Russian Connection 4: Do Not Congratulate

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

Diplomat Twitter:. 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 Well if I had just been poisoned with a Russian chemical weapon I probably wouldn't be eager to meet embassy spies.

[Howl]

3 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 Well if I had just been poisoned with a Russian chemical weapon I probably wouldn't be eager to meet embassy spies.

SRSLY?  Brazen f**kers, aren't they?

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

Six degrees of Vladimir Bacon

 

[Howl]

Damn, that's a brilliant chart.   It's interesting that the only direct wikileaks connection is to Junior. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Sure, invite your overlord to the WH, nothing will go wrong with that. (end sarcasm) "Trump floated a Putin visit to the White House in a March 20 phone call"

Spoiler

MOSCOW — President Trump proposed meeting Vladimir Putin at the White House in a March phone call, the Kremlin said Monday, a fresh revelation about a conversation that stirred controversy over Trump’s friendly tone toward the Russian leader amid mounting tensions with the West.

After the March 20 phone call — in which Trump congratulated Putin for a reelection victory in a vote widely criticized as not free and fair — Trump told reporters that the two leaders had discussed a possible meeting to discuss Syria, Ukraine, North Korea and “the arms race.” He did not mention any meeting venues at that time.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday that “a number of potential venues, including the White House,” were discussed.

A Kremlin aide, Yury Ushakov, disclosed the White House invitation in comments to Russian journalists Monday.

“If everything will be all right, I hope that the Americans will not back away from their own proposal to discuss the possibility of holding a summit,” Ushakov said, according to the state news agency RIA Novosti. “When our presidents spoke on the phone, it was Trump who proposed holding the first meeting in Washington, in the White House.”

He added that no preparations for such a meeting have been made, according to Russian news agencies.

If a White House visit did come together, it would be Putin’s first since 2005 — when Moscow and the West were on better terms.

Those relations have been in a free fall since the nerve-agent poisoning of a former Russian double agent and his daughter in Britain on March 4. British authorities blamed the attack on Russia. Trump was slow to back their assessment, but the United States on March 26 joined countries in Europe and elsewhere in retaliatory expulsions of Russian diplomats

The Kremlin denies it had anything to do with the nerve-agent attack and has ordered tit-for-tat expulsions. The former spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, remain hospitalized.

The added detail that Trump floated a White House meeting with Putin renews debate over a presidential phone call that came in the midst of that political storm and drew broad criticism last month.

In the March 20 call, Trump congratulated Putin on his reelection to a fourth term two days earlier and did not raise the nerve-agent attack. His national security advisers had urged him to condemn the Skripal poisoning and included an instruction in his briefing book that said, “DO NOT CONGRATULATE,” officials familiar with the call told The Washington Post afterward.

Many international observers described Putin’s reelection victory as a sham. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Trump’s congratulations for Putin “insulted every Russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election.”

Trump shot back on Twitter, “Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good thing, not a bad thing.”

Leon Aron, a resident scholar and the director of Russian studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Monday he was stunned by reports that Trump so willingly suggested a White House meeting. “Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?” Aron said. “It’s really mind-boggling. I’m usually not this emotional.”

Such summits are “a very precious commodity” for Russian presidents, boosting their popularity at home, and should be offered only as a reward, Aron said. He noted that in addition to the spy-poisoning episode, Putin last month bragged about the strength of his country’s nuclear weapons in a nationalistic speech that was accompanied by an animated video depicting warheads aimed at Florida. The Kremlin also scheduled the presidential election to coincide with the anniversary of Russia’s formal annexation of Crimea.

If Trump meets with Putin as an equal given these events, Aron said, he is sending the message that it is acceptable to “kill more people, seize more territory.”

Michael McFaul, a Stanford University professor who was the U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, said Trump should meet with Putin only if “such a summit would put pressure on both countries to achieve some tangible outcome in America’s national interest.”

“Right now, it’s very hard to see what those might be,” McFaul said. “It’s not even clear to me that diplomats in our two countries are working together on any issue of mutual interest at this time. Especially given Putin’s recent behavior in the world, a summit that just gives Putin a smiley photo op in the Oval Office does not serve American national interests.”

The White House on Monday sought to play down the meeting proposal.

“As the president himself confirmed on March 20, hours after his last call with President Putin, the two had discussed a bilateral meeting in the ‘not-too-distant future’ at a number of potential venues, including the White House,” Sanders said in a statement after Ushakov’s comments. “We have nothing further to add at this time.”

Given the worsening environment, Ushakov said Monday, “it is, of course, difficult to discuss the possibility of holding a summit,” Russia’s Interfax news agency reported.

“I hope that the situation will allow us to discuss this issue,” the Kremlin aide added, referring to the planning for a Trump-Putin summit, according to Interfax. “We believe that it is rather important and necessary for both countries and for the entire international community.”

Since Trump became president, the two have met at the Group of 20 summit in Germany in July and, briefly, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vietnam in November. 

But a full-blown bilateral meeting has proved elusive, in part because of political head winds in Washington, fanned by the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and into possible collusion with the Trump campaign.

For Putin, a sit-down with Trump at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. would represent “a dream come true,” said Vladimir Frolov, an independent foreign policy analyst in Moscow.

“I think his entire strategy now is to get into a long private meeting with Trump and use his intel charms on him,” Frolov said of Putin, a former KGB agent. He added, however, that the Kremlin’s decision to disclose the detail about the White House invitation may also have been meant to embarrass Trump, which could provoke an adverse reaction from the U.S. president.

Putin last visited the White House for a 2005 meeting with President George W. Bush, who afterward described Russia as a “strong ally” in the war on terrorism. Dmitry Medvedev, during his term as Russian president, held White House talks with President Barack Obama in 2010, but Putin has not made another White House visit since he returned to the presidency in 2012.

In 2013, Obama canceled a planned Moscow summit with Putin after Russia took in Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency leaker facing espionage charges in the United States.

A White House visit, despite the deterioration in ties between the United States and Russia since Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, would probably be depicted in Russia as a victory for Putin, who has cast himself as a leader rebuilding the country’s global influence while reasserting Russian interests.

The Russian news media has cast the criticism of Trump as too friendly with Putin as evidence of the U.S. establishment seeking to undermine its president’s efforts to pursue a sober, fair-minded Russia policy.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I wouldn't mind seeing Stone be escorted away in an orange jumpsuit: "Roger Stone’s Trumpian self-promotion is not helping him with Robert Mueller"

Spoiler

Since 2012, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has lived in Ecuador’s embassy in London. The country granted him political asylum to help him avoid extradition to Sweden, where he was wanted for questioning about alleged sex crimes. The investigation was shelved in 2017, but he still faced arrest for violating the terms of his bail in the U.K. If he leaves the embassy, he could be arrested. So he doesn’t leave the embassy.

That means that those seeking a face-to-face conversation with Assange are fairly limited in options for doing so. Assange receives visitors on occasion, such as actress Pamela Anderson (who was incorrectly rumored to have been dating him) or Brexit proponent Nigel Farage. But, generally speaking, shaking Assange’s hand is not a trivial task.

This makes a new revelation from the Wall Street Journal somewhat trickier to deconstruct. On Monday, the paper reported that Roger Stone, longtime ally and adviser to Donald Trump, told a colleague in an email in August 2016 that he’d had dinner with Assange the previous night. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has reportedly asked at least one witness about the email in front of a grand jury.

It adds a new wrinkle to long-standing questions about Stone’s relationship with Assange. The Washington Post reported last month that Stone had told an associate in the spring of 2016 that he’d been in contact with Assange and learned that WikiLeaks possessed emails that would be problematic for Democrats. That report also revealed that he’d told another former Trump aide, Sam Nunberg, about having had dinner with Assange. That claim, Stone told The Post, was “a throwaway line” to get Nunberg “off the phone.”

The Journal report says that Stone emailed the same claim to Nunberg on Aug. 4. (If Nunberg’s name sounds familiar, it’s thanks to his star turn last month before his appearance before Mueller’s grand jury.)

That Aug. 4 timing is interesting. We compiled a timeline of Stone’s claims last month that puts it into context.

• Spring 2016. Stone tells an associate he has spoken with Assange.
• March 28, 2016. Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email account is compromised.
• June 12, 2016. Assange says on a British television program that his organization is in possession of emails belonging to Hillary Clinton.
• June 15, 2016. A person calling himself “Guccifer 2.0″ releases information stolen from the Democratic National Committee.
• July 22, 2016. WikiLeaks begins releasing numerous files stolen from the DNC.
• Aug. 4, 2016. Stone emails Nunberg and tells him he’d dined with Assange on Aug. 3.
• Aug. 5, 2016. An essay by Stone blaming the WikiLeaks release on Guccifer 2.0 runs at Breitbart.
• Aug. 8, 2016. Stone tells a Republican group that he has been in contact with Assange, who he says plans to release information about the Clinton Foundation.
• Aug. 9, 2016. WikiLeaks denies meeting Stone directly. In private, it referred to him as a casual liar using a vulgar term.
• Aug. 14, 2016. Guccifer 2.0, who was revealed last month to be a Russian intelligence officer, contacts Stone over Twitter’s direct-messaging system. Their conversation is generally vague, according to transcripts published by Stone.
• Aug. 18, 2016. On C-SPAN, Stone claims, “I have not spoken to Mr. Assange. I have not met with Mr. Assange. And I never said I had.”
• Aug. 21, 2016. Stone hints that it will soon be “Podesta’s time in the barrel.” (He told the Journal on Monday that he was referring to lobbying questions involving John Podesta’s brother.)
• Early October. Stone tweets a number of references to an upcoming release by WikiLeaks.
• Oct. 7. WikiLeaks begins publishing John Podesta’s stolen emails.
• Oct. 12. After having had his predictions come true, Stone explains that he and Assange have a mutual friend who was tipping him off.
• Oct. 13. WikiLeaks (probably meaning Assange) chastises him over Twitter direct message for claiming a relationship.

Obviously, were Stone in regular contact with Assange and WikiLeaks during the campaign, it would raise significant questions about the extent to which people closely connected to Trump (which Stone was and is) were aware of what WikiLeaks had. Or, more broadly, it might help answer the lingering question surrounding the release of the material by WikiLeaks: How, if it was stolen by Russian intelligence agents as the U.S. government believes, did it end up in the hands of Assange?

But the problem is that it’s hard to believe Stone actually dined with Assange.

It’s not impossible that someone could sneak into the Ecuadoran Embassy. When Farage visited in March 2017, he was revealed to have done so only because someone walking by recognized him as he entered. That made its way to the press. In his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee last year, Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson alleged that Farage might have visited Assange on other occasions, perhaps even passing him data on a USB drive. Simpson didn’t identify the source for that information, but his firm employed former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, author of the infamous Trump dossier of reports. (Farage denies the allegation.)

Stone would be less likely to be recognized while walking in London than Farage — but it would be a lot more difficult for him to get there from New York. When he visited London earlier this year, he stopped by the embassy, leaving his business card, as he told the Daily Beast. He claimed at that time that he didn’t intend to meet Assange but simply went on a lark — and that Assange might not even have been there, having been “extracted” at some point prior. Was Stone hinting that he knew that Assange had freer rein in London than the WikiLeaks founder would like British authorities to believe?

Or was Stone full of it?

Stone has a carefully cultivated reputation as a “political trickster,” which is a polite way of saying “mudslinger and exaggerator,” which is a polite way of saying “guy who will say untrue things if it advances his agenda.” One of his agendas is his own reputation, and during 2016 he clearly believed that it paid to imply a close relationship with Assange. That was manifested in his public assertions about knowing what WikiLeaks was up to but also apparently in his private conversations with Nunberg and that unidentified aide in the spring of that election year.

This is very Trumpian, really. Remember how earnestly Trump sought to foster the idea that he had a friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin until a relationship with Putin became a distinct liability. Trump claimed that he and Putin had a relationship because they’d both been interviewed on the same “60 Minutes” program, never mind that Putin’s interview was in Russia. For Trump, it was a way of puffing up his importance. And then people started wondering why he dealt with Russia with such a soft touch, at which point he insisted that he’d never met the guy. (It is likely that he actually hadn’t.)

The Journal report highlights two key questions, for which we can take a stab at answers.

• Did Stone dine with Assange? It’s hard to see how he could have traveled to London and met with Assange at the Ecuadoran Embassy without it becoming public before now — or that Assange would slip out of the embassy, risking arrest, to have dinner with him.
• Did Stone have a direct relationship with Assange at all? Even if we think of “having dinner” as a broad way of describing a conversation, this seems unlikely. Stone claimed a relationship with Assange in situations where it might presumably have helped improve his personal standing — talking to Nunberg, talking to a Republican group, talking on Twitter. But in private conversation that neither party had any reason to believe would become public, neither WikiLeaks nor Stone indicated knowing each other. WikiLeaks even dismissed knowing him in a private chat room to which only WikiLeaks participants were privy — only days after the alleged “dinner.”

But for the conspiratorially minded, there are always loopholes. Maybe he did sneak into the embassy! Maybe Assange did sneak out! Maybe those denials were intentional! And so on.

Or if you really want to dive into the rabbit hole, consider Farage, who may have given Assange some data at some unidentified point in time. Farage did meet Trump during the campaign — even sharing the stage at a rally with him in the same month as Stone’s alleged dinner. Who put Farage in contact with Trump?

Stone gave Mother Jones an answer to that question in June: Why, it was him, Roger Stone!

Farage denies this, too.

 

[fraurosena]

Lordy, the next best thing to having tapes is having emails.

McCabe has emails proving Republicans lied about him misleading Comey: report

Quote

Two Republican congressmen appear to have been caught in a lie about former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Mark Meadows (R-NC) told Fox News on Thursday night that the FBI’s disciplinary office found that McCabe lied to then-Director James Comey about leaking information to the press.

Jordan claimed that the FBI’s disciplinary office found that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to then-Director James Comey.

But Michael Bromwich, McCabe’s attorney, told The Washington Post that claims of email evidence “clearly show that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey that he was working with colleagues at the FBI to correct inaccuracies before the stories were published, and that they remained in contact through the weekend while the interactions with the reporter continued.”

Bromwich also slammed Republicans for “attempting to create a false narrative” about McCabe’s ouster.

“We deeply regret being compelled to respond to this selective leaking with any comment at all,” Bromwich added.

“Nevertheless, one thing is clear: Mr. McCabe never misled Director Comey. Director Comey’s memory of these interactions was equivocal and speculative, while Mr. McCabe’s recollection is clear, unequivocal and supported by documentary evidence,” Bromwich concluded.

 

[fraurosena]

Alex van der Zwaan will be hearing his sentencing today.

First sentence in Mueller probe expected to be handed down: report

Quote

A federal court on Tuesday is reportedly expected to hand down its first sentence in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian election interference.

Dutch national Alex Van Der Zwaan — who pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents — is expected to be  sentenced, ABC News reported.

Van Der Zwaan was charged with making “materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations” to Mueller's office and FBI agents, according to a court filing released last month.

Van Der Zwaan lied about his last communications with former Trump campaign adviser Richard Gates and then deleted emails requested by the special counsel’s office, according to the indictment. He had reportedly worked for a firm hired by the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice to prepare a report on the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko, a former prime minister of Ukraine. 

The charges against Van Der Zwaan appear to be related to a report produced by the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom that helped the Ukrainian government counter international criticism that the 2011 prosecution and conviction of Tymoshenko had been driven by political aims.

Van Der Zwaan was an associate in Skadden's London office, according to reports. The law firm previously said in a statement that it "terminated its employment of Alex van der Zwaan in 2017 and has been cooperating with authorities in connection with this matter." 

The New York Times reported last year that the law firm's report was arranged by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort as part of his work for Viktor Yanukovych, a former president of Ukraine allied with Russia.

Van Der Zwaan could be sentenced to up to five years in prison, according to ABC News. Federal guidelines call for a sentence of zero to six months.

Mueller is investigating Russian election interference and possible ties between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

President Trump has repeatedly dismissed the Russia probe as a witch hunt and has denied collusion between his campaign and Russia.

There's an article in the Dutch media about Van der Zwaan, detailing exactly what kind of person he is. Here's my translation:

Quote

[preamble about the case against Van der Zwaan]

Alex van der Zwaan is a Dutch citizen, but he has never lived in the Netherlands. He is the son of the Dutch engineer Rolf van der Zwaan and the Russian Ludmilla Oleolenko, who fled the Soviet Union in 1976 and settled in Belgium. Alex grew up in Brussels, went to private schools and studied law at the prestigious King's College in London. He speaks fluent Russian, French and English and with this background seemed destined for a brilliant career.

Indeed, it started off quite well. Immediately after completing his studies, he was offered a job with Skadden Arps' London office, which counts many Russian oligarchs among their clients. Van der Zwaan's Russian stood him in good stead, but it also brought him into contact with Paul Manafort and Richard Gates, who would later become the campaign-manager and the number two of the Trump campaign and who are now central figures in the Special Counsel Mueller's investigation in the US.

Van der Zwaan's linguistic talents undoubtedly played a role in his private life. In June 2017 he married Eva Khan, who now reportedly is expecting his child. Her father is the Russian billionaire German Khan, who according to the American government has strong ties to Vladimir Putin and who is mentioned in the Steele dossier, the notorious document about the alleged Trump-Russia connection, composed by former British spy Christopher Steele.

According to author Mark Hollingsworth, German Khan is "one of the most aggressive oligarchs, even by Russian standards". He's known for his collection of fire-arms and his wealth of 7,5 billion euro. The marriage festivities between his daughter and Alex van der Zwaan, on a sprawling estate in London, lasted three days.

German Khan is also one of the owners of Alfa Bank, which received a lot of media attention in the US because one of the bank's servers was exchanging an extraordinary amount of data with a secret server in Trump Tower. Alfa Bank declared it was the victim of a cyber attack, and of 'an attempt by unknowns to create the illusion of contact between the dns-servers of Alfa Bank and those of Trump'.

Despite all the publicity surrounding Alex van der Zwaan, it's difficult to trace people who know him and who want to speak about him. Skadden Arps has fired him and has removed his profile page from their site. King's College in London has asked its employees not to respond to questions by reporters.

Still, the NOS has succeeded in finding fellow students from KIng's College who remember Van der Zwaan. Their memories aren't pleasant. You can see here how a former fellow student looks back on her time with Van der Zwaan.

[English language video - do take a look]

Carol van Buren is currently a staff member at King's College and judicial translator in Berlin. She was Van der Zwaan's fellow student from 2004 to 2006. According to her he made many denigrating comments about fellow students of color, about women, foreign students and handicapped people.

Van Buren, at the time president of one of the student bodies, confronted him about it. "He told me: 'You're nobody, I'm Alex van der Zwaan. I'm Russian and I am connected. With one phone call I can get you kicked out of here.' I reported him to the head of Law School at King's College and he had to apologize."

In the second year Van der Zwaan attempted to become president of one of the student bodies himself. During the counting of the votes, Van der Zwaan was reprimanded for 'lying about other candidates during the campaign and for intimidation of other candidates and voters', according to Van Buren. He was penalized with minus 10 votes, but with a narrow margin still was elected president.

Van Buren's comments are confirmed by another fellow student, Ewan McGaughey, who now is a researcher and teacher at King's College. "Van der Zwaan was notorious. It's a miracle he became president."

"At Law School, we aim to impress upon our students the importance of the rule of law, of democracy, and what it means to live in a just society," McGaughey told us. "Everything he stood for as a student, points in the same direction as his confession. A person who applies himself to undermine democratic institutions. I don't think it's a coincidence that someone who was so obnoxious as a student, now turns out to be a criminal."

We have asked Alex van der Zwaan's lawyers for their comments, but so far they have not reacted to our request.

 

[fraurosena]

I'm quoting myself as I posted this in the wrong thread and it belongs here.

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

This as much as obliterates Manafort's defence.

Mueller Was Authorized to Investigate Paul Manafort’s Work for Ukraine

 

Here is a copy of Rosenstein's heavily redacted clarification letter to Mueller.

Judging by all the blackened parts, Mueller has a hell of a lot of authorization. Sweet Rufus, how we would love to find out what it says under there! 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

4 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Sheesh, what a slap on the wrist. That'll sting, for sure.  

[GreyhoundFan]

"Mueller told Trump’s attorneys the president remains under investigation but is not currently a criminal target"

Spoiler

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges.

The special counsel also told Trump’s lawyers that he is preparing a report about the president’s actions while in office and potential obstruction of justice, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations.

Mueller reiterated the need to interview Trump — both to understand whether he had any corrupt intent to thwart the Russia investigation and to complete this portion of his probe, the people said.

Mueller’s description of the president’s status has sparked friction within Trump’s inner circle as his advisers have debated his legal standing. The president and some of his allies seized on the special counsel’s words as an assurance that Trump’s risk of criminal jeopardy is low. Other advisers, however, noted that subjects of investigations can easily become indicted targets — and expressed concern that the special prosecutor was baiting Trump into an interview that could put the president in legal peril.

John Dowd, Trump’s top attorney dealing with the Mueller probe, resigned last month amid disputes about strategy and frustration that the president ignored his advice to refuse the special counsel’s request for an interview, according to a Trump friend.

Trump’s chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, and Dowd declined to comment for this report. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred questions to White House attorney Ty Cobb.

“Thank you, but I don’t discuss communications with the president or with the Office of Special Counsel,” Cobb said Tuesday.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, declined to comment.

The wide-ranging special counsel investigation, which began as an examination of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, has expanded into other areas, including whether Trump sought to obstruct the probe.

Mueller’s investigators have indicated to the president’s legal team that they are considering writing reports on their findings in stages — with the first report focused on the obstruction issue, according to two people briefed on the discussions.

Under special counsel regulations, Mueller is required to report his conclusions confidentially to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who has the authority to decide whether to release the information publicly.

“They’ve said they want to write a report on this — to answer the public’s questions — and they need the president’s interview as the last step,” one person familiar with the discussions said of Mueller’s team.

Trump’s attorneys expect the president would also face questions about what he knew about any contacts by his associates with Russians officials and emissaries in 2016, several White House advisers said. The president’s allies believe a second report detailing the special counsel’s findings on Russia’s interference would be issued later.

The president has privately expressed relief at the description of his legal status, which has increased his determination to agree to a special counsel interview, the people said. He has repeatedly told allies that he is not a target of the probe and believes an interview will help him put the matter behind him, friends said.

However, legal experts said Mueller’s description of Trump as a subject of a grand jury probe does not mean he is in the clear.

Under Justice Department guidelines, a subject of an investigation is a person whose conduct falls within the scope of a grand jury’s investigation. A target is a person for which there is substantial evidence linking him or her to a crime.

A subject could become a target with his or her own testimony, legal experts warn.

“If I were the president, I would be very reluctant to think I’m off the hook,” said Keith Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton University and impeachment expert.

“My sense of it is the president — given that information — ought to have pretty fair warning anything he’s saying in the deposition would be legally consequential. Depending on what he says, it could wind up changing how the special counsel is thinking about him.”

Still, several legal scholars and impeachment experts believe Mueller may conclude he does not have the authority to charge a sitting president with a crime under an opinion written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1973 and reaffirmed in 2000.

If Mueller finds Trump engaged in criminal conduct, he could detail it in a report, experts argue, and let Congress to decide whether to launch impeachment proceedings based on Mueller’s findings.

“The president’s personal risk is primarily on the impeachment front,” Whittington said. “Even if there are not things that lead to indictment, there may be matters that warrant an impeachment investigation and proceedings.”

Some of Trump’s advisers have warned White House aides that they fear Mueller could issue a blistering report about the president’s actions.

Several of Trump’s public actions have called into question whether he sought to blunt or block the criminal probe, a line of inquiry that prosecutors began pursuing last year. He has repeatedly called the investigation a “witch hunt” that has unfairly sullied his administration and hampered his ability to accomplish his policy agenda. He fired FBI James B. Comey in May after Comey told Congress that the bureau was investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Trump was furious that Comey did not state that he was not personally under investigation, The Washington Post previously reported.

The president also asked top intelligence officials to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government.

Mueller’s team has told Trump’s attorneys over recent months that they are seeking to learn more about the firings of Comey and national security adviser Michael Flynn last year and the president’s efforts to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign.

Nevertheless, Trump has repeatedly expressed an eagerness to sit down for a voluntary interview to answer Mueller’s questions — a move Dowd believed would be a mistake, according to a longtime Trump friend.

Dowd told the president the case against him was weak, but warned Trump he could create criminal jeopardy for himself if he agreed to an interview and misspoke under oath, the friend said. Dowd repeatedly pointed to the Trump campaign advisers who have pleaded guilty to making false statements in the Mueller probe — including Flynn, adviser George Papadopoulos and former campaign official Rick Gates.

“Mueller hasn’t hesitated to [charge] people for lying on some pretty tangential stuff,” said Solomon Wisenberg, a former deputy independent counsel in the probe of President Bill Clinton.

However, Sekulow and Cobb gave the president the opposite advice as Dowd: that it would be politically difficult for Trump to refuse to answer questions after insisting for months there was no collusion or crime, according to three people familiar with their advice.

Wisenberg, who interviewed Clinton about allegations that he obstructed justice, said Trump has handled himself well in previous depositions but should be cautious.

“I think he would do much better than people think,” Wisenberg said. “But there are plenty of instances where a guy walks into a grand jury a subject. He gets out and is told: ‘Guess what, you’re a target now.’”

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Cartmann99]

 

For those not up on Rudy's marital shenanigans, Judith was his mistress when he was married to his second wife.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Mueller told Trump he’s not a criminal target in the Russia probe. That may not mean what you think."

Spoiler

There’s something for everybody in the big story The Washington Post broke Tuesday night about how special counsel Robert S. Mueller III told President Trump's lawyers last month that Trump isn't currently a criminal target in the Russia investigation. For Trump, it reinforces his apparent belief that he is in the clear. For his critics, it's the idea that a wily Mueller might be duping Trump into a false sense of security so he'll grant Mueller an interview.

The truth may be somewhere in the middle.

There is a popular school of thought, as The Post's Carol D. Leonnig and Robert Costa noted in the piece, that Mueller may not even view charging the president with crimes as a potential outcome of the investigation. It has to do with an opinion written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1973 (read: Nixon, Richard) that was affirmed in 2000 (read: Clinton, Bill).

Here's what that Office of Legal Counsel said in 2000, from then-Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss:

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.

That second sentence is key: “No court has addressed this question directly.” That means Mueller isn't bound by this opinion, which is after all merely an opinion.

But he is a longtime creature of the Justice Department who may decline to step outside the bounds of what the Justice Department has previously recognized as its authority. Going outside those bounds would also potentially invite allegations of overreach — of which Trump and his defenders have already accused Mueller's investigation — and could complicate any political resolution (i.e. impeachment). In other words, Mueller has plenty of reason not to try to charge Trump with crimes, even if the evidence would lead him to charge basically anybody else.

Which brings us back to this message sent to Trump's lawyers. What if Mueller is saying Trump isn't a criminal target of the probe because he doesn't think Trump can be a criminal target of the probe?

This could be a significant moment, suggesting Mueller views criminal charges against Trump as being off-limits. And that would surely disappoint Trump's critics. But if that is what Mueller is saying, it also means declaring that Trump isn't a criminal target says basically nothing about the evidence at hand. It would mean Mueller could have the most damning information about collusion, obstruction of justice and anything else, and he would technically be telling Trump's lawyers the truth when he says Trump isn't a criminal target. It also wouldn't foreclose impeachment.

Notably, Leonnig and Costa also report that Mueller's team has indicated it might roll out its findings in a series of reports. Mueller, if he sees what would otherwise constitute criminal activity involving Trump, could simply put this information into one or more of those reports and leave it to Congress to decide what to do. That may not be as edifying to Democrats as it could be — and Republicans could ostensibly block any effort to impeach Trump and remove him from office — but the point is that this doesn't necessarily mean Mueller's evidence is weak.

“The ‘subject’ status may inform a special counsel report to Congress more than a prosecutorial decision,” said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel in the Whitewater investigation into Clinton, “especially since the weight of authority — although not unanimous authority — is that a sitting president may not be indicted. "

It's also worth emphasizing in all of this that Mueller didn't do this just because he wanted to. Targets of investigations generally should be informed that they are targets, according to Justice Department protocol. So this likely isn't Mueller playing games by luring Trump into a false sense of security; it's Mueller doing what he is supposed to do.

In the end, this could mean any of a number of things, but neither side should take this as foreshadowing of any specific or likely outcome. It's also entirely possible Mueller does think he can criminally charge Trump, but honestly doesn't view him as a target at this juncture. (And that could always change.)

Like almost everything in this investigation, only a handful of people know — and they're not talking.

 

[fraurosena]

It's astounding how many ties to Russia are being unveiled one at a time. It's like the Dance of the Seven Veils, slowly, one at a time, we get to see closer and closer connections to Putin himself.

Trump adviser’s Russian contact closely linked to Putin family

Quote

Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater private security group and a close campaign adviser to Donald Trump, met a Russian financier with direct ties to Vladimir Putin's family in the weeks leading up to Mr Trump's inauguration, according to multiple people briefed on the talks. Although Mr Prince's meeting with Kirill Dmitriev in the Seychelles, which is being examined by special counsel Robert Mueller, has been previously disclosed, Mr Dmitriev's ties to the Putin clan have not been widely known. According to six people close to Mr Dmitriev, his wife is close friends with Mr Putin’s younger daughter. The close links to Mr Putin's family are likely to raise new questions about whether Mr Prince was seeking a back-door communications route to the Kremlin on behalf of Mr Trump following earlier press reports that Mr Mueller was pursuing this line of inquiry.

Mr Dmitriev’s wife Natalia Popova was in the same year at Moscow State University as Yekaterina Tikhonova, Mr Putin’s younger daughter, and is the deputy director of her technology foundation, Innopraktika.  Ms Popova’s close friendship with Ms Tikhonova has made him a powerful figure in the Kremlin, according to three people who work with Mr Dmitriev, a state banker, a fellow private equity executive and a person who knows him socially. 

Mr Dmitriev is a member of Innopraktika’s board and a former board member of petrochemicals giant Sibur, where Ms Tikhonova’s husband Kirill Shamalov is a senior executive. RDIF arranged a $1.75bn loan to a Sibur project in 2015, when Mr Shamalov owned 21.4 per cent of its stock. (He reduced his share to 3.9 per cent in 2017.) Mr Dmitriev regularly attends Ms Tikhonova’s performances in acrobatic rock and roll dancing alongside Mr Shamalov, according to the parent of another contestant.

Mr Mueller wants to determine whether Mr Prince — whose sister is US education secretary Betsy DeVos — was attempting to negotiate a back-channel with the Kremlin on behalf of the incoming Trump administration at their meeting in January 2017, according to reports in the New York Times and Washington Post. The emergence of close links to the family adds weight to that line of inquiry. Mr Dmitriev “rose to the top because he is part of the family,” a person who works on deals with RDIF said. George Nader, an adviser to Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nayhan, the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates, has told Mr Mueller’s team that Mr bin Zayed set up the meeting between the two men as a way to discuss US-Russia relations informally, the newspapers reported earlier this month. Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala state investment company has a $2bn joint fund with RDIF that has invested in strategic Russian businesses.

Mr Prince told congressional investigators in November that he met Mr Dmitriev by chance while discussing other deals with UAE officials in the Seychelles and left after drinking one beer.  Mr Dmitriev, who has degrees from Stanford and Harvard universities, was appointed to run RDIF when the Kremlin set it up in 2011 as an attempt to attract more foreign private equity investment in Russia. Unlike most sovereign wealth funds, RDIF focuses on partnering with foreign investors to invest in Russian companies. The fund has mostly worked with Middle Eastern and Asian investors since it was placed under US sanctions in 2014.

Mr Prince has declined to comment. Mr Dmitriev has not responded to requests for comment. Last year, Ms Popova presented documentaries on state television about Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia in which she interviewed Mr Dmitriev’s business partners, officials who praised RDIF’s work with Middle Eastern investors, and Mr Dmitriev himself. The films were produced by a company owned by Arkady Rotenberg, Mr Putin’s childhood judo sparring partner.

 

[AmazonGrace]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"

  Hide contents

 

Here's what that Office of Legal Counsel said in 2000, from then-Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss:

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.

 

 

 

This seems so weird to me. I mean, why should anyone, even the President, be above the law? If the legal woes interfere with the duties of the office then you just can't be the President anymore.

[AmazonGrace]

11 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

For those not up on Rudy's marital shenanigans, Judith was his mistress when he was married to his second wife.

So you're saying  that Rudy is available. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"U.S. judge appears dismissive of Manafort lawsuit challenging Mueller appointment"

Spoiler

A federal judge expressed doubts Wednesday about a lawsuit brought by Paul Manafort challenging special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s criminal probe of Russian interference in 2016 U.S. elections.

During a 90-minute hearing in Washington, Manafort’s defense team retreated from requests that the court void Mueller’s appointment and dismiss criminal charges already brought in the District and Virginia against President Trump’s former presidential campaign chairman.

But Manafort’s lawyers asked the court to bar Mueller from bringing future charges, saying a provision authorizing the special counsel to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise directly from” its probe of possible collusion between Trump officials and the Russian government is an abuse of the Justice Department’s legal authority.

Manafort’s attorneys argue the provision in the May order appointing Mueller is so broad that it violates the department regulation governing the special counsel, which they argued required a “specific factual description” of the matter to be investigated.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Washington made clear her skepticism as she questioned Manafort attorney Kevin M. Downing.

How, she asked, did he expect a court to act against charges that have not yet been brought, and how could he know that Manafort would be prosecuted lawfully or unlawfully?

“You have to wait until the harm is crystallized,” Jackson said at one point. “You’re saying, ‘Stop something’ that I don’t even know is going to happen. I don’t understand what’s left to your case.”

She added, “Do you have a single legal case that says that a subject of an ongoing [criminal] investigation” can sue under the law cited by Manafort that governs how federal agencies issue regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act?

Downing said that he did not, and also said that he expected Jackson to ignore a provision in the special counsel regulation that bars private parties from going to court to seek to enforce internal management rules.

Downing argued that more explicit authorization is required “to keep a special counsel from doing whatever he wants to,” citing a history of alleged abuses of power by independent prosecutors.

Forcing defendants to try to dismiss counts case-by-case and “chasing indictments” jurisdiction by jurisdiction would force criminal defendants into a game of “whack-a-mole” that no individual could win against the resources of the government, Downing said.

Manafort, 69, has pleaded not guilty to felony charges related to his work as an international political consultant in Ukraine before joining Trump’s campaign in March 2016. He resigned from the campaign in August 2016.

Manafort separately has moved to dismiss criminal charges in the District ahead of a scheduled September trial date and in federal court in Alexandria, where he faces trial July 10.

Wednesday’s hearing did not touch on what Jackson called “a little bit of the elephant in the room,” over a District court filing late Monday by prosecutors in Manafort’s criminal case. The filing included a partly redacted memo that revealed Deputy Attorney General Rodney J. Rosenstein authorized Mueller to pursue allegations that Manafort colluded with Russia in 2016. Manafort has not been charged with any crimes connected to the presidential race.

Downing said Manafort’s defense had “major issues” with the added authorization, saying it came after a search warrant had already been executed on Manafort’s home.

The judge did not say when she would rule on the civil case.