Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 14093
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by pr0ner » Wed May 08, 2019 4:36 pm

The Senate Intelligence Committee (chaired by a Republican!) has issued a subpoena for one Donald Trump Jr.
Last edited by pr0ner on Wed May 08, 2019 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hodor.

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39205
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Smoove_B » Wed May 08, 2019 4:45 pm

It's probably to give him an award.

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45807
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed May 08, 2019 4:50 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 4:45 pm
It's probably to give him an award.
It's for a hearing to be held on a savanna hunting safari. Tough questions will be asked like, "Can you hit that lion at 200 yards" and "want to catch a chopper to Jo-burg?"
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

GungHo
Posts: 3678
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:15 am
Location: Second star to the right

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GungHo » Wed May 08, 2019 5:42 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 4:36 pm
The Senate Intelligence Committee (chaired by a Republican!) has issued a subpoena for one Donald Trump Jr.
I agree it's nice to see at least one R at least quasi taking Congress' oversight responsibility seriously. But I think it's well established at this point that nothing matters and nothing will happen. We just have to hope enough of the deplorables stay home in Nov of 2020 to make a difference the right way this time.
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.

-Hiccup

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40365
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GreenGoo » Wed May 08, 2019 6:20 pm

I assume it's just cover to show how unbiased they are, because clearly there are real ramifications associated with this subpoena. *cough*

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Kraken » Wed May 08, 2019 6:36 pm

Every day, Trump demonstrates that he is above the law and the Constitution doesn't apply to his government. The only way Democrats can change that is to impeach him...which will most likely cost them the next election, and wouldn't work anyway with the Senate in his pocket. And so he goads them. One can only hope that enough voters are paying attention and still care, and that they'll be allowed to vote. I am not confident of either proposition.

malchior
Posts: 8515
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by malchior » Wed May 08, 2019 6:51 pm

Well worth the 3:30 view.


User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 17136
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Unagi » Wed May 08, 2019 6:59 pm

Oh fuck yeah

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45807
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed May 08, 2019 7:07 pm

He's not very photogenic or funny or cool. Pass. Give me a meme with an Avenger or you'll lose me.


-America.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 17136
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Unagi » Wed May 08, 2019 7:09 pm

In 2 years, it will be a 7 minute video or more.

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39205
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Smoove_B » Wed May 08, 2019 7:52 pm

Bill Kristol sharing some wisdom this afternoon from Marco - "I think an Attorney General held in contempt should resign."


Spoiler:
Marco is speaking about AG Holder, under Barack Obama

User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Enough » Thu May 09, 2019 1:17 am

My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40365
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GreenGoo » Thu May 09, 2019 2:11 am

If the entire scandal is that he hasn't paid income tax in 20 years, they (GOP, Drumpf administration) really haven't learned just how little the American people care about things. He's committing political "sins" on a near daily basis that are far, far worse than not paying taxes.

My point being, if they are fighting tooth and nail to keep his tax returns from becoming public solely because they show he hasn't paid taxes, then...wtf. They really, really have no idea what they are doing and are just trying things at random and hoping it works.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 18782
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Pyperkub » Thu May 09, 2019 2:59 am

You forget that he's a sexist egotistical lying hypocritical bigot. He will do anything to protect his ego. Plus, it won't be that he didn't pay taxes, it will be that he lied on then and to all his bankers, investors and insurers, which is also felony fraud, abs his house of debt will collapse on him.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

GungHo
Posts: 3678
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:15 am
Location: Second star to the right

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GungHo » Thu May 09, 2019 3:10 am

Smoove_B wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:52 pm
Bill Kristol sharing some wisdom this afternoon from Marco - "I think an Attorney General held in contempt should resign."


Spoiler:
Marco is speaking about AG Holder, under Barack Obama
That's astonishing but yeah too bad it's 7 years old. At least it should be entertaining when he comes out to defend why he isn't following his own game plan now. More likely I suppose he'll just stay quiet and wait 30 seconds for the next shiny object to bounce into view and everyone will forget/stash under the rug his hypocrisy, along wth the rest of the party formerly known as the GOP.
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.

-Hiccup

User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 13033
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Pac-12 Country

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Skinypupy » Thu May 09, 2019 7:29 am

Came to post Rubio’s 2012 statement. Another not-so-shocking bit of hypocrisy to throw on top of the pile.
“Don’t tickle the wall clown.” - MST3K

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39205
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Smoove_B » Thu May 09, 2019 9:02 am

GungHo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 3:10 am
That's astonishing but yeah too bad it's 7 years old.
Well, if there's one thing where someone's position can certainly evolve, it's the rule of law. What a goddamn joke. Regarding attention spans, I think that's exactly the current administration's strategy. Stonewall everything with the hopes the next big thing (school shooter, natural disaster, global event) distracts the public to the point where no one cares anymore. Knowing your always 3 days away from a major news event, you just need to hide until then. That's why I think it's important that the investigations, hearings, etc... continue nonstop - it should never be out of the news cycle.
Skinypupy wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 7:29 am
Another not-so-shocking bit of hypocrisy to throw on top of the pile.
It's unreal. I'm looking forward to someone asking him about it. I'm sure that will totally happen.

User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 3213
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Kurth » Thu May 09, 2019 10:23 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 2:11 am
If the entire scandal is that he hasn't paid income tax in 20 years, they (GOP, Drumpf administration) really haven't learned just how little the American people care about things. He's committing political "sins" on a near daily basis that are far, far worse than not paying taxes.

My point being, if they are fighting tooth and nail to keep his tax returns from becoming public solely because they show he hasn't paid taxes, then...wtf. They really, really have no idea what they are doing and are just trying things at random and hoping it works.
I think you are missing the point(s). This plays out in one of two ways as far as Insee it:

(1) If Trump’s returns are produced and it turns out he made a shit ton of money but found great loop holes or shelters to avoid having to pay any taxes, some will laud him for being an astute businessman, but many will be pissed. Like really pissed. Being Canadian, you may not fully have internalized how Americans feel about paying taxes (e.g., the whole “no taxation without representation” thing and our little revolution against the Crown). We generally do not like it. Not one bit. And even more than not liking paying our taxes, we do not like when others are seen to be getting away with not paying theirs.

(2) If Trump’s returns are produced and it turns out he never made much money in the first place but instead was a big loser and grifter, that will eviscerate his reason for being and cut out the heart of his brand.

I think (2) is more likely and also more of a significant threat to Trump. I also think that’s why he will burn things down before allowing those returns to see the light of day.
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it -- John Gilmore

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 33707
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Kraken » Thu May 09, 2019 10:31 am

Those old returns that show him losing >$1 billion over 10 years? He didn't have a billion to lose (his net worth at the beginning of the decade was estimated at $600M). He lost a billion of other people's dollars and then claimed the tax benefits for himself.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by El Guapo » Thu May 09, 2019 10:32 am

Kurth wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:23 am
GreenGoo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 2:11 am
If the entire scandal is that he hasn't paid income tax in 20 years, they (GOP, Drumpf administration) really haven't learned just how little the American people care about things. He's committing political "sins" on a near daily basis that are far, far worse than not paying taxes.

My point being, if they are fighting tooth and nail to keep his tax returns from becoming public solely because they show he hasn't paid taxes, then...wtf. They really, really have no idea what they are doing and are just trying things at random and hoping it works.
I think you are missing the point(s). This plays out in one of two ways as far as Insee it:

(1) If Trump’s returns are produced and it turns out he made a shit ton of money but found great loop holes or shelters to avoid having to pay any taxes, some will laud him for being an astute businessman, but many will be pissed. Like really pissed. Being Canadian, you may not fully have internalized how Americans feel about paying taxes (e.g., the whole “no taxation without representation” thing and our little revolution against the Crown). We generally do not like it. Not one bit. And even more than not liking paying our taxes, we do not like when others are seen to be getting away with not paying theirs.

(2) If Trump’s returns are produced and it turns out he never made much money in the first place but instead was a big loser and grifter, that will eviscerate his reason for being and cut out the heart of his brand.

I think (2) is more likely and also more of a significant threat to Trump. I also think that’s why he will burn things down before allowing those returns to see the light of day.
I dunno. I'm skeptical that either of those would make that much of a difference in 2020. Trump's path to reelection is to hold onto his base (~40% or so of the country), and then rely on a strong economy (if it's still strong) and smearing the Democratic nominee until (s)he is about as unpopular as him. I don't think either of the above, filtered through the magic of Fox News, would impact his support among his base.

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39205
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Smoove_B » Thu May 09, 2019 10:36 am

Yeah, at one point I would have thought it would mean something. But Trump was raw-dogging a porn star after his son was born and people collectively shrugged their shoulders. It feels like ~30% of the public would think it was now awesome that he didn't pay taxes (they don't want to pay taxes either) and they look up to him for gaming the system. Everything is topsy-turvey now.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32209
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by El Guapo » Thu May 09, 2019 11:08 am

Smoove_B wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:36 am
Yeah, at one point I would have thought it would mean something. But Trump was raw-dogging a porn star after his son was born and people collectively shrugged their shoulders. It feels like ~30% of the public would think it was now awesome that he didn't pay taxes (they don't want to pay taxes either) and they look up to him for gaming the system. Everything is topsy-turvey now.
I mean, ultimately this stuff is a matter of perspective. Like, there is no set of news which would cause Trump to resign or would "destroy" him clickbait-headline style. I would consider news to be pretty devastating for him if it dropped his approval rating by (say) 2 - 3 points over a long-term average. And going from ~ 40% approval to ~ 38% approval *would* have a pretty huge negative impact on his reelection chances.

So if this stuff dropped his support by ~ 0.5% (say), that would be a significant problem but not totally or uniquely devastating.

User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 26250
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana
Contact:
Blackhawk’s avatar
Online

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Blackhawk » Thu May 09, 2019 11:35 am

I've come to believe that the content of complaints against Trump is no longer relevant. It simply doesn't matter anymore. What his base reacts to isn't the content, it's the fact that the 'other side' is attacking again, and their response is almost like the defensive response you see with cognitive dissonance. When they hear a new complaint, they simply see the attack, and their automatic response is to double down on their positions. That's why every new complaint seems to result in an increase of popularity. He isn't becoming more popular, as such, but his base that was starting to weary just gets re-energized by their defensive response.
[This space left intentionally blank.]

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20683
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Holman » Thu May 09, 2019 12:44 pm

Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committee have sent a letter to Chairman Lindsey Graham requesting that Mueller testify. The letter includes loooong list if questions unanswered by the Mueller Report:

Spoiler:
Unanswered Questions from the Mueller Report

Set out below are several key issues and questions based on the redacted version of the “Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election,” released to the public on April 18, 2019. This is not an exhaustive list of issues or questions, and Members may have additional areas of concern and questions.

Russian Interference

Offers of assistance from Russia or its potential intermediaries to the Trump campaign, including the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.

  • Did the investigation uncover any evidence that called into question the veracity of the reports from foreign allies, informing US officials that George Papadopoulos had told them that Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton and that Russia could assist the campaign? [Vol. I, pp. 66, 81, 89]

    To what degree was your office able to assess the credibility of assertions by various campaign officials or associates that they “could not recall” if Papadopoulos told them that Russia had “dirt” on Clinton and that Russia could assist the campaign? [Vol. I, pp. 93-94].

    Was your office able to access all of the documents, including emails, that might have shed light on claims by Trump campaign officials or associates that they “could not recall” Papadopoulos informing them that Russia had “dirt” on Clinton and could assist the campaign?

    The report recounts communications between Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos and Sergei Millian, who claimed to have “insider knowledge and direct access to the top hierarchy in Russian politics.” [Vol. I, pp. 94-95]. Was the investigation able to verify whether Millian had access to Russian officials and, if so, the extent of those contacts?

    To what degree was your office able to assess the credibility of George Papadopoulos’ claim to have “no recollection” of Millian’s offer to “share with you a disruptive technology that might be instrumental in your political work for the campaign”? [Vol. I, p. 95]

    Did the investigation discover any additional contacts between Sergei Millian and anyone associated with the Trump campaign?

    The report recounts extensive communications between Trump campaign officials, including Jared Kushner, and Dmitri Simes, who had been approached by a Russian oligarch close to Putin about arranging a back channel between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin and provided the Trump campaign with derogatory information about Bill Clinton’s alleged ties to Russia. [Vol. I, pp. 103-10, 163-64]. Was the investigation able to verify the extent of Simes’ ties to Russian officials and whether the Kremlin was aware of his engagement with the Trump campaign?

    Why did the office elect not to pursue an interview with Donald Trump Jr. and did his refusal to be interviewed impact the investigation? If so, how?

    Was the office able to determine why none of the Trump campaign officials who learned of offers of assistance from Russia or who received such offers directly never reported those offers to US law enforcement officials?


Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s sharing of internal campaign strategy and polling data with Russian operative Konstantin Kilimnik.
  • To what degree was the investigation able to determine why Paul Manafort volunteered to work for the Trump campaign for free, and whether he discussed the possibility of joining the Trump campaign team with foreign nationals?

    To what degree was your investigation able to determine whether members of the campaign other than Rick Gates were aware that internal campaign strategy and polling data was being shared with Kilimnik? [Vol. I, p. 136]

    To what degree was your investigation able to determine whether Manafort, who told your office that if Trump won, Deripaska “would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere” [Vol. I, p. 137], was being cultivated as or serving as a long-term asset for Deripaska, Russia, or other foreign nationals or governments?

    To what degree was your investigation able to determine whether internal Clinton campaign data analytics and voter-turnout models that were stolen as part of the Russian hacking operation were used by Russia or shared with anyone working for or with the Trump campaign?

    In what specific ways did the non-cooperation of witnesses, including efforts to conceal or destroy evidence, impact your ability to assess Manafort’s interactions with Kilimnik – including the purpose of sharing campaign information and pro-Russia plans, and what was done with the information and documents that were shared?

    Did your investigation uncover gaps in existing laws that Congress should address? Do you believe that Congress should strengthen our laws to prevent foreign governments from being provided with non-public campaign information.
Trump campaign efforts to benefit from Russian hacking and WikiLeaks’ release of stolen documents.
  • To what degree did your investigation examine the role of Cambridge Analytica, AggregateIQ (AIQ), or SCL Group in the 2016 election? Did your investigation examine the possibility that US election or Trump campaign information was shared with Russia through these entities?

    The report examines various avenues through which Russian intelligence services may have transferred documents to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. [Vol. I, pp. 44-47]. The report states that “the Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.” [Vol. I, p. 47]. Were you able to rule out the possibility that US persons were aware of or involved in transferring documents, or arranging for the transfer of documents, to Assange or WikiLeaks?

    How did the non-cooperation of witnesses, including efforts to conceal or destroy evidence, impact your ability to uncover all contacts between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Julian Assange or other representatives of WikiLeaks?

    The report states that Jerome Corsi told your office that “he was convinced that his efforts had caused WikiLeaks to release” the stolen John Podesta emails about an hour after the Washington Post reported on the Access Hollywood tape of Donald Trump making offensive comments about women. [Vol. I, p. 59]. The report states that your office found “little corroboration” for Corsi’s account. Did your investigation uncover evidence of alternate explanations for the timing and release of the Podesta emails on October 7, 2016?

    Are there ways, consistent with the First Amendment, that Congress could strengthen existing laws to deter and punish the transfer of information stolen from protected computer systems?
Trump Campaign efforts to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails.
  • To what degree was the office able to determine whether any of the efforts to obtain Clinton’s emails resulted in contact with foreign intelligence services or Russian hackers, as had been proposed by Trump allies? Did the investigation examine whether individuals involved in these efforts had engaged in criminal misconduct?

    Was the Office able to determine whether then-candidate Trump was updated on the efforts to obtain Clinton’s emails?
Trump campaign efforts to establish “back channel” communications with Russia.
  • To what degree was your investigation able to determine the Trump campaign’s and the Russian government’s purpose in pursuing back channel communications, including between:
    Jared Kushner and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which Kushner suggested be arranged using “secure facilities at the Russian Embassy” [Vol. I, pp. 159-61];
    Kushner and Sergey Gorkov, the head of a Russian-government-owned bank who has “a direct line to Putin” [Vol. I, pp. 161-63];
    Rick Gerson, a friend of Kushner, and Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund who reports directly to Putin [Vol. I, pp. 156-59]; and
    Erik Prince, a “trusted associate” of the Trump transition team, and Dmitriev. [Vol. I, pp. 153-55]

    To what degree was your investigation able to determine the content of these back channel communications between Trump campaign and Russian government representatives?

    To what degree was your investigation able to determine whether and when members of the Trump campaign became aware of Erik Prince’s January 2017 meeting in the Seychelles with Kirill Dmitriev and Rick Gerson’s communications with Dmitriev?

    In what specific ways did the non-cooperation of witnesses, including efforts to conceal or destroy evidence, impact your ability to assess the Trump campaign and Russian government efforts to communicate via back channels, including the purpose of the back channels, the content of the communications, and who was aware of the communications?
Trump personal and business ties with Russia, including Trump Tower Moscow (2015-2016).
  • To what degree was your investigation able to determine whether the Kremlin encouraged Russian oligarch Aras Agalarov or his son Emin to develop a personal and business relationship with Donald Trump and members of his family?

    To what degree was your investigation able to determine the extent of efforts by Michael Cohen and Felix Sater, who had served as “an informal agent of the Trump Campaign in Moscow” [Vol. I, p. 69], to garner Kremlin support for the Trump Tower Moscow project and Donald Trump’s campaign for president? Was the investigation able to determine the extent of the ties between the Kremlin and intermediaries in Russia who were in contact with Sater?

    The report recounts offers of assistance to the campaign from Dmitry Klokov, the Director of a Russian electricity company and former press secretary to Russia’s energy minister. [Vol. I, pp. 72-73]. In emails to Michael Cohen, Klokov described himself as “a ‘trusted person’ who could offer the Campaign ‘political synergy’ and ‘synergy on a government level,’” including support for Trump from “the person of interest” (identified in the report as Vladimir Putin). [Vol. I, pp. 72-73]. Was the investigation able to determine whether Klokov was acting with the knowledge or at the direction of the Kremlin?

    To what degree was your investigation able to determine the extent to which the Kremlin was aware of or directing discussions regarding possible travel to Russia, and proposed meetings between Trump or his campaign or business associates and Russian officials, including Putin?

    To what degree was your investigation able to determine whether the Trump Tower Moscow project was part of an effort to gain influence over Donald Trump?

    To what degree was your investigation able to determine whether the Kremlin encouraged any other efforts to develop personal and business ties to Donald Trump?
Obstruction of Justice

No traditional prosecutorial decision on whether the President obstructed justice.

  • The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an Opinion finding that “while a sitting president may not be prosecuted . . . a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.” According to your report, you “accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.” [Vol. II, p. 1]. But for the OLC Opinion, would you have reached a decision on obstruction?

    How did the OLC opinion or interactions with OLC guide your investigation, if at all?

    When Attorney General Barr testified before the Judiciary Committee on May 1, 2019, he said that he “did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision” on whether the President obstructed justice, and that “he didn’t want to try to put words in Bob Mueller’s mouth.” He also said that he was “surprised” by your decision. What did you tell Barr regarding why you chose not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment?

    Did you discuss with Barr what your decision would have been if you had made a traditional prosecutorial judgment?

    Did Barr ever tell you that he intended to make a traditional prosecution decision? If so, did you and Barr discuss Barr’s intention to do so, or what his decision would be?

    Barr told the Judiciary Committee that he disagreed with your decision not to reach a traditional prosecutorial judgement. He said: “I think if [the Special Counsel] felt that he shouldn’t go down the path of making a traditional prosecutive decision then he shouldn’t have investigated. That was the time to pull up.” At which point in your investigation did you realize that you could not reach a decision on the question of obstruction? Why did you find it important to complete your work even if you could not render such a decision?

    Your report states that “we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would . . . potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” [Vol. II, p. 1]. Is this a recognition that Congress has a role to play in evaluating the type of conduct described in this report?

    While the investigation was ongoing, several congressional committees, including the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked to deconflict with your office to ensure that our work would not interfere with your efforts to gather the facts and complete your investigation. Now that your work is done, are you willing to work with Congress to ensure that we have the information needed to carry out our legislative and oversight functions?
Obstruction Standard.
  • Your report states that while it “does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” [Vol. II, p. 182]. Nevertheless, Attorney General Barr said in his March 24, 2019 letter that he had concluded that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” At the Judiciary Committee’s May 1, 2019 hearing, Barr was asked about the discrepancy between your report and his conclusion. He responded: “The difference is I used the proper standard.” Do you believe you applied an improper standard?

    Do you continue to believe that the results of the investigation did not exonerate the President of possible criminal misconduct?

    Your report notes that proof of an underlying crime “is not an element of an obstruction offense” because obstruction can be motivated by other desires, and that “the injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.” [Vol. II, p. 157]. Did the absence of an underlying crime preclude you from making a determination as to whether any of the ten episodes described in your report constituted obstruction?

    Your report also states that “the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.” [Vol. II, p. 76]. This statement cuts against the claim that the President believed that he had been “falsely accused” of misconduct. Can you explain what evidence led to this conclusion and what specific crimes the President would have been concerned that he, or his campaign, committed?

    Your report states that “[a]lthough the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President’s conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President’s acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent.” [Vol. II, p. 7]. How did the President’s “pattern of conduct” inform your Office’s decisions about whether he acted with corrupt intent in the ten episodes described in your report?

    Many of the acts described in your report, such as tweets, statements, and comments, occurred in public view. You note in your report that “[w]hile it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President’s power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system’s integrity is equally threatened.” [Vol. II, p. 157]. Did the fact that an act occurred in public view ever impair your Office’s ability to determine whether it was motivated by a corrupt intent?
Impact of President Trump’s limited cooperation.
  • President Trump refused your Office’s requests that he appear for a voluntary interview, and while he did provide written responses to questions about “certain Russia-related topics,” he claimed to “not recall” or “not remember” particular information or events more than 30 times. Other answers were “incomplete or imprecise.” [Appx. C, pp. 1-2]. Please identify all instances where the President’s testimony would have been helpful to shed more light on whether his conduct satisfied the elements of criminal obstruction.

    Your report states that “[j]udgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase” before and after firing FBI Director Comey “would be informed by the totality of the evidence.” [Vol. II, p. 7]. Would testimony from the President be part of the “totality of the evidence”?
President Trump’s conduct towards Michael Cohen.
  • Your investigation found that President Trump “used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get [his personal attorney Michael] Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen’s credibility once Cohen began cooperating.” You also found evidence that “the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen’s information would shed adverse light on the President’s campaign period conduct and statements.” [Vol. II, p. 155]. Did your investigation determine what campaign period conduct and statements President Trump wished to conceal?

    Could efforts to conceal such campaign period conduct and statements from the government satisfy the standard for obstruction of justice, regardless of whether the conduct and statements at issue were criminal in and of themselves?

Paul Manafort’s failure to cooperate.

  • Your report noted that President Trump and his lawyers made public and private comments to his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, which encouraged Manafort not to “break” or “flip,” and “suggested that a pardon was a more likely possibility if Manafort continued not to cooperate with the government.” You found that President Trump “intended to encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government.” [Vol. II, pp. 123-24, 126, 131-32]. To what degree did Manafort’s failure to cooperate impede your Office’s efforts to determine his involvement in the conduct described in Volume I of your report?

    For example, did Manafort’s failure to cooperate prevent you from learning the purpose of his interactions with Kilimnik?

President Trump’s orders to White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire the Special Counsel.

  • Your report found former White House Counsel Don McGahn to be “a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate.” [Vol. II, p. 88]. Please explain the basis for this finding.

    Your investigation found “substantial evidence” that the President ordered McGahn to fire the Special Counsel in June 2017 in response to reports that the Special Counsel had opened an obstruction investigation into [the President’s] conduct. [Vol. II, pp. 88-90]. However, Attorney General Barr told the Judiciary Committee that “the government would not be able to establish [that this incident constituted] obstruction” because “there’s no question that . . . whatever instruction was given McGahn had to do with . . . Mueller’s conflict of interest.” Please clarify whether your investigation concluded that the President ordered McGahn to fire the Special Counsel because of the President’s concerns about conflicts of interest, or because of his concerns about the ongoing obstruction of justice investigation.

    Did your Office assess whether the President had any credible reason to be concerned about your purported conflicts of interest? If so, what did you conclude?

President Trump’s orders to White House Counsel Don McGahn to create a statement denying that he had been ordered to fire the Special Counsel.

  • In January 2018, President Trump ordered McGahn to create a record denying that the President had ordered him to fire the Special Counsel. Your report notes that “the evidence indicates that the President knew by the time [that he ordered McGahn to dispute press reports about the firing incident] that McGahn’s account differed and that McGahn was firm in his views. . . . The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.” [Vol. II, pp. 118-19]. Under this analysis, even if the President did not actually recall having ordered McGahn to fire you, would his efforts to force McGahn to alter testimony that McGahn “firmly” believed to be true still qualify as an “obstructive act”?

    Attorney General Barr stated that this episode could not qualify as obstruction because McGahn had already testified to your Office by the time it took place, and therefore it would be difficult to establish a nexus to a pending proceeding. However, your report states that “it was foreseeable that [McGahn] would be interviewed again on obstruction-related topics.” [Vol. II, p. 119]. Upon what evidence did you base this conclusion?

    To what extent was the delay between the press reports being released and the President asking McGahn to draft a letter disputing the reports “for our records” relevant to your analysis of the nexus element for this episode? How did it inform your assessment of whether the President intended to impact an ongoing proceeding?

    If McGahn had followed the President’s orders and drafted a statement denying press reports that he had been directed to fire the Special Counsel, would that have been false evidence?
President Trump’s directive to Corey Lewandowski to order Attorney General Sessions to curtail the Special Counsel investigation.
  • Your report describes a June 2017 incident in which the President ordered his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to contact Attorney General Sessions and direct Sessions to give a speech announcing that, among other things, he would meet with the Special Counsel to “limit his jurisdiction to future election interference.” [Vol. II, pp. 90-91]. Attorney General Barr told the Judiciary Committee that “most of the obstruction claims” described in Volume II of your report “involve the exercise of the president’s constitutional authority.” Lewandowski was a private citizen when he received this directive from President Trump. Did your Office assess whether issuing an order to someone who is not an Executive Branch employee qualifies as a constitutionally protected act? If not, why not? If so, what did you conclude?
It's a start.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13630
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Zarathud » Thu May 09, 2019 1:00 pm

The Mueller Report was a referral to Congress to evaluate whether there were impeachable offenses as the political remedy to Presidential misconduct under the Constitution. Stonewalling Congress proves the charge of obstruction, and is impeachable by itself.

The Democrats need to be clear on this.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 14093
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by pr0ner » Thu May 09, 2019 1:01 pm

Holman wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 12:44 pm
Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committee have sent a letter to Chairman Lindsey Graham requesting that Mueller testify. The letter includes loooong list if questions unanswered by the Mueller Report:
Judiciary Committee, not Intelligence Committee.

The Intelligence Committee is chaired by Richard Burr, with Mark Warner as the ranking member. They're the ones who just subpoenaed Don Jr. about Russia.
Hodor.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40365
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GreenGoo » Thu May 09, 2019 2:31 pm

I thought the Don Jr. subpoena was about a safari thing?

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40365
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GreenGoo » Thu May 09, 2019 2:50 pm

Kurth wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:23 am
I think you are missing the point(s). This plays out in one of two ways as far as Insee it:
I don't think I am, but here's some follow up.

My comment was specifically because Drumpf retweeted about how 50% of Americans don't pay taxes. I interpreted (there are other ways of interpreting it, sure) that as him (potentially) saying "see, it's totally normal", and assuming his tax returns show that he hasn't paid any in years. Complete speculation. But if I'm right, I think he thinks Americans will care. They don't. As you yourself point out, paying taxes is a hate/hate thing with Americans. They do *not* want to pay taxes, and lot of Americans would rather people starve, have no health care and drive on rutted dirt paths instead of paying taxes (I don't think this is rhetoric. Taxes seem to be the ultimate evil for many Americans).

As a Canadian, I can only pay attention and learn how Americans view things. I have been paying attention and I do believe I am learning. That said, that's how I learn how my fellow Canadians view things as well. It's probably how Americans learn how their fellow Americans view things. It's sort of the main tool we've got, whatever our nationality.

It has not been my experience that Americans give 2 s**ts about whether someone pays their taxes or not. We have had repeated talking points spewed by multiple talking heads (even before drumpf) discussing the smart business acumen of paying as little taxes as possible. We could quibble about whether that same attitude applies to illegal methods of avoiding taxes, but I think it's clear that most people view legally paying as little tax as possible is a good thing. Hell, I think paying as little tax as possible as both positive and smart. Why would anyone *want* to pay more tax than is legally necessary? That's not the same thing as opposing tax increases to pay for necessary services though, which is where Dems and GOP differ, it seems.
Kurth wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:23 am
We generally do not like it. Not one bit. And even more than not liking paying our taxes, we do not like when others are seen to be getting away with not paying theirs.
See, I think the last bit here is complete nonsense. Particularly that it is viewed as worse than the taxes themselves. I mean, maybe, but as an outsider looking in, that just does not stand out as even on the same order of magnitude as the taxes themselves.
Kurth wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 10:23 am
(2) If Trump’s returns are produced and it turns out he never made much money in the first place but instead was a big loser and grifter, that will eviscerate his reason for being and cut out the heart of his brand.

I think (2) is more likely and also more of a significant threat to Trump. I also think that’s why he will burn things down before allowing those returns to see the light of day.
I am on record from the beginning (like, at least the last 2 years) that this is the main area of concern for him. My comments regarding lack of tax paying were specific to the retweet of his on the subject, not as to what I personally think is the issue.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 18782
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Pyperkub » Thu May 09, 2019 2:52 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 2:59 am
You forget that he's a sexist egotistical lying hypocritical bigot. He will do anything to protect his ego. Plus, it won't be that he didn't pay taxes, it will be that he lied on then and to all his bankers, investors and insurers, which is also felony fraud, abs his house of debt will collapse on him.
Oh, and I forgot to add that if he's using his Presidential powers to hide crimes in those tax returns, Obstruction of Justice also applies.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 14093
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by pr0ner » Thu May 09, 2019 3:01 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 2:31 pm
I thought the Don Jr. subpoena was about a safari thing?
You took those responses seriously and didn't do research for yourself into what it's really about?! Oy.
Hodor.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 20683
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Holman » Thu May 09, 2019 3:43 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 1:01 pm
Holman wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 12:44 pm
Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committee have sent a letter to Chairman Lindsey Graham requesting that Mueller testify. The letter includes loooong list if questions unanswered by the Mueller Report:
Judiciary Committee, not Intelligence Committee.

The Intelligence Committee is chaired by Richard Burr, with Mark Warner as the ranking member. They're the ones who just subpoenaed Don Jr. about Russia.
Yeah, sorry. I meant to come in and correct that.

And of course Graham won't do anything. But these questions will be asked in the House.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40365
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GreenGoo » Thu May 09, 2019 4:46 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 3:01 pm
You took those responses seriously and didn't do research for yourself into what it's really about?! Oy.
Yeah, no. I'm so motivated that I'm going to immediately rectify the situation.

No, really.

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 14093
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by pr0ner » Thu May 09, 2019 4:50 pm

:roll:
Hodor.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40365
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GreenGoo » Thu May 09, 2019 5:52 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 4:50 pm
:roll:
Lol, you're a little loose with those eyes, my friend.

GungHo
Posts: 3678
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:15 am
Location: Second star to the right

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GungHo » Fri May 10, 2019 3:46 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 4:46 pm
pr0ner wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 3:01 pm
You took those responses seriously and didn't do research for yourself into what it's really about?! Oy.
Yeah, no. I'm so motivated that I'm going to immediately rectify the situation.

No, really.
The sad / funny part is 'who the hell knows what its about'. Could be something legitimate or it could be a (R) sponsored attempt at minimizing the gravitas of the whole thing and they do end up asking Donnie boy about a safari(and importantly noting if he wore a pith style hat while killing endangered animals).
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.

-Hiccup

User avatar
msteelers
Posts: 6118
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by msteelers » Fri May 10, 2019 7:34 am

Considering 6 other Republican Senators have strongly come out against this, I doubt its some light hearted PR ploy.

I also don’t think that Jr is any serious trouble. He’s acting like he isn’t going to show up, which would be interesting.

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 14093
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by pr0ner » Fri May 10, 2019 7:38 am

Or we've all forgotten that the Senate Intelligence Committee has been conducting its own, bipartisan Russia probe separate from Mueller since 2017, a probe which isn't over yet, and the Trump, Jr. subpoena is actually part of that? The simplest explanation is the most likely the truth.
Hodor.

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39205
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Smoove_B » Fri May 10, 2019 9:25 am

pr0ner wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 7:38 am
The simplest explanation is the most likely the truth.
That he's being subpoenaed to get an award? I agree. :lol:

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 14093
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by pr0ner » Fri May 10, 2019 9:28 am

Smoove_B wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 9:25 am
pr0ner wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 7:38 am
The simplest explanation is the most likely the truth.
That he's being subpoenaed to get an award? I agree. :lol:
:lol: :lol:
Hodor.

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39205
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Smoove_B » Fri May 10, 2019 11:39 am

Trump sends Giuliani to Ukraine to push for investigations that will benefit Trump. Totally serious....this is happening, because nothing matters.
Mr. Giuliani said he plans to travel to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in the coming days and wants to meet with the nation’s president-elect to urge him to pursue inquiries that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about two matters of intense interest to Mr. Trump.

One is the origin of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The other is the involvement of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son in a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.

Mr. Giuliani’s plans create the remarkable scene of a lawyer for the president of the United States pressing a foreign government to pursue investigations that Mr. Trump’s allies hope could help him in his re-election campaign. And it comes after Mr. Trump spent more than half of his term facing questions about whether his 2016 campaign conspired with a foreign power.

Post Reply