The Russian Connection 2

[fraurosena]

Here's another bombshell news article from AP.

Moscow meeting in June 2017 under scrutiny in Trump probe

Quote

Earlier this year, a Russian-American lobbyist and another businessman discussed over coffee in Moscow an extraordinary meeting they had attended 12 months earlier: a gathering at Trump Tower with President Donald Trump’s son, his son-in-law and his then-campaign chairman.

The Moscow meeting in June, which has not been previously disclosed, is now under scrutiny by investigators who want to know why the two men met in the first place and whether there was some effort to get their stories straight about the Trump Tower meeting just weeks before it would become public, The Associated Press has learned.

Congressional investigators have questioned both men — lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin and Ike Kaveladze, a business associate of a Moscow-based developer and former Trump business partner — and obtained their text message communications, people familiar with the investigation told the AP.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team also has been investigating the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, which occurred weeks after Trump had clinched the Republican presidential nomination and which his son attended with the expectation of receiving damaging information about Democrat Hillary Clinton. A grand jury has already heard testimony about the meeting, which in addition to Donald Trump Jr., also included Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and his then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The focus of the congressional investigators was confirmed by three people familiar with their probe, including two who demanded anonymity to discuss the sensitive inquiry.

One of those people said Akhmetshin told congressional investigators that he asked for the Moscow meeting with Kaveladze to argue that they should go public with the details of the Trump Tower meeting before they were caught up in a media maelstrom. Akhmetshin also told the investigators that Kaveladze said people in Trump’s orbit were asking about Akhmetshin’s background, the person said.

Akhmetshin’s lawyer, Michael Tremonte, declined to comment.

Scott Balber, a lawyer for Kaveladze, confirmed that his client and Akhmetshin met over coffee and that the Trump Tower meeting a year earlier was “obviously discussed.” But Balber denied his client had been contacted by associates of Trump before he took the meeting with Akhmetshin, or had been aware of plans to disclose the Trump Tower gathering to the U.S. government.

Balber said the men did not discuss strategy or how to line up their stories, and did not meet in anticipation of the Trump Tower meeting becoming public and attracting a barrage of news media attention.

He said Akhmetshin did convey during coffee the possibility that his name could come out in connection with the Trump Tower meeting and cause additional, unwanted scrutiny given that he had been linked in earlier news reports to Russian military intelligence, coverage that Akhmetshin considered unfair. Akhmetshin has denied ongoing ties with Russian intelligence, but acknowledged that he served in the Soviet military in the late 1980s as part of a counterintelligence unit.

“That was the impetus,” Balber said of the men’s get-together. “It had absolutely nothing to do with anticipation of the meeting coming out in the press.”

The meeting in Moscow occurred during a tumultuous time for the administration. Mueller had been appointed as special counsel weeks earlier following the firing in May of FBI Director James Comey, and associates of Trump were under pressure to disclose any contacts they had with Russians during the campaign.

The June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower first became public on July 8 in a report in The New York Times.

The White House initially said the meeting, which also involved a Russian lawyer who for years has advocated against U.S. sanctions of Russia, was primarily about an adoption program, but days after the story was published, Trump Jr. released emails showing he took the meeting after being told he would receive damaging information on Clinton as part of a Russian government effort to aide his father’s candidacy.

Mueller’s investigation has included scrutiny of the White House’s drafting of the initial incomplete statement.

As part of their inquiry, congressional investigators are reviewing copies of the text messages between the two men that were turned over, Balber said. He declined to say what the text messages showed. One person familiar with the messages said they reflect the logistics of the meeting during a trip by Akhmetshin to Moscow.

Rinat Akhmetshin and former business partner of the presidunce Ike Kaveladze, met in Moskow in June this year to discuss the meeting in June of last year (you all know which one), and congressional investigators are suspicious that it was to attempt to get the stories straight of the Russians and the campaign officials that attended the meeting last year. 

If congressional investigators are suspicious, you can bet that Mueller is also on to this. 

[fraurosena]

Is Kislyak being interviewed by Mueller? Could he be? Or is he exempt from testifying because of his (then) diplomatic status?

Russian diplomat: I can't list Trump officials I've spoken with because 'the list is so long'

Quote

Former Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak said he couldn’t name all of the officials connected to President Trump that he’s spoken with or met because “the list is so long.”

In an interview with state-owned TV station Russia-1 first reported by CNBC, Kislyak refused to name the Trump officials he’s spoken with. "First, I'm never going to do that," Kislyak said, according to CNBC. "And second, the list is so long that I'm not going to be able to go through it in 20 minutes."

Kislyak’s interview comes after contentious testimony by Attorney General Jeff Sessions before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday in which he clashed with Democrats over whether he lied under oath during his confirmation hearing when he said he had no knowledge of contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russia.

“That is exactly the opposite answer you gave under oath to the U.S. Senate,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). “Either you’re lying to the U.S. Senate or you’re lying to the U.S. House of Representatives.” 

“My story has never changed,” Sessions shot back. “I have always told the truth.” 

During his confirmation hearing in January, Sessions told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was unaware of contact between Trump campaign surrogates and Russian government “intermediaries” and also said he “did not have communications with the Russians.”

But it was later revealed that Sessions met with Kislyak, then Russia's ambassador to the U.S., twice during the 2016 campaign. Those revelations led to Sessions's recusal from all Justice Department investigations related to Russia.

Trump himself met with Kislyak in the Oval Office in May. Kislyak left the Russian Embassy in July.

 

[Howl]

Ambassador Kislyak was appointed to his post just before Obama was elected and returned to Russia in July, 2017, after the Flynn debacle.  The Russians claim his exit was part of a pre-planned diplomatic rotation.  So, yes, once Kislyak's cover was blown, he was pulled back to Russia, pronto. 

Kislyak is considered a top Russian spy and spy recruiter (according to CNN).

[GreyhoundFan]

Hmmmm: "Special counsel sends wide-ranging request for documents to Justice Department"

Spoiler

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating whether President Donald Trump sought to obstruct a federal inquiry into connections between his presidential campaign and Russian operatives has now directed the Justice Department to turn over a broad array of documents, ABC News has learned.

In particular, Mueller's investigators are keen to obtain emails related to the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the earlier decision of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the entire matter, according to a source who has not seen the specific request but was told about it.

Issued within the past month, the directive marks the special counsel's first records request to the Justice Department, and it means Mueller is now demanding documents from the department overseeing his investigation.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein played key roles in Comey's removal. And Sessions has since faced withering criticism from Trump over his recusal and Rosenstein's subsequent appointment of Mueller.

Mueller's investigators now seek not only communications among Justice Department officials but also any communications with White House counterparts, the source said. Before this request, investigators asked former senior Justice Department officials for information from their time at the department, ABC News was told.

The latest move suggests the special counsel is still digging into, among other matters, whether Trump or any other administration official improperly tried to influence an ongoing investigation.

Last month, Sessions told lawmakers he would cooperate with any requests from Mueller and is willing to meet with him.

"I want him to complete his investigation professionally," Sessions told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Trump, however, has openly expressed disdain for the federal probe, and since his days on the campaign trail he has questioned the U.S. intelligence community's unanimous conclusion that Russia tried to meddle in last year's presidential election.

Shortly before firing Comey, Trump secretly drafted a memo laying out his reasons for wanting the FBI chief ousted. The New York Times described it as an "angry, meandering" missive.

The draft memo was never publicly released, but a copy was shared with Rosenstein, who had taken command of the Russia-related probe, according to the Times.

To publicly bolster Trump's decision on Comey, the White House released two memos written separately by Sessions and Rosenstein, with both faulting Comey for his handling of the FBI's probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

During a House hearing in June, Rosenstein refused to say whether he consulted with the White House ahead of Comey's firing or whether anyone asked him to write his memo, insisting such questions "may well be within the scope of the special counsel's investigation."

Rosenstein still maintains final supervision over the case, even though he was interviewed by Mueller's team as a witness for his own role in Comey's firing.

Meanwhile, Trump has taken aim at Sessions for the recusal, launching such biting personal attacks months ago that it appeared as though Sessions possibly would not last the summer as attorney general.

At one point, Trump told reporters he wouldn't have nominated Sessions to run the Justice Department had he known the attorney general was going to give up oversight authority of the long-running investigation.

In July, Trump posted a Tweet demanding to know why "our beleaguered" attorney general wasn't "looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations."

In announcing his recusal four months earlier, Sessions said he and "senior career department officials" spent "several weeks" discussing whether his role as top foreign policy adviser to Trump's presidential campaign last year meant his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

His work leading the campaign's foreign policy team has left Sessions on the defensive in other ways.

Last week, Senate and House Democrats hammered Sessions for previously telling Congress — under oath — that no Trump campaign associates ever communicated with Russian operatives or intermediaries.

But in the first known charges brought by Mueller, announced last month, former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos admitted he told Sessions and Trump during a meeting last year that he was working with Russians to orchestrate a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Some Democrats accused Sessions of lying to lawmakers, though Sessions has vehemently denied the charge, citing a memory lapse generated in part by the "chaos" of the campaign.

During a House hearing Wednesday, Sessions said he now remembers dismissing the adviser's proposal during the meeting last year.

Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to charges of lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian nationals.

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his former business partner, Rick Gates, have been indicted on money-laundering and other charges tied to their previous lobbying efforts. They have each pleaded not guilty.

Meanwhile, other Trump associates, such as former national security adviser Mike Flynn, are still in Mueller's crosshairs.

Flynn was fired in February after then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informed White House officials that Flynn had lied to them about his own contacts with Russian officials.

A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment for this article. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department also declined to comment.

Each request for documents or interviews means the investigation is moving forward. I know the TT is hoping and praying that it will all just go away, but I can't see how that will happen.

[Howl]

 "Special counsel sends wide-ranging request for documents to Justice Department"

Talking Points Memo was discussing this earlier.  An entity (Mueller investigation) is under the umbrella of the Justice Department, yet Mueller is sending a request to Justice for documents.  Sessions has recused his elfin li'l self, so I guess it's up to Rosentein to approve? 

[fraurosena]

You know the drill by now: Seth Abramson's threads are long. Very long. And I have two of them for you. So you need to sit back, relax, and take your time to read them. 

Here's the first, in which he explains why the Mueller investigation is far from being completed.

And here's the second one, wherein he explains that there were numerous members of the TT's so-called NatSec team that had suspicious meetings in Europe (Hungary, Greece) during the campaign, and what they might mean.

 

[fraurosena]

Whoops... 

Former Blackwater chief to testify to House panel in Russia inquiry

Quote

Erik Prince, former head of security contractor Blackwater and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, has been scheduled to testify before the House Intelligence Committee next week in its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Prince has come under scrutiny since The Washington Post reported in April that he tried to set up a secret back channel between Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin of Russia just days before Trump’s inauguration.

Prince’s spokesman told The Post at the time: “Erik had no role on the transition team. This is a complete fabrication. The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump. Why is the so-called under-resourced intelligence community messing around with surveillance of American citizens when they should be hunting terrorists?”

Prince’s interview, as posted by the committee, is described as “open in a closed space.” That means that although his testimony will be taken privately, the committee intends to post a transcript of the proceedings afterward. They took a similar approach to the testimony provided earlier this month by Carter Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser.

Page’s testimony provided insights into the committee’s lines of questioning about the campaign’s contacts with Russia and about Page's discussions with Trump campaign officials. The testimony has reverberated in the weeks since it became public.

Prince, a Trump donor and longtime ally of former White House strategist Steve Bannon, has openly flirted with a bid for the Senate, in a Wyoming race that would pit him against incumbent Republican Sen. John Barrasso.

According to the Post article, the United Arab Emirates brokered a secret meeting in the Seychelles between Prince and an ally of Putin just nine days before Trump’s inauguration. The Post also reported that the meeting was part of a range of contacts between Trump associates and the Russian government under investigation by federal authorities.

Prince’s former firm, Blackwater, became notorious after an episode in Iraq in which the company’s security officials were charged and convicted for killing civilians. The episode highlighted a decision by the George W. Bush administration to rely on private security contractors in Iraq.

I'm glad we'll be able to get the transcript of his testimony, even though it's behind closed doors. 

In case you want to read up on Erik Prince, here's an article that Seth Abramson did on him in January for HuffPo:

 

[fraurosena]

Seth is on a roll right now. He's got another thread out, this time on the TT's NatSec team member Joseph E. Schmitz and his secret mission to Hungary. It also explains how he ties in to both Erik Prince and the TT.

 

[GrumpyGran]

Why would anybody believe anything Erik Prince says? He has no motivation to tell the truth. Has he moved back to this country?

It's interesting that he has talked about running for Senate in Wyoming. I would think Cheney wouldn't like that. Prince ended up being something of an embarrassment. 

[fraurosena]

Special Counsel Mueller Probes Jared Kushner’s Contacts With Foreign Leaders

Quote

Robert Mueller’s investigators are asking questions about Jared Kushner’s interactions with foreign leaders during the presidential transition, including his involvement in a dispute at the United Nations in December, in a sign of the expansive nature of the special counsel’s probe of Russia’s alleged meddling in the election, according to people familiar with the matter.

The investigators have asked witnesses questions about the involvement of Mr. Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a senior White House adviser, in a controversy over a U.N. resolution passed Dec. 23, before Mr. Trump took office, that condemned Israel’s construction of settlements in disputed territories, these people said.

Israeli officials had asked the incoming Trump administration to intervene to help block it. Mr. Trump posted a Facebook message the day before the U.N. vote—after he had been elected but before he had assumed office—saying the resolution put the Israelis in a difficult position and should be vetoed.

Mr. Trump also held a phone conversation with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, whose government had written a draft of the resolution. Egypt proceeded to call for the vote to be delayed, but the resolution passed the following day, with then-President Barack Obama’s administration declining to block it.

Israeli officials said at the time that they began reaching out to senior leaders in Mr. Trump’s transition team. Among those involved were Mr. Kushner and political strategist Stephen Bannon, according to people briefed on the exchanges.

The White House referred questions to Mr. Kushner’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, and to a White House lawyer.

The motivation for the Mueller team’s questions about the U.N. is unclear. Investigators typically ask a host of questions over the course of a probe, and inquiries don’t necessarily indicate suspicion. Mr. Kushner figures into several events that Mr. Mueller is investigating, including a June 2016 meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer at Trump Tower.

Mr. Kushner said in a July statement that the meeting was brief and a waste of time.

Investigators have also asked witnesses about Mr. Kushner’s role in arranging meetings or communication with foreign leaders during the transition, the people said. The special counsel’s mandate gives Mr. Mueller a broad directive to examine any matters arising from the Russia investigation.

The Mueller team’s questions come as investigators scrutinize Mr. Kushner for his initial omission of any foreign contacts from a government form required to obtain a security clearance, The Wall Street Journal previously reported, citing a public letter from congressional investigators. Mr. Kushner later updated the form at least three times to include what he has said were more than 100 contacts with more than 20 countries.

Mr. Kushner has said the initial omissions were an “administrative error.” His lawyer declined on Friday a request by the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide documents surrounding the submission of the form and subsequent updates to it, saying they were confidential government records.

A 1799 law called the Logan Act also bars Americans from communicating with a foreign government to influence the government’s actions related to a dispute with the U.S., but no one has ever been successfully prosecuted under the law.

In a statement that Mr. Kushner gave to congressional committees in July, he wrote that at his father-in-law’s request, he served as the main point of contact for foreign countries at a time when it was clear Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee.

The new details offer a window into the kinds of questions Mr. Mueller is asking as part of a six-month investigation that has been conducted largely behind closed doors. The special counsel and congressional investigators are probing whether associates of Mr. Trump colluded with Russia in what U.S. intelligence deemed were Moscow’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The president has denied any collusion by him or members of his campaign, and Moscow has denied election interference. Mr. Kushner has also denied collusion, and his lawyer has said he is cooperating with the investigations.

A spokesman for Mr. Mueller’s office declined to comment.

Another element of Mr. Mueller’s probe has focused on whether the president obstructed justice in the May firing of James Comey, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors have asked witnesses detailed questions about Mr. Kushner’s views of Mr. Comey and whether Mr. Kushner was in favor of firing him or had staked out a position, said the people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey, initially citing the former FBI director’s handling of an investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails. The president later said the FBI’s Russia investigation was a factor in his decision.

Mr. Kushner pushed for Mr. Comey’s firing in discussions among the president and his top advisers, according to four people familiar with the matter.

One person said Mr. Kushner’s reasons for wanting Mr. Comey dismissed included that FBI agents unhappy with Mr. Comey would applaud the move and that Democrats would cheer because they were angry about Mr. Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. Another person said top White House aides, including Mr. Kushner, viewed Mr. Comey as too unpredictable following his handling of the Clinton probe.

One aspect of Mr. Mueller’s probe concerns whether Mr. Comey’s firing was an attempt to obstruct justice, so it is possible he is asking about any Kushner role to get a clearer picture of events leading up to the dismissal.

Mr. Lowell said in an interview, “When the president made the decision to fire FBI Director Comey, Mr. Kushner supported it.” A White House attorney added that Mr. Kushner had “no meaningful role” in the decision: “There’s no apparent evidence of Jared’s involvement in any decision-making process having to do with Mr. Comey’s firing.”

Investigators have also asked questions about a meeting Mr. Kushner held during the presidential transition with Sergey Gorkov, chief executive of Russian state-owned Vnesheconombank, which was added to the U.S. sanctions list in 2014 as part of an effort to punish Moscow for its role in the Ukraine conflict.

In his written statement to Congress, Mr. Kushner said he met with Mr. Gorkov on Dec. 13 and didn’t discuss Russian sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, specific policies or any matters dealing with Mr. Kushner’s private business interests. Mr. Kushner said Mr. Gorkov largely discussed his bank and the Russian economy.

At the same time, congressional investigators are questioning the accuracy of Mr. Kushner’s statements in interviews with two committees earlier this year and whether he fully cooperated in turning over relevant records, according to public statements by and interviews with lawmakers.

In a letter to Mr. Kushner’s attorney last week, the top Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Mr. Kushner hadn’t complied fully with an earlier request for documents.

Mr. Kushner’s lawyer, Mr. Lowell, disputed the assertion.

Top Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees want Mr. Kushner to return and answer more questions that have come up as new witnesses and documents emerge, according to public statements by and interviews with lawmakers.

In interviews with congressional panels in July, Mr. Kushner said he was unaware of any contact between the campaign and WikiLeaks, the online operation that last year published a trove of damaging Democratic emails that U.S. intelligence agencies concluded were stolen by Russian hackers, according to a person familiar with the matter.

But emails provided to the congressional committees by Donald Trump Jr. , the president’s son, revealed that the younger Mr. Trump forwarded to Mr. Kushner and other aides one exchange he had with the website, according to an email reviewed by the Journal. Mr. Kushner subsequently forwarded that message to another campaign aide, according to a letter to his lawyer from the Senate Judiciary Committee that was reviewed by the Journal.

Mr. Lowell said Mr. Kushner had “no contact” with WikiLeaks and that he didn’t respond to the email from the younger Mr. Trump.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview that Mr. Kushner had been interviewed “prematurely,” when the committee was “not ready.”

“We didn’t have the advantage of documents that we would have wanted to ask [him] about,” he said.

We can expect the usual denials and/or memory loss, of course.

[GrumpyGran]

I think Dumpy's getting ready to pull some pardons out. Is this what he will give Jared for Christmas? Cause it's starting to look bad for Jared. 

[fraurosena]

6 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

I think Dumpy's getting ready to pull some pardons out. Is this what he will give Jared for Christmas? Cause it's starting to look bad for Jared. 

This is one of the reasons I'm glad that Eric Schneiderman is working closely together with Mueller. When they can't prosecute them on a federal level, there's always the state level; crimes for which the presidunce has no pardon power. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

I'm thankful Mueller hasn't been fired yet

[fraurosena]

Ha, @AmazonGrace, I see your Dschinghis Khan - Moskau, and raise you the Red Army Choir - Kalinka.

 

I too am thankful Mueller hasn't been fired yet.

#Muellernotfiredyet

[fraurosena]

Oh boy. Seth Abramson has a mega-thread again (75 tweets, 10 ps's and 3 notes). I haven't had the time to read it all myself yet, but it looks to be another doozy, with implications of quid quo pro between the presidunce and Putin.

 

[Howl]

Between the House and Senate, there are at least three committees investigating the Russia connections, people not registering as foreign agents, Comey firing, yada yada.  

• SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
• HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
• SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

If there is evidence of wrong doing, the information they gather must be turned over to Dept. of Justice and (presumably) Mueller.  Do the committees  have to turn over all transcripts to Mueller?  If Mueller is already plowing this field, what's the utility of the House and Senate committees, whose members spend a lot of their time in partisan bickering over who gets called to testify and what questions to ask?

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, Howl said:

Between the House and Senate, there are at least three committees investigating the Russia connections, people not registering as foreign agents, Comey firing, yada yada.  

• SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
• HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
• SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

If there is evidence of wrong doing, the information they gather must be turned over to Dept. of Justice and (presumably) Mueller.  Do the committees  have to turn over all transcripts to Mueller?  If Mueller is already plowing this field, what's the utility of the House and Senate committees, whose members spend a lot of their time in partisan bickering over who gets called to testify and what questions to ask?

I am the furthest thing of being an expert in this field that anyone can be, but as far as I have gathered, the main utility of the House and Senate committees is to gather evidence that, if found necessary, can be used for an impeachment. Not that the sole purpose is 'we want to impeach', it's more along the lines of 'we want to find out if there has been any wrongdoing that needs to be corrected or not'. In essence, committees are for information gathering, and it will be up to the Senate and/or the House to act upon that information, or not.

[fraurosena]

Yay! 

A Split From Trump Indicates That Flynn Is Moving to Cooperate With Mueller

Quote

Lawyers for Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, notified the president’s legal team in recent days that they could no longer discuss the special counsel’s investigation, according to four people involved in the case, an indication that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with prosecutors or negotiating such a deal.

Mr. Flynn’s lawyers had been sharing information with Mr. Trump’s lawyers about the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is examining whether anyone around Mr. Trump was involved in Russian efforts to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

That agreement has been terminated, the four people said. Defense lawyers frequently share information during investigations, but they must stop when doing so would pose a conflict of interest. It is unethical for lawyers to work together when one client is cooperating with prosecutors and another is still under investigation.

The notification alone does not prove that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with Mr. Mueller. Some lawyers withdraw from information-sharing arrangements as soon as they begin negotiating with prosecutors. And such negotiations sometimes fall apart.

Still, the notification led Mr. Trump’s lawyers to believe that Mr. Flynn — who, along with his son, is seen as having significant criminal exposure — has, at the least, begun discussions with Mr. Mueller about cooperating.

Lawyers for Mr. Flynn and Mr. Trump declined to comment. The four people briefed on the matter spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

A deal with Mr. Flynn would give Mr. Mueller a behind-the-scenes look at the Trump campaign and the early tumultuous weeks of the administration. Mr. Flynn was an early and important adviser to Mr. Trump, an architect of Mr. Trump’s populist “America first” platform and an advocate of closer ties with Russia.

His ties to Russia predated the campaign — he sat with President Vladimir V. Putin at a 2015 event in Moscow — and he was a point person on the transition team for dealing with Russia.

Among the interactions that Mr. Mueller is investigating is a private meeting that Mr. Flynn had with the Russian ambassador and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, during the presidential transition. In the past year, it has been revealed that the Trump campaign repeatedly tried to meet with Russian officials who were promising compromising information on Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Flynn is regarded as loyal to Mr. Trump, but he has in recent weeks expressed serious concerns to friends that prosecutors will bring charges against his son, Michael Flynn Jr., who served as his father’s chief of staff and was a part of several financial deals involving the elder Mr. Flynn that Mr. Mueller is scrutinizing.

The White House has said that neither Mr. Flynn nor other former aides has incriminating information to provide about Mr. Trump. “He likes General Flynn personally, but understands that they have their own path with the special counsel,” a White House lawyer, Ty Cobb, said in an interview last month with The New York Times. “I think he would be sad for them, as a friend and a former colleague, if the process results in punishment or indictments. But to the extent that that happens, that’s beyond his control.”

I so hope that Flynn is actually cooperating with Mueller!

[fraurosena]

Well now. Not surprising news, to be sure. However, this seems to be confirmation of what we've been thinking all along.

Manafort flight records show deeper Kremlin ties than previously known

Quote

Political guru Paul Manafort took at least 18 trips to Moscow and was in frequent contact with Vladimir Putin’s allies for nearly a decade as a consultant in Russia and Ukraine for oligarchs and pro-Kremlin parties.

Even after the February 2014 fall of Ukraine’s pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych, who won office with the help of a Manafort-engineered image makeover, the American consultant flew to Kiev another 19 times over the next 20 months while working for the smaller, pro-Russian Opposition Bloc party. Manafort went so far as to suggest the party take an anti-NATO stance, an Oppo Bloc architect has said. A key ally of that party leader, oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, was identified by an earlier Ukrainian president as a former Russian intelligence agent, “100 percent.”

It was this background that Manafort brought to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, which he joined in early 2016 and soon led. His web of connections to Russia-loyal potentates is now a focus of federal investigators.

Manafort’s flight records in and out of Ukraine, which McClatchy obtained from a government source in Kiev, and interviews with more than a dozen people familiar with his activities, including current and former government officials, suggest the links between Trump’s former campaign manager and Russia sympathizers run deeper than previously thought.

What’s now known leads some Russia experts to suspect that the Kremlin’s emissaries at times turned Manafort into an asset acting on Russia’s behalf. “You can make a case that all along he ...was either working principally for Moscow, or he was trying to play both sides against each other just to maximize his profits,” said Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of state who communicated with Manafort during Yanukovych’s reign in President George W. Bush’s second term.

“He’s at best got a conflict of interest and at worst is really doing Putin’s bidding,” said Fried, now a fellow with the Atlantic Council.

His lucrative consulting relationships have already led a grand jury convened by Mueller to charge him and an associate with conspiracy, money laundering and other felonies – charges that legal experts say are likely meant to pressure them to cooperate with the wider probe into possible collusion.

Government investigators are examining information they’ve received regarding “talks between Russians about using Manafort as part of their broad influence operations during the elections,” a source familiar with the inquiry told McClatchy.

Suspicions about Manafort have been fueled by a former British spy’s opposition research on Trump. In a now-famous dossier, former MI6 officer Christopher Steele quoted an ethnic Russian close to Trump as saying that Manafort had managed “a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between the campaign and the Kremlin.

Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Manafort, called that allegation “false,” saying that Manafort “never – ever – worked for the Russian government.” He also denied that Manafort ever recommended Ukrainian opposition to NATO, saying he “was a strong advocate” of closer relations with the western military alliance while advising political parties there.

“Paul Manafort did not collude with the Russian government to undermine the 2016 election,” Maloni said. “No amount of wishing and hoping by his political opponents will make this spurious allegation true.”

Maloni declined to say whether, while in Moscow, Manafort met with any Russian government officials.

The trail of Manafort’s decade of dealings 5,000 miles from America’s capital is murky. But the previously unreported flight records, spanning from late 2004 through 2015, reflect a man seemingly always on the move. Over those years, Manafort visited Ukraine at least 138 times. His trips between Ukraine and Moscow all occurred between 2005 and 2011 and were mostly in 2005 and 2006.

Prosecutors have charged that Manafort and associate Rick Gates funneled through a maze of foreign accounts at least $75 million in consulting fees from an array of Kremlin-leaning clients: Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, who secretly paid them $10 million annually for several years; a second Ukrainian oligarch; and the ruling Party of Regions, which supported Yanukovych until corruption allegations and bloody protests led to his overthrow in February 2014.

Maloni said Manafort’s trips to Russia were “related to his work on behalf of Oleg Deripaska’s commercial interests.”

The further unmasking of Manafort’s relationship with Deripaska in recent months, however, has heightened suspicions about Manafort.

In July 2016, weeks after he was named Trump’s campaign chairman, Manafort crafted an unusual, eyebrow-raising proposal for Deripaska, a member of Putin’s inner circle. In emails first reported by the Washington Post, Manafort offered in seemingly coded language to provide “private briefings” on the U.S. presidential race for the Russian aluminum magnate. Manafort directed a trusted associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, to relay his message to Deripaska, remarking that it could be a way to make himself “whole” — possibly an allusion to a multimillion-dollar legal action Deripaska had filed against Manafort. Kilimnik, a Ukrainian citizen, once attended a Russian military academy known for training spies.

Deripaska, who did not respond to a request for comment, has denied seeing Manafort’s proposal and says it went nowhere. Kilimnik did not respond to emailed questions, but he has denied in published reports having any connection to Russian intelligence services.

California Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee’s inquiry, told McClatchy: “It certainly looks like Mr. Manafort viewed his position on the campaign as a way of further profiting personally from the work that he was doing on behalf of Russian interests.”

Manafort’s proposal to Deripaska “shows a certain willingness to trade information in the hope of obtaining financial rewards from pro-Russian interests,” Schiff said in a phone interview. “If accurate, that’s a dangerous quality to have in a campaign chairman for a presidential campaign.”

Two former U.S. government officials with knowledge of the way Putin operates said three of the oligarchs with whom Manafort had contacts – Deripaska, Dmitry Firtash, who helped finance the party behind Yanukovych, and Medvedchuk – were potential conduits with the Kremlin.

“All three of those guys are able to pass messages directly to Putin, as well as to his subordinates and aides within the Russian presidential administration,” said one of the ex-officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. “So they all have access and Manafort knew all three or their close associates fairly well.”

No evidence has surfaced that Manafort used any of them to pass messages between the campaign and the Kremlin.

During Manafort’s five-month tenure with the campaign, Russian emissaries made at least two behind-the-scenes offers to deliver “dirt” about Clinton to Trump’s campaign, including at a June 9, 2016 meeting in Trump Tower three weeks after Manafort was promoted to campaign chairman; he attended the meeting along with Donald Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and a Russian lawyer. Trump’s aides say nothing came of that discussion, or a similar offer conveyed in April 2016 to foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos; Manafort was copied on an email relaying that offer, which said the Russians had “thousands” of emails from Democrats.

In July, days before the Democratic National Convention, the British transparency group WikiLeaks began publishing thousands of embarrassing emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia was behind the hacking, and also was responsible for the social media dissemination of a blizzard of fake and harshly critical news about Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Schiff, emphasizing he could only discuss what’s on the public record, said “these are some of the communications and interactions that are of deep interest to us, because obviously the timing is highly suggestive. It’s one of the reasons why Manafort is such a key figure in all of this.”

Manafort first began to establish connections in Ukraine – ground zero in the geopolitical struggle between Putin’s Russia and the West – in late 2004. His reputation as a masterful political strategist and fixer was earned over decades hopping planes to the Congo, Philippines and elsewhere to advise authoritarian rulers friendly with the United States.

By the end of that year, the former Soviet republic of Ukraine was paralyzed by widespread protests amid allegations that Yanukovych, the prime minister in a government rife with corruption, had won the presidency in a rigged election. What became the Orange Revolution persisted until another, internationally monitored vote was held and rival Victor Yushchenko was declared the winner.

Manafort and a partner formed Davis Manafort Partners Inc. in early 2005 and opened offices in Kiev.

Manafort’s first client in Ukraine was Rinat Akhmetov, the country’s richest man and a key funder of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. Deripaska introduced Manafort to Akhmetov, who hailed from Russia-leaning Eastern Ukraine. In the summer of 2005, Akhmetov tapped Manafort to help Yanukovych and his party in the 2006 elections, according to an American consultant based in Kiev, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid damaging relationships.

The multimillion-dollar political consulting deal was sealed at a meeting in an elite Moscow hotel attended by Manafort, Akhmetov and a half dozen other wealthy Ukrainians.

Manafort spent the next several years advising Deripaska, Akhmetov and other Ukrainian oligarchs and giving the gruff-talking Yanukovych a makeover down to his hair style and attire. Yanukovych won the presidency in 2010.

In 2014, however, Manafort’s business took a hit when Yanukovych fled to Russia, days before Kremlin-backed forces invaded Eastern Ukraine. He was quickly hired by the Opposition Bloc, which leaned even more toward Moscow.

His work drew rave reviews from one Oppo Bloc leader, Nestor Shufrych, whom multiple people in positions to know described as a close ally of Medvedchuk. Shufrych told a Ukrainian publication that Manafort urged the new party to take an anti-NATO stance and be the “voice of Russians in (Ukraine’s) East.”

Calling Manafort “a genius,” Shufrych said the party had paid him about $1 million, and the investment “paid off.”

Philip Griffin, a former associate of Manafort’s who consults in Kiev, said he could not imagine Manafort opposing NATO. “Paul Manafort is a Reagan Republican,” Griffin said. “He would never betray that legacy by doing Russia’s bidding.”

Maloni said Manafort argued strongly that “Ukraine was better served by having closer relations with the West and NATO.”

He also said Manafort succeeded in pushing “a number of major initiatives that were strongly supported by the U.S. government and opposed by Russia,” including the denuclearization of Ukraine and the expansion of NATO exercises in the region.

Some former U.S. government officials, though, are skeptical.

Despite Ukraine’s popular uprising against Yanukovych that led to at least 75 deaths, “Paul Manafort maintained ties to the Opposition Bloc party and Viktor Yanukovych's former cronies, thus choosing to associate himself with crooks and kleptocrats rather than Ukraine's pro-Western reformers,” said Mike Carpenter, who focused on Russia matters as a top Pentagon and National Security Council official during the Obama administration. “This speaks volumes about his character and lack of respect for democratic values.”

One of Shufrych’s and Oppo Bloc’s behind-the-scenes allies was Medvedchuk, who is so close to Putin that the Russian president is the godfather of his daughter.

Partial transcripts from tape recordings of then-Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma, published in 2002, show Kumcha saying: “Well, we know about it, that he was a KGB agent, 100 percent.”

Details of Manafort’s contacts with Medvedchuk could not be learned. But Medvedchuk, who is under U.S. sanctions, has acknowledged meeting Manafort once in 2014.

Several of the trips in Manafort’s flight records could draw investigators’ interest.

In April 2014, for instance, Manafort traveled to Vienna. Ukrainian oligarch Firtash had been arrested there the prior month on U.S. charges that he helped orchestrate an $18.5 million bribery scheme involving the government of India, a U.S. firm and a Firtash company in the Virgin Islands. A former U.S. government official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Manafort met with Firtash in Vienna, where he is awaiting extradition to the United States.

Another Manafort trip that could interest investigators took place in July 2013 when Manafort and Kilimnik flew to Frankfurt on a private plane owned by Andrey Artemenko, a pro-Moscow Ukrainian legislator.

American experts on Russia said privately they suspect the trip was a prelude to a broader Russian influence effort to dissuade Yanukovych’s government from signing an agreement to associate with the European Union. That decision, experts say, opened the door to Russia’s 2014 invasion of eastern Ukraine. This year, Artemenko was expelled from the Ukrainian legislature and his citizenship was revoked after disclosures he and a Trump attorney had pitched a “peace plan” for Ukraine and Russia widely seen as favoring Moscow.

Some of Trump’s most remarked-upon statements about foreign policy that directly or indirectly implicated Russia occurred on Manafort’s watch in the 2016 campaign. For example, Trump launched broadsides against NATO allies for not contributing enough money and suggested the United States might rethink its commitment to the European mutual defense alliance credited with deterring Russian military ambitions.

Trump also raised doubts about whether he would stand behind U.S. sanctions that President Barack Obama imposed in December 2014 in retaliation for the Crimean invasion.

As the GOP platform committee drew up party positions a week before the Republican National Convention, a plank calling for the United States to provide “lethal weapons” for Ukraine’s defense was altered in a controversial and mysterious move. The American consultant in Ukraine said that Manafort aide Kilimnik had boasted he played a role in easing the language to recommend only “appropriate assistance” to Ukraine’s military.

Charlie Black, a onetime partner of Manafort’s, says he remains baffled by the change.

"It was inexplicable to me that a majority of platform members would have taken a pro-Russian position on Ukraine,” he said. “They must not have known this was a pro-Russia provision.”

In late July after FBI Director James Comey said he would not back prosecution of Clinton over her use of a private email server to conduct State Department business, Trump took a bizarre step. He publicly beseeched Russia to help unearth 30,000 emails that Clinton said she had deleted because they dealt with personal matters.

During the summer, a U.S. group supporting Ukraine asked both presidential candidates for a letter recognizing the country’s 25th year of independence since the fall of the Soviet Union. Clinton obliged. But the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America was unable to wrest a letter from the Trump campaign, said a person familiar with the matter. The group’s president did not respond to phone messages.

Manafort resigned from the campaign on Aug. 19, 2016 after The New York Times disclosed a secret Ukrainian ledger indicating he was to receive more than $12 million in off-the-books payments from Yanukovych’s party from 2007 to 2012.

Schiff said he found an intriguing symmetry between Trump’s Russia stances and Manafort’s work in Kiev that might explain their mutual attraction.

“Whether he was attracted to the Trump campaign or the campaign was attracted to him on the basis of his Russian contacts,” Schiff said, “the fact of the matter is, he did bring those Russian contacts and pro-Russian prejudices with him to the campaign and apparently found a welcome home there.”

8

 

[fraurosena]

 

 

[formergothardite]

Maybe it will be in time for Christmas! Seeing them all tumble down would be the best gift for the world. 

[Howl]

Time to review the power of the president to grant pardons.  It is NOT good news. Rolling Stone reviewed this topic in July.

There's something to get you started under the spoiler.  If you want the full monty, click on this link: Trump and Presidential Pardons: What You Need to Know

Spoiler

 

The president's pardon power is extreme – it applies to any federal crimes, is entirely within the president's discretion and is completely unreviewable (with one important exception that I'll get to in a bit).

The Constitution is quite clear about this. Article II, section 2 states, "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." No one else has this power – not Congress, nor the federal courts.

This pardon power has limits, but not any that are relevant here. For instance, Trump would not be able to pardon someone for a state, local or foreign crime. He also could not protect someone from having a lawsuit brought against him, either in federal or state court.

But for federal crimes, such as accepting campaign contributions from foreigners, Trump has the power to pardon anyone without restriction. The president's reasons for pardoning someone can be wise or stupid, noble or self-serving, serious or silly. He can pardon as many or as few people as he likes. Moreover, the president can pardon anyone, whether that person is a complete stranger or, for instance, his son. There's no limit on familial pardons.

The president's power even extends to people who have not yet been charged with a crime. The Supreme Court made this entirely clear in 1866, when it wrote that the power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." (Emphasis added.)

 

 

[GrumpyGran]

20 minutes ago, Howl said:

Time to review the power of the president to grant pardons.  It is NOT good news. Rolling Stone reviewed this topic in July.

There's something to get you started under the spoiler.  If you want the full monty, click on this link: Trump and Presidential Pardons: What You Need to Know

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The president's pardon power is extreme – it applies to any federal crimes, is entirely within the president's discretion and is completely unreviewable (with one important exception that I'll get to in a bit).

The Constitution is quite clear about this. Article II, section 2 states, "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." No one else has this power – not Congress, nor the federal courts.

This pardon power has limits, but not any that are relevant here. For instance, Trump would not be able to pardon someone for a state, local or foreign crime. He also could not protect someone from having a lawsuit brought against him, either in federal or state court.

But for federal crimes, such as accepting campaign contributions from foreigners, Trump has the power to pardon anyone without restriction. The president's reasons for pardoning someone can be wise or stupid, noble or self-serving, serious or silly. He can pardon as many or as few people as he likes. Moreover, the president can pardon anyone, whether that person is a complete stranger or, for instance, his son. There's no limit on familial pardons.

The president's power even extends to people who have not yet been charged with a crime. The Supreme Court made this entirely clear in 1866, when it wrote that the power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." (Emphasis added.)

 

 

Yep. He'll pardon them all. At some point let's hope people wake up and impeach him. No one will be going to jail.

But it is possible that if he goes on a pardon rampage it may lead to a groundswell movement for an 28th amendment, one that puts some serious limits on the president's powers. 

[Howl]

Yes, I think at that point we'll be talking constitutional crisis.  BUT, many people will rock right on along with the Faux news spin, and really, if Russia's on THEIR side, how many shits do they really give that the Russkie's (who also hate gay people just like they do!) want to help them along by interfering in the election process on their behalf?  Because in the last election, there was so. much. winning.  White House, House, Senate.

[fraurosena]