The Russian Connection 3: Mueller is Coming

[GrumpyGran]

34 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Fredo is an a-hole

Fredo's dad is also an a-hole 

 

This angers and exhaust me. Dump has bullied this man, asking inappropriate questions and publicly insulting him repeatedly. If anyone treated Dump like this they would probably "disappear".

I'm getting tired of their ridiculous attempts to re-define "logic". It's okay for Republicans to investigate Democrats, as a matter of fact only Republicans can investigate Democrats because Democrats are partisan. But when Democrats investigate Republicans, they're partisan. No one in government jobs can contribute to Democrats but you must have contributed to the Republicans or you're partisan and don't support Dump. And if you didn't vote for Dump, you're partisan and shouldn't have a government job. We're at the threshold of a dictatorship. And Repubs in Congress look the other way. 

We need to build more jails because I want about 356 people to end up there.

[AmazonGrace]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-29/on-flight-to-davos-trump-erupted-over-doj-role-in-russia-probe?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics

On Flight to Davos, Trump Erupted Over DOJ Role in Russia Probe

Spoiler

 

President Donald Trump’s frustrations with the Russia investigation boiled over on Air Force One last week when he learned that a top Justice Department official had warned against releasing a memo that could undercut the probe, according to four people with knowledge of the matter.

Trump erupted in anger while traveling to Davos after learning that Associate Attorney General Stephen Boyd warned that it would be “extraordinarily reckless” to release a classified memo written by House Republican staffers. The memo outlines alleged misdeeds at the FBI and Justice Department related to the Russia investigation.

For Trump, the letter was yet another example of the Justice Department undermining him and stymieing Republican efforts to expose what the president sees as the politically motivated agenda behind Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

Trump’s outburst capped a week where Trump and senior White House officials personally reproached Attorney General Jeff Sessions and asked White House Chief of Staff John Kelly to speak to others -- episodes that illustrate Trump’s preoccupation with the Justice Department, according to two of the people.

Trump warned Sessions and others they need to excel at their jobs or go down as the worst in history, the two people said.

The incidents -- and the extraordinary level of Trump’s personal involvement with Justice Department officials on the matter -- are the latest signs of the growing pressure on Trump as a federal investigation into him, his campaign and his administration stretches into its second year.

Trump met with Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray at the White House last Monday to discuss missing text messages sent between two FBI agents who had expressed anti-Trump views. One of the agents later left his investigation and Mueller removed the other after learning of the texts.

Kelly held separate meetings or phone calls with senior Justice Department officials last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to convey Trump’s displeasure and lecture them on the White House’s expectations, according to the people. Kelly has taken to ending such conversations with a disclaimer that the White House isn’t expecting officials to do anything illegal or unethical.

After Trump’s strong reaction on Air Force One over the Boyd letter, White House officials, including Kelly, sprang into action again, lashing Justice Department officials Thursday over the decision to send the letter, according to the people. Sarah Isgur Flores, director of public affairs at the Department of Justice, declined to comment.

Despite the president’s frustrations over the probe, Trump’s lawyers have been cooperating with Mueller and plan to continue working with him, but they are starting to push for him to wrap things up, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Mueller is getting close to wrapping up a portion of his probe that is focusing on whether the president or his associates obstructed justice, although other parts of the investigation are expected to last at least several months longer, according to current and former U.S. officials.

McCabe Resignation

Several people close to Trump insist he isn’t preparing to fire Wray, Sessions or other senior officials. But the Justice Department’s decision to send the Boyd letter to the House Intelligence Committee last week has intensified Trump’s concern that his own department is undercutting him, several people familiar with the matter said.

The president is frustrated that Justice Department officials keep getting involved in issues related to the probe when they don’t need to, leading him to wonder if anyone was trying to protect people implicated in the GOP memo, according to one person familiar with the matter.

Kelly called Sessions directly to complain about the letter, and several other White House officials chided officials at Justice as well. Sessions was also at the White House Monday for an immigration meeting and for a discussion Tuesday of the department’s goals for the coming months.

On Monday, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who has been blasted by Trump and other Republicans, stepped down and will be on leave until he retires sometime in the spring, a person familiar with the matter said. Republicans had criticized McCabe’s involvement in aspects of the Trump probe and the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices, even though his wife had accepted donations from Democratic political organizations for an unsuccessful election bid in 2015.

Trump’s anger was exacerbated by reports last week that the president had wanted to fire Mueller last June. The New York Times reported Thursday that the pressure to fire Mueller was averted after White House counsel Don McGahn made clear he would resign before carrying out such an order.

Business Dispute

Two people familiar with the matter said the actual events were more complicated and that Trump never issued a formal order to fire Mueller. Trump was surprised by Mueller’s appointment, saying that he had previously had a business dispute with the special counsel, and reacted angrily until McGahn calmed him down.

The emergence of the Mueller firing story troubled White House aides, who said Trump had been showing more restraint in recent months at not making pronouncements or threats that would cross dangerous political lines in dealing with Mueller’s probe.

It also comes at a time when conservative media and Fox News have been doing blanket coverage of a Republican push to question the motives of FBI and Justice officials as part of a campaign to undermine the Mueller probe.

The House Intelligence Committee plans to vote Monday evening on whether to release its classified memo, which contains allegations of counterintelligence surveillance abuses against at least one Trump campaign aide. If the panel votes to release it, it would fall to the White House, perhaps with the advice of intelligence agencies, to decide whether some of the contents are too sensitive and need to be redacted.

Three House lawmakers who have read it said the memo claims FBI officials didn’t provide a complete set of facts in requests made to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to obtain a warrant or warrants on Carter Page, a Trump campaign associate.

The memo claims important details were left out that might have kept a judge from issuing a surveillance warrant, or possibly two, targeting Page, according to the lawmakers, who asked for anonymity to describe the sensitive document. Those include its claims that investigators were relying partly on an unverified dossier put together by an opposition research firm that hired a former British spy, Christopher Steele -- work that was funded by Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, and Democrats.

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and other Republicans have also blasted the FBI over thousands of text messages sent between the two anti-Trump FBI officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who criticized Trump in their exchanges. Some Republicans were angered when the bureau said it had lost some of the texts before the Justice Department’s inspector general announced Thursday that the missing texts had been recovered with forensic tools.

 

 

[fraurosena]

22 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

This angers and exhaust me. Dump has bullied this man, asking inappropriate questions and publicly insulting him repeatedly. If anyone treated Dump like this they would probably "disappear".

I'm getting tired of their ridiculous attempts to re-define "logic". It's okay for Republicans to investigate Democrats, as a matter of fact only Republicans can investigate Democrats because Democrats are partisan. But when Democrats investigate Republicans, they're partisan. No one in government jobs can contribute to Democrats but you must have contributed to the Republicans or you're partisan and don't support Dump. And if you didn't vote for Dump, you're partisan and shouldn't have a government job. We're at the threshold of a dictatorship. And Repubs in Congress look the other way. 

We need to build more jails because I want about 356 people to end up there.

I gave you a Rufus bless, because I feel that you need that right now, together with a . Keep your head up, @GrumpyGran and don't get too riled up.

But you are right. The hypocrisy is just astounding. Nothing the Democrats do is good or right. And if a Republican does it, and does it worse, well, meh, why're you making such a stink?

And the absolute worst thing? When it's Republicans, appointed by Republicans, that are doing their patriotic duty to uphold the Constitution, they're made out to be Democrats in disguise. Because guess what? Comey is a Rupublican. Wray is a Republican. Rosenstein is a Republican. Mueller is a Republican. All of them were appointed by Republicans. But nooo, they're ebil libruls working for the deep state from within a secret society that's out to get the presidunce. And did you notice that everyone fired or 'worked out' of office, is a witness to Comey's testimony? Do they think that by firing them, they suddenly disappear? That they can't testify anymore? Or do they think that no one sees they are so obviously obstructing justice, and that they are somehow discrediting them as witnesses? 

Ugh. Just thinking about this is getting me worked up too. But I take comfort in the fact that they are all idiots, and that there are a lot of smart, patriotic people out there working hard to get all the corruption, collusion and rot out in the open. Good will prevail. It always does. 

[fraurosena]

Busted!

Gaetz accidentally outs Nunes as leading investigation despite recusal

Can’t quote right now, but who thinks anything will be done about this? Next step, Sessions will ignore his recusal too.

[Howl]

From the Bloomberg article posted by @AmazonGrace

Quote

Two people familiar with the matter said the actual events were more complicated and that Trump never issued a formal order to fire Mueller. Trump was surprised by Mueller’s appointment, saying that he had previously had a business dispute with the special counsel, and reacted angrily until McGahn calmed him down.

This is the crux part of the article; you don't really need to read anything else, not one damn word,  to understand why Trump has a bee in his bonnet nasty hair about Mueller.  Trump is wired for revenge for any past conflict.  I can't imagine why we're just hearing about this.  What is this past business dispute?

[LeftCoastLurker]

31 minutes ago, Howl said:

From the Bloomberg article posted by @AmazonGrace

This is the crux part of the article; you don't really need to read anything else, not one damn word,  to understand why Trump has a bee in his bonnet nasty hair about Mueller.  Trump is wired for revenge for any past conflict.  I can't imagine why we're just hearing about this.  What is this past business dispute?

I'm pretty sure Mueller wanted a refund for dues at at tRump golf resort. Apparently it was standard practice to do the refund thing, but Mueller's request for refund was either refused or ignored. 

[AuntK]

As much as I admire President Obama, I still cannot understand how his administration, with knowledge of the Russian hacking a week prior to the 2016 election, did not release that information to the American people. Yes, I know they wanted a "bipartisan" statement and fuck face McConnell refused, and threatened to make it a partisan issue, but this was TOO IMPORTANT to remain silent about! I'm sure, knowing what he knows now, he would have handled it differently, but the more I read about this, the sicker I feel.

And now, with Trump purging and constantly criticizing the FBI, I'm growing more and more concerned that this investigation is going to be derailed before it reaches the desired conclusion.

[Audrey2]

46 minutes ago, Howl said:

From the Bloomberg article posted by @AmazonGrace

This is the crux part of the article; you don't really need to read anything else, not one damn word,  to understand why Trump has a bee in his bonnet nasty hair about Mueller.  Trump is wired for revenge for any past conflict.  I can't imagine why we're just hearing about this.  What is this past business dispute?

I was thinking Trump had a bee in his bouffant. Strike through doesn't work well on my phone.

[AmazonGrace]

 

 

I think it's fast approaching the stage in which huge crowds on the streets are needed to protest, otherwise Trump will get away with this too. 

[onekidanddone]

25 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

 

I think it's fast approaching the stage in which huge crowds on the streets are needed to protest, otherwise Trump will get away with this too. 

Shit.  I have trouble walking long distances and am quite social phobic. I'll rent a wheelchair or scooter and down a bunch of Xanax to go.

[GrumpyGran]

19 hours ago, LeftCoastLurker said:

I'm pretty sure Mueller wanted a refund for dues at at tRump golf resort. Apparently it was standard practice to do the refund thing, but Mueller's request for refund was either refused or ignored. 

I'd like to know more about this. It's hilarious that Dump is walking right around the fact that Mueller was actually a paying member of one of his golf resorts and a Republican and screaming that he cheated Mueller out of money so Mueller's mad at him. I doubt Dumpy even knew about this event and if Mueller didn't sue him, like Dump does with everyone he thinks slights him financially, then Mueller let it go.

As for the hacking info not being released, I think Obama first thought Hillary would win anyway and he didn't want to appear to be influencing the election by making claims the Republicans were clearly going to dispute. He might have thought the info would come out after the election, the damage was done and he didn't want to drag the Democratic party down into a mudslinging battle.

[formergothardite]

What the heck are they going to prosecute him for? What supposed crime did he do? Besides annoy our toddler in chief?

[GrumpyGran]

27 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

What the heck are they going to prosecute him for? What supposed crime did he do? Besides annoy our toddler in chief?

Well, lack of a crime hasn't stopped them from attempting to prosecute Hillary for years.

[fraurosena]

Ladies, and gentlemen, here we have the real reason why this administration and its GOP traitors are attacking the FBI and trying to stymie the Mueller investigation:

As predicted, the closer the investigation gets to proving corruption and treachery, the more desperate the attempts to stop the investigation will get.

Oh, and while we're at it, here's even more evidence as to the increased fury of attacks against the FBI:

Trump Could Now Face Possible Asset Seizure By Robert Mueller While Still President, Says Legal Experts

Quote

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been building his case against Trump for the past several months and it’s become fairly evident that he’s potentially already got him for at least a few felonies. The list continues to grow, but obstruction of justice, money laundering and conspiracy against the U.S. are on the table for now. The only remaining question is, how exactly will it all go down?

There’s a lot of speculation about what exactly will happen from here, because there has never been anything quite like this in presidential history. Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal is the closest thing we have in terms of a precedent, which lead to him resigning when things got this bad for him.

Legal experts have been debating whether or not Mueller can even indict Trump while he’s in office and if he can put him on trial at all. The judicial system will have the final say, but it’s possible that Mueller will at least make Trump’s life very difficult while we await those decisions.

Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School was asked if Mueller could seize Trump’s assets while he’s still in office. His response was “I’ve not yet explored this, but I’d welcome those who are expert in RICO and other avenues for prosecuting corrupt organizations and freezing their assets to RT and explain. Even if a sitting POTUS were held unindictable, an open Q, his nest of companies could be a sitting duck.”

Sarah Smith – another legal expert who spent over 20 years in government ethics law – said that a new directive made by Trump’s Department of Justice makes it easier for prosecutors to seize assets before trial and before a conviction in criminal cases.

This will all have to be overseen by the judicial system, but Trump’s own administration may have just provided any easier way to seize Trump’s money in the process.

 

Oh, wouldn't it be the most delicious irony if his own administration had indeed just provided the means to seize his money?

[Howl]

Try to prosecute Mueller?

I wonder if Sessions would fold on this request, or rally what he has left of a spine and refuse.  Surely even he understands the insanity of a move like this.  And surely, even Trump understands that the FBI and possibly CIA are sitting on massive amounts of incriminating evidence gathered from the FISA warrants and he's been relentlessly shitting on the integrity of the FBI.    

[onekidanddone]

I'm feeling so hopeless and frighted.

 

I'll admit to being ignorant on how the sanctions are supposed to work. Passed an overwhelming and veto proof majority and sighed by Shit Stain, are they not now required by law? Did he only sign it because he knew he wasn't going to follow them and didn't want the embarrassment of an override? Now what happens? 

[fraurosena]

@Howl, I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in Jeff 'I-don't-recall' Sessions. He's firmly on the side of the collaborators and traitors. Because I do recall that he was head of the campaign's so-called security team (and therefore the boss of Papadapoulos among others) and he was on the transition team, he met with Russians galore, among whom the known spy, Kislyak, and lied about it under oath, multiple times. 

So, spine or no, he will not do the right thing, and protect and uphold the Constitution. 

@onekidanddone,  I understand your angst. These are scary times for America. I believe the time will soon be upon you to stand up and voice your protests at the wilful destruction of the US. The people of the US will have to get out in the streets, shut down the economy, and demand the return of the rule of law. But do take heart, hold your head high, and do not give up hope. Losing hope is the beginning of their triumph. Do not let them defeat you, no matter what they through at you. Instead, pick it up, hold it high and show the world you reject it and will never accept the loss of your values and all you hold dear. 

Personally, my hope lies not only in the defiance of the American people, but in the competence of the Mueller team. I am waiting with bated breath for his counter move. One which I believe will have devastating consequences for this administration. 

[fraurosena]

Now here's a very, very interesting article, which despite its length is well worth the read.  It reminds us exactly who and what Nunes is to the administration. It tells of how he was buddies with Flynn long before the campaign even started, and how he was aiding the campaign since March 2016. You can also read how his current MO with the memo is not a new one for him either. He's done it before...

Devin Nunes was ‘in like Flynn’ with the Trump Campaign from the beginning

Quote

The House Intel Chairman was closely allied with General Michael Flynn during his tumultuous tenure at the DIA; In spring 2016, Nunes began providing private intelligence briefings to the campaign, and after Trump secured the nomination, he traveled with and fundraised for the candidate. Limiting his role to that of “Transition Team member” has allowed major conflicts-of-interest to go unchallenged.

In the early months of the 2016 presidential campaign, California Congressman Devin Nunes had taken to repeating a singular talking point anytime he was questioned about his endorsement. Consistently, Nunes would state he only planned on “supporting the Republican nominee out of the convention.” Nunes was referred to as a “no-namer” — the category of GOP lawmakers who would not name Trump directly, but who were nonetheless committed to supporting him if and when he won the nomination. As the head of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes’ apparent objectivity was appropriate. He explained that “as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he stays neutral because he has to brief the nominees.”

An examination of open source information, however, reveals that Nunes’ involvement with the Trump Campaign was far more extensive than has been purported. In fact, Nunes had an already established, years-long relationship with Trump’s National Security Advisor — Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. He likely played an integral role in providing behind-the-scenes national security guidance to a fledgling campaign otherwise lacking in such expertise. And once Trump emerged as the party’s nominee in July 2016, Nunes’ support of Trump became absolute. In the lead up to election day, Nunes fundraised for Trump, defended him in the media, downplayed Russian interference, and secured himself an influential position on the Transition Team.

Presently, Nunes serves as the lead House Republican responsible for investigating the Trump campaign’s conspiracy with Russian actors to influence the election. Yet universally, U.S. media perpetuates a revisionist version of history, limiting Nunes’ role to merely that of a post-election “Transition Team member”. This misrepresentation has allowed Nunes to skate free on clear ethics violations and continue to serve in a role for which his conflicts-of-interest are considerable.

Allies in arms

In 2011, California Congressman Devin Nunes was selected for a much-coveted seat on the powerful House Intelligence Committee. At 40 years old, Nunes brought little more with him than a few years of farming experience and a decade serving his rural constituency in congress. He had earned a reputation, however, as an effective fundraiser for his GOP colleagues and a reliable party vote for then Speaker of the House John Boehner. As a reward for these efforts, Nunes became one of twenty-one House members responsible for overseeing a swath of seventeen agencies that comprise the U.S. intelligence community.

It was in this capacity as a committee member that Nunes first met and came to develop an alliance with Lt. Gen Michael Flynn — appointed director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in July 2012. Nunes himself said after the 2016 election he had:

“‘Known Flynn for a long time and had been briefed by him dozens of time,’ describing him further as ‘one of the best and most knowledgeable generals’ he had seen during his career in Congress.”

General Flynn’s tumultuous two-year tenure at DIA has by now been well-documented. It was a period defined by Flynn’s chaotic management style and his persistent conflict with other U. S. intelligence agencies. Having served previously as a top intelligence adviser in Iraq and Afghanistan, Flynn brought with him to DIA entrenched beliefs about the ongoing serious threat posed by Islamist terror groups in the Middle East. Once inside the administration, it became quickly evident to Flynn that President Obama did not share in this assessment. In Flynn’s view, Obama was looking for the intelligence community to comport their findings to align with his administration’s narrative of a post-bin Laden era of rapidly declining terror threats. In Flynn’s words, it was Obama’s “big lie”.

From contemporaneous reporting of this same 2012–2014 period, Nunes was clearly allied with Flynn on these grounds. As a member of the intelligence committee, Nunes was separately investigating the administration for the September 2012 Benghazi attack that left four American officials dead. The attack had come on the heels of a then-confidential draft National Intelligence Estimate produced by the Obama Administration that concluded al Qaeda was no longer a direct threat to America.

Flynn fought hard against this assessment, setting the stage for what would become a sustained confrontation between the administration, certain senior intelligence officials, and GOP members of the congressional committee appointed to oversee them.

Part of the acrimony was related to the administration’s handling of documents seized during the 2011 raid of Osama bin Laden’s lair. Believing they possessed critical intelligence of the sustained threat posed by Al Qaeda, Flynn lobbied alongside Nunes and others for the documents to be declassified. Nunes later revealed that “informants came to me in late 2012 stating that they had information related to the bin Laden raid and the analysis of intelligence.” According to Nunes and others, the documents where both alarming and in direct contradiction to Obama administration claims of al Qaeda’s waning influence. Flynn was allegedly told directly to stop producing reports based on these documents.

More serious allegations were also levied by Flynn, Nunes, and others. Senior intelligence officials had begun to accuse U.S. Central Command of manipulating ISIS intelligence to “portray the campaign as more successful than it really was.” Flynn was later quoted as saying that intelligence reports were “disregarded” by Obama if they “did not meet a particular narrative that the White House needed” for Obama’s re-election.

In May 2013, Nunes traveled to CENTCOM Headquarters in Tampa for a briefing by analysts involved in the push back against these allegedly manipulated reports. The topics were slated to include “Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda, bin Laden’s involvement in the day-to-day operations of al Qaeda, and his operations guidance to offshoots, such as Boko Haram.” Once in Tampa, Nunes was denied access to the analysts and their findings, creating further schisms between the parties.

Flynn’s ultimate undoing came in 2014, after a February presentation of the DIA’s “annual threat assessment” to congress. The report predicted the Islamic State would probably “attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014.” The forecast, while ultimately proved to be true, clashed with Obama’s description a month earlier of ISIS as “a jayvee team.” In March, Flynn then gave an interview to NPR, further deriding the administration for its failure to heed DIA’s warnings over Russia’s preparations to invade Ukraine. By April, Flynn had been asked to step down as director of the agency.

But based on repeated allegations of intelligence manipulation by some senior officials, the Pentagon’s Inspector General did open an investigation in the summer of 2014. Nunes continued to press the government to declassify bin Laden documents, going so far as to require the document release in committee bills to authorize spending for the agencies. And later in 2015, a House Republican task force report — written by members of the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees — concluded that intelligence on the ISIS threat was systematically altered by senior U.S. Central Command officials to put it in a more positive light.

A campaign trail reunion

By June 2015, the ex-DIA director was routinely appearing on television voicing increasingly vitriolic criticisms of the Obama administration — a characteristic that undoubtedly endeared him to then-candidate Trump. By late 2015 Flynn had officially joined the Trump campaign as the novice politician’s national security advisor. Given the storied history between Nunes and Flynn, it’s not surprising the two men would eventually reunite during the 2016 election season and rally in support of the same “tough on terrorism” Republican candidate.

Nunes, by now Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was projecting a public appearance of neutrality in the Republican primaries. Yet according to post-election reports from Politico and McClatchy, by spring 2016 Nunes had already begun meeting with members of the Trump team and providing them private national security briefings. As Politico described it:

“Early this year, (Nunes) made a standing offer to brief any of the Republican presidential hopefuls on national security issues. Trump’s campaign took him up on it in March. From those meetings, Nunes grew close with retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.”

In late May 2016, Trump scheduled a campaign rally in Fresno, a central California city next to Nunes’ home district. The appearance was a rarity for Republican presidential candidates, who stand essentially no chance of winning the solidly blue state. According to CNN, a leading player behind the scenes of the event was Nunes’ former Chief of Staff Johnny Amaral, who “(managed) lobbyists for Westlands Water District, a massive water district in the Central Valley.” While it is unconfirmed whether Nunes attended Trump’s pre-rally town meetings or the event itself, he claimed later in June that he was “looking forward to meeting Donald Trump (at the convention) to discuss California water, tax reform and intelligence issues.”

After the Republican National Convention, Nunes’ outward support for Trump became more apparent. According to his hometown paper Fresno Bee, in August 2016 Nunes arranged a fundraiser for Trump in his local district of Tulare. The Bee reported that the cost to attend the event was $2,700, with a $25,000 opportunity for a VIP meeting. Nunes “expected Trump to raise at least $1.25 million and possibly as much as $1.5 million.” He also planned to travel to the Bay Area to brief Trump on water and prepare him for the event. “‘He’s already been here once, so I think he has a decent handle on it,’ said Nunes, who will also brief Trump on intelligence issues,” the paper reported.

In a follow-up report, Fresno Bee provided further details on Nunes’ Bay area trip to brief Trump. According to that report, “Nunes ended up getting prime time with the Republican nominee, though he did not plan on it….Trump invited him to come along on his jet flight to Los Angeles, where he spent Monday night.” McClatchy went further, reporting “in August, the two men spent more time together in Trump’s plane and at fundraising and campaign events in Silicon Valley, Los Angeles and Tulare County.”

Later in October, after the Access Hollywood tape leaked, a third report from Fresno Bee showed that Nunes’ support remained firm. In a text message to the paper, Nunes said “‘As you know, I stayed out of the primary (election campaign) and as a party leader agreed to support and help whoever won…That remains my commitment, to help make our candidate the best that he can be on (intelligence) and military issues.’”

Evolving views on Russian interference

Nunes’ outward support for candidate Trump was not the only thing to evolve during the 2016 campaign. So too did his views on Russia and his confidence in the intelligence communities assessment of Russian interference. In a CNN interview in April 2016, Nunes told Jake Tapper that the U.S. government has badly “misjudged” the intentions of Putin “for many, many years,” declaring “the biggest intelligence failure that we have had since 9/11 has been the inability to predict the leadership plans and intentions of the Putin regime in Russia.” On the invasion of Ukraine, Nunes added “We missed that..and then we completely missed entirely when they put a new base, a new base with aircraft into the Mediterranean, into Syria. We just missed it. We were blind.”

By July, as the extent of Russian hacking was becoming better known, Nunes conceded there was “a high confidence” Russia hacked into the DNC computers. Still, his stance on the threat posed by Russia had noticeably softened. He insisted many other foreign countries were doing the same thing and that the release of material during a U.S. election was “nothing new”. Nunes further denied there was evidence that Russian hackers gave the information to WikiLeaks, even as he acknowledged they had operated as a conduit for Russia in the past. And in regard to Trump’s call on Russia to find the “missing 33,000 emails”, Nunes brushed off concerns, say Trump “was simply making light of Hillary Clinton setting up her own homebrew email server that trafficked in classified information.”

After Trump won the election in November 2016, Nunes denials of Russian interference only grew, putting him at direct odds once again with the intelligence community he was sworn to oversee.

Transition period influence

The overwhelming majority of media reports since the election have focused on Nunes’ role as a Trump Transition Team member, effectively erasing his involvement in the very campaign he is investigating. Clearly, however, Nunes role and relationships with key subjects of the investigation are substantial.

It is likely for this reason that Nunes wielded such significant influence as a Transition Team member. According to various reports, it was Nunes’ recommendations that formed the basis for Trump’s selections of both General James Mattis (who he knew from his days investigating U.S. Central Command) as Defense Secretary and fellow Intel committee member Mike Pompeo for CIA Director. Like Nunes, Pompeo had a history of criticism towards the intelligence community and had also been dismissive of Russian election interference, claiming that 2016 was no different than any other election year.

Nunes freely admitted that as a Transition Team member, he was responsible for fielding calls from foreign leaders and ambassadors who were trying to reach Flynn. He strenuously defended Trump in the media when it was leaked that the President-elect was skipping intelligence briefings. And, he now-infamously attended a pre-inauguration breakfast with Turkish officials as a guest of Flynn’s. The public later learned the General was being paid to represent the interests of these government officials.

Because he has never been questioned as a witness, it is unknown what, if any, knowledge Nunes had of Flynn’s arrangement with the Turkish government or the campaign’s contacts with Russia during the election.

Duty and obligation

With this context, the bizarre actions by Nunes over the past year come sharply into focus. When Flynn was fired from his White House position after conversations with the Russian Ambassador leaked in February 2017, it was Nunes that the White House tapped to defend the General in the media — which he dutifully did. And when Trump levied unsubstantiated claims of wiretapping by the Obama administration, it was Nunes that conspired with Flynn’s National Security Council appointees to create the diversionary “unmasking scandal.”

Now, almost a year into the House Intelligence investigation, Nunes is set to release an “intelligence memo” with its target set directly on the FBI, DOJ, and intelligence community. It’s long past time to set the record straight about Nunes and the central role he played in the very campaign he is charged with investigating.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

An interesting analysis: "Mueller won’t indict Trump. But here’s what he can do."

Spoiler

For decades, scholars have debated the question of whether the Constitution allows a sitting president to be indicted and tried while in office — and whether it would be prudent to do so. Two decades ago, independent counsel Kenneth Starr confronted these questions while investigating President Bill Clinton and answered yes to the first, but no to the second.

We don’t know what special counsel Robert S. Mueller III thinks of these questions — in general, or with respect to his ongoing investigation of the relationship between members of President Trump’s inner circle and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — but it doesn’t matter. A change in law since 1999 has taken the decision out of his hands.

Mueller won’t indict Trump. But here’s what you need to know to understand what may happen instead.

Appointed by a special panel of judges to replace an earlier independent counsel who had been investigating Clinton’s involvement in an Arkansas land deal, Starr sought and received permission from that panel to investigate allegations that Clinton had suborned perjury or obstructed justice in an effort to conceal his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The title “independent counsel” effectively meant that for purposes of the Clinton investigation, Starr was the attorney general, with the ultimate power to decide whom to prosecute and on what basis.

In response to concerns that independent counsels — not just Starr — were too powerful, Congress let the independent counsel statute expire in 1999 (while allowing ongoing independent counsel investigations to run their course). In its place, the Department of Justice published regulations that enabled the appointment of a “special counsel” with significantly narrower authority. As special counsel in the Russia probe, Mueller functions more like a U.S. attorney — albeit one with a purview defined by topic rather than geography — than a U.S. attorney general. He may be “special,” but he’s not “independent.”

He is confined in two ways: First, Mueller must abide by all Justice Department “rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies” — as distinct from Starr, who could deviate from such policies where they were “inconsistent with the purposes” of the independent counsel statute. Second, Starr had unreviewable discretion, while any investigative or prosecutorial decision Mueller makes may be reviewed and disapproved by the attorney general. Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a prominent figure in Trump’s presidential campaign, recused (in essence, disqualified) himself from oversight of matters related to the Russia investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein has served as acting attorney general for Mueller’s purposes.

So how does this affect whether Trump gets indicted? In 1973, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — essentially the government’s lawyers’ lawyers — determined that the president is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution while in office. With his broad authority, Starr felt unbound by that opinion and ordered up his own from a conservative legal scholar, who determined that Starr could, in fact, indict Clinton, though he ultimately chose not to. In October 2000, the OLC reaffirmed its earlier opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

It’s rare for an attorney general to undertake an action that the OLC has concluded would be unconstitutional. Even in matters of far less importance, the OLC’s learned and expert analysis almost always carries the day with government officials, especially where it has published lengthy opinions on the matter that would be gleefully cited by a litigant (in this scenario, President Trump) challenging the action on constitutional grounds. Even if Mueller does conclude that Trump has committed a crime, and that it would be both constitutional and prudent to indict him, and even if Rosenstein agrees in all regards — all of which are big “ifs” — Rosenstein almost certainly wouldn’t allow such an indictment.

Starr, of course, did not wash his hands of the matter when he decided not to indict Clinton. Rather, he issued a 445-page report cataloging in exhaustive and sometimes explicit detail Clinton’s sexual relationship with Lewinsky, outlining how the facts could give rise to impeachment. This report was mandated by the independent counsel statute, which required Starr to advise Congress of “any substantial and credible information” that “may constitute grounds for an impeachment.” Starr’s report provided a road map, and Clinton was, indeed, impeached by the House of Representatives in December 1998, although he remained in office because the Senate acquitted him in February 1999.

But Mueller cannot do this, at least not directly. The special counsel regulations, unlike the independent counsel statute, neither mandate nor allow Mueller to transmit a report to Congress. Rather, at the end of his work, he must provide a “confidential report” to the attorney general — Rosenstein, in Sessions’s stead — explaining his “prosecution or declination decisions.”

The regulations don’t say what format that report must take or what happens next. If Mueller believes he has information that could warrant impeachment, he could weave it into a narrative like the Starr Report. But even if Rosenstein wanted to make the report public, he would be limited by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes strict limits on the disclosure of grand jury materials. This rule, which has the force of law, is intended to preserve the integrity of grand jury investigations and encourage witnesses to testify fully and frankly. Rosenstein could, if he chose, issue a redacted report that conveys the gist of Mueller’s findings.

Of course, given the president’s apparent displeasure with Rosenstein, it’s possible that by then Trump will have replaced the deputy attorney general with a more compliant successor who would not affirmatively disclose the report. Or Trump could achieve the same result by replacing Sessions with a new attorney general who isn’t recused from supervising Mueller.

Congress could likely subpoena the report in its entirety pursuant to recognized exceptions to grand jury secrecy, including a Nixon-era precedent in which courts upheld a grand jury’s decision to transmit evidence and a sealed report to the House Judiciary Committee. Indeed, Congress could procure not only Mueller’s report, but all investigative files that relate to the president. It could then make the material public if it so chose, as it did with the Starr report.

The catch? Only congressional committee chairmen can issue subpoenas. With both the House and Senate under GOP control, Republicans could simply decline to do so. The 2018 midterm elections, therefore — and the potential for one or both houses of Congress to change hands — may be crucial to determining whether and when Mueller’s Trump-related work sees the light of day.

Remember, Mueller is an investigator, not a politician. He does not have a dog in the impeachment fight. His likely goals are, and should be, to dig up facts and bring them to light as warranted. With that in mind, he may have a couple of other cards to play.

He might be able to name Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator, an unusual step that prosecutors sometimes deploy when, for various reasons, it is impossible or impracticable to indict a specific person who participated in a criminal conspiracy. Justice Department rules impose significant limits on this practice, however, and it is uncertain whether Rosenstein would allow Mueller to do so. (It’s even less likely to occur if Rosenstein is no longer the decider.)

Alternatively, Mueller could trigger a reporting requirement in the special counsel regulations under which the attorney general must inform “the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress” — both parties, in other words — at the end of the special counsel’s investigation, of any instance in which the attorney general vetoed a proposed action. Simply by proposing to indict Trump, Mueller could ensure that Congress gets the word. But this would be of only limited scope: instead of an evidence dump, it need only be a “brief notification, with an outline of the actions and the reasons for them.”

What all these scenarios have in common is that Congress, not the courts, will be the ultimate arbiter of whether Trump faces any direct consequences from Mueller’s investigation. Depending on the state of play come November, voters across the nation may be the ones who determine whether Congress decides even to consider that question. Elections have consequences, and one consequence of the midterms may be whether the American public finds out what Mueller has learned about Trump.

This analysis shows one of the myriad reasons it's imperative for the Dems to take control of congress.

[Howl]

15 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Now here's a very, very interesting article, which despite its length is well worth the read.  It reminds us exactly who and what Nunes is to the administration. It tells of how he was buddies with Flynn long before the campaign even started, and how he was aiding the campaign since March 2016. You can also read how his current MO with the memo is not a new one for him either. He's done it before...

OK, I'm having an "Aha!" moment.  This nicely deconstructs Nunes' alliance with Trump et. al and now I have a much clearer idea of the Nunes end game.....or do I?  Because we don't know how far these guys are willing to go to protect Trump and how deep in the weeds they are with Comrade Putin and where those interests intersect.  Likely that Team Mueller has gamed out various scenarios and how they might alter their timeline in response.  

Should Nunes (R-Putin) be successful in shutting Mueller down, I hope some disaffected Deep Throat in the investigation manages to get a loaded thumb drive to the Washington Post.  That would be a betrayal of Mueller, of course, so I want it/don't want it. 

My one regret?  I'll be dead and gone by the time the Trump archives are opened to researchers. 

That Trump has neglected to implement Russian sanctions makes me believe there is, indeed, Russian kompromat on Trump or his sons or all of them. 

[fraurosena]

1 minute ago, Howl said:

That Trump has neglected to implement Russian sanctions makes me believe there is, indeed, Russian kompromat on Trump or his sons or all of them. 

Yes, there is. There just has to be. Nothing else explains it at all, otherwise. That whole family, plus quite a few top GOP'ers are 'in like Flynn'. Not all of them, but more than we know of right now. At least in my opinion anyway.

The distressing thing I see happening though, is that even those Republicans who aren't in on it, the 'moderate conservatives' if you will, are now taking their places firmly behind this administration. I think it's because they are very afraid of what will happen in November, and they believe that if they stand together as a party, perhaps holding their noses as they do so, they could stand a chance of political survival. I shudder at the thought of the havoc they can wreak until the mid-terms, so I'm fervently hoping that the stench is too hard to bear for them, even with pegs on their noses, and those 'moderates' will cease any support of the administration.

Like you, I want/don't want a leak from Mueller's investigation. My theory is that there won't be/aren't any leaks unless Mueller deems them necessary. Releasing his information to the press could be a last ditch effort to expose all the rot, if his investigation is stymied in any way, or if the results are swept under the rug by a partisan Congress.

[GreyhoundFan]

I didn't know that Nunes' winery was involved with a Putin buddy.

[GreyhoundFan]

[fraurosena]

This is really bad. Really, really bad.

The Trump Administration Let a Russian Spy Chief Visit the US— Even Though He Was Legally Barred

Quote

The Trump administration allowed the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service, Sergey Naryshkin, to visit the United State last week, despite US sanctions that are supposed to bar Naryshkin from entering the country.

Naryshkin’s visit drew no notice at the time, but after Russia’s US ambassador Anatoly Antonov announced the visit on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) raised the issue in a press conference later in the day. “This is an extreme dereliction of duty by President Trump, who seems more intent on undermining the rule of law in this country than standing up to Putin,” Schumer said. 

Naryshkin met last week outside Washington with Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, Reuters reported. Antonov said that Naryshkin’s meetings addressed the “joint struggle against terrorism,” though he did not offer further details.

News of the visit drew condemnation from congressional Democrats already fuming over the Trump administration’s refusal on Monday to impose new sanctions against Russian defense and intelligence firms—sanctions that were required by bipartisan legislation President Donald Trump begrudgingly approved in 2017. (The 2017 sanctions law passed Congress with veto-proof majorities.)

Naryshkin is among the senior Russian defense and intelligence officials who had previously been sanctioned by the Obama administration in 2014 in retaliation for Russian’s invasion of Ukraine. The move put the officials on a “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” list maintained by the Treasury Department. People on that list are barred from entering the country. It was not immediately clear Tuesday if the administration used any formal process to exempt Naryshkin from those restrictions. The Treasury Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Schumer called on the White House to explain whether Naryshkin’s visit related to the administration’s failure to impose new sanctions Monday.

“The Trump administration must immediately come clean and answer questions.” Schumer said. “Which US officials did he meet with? Did any White House or National Security Council officials meet with Naryshkin? What did they discuss? Surely he didn’t come alone. So which other sanctioned Russia intelligence agency figures has the Trump administration let into our country?”

Schumer’s decision to highlight Naryshkin’s visit was an unusual move. In an effort to avoid the appearance that he is politicizing the growing Russia scandal, the minority leader has largely left discussion of Trump and Russia to senators on the committees involved in investigating the issue. One Senate Democratic staffer suggested Tuesday that Trump’s refusal to implement the new sanctions law, combined with Naryshkin’s visit, was blatant enough to draw attention from voters who might otherwise tune out daily stories on the matter.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, told reporters Tuesday that the issue hits home for ethnic Ukrainians in cities like Toledo and Cleveland. “The Ukrainian community knows all too well the efforts of unchecked Russian aggression, and they know why these sanctions are needed,” said Brown, who is facing a re-election fight this year in a state Trump carried 8 percentage points.

“Nobody in either party trusts this president to represent American national interests when it comes to Russia,” Brown said.

He met with Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence? What were they concocting? More interference in the American electoral systems, in preparation for the mid-terms?

This stinks. This stinks so bad, I can smell it over here on the other side of the Atlantic.

[fraurosena]

I'll just leave this here before I go read it.