The Russian Connection 3: Mueller is Coming

[fraurosena]

34 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Maybe they're trying to counter the Trump narrative that it has all been proven to be a democrat hoax.

I think the Democrats are trying to counter the Republican narrative, that Mueller/the FBI is biased. They are doing whatever they can to show that the Repugs are now trying to stymie all the investigations on the Hill, and are even actively attempting to undercut what the FBI is doing. The Repugs are by-passing the Democrats on the investigative committees left, right and center, are keeping information from them, and so on, and so forth. 

By heavily implying that there is ample evidence against Fredo, by baldly stating that more indictments and guilty pleas and convictions will be forthcoming from the Mueller investigation sooner rather than later, they are underlining that the Repugs are working on a coordinated cover-up. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

From the WaPo: "Mueller indicates he will likely seek interview with Trump"

Spoiler

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has raised the likelihood with President Trump’s legal team that his office will seek an interview with the president, triggering a discussion among his attorneys about how to avoid a sit-down encounter or set limits on such a session, according to two people familiar with the talks.

Mueller brought up the issue of interviewing Trump during a late December meeting with the president’s lawyers, John Dowd and Jay Sekulow. Mueller deputy James Quarles, who oversees the White House portion of the special counsel investigation, also attended.

The special counsel’s team could interview Trump very soon on some limited portion of questions — possibly within the next several weeks, according to a person close to the president who was granted anonymity to describe internal conversations.

“This is moving faster than anyone really realizes,” the person said, who said Trump is comfortable participating in an interview and believes it would put to rest questions about whether his campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election.

However, the president’s attorneys are reluctant to allow him to sit down for open-ended, face-to-face questioning without clear parameters, according to two people familiar with the discussions. Since the December meeting, they have discussed whether the president could provide written answers to some portion of the questions from Mueller’s investigators, as then-President Ronald Reagan did during the Iran-contra investigation. They have also discussed the obligation of Mueller’s team to demonstrate they could not obtain the information they are seeking without interviewing the President.

Dowd and Sekulow declined to comment.

In a statement, Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer overseeing the administration’s response to the Mueller investigation, said “the White House does not comment on communications with the OSC out of respect for the OSC and its process,” referring to the special counsel’s office.

“The White House is continuing its full cooperation with the OSC in order to facilitate the earliest possible resolution,” Cobb added.

Cobb had repeatedly said all interviews of White House personnel by Mueller’s office were on schedule to be completed by the end of December or early this year. On Monday, he said he remains confident any portion of the investigation related to the president or the White House will wrap up shortly.

Mueller and Trump’s legal team plan to meet again soon to discuss both the possible terms and substance of the interview, as well as Mueller’s timeline for the investigation, according to one person familiar with the plan.

Trump’s lawyers hope to obtain from the special counsel’s team a clear idea of the categories of questions that would be posed to the president.

For months, Trump’s legal team has been researching the conditions under which the president would be required to submit to an interview with the special counsel, who is investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.

“No lawyer just volunteers their client without thinking this through,” said one of the people familiar with the talks.

The legal team’s internal discussions about how to respond to a request for an interview was first reported Monday morning by NBC News.

It has long been expected Mueller would seek to interview Trump, in part because the special counsel is scrutinizing whether actions he took in office were attempts to blunt the Russia investigation, according to people familiar with questions posed to witnesses.

In May, Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey after Comey testified on Capitol Hill that he could not comment on whether Russia had colluded with the Trump campaign.

The president also dictated a misleading statement later released by his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., about a meeting Trump Jr. had with a Russian lawyer during the presidential campaign.

Veteran prosecutors said it was unlikely Mueller would agree to have any witness, even the president, submit a declaration or provide written answers to questions to avoid a sit-down interview.

Asked on Saturday if he had agree to be interviewed by Mueller, Trump said he had nothing to hide.

“Just so you understand, there’s been no collusion, there’s been no crime, and in theory everybody tells me I’m not under investigation. Maybe Hillary [Clinton] is, I don’t know, but I’m not,” Trump told reporters at Camp David. “But we have been very open. We could have done it two ways. We could have been very closed, and it would have taken years. But you know, sort of like when you’ve done nothing wrong, let’s be open and get it over with.”

“Because, honestly, it’s very, very bad for our country,” the president added. “It’s making our country look foolish. And this is a country that I don’t want looking foolish. And it’s not going to look foolish as long as I’m here.”

Sitting presidents have been interviewed by prosecutors in the past, though courts have urged government investigators to only seek such interviews when they cannot obtain relevant information another way.

After extensive negotiations between the independent counsel and his attorney, then-President Bill Clinton agreed to testify before a grand jury via video and audio link to the White House in August 1998. The videotaped interview lasted for four hours, and during questioning from three prosecutors, Clinton admitted to inappropriate sexual activity with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, but claimed he had been legally correct in denying that he had had sexual relations with her. He also denied having committed perjury in a lawsuit brought by Paula Jones.

In 2004, then-President George W. Bush Bush sat down for an in-person interview with Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who was investigating whether senior White House aides leaked a CIA operative’s identity and broke her cover as punishment for her husband’s criticism Iraq War. Bush volunteered for the interview, which lasted 70 minutes and was conducted in the Oval Office.

“The leaking of classified information is a very serious matter,” then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan said at the time, adding Bush was “pleased to do his part” to aid the probe.

Reagan testified to a grand jury in the Iran-contra investigation, but he also answered some written questions in writing that were presented to him by the grand jury and the independent counsel in the probe.

In 1975, then-President Gerald Ford was interviewed as part of a grand jury probe into an assassination attempt. In a taped session in the Old Executive Office Building, Ford shared his recollections of events when Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, a Charles Manson follower, tried to shoot him at close range in Sacramento in September 1975. The tape was used at her later trial.

I can't imagine Agent Orange doing well against some of the high-powered Mueller team.

[AmazonGrace]

I pity the investigator who would have him under oath. It's bad enough listening to Trump ramble in normal circumstances but good luck trying to get a straight answer about anything. He is never on topic and relevant for very long.

[fraurosena]

9 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

I pity the investigator who would have him under oath. It's bad enough listening to Trump ramble in normal circumstances but good luck trying to get a straight answer about anything. He is never on topic and relevant for very long.

To be honest, I think the investigators will be vying with each other for that particular honor! Remember, these are professionals, and this isn't their first rodeo. Even though he may be the very first stable genius they've ever interviewed, I'm willing to bet they know precisely how to play him.

[GreyhoundFan]

18 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

To be honest, I think the investigators will be vying with each other for that particular honor! Remember, these are professionals, and this isn't their first rodeo. Even though he may be the very first stable genius they've ever interviewed, I'm willing to bet they know precisely how to play him.

I know if I was a member of that team, I'd be salivating to do the interrogation myself. I have no doubt that the team already has a long list of questions. I also can't imagine that the expected blustering, non-answering, and redirection will work with them. The stable genius will be so far over his head, he won't be able to see dry land.

[fraurosena]

The Dems are definitely fed up with the Repug attempts at obfuscation.

Take special note of this:

-- "Sadly, attacks on Simpson and Christopher Steele, as well as selective leaks of part of Simpson's Congressional testimony have recently become a distraction from the breathtaking proven and alleged crimes of the Russian government and the Trump team."

and: 

-- "The Judiciary Committee particularly has a role to play in revealing efforts to undermine the work of the Department of Justice and whether any U.S. persons were involved in criminal conduct."

also:

-- "That investigation was initiated based on information that originated within the Trump campaign itself, with concerned foreign allies, and with other intelligence sources."

 

Holy blessed Rufus! The letter is clearly sending a message that the committees have ample proven evidence (even from WITHIN the campaign!) of criminal conduct. 

[fraurosena]

This has got to be the most... well, actually, I'm rather at a loss for words. Hypocritical? Nope, doesn't quite cover this. Tone-deaf? Nope, also doesn't cover it. Weirdly strange. Well, yes, it's that, but it's so much more...

Help me out, guys! What word should we use to describe this?

 

[Penny]

If Mueller questions Trump, will he be able to tell the truth? Will he even know what the truth is?

[onekidanddone]

Remember one tweet where Trump seemed to admit collusion and his lawyer said he was the one who wrote it?  I've wondered why they didn't try that scam some of his other more out there tweets.  They could pin the 'like really smart' tweet on Eric for example.

[fraurosena]

Blessed Rufus! Diane Feinstein has unilaterally released the Fusion GPS testimony! 

Seth Abramson has an ongoing thread about it which I haven't read yet myself. My comments will follow as soon as I've read the testimony and Seth's thread.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[onekidanddone]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Blessed Rufus! Diane Feinstein has unilaterally released the Fusion GPS testimony! 

Seth Abramson has an ongoing thread about it which I haven't read yet myself. My comments will follow as soon as I've read the testimony and Seth's thread.

 

Can she do this legally? Who is our Hannity watcher because I must have the 411 on what he says tonight on that and Bannon.  Bannon was the favorite son, the belle of the ball until he wasn't 

[Cartmann99]

2 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

Can she do this legally? Who is our Hannity watcher because I must have the 411 on what he says tonight on that and Bannon.  Bannon was the favorite son, the belle of the ball until he wasn't 

@JMarie 

[JMarie]

49 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

@JMarie 

Oh crud, his show is already half over.  I'll have to record a rerun and skim through it tomorrow, and brush up on the whole Fusion thing.

[AmazonGrace]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/950884746082562048.html

[AmazonGrace]

Another interesting thread (not sure who it is) 

 

[Bethella]

I think the biggest thing I've read so far is page 175: The FBI had a human source inside the Trump campaign in September 2016.  I wanna know who. 

Quote

I think it was a voluntary source, someone who was concerned about the same concerns we had.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

Just a regular retired US citizen here, but it has to be asked:  WTAF would be the point of beginning a US policy of Russian appeasement? You know, RUSSIA, the government that has just fucked our election.  I never wade into the fever swamp of paranoia and conspiracy theories, but seriously, is this deeper/weirder/crazier than we thought?  What the HECK is going on?

ETA: As I'm reading the article linked above...Harrington is yet another unqualified person (hedge fund manager now in a position to advise on foreign relations) brought onto the Trump train.  His original proposal was quietly pushed aside.  From the Daily Beast article linked in the post above: 

Quote

A second former senior Trump administration official told The Daily Beast that Harrington had enthusiastically discussed this proposal with several senior staffers, including ousted White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, another Flynn ally. This source noted that Harrington’s proposal was largely politely brushed aside, even at the uniquely chaotic early days of the Trump era.

“I [personally] did not take it to the president because the White House is the leakiest ship possible and can you imagine how that would have looked,” the former administration official stressed.

Harrington is still busily chugging along, trying to be the best comrade he can be: 

Quote

In mid-December, The Washington Post reported that Harrington viewed U.S. closeness with Russia “as critical for surviving an energy apocalypse,” something his associates, the paper reported, said Harrington “discussed frequently and depicted as inevitable.”

This fit a pattern within the Trump administration, before and after Flynn’s White House tenure, of sidling up to Russia. Taken in sum, the pattern raises a question about whether Trump and his team are willing to pay Russia back for the Kremlin’s role in the election.

 

[AmazonGrace]

The funny thing about energy apocalypses is that you will never run out of wind and solar power but they don't want those.

I have long since concluded that Trump is a Putin stooge but I didn't realize at first how much everybody is enabling him. I thought there would be more checking from the never trumpers, the congress, the press... but a lot of people seem to be folding one by one, normalizing like no tomorrow. 

 

[AmazonGrace]

This seems like a publicity stunt, I can't imagine they'd be thrilled to give depositions and documents for discovery.  

[fraurosena]

Because, of course.

He's really, really desperate.

[AmazonGrace]

Steve Bannon already got fired in the last episode, tune in to see who's next to get the boot this season!

[AmazonGrace]

The man-baby has had his feefees hurt too many times. So unfair!

 

[GrumpyGran]

11 hours ago, Bethella said:

I think the biggest thing I've read so far is page 175: The FBI had a human source inside the Trump campaign in September 2016.  I wanna know who. 

Every day I am more convinced that there has always been someone there who is working against this administration. We know that there are at least two "teams" and no work by Kelly has been able to put an end to that.

I think Dumpy is susceptible to blackmail and coercion from several different sides and everyone is piling on now. The actions of some in Congress seem very dangerous at this point, I don't know how they think they'll be protected if all this comes crashing down.

And this reveal of the testimony would seem to me to indicate that there was some collusion within the FBI before the election to hide the information about Trump. Hard to believe Comey didn't know if it is true but his behavior in the five months before the election was bizarre.

The one specific thing that is bugging me now is the "I'm smart" tweet. The use of the word "like". I don't think he wrote or tweeted that. He mangles the English language like a verbal tornado but he is loyal to a group of words and this isn't in his word box, not in the form it was used. To me it was meant to mock him because it is the exact opposite of what you would want to say in that situation. Is it possible that he is at the point where he comes and goes mentally and some who are very close know they can get things by him if it's the right time of day? Makes me wonder how much access a certain former Eastern European model has to his phone.

All of this is just mind-boggling.