Octopus Overlords

Captain Caveman wrote:
Are these people stupid?

Smoove_B wrote:It can't be a coincidence that the NYT and Washington Post stories broke as Trump is leaving the country.

Also, check the date on this memo, courtesy of the Daily Kos regarding Mike Pence's story from yesterday that he really, really, really had no idea. Read receipt for memo is here. I mean, it's not a certified letter, but it'll do.

Defiant wrote:

hepcat wrote:Half the time I think he's just quoting old gangster movies.

To be fair, that worked great in Home Alone

Speaking of which

gilraen wrote:James Comey is now set to testify next month in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an open hearing.

Max Peck wrote:Because none of this is yet sufficiently complicated...

Justice Dept. to review possible ethics conflicts involving Mueller’s former law firm

Newly appointed special counsel Robert S. Mueller III will undergo a Justice Department ethics review that will examine possible conflicts of interest regarding his former law firm, which represents several figures who could be caught up in the probe into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election.

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said Thursday that the agency will conduct a background investigation and detailed review of conflict-of-interest issues, a process outlined in the regulation governing special counsels under which he was appointed.

For the past three years, Mueller has been a partner in the Washington office of WilmerHale, whose attorneys represent former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law.

Federal regulations prohibit officials from participating in matters involving their former employers for two years after joining the government unless they receive a waiver to do so.

Still, Green noted, granting such a waiver could later prove politically risky.

“At the end of the day, if he says, ‘I didn’t find anything here,’ are members of the public going to say, ‘We don’t trust that because we think you favored these individuals because they are your former firm’s clients?’ ”

I'm sure that the anti-Trumpers will be just fine with that outcome.

The Trump administration is exploring whether it can use an obscure ethics rule to undermine the special counsel investigation into ties between President Donald Trump's campaign team and Russia, two people familiar with White House thinking said on Friday.

Trump has said that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's hiring of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation "hurts our country terribly."

Within hours of Mueller's appointment on Wednesday, the White House began reviewing the Code of Federal Regulations, which restricts newly hired government lawyers from investigating their prior law firm’s clients for one year after their hiring, the sources said.

An executive order signed by Trump in January extended that period to two years.

Mueller's former law firm, WilmerHale, represents Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who met with a Russian bank executive in December, and the president's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who is a subject of a federal investigation.

Legal experts said the ethics rule can be waived by the Justice Department, which appointed Mueller. He did not represent Kushner or Manafort directly at his former law firm.

If the department did not grant a waiver, Mueller would be barred from investigating Kushner or Manafort, and this could greatly diminish the scope of the probe, experts said.

The Justice Department is already reviewing Mueller's background as well as any potential conflicts of interest, said department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores.

Even if the Justice Department granted a waiver, the White House would consider using the ethics rule to create doubt about Mueller's ability to do his job fairly, the sources said. Administration legal advisers have been asked to determine if there is a basis for this.

Under this strategy, the sources said the administration would raise the issue in press conferences and public statements.

Moreover, the White House has not ruled out the possibility of using the rule to challenge Mueller’s findings in court, should the investigation lead to prosecution.

Smoove_B wrote:It can't be a coincidence that the NYT and Washington Post stories broke as Trump is leaving the country.

YellowKing wrote:There once was a man named Comey
Donald thought was his number one homie
Trump's advances Jim spurned,
And was fired in turn,
But he said "I've got memos, so blow me."

YellowKing wrote:There once was a man named Comey
Donald thought was his number one homie
Trump's advances Jim spurned,
And was fired in turn,
But he said "I've got memos, so blow me."

Sources further say that the Supreme Court notified Mr. Trump that the formal process of a case of impeachment against him was begun, before he departed the country on Air Force One. The notification was given, as part of the formal process of the matter, in order that Mr. Trump knew he was not able to use his powers of pardon against other suspects in Trump-Russia cases. Sources have confirmed that the Marshal of the Supreme Court spoke to Mr. Trump.

El Guapo wrote:It doesn't matter all that much who Trump picks for FBI Director. He fired Comey because he wouldn't swear loyalty or shut down the Russia investigation. So by definition anyone Trump picks is someone who will have satisfied both conditions for Trump.

Former FBI official Richard McFeely has withdrawn his name from consideration to become FBI director, sources close to the decision-making process have confirmed to ABC7 News.

McFeely was among four on the shortlist of candidates who met with President Donald Trump earlier this week.

According to our sources, McFeely informed the White House of his decision Saturday, citing family considerations.

The remaining three potential candidates include Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, a Republican; and Andrew McCabe, currently the bureau's acting director.

RunningMn9 wrote:That seems preposterous.

Max Peck wrote:At this point, I'm wondering if it will be possible to get a legitimately qualified person to take the job.

Rip wrote:

Moliere wrote:

Max Peck wrote:At this point, I'm wondering if it will be possible to get a legitimately qualified person to take the job.

Ben Carson. I hear he's quite the neurosurgeon, which makes him qualified for any government job.

The Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Flynn's personal documents on May 10 after the former national security adviser declined to cooperate with their original April 28 request in relation to the panel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and its possible ties to Trump associates.

Prior to the April request, Flynn said through a statement from his lawyer that he wouldn't submit himself to questioning from the committee "without assurances against unfair prosecution."

gilraen wrote:Flynn pleading the 5th, refusing to honor Senate subpoena

The Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Flynn's personal documents on May 10 after the former national security adviser declined to cooperate with their original April 28 request in relation to the panel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and its possible ties to Trump associates.

Prior to the April request, Flynn said through a statement from his lawyer that he wouldn't submit himself to questioning from the committee "without assurances against unfair prosecution."

Trump 6 months ago: “If you're not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?”

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:So the Senate can't compel Flynn to turn over those documents, but the special prosecutor can, right?

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Ah - I didn't realize that by pleading the 5th you could also refuse to hand over relevant documents. The law degree I got from watching TV courtroom dramas (LA Law for life!) only focused on people pleading the 5th when actively testifying in court.

The Supreme Court has, since 1976, applied the so-called “act-of-production doctrine.” Under this doctrine, a person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself.