The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:01 am

I think it is fair to discount any article that relies on Trump-whispering. (Paraphrasing) "Oh when he was talking about wiretapping - it was about surveillance! And there was surveillance...somewhere."

The POTUS is supposed to be a clear communicator. Making outrageous and divisive claims without evidence to have them eventually "validated" by something that smells sorta similar (but isn't) is probably not how we want our country to be run.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:07 am

I think it's all the analogies to The Shining that make the article's argument compelling.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:05 am

Holman wrote:
(Plus you know that the first wiretaps laid on Manafort went active in 2014, right? Not even Trump thought Trump was a candidate then.)

Shhhh...those are facts. Rip HATES facts. He still believes Trump's inauguration had the largest attendance of any event ever held on our planet.

Kidding aside, this is Trump's M.O.. He probably knew Manafort was compromised quite some time ago. So he got out ahead of it by trying to change the narrative into one in which he is yet again the victim. He does that constantly. It's really the only thing he's actually good at.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:47 am

malchior wrote:I think it is fair to discount any article that relies on Trump-whispering. (Paraphrasing) "Oh when he was talking about wiretapping - it was about surveillance! And there was surveillance...somewhere."

The POTUS is supposed to be a clear communicator. Making outrageous and divisive claims without evidence to have them eventually "validated" by something that smells sorta similar (but isn't) is probably not how we want our country to be run.

This is another way that the media (especially cable news) fucked up on Trump coverage during the campaign, incidentally. (1) Trump throws out outrageous claim; (2) media talks about how outrageous it was; (3) something vaguely similar to what Trump outrageously claimed happens if you squint (like this); (4) media does "was Trump right about X?" stories. So Trump gets lots of coverage, and absurd claims get transformed into "there is a debate about [outrageous thing]".

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:00 am

hepcat wrote:
Holman wrote:
(Plus you know that the first wiretaps laid on Manafort went active in 2014, right? Not even Trump thought Trump was a candidate then.)

Shhhh...those are facts. Rip HATES facts. He still believes Trump's inauguration had the largest attendance of any event ever held on our planet.

Kidding aside, this is Trump's M.O.. He probably knew Manafort was compromised quite some time ago. So he got out ahead of it by trying to change the narrative into one in which he is yet again the victim. He does that constantly. It's really the only thing he's actually good at.

We'll have another round of Trump claiming vindication when he shows up on the tapes because he was talking to Manafort long after Manafort supposedly left the campaign (and after Trump's lawyers advised Trump to cease contact).

But Manafort is really a mystery in all this. He had been a GOP political operative years earlier, but he had spent the recent decade doing his thing exclusively for Putin's oligarch pals in Europe. (His involvement in Russian money laundering is why he came to the attention of the IC in the first place.). He had never run a US campaign in the Internet age, and he was on no one's short list of likely campaign managers for a 2016 race.

Who picked him? Why did he get charge of Trump 2016? Why, despite the massive debt he appears to have owed Russian-controlled sources, did he agree to work for Trump for free?

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:17 am

Holman wrote:But Manafort is really a mystery in all this. He had been a GOP political operative years earlier, but he had spent the recent decade doing his thing exclusively for Putin's oligarch pals in Europe. (His involvement in Russian money laundering is why he came to the attention of the IC in the first place.). He had never run a US campaign in the Internet age, and he was on no one's short list of likely campaign managers for a 2016 race.

Who picked him? Why did he get charge of Trump 2016? Why, despite the massive debt he appears to have owed Russian-controlled sources, did he agree to work for Trump for free?

It is very likely that Trump got on Manafort via Roger Stone. Stone and Manafort at one point were partners in the same consulting firm. Why he did it for free? That is a real solid question. Was the Stone relationship an entry point to Trump that was targeted? That is another possibly important question. I have to hope that the IC and Mueller are digging into questions just like that.

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:54 pm

Manafort offered private briefings to Kremlin connected Russian billionaire

Less than two weeks before Donald Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination, his campaign chairman offered to provide briefings on the race to a Russian billionaire closely aligned with the Kremlin, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Paul Manafort made the offer in an email to an overseas intermediary, asking that a message be sent to Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum magnate with whom Manafort had done business in the past, these people said.

“If he needs private briefings we can accommodate,” Manafort wrote in the July 7, 2016, email, portions of which were read to The Washington Post along with other Manafort correspondence from that time.

The emails are among tens of thousands of documents that have been turned over to congressional investigators and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team as they probe whether Trump associates coordinated with Russia as part of Moscow’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election.

There is no evidence in the documents showing that Deripaska received Manafort’s offer or that any briefings took place. And a spokeswoman for Deripaska dismissed the email exchanges as scheming by “consultants in the notorious ‘beltway bandit’ industry.”

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:49 am

If Trump-Russia were a spy movie, we would laugh at it for being so damn obvious.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:59 am

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Wednesday that he was unaware of a secret wiretap order issued against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort last year.

“Did you know about a FISA warrant against Paul Manafort at the time?” CNN’s Don Lemon asked Clapper in an interview Wednesday night.

“I did not,” Clapper replied.

The Obama administration official was asked about his knowledge of the warrant, issued last year under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), because of his denial back in March that the Obama administration obtained any FISA warrants on the Trump campaign.

The question came up at the time because President Trump had published a tweet accusing President Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower.

In a March 5 interview on “Meet the Press,” Clapper said that he would have been aware of a FISA warrant on a member of the Trump campaign, even one granted to the FBI. And asked if such a warrant had been obtained, Clapper directly denied it.

“There was no such wire tap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time or as a candidate or against his campaign,” Clapper told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd.

Asked by Todd if he would have been aware of a FISA order issued for someone affiliated with the Trump campaign, Clapper said “absolutely.”

Clapper unequivocally denied that a wiretap order was granted.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/21/james ... der-video/

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:55 am

“There was no such wire tap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time or as a candidate or against his campaign,” Clapper told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd.

And there wasn't. The surveillance was ordered on Manafort in 2014 (before Trump ran)...then again when it looked like he was up to no good with the Russians in 2016/2017. But again, on Manafort, not Trump.

I can only imagine the outrage you'd express if Huma Abedin had been under investigation prior to Hillary running for president, then again for the same thing during Hillary's run...and Hillary thought it was unfair.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:56 am

I wouldn't mind so much if you were just as interested in all the questionable stuff happening in the GOP. But you don't give a shit. It's never about right and wrong with you. Which is why it's easy to discount every single thing you say.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:02 am

GreenGoo wrote:I wouldn't mind so much if you were just as interested in all the questionable stuff happening in the GOP. But you don't give a shit. It's never about right and wrong with you. Which is why it's easy to discount EVERY. SINGLE. THING. you say.

Q.F.T.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:22 am

hepcat wrote:
“There was no such wire tap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time or as a candidate or against his campaign,” Clapper told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd.
And there wasn't. The surveillance was ordered on Manafort in 2014 (before Trump ran)...then again when it looked like he was up to no good with the Russians in 2016/2017. But again, on Manafort, not Trump.

I can only imagine the outrage you'd express if Huma Abedin had been under investigation prior to Hillary running for president, then again for the same thing during Hillary's run...and Hillary thought it was unfair.

The one from 2014 was active until 2016.

What's really interesting, I think, is they go back to 2014. So this is before Trump entered the race. It had to do with Manafort's role in Ukrainian politics where he was a consultant to the party linked to the president, Viktor Yanukovych at the time. And the warrant was under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

So as it suggests, it's connection with a foreign entity, and there were two of them, one from 2014 to 2016, and then it stopped and then there was a second one that began last year and extended into this year - so a pretty fascinating development here.

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/19/552009390 ... eports-say

and it yielded squat.

So apparently the first one was dropped, according to the CNN report, because of lack of evidence.

But then in the - during the Trump campaign last summer, we know that that investigation began in July over concern that people in the Trump campaign were in contact with Russians, operatives, and so that apparently generated this second warrant, again, which began last year and stretched into this year.

And this would be significant if it's confirmed because in part, I mean, to get a FISA warrant on a sitting campaign chair in the presidential campaign, that - that is not easy.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:39 am

Rip wrote: The one from 2014 was active until 2016.

Trump wasn't running for POTUS in 2014. You're still missing the point even though you quote someone who does mention that fact.

But then in the - during the Trump campaign last summer, we know that that investigation began in July over concern that people in the Trump campaign were in contact with Russians, operatives, and so that apparently generated this second warrant, again, which began last year and stretched into this year.

Considering that intelligence agencies agree that Russian tried to influence the election in Trump's favor, thank God someone was looking into it.

BENGHAZI!

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:22 pm

TheMix wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I wouldn't mind so much if you were just as interested in all the questionable stuff happening in the GOP. But you don't give a shit. It's never about right and wrong with you. Which is why it's easy to discount EVERY. SINGLE. THING. you say.
Q.F.T.

He also does the same thing with sources. Something from MSNBC would be completely tossed but coming from the Daily Caller? Hey, there might be something here.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:36 pm

Pay no attention to the information sharing that's happening. Instead, worry about which one of your sportsball heroes is standing or sitting this week.

After several months of being at odds, one source said, the IRS Criminal Investigation division is now sharing information about campaign associates, including Manafort and former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn. The sharing happened after the two camps reached an agreement following consultation with officials at the Treasury Department.

CNN has learned the IRS Criminal Investigation agents had been working with the FBI to investigate Manafort since before the election in a similar probe that centered on possible money laundering and tax fraud issues, according to the sources. It's unclear if Flynn is now or was previously under investigation by the IRS. CNN has reported that Mueller's team is examining Flynn's payments from Turkey and Russia.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:28 pm

While not directly related to the investigation, I figured this was the best thread to put this in:

Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Stein, Sanders and Trump

The ads show a complicated effort that didn’t necessarily hew to promoting Trump and bashing Clinton. Instead, they show a desire to create divisions while sometimes praising Trump, Sanders and Stein. A number of the ads seemed to question Clinton’s authenticity and tout some of the liberal criticisms of her candidacy.

There is no indication Stein, Sanders or Trump was aware of the advertisements, which were described to POLITICO by people with knowledge of them.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:35 am

I'm sure there are perfectly non-guilty reasons someone would re-route their emails like this:

The move, made just days after Kushner’s use of a personal email account first became public, came shortly after special counsel Robert Mueller asked the White House to turn over records related to his investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with Trump associates. It also more closely intertwines President Trump’s administration with his constellation of private businesses.

...

According to internet registration records reviewed by USA TODAY and cybersecurity researchers, Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump, who is also a senior adviser, re-routed their email accounts to a server operated by the Trump Organization on either Sept. 26 or 27, as attention from the media and lawmakers intensified.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:04 am

In other Trump investigation news: Ivanka and Don Jr. were close to being charged with fraud in 2012 until the DA overruled his prosecutors...

In the spring of 2012, Donald Trump’s two eldest children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., found themselves in a precarious legal position. For two years, prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office had been building a criminal case against them for misleading prospective buyers of units in the Trump SoHo, a hotel and condo development that was failing to sell. Despite the best efforts of the siblings’ defense team, the case had not gone away. An indictment seemed like a real possibility. The evidence included emails from the Trumps making clear that they were aware they were using inflated figures about how well the condos were selling to lure buyers....

There was “no doubt” that the Trump children “approved, knew of, agreed to, and intentionally inflated the numbers to make more sales,” one person who saw the emails told us. “They knew it was wrong.”...

Kasowitz, who by then had been the elder Donald Trump’s attorney for a decade, is primarily a civil litigator with little experience in criminal matters. But in 2012, Kasowitz donated $25,000 to the reelection campaign of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., making Kasowitz one of Vance’s largest donors. Kasowitz decided to bypass the lower level prosecutors and went directly to Vance to ask that the investigation be dropped.

On May 16, 2012, Kasowitz visited Vance’s office at One Hogan Place in downtown Manhattan — a faded edifice made famous by the television show, “Law & Order.” Dan Alonso, the chief assistant district attorney, and Adam Kaufmann, the chief of the investigative division, were also at the meeting, but no one from the Major Economic Crimes Bureau attended. Kasowitz did not introduce any new arguments or facts during his session. He simply repeated the arguments that the other defense lawyers had been making for months.

Ultimately, Vance overruled his own prosecutors. Three months after the meeting, he told them to drop the case. Kasowitz subsequently boasted to colleagues about representing the Trump children, according to two people. He said that the case was “really dangerous,” one person said, and that it was “amazing I got them off.” (Kasowitz denied making such a statement.)

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:30 am

Since it's 2012 I'm guessing the statute of limitations has passed on it (and probably would be a hard case to (re) build at this point regardless given the age).

That said, this is part of the reason that I remain confident that everyone's ultimately going to jail in this mess. Everyone in Trump's orbit is horribly unethical and appears to have committed multiple crimes. The press is able to uncover most of this over time without subpoena power or criminal / plea bargain authority. It seems very likely that at least a few people in Trump's orbit committed crimes within the jurisdiction and contrary to the state law of New York, and would therefore be unpardonable by Trump (and since the Attorney General and governor of New York are both democrats, they would not be inclined to cut TrumpWorld any slack). That state criminal stick also gives leverage to prosecutors to induce cooperation, and once one person in the inner circle flips, a lot more gets exposed.

There remains the questions of what Trump himself did / knew, and whether the President can be indicted while in office (and what Mueller and his team think about the latter question). But unless Trump can shut Mueller down (which is not easy), it's hard to see how this ends without many people in TrumpWorld going to jail.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:24 am

I'm sure this will be one for the ages:

Donald Trump’s lawyers are open to having the president sit down for an interview with Robert Mueller, according to a senior White House official, as part of a wider posture of cooperation with the special counsel’s Russia probe.

If Mueller doesn’t request an interview by Thanksgiving, Trump’s lawyers may even force the issue by volunteering Trump’s time, the official said. The White House believes such an interview could help Mueller wrap up the probe faster and dispel the cloud of suspicion over Trump.

Yeah, let's wrap this up.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:27 am

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:In other Trump investigation news: Ivanka and Don Jr. were close to being charged with fraud in 2012 until the DA overruled his prosecutors...

Fortunately justice is blind or someone might come to think there is a different legal system for the rich in the US.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:01 am

malchior wrote:
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:In other Trump investigation news: Ivanka and Don Jr. were close to being charged with fraud in 2012 until the DA overruled his prosecutors...
Fortunately justice is blind or someone might come to think there is a different legal system for the rich in the US.

Note that this is the same DA (Cy Vance) who overruled his prosecutors on charging Weinstein. Also received a campaign contribution later from one of the defense attorneys involved in that matter, too.

Hopefully there are a lot of reporters digging into Cy Vance's shit now.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:12 am

Hear hear - the blood is in the water.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:06 pm

malchior wrote:Hear hear - the blood is in the water.

+1.

A little justice would be nice.

Tying Vance to all of Weinstein's victims since then would be a nice start. Welcome to complicity, Mr. DA.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:12 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
malchior wrote:Hear hear - the blood is in the water.
+1.

A little justice would be nice.

Tying Vance to all of Weinstein's victims since then would be a nice start. Welcome to complicity, Mr. DA.

Prosecutorial Discretion - won't be able to touch him unless Weinstein very, very clearly bribed him.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:16 pm

stessier wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
malchior wrote:Hear hear - the blood is in the water.
+1.

A little justice would be nice.

Tying Vance to all of Weinstein's victims since then would be a nice start. Welcome to complicity, Mr. DA.
Prosecutorial Discretion - won't be able to touch him unless Weinstein very, very clearly bribed him.

You don't have to prosecute him. You just have to dirty him up.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:20 pm

malchior wrote: You don't have to prosecute him. You just have to dirty him up.

I don't expect jail time, but if he is seen as partially responsible for some of Weinstein's assaults and becomes a pariah and it ends his career, i'm good with that.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:28 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
malchior wrote: You don't have to prosecute him. You just have to dirty him up.
I don't expect jail time, but if he is seen as partially responsible for some of Weinstein's assaults and becomes a pariah and it ends his career, i'm good with that.

Also, if Vance is corrupt, then one imagines that these aren't the only shady things that he's done, and further digging will uncover more shady shit, which could bring him down.

Of course, it's also possible that he just has poor judgment but isn't corrupt.

The shame is that he's up for reelection next month, but is running unopposed. Though evidently someone's going to run a write-in campaign (though good luck with that).

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:42 pm

Breaking news tonight: Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort (Trump partner, Stone partner, pro-Putin Ukraine govt partner, present at the Trump Tower meeting, in contact with various Russians throughout 2016, central to the GOP platform Ukraine revision, etc.) was in debt to Russian oligarchs to the tune of at least $60 million.

Remember: when Manafort took the campaign manager job, he agreed to work for no salary.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:15 pm

Remember when Trump promised all the best people?

We got racists, crooks, liars and incompetence instead. #MAGA

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:58 am

Reince Priebus, former Trump chief of staff, interviewed by Mueller team

Reince Priebus, the former chief of staff to President Trump, was interviewed for a full day Friday by members of special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s team, Priebus’s lawyer said.

In a statement, William Burck said his client was interviewed voluntarily.

“He was happy to answer all of their questions,” Burck said.

The interview, which took place at the special counsel’s office in Washington, is a sign that Mueller’s investigation is now reaching into the highest levels of Trump’s aides and former aides.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:18 am

Holman wrote:Breaking news tonight: Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort (Trump partner, Stone partner, pro-Putin Ukraine govt partner, present at the Trump Tower meeting, in contact with various Russians throughout 2016, central to the GOP platform Ukraine revision, etc.) was in debt to Russian oligarchs to the tune of at least $60 million.

Remember: when Manafort took the campaign manager job, he agreed to work for no salary.

And just to clarify, he is "in debt" only theoretically. To the degree that these loans are traceable on paper, terms of repayment are not necessarily specified.

Put more simply: Manafort has been given tens of millions of dollars by Putin's closest associates.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:51 pm

A different investigation: could Trump get weinsteined?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:32 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:51 pm A different investigation: could Trump get weinsteined?

What a great way to kick off "National Character Counts Week"!

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:44 pm

Did you notice that character means providing for others in Trump's proclamation? So if you pay for it, you can grope for it. Sigh.

Not winning.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:09 pm

In a move that will surprise no one, party before country:

GOP donors attending a retreat for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in Jackson Hole, Wyo., in August were given a slideshow highlighting the Democrats who would take over committees if Republicans lose the House in 2018, according to CNN.

...

"When Democrats take control of the House they will absolutely move for articles of impeachment," one Trump confidant predicted to CNN.

That seemed to be the goal of the slideshow: underlining to donors the importance of keeping the House in GOP hands to prevent impeachment.

While the donors weren’t warned of impeachment outright, they were told that Democrats would block the GOP agenda and likely launch more probes into Russian interference in the presidential election.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:39 pm

Larry Flynt offers $10 million for dirt leading to Trump impeachment

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:11 pm

Flynt offers bounties every few years on different things. It's his shtick.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:24 pm

You're just upset that they wanted you to prove the financial ability to pay the $50 reward for a decent Monte Cristo sandwich.