The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:34 am

back to the topic of this thread reasons to Impeach the president .....and not trump's side show he is
championing ..this thread will not become an off topic side show ...if the side show continues I will ask a mod to intervene not to ban anyone from my thread but to keep it on topic. I have the right just like everyone else here to keep an OP on topic

if there are reasons NOT to impeach trump....go for it


there is a Democratic Party OP

there is two Biden OPs

and there is a Bernie OP


POLITICO

Lawyers for the House of Representatives said they have reason to believe that grand-jury redactions in the Mueller report show President Donald Trump lied about his knowledge of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks


CONGRESS
Trump may have lied to Mueller, House Democrats say
Dems believe the special counsel's grand-jury materials could aid their Ukraine investigation, according to a court filing.
By ANDREW DESIDERIO 09/30/2019 08:01 PM EDT Updated 09/30/2019 11:02 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Lawyers for the House of Representatives revealed on Monday that they have reason to believe that the grand-jury redactions in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report show that President Donald Trump lied about his knowledge of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks.

The attorneys made the stunning suggestion in a court filing as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s bid for Mueller’s grand-jury materials, which have remained secret by law.


“Not only could those materials demonstrate the president’s motives for obstructing the special counsel’s investigation, they also could reveal that Trump was aware of his campaign’s contacts with WikiLeaks,” the lawyers wrote in the filing, which was in response to the Justice Department’s opposition to the disclosure of the grand-jury information.

To back up their claim, the House’s legal team — led by House General Counsel Douglas Letter — cited a passage in Mueller’s report about former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s testimony that he “recalled” Trump asking to be kept “updated” about WikiLeaks’ disclosures of Democratic National Committee emails. There is a grand-jury redaction in that passage, the lawyers note.

“The text redacted ... and any underlying evidence to which it may point are critical to the committee’s investigation,” they wrote.

“Those materials therefore have direct bearing on whether the president was untruthful, and further obstructed the special counsel’s investigation, when in providing written responses to the special counsel’s questions he denied being aware of any communications between his campaign and WikiLeaks,” they added.

In a text message to POLITICO, Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal attorney, said the suggestion that Trump lied to Mueller’s investigators is “absurd.”

The White House, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Monday’s filing also referenced the most recent scandal engulfing the Trump White House — the president’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden — which caused Speaker Nancy Pelosi to formalize an impeachment inquiry. Letter, the House general counsel, and his deputies argued that Mueller’s grand-jury evidence could also be useful for the House’s ongoing Ukraine probe.

“Those events may also be relevant to the House’s investigation of the president’s solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election,” the lawyers wrote, referencing Trump’s efforts to curtail the Mueller probe.

More specifically, they said Mueller’s grand-jury materials “would further” the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Trump’s alleged attempts to pressure Ukraine to prosecute individuals who testified against Manafort.

The House lawyers also argued in Monday’s filing that the Justice Department has no grounds to determine whether the House is engaged in an impeachment inquiry, which is the House’s central claim to Mueller’s grand jury files.

“Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, and the authority the Constitution vests in the House alone to structure its proceedings, that power is not DOJ’s for the taking,” the lawyers wrote, adding a reference to Pelosi’s pronouncement last week that the House was launching an “official impeachment inquiry.”

In its previous filing, the Justice Department seized on House Democrats’ lack of a consistent message on impeachment, which came amid divisions among party leaders over whether to pursue the president's removal based on Mueller’s evidence that Trump sought to obstruct the investigation.

Mueller did not reach an official conclusion as to whether the president obstructed justice, however, and Attorney General William Barr, along with his then-deputy Rod Rosenstein, concluded that the evidence Mueller‘s team assembled “is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

But in the wake of new revelations about Trump’s efforts to pressure Zelensky, House Democrats have adopted a unified front in favor of an official impeachment inquiry.

http://bit.ly/2n4Ewb3




"In a text message to POLITICO, Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal attorney, said the suggestion that Trump lied to Mueller’s investigators is 'absurd.'"

Absurd. To think that a man who's lied over 10,000 times to America as POTUS might lie to investigators. Absurd.


And now it’s possible dt has committed SEDITION with his Civil War tweet.


Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:07 am




Democrats subpoena 3 of Rudy's Ukrainian associates

Trump says he wants to meet whistleblower: 'I deserve to meet my accuser'
Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump on Sunday escalated his rebuke of the anonymous whistleblower at the center of the mounting Ukraine controversy after House Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry against him, asserting that he deserves to "meet my accuser."

"Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called 'Whistleblower,' represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way," Trump tweeted before taking aim at House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff who confirmed earlier Sunday there is a tentative agreement for the whistleblower to testify before his committee.
"His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason," Trump said.

Giuliani's journey to the center of Trump's impeachment battle started with a phone call in 2018
Lawyers for the whistleblower sent a letter to the acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire on Saturday outlining "serious" safety concerns for their client as Trump continues to take aim at the person.

"The purpose of this letter is to formally notify you of serious concerns we have regarding our client's personal safety," the letter says, adding that recent comments by Trump are reason for "heightened" concern.
"The events of the past week have heightened our concerns that our client's identity will be disclosed publicly and that, as a result, our client will be put in harm's way."

The letter also thanks Maguire's office for "support thus far to activate appropriate resources to ensure their safety." While the whistleblower's attorneys wouldn't elaborate on what those resources are, they strenuously denied their client is under federal protection as reported Sunday by CBS' "60 Minutes."

Mark Zaid, one of the whistleblower's lawyers, said in a statement given to CNN, "60 Minutes completely misinterpreted the contents of our letter." He had was not available for comment about Trump's Sunday tweets. The television program tweeted late Sunday that "60 Minutes stands by its sources and reporting on the whistleblower."

Trump's tweets come days after the release of the whistleblower complaint that alleges Trump abused his official powers "to solicit interference" from Ukraine in the upcoming 2020 election, and that the White House took steps to cover it up. Trump has denied any wrongdoing. A rough transcript released by the White House shows Trump repeatedly pushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, his potential 2020 political rival, and his son, Hunter Biden.
There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden.

Giuliani contradicts himself but says he'll testify if directed by Trump
Even before the whistleblower complaint was made available to lawmakers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Trump had betrayed his oath of office and announced this past week she was opening a formal impeachment inquiry into the President.
Trump on Sunday also echoed his previous attacks on the whistleblower and promised "Big Consequences" for anyone who assisted in providing the person information.
Poll: Majority of Americans say impeachment inquiry into Trump is necessary
"I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the 'Whistleblower,'" he said. "Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!"

Trump said last week that whoever provided the whistleblower with information about his call with Zelensky is "close to a spy," and said that in the old days spies were dealt with differently. The comment prompted three House chairmen -- including Schiff -- to call on the President to stop attacking the whistleblower.
Ukraine braces for growing fall-out from US political crisis
"The President's comments today constitute reprehensible witness intimidation and an attempt to obstruct Congress' impeachment inquiry. We condemn the President's attacks, and we invite our Republican counterparts to do the same because Congress must do all it can to protect this whistleblower, and all whistleblowers," they said. "Threats of violence from the leader of our country have a chilling effect on the entire whistleblower process, with grave consequences for our democracy and national security."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/29/politics ... 59PMVODtop


The most damaging witness against Trump is Trump
Eugene Robinson

Impeachment of a president is a deeply serious affair. Efforts by President Trump and his defenders to explain away his clear-as-day abuse of power are providing a bit of comic relief.

The problem for the president and his amen chorus is that the White House released a document proving Trump guilty of an impeachable act. In the official memorandum of a July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — at a time when Trump was unilaterally withholding $391 million in military aid for Ukraine, which Congress had approved — Zelensky expresses a desire to purchase U.S. antitank missiles. Trump replies: “I would like you to do us a favor though.”

Book him.

The “favor” includes firing up an investigation of Joe Biden, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Trump ignores U.S. national security interests and uses taxpayer funds as leverage to coerce a foreign leader into interfering in the 2020 election. For such conduct, he not only can be impeached but also must be impeached.

Those trying to somehow explain this away are reduced to playing dumb.

Some Republicans claim not to have found the time to read the rough transcript of the phone call, which is a mere five pages long. Others claim to have misread it: When Scott Pelley of “60 Minutes” read the above quote to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, McCarthy initially disputed that the president said the word “though,” which delivers a clear message: Zelensky will get his missiles if Trump gets his investigation.

When Pelley pressed the point, McCarthy hemmed and hawed about former president Barack Obama before complaining that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should not have opened an impeachment inquiry based on a phone call that “the speaker never even heard.” But of course she didn’t have to hear it. Trump himself publicly acknowledged asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden.

McCarthy finally settled on what is perhaps the lamest defense of all: The whistleblower whose complaint set all of this in motion “wasn’t on the call.”

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has lashed himself to the mast of Trump’s foundering ship, has gone all-in on this narrative. “This seems to me like a political setup. It’s all hearsay. You can’t get a parking ticket conviction based on hearsay. The whistleblower didn’t hear the phone call,” Graham said on “Face the Nation.”

If Graham, who has a law degree, were to read the whistleblower’s complaint — which is all of nine pages long — he would see there is no issue of hearsay whatsoever. The whistleblower says he or she was informed of the phone call’s content by “multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call.” That alone would not constitute admissible evidence in a court of law. But the White House released the transcript — which both confirms and supersedes the description of the call in the complaint. There is no need to rely on hearsay evidence when you have direct evidence — provided, in this case, by the defendant himself. Oops.

The contest for the most unhinged defense of the president comes down to Trump and his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. Narrowly, I give the nod to Trump.

Giuliani has been giving interviews in the persona of a shrieking banshee, waving sheaves of paper that he claims prove that Biden and his son Hunter Biden are somehow corrupt. “It is impossible that the whistleblower is a hero and I’m not,” he told the Atlantic. “And I will be the hero! These morons — when this is over, I will be the hero!”

Okay, that’s hard to top. Trump manages, though.

In dozens of tweets and retweets over the weekend, Trump convincingly proved just one thing: Those who worry this is a trap and he actually wants to be impeached can relax. No one could fake being so frantic.

Witness a representative tweet from Sunday evening: “I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the ‘Whistleblower.’ Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!”

Trump also roughly quoted evangelical Christian pastor Robert Jeffress as saying on Fox News: “If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” (The parenthetical is Trump’s.)

Endorsing armed insurrection constitutes grounds for impeachment. The most damaging witness against Trump, by far, is Trump himself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html


The Trump whistleblower is in "personal danger," says Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.
"As for the President's words, if that isn't intimidation of a witness, I don't know what would be," he adds, responding to Trump's "almost a spy" remark

https://twitter.com/AC360/status/1178841122065526786
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:08 pm

:D

Image


Image
David Enrich

NEW: The son of a dead @DeutscheBank executive — armed with hundreds of confidential bank files — has been secretly helping the FBI and the House Intelligence Committee investigate the bank and @realDonaldTrump.

Inside his father’s personal email accounts, Val Broeksmit discovered evidence of wrongdoing inside @DeutscheBank and about its deep connections to Russia (among many other things).

This is how FBI agents convinced Broeksmit to share the materials with them.

Early this year, @thelittleidiot heard about Val’s trove of files and connected him with @RepAdamSchiff. The @HouseIntel committee then subpoenaed Val this summer as part of its @realDonaldTrump-@DeutscheBank investigation.


Me and My Whistleblower

Deutsche Bank. North Korea. The Intelligence Committee’s investigation of the president. Again and again, one man has taken his trove of secret documents — and uncanny nose for scandal — to the center of the news.
Val Broeksmit in Los Angeles.CreditCreditOriana Koren for The New York Times
By David Enrich
Oct. 1, 2019Updated 6:09 a.m. ET

One sunny Wednesday in February, a gangly man in a sports jacket and a partly unbuttoned paisley shirt walked into the Los Angeles field office of the F.B.I. At the reception desk, he gave his name — Val Broeksmit — and began to pace anxiously in the lobby.
Mr. Broeksmit couldn’t believe he was voluntarily meeting with the F.B.I. An unemployed rock musician with a history of opioid abuse and credit card theft, not to mention a dalliance with North Korea-linked hackers, he was accustomed to shunning if not fearing law enforcement. But two investigators had flown from the bureau’s New York office specifically to speak with him, and Mr. Broeksmit had found their invitation too seductive to resist. Now the agents arrived in the lobby and escorted him upstairs.
They wanted to talk about Deutsche Bank — one of the world’s largest and most troubled financial institutions, and the bank of choice to the president of the United States. Mr. Broeksmit’s late father, Bill, had been a senior executive there, and his son possessed a cache of confidential bank documents that provided a tantalizing glimpse of its internal workings. Some of the documents were password-protected, and there was no telling what secrets they held or how explosive they could be.
Federal and state authorities were swarming around Deutsche Bank. Some of the scrutiny centered on the lender’s two-decade relationship with President Trump and his family. Other areas of focus grew out of Deutsche Bank’s long history of criminal misconduct: manipulating markets, evading taxes, bribing foreign officials, violating international sanctions, defrauding customers, laundering money for Russian billionaires.
In a windowless conference room, one of the agents pressed Mr. Broeksmit, 43, to hand over his files. “You’re holding documents that only people within the inner circle of Deutsche would ever see,” he said.
ImageThe United States headquarters of Deutsche Bank in New York.
The United States headquarters of Deutsche Bank in New York.CreditJeenah Moon for The New York Times
“Clearly, things went on in Deutsche Bank which weren’t kosher,” added the second agent. “What we’re up against is, all those bad acts are being pushed down on the little people on the bottom.”
“The low-hanging fruit,” said the first agent.
“And the larger bank in its entirety is claiming ignorance and that it’s one bad player,” said his partner. “But we know what we’ve seen. It’s a culture of just — ”
“Fraud and dirt,” Mr. Broeksmit interjected. Already, he was warming to the idea of having a cameo in a high-stakes F.B.I. investigation. He spent the next three hours vaping, munching on raspberry-flavored fig bars and telling his story, entranced by the idea of helping the investigators go after executives high up the Deutsche Bank food chain. (Deutsche Bank has said it is cooperating with authorities in a number of investigations.)
When he finally emerged from the Los Angeles field office, Mr. Broeksmit got into a Lyft and called me. His adrenaline, I could tell, was still pumping; he was talking so fast he had to stop to catch his breath.
“I am more emotionally invested in this than anyone in the world,” he said. “I would love to be their special informer.”
The next great American whistle-blower

Here’s the thing about whistle-blowers: They tend to be flawed messengers. Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden — each of them was dismissed as selfish, damaged, reckless and crazy. Yet all of them, regardless of motivation, used secret documents to change the course of history.
For more than five years, Val Broeksmit has been dangling his Deutsche Bank files in front of journalists and government investigators, dreaming of becoming the next great American whistle-blower. He wants to expose what he sees as corporate wrongdoing, give some meaning to his father’s death — and maybe get famous along the way. Inside newsrooms and investigative bodies around the world, Mr. Broeksmit’s documents have become something of an open secret, and so are the psychological strings that come attached. I pulled them more than anyone, as part of my reporting on Deutsche Bank for The New York Times and for a book, “Dark Towers,” to be published next year. It has been the most intense source relationship of my career.
An endless procession of bank executives and friends of the Broeksmit family have warned me that Mr. Broeksmit is not to be trusted, and, well, they might have a point. His drug use has sent him reeling between manias and stupors. He has a maddening habit of leaping to outrageous conclusions and then bending facts to fit far-fetched theories. He fantasizes about seeing his story told by Hollywood, and I sometimes wonder whether he’s manipulating me to achieve that ambition. He can be impatient, erratic and abusive. A few days ago, irate that he was not named in a blurb for my book on Amazon, among other perceived slights, he sent me a string of texts claiming that he’d taken out a brokerage account in my name and traded on secret information I’d supposedly fed him. (This is not true.) A little later, he left me a voice mail message saying it was all a joke.
Why do I put up with this? Because his trove of corporate emails, financial materials, boardroom presentations and legal reports is credible — even if he is not. (In this article, every detail not directly attributed to Mr. Broeksmit has been corroborated by documents, recordings or an independent source.) Besides, there’s something uncanny about how Mr. Broeksmit’s fearlessness and addiction to drama have led him, again and again, to the center of the news. In addition to Deutsche Bank’s troubles, he has figured into North Korea’s hack of Sony Pictures, the collapse of the world’s oldest bank and the House Intelligence Committee’s ongoing investigation into Mr. Trump.
We might wish our whistle-blowers were stoic, unimpeachable do-gooders. In reality, to let you in on a journalistic secret, they’re often more like Val Broeksmit.
Image
Val Broeksmit with his father at Wimbledon in 2013.CreditVal Broeksmit
‘Please don’t tell anyone where you’re getting this’

On a drizzly Sunday in London in January 2014, Bill Broeksmit cinched his dog’s red leash around his neck, slung it over a door and lunged forward. He was 58.
The elder Broeksmit was widely known as the unofficial conscience of Deutsche Bank and a longtime confidant of the company’s chief executive, and his death shocked the financial world. I was a reporter in The Wall Street Journal’s London bureau, and there were rumors that Mr. Broeksmit’s suicide was connected to his work — that he regretted what he’d seen and done. My colleagues and I divvied up the unpleasant task of contacting his family, and I got Val. He was easy to track down: His band, Bikini Robot Army, had a website with his email address.
When I reached him, he was in New York for his father’s funeral, and at first he asked me to leave his family alone. “Everyone is very sad and grieving right now,” he wrote. But before long he was on the phone — angry, slurring his speech, insisting without evidence that he knew why his father had killed himself and that it had nothing to do with Deutsche Bank. Over the next several months, we kept in sporadic touch as Mr. Broeksmit bounced between rehab facilities in Florida and California, trying to beat an opioid addiction and teasing me with provocative messages. (He is open about his struggles with substance abuse.) He would say things like “I think I know what happened” and then never follow up; once, apropos of nothing, he sent a picture of a San Francisco building on fire.
Finally, on a Tuesday in July 2014, he emailed me a single line: “Are you still looking into deutsche?”
The evening after his father died, Mr. Broeksmit had found the passwords to his email accounts. Now, he told me that he had discovered hundreds of messages related to Deutsche Bank. Mr. Broeksmit asked if I could help him sift through and decipher them, and I suggested a list of search terms: things like “subpoena” and “DOJ,” for the Department of Justice.
He soon forwarded an item with a number of those keywords. “Don’t know what it means,” he said. I started skimming: It was a detailed letter to Deutsche Bank from a senior official at the New York arm of the Federal Reserve, who was furious with the bank for its slipshod accounting. Trying to contain my excitement, I asked if I could write about the document. I braced for a negotiation, but all Mr. Broeksmit said was, “That’s cool. Please don’t tell anyone where you’re getting this info.” (He has since released me from that promise.)
Four days later, I published an article describing the Fed’s concerns. The bank’s shares fell 3 percent. Mr. Broeksmit told me he felt empowered by having dented Deutsche’s market value by more than $1 billion.
Val Broeksmit vs. David Boies

What makes a person crave the attention of journalists? Consider where Val Broeksmit comes from.
He was born in Ukraine in 1976, and his parents, Alla and Alexander, emigrated to Chicago three years later. Their marriage collapsed; Val and his father landed in a homeless shelter; and in 1982, Cook County took custody of the boy, placing the frightened 6-year-old in a foster home.
Meanwhile, Alla met and married Bill Broeksmit, who was then an up-and-coming banker. They moved to New Jersey and eventually extracted Val, then 9, from the foster care system. Bill adopted him — an angry, impulsive child with a strong anti-authority streak. A caseworker who visited the family noted that he insisted on calling his parents by their first names.
Val’s friends told me that he acted out through his boarding school and college years, compensating for what he described as his parents’ icy detachment. He was the guy trying to keep the party going with a little coke at 3 a.m., cajoling girls to make out with each other, stealing expensive gear from his college’s music department. (Mr. Broeksmit acknowledges all of this.) He wanted to be the center of attention, to prove that he mattered. That’s part of the reason he became a rocker — “It’s less lonely with an audience,” he once told me — but Bikini Robot Army never hit it big. When his father died and Mr. Broeksmit came into possession of his documents, he finally had an opportunity to make the world pay attention.
After his initial leak to me in the summer of 2014, Mr. Broeksmit started seeking out other big stories. Late that year, a group of North Korea-linked hackers, calling themselves the Guardians of Peace, penetrated the computer systems of Sony Pictures. When the hack became public, Mr. Broeksmit followed a bread crumb trail of links until he eventually came across an email address for the hackers.
“I’m interesting in joining your GOP, but I’m afraid my computer skills are sophomoric at best,” Mr. Broeksmit emailed the Guardians of Peace. (Typo his.) “If I can help in any other facility please let me know.” He doubted the hackers would reply, but an email soon arrived with a primer on how to access Sony’s stolen materials. As he waited for the hundreds of gigabytes to download, he sent another email. “Hey, you guys ever thought about going after Deutsche Bank?” he wrote. “Tons of evidence on their servers of worldwide fraud.” The hackers didn’t respond.
Mr. Broeksmit, leaning into his new persona as an exposer of corporate secrets, took to Twitter to post embarrassing Sony files: deliberations over who might direct a remake of “Cleopatra”; Brad Pitt freaking out about the edit of “Fury.” He wasn’t the only one airing Sony’s laundry, but his prolific postings set him apart.
Image
David Boies in New York in July. Mr. Boies was representing Sony when it demanded that Twitter shut down Val Broeksmit’s account.CreditCarlo Allegri/Reuters
David Boies — Sony’s attorney and arguably the most famous lawyer in America — sent Twitter a letter demanding that it shut down Mr. Broeksmit’s account. Another letter, from a Sony executive, warned Mr. Broeksmit that Sony would “hold you responsible for any damage or loss” stemming from the materials he had published. A few days before Christmas, a colleague and I published an article about the huge corporation and its powerful lawyer threatening this random musician.
For the first time, Mr. Broeksmit was in the public spotlight. Soon he was on the Fox Business channel. “It seems like somebody’s trying to make you the fall guy, doesn’t it, Mr. Broeksmit?” an anchor asked. The lesson was clear: The media had ravenous appetites for documents that exposed the guts of giant corporations. It even seemed virtuous to share juicy material. And Mr. Broeksmit had plenty of that.
‘I am eternally sorry and condemned’

Spelunking through his Deutsche files, Mr. Broeksmit encountered detailed information about what was going on deep inside the bank. There were minutes of board meetings. Financial plans. Indecipherable spreadsheets. Password-protected presentations. And evidence of his father’s misery.
Here was the elder Broeksmit scolding his colleagues for not taking the Fed’s annual “stress tests” seriously. Here he was, in the months before his suicide, pushing executives to deal with the American division’s alarming staff shortages. Here he was talking to a criminal defense lawyer.
Mr. Broeksmit concluded that all this might help explain why his father had hanged himself. He told his therapist, an addiction specialist named Larry Meltzer, that he was on a quest to understand the suicide. Mr. Meltzer told me that he encouraged the inquiry. He also persuaded Alla Broeksmit to increase her son’s monthly stipend from $300 to $2,500.
Figuring that more information about his father’s death might be lodged in Alla’s email accounts, Mr. Broeksmit consulted some online tutorials and broke into her Gmail. Inside, he found an extraordinary demonstration of corporations’ power to control what the public knows.
In his mother’s inbox was a scan of the elder Broeksmit’s suicide note to Anshu Jain, at the time the co-chief executive of Deutsche Bank. It was four sentences, handwritten in black ink on white printer paper.
Anshu,
You were so good to me and I have repaid you with carelessness. I betrayed your trust and hid my horrible nature from you. I can’t even begin to fathom the damage I have done.
I am eternally sorry and condemned.
Bill
Mr. Broeksmit could feel his father’s anguish. It left him in tears — and baffled. Why had his father been sorry? When had he ever been careless? How had he damaged the bank?
Mr. Broeksmit read on. He learned that his father had once looked into the conduct of some Deutsche Bank traders and concluded — mistakenly — that nothing was amiss. It turned out the traders were manipulating a benchmark known as Libor. The elder Broeksmit feared he could become a target of government investigators because he had failed to detect the fraud; spiraling, he consulted his physician and a psychologist.
Those doctors wrote to the coroner investigating Mr. Broeksmit’s suicide. One described the banker as having been “extremely anxious” over the Libor affair. The other added: “He was catastrophising, imagining worst case outcomes including prosecution, loss of his wealth and reputation.”
The coroner, Fiona Wilcox, scheduled a public hearing to discuss her findings. She intended to read aloud from the doctors’ letters. But on the morning of the inquest, at the courthouse, lawyers that Deutsche Bank had hired for the Broeksmit family took her aside and urged her not to do so in order to protect the family’s privacy.
Ms. Wilcox, who declined to comment, acquiesced. Nearly everything about Mr. Broeksmit’s specific anxieties was expunged. Where the psychologist had written that his patient imagined prosecution, the words were crossed out and replaced with “He imagined various issues.” The physician had originally described Mr. Broeksmit’s worry “about going to prison or going bankrupt even though he knew he was innocent. He kept on thinking back over all the thousands of emails he had sent over the years. He knew how lawyers can twist things round.” It was replaced with: “He told me he had been extremely anxious.” All of this — the originals, and the whitewashed version — had been emailed to Alla Broeksmit. Now they were in her son’s hands.
Image
Val Broeksmit in Los Angeles, where he moved to drum up Hollywood interest in his life story.CreditOriana Koren for The New York Times
Dinner with Moby

Mr. Broeksmit’s antics escalated. He fished his mother’s American Express details out of her email and bought laptops, a plane ticket to Paris, rooms in luxury hotels. He told friends he was investigating his father’s death, but I wondered if he just wanted to tell people (and himself) that he was on a noble mission. At one point, Mr. Broeksmit filled out a form on the Justice Department’s website: “I’m writing in hopes of speaking to someone at the DOJ in reference to the evidence I have showing major fraud at one of the world’s largest banks.” He got a note that his message had been passed to the F.B.I.’s New York field office, but no other acknowledgment.
Ms. Broeksmit eventually wised up to her son’s credit card theft, and by the end of 2016, he was running low on cash. (In a brief phone call last year, she told me that Mr. Broeksmit “is completely ostracized from the family.”) Word spread in journalism circles that the son of a dead Deutsche Bank executive had access to revelatory materials. In Rome on New Year’s Eve of 2016, Mr. Broeksmit shared the files with a reporter for the Financial Times, periodically excusing himself to snort 80-milligram hits of OxyContin, and the journalist later connected him with someone willing to pay for the documents. On the third anniversary of his father’s death — Jan. 26, 2017 — $1,000 arrived in his PayPal account.
The money was from Glenn R. Simpson, a former journalist who ran a research company called Fusion GPS. Weeks earlier, it had rocketed to notoriety as the source of the so-called Steele Dossier — a report by a former intelligence agent containing salacious allegations against Mr. Trump. Mr. Simpson was searching for more dirt and, Mr. Broeksmit told me, he agreed to pay $10,000 for the Deutsche materials. (Mr. Simpson declined to be interviewed.)
Mr. Simpson asked Mr. Broeksmit to start searching for specific topics. “Any Russia stuff at all,” he wrote on an encrypted chat program. “Let’s get you here asap.”
They met two days later in the U.S. Virgin Islands and began combing for material on Mr. Trump, Russia and Robert Mercer, a top Trump donor. They didn’t discover bombshells — more like nuggets. One spreadsheet, for example, contained a list of all of the banks that owed money to one of Deutsche Bank’s American subsidiaries on a certain date — a list that included multiple Russian banks that would soon be under United States sanctions.
Mr. Simpson asked Mr. Broeksmit to travel with him to Washington and meet some of his contacts. Mr. Broeksmit shared some of his files with a Senate investigator and — after snorting some heroin — a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office. The documents found their way to a team of anti-money-laundering agents at the New York Fed. Coincidence or not, a few months later, the Fed fined Deutsche Bank $41 million for violations inside the American unit that Bill Broeksmit had overseen. (A Fed spokesman declined to comment.)
Mr. Broeksmit moved to Los Angeles to drum up Hollywood interest in his life story. Early this year, a producer invited him to a dinner party. Among the guests was Moby, the electronic music legend, who told me he was impressed by Mr. Broeksmit’s exploits and existential sadness. Moby arranged an introduction to his friend Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which had recently opened an investigation into Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Mr. Trump.
Mr. Schiff’s investigators badly wanted the secret Deutsche files. Mr. Broeksmit tried to extract money from them — he pushed to be hired as a consultant to the committee — but that was a nonstarter. An investigator, Daniel Goldman, appealed to his sense of patriotism and pride. “Imagine a scenario where some of the material that you have can actually provide the seed that we can then use to blow open everything that [Trump] has been hiding,” Mr. Goldman told Mr. Broeksmit in a recorded phone call. “In some respects, you — and your father vicariously through you — will go down in American history as a hero and as the person who really broke open an incredibly corrupt president and administration.” (Mr. Broeksmit wouldn’t budge; eventually, Mr. Schiff subpoenaed him.)
It was around this time that Mr. Broeksmit had his meeting at the F.B.I.’s Los Angeles field office. Someone at the bureau had finally noticed his submission to the Justice Department’s website. After the three-hour session, Mr. Broeksmit still needed some stroking, and the F.B.I. agents obliged. They told Mr. Broeksmit he could have a special advisory title. They promised to keep him in the loop as their investigation proceeded. They let him tell the world — via this article — that he was a cooperating witness in a federal criminal investigation. They even helped procure a visa for his French girlfriend.
I had to tip my hat to Mr. Broeksmit. The man whom everyone had discounted and demeaned had managed to get his information into the hands of the Federal Reserve, Congress and the F.B.I. Even if the documents ultimately prove underwhelming to these powerful investigators, Mr. Broeksmit had accomplished one of his life’s goals: He mattered.
http://archive.is/0aciy#selection-229.0-889.340


Moby Is Connected to Congress’ Investigation of Trump and Deutsche Bank

Moby apparently introduced whistleblower Val Broeksmit to Rep. Adam Schiff
Moby, August 2019 (Robin L Marshall/Getty Images)

Moby is connected to the congressional investigation into President Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank, according to a new article from David Enrich for The New York Times. The story follows whistleblower Val Broeksmit, the 43-year-old son of the late Deutsche Bank executive Bill Broeksmit. According to the report, Moby met Val Broeksmit at a Los Angeles dinner party this year and “was impressed by Mr. Broeksmit’s exploits and existential sadness.” Moby, in turn, introduced Broeksmit to Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Val Broeksmit, who is also the frontman of the rock band Bikini Robot Army, has since been subpoenaed and turned over information about Deutsche Bank to Congress, the FBI, and the Federal Reserve. Read David Enrich’s full story, “Me and My Whistle-Blower,” at The New York Times.
https://pitchfork.com/news/moby-is-conn ... sche-bank/


Moby Is Connected to Congress’ Investigation of Trump and Deutsche Bank

Moby apparently introduced whistleblower Val Broeksmit to Rep. Adam Schiff
Moby, August 2019 (Robin L Marshall/Getty Images)

Moby is connected to the congressional investigation into President Donald Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank, according to a new article from David Enrich for The New York Times. The story follows whistleblower Val Broeksmit, the 43-year-old son of the late Deutsche Bank executive Bill Broeksmit. According to the report, Moby met Val Broeksmit at a Los Angeles dinner party this year and “was impressed by Mr. Broeksmit’s exploits and existential sadness.” Moby, in turn, introduced Broeksmit to Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Val Broeksmit, who is also the frontman of the rock band Bikini Robot Army, has since been subpoenaed and turned over information about Deutsche Bank to Congress, the FBI, and the Federal Reserve. Read David Enrich’s full story, “Me and My Whistle-Blower,” at The New York Times.
https://pitchfork.com/news/moby-is-conn ... sche-bank/


Judge to DOJ: Make Decision on McCabe Charges—or Face Release of FBI Records
Audrey McNamara
Reporter
Published 10.01.19 2:33PM ET

Alex Wong/Getty Images
The Department of Justice was warned on Monday that if they do not charge former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe by Nov. 15 or drop the investigation altogether, the agency will be forced to release internal FBI documents related to his firing. Veteran District Judge Reggie B. Walton said at a hearing that the indecision regarding McCabe was undermining the credibility of the Justice Department. “I would send this message to those in positions of authority in the U.S. Attorney’s office and the Justice Department... that I will not condone further delay,” Walton said, according to a transcript of the hearing. “You all have got to cut and make your decision... If it’s not made, I’m going to start ordering the release of information because I think our society, our public does have a right to know what’s going on.”

After taking over as acting director for fired Director James Comey, McCabe authorized the FBI to investigate Trump’s ties to Russia. Since that authorization, Trump has targeted McCabe and the DOJ has zeroed in on an allegation that he lied to federal investigators about allowing FBI officials to speak to a reporter about the Clinton email investigation. McCabe initially denied allowing the conversation, but later admitted to authorizing it. Federal prosecutors recommended pursuing an indictment against McCabe, but Judge Walton on Monday confirmed McCabe has not been indicted and that the DOJ is still considering the charges.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-to- ... bi-records


Don Winslow

Have you wondered why @LindseyGrahamSC has been defending @realDonaldTrump like his life depended on it? A friend in federal law enforcement told me about a certain threat @realDonaldTrump has made to Graham. It's personal. It's awful. And it's working very well.
https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1 ... 8464540674
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:16 am




BUSTED: Mike Pompeo caught forcing out his own Ukraine envoy to cover-up Trump’s scandal
By Bob BrighamOctober 1, 2019
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s involvement in President Donald Trump’s foreign election inteference story grew on Tuesday after a bombshell story published by The Daily Beast.

The story detailed the aftermath of Rudy Giuliani’s television appearances on the Ukraine scandal.

“Giuliani’s on-air appearances threw the department into a tizzy, forcing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to try to quell a bubbling internal crisis of confidence, according to three senior U.S. officials. For Pompeo, to solve the problem meant to find someone to blame, and there was only one individual who fit the mold, according to those same sources: former U.S. representative for Ukraine negotiations Kurt Volker,” The Beast reported. “Volker resigned on Friday. But despite his resignation, the State Department has scrambled to correct course, according to these same U.S. officials, especially after news that Pompeo was on the now-infamous call between President Trump and Zelensky in July. Pompeo had previously denied knowing about it on national television.”

Now, The Beast is reporting that while Volker resigned, he was actually forced out.

“I think Kurt definitely felt like he was being pushed out,” said one senior U.S. official. “He really believed in the job and was committed to helping Ukraine work toward a better future.”

That official was not the only one saying Volker was pushed.

“Several U.S. officials told The Daily Beast the former Ukraine negotiator expressed openly that he was not ready to leave his position,” the publication noted.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/code ... e-password





Wine bar diplomatic cables to remain secret

SIMON BENSON
NATIONAL AFFAIRS EDITOR

CAMERON STEWART
WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

12:00AM OCTOBER 2, 201944 COMMENTS
Australia is unlikely to hand over diplomatic cables or sensitive ­materials to a politically contentious US investigation of the FBI’s Russia probe, according to a ­senior government source.

Scott Morrison on Tuesday ruled out launching an internal domestic investigation after a ­direct request from Donald Trump to assist US Attorney-General William Barr’s probe into the origins of the FBI’s Russia investigation and whether Australia played a role in sparking it.

The Prime Minister said the US President had called him in the first week of September and asked for assistance in the Justice Department’s controversial investigation into the original Russia probe. Australia is not a party to the Barr investigation.

READ NEXT

COMMENTARY
Hong Kong money migrates to Australia
JAMES KIRBY
Mr Morrison offered full co-operation with Mr Trump, who is believed to have acknowledged the FBI investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election occurred under the previous Turnbull government. “The Australian government has always been ready to assist and co-­operate with efforts that help shed further light on the matters under investigation,” a spokesman for Mr Morrison said.

“The PM confirmed this readiness once again in conversation with the President.”

Former Australian high commissioner to London Alexander Downer played a key role in the start of the Russia investigation when he reported a meeting in a London wine bar in May 2016 with Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos. Mr Papadopoulos told Mr Downer he was aware Russia had emails that had damaging information on Mr Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton.

Mr Papadopoulos has since ­accused Mr Downer of being a spy working against the Trump campaign, an allegation Mr Downer has strongly denied. Mr Downer reported the emails to Canberra, which eventually reported them to the US government and the FBI. A report of a subsequent investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller said this was why the FBI had launched its original Russia investigation.

Mr Trump called Mr Morrison two weeks before he travelled to the US to attend a state dinner at the White House at the President’s invitation.

The New York Times reporting of the September call comes just over a week after the Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry into the President after it was revealed he asked the Ukrainian President in June to investigate political rival Joe Biden.

The New York Times portrayed the call as another attempt by the President to lean on foreign leaders to get them to help him politically.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese suggested the matter was serious enough to warrant further answers from the government. “The Prime Minister needs to explain to the Australian people exactly what happened here, exactly what his role has been, what took place in terms of this phone call, so it’s made clear the Australian Prime Minister is not involved in essentially what is a domestic issue in the US,” he said.

Former Labor leader Bill Shorten, who remains on the opposition frontbench, demanded Mr Morrison release a transcript of the conversation.

“Prime Minister Morrison got a very warm, indeed special, reception from President Trump. Mr Morrison needs to clean up the perception that perhaps the special reception was returned for special favours done,” he said. “The Australian people value and cherish the American alliance but no Australian wants to see our Prime Minister having the perception of being a lapdog to a US president or American domestic political agenda.”

In May, Mr Barr said he would investigate the origins of the Russia investigation to see whether the FBI and intelligence agencies acted appropriately in initiating it.

Critics say the investigation is a partisan vehicle for Mr Trump to try to prove his belief that the FBI’s Russia investigation and subsequent Mueller inquiry were driven by political bias against him within the FBI and intelligence agencies.

Despite Mr Trump’s call to Mr Morrison, Australia told Mr Barr in May it would co-operate.

Australia’s ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey, wrote a letter to Mr Barr on May 28 saying: “The Australian government will use its best endeavours to support your efforts in this matter.”

Mr Hockey wrote the letter only days after the President said he hoped Mr Barr would also look at Australia’s role, among others, in the origins of the Russia investigation.

“I hope he (Mr Barr) looks at the UK, and I hope he looks at Australia, and I hope he looks at Ukraine … because there was a hoax that was perpetrated on our country,” Mr Trump said.

Mr Downer said on Tuesday he had no knowledge of the call between Mr Trump and Mr Morrison.

White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said the request to Mr Morrison was simply a case of Mr Trump trying to facilitate access for the Department of Justice to the Australian government.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... b37adc4451


HEARSAY
Barr Went to Rome to Hear a Secret Tape from Joseph Mifsud, the Professor Who Helped Ignite the Russia Probe

US Attorney General William Barr traveled to Italy to meet with Italian secret service agents—and, potentially, undermine the Mueller investigation.

Barbie Latza Nadeau
Correspondent-At-Large
Updated 10.01.19 7:31PM ET
Published 10.01.19 4:46PM ET

Mandel Ngan/Getty
ROME–When Attorney General William Barr showed up at the U.S. embassy’s Palazzo Margherita on Rome’s tony Via Veneto last week, he had two primary requests. He needed a conference room to meet high level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in. And he needed an extra chair for U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut who would be sitting in as his right-hand man.

Barr was in Rome on an under-the-radar mission that was only planned a few days in advance. An official with the embassy confirmed to The Daily Beast that they had to scramble to accommodate Barr’s sudden arrival. He had been in Italy before but not with such a clear motive. Barr and Durham are looking into the events that led to Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, and suddenly all roads were leading to Rome.

The Daily Beast has learned that Barr and Durham were especially interested in what the Italian secret service knew about Joseph Mifsud, the erstwhile professor from Malta who had allegedly promised then candidate Donald Trump’s campaign aide George Papadopoulos he could deliver Russian “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. The Italian Justice Ministry public records show that Mifsud had applied for police protection in Italy after disappearing from Link University where he worked and, in doing so, had given a taped deposition to explain just why people might want to harm him.

A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were played the tape. A second source within the Italian government also confirmed to The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were shown other evidence the Italians had on Mifsud.

Ever since Robert Mueller concluded his probe in March 2019, Barr has worked to blunt its impact—and investigate the investigators behind it. Barr assigned Durham to look into the Mueller probe’s origins. And the Attorney General’s name is listed in the whistleblower complaint about the July 25 call Trump made to the Ukrainian president to pressure him into investigating political rival Joe Biden. According to the complaint, Barr was directly involved in the president’s attempt to “solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” The minutiae of his involvement are feeding a scandal gripping Washington that changes by the nano-second.

The U.S. Department of Justice did not return numerous emails and calls for clarification about Barr, Durham, and Mifsud. But they did issue a statement on Monday confirming that the American legal team had been in the eternal city.

“As the Department of Justice has previously announced, a team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating the origins of the U.S. counterintelligence probe of the Trump 2016 presidential campaign,” Kerri Kupec, the Justice Department spokesperson, said in a statement. “Mr. Durham is gathering information from numerous sources, including a number of foreign countries. At Attorney General Barr’s request, the President has contacted other countries to ask them to introduce the Attorney General and Mr. Durham to appropriate officials.”

The Italian intelligence community had Mifsud on their radar for some years before he got involved in the Trump campaign’s troubles. His affiliations with both the Link University of Rome and London Center of International Law Practice—both often affiliated with western diplomacy and foreign intelligence agencies—made him an easy target. So did the slew of apartments he owned in Malta that are allegedly tied to a racket involving Russians buying Maltese passports for cheap.

What Mifsud did or didn’t know about Clinton’s emails is still murky; what Barr and Durham were privy to is even less clear. Papadopoulos has distanced himself from the professor, tweeting just this week that he “exposed Mifsud’s connections to Italian intelligence” even though the Italians were watching him long before they parted ways.

Mifsud met Papadopoulos through his Italian wife, Simona Mangiante, a lawyer and part-time lingerie model who had hoped to launch her acting career with a role playing French actress Brigitte Bardot in an American film. Mangiante told The Daily Beast last year that she met Mifsud doing some legal consulting for one of his classes. His ties to Russia seemed potentially useful to her husband, who was then an integral part of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy advisory panel at the time.

Before he disappeared, Mifsud said he had met Papadopoulos “three or four times,” helping to facilitate connections between “official and unofficial sources” in Italy, Russia, and Ukraine. He denied any wrongdoing but went into hiding–either on his own or through the Italian protective services—in 2017 and has only been seen in sporadic photos since.


Several mainstream Italian newspapers on Tuesday reported that Mifsud is cooperating with Barr and Durham’s investigation and some even suggested he met them in person in Rome last week. The Daily Beast reached Stephan Roh, Mifsud’s Swiss lawyer, by phone Tuesday. Roh said he hadn’t seen his client “for quite some time” but that he “doubted” he would show his face in Rome.

The sources in Rome who confirmed that Barr and Durham came to learn more about Mifsud also told The Daily Beast that they expected Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to meet the same intelligence agencies on his state visit that began Tuesday.

Pompeo is meeting the Italian president, the prime minister, and the Pope while in Rome. His official mandate is to discuss Libya, China trade, and sanctions on Russia, which Italy does not support. Pompeo will also be spending time with the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Callista Gingrich and her husband, Newt. The Secretary of State is giving a keynote address at one of the ambassador’s events on religious freedom at the Vatican, and has arranged some free time for a private viewing of the ancient Roman Colosseum. He will briefly visit the Umbrian hamlet of Valle Peligna, where his grandfather is from and where, perhaps coincidentally, Madonna’s Italian family also has roots. He is then heading to Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Greece before returning to Washington.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/barr-went ... ref=scroll


Former Ukraine president: I never met with Biden about son
CNN's Matthew Chance reports that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who held the office from June 2014 until May 2019, categorically denied that then-Vice President Joe Biden asked him to fire a prosecutor looking into Biden's son's connections with an energy company.Source: CNN
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2019/1 ... ce-vpx.cnn


Was There Another Cover-Up In Response to the Whistle-Blower?
By Neal K. Katyal and Joshua A. GeltzerOct. 1, 2019
One of the first things new prosecutors at the Justice Department learn is that cover-ups are rarely singular. There is often a cover-up of the cover-up.

Allegations of one cover-up, then another, emerged last week. Officials in the Trump administration tried to “lock down” the phone call memo between President Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine (the first cover-up), and then officials in the executive branch made efforts to keep this information from reaching Congress (the second cover-up).

Now we have discovered what may be a third cover-up. In its handling of the investigation and a potential campaign-finance violation, the Department of Justice appears to have ignored a rule that a matter under investigation must be referred to the Federal Election Commission. Critically, if the department had followed the rule, the Ukraine affair would have been disclosed to the American public.

Were it not for the efforts of the whistle-blower, everything about this would have been hidden from the F.E.C. and the American people.

Sign Up for Debatable

Agree to disagree, or disagree better? We'll help you understand the sharpest arguments on the most pressing issues of the week, from new and familiar voices.

Here’s how the Justice Department failed to follow the rule. As part of the scramble in the executive branch caused by the whistle-blower’s complaint, the Justice Department secretly investigated Mr. Trump for a potential campaign-finance violation. The department reportedly cleared him because the contributions solicited from a foreign government to his campaign were not quantifiable “things of value.” That’s the key phrase in one of the most important campaign-finance laws.

Remember that Mr. Trump’s own intelligence community inspector general — a former federal prosecutor — determined that the whistle-blower complaint was an “urgent concern.” Further, the complaint set out facts suggesting that Mr. Trump had indeed violated the federal statute that criminalizes soliciting any “thing of value” from a foreign citizen in connection with an election. A thorough investigation seemed warranted.

After it looked into the complaint, the Justice Department disagreed — it said that because the amount of the contribution couldn’t be quantified, the department would not even bother opening a criminal investigation (which would still have been short of bringing an actual prosecution).

To date, the criticism of the Justice Department has focused on its seemingly hasty judgment that a federal crime had not been committed and on Attorney General William Barr’s decision not to recuse himself from a matter directly implicating him.

Those are indeed valid criticisms, but an overlooked problem is that a federal government memorandum required the Justice Department to refer this complaint to the Federal Election Commission. And by all publicly available information, the department failed to do so.

For over 40 years, a memorandum of understanding has stood between the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission, and it has been duly entered into The Federal Register. It’s a guide for how Justice and the F.E.C. should interact in administering federal election law. The document recognizes that some election law violations, for whatever reason, “may not be proper subjects for prosecution as crimes” under key criminal provisions of the federal election law statutes. The document then explains how the two agencies should interact when one or the other learns of potential violations.

Here’s the key part for our purpose: When information comes to the attention of the Justice Department indicating a “probable violation” of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the document says, “the department will apprise the commission of such information at the earliest opportunity.”

Note the standard for when the Justice Department must notify the F.E.C.: when there’s a “probable violation,” a low bar compared with the standard for actually bringing a criminal prosecution that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So again, as far as anyone knows, the Justice Department never provided that notification. And there’s more. The memo further explains that when the Justice Department determines that a probable violation “does not amount to a significant and substantial knowing and willful violation” — presumably what happened when the department decided not to continue investigating the matter described in the whistle-blower complaint — then “the department will refer the matter to the commission as promptly as possible.”

This, too, the Justice Department appears not to have done.

Why does it matter? Because the F.E.C. has a host of tools available to it to enforce federal election law that are distinct from the prosecutorial tool that the Justice Department declined to exercise here. The memo makes this, too, very clear.

It says that the Justice Department’s referral of such matters to the F.E.C. will facilitate the latter’s “consideration of the wide range of appropriate remedies available to the commission.” Those include, for example, the imposition of civil penalties for certain election-law violations — which would have been made public.

And establishing a civil violation doesn’t require that violation to have required a standard of knowing and willful. It also doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only the much lower standard of a preponderance of the evidence. What’s more, there’s no monetary threshold for a civil violation, meaning that the Justice Department’s apparent inability to quantify the “thing of value” the president was soliciting is irrelevant to the Justice Department’s duty to notify the commission and not a bar to that agency’s potential imposition of a civil penalty.

Underlying this F.E.C. enforcement mechanism is a deep desire for transparency: When candidates break the rules, they need to be held accountable. Reflecting that, a Justice Department publication from December 2017 notes that the F.E.C.’s enforcement jurisdiction over noncriminal violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act “cannot be compromised or waived by the Department of Justice.”

So what went wrong at the Justice Department? It’s possible that it simply didn’t do a civil analysis, which the memorandum requires it to do in order to determine whether there was a “probable violation” that must be referred to the F.E.C. Or it’s possible that the department did do a civil analysis and inexplicably decided that Mr. Trump’s phone conversation with the Ukrainian president didn’t rise to even a probable violation of election law under the much lower civil standards. It’s hard to know which would be more damning.

It’s worth emphasizing that this memorandum remains in full effect, though there have been discussions between the Justice Department and the F.E.C. about augmenting it with specific details on exactly how each agency should follow the memorandum’s guidance in situations like this one — discussions that seem well worth resuming when, in years to come, the Justice Department begins to care again about enforcing such laws.

One indication that the memo’s dictates remain required protocol? Just six years ago, it was cited in a public memorandum written by the F.E.C.’s vice chairman at the time.

His name? Mr. Trump’s own former White House counsel — Don McGahn.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/opin ... r-fec.html


An Inspector General Just Nuked Trump’s Go-to Attack on the Ukraine Whistleblower
Another right-wing smear targeting the whistleblower who exposed Trump’s Ukraine interference scandal falls apart

Andy Kroll October 1, 2019 11:40AM ET
WASHINGTON — President Trump and his army of far-right supporters wasted little time coalescing around a theory to try to discredit the intelligence officer who blew the whistle on Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election.

Promoted by House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and other Republican lawmakers, this theory claimed the whistleblower had no first-hand knowledge of the allegations in his complaint and so the allegations couldn’t be trusted. “It’s all hearsay,” Graham told CBS. “You can’t get a parking ticket conviction based on hearsay. The whistleblower didn’t hear the phone call.” The conservative website The Federalist went even further, claiming that the intelligence community had “secretly gutted” a requirement that whistleblowers “provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.”

This supposed revelation — which typically caught fire in the self-contained information ecosystem of the right — “raises questions” about the intelligence community’s “behavior” related to the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower’s complaint, the Federalist claimed. In other words, what Trump and his allies want you to believe is that the Deep State somehow changed the rules to allow a whistleblower with credibility problems to come forward with grave allegations against the president.

The Federalist published its story on Friday. By Monday morning, this unverified theory had reached the Oval Office. “WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!” Trump tweeted.

But on Monday night, the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community released a rare public statement that debunked Trumpworld’s latest distraction and disinformation campaign.

Contrary to what Trump and McCarthy claimed, the inspector general said it had vetted the whistleblower’s allegations — most troubling of all, that Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election” — and found them to be both “urgent” and “credible.”

Here’s the kicker: According to the inspector general, the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower noted on the form he submitted with his complaints that he had both firsthand and indirect knowledge of the events described in the complaint. The intelligence community inspector general vetted this and found that the whistleblower had “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct.“ And no, the inspector general added, the whistleblower did not benefit from some new form that made it easier for him to submit his complaint about Trump. Not that it would’ve mattered because, again, as the inspector general explained, the whistleblower had direct, firsthand knowledge of certain allegations made in his complaint.

“The whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018,” the inspector general’s new statement says. “The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible.”

Mark Zaid, a Washington, D.C. lawyer whose firm represents the whistleblower, reacted to the inspector general’s rare public statement by saying on Twitter: “The whistleblower allegations will be governed by the rule of law and facts; disinformation conspiracy theories will not impede the process.”


Mark S. Zaid

@MarkSZaidEsq
The #whistleblower allegations will be governed by the rule of law and facts; disinformation conspiracy theories will not impede the process. https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/ ... 5374178304
CNN Politics

@CNNPolitics
Intelligence community watchdog debunks whistleblower conspiracy pushed by President Trump and other Republicans https://cnn.it/2mqrEeN
View image on Twitter

612
7:53 PM - Sep 30, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

246 people are talking about this


Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), one of the most senior Republicans in Congress, came to the whistleblower’s defense on Tuesday. “This person appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected,” Grassley said in a statement. “We should always work to respect whistleblowers’ requests for confidentiality.”

The inspector general’s rebuke and Grassley’s request, however, are unlikely to deter the president. Despite federally-mandated protections for whistleblowers, Trump has said he wants and “deserves” to know the identity of the whistleblower.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... am-893214/



Update To Classified System Keeps Log Of Who Accessed Docs Like Ukrainian Call
Kate Riga
WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 24: President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump speak on the phone with children as they track Santa Claus with the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, on Christmas Eve in the State Dinning Room of the White House on December 24, 2018 in Washington, DC.(Photo by Oliver Contreras/For The Washington Post)
President Donald Trump (Photo by Oliver Contreras/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
The White House reportedly updated the National Security Council secret codeword system in 2018, adding a feature that keeps track of who accessed documents like President Donald Trump’s call transcript with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

According to Politico, the update was installed to prevent leaks. Now that the whistleblower complaint revealed that Trump administration has been using the system to hide politically embarrassing calls with foreign leaders, Democrats will likely have a vested interest in who exactly stashed the transcripts behind codeword protection.

The update was installed after transcripts of Trump’s calls with the leaders of Australia and Mexico were leaked to the press last year.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/code ... e-password


Donald Trump impeachment: President called Boris Johnson for help to discredit Mueller inquiry
Catherine Philp
October 2 2019, 12:01am,

Donald Trump asked Boris Johnson to help the US attorney-general to undermine the Mueller investigation
Donald Trump asked Boris Johnson to help the US attorney-general to undermine the Mueller investigation
STEFAN ROUSSEAU/PA
President Trump personally contacted Boris Johnson to ask for help as he tried to discredit the Mueller investigation into possible connections between Russia and his 2016 election campaign, The Times understands.
Mr Trump also contacted the leaders of countries including Australia and Ukraine to ask them to help William Barr, his attorney-general, to gather evidence to undermine the investigation into his campaign’s links to Russia.
Robert Mueller, the special counsel, refused to exonerate Mr Trump of wrongdoing when he released his findings in April, prompting the president to set up his own investigation in an effort to prove that the inquiry was politically motivated.
The call to Ukraine’s President Zelensky is the subject of the impeachment inquiry in Congress into whether Mr Trump exploited
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dona ... -jlkztnfpx



Shimon Prokupecz

Verified account

@ShimonPro
Follow Follow @ShimonPro
More
Mike Pompeo admits he was on call with Ukrainian president and Trump.
"I was on the phone call," Pompeo said Wednesday during a news conference in Rome with Italy's foreign minister.
https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/11 ... 4349706247
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby RocketMan » Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:22 pm

https://theintercept.com/2019/09/26/imp ... democrats/

Democrats, Please Don’t Mess This Up. Impeach Trump for All His Crimes, Not Just for Ukraine.

ARE DEMOCRATS PREPARING to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement on Tuesday that the House of Representatives would hold an “official impeachment inquiry” over Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine, and his request for dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter, was a welcome one. But on Wednesday, according to several reports, “Pelosi and senior House Democrats agreed in a private meeting … that they should narrow their impeachment investigation of President Trump to his dealings with the president of Ukraine.

...

So how then might this end up as a defeat, and not a victory? Think about it. For House Democrats to wait this long and then impeach a reckless, lawless, racist, tax-dodging president only over his interactions with the president of Ukraine would be to effectively give Trump a clean bill of health on everything else. Going into an election year, Democrats would be unilaterally disarming — unable to offer further substantive criticisms of Trump’s crimes and abuses of power across the board. “Why didn’t you impeach him for it?” Republicans will ask.

Forgive me if I have no faith in the House Democratic leadership, which has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The same political geniuses who dragged their feet on impeachment until 48 hours ago, after ridiculously having suggested the president was “goading” his opponents into impeaching him, are now telling us to trust them, that they know best, that Ukraine is the be-all and end-all of this impeachment inquiry.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:13 pm

thanks


the Democrats should also demand the transcripts of the secret calls between Trump and Mohamed Bin Salman

but the Deutsche Bank records which they already have just might be enough...love that mob money laundering

I am not sure there is really enough time for all of trump's crimes


Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:17 pm

Desperate times desperate measures

Bill Barr's Magical Mystery Yellowcake Tour

BILL BARR RISKS BECOMING JOSEPH MIFSUD’S NEW COFFEE BOY

October 2, 2019/78
/by emptywheel

Yesterday, the Daily Beast provided details about what Bill Barr was doing in Italy on the trip to dig up dirt first confirmed by the WaPo. According to DB, Barr and John Durham went to Italy on short notice (that is, even as the Ukraine scandal he is personally implicated in was breaking) to watch a videotaped deposition by Joseph Mifsud.

Barr was in Rome on an under-the-radar mission that was only planned a few days in advance. An official with the embassy confirmed to The Daily Beast that they had to scramble to accommodate Barr’s sudden arrival. He had been in Italy before, but not with such a clear motive. Barr and Durham are looking into the events that led to Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, and suddenly all roads were leading to Rome.

The Daily Beast has learned that Barr and Durham were especially interested in what the Italian secret service knew about Joseph Mifsud, the erstwhile professor from Malta who had allegedly promised then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign aide George Papadopoulos he could deliver Russian “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. The Italian justice ministry’s public records show that Mifsud had applied for police protection in Italy after disappearing from Link University, where he worked and, in doing so, had given a taped deposition to explain just why people might want to harm him.

A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were played the tape. A second source within the Italian government also confirmed to The Daily Beast that Barr and Durham were shown other evidence the Italians had on Mifsud.


There are a ton of reasons why this trip is batshit crazy. For one, Barr is placing himself in the role of a line Special Agent, someone without the requisite expertise chasing off to watch taped depositions while he should be running DOJ. For another (as I’ll show in more detail later), Barr is literally just chasing conspiracy theories sown by sworn liar George Papadopoulos, conspiracy theories which fabulist John Solomon (and his obvious sources named Rudy Giuliani and some Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs including Oleg Deripaska) has both fed and magnified. That Barr is doing it as he becomes personally embroiled in a scandal which could implicate him criminally suggests he and Trump may be trying to beat the clock, produce results before the shit really hits the fan.

But what’s most remarkable about the trip is the Attorney General of the United States went out on this goose chase without first ensuring he’d get what he was promised.

There’s a principle often aired when discussing Trump’s failed diplomacy with North Korea. You don’t send out the Principal for a meeting before getting certain commitments that advance your own goals. Trump should not have met with Kim Jong-Un without first getting concessions, because by doing so he took away several things of value (such as conferring credibility on the world stage) that Kim was most interested in.

The same is true here. The Attorney General should never run off to do the work of an FBI line Special Agent. But he certainly shouldn’t do so unless he was getting what he was really after.

And Billy Barr just flew to Italy without getting what he was really looking for.

Handily, for this scandal, Papadopoulos and Solomon and Chuck Ross have been ready scribes for the script that Trump and Billy Barr are supposed to be following. It’s all out in the open.

The Attorney General’s voyage to Italy got set in motion last fall when Ross published two stories relying on Mifsud’s “attorney” Stephen Roh (who himself has close ties to Russia). The first, dated September 10, reported that Mifsud was alive and well hiding in Italy. The second, published October 24, was explicitly a set-up for George Papadopoulos’ testimony before the joint OGR/HJC investigation into the Russian investigation. It included comments from Roh alleging that Mifsud was not a Russian asset, but was instead a Western one. Ross included those comments almost as a side note, even though the comments make what would normally be big news.

Roh told TheDCNF this week that Mifsud claimed in their previous meetings that he was working under the direction of the FBI when he made contact with Papadopoulos. He also claims that Mifsud told him that he was ordered to stay out of the public spotlight until the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

“Prof Mifsud explained that he is and was always a trusted cooperator of Western Intelligence services,” Roh said on Oct. 20.

“Prof Mifsud explained to us that he agreed not to speak, not to give interviews and to hide until the [Mueller] Investigation is terminated,” said Roh, who added that Mifsud claimed that he was being assisted by a London law firm in his discussions with the Mueller team.

The claims, if true, would be bombshell developments in the Russiagate saga. But TheDCNF was not able to independently verify Roh’s claims. The special counsel’s office declined comment.

While some of Roh’s claims about Mifsud would seem to support Papadopoulos’s theories, Roh has also said that Mifsud denies Papadopoulos’s allegation that he mentioned Clinton emails during their April 2016 meeting. Roh has asserted that Papadopoulos was working as an “agent provocateur” for a Western spy agency.


The next day, Papadopoulos — cued by Zachary Somers, then Majority Counsel for Bob Goodlatte — pointed to the Daily Caller piece as the basis for his belief that Joseph Mifsud was actually western intelligence.

Q Okay. So, and Mifsud, he presented himself as what? Who did he tell you he was?

A So looking back in my memory of this person, this is a mid-50’s person, describes himself as a former diplomat who is connected to the world, essentially. I remember he was even telling me that, you know, the Vietnamese prime minister is a good friend of mine. I mean, you have to understand this is the type of personality he was portraying himself as.

And, you know, I guess I took the bait because, you know, usually somebody who — at least in Washington, when somebody portrays themselves in a specific way and has credentials to back it, you believe them. But that’s how he portrayed himself. And then I can’t remember exactly the next thing that happened until he decided to introduce me to Putin’s fake niece in London, which we later found out is some sort of student. But I could get into those details of how that all started. Q And what’s your — just to kind of jump way ahead, what’s your current understanding of who Mifsud is?

A My current understanding?

Q Yeah. A You know, I don’t want to espouse conspiracy theories because, you know, it’s horrifying to really think that they might be true, but just yesterday, there was a report in the Daily Caller from his own lawyer that he was working with the FBI when he approached me. And when he was working me, I guess — I don’t know if that’s a fact, and I’m not saying it’s a fact — I’m just relaying what the Daily Caller reported yesterday, with Chuck Ross, and it stated in a categorical fashion that Stephan Roh, who is Joseph Mifsud’s, I believe his President’s counsel, or PR person, said that Mifsud was never a Russian agent.

In fact, he’s a tremendous friend of western intelligence, which makes sense considering I met him at a western spying school in Rome. And all his interactions — this is just me trying to repeat the report, these are not my words — and when he met with me, he was working as some sort of asset of the FBI. I don’t know if that’s true or not. I’m just reporting what my current understanding is of this individual based on reports from journalists.


As I’ll show, this was not the only time Papadopoulos did this in a deposition that was supposed to air what Papadopoulos knew, personally. His testimony served to validate conspiracy theories planted in right wing propaganda outlets.

In May Devin Nunes, in the guise of raising counterintelligence concerns about the number of high level people (including Boris Johnson, who would not be Prime Minister of the UK right now without dodgy financing of Leave) who had interacted with Mifsud, wrote a letter airing Roh’s claims and information that otherwise has been sourced from Roh, wrote Mike Pompeo, Paul Nakasone, Gina Haspel, and Chris Wray claiming Mueller misrepresented Mifsud.

Alternatively, if Mifsud is not in fact a counterintelligence threat, then that would cast doubt on the Special Counsel’s fundamental description of him and his activities, and raise questions about the veracity of the Special Counsel’s statements and affirmations. It should be noted that the Special Counsel declined to charge Mifsud with any crime even though, to justify seeking a prison sentence for Papadopoulos, the Special Counsel claimed Papadopoulos’ untruthful testimony “undermined investigators’ ability to challenge the Professor [Mifsud] or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States.” Furthermore, it’s still a mystery how the FBI knew to ask Papadopoulos specifically about Hillary Clinton’s emails, on multiple occasions throughout 2016-17 before having interviewed Mifsud, if the FBI hadn’t already somehow received this information directly or indirectly from Mifsud himself.


Obviously, Nunes’ “concerns” are rank bullshit. The tip from Australia was sufficient to raise question about the emails. And Mueller didn’t charge a bunch of other suspected foreign assets (some even in the US), which is how counterintelligence works. But Nunes’ letter sufficed to make this an official request.

Apparently, then, Stephen Roh shared a transcript of a deposition with some Republicans in Congress and Solomon. That, and more cues from Republicans, Roh, Papadopoulos, and who knows who else, got laundered through a Solomon story full of obvious misrepresentations (one that irks me, for example, is his use of a February 2017 email Mifsud sent following up on his FBI interview to claim Mifsud exchanged emails with the FBI, as if that substantiated an otherwise independent relationship with the Bureau). The news hook of the story is that John Durham wanted to interview Mifsud. But if he couldn’t do that, Solomon dutifully reported, Durham would like to “review a recorded deposition” he gave to Roh.

An investigator told Swiss attorney Stephan Roh that Durham’s team wanted to interview Mifsud, or at the very least review a recorded deposition the professor gave in summer 2018 about his role in the drama involving Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 election.

The contact, confirmed by multiple sources and contemporaneous email, sent an unmistakable message: Durham, the U.S. attorney handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to determine whether the FBI committed abuses during the Russia investigation, is taking a second look at one of the noteworthy figures and the conclusions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.


Solomon went on to claim — and the frothy right believes it as scripture now — that if Durham would just interview Mifsud, he would learn that the whole Papadopoulos story was actually a set-up by Western intelligence agencies seeking to frame George Papadopoulos and Donald Trump.

Roh told me the information he is preparing to share with Durham’s team from his client will accentuate those concerns.

Mifsud was a “longtime cooperator of western intel” who was asked specifically by his contacts at Link University in Rome and the London Center of International Law Practice (LCILP) — two academic groups with ties to Western diplomacy and intelligence — to meet with Papadopoulos at a dinner in Rome in mid-March 2016, Roh told me.

A May 2019 letter from Nunes to U.S. intelligence officials corroborates some of Roh’s account, revealing photos showing that the FBI conducted training at Link in fall 2016 and that Mifsud and other Link officials met regularly with world leaders, including Boris Johnson, elected today as Britain’s new prime minister.

A few days after the March dinner, Roh added, Mifsud received instructions from Link superiors to “put Papadopoulos in contact with Russians,” including a think tank figure named Ivan Timofeev and a woman he was instructed to identify to Papadopoulos as Vladimir Putin’s niece.

Mifsud knew the woman was not the Russian president’s niece but, rather, a student who was involved with both the Link and LCILP campuses, and the professor believed there was an effort underway to determine whether Papadopoulos was an “agent provocateur” seeking foreign contacts, Roh said.

The evidence, he told me, “clearly indicates that this was not only a surveillance op but a more sophisticated intel operation” in which Mifsud became involved.


The point is, though, that the ask was an interview, at which Barr and Durham (and, if they had brought experienced interrogators, which the DB does not report they did) would be able to test Mifsud’s credibility. Sitting in a secure room and watching a deposition (without experts there to test the provenance of the deposition video, no less) was not the ask and provides no way to obtain what would really be necessary.

But Barr didn’t demand that, and he didn’t get that. Instead, he allowed himself to be lured into a dark room in Italy to watch something — possibly without anyone with the relevant counterintelligence expertise to help him understand it — that provides very little useful information to test Mifsud’s claims. That puts the Attorney General in an incredibly vulnerable position (even beyond being implicated in covering up the President’s extortion to get such access), because he not only has traded away a lot of leverage to get what he would actually need to test this information, but he has already met a suspected Russian asset on the asset’s terms.

A lot of what Papadopoulos has done over the last three years was downright idiotic. But he has the excuse of being stupid, untrained, venal, and overly ambitious.

Billy Barr has no excuses for doing something that is even stupider than much of what Papadopoulos did. And yet he did just that.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/10/02/b ... offee-boy/


so Pence says he did not know about the Biden shit?????


WHITE HOUSE
Trump encourages questions to Pence about his own Ukraine calls
By ABBEY MARSHALL 09/25/2019 05:33 PM EDT

Updated 09/25/2019 05:48 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ ... ls-1512771



southpaw


WaPo: Trump “used” Pence to send signals to Ukraine before and after July 25th call. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-involved-pence-in-efforts-to-pressure-ukraines-leader-though-aides-say-vice-president-was-unaware-of-pursuit-of-dirt-on-bidens/2019/10/02/263aa9e2-e4a7-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html …

Image

The word choice throughout the piece, and the way Pence is portrayed as acted upon not acting, miiiight be a clue where this is coming from.
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/ ... 1424284673


this feels like a leak from Pence's camp to protect himself in the future.

can't imagine trump will like Pence's "trump used me to unwittingly help him commit a crime" defense :)


Here’s the next fake scandal Trump thinks will save him
Greg Sargent
(Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
President Trump and Republicans are excitedly drawing attention to a breaking story in the New York Times that reports that the whistleblower gave advance notice to Rep. Adam Schiff about the subject of his complaint, before filing it to the intelligence community’s inspector general.

In a way, you can’t blame them for getting excited, because the Times piece claims its new reporting will “thrust” Schiff “forcefully” into more “controversy,” without saying whether that outcome would be legitimate or valid, based on the known facts.

And it won’t be legitimate or valid based on the known facts, no matter how hard Trump and his allies spin to make it so.

What the Times piece says

The core news is that the whistleblower approached an aide on the House Intelligence Committee (which Schiff chairs) with his concerns, after growing worried that his initial effort to air his allegations might get frustrated.

That aide conveyed some vague amount of that (but not the whistleblower’s identity) to Schiff, but urged the whistleblower to get a lawyer and file a complaint with the inspector general.

The Times piece explicitly says that in so doing, the aide was “following the committee’s procedures.” There’s no evidence Schiff was told of the whistleblower’s identity, or even that he knows it now, in the Times piece or anywhere else.

Trump is lying to create a fake scandal

Trump wasted no time in lying about this new report. He claimed it shows Schiff collaborated with the whistleblower on the complaint, calling it a “scam.” The story says no such thing, and there is nothing whatsoever in it to undercut the substantive complaint itself.

House minority leader Kevin McCarthy also claimed Schiff and the whistleblower got caught “orchestrating” the complaint, and that Democrats “rigged” this process.

But there’s nothing in the story that says anything about Schiff having any substantive input into the whistleblower’s complaint. It says Schiff’s aide reported to him some of what the whistleblower said, and that the aide told the whistleblower to get a lawyer and go to the inspector general.

In so doing, the aide advised the whistleblower on how to follow the law. That’s not “rigging” the process. It’s the opposite.

Indeed, the Times piece itself describes the significance of this news by claiming it shows “how determined” the whistleblower was to make his allegations known. This, by itself, does not raise doubts about his motives or truthfulness, or about the complaint itself, in any way. All it does is underscore how serious the whistleblower thought the allegations were, and how adamant he was about getting it to Congress.

That outcome is precisely what Trump’s top officials did work so hard to block, so the whistleblower was right to be worried that it might not get to Congress.

What the law requires of the whistleblower

Here there is some gray area, and it’s possible the whistleblower might be vulnerable in one way. The statute says any “employee” who wants to report questionable information “may” report it to the inspector general, who then evaluates it, and if he finds it “credible” and “urgent” as defined in the statute, the director of national intelligence “shall” pass it to Congress.

“This strictly and solely provides an authorized proper channel,” Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer and advocate for whistleblowers, tells me.

Moss tells me it’s not unusual for would-be whistleblowers to first go to a congressional intelligence committee for advice on how to proceed. This is what the whistleblower did.

It is possible, Moss noted, that the whistleblower’s initial move might cost him some protections against retaliation afforded whistleblowers under the statute. But even this is uncertain, Moss said. If the CIA brass were to learn the whistleblower’s identity, it might try to fire him by arguing he stepped outside procedure.

But even then, the whistleblower could challenge that administratively at the agency, and would stand a decent chance of prevailing, Moss said.

But, crucially, Moss added that the fact of this procedural vulnerability, in and of itself, simply doesn’t show that the whistleblower abused the process. That’s because, as noted, this is not unusual, and because after getting advised, the whistleblower did actually follow what the law requires. What’s more, the inspector general actually did find the complaint credible and procedurally legitimate.

And of course, the complaint itself has been confirmed in many details by the rough transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president that the White House itself released.

What Schiff did

There’s some suggestion that Schiff, due to the early heads up, ultimately went public more quickly about the blocked complaint. But this isn’t seriously problematic. The timeline here is that the inspector general first alerted the intelligence committees that he’d received the complaint and that the DNI had unlawfully refused to transmit it to them. It was after this that Schiff demanded the complaint.

“Schiff went public only after receiving a letter from the inspector general indicating the DNI had not followed process requirements,” Margaret Taylor, senior editor at LawfareBlog, told me. “And this process issue is irrelevant to the substance of the impeachment inquiry — the President’s own conduct, which he does not deny.”

There’s just nothing serious here. There is a convention in political journalism in which the neutral editorial voice will say something is newsworthy because one side will use it as “ammunition” against the other. Or, as the Times puts it, this will “thrust” Schiff into controversy.

But the known facts don’t render this “ammunition” for any legitimate criticism, and it shouldn’t “thrust” Schiff into any controversy, simply by virtue of the fact that Trumpworld will noisily try to make it the case. And we should all say so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... -save-him/
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby RocketMan » Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:40 pm

the Democrats should also demand the transcripts of the secret calls between Trump and Mohamed Bin Salman


Yeeaaaaah that is NEVER going to happen.

Image

Image

Image
Last edited by RocketMan on Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:41 pm

why are you posting pictures of Clintons and Obama in my trump impeachment thread?
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby RocketMan » Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:43 pm

Well zippe-de-do-dah, let me get right out of your precious Trump impeachment thread!
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:01 pm

now you edit in more photos....was that just for spite?

4 times in 36 hours......enough

seemslikeadream » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:34 am wrote:back to the topic of this thread reasons to Impeach the president .....and not trump's side show he is
championing ..this thread will not become an off topic side show ...if the side show continues I will ask a mod to intervene not to ban anyone from my thread but to keep it on topic. I have the right just like everyone else here to keep an OP on topic
if there are reasons NOT to impeach trump....go for it
there is a Democratic Party OP
there is two Biden OPs
and there is a Bernie OP


oh and there is a Clinton OP also

Pence Gave Ukraine the Message Too
Josh Marshall


I mentioned below that the key thing about this latest and most egregious Trump scandal is that his senior team was clearly in on it, aware of it, participated in it. One key person here is Vice President Mike Pence. Earlier this month Pence flew to Poland to fill in for President Trump in meetings with European leaders on the 80th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II. On September 1st, he met in Warsaw with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The next day he held a press conference with President Duda of Poland at which he was specifically asked whether he had pressed Zelensky to manufacture damaging information about Joe Biden and whether military aid was being held up until he did.

Pence started by saying he hadn’t and then proceeded to give an answer that made it pretty clear that he had, even if he had not mentioned the former Vice President by name. It caught the ear’s of everyone who was already following this story. It’s even more clear with what we learned last week.

Here’s the text of the question and answer from the official White House transcript, with my emphasis added.

Q: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President. I wanted to ask you about your meeting yesterday with the Ukrainian President and for an update on Ukrainian security aid money.

Specifically, number one, did you discuss Joe Biden at all during that meeting yesterday with the Ukrainian President? And number two, can you assure Ukraine that the hold-up of that money has absolutely nothing to do with efforts, including by Rudy Giuliani, to try to dig up dirt on the Biden family?

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: Well, on the first question, the answer is no. But we — with President Zelensky yesterday, we discussed — we discussed America’s support for Ukraine and the upcoming decision the President will make on the latest tranche of financial support in great detail.

The President asked me to meet with President Zelensky and to talk about the progress that he’s making on a broad range of areas. And we did that.

We, as I said yesterday, especially since Russian aggression — the illegal occupation of Crimea and Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine — the United States has stood strong with Ukraine and we will continue to stand strong with Ukraine for its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

But as President Trump had me make clear, we have great concerns about issues of corruption. And, fortunately, President Zelensky was elected decisively on an anti-corruption message. And he and I discussed yesterday that as he’s assembled his cabinet, and as his parliament has convened, that even in the early days, he informed me that there have been more than 250 bills filed for — that address the issue of public corruption and really restoring integrity to the public process.

I mean, to invest additional taxpayer in Ukraine, the President wants to be assured that those resources are truly making their way to the kind of investments that will contribute to security and stability in Ukraine. And that’s an expectation the American people have and the President has expressed very clearly.

We also talked in some detail about what other European nations are doing for Ukraine. The simple fact is that the United States has carried the load on most of the security investments in Ukraine. And we have been proud to do that, but we believe it’s time for our European partners to step forward and make additional investments to stand with the people of Ukraine as they assert their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

President Zelensky and I talked in great detail about ongoing discussions about resolving the ongoing violence and occupation of Ukraine. And those were the issues that we covered.

But I assured him that the people of the United States stand with Ukraine for their sovereignty and territorial integrity. But I called on him to work with us to engage our European partners to participate at a greater level in Ukraine, and also told him that I would carry back to President Trump the progress that he and his administration in Ukraine are making on dealing with corruption in their country.


Corruption is a longstanding issue in Ukraine. Rooting out that corruption has been a central focus of US policy in the country for decades. That is why the United States and the European Union were so focused on removing that prosecutor back in 2015. But in the context of what we know was happening and especially the call we know took place a month earlier, these repeated references to progress on corruption and holding up military aid until Zelensky acted could scarcely be more clear.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/pe ... essage-too






Shakedown-gate has a good ring.
Please stop calling it "Ukraine-gate".
It isn't. It isn't about Ukraine. It's now at least 5 countries. It's about POTUS pursuing conspiracy as a form of exoneration.
https://twitter.com/LincolnsBible?ref_s ... r%5Eauthor



emptywheel


40m40 minutes ago


Here's Sara Isgur Flores forwarding to RR the "RNC Warroom's" circulation of Billy Barr's WaPo column arguing that Trump was right to fire Comey.

A nice way to be introduced to the future boss.

Image

And then current US Attorney for EDVA George Terwilliger, before he got promoted, sent RR the Billy Barr op-ed telling him it was the one thing he should read.

Image

I'm not a fan of the SSCI investigation generally (even before Burr got caught leaking info to the White House). But at least they were smart enough to send a document retention letter.

Image

Mind you, HJC got there first.

Image

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1 ... 9859670016



Shimon Prokupecz

CNN: State IG documents related to unproven claims about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden that Rudy Giuliani and his allies have been making. The inspector general previously provided the doc’s to the FBI and they did not object to the documents being released to Congress.

Kevin
Replying to @ShimonPro

IG probably thought the fact that the entire executive branch has lost its goddamn mind was an urgent matter.
https://twitter.com/kevin_cracknell/sta ... 3037296640


trump should be impeached just for this crazy idea Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby 82_28 » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:27 am

Okay. If this is to be a non moribund board and in the spirit in which it was formed (and still paid for by Jeff) it is an open format with rules. Some may irritate one another, but if something irritates you, it irritates you. I cannot rule over someone's thoughts and feelings and tell them what to do. Yes I see the alerts and shit but most of it is really bland in my opinion and as a human I really don't ever want to go out of my way to hurt or target anyone but have been obligingly "tasked" to see that everyone feels safe and in the clear. I cannot alert someone that they should not post such and such because so and so has a problem with it and vice versa. I see no problems here other than people trying to get under other people's skin. Just knock it off. I will know perfect bullshit when I see it -- even my own.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:20 am

sorry to have troubled you 82 I just want fairness if I can be banned from a thread where I did not break any rule and I accept that new Mac rule, something that came up months ago and I was told I did not own my threads and I could not ask someone be banned from my threads, but he gets to do it then at the very least the actual rules should apply in this thread

it seemed to me 4 off topic remarks in 36 hours was the beginning of a trend and I wanted it stopped considering my past encounters with Rocketman he obviously was on a role his posts were not on topic they were just meant to irritate


let's just get back to Jeff's basic rules that have served this place well for 15 years
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby RocketMan » Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:09 am

"Moribund" about sums it up, I'm afraid. Killed by the ravages of time and a late-stage excess of terminally gullible mainstream/Mockingbird media copypasta, the autopsy report will read.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:10 am

By 45%-38%, Americans support impeaching President Trump over Ukraine allegations, USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds

southpaw

I’ll admit that I’m not prepared for the day, if it ever comes, when it’s revealed that the call summary clearly outlining an impeachable offense was a cleaned up version of something worse.



Odd markings, ellipses fuel doubts about the ‘rough transcript’ of Trump’s Ukraine call
Drew Harwell
President Trump said Oct. 2 that he thought he'd finish his first term without people "making false claims," adding, "They didn't know that I had a transcript." (Reuters)

President Trump said Wednesday that his controversial July call with his Ukrainian counterpart was transcribed “word-for-word, comma-for-comma,” an assertion that fueled growing questions about the nature and completeness of an official memorandum about the call released by the White House last week.

“This is an exact word-for-word transcript of the conversation, taken by very talented stenographers,” Trump said.

White House officials previously had portrayed the document as not a verbatim transcription but rather a summary that closely tracked the words the president used in his July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. They said it was being released in a bid to bring transparency and clarity to a call at the heart of a consuming political scandal that has sparked a House impeachment investigation.

But the whistleblower complaint that spurred the investigation described an “official word-for-word transcript” of the call — words closely matching the ones used by Trump on Wednesday — creating uncertainty about what was included in the document the White House released last week and what may have been left out.

Current and former U.S. officials studying the document pointed to several elements that, they say, indicate that the document may have been handled in an unusual way.

Those include the use of ellipses — punctuation indicating that information has been deleted for clarity or other reasons — that traditionally have not appeared in summaries of presidential calls with foreign leaders, according to the current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the elaborate, non-public process.

In two of the cases when ellipses were used, they accompanied Trump’s reference to cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which is at the center of a conservative conspiracy theory about a computer server central to the company’s investigation of the Russian hack of Democratic Party computers that, according to those pushing the theory, is hidden away in Ukraine.

The use of ellipses in this passage fueled questions about what may have been removed and why.

The five-page document reports Trump said, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

In the third use of ellipses, Trump was asking Zelensky about a different theory — also sometimes aired in the extreme corners of the Internet and on some conservative news networks — that Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden had, while vice president, demanded the removal of a prosecutor looking to investigate Biden’s son Hunter.

“Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me,” according to the call document.

The White House declined to comment Wednesday about the unusual markings or other apparent discrepancies. Shortly after the document’s release last week, a White House official had said that the ellipses did not indicate missing words but referred to “a trailing off of a voice or pause,” and called it standard practice for records of presidential phone calls.

Current and former officials said that would be slightly different from previous practice. They said when presidents simply trail off in a way that note-takers can’t hear, that point traditionally has been marked “[inaudible]." When fragments of sentences aren’t readily understood by note-takers, or when comments repeat a previous thought, they said, the transcripts had often been marked with dashes.

Others have noted the brevity of a document purporting to represent a call that lasted 30 minutes. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) had two of his office’s interns read the call summary aloud, measuring its length with a stopwatch app. The time: 10 minutes 40 seconds, or roughly 20 minutes shorter than the White House’s assertion about the call’s length.

“Our motivating question was: How much don't we know?” King said. “There has to be an inquiry to get to the facts."

The memorandum of Trump’s call with Zelensky appears remarkably different in speed and content from the full transcripts of calls between President Trump and foreign leaders The Washington Post obtained in 2017.

The transcript of a 24-minute call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in which both the participants spoke English, included roughly 3,200 words, or about 133 words per minute. A 53-minute call with then-Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, in which both Trump and the Mexican president spoke through interpreters, included roughly 5,500 words, or about 102 words per minute.

The White House summary of Trump’s 30-minute call with Zelensky — which included interpreters because Zelensky spoke Ukrainian while Trump spoke English — includes fewer than 2,000 words, or roughly 65 words per minute. That suggests that the rough transcript of the Zelensky call includes about half the number of words that would be expected if the call had proceeded at the same or similar pace as the previous calls.

It was unclear whether the interpretation of the Zelensky call occurred simultaneously as the presidents were speaking or took place after a participant had finished speaking. The latter would have affected the speed of the conversation.

(Neither the Turnbull nor the Peña Nieto transcript included ellipses.)

The record of the presidential call with Zelensky, which is labeled “MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION,” was marked as having been produced by note-takers in the White House Situation Room, as is standard for calls with foreign leaders. The record, however, is unusual for lacking a tracking number that would normally indicate it had been circulated to senior subject experts and the national security adviser’s office for review and edits. Instead of a “package” number, the memo released by the White House carries a stamp saying: “PkgNumberShort.”

The document additionally carries classification markings that Situation Room staffers do not normally add when they create a word-for-word transcript, current and former officials said.

“I thought to myself, ‘This didn’t go through the normal process,’ ” said one former government official who was among several who handled these records and found the document released by the White House curious.

The whistleblower said in his complaint that multiple U.S. officials had alerted him that “senior White House officials had intervened to ‘lock down’ all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced — as is customary — by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.“

Such phone calls also typically create at least two types of documents: a verbatim transcript made by note-takers in the White House Situation Room and an edited summary that is more widely circulated.

“The one that was released is not the one the Situation Room created,” said one person familiar with the creation of records of calls with foreign leaders who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secretive process. “That’s just not possible.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... aine-call/
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 151 guests