The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Defiant]

In retrospect, there were signs that Kushner was going to be trouble.

[El Guapo]

Comey expected to testify before Senate next week; possible executive privilege issue.

Nigel Farage is a 'person of interest' in FBI Russia investigation.

[malchior]

I'd love for the WH to try to pull Executive privilege and Comey to just say, "I'm not an employee anymore *and* you already talked about it publicly fucknuts."

[RunningMn9]

I always believed that Executive Privilege was something that was used to give cover for people that didn't want to testify before Congress. Can it be used to prevent someone that wants to testify before Congress?

[El Guapo]

I always believed that Executive Privilege was something that was used to give cover for people that didn't want to testify before Congress. Can it be used to prevent someone that wants to testify before Congress?

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that sometimes, yes. Privileges that allow you to keep someone else from voluntarily testifying are rare, but they exist. The Attorney-Client privilege is the clearest example. If I hire an attorney and tell them my sundry misdeeds to get legal advice, that lawyer can't turn around and tell investigators. I can affirmatively block that (even if I have fired my attorney, with regards to things I tell them before I fire them).

I believe that courts have given similar treatment to executive privilege in some circumstances. But without being an expert in this, the obvious problems with Trump asserting it here would seem to be that: (1) that Trump has publicly talked about his private conversations with Comey (at least in the attorney-client privilege context, you can't disclose only the parts of the privileged materials that you want); and (2) while the FBI Director is in the executive branch, he's not really the president's confidential advisor in a way that's comparable to the relationship between an attorney and a client.

[pr0ner]

SIGN ME UP FOR THIS!

[hepcat]

Trump and twitter is like watching an inebriated monkey with a loaded handgun.

[Smoove_B]

How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?

"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."

"Don't tell me what to do!"

[El Guapo]

How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?

"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."

"Don't tell me what to do!"

Reportedly four prominent law firms so far have turned down representing Trump on Russia issues, for fear that he won't listen and won't pay.

[Paingod]

How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?

"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."

"Don't tell me what to do!"

"That'll be $450"

Reportedly four prominent law firms so far have turned down representing Trump on Russia issues, for fear that he won't listen and won't pay.

FTFBOY

[El Guapo]

How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?

"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."

"Don't tell me what to do!"

"That'll be $450"

Reportedly four prominent law firms so far have turned down representing Trump on Russia issues, for fear that he won't listen and won't pay.

FTFBOY

I take your point, but I wouldn't dismiss the "won't listen" part. Any reputable firm that takes on Trump and Russia will take an immediate reputational hit with many of their clients and lawyers (good luck staffing a matter like that). On top of that you would have an issue with god knows what you and your lawyers will learn, which may create ethical issues and (more problematic for the firm) may well lead one or more lawyers to leak to the press, for which Trump could try to come down hard on the firm itself (and, you know, refuse to pay).

On top of *that*, now the firm will own whatever Trump says on Russia to a large degree, which could further hurt its reputation. And since Trump has a history of disregarding advice and doing whatever the hell he wants, the firm is taking on a risk to its reputation that it can't realistically control or define.

So the "won't pay" part is important, but there's a lot more too.

[Pyperkub]

I always believed that Executive Privilege was something that was used to give cover for people that didn't want to testify before Congress. Can it be used to prevent someone that wants to testify before Congress?

It's actually so that the President can solicit honest opinions without the opiner having to worry about being sued/slandered/having them end up in the public record.

It has been used (abused) as you state, but that's not why it's there.

[Holman]

How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?

"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."

"Don't tell me what to do!"

Reportedly four prominent law firms so far have turned down representing Trump on Russia issues, for fear that he won't listen and won't pay.

Another part of it, per that Isikoff article making the rounds, is that firms' other clients have already been touched by the investigation.

Others mentioned potential conflicts with clients of their firms, such as financial institutions that have already received subpoenas relating to potential money-laundering issues that are part of the investigation.

This is more confirmation that things are not limited to collusion around the election but have extended to include Trump and his associates' long-term financial dealings.

[El Guapo]

How on earth is there a single lawyer on his payroll? Do they just take an allowance and shrug their shoulders?

"Stop talking. Stop posting things on Twitter."

"Don't tell me what to do!"

Reportedly four prominent law firms so far have turned down representing Trump on Russia issues, for fear that he won't listen and won't pay.

Another part of it, per that Isikoff article making the rounds, is that firms' other clients have already been touched by the investigation.

Others mentioned potential conflicts with clients of their firms, such as financial institutions that have already received subpoenas relating to potential money-laundering issues that are part of the investigation.

This is more confirmation that things are not limited to collusion around the election but have extended to include Trump and his associates' long-term financial dealings.

Financial crimes charges seem like the most plausible indictments. Treason and the like, even if one assumes the worst, seems like it would be incredibly difficult to prove. Whereas Trump's circle has been dealing with shady characters for awhile now, and the odds that they were scrupulously following the law in their dealings seems remote.

[Zarathud]

I would be happy with Trump getting impeached over financial crimes. It would drive home the Republican Party's kleptocracy.

[malchior]

I'm watching the Coats/Rogers hearing and there are some hints from their very terse and crafted responses that there is a lot going on. Unfortunately it looks like we aka the subjects of Emperor Trump aren't going to get any answers via this process.

[El Guapo]

Christopher Wray mostly seems like one of the best possible choices - he seems qualified and pretty well regarded, at least in his public service.

My main concern is just that since Trump fired Comey due to insufficient personal loyalty and unwillingness to kill the Russia investigation, I would assume that Trump would only consider candidates who were willing to pledge loyalty and to kill the Russia investigation.

[ImLawBoy]

Christopher Wray mostly seems like one of the best possible choices - he seems qualified and pretty well regarded, at least in his public service.

My main concern is just that since Trump fired Comey due to insufficient personal loyalty and unwillingness to kill the Russia investigation, I would assume that Trump would only consider candidates who were willing to pledge loyalty and to kill the Russia investigation.

I tend to agree here. I haven't really delved into it, but on its surface this seems like a perfectly cromulent pick. I do also share concerns about what Wray might have agreed to with Trump. My hope is that with Trump's reasonable choices dwindling, Wray was able to avoid having to pledge personal loyalty and convince Trump of the lunacy of killing the Russia investigation at this point. That doesn't sound very Trump, though.

Also, absent some specific shadiness (and I haven't read Smoove's link yet), I'm not worried about the mega-firm from which Wray comes having offices and business in Russia.

[malchior]

My personal concern with Wray is his association with Chris Christie. A crony of a crony is transitively a crony even if that first level crony was spurned.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I would hope (but I doubt) that anyone Trump appointed to head the FBI would recuse themselves from any decisions about the Russia investigation. Seems like there's an inherent conflict of interest there.

[gilraen]

Christopher Wray mostly seems like one of the best possible choices - he seems qualified and pretty well regarded, at least in his public service.

My main concern is just that since Trump fired Comey due to insufficient personal loyalty and unwillingness to kill the Russia investigation, I would assume that Trump would only consider candidates who were willing to pledge loyalty and to kill the Russia investigation.

Trump at this point will consider anyone who agrees to take the job (being qualified for the job is a bonus but not required). We should start taking bets on when Wray is either fired or resigns.

[El Guapo]

Christopher Wray mostly seems like one of the best possible choices - he seems qualified and pretty well regarded, at least in his public service.

My main concern is just that since Trump fired Comey due to insufficient personal loyalty and unwillingness to kill the Russia investigation, I would assume that Trump would only consider candidates who were willing to pledge loyalty and to kill the Russia investigation.

I tend to agree here. I haven't really delved into it, but on its surface this seems like a perfectly cromulent pick. I do also share concerns about what Wray might have agreed to with Trump. My hope is that with Trump's reasonable choices dwindling, Wray was able to avoid having to pledge personal loyalty and convince Trump of the lunacy of killing the Russia investigation at this point. That doesn't sound very Trump, though.

Also, absent some specific shadiness (and I haven't read Smoove's link yet), I'm not worried about the mega-firm from which Wray comes having offices and business in Russia.

The best case scenario here is that Trump fucked up. I don't want to count on that, but it's possible, especially since Trump tends to do that.

[Rip]

I'm watching the Coats/Rogers hearing and there are some hints from their very terse and crafted responses that there is a lot going on. Unfortunately it looks like we aka the subjects of Emperor Trump aren't going to get any answers via this process.

If they don't give the answers you want there has to be something amiss?

You can't get much more direct than this.

“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything that I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my collection … I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” Rogers told Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the Senate panel.

“Did the president … ask you in any way, shape or form to back off or downplay the Russia investigation?” Warner asked.

Rogers said that he would not discuss specifics of conversations he had with Trump, but added: “I stand by the comment I just made, sir.”

“In my time of service … I have never been pressured, I have never felt pressure, to intervene or interfere in any way, with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation,” Coats testified Wednesday.

[hepcat]

Now, let's hear from people Trump actually talked to.

[malchior]

If they don't give the answers you want there has to be something amiss?

No I take that from them saying they wouldn't answer unclassified questions about an unclassified matter without going private. That negates that it is about keeping private conversation with the President confidential. The direct question asked was whether the President directed them to intervene on the Russia investigations. Would that be de facto not illegal? And thus make their statements about illegal orders accurate? Maybe but it sure is a political and potentially legal problem for the President himself.

Note: An interesting theory I just saw is that they aren't protecting the President but the Special Counsel investigation. That seems a bit too hopeful for my tastes in this hopeless time.

[Zarathud]

Not directed. Leaves some room for interpretation. Asked? Suggested?

Trump doesn't have to ask all of them, just some.

[Combustible Lemur]

I would hope (but I doubt) that anyone Trump appointed to head the FBI would recuse themselves from any decisions about the Russia investigation. Seems like there's an inherent conflict of interest there.

Like Jeff Sessions did?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Defiant]

Senator King: What is the legal basis for your refusal to testify to this committee?
DNI Coats: "I'm not sure I have a legal basis."

[malchior]

That exchange was very painful but I'm glad it happened. They better have a very good reason or it appears they may be acting in a lawless fashion.

[Paingod]

It sounded as though the White House legal counsel basically told them to shut up, but expressly said "Don't you dare call this Executive Privilege" ... if I'm not mistaken ... with with one of them going so far as to mutter that he couldn't talk about Executive Privilege because of Executive Privilege.

[Combustible Lemur]

That exchange was very painful but I'm glad it happened. They better have a very good reason or it appears they may be acting in a lawless fashion.

None of those guys are trump appointees right? It seems most likely that those conversations are now involved in the myriad criminal investigation of the broad nebulous abyss that is the campaign, administration, and individual persons associated with the former, that may or may not be overlapping and coordinating with the special investigation.

But yeah, I agree that it's one of those conversations that needs to happen publicly.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Captain Caveman]

Comey's opening statement tomorrow has it all. link

Basically, all the reports from before about Trump pressuring Comey to back off the investigation are accurate (though more details are provided here) but so too is Trump's claim that Comey told him that he personally wasn't the target of the investigation. At least Trump will have that to console him, but the obstruction of justice here is just so damning.

[noxiousdog]

Comey's opening statement tomorrow has it all. link

Basically, all the reports from before about Trump pressuring Comey to back off the investigation are accurate (though more details are provided here) but so too is Trump's claim that Comey told him that he personally wasn't the target of the investigation. At least Trump will have that to console him, but the obstruction of justice here is just so damning.

WTH?

On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He
described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act
on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been
involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded
when in Russia.

He's insane.

[Captain Caveman]

The ominous ending of the opening statement:

He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.”

It's not made explicit, but "that thing" is almost certainly about Clinton. He seems to be acknowledging that Comey's actions aided him in the election. It's Trump's mob boss-like way of saying, "We're in this together", and notably when he fired Comey just a short time later, he used the Clinton stuff against him as a rationale for the firing.

[LordMortis]

He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.
That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.

That really sums up the mafia syndicate nature of the DJT administration in whole, doesn't it?

[Octavious]

Honestly I don't see this changing anything. Nothing will be done about it, he will write some insane comment on Twitter, everyone will comment on it and then same old same old. I'm burnt out even trying to care at this point.

[El Guapo]

Comey's opening statement tomorrow has it all. link

Basically, all the reports from before about Trump pressuring Comey to back off the investigation are accurate (though more details are provided here) but so too is Trump's claim that Comey told him that he personally wasn't the target of the investigation. At least Trump will have that to console him, but the obstruction of justice here is just so damning.

WTH?

On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He
described the Russia investigation as “a cloud” that was impairing his ability to act
on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been
involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded
when in Russia.

He's insane.

I assume the hooker thing is a reference to the allegations in the Steele dossier, among them of course the allegation that Trump had watched hookers pee on each other in Russia (or something like that), and that because of that and other things Putin might have blackmail on Trump. So it's a little less random than something like that would normally be.

Though it's interesting that Trump was focused on that.

[$iljanus]

He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.” I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.
That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.

That really sums up the mafia syndicate nature of the DJT administration in whole, doesn't it?

In my head I can hear Donald "Thumbs" Trump saying all that in a Italian mobster's voice.

[Octavious]

Don't have time to read through it myself, but does it say that he told Trump he's not under investigation? That would tick me off it's true he told him that. I see that's what Fox News is implying.

[El Guapo]

The ominous ending of the opening statement:

He said he would do that and added, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” I did not reply or ask him what he meant by “that thing.”

It's not made explicit, but "that thing" is almost certainly about Clinton. He seems to be acknowledging that Comey's actions aided him in the election. It's Trump's mob boss-like way of saying, "We're in this together", and notably when he fired Comey just a short time later, he used the Clinton stuff against him as a rationale for the firing.

Makes me wonder if Trump thought that Comey sent the letter leading up to the election with the explicit intention of helping elect Trump, and that because of that he assumed that Comey was on his side. Wouldn't be the craziest conclusion.

The other plausible option is that by "that thing" he's referring to the dinner that Trump and Comey had together on January 6th, discussed at the top of the testimony. That's where Trump asked for Comey's loyalty, and Comey pushed back, ultimately agreeing to "honest loyalty". If Trump took Comey's agreement to that as a pledge of loyalty to Trump (which would help explain why Trump didn't replace Comey at the start of his presidency), it's possible that what Trump was saying there was essentially, "look, you gave me your loyalty. I've been loyal to you, but you have not been loyal to me, despite our agreement."