Ralph-Wiggum wrote:So if that's the law, why then is Congress able (though probably not willing) to cite Flynn for contempt of court? How is it contempt to do something within your legal rights?
Well, if Flynn is validly invoking the Fifth, then they can't. However, Congress is well within its rights to disbelieve Flynn (basically conclude that he can't validly invoke the Fifth here, possibly citing the narrowness of the act-of-production doctrine from the case that Default mentioned). If neither backed down Congress would find him in contempt, Flynn would sue, and a court would evaluate whether Flynn had validly invoked the Fifth here.
Of course, depending on what's in the documents that Flynn has, invoking the Fifth here indicates that he has documents that are at least embarrassing.
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:So if that's the law, why then is Congress able (though probably not willing) to cite Flynn for contempt of court? How is it contempt to do something within your legal rights?
The Fifth Amendment “doesn’t have the same level of protection” when it comes to documents, Bussert said.
“Congressional action is analogous to what you see in a criminal context,” Bussert said. “What you often see is the U.S. attorney’s office or law enforcement agencies working with the U.S. attorney’s office coming in and gathering documents from a company or an individual. They may have valid Fifth Amendment claims — they couldn’t be compelled to speak to agents or what have you — but they can’t refuse to comply with the subpoena for documents. You have to produce those — even though those may be incriminating.”
Put another way, the Fifth Amendment protects you from making incriminatory comments about yourself — but it doesn’t protect you from things you’ve said in the past. Documents are similarly a form of past behavior to which the Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply.
The risk to Flynn is that the Senate committee demanding the documents could vote to hold him in contempt. If they were to do so, the full Senate would be asked to weigh in on the matter and, if the Senate agreed to hold Flynn in contempt, the matter would be referred to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington for criminal charges. In other words, Flynn could end up being convicted of a crime for withholding the documents and face prison time — regardless of what the documents say.
It does seem to be inconsistent with the other link I posted, though. But I guess, either way, whatever protection the fifth amendment gives for documents is very limited and weak.
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:So if that's the law, why then is Congress able (though probably not willing) to cite Flynn for contempt of court? How is it contempt to do something within your legal rights?
The Fifth Amendment “doesn’t have the same level of protection” when it comes to documents, Bussert said.
“Congressional action is analogous to what you see in a criminal context,” Bussert said. “What you often see is the U.S. attorney’s office or law enforcement agencies working with the U.S. attorney’s office coming in and gathering documents from a company or an individual. They may have valid Fifth Amendment claims — they couldn’t be compelled to speak to agents or what have you — but they can’t refuse to comply with the subpoena for documents. You have to produce those — even though those may be incriminating.”
Put another way, the Fifth Amendment protects you from making incriminatory comments about yourself — but it doesn’t protect you from things you’ve said in the past. Documents are similarly a form of past behavior to which the Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply.
The risk to Flynn is that the Senate committee demanding the documents could vote to hold him in contempt. If they were to do so, the full Senate would be asked to weigh in on the matter and, if the Senate agreed to hold Flynn in contempt, the matter would be referred to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington for criminal charges. In other words, Flynn could end up being convicted of a crime for withholding the documents and face prison time — regardless of what the documents say.
It does seem to be inconsistent with the other link I posted, though. But I guess, either way, whatever protection the fifth amendment gives for documents is very limited and weak.
His answer kind of makes it sound like the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to document production at all, which per the case that Def Leppard posted is not correct. As a practical matter it is narrower, though. Whether it's valid probably depends in part on how the subpoena is drafted - a question like "Produce any documents you have related to Russian government involvement in the 2016 election" vs. "Produce any documents you have which show how you collaborated with the Russian government in violation of federal law".
It sounds like Flynn is planning on producing zero documents, which is dubious. The Fifth would apply document by document; odds that Flynn has documents relevant to the subpoena where production of each and every document would be incriminating by itself seems remote.
President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.
Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.
Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.
Does he have to shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue?
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:So if that's the law, why then is Congress able (though probably not willing) to cite Flynn for contempt of court? How is it contempt to do something within your legal rights?
The Fifth Amendment “doesn’t have the same level of protection” when it comes to documents, Bussert said.
“Congressional action is analogous to what you see in a criminal context,” Bussert said. “What you often see is the U.S. attorney’s office or law enforcement agencies working with the U.S. attorney’s office coming in and gathering documents from a company or an individual. They may have valid Fifth Amendment claims — they couldn’t be compelled to speak to agents or what have you — but they can’t refuse to comply with the subpoena for documents. You have to produce those — even though those may be incriminating.”
Put another way, the Fifth Amendment protects you from making incriminatory comments about yourself — but it doesn’t protect you from things you’ve said in the past. Documents are similarly a form of past behavior to which the Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply.
The risk to Flynn is that the Senate committee demanding the documents could vote to hold him in contempt. If they were to do so, the full Senate would be asked to weigh in on the matter and, if the Senate agreed to hold Flynn in contempt, the matter would be referred to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington for criminal charges. In other words, Flynn could end up being convicted of a crime for withholding the documents and face prison time — regardless of what the documents say.
It does seem to be inconsistent with the other link I posted, though. But I guess, either way, whatever protection the fifth amendment gives for documents is very limited and weak.
This is very much analagous to the Barry Bonds/Trainer (Greg...?) episode, where the feds demanded the trainer go on the record and/or provide documentation, but he chose to spend over a year in jail rather than comply.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The thing is, it's pretty clear Flynn did break the law already.
The question is how many laws did he break, and did he work with others to do so?
I've said before that Flynn and Manafort are most likely destined for some sort of plea deal as there is plenty of damning evidence out there on them already, probably Page as well. Kushner is starting to smell a bit like smoke, but it could just be the murk.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.
Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.
Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.
Does he have to shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue?
Shooting someone on 5th Ave. would include evidence from witnesses or cameras. Quoting second hand anonymous sources isn't evidence.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.
Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.
Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.
Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”
Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.
Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.
Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.
Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”
Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.
If the article gets posted one more time then it must be true. Rule of 3, right?
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Moliere wrote:
If the article gets posted one more time then it must be true. Rule of 3, right?
On a scale of 1 (lies) to 10 (truth), where are you putting the WaPo?
It sounds pretty credible to me. We already know he told Comey. Why would he tell the other heads anything else?
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.
Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.
Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.
Does he have to shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue?
Shooting someone on 5th Ave. would include evidence from witnesses or cameras. Quoting second hand anonymous sources isn't evidence.
[pedantic]It is evidence. It's just a question of how reliable/convincing one finds that particular type of evidence, particularly as compared to the type of evidence you'd find if things were recorded.[/pedantic]
While watching the Congressional hearing today with John Brennan I couldn't stop thinking that this whole mess should be (and might still be) an existential level threat to the GOP. They very desperately need this Russia investigation to go nowhere. They doubled down before Comey's firing. And have tripled down today. Watching Trey Gowdy pathetically trying to douse the Russian collusion fire was interesting. In so much, as it signals that they are flat out panicking and can't help but try to manage what is mostly out of their hands at this point. They are steering into the turn and it'll be up to pure luck and whether the road doesn't run out how this pans out.
malchior wrote:While watching the Congressional hearing today with John Brennan I couldn't stop thinking that this whole mess should be (and might still be) an existential level threat to the GOP.
I think it should be but won't be. More realistically, if this gets to the point where every reasonable indicator states it should be the end of the GOP, we will have to fear for the collapse of the US to masses of delusional nuts with guns and delusional nuts with political control. Talk radio, internet conspricists and "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," have taken the US hostage and hostage and how often do hostage situations end with reason taking hold.
malchior wrote:While watching the Congressional hearing today with John Brennan I couldn't stop thinking that this whole mess should be (and might still be) an existential level threat to the GOP. They very desperately need this Russia investigation to go nowhere. They doubled down before Comey's firing. And have tripled down today. Watching Trey Gowdy pathetically trying to douse the Russian collusion fire was interesting. In so much, as it signals that they are flat out panicking and can't help but try to manage what is mostly out of their hands at this point. They are steering into the turn and it'll be up to pure luck and whether the road doesn't run out how this pans out.
So this is just a snapshot of America and who knows how applicable this is to the whole of America but when I was having breakfast in McDonalds in the town of Bedford MA I overheard some elderly folks complaining that the investigation should be over so he (assuming it is Trump) can get back to work. Having had breakfast there in the past I've heard the same sentiments from the same population. Elderly folks vote and unless the GOP hit's them in the pocket then I wonder if this "Beltway" manufactured political drama will not hurt the GOP enough...
Black lives matter!
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
malchior wrote:While watching the Congressional hearing today with John Brennan I couldn't stop thinking that this whole mess should be (and might still be) an existential level threat to the GOP. They very desperately need this Russia investigation to go nowhere. They doubled down before Comey's firing. And have tripled down today. Watching Trey Gowdy pathetically trying to douse the Russian collusion fire was interesting. In so much, as it signals that they are flat out panicking and can't help but try to manage what is mostly out of their hands at this point. They are steering into the turn and it'll be up to pure luck and whether the road doesn't run out how this pans out.
So this is just a snapshot of America and who knows how applicable this is to the whole of America but when I was having breakfast in McDonalds in the town of Bedford MA I overheard some elderly folks complaining that the investigation should be over so he (assuming it is Trump) can get back to work. Having had breakfast there in the past I've heard the same sentiments from the same population. Elderly folks vote and unless the GOP hit's them in the pocket then I wonder if this "Beltway" manufactured political drama will not hurt the GOP enough...
Sadly, I worry that it will not. I do not think it manufactured either though which is even sadder. Trump's own words show he has obstructed justice. His own team is openly hurting everything that I think is good in America and reinforcing the greed that I feel is the bedrock of our major weaknesses. I don't see a good end to this for the nation as a whole. I did not live through Watergate but the nation as a whole recovered, albeit slowly, due to Nixon seeming to at least have nation interest at heart. Trump and his ilk seem to only have themselves and their power at heart. The more I see of him the more truly evil I believe him to be along with the rest of the Republican party liners. Whether they are indeed the end of any real Democracy in the USA remains to be seen but the idea that so many people are working so hard to cover up potentially treasonous acts rather than investigate them points in a very bleak direction. The fact that a huge percentage of the population doesn't seem to mind all of this is simultaneously mind boggling, horrifying, and depressing while also suggesting that we may travel very quickly down that bleak path.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
Had a conversation today with a guy that refused to acknowledge the definition of collusion. "Collusion. What is that? I don't know what collusion is, how would I know if what Trump did is collusion or not?"
I told him to abandon the argument, that it's as absurd as when Bill Clinton asked for the definition of "is". He didn't like that.
Later in the conversation he explained that Obama clearly did not have the country's best interest at heart. I asked for an example, and he said the national debt exploded over the past eight years. But when I pointed out that his hero Trump was going to slash rich people's taxes and do nothing for the deficit or debt, he brushed it off by saying that the national debt doesn't matter when you have the biggest guns.
That is why I stopped having discussions with hardcore Trump supporters. I know it is not entirely fair but I also have to recognize that there are severe diminishing returns in having these discussions. You have to battle some combination of bias, lack of analytical skills, judgement, empathy, character or intelligence, etc. It isn't worth it. And I recognize that is part of the problem but there is no real solution to it. It is depressing as hell. Someone who believes #PizzaGate has as much right to vote as anyone else. It is a key reason Democracy is taking serious body blows right now.
malchior wrote:While watching the Congressional hearing today with John Brennan I couldn't stop thinking that this whole mess should be (and might still be) an existential level threat to the GOP. They very desperately need this Russia investigation to go nowhere. They doubled down before Comey's firing. And have tripled down today. Watching Trey Gowdy pathetically trying to douse the Russian collusion fire was interesting. In so much, as it signals that they are flat out panicking and can't help but try to manage what is mostly out of their hands at this point. They are steering into the turn and it'll be up to pure luck and whether the road doesn't run out how this pans out.
Everything about Trump’s personality says he’s the type who’d rather flip the checkerboard than lose. If we’re slowly inching toward a day when he finds himself forced to pack up his gaudy gold Oval Office drapes, the question now is how much damage he’ll inflict before this mess, one way or another, is done.
...
Trump’s message is direct: His defeat would be his supporters’ defeat. If he is stopped, they are stopped, and the country they believe belongs to them alone will again be ripped from their grasp. When Trump used to tick off his list of perceived problems, he would often add, “I alone can fix it.” That’s his supporters’ ardent belief — 96 percent of them say they would vote for him again. Given the backing he’s received from racist and extremist groups, I shudder to think how his words might spur them to protect his presidency.
By now, we all recognize that Trump is immune to moderation, and has the instincts of a rabid raccoon when cornered. His presidency is stultified by scandal, and its failure is a humiliation he will not easily abide. Trump might crow about “America first,” but nothing comes before his own interests. As his troubles mount, he’ll pull whatever stunt is necessary to survive, even if making America great again ultimately means laying it to waste.
The GOP will burn this country before they turn it back over to us so-called Americans. Their rhetoric over the past 8-9 years leaves them no choice.
Kraken wrote:The GOP will burn this country before they turn it back over to us so-called Americans. Their rhetoric over the past 8-9 years leaves them no choice.
That's my perception and my fear and yet it's gotta happen. We can't be held hostage to their vision of bullykingship and leadership that focus it.
President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.
Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.
Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.
Does he have to shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue?
Shooting someone on 5th Ave. would include evidence from witnesses or cameras. Quoting second hand anonymous sources isn't evidence.
[pedantic]It is evidence. It's just a question of how reliable/convincing one finds that particular type of evidence, particularly as compared to the type of evidence you'd find if things were recorded.[/pedantic]
It's noteworthy that Coats declined to comment on the allegation today. If it didn't happen, there would be no down side to saying so. If it did happen, and he didn't want to lie about it, then declining to comment is appropriate.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
It appears that Lieberman is off the table. At this rate, McCabe may be acting Dir FBI for quite a while, assuming the administration doesn't just decide to avoid the embarrassment of not being able to find a willing-and-qualified candidate and nominates him to get it over with.
Last week, when reports first emerged that the White House had shortlisted four candidates for the job of FBI director, Joe Lieberman’s name got the most attention. Not just because he’s a former senator and vice-presidential nominee with bipartisan bona fides and loads of political baggage, but because he currently works at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, a New York–based law firm that regularly represents President Trump.
That potential conflict was made even clearer Tuesday when it was reported that Trump has hired Marc Kasowitz, Lieberman’s boss, to serve as his private lawyer on issues related to the Russia investigation. A day later, in a rare acknowledgment that conflicts of interest actually exist, the White House has reportedly nixed Lieberman’s name from its list of potential FBI directors and is restarting its search from scratch.
Joe Lieberman no longer being considered for FBI director. President's team has hit the restart button on the search for a new FBI Director
— Shimon Prokupecz (@ShimonPro) May 24, 2017
It’s a search that may take longer than expected to resolve since no one appears to want the job. So far, at least a half dozen potential FBI directors have removed their names from the running.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
I'm sure that he will hold himself accountable to the full extent of the law.
And demand the prosecutor asks for the maximum penalty.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Part of the problem in Washington - Gowdy's campaign got paid by Trump's Super PACs. I don't think it'd change much in Gowdy's case because he is a gutless partisan hack but it does cast a cloud over Gowdy's part in playing the helpful stooge throughout the Russia hearings.
A Republican political operative in Florida asked the alleged Russian hacker who broke into Democratic Party organizations’ servers at the height of the 2016 campaign to pass him stolen documents, according to a report Thursday by the Wall Street Journal.
In return, that operative received valuable Democratic voter-turnout analyses, which the newspaper found at least one GOP campaign used to its advantage. The hacker went on to flag that same data to Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of Donald Trump’s who briefly advised his presidential campaign, and who is currently under federal investigation for potential collusion with Russia.
The Wall Street Journal’s report presents the clearest allegations to date of collusion between people connected to Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.
I'm sure someone will be along soon enough to indicate this isn't collusion.
A Republican political operative in Florida asked the alleged Russian hacker who broke into Democratic Party organizations’ servers at the height of the 2016 campaign to pass him stolen documents, according to a report Thursday by the Wall Street Journal.
In return, that operative received valuable Democratic voter-turnout analyses, which the newspaper found at least one GOP campaign used to its advantage. The hacker went on to flag that same data to Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of Donald Trump’s who briefly advised his presidential campaign, and who is currently under federal investigation for potential collusion with Russia.
The Wall Street Journal’s report presents the clearest allegations to date of collusion between people connected to Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.
I'm sure someone will be along soon enough to indicate this isn't collusion.
FAKE NEWS from the failing liberal rag the Wall Street Journal!
But there's no indication any of the stolen data helped anyone. Oh wait...
Anthony Bustamante, a campaign consultant for U.S. Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), told the Journal he ramped up his TV ad buys and dialed back a mailer effort: “I did adjust some voting targets based on some data I saw from the leaks.”
Mast succeeded in flipping a previously Democrat-held seat near Palm Beach.
Investigators are focusing on a series of meetings held by Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and an influential White House adviser, as part of their probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and related matters, according to people familiar with the investigation.
Kushner, who held meetings in December with the Russian ambassador and a banker from Moscow , is being investigated because of the extent and nature of his interactions with the Russians, the people said.
The Washington Post reported last week that a senior White House official close to the president was a significant focus of the high-stakes investigation, though it did not name Kushner.
FBI agents also remain keenly interested in former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, but Kushner is the only current White House official known to be considered a key person in the probe.
The Post has not been told that Kushner is a target — or the central focus — of the investigation, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Target is a word that generally refers to someone who is the main suspect of investigators’ attention, though prosecutors can and do bring charges against people who are not marked with that distinction.
“Mr. Kushner previously volunteered to share with Congress what he knows about these meetings. He will do the same if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry,” said Jamie Gorelick, one of his attorneys.
In addition to possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election, investigators are also looking broadly into possible financial crimes — but the people familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to speak publicly, did not specify who or what was being examined.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
This information isn't anything new. We've know about the Kush meetings for a while. Also says he is not a target. Not sure how this is significant yet.
Scoop20906 wrote:This information isn't anything new. We've know about the Kush meetings for a while. Also says he is not a target. Not sure how this is significant yet.
Actually, the part where he's the focus of an FBI investigation is new. And it's not clear that the interest is due to those previously disclosed meetings.
Jared Kushner has just been revealed as the senior White House adviser who is under investigation in the Russia probe — which is news that comes as little surprise. Indeed, when The Washington Post reported last week that a then-unnamed top Trump adviser was a focus, many quickly assumed it was Kushner.
But while those assumptions were based on his known contacts with Russians and his status as one of few senior White House aides, there's another reason his naming fits the puzzle: He's related to Trump.
Kushner's ability to even work in the White House has been the subject of plenty of debate because he is Trump's son-in-law. (Kushner has made concessions to try and avoid violating a federal anti-nepotism law, including forgoing a paycheck.) And a big reason anti-nepotism laws exist is to avoid the corruption that all too often comes with installing your relatives in positions of power. As any expert on corrupt authoritarian regimes throughout history will tell you, those regimes' wrongdoing will often run through family members with official titles.
It isn't clear what possible crimes might be under investigation, and it's important to emphasize that Kushner hasn't been charged with anything. We don't know where this will lead, if anywhere.
But here's a key part of The Post's story:
In addition to possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election, investigators are also looking broadly into possible financial crimes — but the people familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to speak publicly, did not specify who or what was being examined.
In other words, this isn't just about whether Kushner or anyone else facilitated collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign; indeed, the two meetings he had with Russians that have been spotlighted actually came in December, after Trump was elected. Federal investigators appear to be cluing on some other potential crimes that may or may not be related to that.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Trump might regret not following Lyndon Johnson's example when it came to whether he should fire J. Edgar Hoover: “it’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:But there's no indication any of the stolen data helped anyone. Oh wait...
Anthony Bustamante, a campaign consultant for U.S. Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), told the Journal he ramped up his TV ad buys and dialed back a mailer effort: “I did adjust some voting targets based on some data I saw from the leaks.”
Mast succeeded in flipping a previously Democrat-held seat near Palm Beach.
Holy shit. Mast is my rep.
I haven't read the article yet, but FWIW I don't think any of this helped Mast win. It's a district that naturally leans right and is one that I believe Trump won (I'd have to check the numbers to be sure). And, the Democratic candidate was terrible. Mast didn't need any help to win.
EDIT: Looks like the initial story has been updated.
The Journal originally reported that one Florida Republican campaign consultant said he used the stolen information. The newspaper initially said a campaign consultant for U.S. Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), Anthony Bustamante, ramped up his TV ad buys and dialed back a mailer effort. The Journal subsequently updated its story to reflect that a Mast spokesman said Bustamante stopped working for the campaign in June 2016, months before the stolen documents were published, and noted that it could no longer reach Bustamante.
