove or interfere with the Justice Department’s actions, as if it were his personal law firm. The idea that the Justice Department should be protecting him and not the country goes to the essence of abuse of power.

If Sessions was looking for dirt on Comey, that makes him a thug and an unfit character to be attorney general. If he did that knowing the real reason Trump wanted to get rid of Comey, it’s a potential obstruction-of-justice problem.

As for Dhillon, this actually confirms author Michael Wolff’s ongoing refrain in his tell-all book that White House advisers considered Trump to be mentally and/or temperamentally incapable of doing his job. To continue to enable and defend him, knowing he is not capable of carrying out his oath, is a moral abomination and a violation of these advisers’ own oaths to defend the Constitution and country. Moreover, if Mueller has this information, it is because Dhillon and/or White House counsel Donald McGahn are talking to Mueller. Trump will now know that he is surrounded, in his mind, by disloyal people who are helping Mueller to make a case against him.

The walls are closing in on Trump, at least with respect to an obstruction-of-justice claim. Literally everyone mentioned above may have evidence that incriminates the president. Some of these people will have personal liability and therefore be ready to cut a deal with prosecutors. The White House is melting down.