Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Election

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:39 pm

Iamwhomiam » Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:37 pm wrote:So that's why Hannity never asked to look inside Cohen's passport!



stop by the lounge the drinks are on me!


Cohen's motion for a temporary restraining order for now has be denied

Judge calling it premature


Image


trump hired Michael Cohen because had an affair with porn star & Playboy bunny.
Elliott Broidy hired Cohen because had an affair with a Playboy bunny & paid for her abortion.
Sean Hannity hired Cohen because?
THIS IS GOING TO BE FREAKING AWESOME!


the corkboard and red string would be out in full force tonight if the parties were reversed
Image


Image
Image

Image

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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:45 am

Good Grief. Cohen’s World Gets Mobbier The Closer I Look

Josh Marshall
NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 16: Michael Cohen leaves Federal Court after his hearing on the FBI raid of his hotel room and office on April 16, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Yana Paskova/Getty Images)
Yana Paskova/Getty Images North America
In today’s podcast, we look into the background of Michael Cohen. TPM first reported last year that Cohen was actually a childhood friend of Felix Sater, whose father was himself a reputed capo in the Mogilevich organized crime syndicate, said to be Russia’s largest and most dangerous. Filling out this picture of how Cohen fell into this milieu we’ve always been focused on the fact that Cohen’s uncle, Morton Levine, owned and ran a Brooklyn social club, El Caribe, which was a well-known meeting spot for members of Italian and Russian organized crime families in the 1970s and 1980s. (Levine, a medical doctor has never been charged with a crime.) But now it turns out there’s a bit more to this story.

I came across this in a January AP article about Boris Nayfeld, one-time organized crime boss in Brooklyn who now wants to go home to Russia to start a new life. Nayfeld is 70 and he just finished his latest prison sentence. The whole story is a bit low energy and a sad sack in a nonetheless menacing and predatory way.

According to published reports, in the 70s and early 80s, the boss of the Russian mob in New York (and for practical purposes the whole U.S) was a man named Evsei Agron. Things ended badly for Agron when was gunned down in a mob hit in 1985. After Agron was assassinated, his organization was taken over by under-boss Marat Balagula. Authorities believed Balagula was behind Agron’s killing. But he was never charged with the crime. Balagula ran things until 1991 when he was convicted of gasoline bootlegging. Nayfeld had been the bodyguard and enforcer for both Agron and Balagula, one would say more successfully in the latter case than the former. He took over the organization when Balagula went to prison.

What I didn’t realize until now is that both Agron and his successor Balagula ran their operations out of an office in the El Caribe social club. So the El Caribe wasn’t just a mob hangout. From the 70s through the 90s at least, the bosses of the Russian mafia in the U.S. literally ran their crime organization out of the El Caribe.

So Michael Cohen’s uncle Morton Levine’s social club was the headquarters of Russian organized crime in the U.S.

That’s quite something.

The AP article includes another detail.

According to Levine, who is apparently still alive, all his nieces and nephews owned shares of the El Caribe and still do. Levine told the AP that Michael Cohen owned his stake in the club until Donald Trump was elected President when he “gave up his stake.”

That was probably wise!

It was also very recent.

One of the abiding questions about Cohen is how he became so deeply enmeshed in the Ukrainian and Russian emigre communities from such an early age and moved so early into businesses heavily infiltrated by organized crime. He married a Ukrainian immigrant whose father got him into the taxi business and himself had at least one conviction for money laundering. Cohen was raised in the Five Towns area of Long Island, not far from Brighton Beach as the crow flies – just across Jamaica Bay – but worlds away culturally. The El Caribe seems like the logical locus which brought Cohen into this world.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/go ... ser-i-look


Notorious Russian mobster says he just wants to go home

Image
Boris Nayfeld poses for a picture at the Russian Baths in the Brooklyn borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 18, 2018. New York's most notorious living Russian mobster wants to go back to the motherland. Recently released from his third stint in prison, this time for his role in a murder-for-hire plot turned extortion attempt, Nayfeld is divorced, broke and discouraged about his job prospects. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Boris Nayfeld poses for a picture at the Russian Baths in the Brooklyn borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 18, 2018. New York's most notorious living Russian mobster wants to go back to the motherland. Recently released from his third stint in prison, this time for his role in a murder-for-hire plot turned extortion attempt, Nayfeld is divorced, broke and discouraged about his job prospects. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

NEW YORK (AP) — New York's most notorious living Russian mobster just wants to go back to the motherland.

Once flush from heroin trafficking, tax fraud schemes and other criminal enterprises, Boris Nayfeld is now 70, fresh out of prison for the third time, divorced and broke. And he is left with few job prospects in his adopted country, at least those in line with his experiences.

"I can't do nothing," Nayfeld griped in a thick Russian accent between shots of vodka at a restaurant a few blocks north of Brooklyn's Brighton Beach neighborhood, which has been a haven for immigrants from the former Soviet Union since the 1970s. "Give me a chance to start a new life."

Nayfeld, who still sports the shaved head, piercing eyes and tattooed, burly physique that made him an intimidating figure in the city's Russian-speaking neighborhoods for decades, told The Associated Press he longs to move back to a homeland where his skill set connecting businesspeople of all stripes will yield better dividends.

But for now he is not allowed to leave, still facing three years' probation from his latest prison term, which ended in October, a two-year stint for his role in a murder-for-hire plot that morphed into an extortion attempt.

"I lost everything," Nayfeld grumbled over a multi-course meal capped with a meringue dessert called the Pavlova. "I lost job, I lost my time for stay in prison. I lost my wife. This is enough punish for me."

Living straight is a new experience for Nayfeld, who first came to the U.S. from Belarus in the late 1970s with a wave of Jewish emigres from the former Soviet Union who said they were fleeing religious persecution. But by his own admission, Nayfeld got into crime as soon as he arrived to the U.S.

Over his career, Nayfeld, also known as Biba, has been convicted of fraud, tobacco smuggling and shipping heroin stashed in TVs from Thailand via Poland. He has publicly threatened to kill rivals and escaped one attempt on his life when a bomb placed under his car failed to detonate.

In 1986, Nayfeld was shot in the hand when gunmen with automatic weapons burst into an office where he ran a lucrative gasoline tax-skimming scheme, killing a friend and fellow criminal named Elia Zeltzer, after whom his son, Eli, is now named. And he was at the scene a year earlier when the feared Russian godfather Evsei Agron was assassinated.
Image
Boris Nayfeld poses for a picture at the Russian Baths in the Brooklyn borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 18, 2018. New York's most notorious living Russian mobster wants to go back to the motherland. Recently released from his third stint in prison, this time for his role in a murder-for-hire plot turned extortion attempt, Nayfeld is divorced, broke and discouraged about his job prospects. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Boris Nayfeld poses for a picture at the Russian Baths in the Brooklyn borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 18, 2018. New York's most notorious living Russian mobster wants to go back to the motherland. Recently released from his third stint in prison, this time for his role in a murder-for-hire plot turned extortion attempt, Nayfeld is divorced, broke and discouraged about his job prospects. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Nayfeld, who was dubbed an "organizer, enforcer and narcotics distributor" for the Russian mafia in a 1997 U.S. Customs intelligence report, said he has no regrets about his life of crime.

"Never. No. When I'm born again, I do it the same," he said.

At his sentencing last July, an assistant U.S. attorney told a federal judge that while Nayfeld has "for most of his adult life been in Russian organized crime," and effectively traded on his reputation to extract payment from a wealthy Russian-born shipping magnate going through a bitter divorce, he's not actually that scary anymore.

"And so I think perhaps we are at a moment where the reinforcing cycle of the myth of Boris Nayfeld has probably reached its end," said the prosecutor, Andrew Thomas.

That remains to be seen, said Judge Katherine Forrest, who imposed the lighter sentence with "some discomfort" based on the government's recommendation, according to a transcript of the proceeding.

For his part, the burly Nayfeld said he is determined not to return to prison. Getting by on a $750-a-month Social Security check, he said he is avoiding most of the locations where former associates and criminals from a younger generation of Russians gather — except, that is, for the bathhouse.

He has decided to once again trade in on his reputation, shopping his life rights to production companies considering a reality TV show featuring past players from the Russian criminal underworld, according to his son, Eli Kiperman.

In many ways, the Brooklyn that Nayfeld has returned to doesn't resemble the rough-and-tumble streets he once roamed, when crime, especially violent crime, among Russian immigrants in New York hit historic highs in the early 1990s. Back then, warring outfits of Russian crooks littered the streets with bodies.
Image
Boris Nayfeld poses for a picture at the Russian Baths in the Brooklyn borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 18, 2018. New York's most notorious living Russian mobster wants to go back to the motherland. Recently released from his third stint in prison, this time for his role in a murder-for-hire plot turned extortion attempt, Nayfeld is divorced, broke and discouraged about his job prospects. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Boris Nayfeld poses for a picture at the Russian Baths in the Brooklyn borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 18, 2018. New York's most notorious living Russian mobster wants to go back to the motherland. Recently released from his third stint in prison, this time for his role in a murder-for-hire plot turned extortion attempt, Nayfeld is divorced, broke and discouraged about his job prospects. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Still, said Seva Kaplan, a Russia-born radio host who struck up an unlikely friendship with Nayfeld years after the now-aging gangster threatened to kill him at the request of a mutual acquaintance, Russian criminals today run a range of enterprises throughout New York, including moneymaking Medicaid and credit card fraud rings, as well as traditional protection rackets, gambling and prostitution operations.

After the infamous mob boss Agron was killed, Nayfeld served as a bodyguard and chauffer for the next don of the Russian mob, Marat Balagula.

Balagula maintained an office at the El Caribe Country Club, a Brooklyn catering hall and event space owned by the uncle of President Donald Trump's longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.

The uncle, Dr. Morton Levine, said that all his nieces and nephews have an ownership in the company, but that Cohen "gave up his stake," after Trump was elected.

Nayfeld is a Trump supporter, and believes the special counsel investigation into the Trump campaign's contact with Russia, and the nonstop news coverage about it, is over the top and counterproductive to U.S.-Russian relations.

Trump "is a businessman, he don't care who give him money for project," Nayfeld said. "I'm the same."
http://www.nydailynews.com/newswires/ne ... -1.3783151
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:09 pm

New York Attorney General Seeks Power to Bypass Presidential Pardons
By DANNY HAKIM and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUMAPRIL 18, 2018

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York is moving to change New York state law so that he and other local prosecutors would have the power to bring criminal charges against aides to President Trump who have been pardoned, according to a letter Mr. Schneiderman sent to the governor and state lawmakers on Wednesday.

The move, if approved by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and the Legislature, would serve notice that the legal troubles of the president and his aides may continue without the efforts of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Under the plan, Mr. Schneiderman, a Democrat, seeks to exempt New York’s double jeopardy law from cases involving presidential pardons, according to the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. The current law and the concept of double jeopardy in general mean that a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice.

Right now, New York state law prevents people from being prosecuted more than once for crimes related to the same act, even if the original prosecution was in federal court. There are already a number of exceptions to the law, and the letter says that Mr. Schneiderman is proposing to add a new one that could be used if federal pardons are issued.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Schneiderman have a contentious past. Mr. Schneiderman led a three-year investigation of Trump University that resulted in Mr. Trump paying a $25 million settlement. For his part, the president has dubbed Mr. Schneiderman “the nation’s worst AG.” He has also called him “dopey,” a “lightweight” and a “total loser,” and even tweeted about his eyelashes.
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

While Mr. Schneiderman’s jurisdiction does not encompass many of the areas being investigated by Mr. Mueller, a president has no authority to commute sentences or pardon offenses at the state level. That leaves convictions obtained by the state attorney general’s office or any other local prosecutor outside the president’s ability to intervene. The proposal would be structured so that it would not affect people who sought clemency after long jail sentences, an aide to Mr. Schneiderman said.

If the proposed law is passed, anyone indicted on state charges after being convicted in federal court and then pardoned would likely challenge the state law in court. But Mr. Schneiderman wrote in the letter that he and his advisers were confident the legislation would withstand any constitutional scrutiny.

Even though New York is a reliably blue state, Mr. Schneiderman’s proposal is hardly a foregone conclusion, given the narrow political divide in the State Senate.

“We are disturbed by reports that the president is considering pardons of individuals who may have committed serious federal financial, tax, and other crimes — acts that may also violate New York law,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement provided by his office.

“We must ensure that if the president, or any president, issues such pardons, we can use the full force of New York’s laws to bring such individuals to justice.”

The White House had no immediate response.

The president has openly discussed his pardon powers, and reportedly even asked his aides whether he could pardon himself, though one of his lawyers denied it.


Document: New York Attorney General’s Letter on Presidential Pardons
“While all agree the U.S. President has the complete power to pardon,” he tweeted last year, “why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us.”

Just last week, when lawyers for Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, who is himself the subject of a criminal investigation apparently unrelated to Mr. Mueller’s probe, were in court clashing with prosecutors over a search warrant, Mr. Trump pardoned former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.

Mr. Schneiderman’s move has the potential to set off a battle in the State Senate, where Republicans have narrowly controlled the chamber through alliances with Democrats. Earlier this month, though, most Democrats in the chamber ended a long-running feud, which has left a degree of doubt over long-term control of the body. An April 24 special election in Westchester County could determine who will lead the chamber.

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
New York Today
Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more.

Sign Up

You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
The measure would likely be supported by Mr. Cuomo, who is tacking left in the face of a primary challenge from Cynthia Nixon, the actress and activist. The state’s Assembly has long been a bulwark of liberal ideals.

Mr. Schneiderman’s move is likely to inflame allies of Mr. Trump, who see Mr. Schneiderman as an opportunist bent on making political hay by antagonizing the president, and whom they see as unlikely to treat Mr. Trump fairly.

This is hardly the first time Mr. Schneiderman has challenged Mr. Trump.

A month before the 2016 election, his office ordered Mr. Trump’s foundation to stop raising money in New York amid scrutiny over Mr. Trump’s claims about charitable giving. The $25 million settlement over Trump University came little more than a week after the election. Mr. Schneiderman called the settlement “a stunning reversal by Donald Trump and a major victory for the over 6,000 victims of his fraudulent university.”

The attorney general’s office has also investigated Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul J. Manafort, who was indicted on federal charges last year, though he deferred his inquiry amid the federal investigation.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution has a double jeopardy clause that says “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” But that applies to multiple prosecutions of the same federal offense.

The states are almost evenly split between those that have additional double jeopardy protections at the state level and those that do not, giving a measure of viability to Mr. Schneiderman’s effort. And Mr. Schneiderman has successfully backed changes to the double jeopardy law before. In 2011, the state closed what was known as the “Helmsley loophole,” named for the headline-grabbing hotelier Leona Helmsley, allowing it to prosecute tax cheats who had already been prosecuted federally.

“New York’s statutory protections could result in the unintended and unjust consequence of insulating someone pardoned for serious federal crimes from subsequent prosecution for state crimes,” Mr. Schneiderman writes in his letter, “even if that person was never tried or convicted in federal court, and never served a single day in federal prison.”

Whether Mr. Schneiderman’s office would even seek to become involved in a criminal prosecution of Mr. Trump or his aides remains to be seen. But his move only adds to Mr. Trump’s legal problems.

Several of Mr. Trump’s former aides have pleaded guilty in Mr. Mueller’s inquiry, including Rick Gates, a former campaign adviser, and Michael Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser. Earlier this month, the Southern District of New York, an office of the Justice Department outside of Mr. Mueller’s, revealed it was investigating Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Trump has made his feelings about these investigations plain in a recent tweet that said, simply, “A TOTAL WITCH HUNT
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/nyre ... d=tw-share


Image


VANISHING ACT: The 10 Questions James Comey Should Be Asked That The Media Has Let Him Not Answer

Lanny Davis

Why has the tough media — especially mainstream media — allowed James Comey, the former FBI director, to get away with avoiding the tough questions about his inappropriate and possibly unethical conduct of the Hillary Clinton emails investigation? Comey has also been downright evasive and, in one major respect, dishonest — and yet, the mainstream media for some reason doesn’t get tough and call him at it. This applies to The New York Times in a recent summary of Comey’s responses to questions and ABC News, during its tough interview by George Stephanopoulos on ABC network scheduled for Sunday night, April 15.

Here are the 10 tough questions not asked and answered by Comey:

1. Can you cite a single top Justice Department official in either party going back as far as you want who would justify an FBI investigator, including the FBI Director, publicly revealing the results of an ongoing criminal investigation – either directly or by speaking “on background,” anonymously to the media? Do you think such comments on the record or on background by an FBI investigator is a firing offense?

2. Do you agree that a federal investigator, including the FBI Director, is not allowed to offer a public criticism of someone under FBI investigation without charging that individual in an indictment so the individual can obtain due process to defend him- or herself?

3. Do you agree with the senior Justice Department Official told a Vanity Fair reporter in an article published in early 2017, referring to your characterization that Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling emails: “The one thing we don’t do [at the Justice Department”] is publicly shame and not charge?”

4. You claimed that you were “obligated” to send your October 28, 2016 letter to congress because you had promised congress you would do so if there were any new evidence regarding Hillary Clinton’s email practices after your July 5 non-prosecution decision. Do you now admit that you only promised congress you would “look at” any new evidence – NOT that you would inform them publicly, via a letter or otherwise?

5. Did you know that the attorneys for Mr. Anthony Weiner and Ms. Huma Abedin would have given the FBI permission to review the emails discovered on Mr. Weiner’s lap top computer without the need for a warrant? And if you didn’t know that, why didn’t you ask?

6. Did you get permission from the Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates, before you decided to hold the July 5, 2016, public press conference to announce your no-prosecution recommendation concerning Hillary Clinton’s email practices? Or your characterization of the evidence of the investigation where you had decided not to recommend any prosecution as “extremely careless.” And if not, why not?

7. Do you agree that the FBI Director, and all FBI agents, work for the Department of Justice and are subject to supervision by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and are required to comply with all Justice Department policies, rules, and U.S. Attorney guidelines? And specifically, do you believe the FBI Director and FBI agents are not allowed to choose which DOJ policies, rules, and guidelines they are allowed to ignore?

8. Which is more important: your and the FBI’s reputation or your following the law and being part of the Justice Department and required to be accountable to the attorney general and deputy attorney general?

9. Do you think J. Edgar Hoover’s willingness to take political considerations into account when making decisions was a good role model for you to follow? When you decided to send the October 28, 2016 letter to congress because you were concerned about the political reaction to Hillary Clinton’s election if you did not send such a letter, that taking such political considerations into account when you made such a momentous decision was appropriate?

10. Do you see your application of a double standard when you chose to write your October 28 letter public concerning Hillary Clinton’s emails on the Wiener lap top but chose not to reveal the existence of an ongoing FBI investigation that Russia had actively meddled in the U.S. presidential election in favor of Mr. Trump?
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/15/10-qu ... mes-comey/
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:05 pm

:P


emptywheel

So one of Trump's buddies just went on the record w/the dubious legal (but unprivileged) advice he gave Trump Friday about how to obstruct justice. The same buddy may have been the reason Trump called Cohen Friday.

If I'm Mueller I've got the subpoena already written.



THE FIRE ROSENSTEIN SQUAD AMONG TRUMP’S BUDDIES

April 18, 2018/6 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by empty wheel

WSJ has a fascinating story about the advice that former prosecutor and Trump lawyer Jay Goldberg gave the president last week after the Michael Cohen raid. Rather than keeping the advice confidential or even anonymous, Goldberg instead sat down for two hours to tell the WSJ precisely what he told the president in a 15 minute conversation last week.

The newsy bit is that Goldberg told Trump that Cohen would flip on him if he were charged, and might even agree to wear a wire.

One of President Donald Trump’s longtime legal advisers said he warned the president in a phone call Friday that Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer and close friend, would turn against the president and cooperate with federal prosecutors if faced with criminal charges.

Mr. Trump made the call seeking advicel [sic] from Jay Goldberg, who represented Mr. Trump in the 1990s and early 2000s. Mr. Goldberg said he cautioned the president not to trust Mr. Cohen. On a scale of 100 to 1, where 100 is fully protecting the president, Mr. Cohen “isn’t even a 1,” he said he told Mr. Trump.

[snip]

[H]e stressed to thje [sic] president that Mr. Cohen could even agree to wear a wire and try to record conversations with Mr. Trump. “You have to be alert,” Mr. Goldberg said he told the president. “I don’t care what Michael says.”


The more troubling revelation is that Goldberg told Trump straight out he should fire Rod Rosenstein.

Prompted by the president for his advice, he also said he recommended Mr. Trump fire Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who appointed Mr. Mueller.


But here’s the other detail of interest. Goldberg told the WSJ that the Cohen raid puts him at more risk than the Mueller investigation.

Goldberg said the volume of correspondence taken and the potential pressure the government can bring to bear on Mr. Cohen to testify puts the president in more potential peril from the Cohen matter than from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Mr. Mueller is examining whether members of Mr. Trump’s campaign team colluded with Russians to affect the 2016 election. Russia officials have denied meddling in the election, and Mr. Trump has denied any collusion took place.


And he said that even while asserting that he doesn’t believe Trump broke the law (in context, I presume this means with Russia, though I’m not certain).

Goldberg recalled the conversation in a two-hour interview in his apartment on New York’s Upper East Side Wednesday, emphasizing that he didn’t believe Mr. Trump had broken the law.


Here’s why I find this so fascinating.

First, clearly Goldberg wants this out, even the details (like that he thinks Cohen might wear a wire) designed to make Trump go nuts. This, then, is presumably another example of a Trump associate trying to speak to him through the press (though why Goldberg chose WSJ instead of Fox, I don’t know — maybe this is an attempt to get booked on Fox, where Trump will see it). Perhaps, too, Goldberg is trying to put pressure on Trump’s legal team, especially Ty Cobb, to let the president fire Rosenstein.

That said, the story will make the legal risk of firing Rosenstein still greater, because it will make the context of all this clear: that firing Rosenstein would be an attempt to prevent Cohen from being charged, which would have the effect ofof exposing Trump to legal risk. (That analysis seems problematic in any case, because — at least according to my understanding of things — while Rosenstein has to approve any charges Mueller makes, that may not be true of any charges Robert Khuzami would make as acting US Attorney for SDNY, though it’s possible DOJ would demand further approvals because of the political significance of this.)

But the entire premise, if Goldberg is to be believed (and if I’m understanding the context of his comment about Trump not having broken the law), is that Trump is not at legal risk from Mueller but he is at risk for … everything else that Cohen might implicate him in.

Of course, that sentiment was reported last Friday by NYT, in the lead of this story, attributed to “Trump’s advisers” and “people close to Trump” (both descriptions could clearly include Goldberg).

President Trump’s advisers have concluded that a wide-ranging corruption investigation into his personal lawyer poses a greater and more imminent threat to the president than even the Special Counsel’s investigation, according to several people close to Mr. Trump.


In other words, it’s highly likely that we’re seeing Goldberg say on the record to the WSJ what he said anonymously to the NYT last week. But in the process, we’re seeing why: Goldberg doesn’t think Trump broke the law in anything he did with regards to Russia. How much does Goldberg really know what Trump did, I wonder? Either he knows all the details, in which case his judgment may be valid, or he has no clue, in which case we shouldn’t necessarily take the opinion as all that reasonable.

Side note: if I’m Mueller, I’ve already drafted the subpoena for Goldberg, who presumably won’t be able to claim the substance of this conversation with Trump, which he shared with WSJ, is privileged.

All of which leads me to the most shocking part of Friday’s story: that Trump called Cohen that day to “check in.”

Trump called Mr. Cohen on Friday to “check in,” according to two people briefed on the call. Depending on what else was discussed, the call could be problematic, as lawyers typically advise their clients against discussing investigations.

WSJ seems to suggest that, in addition to speaking with Trump, Goldberg also spoke to Cohen, which may be where he got the detailed description of the raid he shared with WSJ.

Mr. Cohen was “shocked,” according to Mr. Goldberg, who also spoke with Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Ty Cobb, in recent days.


So what this looks like by reading the two stories together is that, probably before he spoke to Trump on Friday, Goldberg spoke to Cohen. Maybe that’s part of where he derived his opinion that Cohen would flip on Trump. And then Goldberg called Trump to tell him Cohen wouldn’t remain loyal.

Was that before or after Trump called Cohen to “check in”?

Goldberg may be trying to help Trump by pushing him to fire Rosenstein. But I can think of about five ways that this story really fucks Trump, and that’s assuming that Mueller doesn’t give Goldberg a call to invite him in for a chat.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/04/18/t ... s-buddies/


Which dress will Rudy wear on his first day on the job?
Image

Rudy Giuliani in Talks to Join Trump's Legal Team

They're just talks for now.



Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been in talks to join the President Donald Trump’s personal legal team, according to a person familiar with the matter. No decision is currently final.

A slew of foreign policy matters which Trump has had to deal with has slowed the process of expanding the president's legal team, according the person familiar with the matter. Trump’s time has been absorbed by North Korea and Syria, which has limited his availability to speak with potential new members of his legal team.

Giuliani did not immediately return a request for comment. But he is a close ally of the president, having campaigned closely with him during the 2016 election. Giuliani gave an impassioned speech in favor of Trump at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

“What I did for New York City, Donald Trump will do for America,” he said at the convention. “I have known Donald Trump for almost 30 years. And he has created and accomplished great things. But beyond that this is a man with a big heart. Every time New York City suffered a tragedy, Donald Trump was there to help.”

After Trump’s victory, however, Giuliani wasn’t selected for any cabinet post, leaving him on the outside of an administration he’d helped elect. Axios reported last summer that Trump had considered replacing Attorney General Jeff Sessions with Giuliani. But that too never happened.

This is a developing story.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-giul ... m?ref=wrap
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:04 pm

Renato Mariotti

"We need to go after the reporters ... 10 or 15 years ago we put them in jail to find out what they know, and it worked." - Trump, according to Comey

This is the sort of talk you would expect from a dictator or a despot, not the man who swore to uphold the First Amendment.
Image

“Do you have a FISA order on Mike Flynn?” - Reince Priebus to Comey, less than two weeks before Trump asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go.”
Image





The Associated Press

BREAKING: Memo: Trump told Comey he had "serious reservations about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's judgment.

BREAKING: AP obtains memos drafted by former FBI Director James Comey on interactions with President Donald Trump.
https://twitter.com/AP?ref_src=twsrc%5E ... r%5Eauthor


DOJ delivers Comey memos to Congress
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/ ... ess-537825



Rudy Giuliani told The Washington Post today that he is joining Trump’s legal team to help "negotiate an end" in about 2 weeks to special counsel Robert Mueller's probe

Giuliani can quickly “negotiate an end” to Trump’s legal troubles. Trump’s only remaining bargaining chip in any negotiation is his resignation. :)

Seth Abramson

So Trump has just hired, as his new attorney, an almost certain witness in the Mueller probe. That means he will be paying money to, and sharing his own confidential testimony with, a fellow Mueller witness. This is both Obstruction and Witness Tampering. But hey, who's counting?

2/ Understand what this allows Trump to do (or what he *thinks* it does): allows him to discuss the Russia case and the pre-election Clinton email hoaxes with Giuliani, synch up his testimony, then ensure Giuliani can't discuss those conversations with Mueller.

He's transparent.


Giuliani might rival Joe diGenova as the shortest-tenured member of Trump's legal team. Timing is everything:

Justice Department watchdog to report on Clinton-related FBI leaks

Mark Hosenball

APRIL 19, 2018 / 12:04 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A long-awaited U.S. Justice Department internal watchdog report on former FBI chief James Comey’s public disclosures on Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state and whether FBI employees leaked information to try to hurt her 2016 presidential bid is expected to be issued next month.

The report from Michael Horowitz, the department’s inspector general, arises from an investigation he launched about a week before Republican President Donald Trump, who defeated Democrat Clinton in the election, took office in January 2017.

In a letter last week to Republican Representative Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Horowitz said his office was “working diligently” to complete the report and expected to release it in May.

Horowitz’s letter did not offer details of what will be in the report. In a Jan. 12, 2017 letter to five congressional committees, he enumerated 2016 election-related issues his office would look into.

Clinton has called the FBI investigation into her emails and Comey’s public disclosures about it significant factors in her loss to Trump, who fired Comey as FBI director in May 2017.

The investigation will examine Comey’s statements in August 2016 that no charges would be brought against Clinton and in October about the re-opening of the FBI investigation into her use of a private email server rather than a government server, potentially jeopardizing classified information.

The report also is expected to address whether active and retired FBI agents in New York leaked information about investigations of the Clinton Foundation charitable organization and the discovery of a trove of Clinton-related emails.

Law enforcement officials previously told Reuters the information was leaked to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an adviser to the Trump campaign who subsequently discussed the contents on Fox News.

Horowitz’s office also has sought to determine whether such leaks influenced Comey’s decision 11 days before the election to announce the reopening of the Clinton email investigation. Law enforcement sources with knowledge of the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity, said at the time a fear of leaks from within his own agency helped prompt Comey to make that public disclosure.

Comey did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump and Comey have exchanged harsh criticism in the past week. Trump called Comey a “slime ball.” Comey called Trump an unethical liar who is morally unfit to be president.

Reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by John Walcott and Will Dunham
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1HQ2K2


Did Rod Rosenstein just laid a trap for Republicans in Congress and did one of them just take the bait by leaking them?



that person just committed obstruction of justice


bonus idiot statement

trump states that human trafficking is currently "worse than it's ever been in the history of the world"
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:01 am

“Good news, Mr. President. I negotiated you the top bunk!”
- your pal Rudy


Scully
Reza Zarrab has flipped. You may not know who he is (search his name here) but this is likely a BIG story.

Zarrab is connected to Giuliani, Flynn, Turkey, & Iran.

He’s turning on someone bigger than the revealed Atilla.

Zarrab allegedly helped the Iranian gov evade economic sanctions via Turkey.
In February, Zarrab traveled to Turkey with Giuliani.
Preet Bharara indicted Zarrab
In March 2017, Zarrab fired his prior attorneys and hired Guiliani to represent him.
Because Flynn was supposedly offered $15 million to arrange Zarrab’s release and to kidnap the exiled Imam (Fethullah Gulen currently living in Pennsylvania, and bring him to Turkey.


INDICTED Turkish Minister Former General Manager...GIULIANI?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40682



emptywheel

"We think Andy McCabe should be prosecuted for leaking to the media," said Mark Meadows, just as he handed off the Comey memos he had gotten 20 minutes earlier, probably.




ON THE COMEY MEMOS


April 20, 2018/0 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
As you read this thread, remember that whoever leaked the Comey memos is also likely to be one of the people who is calling for Andrew McCabe to be prosecuted for leaking to the media.

JANUARY 6, 2017: TRUMP DOESN’T DENY THE GOLDEN SHOWERS, JUST THAT THEY WERE PROSTITUTES

Here’s the operative passage on Trump’s response to being informed about the pee tape.

Image

I think the exchange has been distorted by Comey, who is a prig that would judge anything that reeks of kink.

Trump doesn’t actually deny he engaged in some kind of golden showers event. Rather, he denies there were prostitutes. He’s only denying he paid for sex. Given the way Trump’s associative brain raised what we now know to be hush payments for actual behavior, this seems closer to a confirmation than a denial.

His reference to 2013, while it might be deceit, might also be amazement that the Russians were digging up old dirt.

I’m particularly interested in the redaction, which must say something about the dossier (and possibly Steele’s identity, though Comey didn’t share it). We don’t know who leaked that Trump got briefed on the memo, and I don’t rule out CIA leaking it. But Comey tells Trump that he wants to keep two things secret — that FBI has the dossier and something about the circumstances of the dossier. Those details very quickly leaked. I think it possible — likely even — that Trump leaked these details precisely because Comey said he wanted them kept secret.

JANUARY 27, 2017: TRUMP ASKS FOR LOYALTY, THEN ASKS FOR INVESTIGATION

While Comey admits that he’s not sure he got the order of the private dinner between him and Trump correct, as he lays it out, Trump raises loyalty (to which Comey doesn’t respond), then asks Comey to investigation the pee tape to prove it wrong, then asks for loyalty again.

Image

I’ve joked that no one should complain now that an investigation arose out of the dossier since Trump asked for just that, but in context, I think the exchange is even more important. Trump asked for an investigation from a loyal person. He expected an investigation that would exonerate him and he tied that to loyalty.

And all that took place against the background of Sally Yates warning Don McGahn about what Mike Flynn had said with Sergei Kislyak. In the conversation, Trump introduced a claim that he doubted Flynn’s judgment, because he hadn’t immediately told Trump that Putin was the first to congratulate Trump on his inauguration (he was among the first to call after the election as well).

Image

I’ve always wondered why Flynn’s firing is treated as part of the obstruction investigation, and not part of the conspiracy. I think the explanation lies, at least partly, in this exchange. It’s clearly spin. It’s not just that Trump was complaining that Flynn wasn’t passing on his messages quickly enough, but it’s that he’s creating the suggestion that Flynn was running Russia response independently, which he wasn’t.

That is, Trump’s first exchange with Comey after learning Flynn was under investigation was to put some distance between the two of them.

FEBRUARY 8, 2017: AT A MEET-AND-GREET WITH PRIEBUS, COMEY MEETS FLYNN AND TRUMP

Comey goes for what he calls a meet-and-greet with Reince Priebus, whom he has said he should primarily work with. But before that happens, Flynn sits down with him for five minutes (remember they would have worked together in 2013-2014), without mentioning the FBI interview.

During the Priebus interview, after an extended discussion about the dossier (remember, Paul Manafort had contacted Priebus weeks earlier to discuss the dossier, and possibly to lay out a rebuttal plan to it), he asks whether there’s a FISA order on Flynn.



Here’s analysis suggesting Comey’s answer was yes, here’s one suggesting it was no. The analysis is made more difficult because Comey uses double spaces after a period.

Contextually, the answer was probably no because:

Otherwise Comey wouldn’t have made an exception to the normal reporting channels
Ordinarily, it takes a while to get a FISC order; the concern about Flynn intensified on January 5, but in the January 24 interview, FBI Agents generally thought he was being honest
At this point, FBI was delaying the normal briefing of the counterintelligence investigation because of sensitivity concerns
In any case, though the meeting was supposed to be with Priebus, the Chief of Staff brought Comey into meet with Trump (this feels sort of like another job interview). During it, Trump first raised this remarkably (for him) awkward Putin attempt to protect Trump from the prostitute allegation in the dossier — though like Trump, he’s denying that the women were prostitutes, not that he was with women; Trump claims that Putin said this directly to him, which given Putin’s awkwardness could well be the case. Trump then raised Russian pique with Bill O’Reilly for a question about Putin; Comey judges Trump took offense to his distinction between Russian and US killings (though I’m not even sure that’s right).

FEBRUARY 14, 2017: TRUMP EMPHASIZES THE FLYNN DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG

There are actually three parts to the Flynn content in the famous oval office meeting: a first exchange where Trump defended what Flynn did repeatedly, a second one where Trump complained (rightly) about the leak of the FISA wiretap, and the third exchange about “letting this go.”

Image

Given the context of the Priebus question about the wiretap less than a week earlier, I actually think that’s what the point was. The White House had to get rid of Flynn as an effort to squelch the investigation into actions Trump himself had ordered. But that was only going to work if the FBI did drop the Flynn investigation.

MARCH 1, 2017: TRUMP CALLS TO CHECK IN (AND INVITE COMEY TO THE WHITE HOUSE)

This call, which Comey memorialized in an email to Jim Rybicki, seemed designed to get Comey to come of his own accord to the White House. More importantly, the day before Jeff Sessions’ recusal, Trump wanted to get cozy with Comey.

MARCH 30, 2017: TRUMP ASKS THE CLOUD BE REMOVED
The released memos raise two new details about the “cloud hanging over” phone conversation on March 30. Amid his other comments designed to convince Comey he was innocent, Trump also said he was going to sue Christopher Steele.

Image

This would have been between the Webzilla and the Alfa Bank suits, and long before Michael Cohen launched his ill-advised (and now dropped) suit. While Trump is a litigious fuck and we can’t conclude anything by his threatened suit, it a detail that suggests coordinated lawfare was part of the plan.

In addition, Trump made a reference that made Comey think his “satellite” comment pertained to Sergei Millian. That’s interesting given that 1) George Papadopoulos was also under active investigation at this time and 2) Millian had pitched Papadopoulos to pick up the Trump Tower pursuit when Michael Cohen had dropped it in June.

APRIL 11, 2017: TRUMP REMINDS COMEY WE HAD THAT THING

Given the way Trump always coupled his requests for loyalty with comments about Andrew McCabe, I wonder whether, when Trump said “we had that thing,” he doesn’t believe he made a deal with Comey, where Comey could keep McCabe on so long as Comey remained loyal.

https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Screenshot-2018-04-20-at-10.38.10-AM.png

Whatever it was, Comey had no inkling.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/04/20/o ... mey-memos/
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:17 am

:P :lol: :P


Mueller Says That Until Yesterday He Had Almost Forgotten to Investigate Giuliani

By Andy BorowitzApril 20, 2018

Photograph by Win McNamee / Getty
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The independent counsel, Robert Mueller, told reporters that, prior to news reports on Thursday, he had “almost forgotten” to investigate the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

“Like most Americans, I had totally forgotten about Rudy Giuliani’s existence,” he said. “But then when he popped up on the news I was, like, ‘Hold on—shouldn’t we be investigating him?’ ”

Mueller was at a loss to explain why he had failed to investigate Giuliani earlier. “I have no idea how it could have slipped my mind,” he said. “His role in Trump’s campaign was as fishy as all get-out.”

He said that other members of his team were “poking fun” at him for not deciding to investigate Giuliani before Thursday. “I mean, think about it: how do you do a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign and leave Rudy out of it?” he said. “I’ve got to say, I’m pretty darn embarrassed about the whole thing.”

When asked for an estimate of when the Russia inquiry might wrap up, Mueller responded, “I honestly can’t say. I was hoping to bring it to a close in the next month or two, but now that we’re also investigating Rudy Giuliani, God only knows how long it’ll take.”
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowit ... e-giuliani
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:52 pm

Trump Fundraiser Offered Russian Gas Company Plan to Get Sanctions Lifted for $26 Million

April 20 2018, 11:44 a.m.
Shortly after President Donald Trump was inaugurated last year, top Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy offered Russian gas giant Novatek a $26 million lobbying plan aimed at removing the company from a U.S. sanctions list, according to documents obtained by The Intercept.

Broidy is a Trump associate who was deputy finance chair of the Republican National Committee until he resigned last week amid reports that he had agreed to pay $1.6 million to a former Playboy model with whom he had an affair. But in February 2017, when he laid out his lobbying proposal for Novatek, he was acting as a well-connected businessman and longtime Republican donor in a bid to help the Russian company avoid sanctions imposed by the Obama administration. The 2014 sanctions were aimed at punishing Russia for annexing Crimea and supporting pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine.

In February 2017, Broidy sent a draft of the plan by email to attorney Andrei Baev, then a Moscow- and London-based lawyer who represented major Russian energy companies for the firm Chadbourne & Parke LLP. Baev had already been communicating with Novatek about finding a way to lift U.S. sanctions.

Broidy proposed arranging meetings with key White House and congressional leaders and generating op-eds and other articles favorable to the Russian company, along with a full suite of lobbying activities to be undertaken by consultants brought on board. Yet even as he offered those services, Broidy was adamant that his company, Fieldcrest Advisors LLC, would not perform lobbying services but would hire others to do it. He suggested that parties to the deal sign a sweeping non-disclosure agreement that would shield their work from public scrutiny.

The plan is outlined in a series of emails and other documents obtained by The Intercept. Broidy and Baev did not dispute the authenticity of the exchanges but said the deal was never consummated.

In March, Bloomberg News reported that Broidy “offered last year to help a Moscow-based lawyer” — Baev — “get Russian companies removed from a U.S. sanctions list.” The news outlet did not identify the Russian firms or provide details of that proposal.

“At the time when I was a partner of Chadbourne & Parke LLP I had very preliminary discussions with Elliott Broidy with regard to possible engagement of him as a strategic consultant with regard to a possible instruction by one of my corporate clients. This instruction has never materialized,” Baev told The Intercept in an email. “Nor did I or Chadbourne provide any services to any other individual or entity in connection with any attempt to remove any Russian company or an individual from the US sanctions list.”

Broidy told The Intercept through a spokesperson that Baev had approached him about the proposal, but that Broidy had decided not to go through with it for political reasons. “At the time Mr. Baev had approached us he was then a managing partner of a major U.S. law firm and the new Administration had indicated an interest in normalizing relations with Russia and potentially easing sanctions,” Broidy told The Intercept in a statement provided by his spokesperson. “Subsequently, the geopolitical landscape changed and I made the decision not to pursue it.”

Baev was introduced to Broidy in October 2016, before Trump was elected. At the time, Broidy was serving as a top fundraiser for the Trump campaign; he would later become vice chair of Trump’s inaugural committee before transitioning to his most recent position at the RNC.

Broidy began sharing drafts of his lobbying plan with Baev by December. That month, he also sent Baev a Wall Street Journal article headlined “France Poised for Pro-Russia Pivot.”

The article describes how François Fillon and Marine Le Pen, the center-right and far-right candidates, respectively, during the 2017 French presidential election, both opposed punitive sanctions levied by French President François Hollande against Russia for its activity in eastern Ukraine. “With U.S. President-elect Donald Trump also promising friendlier relations with Moscow, Western agreement on sanctions against Russia could crumble,” the article says. Fillon and Le Pen were eventually defeated by France’s current president, Emmanuel Macron.

As the discussions continued, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others began pushing legislation that would take the decision on whether to lift sanctions out of Trump’s hands and put Congress in control, a development that Novatek apparently recognized as a threat given that Broidy’s power to affect policy lay in his presumed influence with Trump.

In January 2017, Baev wrote to Broidy asking whether McCain’s bill would put their efforts at risk. “The client is asking how our road map would be affected by a new bill sponsored by Senator McCain to codify the existing sanctions and to impose new ones as a matter of federal law which the Administration will not be in a position to lift without consent of the US Congress. What are your thoughts on this?”

Broidy responded: “We need to convince McCain to abandon or water down the bill while we push the admin and other members of Senate to water down and vote no. Not a game changer.

In a proposal dated February 23, 2017, Broidy told Baev that he had found “many influential experts, lobbyists, and attorneys” who were “willing and able to work immediately on your behalf and on behalf of Novatek.” The document, marked “strictly-confidential, attorney client privilege,” lays out a plan for a two-year influence campaign that Broidy claimed could dilute McCain’s bill and lift sanctions by February 2019.

The plan outlines a 25-step “Roadmap” that includes getting buy-in from congressional Foreign Relations committees, as well as outreach to the White House, the Treasury, and the Commerce, State, and Justice departments.

It also lists “issues for Congress” that would have to be overcome in order to implement the plan, including progress on agreements to resolve the situation in Ukraine. Congress would also “need information as to whether Russia did indeed hack DNC and attempt to influence US Presidential election,” according to the document.

Broidy added: “Congress would require agreement with Russia that Russia will not do so again.”
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/20/ell ... sanctions/


Image
How Mueller Can Protect the Investigation—Even if He Is Fired
The special counsel has a powerful tool up his sleeve, if he chooses to use it.

By COREY BRETTSCHNEIDER April 21, 2018



President Donald Trump has been hinting that he might try to fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating possible criminal wrongdoing related to Russian election interference and matters related to it, such as the firing of former FBI director James Comey. As he put it last Monday when asked about his plans for Mueller, “We’ll see what happens. Many people have said, ‘you should fire him.’”

Although Trump claims he can fire Mueller directly, many legal scholars disagree. They contend that a special counsel can only be subject to firing for a valid legal reason by the attorney general, and since Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the investigation, Mueller’s fate would fall to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But even on this understanding, Trump might pressure Rosenstein into sacking Mueller by threatening to fire Rosenstein himself. Or he might simply replace Rosenstein with a more compliant supervising attorney. If Mueller is removed and his investigation thwarted, the public might never learn what misconduct, if any, was uncovered by the special counsel’s probe.


Fortunately, while he retains his position, Mueller has a powerful tool at his disposal: The “sealed” or secret indictment. If Mueller indeed determines that he has a strong case against Trump, a secret indictment returned by a grand jury will help protect the integrity of his investigation even if he is fired, while also avoiding the risk of provoking Trump to try to further impede the probe.

Sealed indictments are routinely employed by federal prosecutors in sensitive investigations, particularly when a public indictment might have a negative effect on an ongoing investigation. To carry out this strategy, Mueller would a request that the already empaneled grand jury—the one considering matters related to Russian interference in the election—issue criminal charges against Trump himself. If the grand jury were to find probable cause for the charges to proceed, whatever they may be, a magistrate judge would then decide whether the indictment could remain secret. If the judge were to determine that it can, the charges would then remain hidden from public view until the criminal defendant is taken into custody or released on bail.

If Trump were to fire Mueller, an already filed sealed indictment would outlast Mueller’s tenure. A sealed indictment can only be dismissed by a judge, meaning Trump cannot rid himself of a legal headache simply by terminating the special counsel. A sealed indictment would also ensure that the statute of limitations for crimes Trump might be charged with will not expire. This leaves open the possibility of Trump being tried in the future.

Some might object that using a sealed, rather than public indictment seems counterintuitive: After all, isn’t the point of indicting Trump to expose his potentially criminal acts? If Mueller sought a public indictment, it would also preserve the case against Trump. It too would have to be dismissed by a judge in the event of Mueller’s firing, and it retains the advantage of ensuring the statute of limitations on many crimes would not run out. Moreover, public indictments have the benefit of immediate transparency, of letting the American people know immediately what their chief executive is accused of doing, rather than making the people wait until the indictment is unsealed.

But as Mueller weighs his options, he might conclude that such a public indictment now would only further provoke Trump’s ire. The negative effects the president could create for the investigation and the public turmoil a public indictment could spawn might persuade Mueller to pursue a sealed indictment instead. Doing so would allow Mueller to avoid tumultuous consequences for now. And in fact, the objective of transparency that a public indictment seemingly serves could actually be undermined by such an action, if it provokes steps that curtail the investigation. For example, Trump might threaten to fire any public official who cooperates with the investigation or disparage private citizens who cooperate. With a sealed indictment, we can be confident that transparency will ultimately be served when it is unsealed and the charges and evidence come to light.
ADVERTISING



In making his case to a judge for the seal, Mueller could cite the potential negative consequences to his investigation that would come from a public indictment. As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the “power to seal an indictment is broad; sealing an indictment is generally permitted when it is in the public interest or serves a legitimate law-enforcement purpose.” This case, dealing with the president and his potential to thwart a federal investigation, qualifies, if Mueller can show that a public indictment would impede his investigation.

Neither a sealed nor a public indictment guarantees a conviction or even that the indictment will remain in place. If Mueller is fired and replaced by a new special counsel, the new prosecutor could argue that the original charges were unfounded. Still, the ultimate decision would again rest with an independent judge, not with an executive branch employee whose job security relies on the whims of the president. A new prosecutor would also have to actively request the charges be withdrawn. These checks could be disregarded, but they might also be enough to preserve the indictment if Mueller were to be fired.

Of course, only Mueller and his team know if they have a strong enough criminal case against the president to merit an indictment—sealed or otherwise. If they do, with Trump’s threats to fire Mueller looming, there is significant advantage to moving forward soon.

Any indictment of Trump—sealed or otherwise—would raise the deeper constitutional question of whether a sitting president can be indicted at all. The Supreme Court has not decided that issue definitively, but the precedent in Clinton v. Jones suggests that its answer should be “yes.” When Paula Jones sued then-President Bill Clinton for events that occurred while he was governor of Arkansas, Clinton’s attorneys argued that he could not be subject to legal proceedings because the process would imperil the functioning of the executive branch. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reaffirming that not even the president is above the law. The Jones case was about a civil, not a criminal, matter. But that case demonstrated our constitutional commitment to the rule of law, not of people. That fundamental principle should hold true in both civil and criminal matters. Ken Starr’s office of independent counsel agreed, concluding that a president could be indicted in office for a criminal offense, drawing on the basic principle that presidents are not above the law and that they can manage their affairs even if they are indicted.

Still, the president will argue that he is immune from prosecution. In his defense he can cite Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos from the Nixon and Clinton administrations. But those memos defended a broad view of presidential immunity inconsistent with Jones and an earlier Supreme Court case, US v. Nixon, that forced Nixon to comply with a special prosecutor’s subpoena.

Moreover, the memos relied on flawed arguments. They contended that the executive branch would be debilitated by a sitting president who was indicted or forced to stand trial. But the Jones case went forward without the executive branch collapsing. In Trump’s case, the executive branch is already in disarray and facing numerous investigations; it’s not clear the administration would perform noticeably worse if Trump had just one more legal matter to address.

The memo from the Clinton-era OLC also discusses how the indictment of a sitting president would harm the dignity of the office. But what really tarnishes the dignity of the office are crimes committed by a president, a reality exacerbated by granting a president immunity from prosecution. The harm is even worse in cases where the statute of limitations might run out, precluding an indictment even once Trump left office, regardless of whether new incriminating evidence is found. The statute of limitations for obstruction of justice, for instance, is five years, which could expire by the time Trump is out of office if he were elected for a second term.

Mueller could avoid these challenges to his prosecutorial authority by taking a step short of requesting an indictment from the grand jury. He could issue a sealed report to be handed to the attorney general’s office or members of Congress, consistent with the special counsel’s reporting obligations. But this option might be too weak, as it risks leaving any decisions to take action to a future attorney general who could be completely under Trump’s sway, or to a congressional body that might act based more on politics than on their own constitutional duty.

Considering the situation, a sealed or public indictment gives Mueller or a future special counsel the widest array of options. It allows for the route that Starr took, pursuing a criminal case first and then turning the information gathered from the investigation to Congress for use in impeachment proceedings. It also allows a future prosecutor to ensure that justice can eventually be served: Even if the trial were delayed until the president was no longer in office—avoiding the constitutional question about trying a sitting president—Trump would still be held accountable for any potential crimes.

Some might think that all this talk is meaningless, since any indictment sought by Mueller would be stopped by Rosenstein, who legally must sign off on such an indictment. But Rosenstein is supposed to defer to the special counsel. If Rosenstein wanted to stop Mueller, he could claim that the Clinton and Nixon OLC memos remain Justice Department policy and that Mueller is bound by them. But it is more likely that Rosenstein does have the authority to reject the findings of the memos and to support a decision to indict the president. Indeed, Walter Dellinger III, a former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, recently argued publicly for why, despite the memos, the president can in fact be indicted while in office. With the threat looming that Trump will fire Rosenstein and replace him with a crony, the pressure is on to seek an indictment now.

It will take a savvy prosecutor to give meaning to the principle that no one—not even a president—is above the law. A sealed indictment is one strong way to help in that pursuit.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ion-218065
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:04 am

The Business Deals That Could Imperil Trump
By Peter Fritsch and Glenn R. Simpson

Mr. Fritsch and Mr. Simpson are the founders of the research firm Fusion GPS.
April 21, 2018
Image
A Russian émigré with a checkered past helped develop what was known as Trump SoHo until last December.CreditTodd Heisler/The New York Times

Put aside Russian collusion for a moment. Press pause on possible presidential obstruction of justice. Forget Stormy Daniels. The most significant recent development involving the president may be that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, has subpoenaed Trump Organization business records as part of his inquiry into Russian interference in the presidential election.

Those documents — and records recently seized by the F.B.I. from the president’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen — might answer a question raised by the president’s critics: Have certain real estate investors used Trump-branded properties to launder the proceeds of criminal activity around the world?

We pored over Donald Trump’s business records for well over a year, at least those records you can get without a badge or a subpoena. We also hired a former British intelligence official, Christopher Steele, to look into Mr. Trump’s possible ties to Russia. In that 2015-2016 investigation, sponsored first by a Republican client and then by Democrats, we found strong indications that companies affiliated with Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, might have been entangled in foreign corruption.
Image
Donald Trump, Tevfik Arif, center, and Felix Sater at the 2007 launch party for Trump SoHo, which they developed together.CreditMark Von Holden/WireImage, via Getty Images
A string of bankruptcies in the 1990s and 2000s may have left Mr. Trump’s companies largely unable to tap traditional sources of financing. That could have forced him to look elsewhere for financing and partners at a time when money was pouring out of the former Soviet Union.
ADVERTISEMENT

Indeed, from New York to Florida, Panama to Azerbaijan, we found that Trump projects have relied heavily on foreign cash — including from wealthy individuals from Russia and elsewhere with questionable, and even criminal, backgrounds. We saw money traveling through offshore shell companies, entities often used to obscure ownership. Many news organizations have since dug deeply into the Trump Organization’s projects and come away with similar findings.

This reporting has not uncovered conclusive evidence that the Trump Organization or its principals knowingly abetted criminal activity. And it’s not reasonable to expect the company to keep track of every condo buyer in a Trump-branded building. But Mr. Trump’s company routinely teamed up with individuals whose backgrounds should have raised red flags.

The Trump Royale, Trump Palace and Trump International Beach Resort in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla.CreditMichele Eve Sandberg/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Consider the Bayrock Group, a developer that once had lavish offices in Trump Tower. The firm worked with Mr. Trump in the mid-2000s to build the Trump SoHo in Lower Manhattan, among other troubled projects. One of its principals was a Russian émigré, Felix Sater, linked to organized crime who served time for felony assault and who later pleaded guilty to racketeering involving a $40 million stock fraud scheme.

Belgian authorities accused a Kazakh financier recruited by Bayrock of carrying out a $55 million money-laundering scheme (that case was settled without an admission of guilt). Civil suits filed in Los Angeles and New York allege that a former mayor of the largest city in Kazakhstan and several of his family members laundered millions in stolen public funds, investing some of it in real estate, including units in Trump SoHo. (The family has denied wrongdoing and says it is the victim of political persecution.)

Then there is Sunny Isles Beach, where over 60 individuals with Russian passports or addresses bought nearly $100 million worth of units in Trump-branded condominium towers in a part of South Florida known as Little Moscow. Among them were Russian government officials who made million-dollar investments and a Ukrainian owner of two units who pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of stolen property in a money-laundering scheme involving a former Ukrainian prime minister.
Image

Alexandre Ventura Nogueira handled much of the sale of condominiums at the Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower in Panama. He said he sold about half of his Trump condos to Russians, including some connected to the Russian mafia.CreditStephen Grey/Reuters
In 2006, the sale of condos in the first international hotel venture under the Trump brand, the former Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower in Panama, fell, in large part, to a Brazilian named Alexandre Ventura Nogueira. He worked with a Colombian who was later convicted of money laundering. Mr. Nogueira told NBC News last year that he sold about half of his Trump condos to Russians, including some connected to the Russian mafia, and that some of his clients had “questionable backgrounds.”

Three years later, as Reuters has reported, Panamanian authorities arrested Mr. Nogueira on charges of fraud and forgery unrelated to the Trump project. After getting out on bail, he fled to Brazil, where he faces a separate money-laundering investigation. In 2014, he fled Brazil, too.

The Trumps typically claim to be passive partners in projects like Trump Ocean Club and that they had minimal dealings with the likes of Mr. Nogueira. (The chief legal officer for the Trump Organization, Alan Garten, has said that no one in the Trump family remembers meeting or speaking to Mr. Nogueira. But there are photos of Mr. Trump and his daughter Ivanka with Mr. Nogueira.) Yet Mr. Trump’s limited public disclosures reveal his company has earned millions from licensing fees, a percentage of property sales and management fees in foreign projects. And the Trump family was sometimes personally involved in everything from a project’s design to its décor.

That appears to have been the case with the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, a high-end residence and hotel that has yet to open. In 2012, the Trumps signed a licensing agreement with the local developer, Anar Mammadov — the son of the country’s billionaire transportation minister, Ziya Mammadov, who an American diplomat once described in cables published by WikiLeaks as “notoriously corrupt even for Azerbaijan.”

The Trump Organization has said that it conducted an extensive due-diligence review of Anar Mammadov and that questions about the source of his wealth surfaced after they signed the deal. Presumably, Mr. Mueller will want to see evidence of that.

In Vancouver, the Trump Organization partnered with the son of Tony Tiah Thee Kian, a Malaysian oligarch who was convicted of providing a false report to the Kuala Lumpur stock exchange. That project, which was guided by Ivanka Trump and is one of the few Trump-branded properties to open since Mr. Trump took office, is now the subject of an F.B.I. counterintelligence inquiry, according to CNN. Mr. Garten, the Trump chief legal officer, told CNN: “The company’s role was and is limited to licensing its brand and managing the hotel. Accordingly, the company would have had no involvement in the financing of the project or the sale of units.”

It remains unclear whether Mr. Mueller will investigate these deals, or already is. But a comprehensive investigation could raise questions about the Trump Organization’s compliance with anti-money-laundering laws and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which — according to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice — makes it a crime for a United States company to act with willful blindness toward the corrupt activities of a foreign business partner.

The former Donald Trump insider Steve Bannon has hinted darkly about the Trump family’s exposure to money laundering. And Mr. Mueller has already secured the indictment of Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, on charges of money laundering related to his work in Ukraine. Federal prosecutors are reported to be looking into Jared Kushner’s family firm over its use of a federal program that offered wealthy Chinese investors visas in return for investments. Kushner Companies has denied any wrongdoing.

The Trump family’s business entanglements are of more than historical significance. Americans need to be sure that major foreign policy decisions are made in the national interest — not because of foreign ties forged by the president’s business ventures.
Peter Fritsch and Glenn R. Simpson, former journalists, are the founders of the research firm Fusion GPS.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/opin ... ering.html


GET STITCHES?
Trump Rage-Tweets That Michael Cohen Won’t Snitch on Him. Privately, He Tells Folks: ‘We’ll See.’
The president’s longtime lawyer has said he’d rather jump out of a building than turn on Trump. What if it’s a really tall building?

Asawin Suebsaeng

04.21.18 11:16 AM ET
President Donald Trump woke up on Saturday morning at his Florida estate and club Mar-a-Lago. His wife, First Lady Melania Trump, was preparing to attend the Texas memorial service for Barbara Bush, the recently departed matriarch of the Bush political dynasty. And there was nothing pressing—in fact, nothing at all—on his own public schedule.

So Trump went golfing. But on his way to Trump International Golf Club in suburban West Palm Beach, he checked his phone first, looking down into the device as he sat in the back of his motorcade. And then, as is his want, he rage-tweeted.

“The New York Times and a third rate reporter named Maggie Haberman, known as a Crooked H flunkie who I don’t speak to and have nothing to do with, are going out of their way to destroy Michael Cohen and his relationship with me in the hope that he will ‘flip,’” President Trump posted to Twitter. “They use........non-existent ‘sources’ and a drunk/drugged up loser who hates Michael, a fine person with a wonderful family. Michael is a businessman for his own account/lawyer who I have always liked & respected.”

Two Trump associates and one White House official who The Daily Beast asked about these Saturday morning posts all deduced, based on interactions with the president, that the “drunk/drugged up loser who hates Michael” to whom Trump referred was Sam Nunberg, a former political adviser and aide who was prominently quoted in the recent Times article that irked the president. Nunberg did not respond to inquiries from The Daily Beast. Neither did the White House press shop.

President Trump concluded his tirade by tweeting, “Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if........it means lying or making up stories. Sorry, I don’t see Michael doing that despite the horrible Witch Hunt and the dishonest media!”

While public outbursts are hardly new for this president, the one that took place on Saturday was uniquely loaded in its legal and political implications. The tweets may have been directed at Haberman. But their intended audience was largely Cohen.


Trump’s personal attorney and notorious fixer finds himself in legal crosshairs after his office and residence were raided by the feds. And over the past week, there have been several reports that close Trump allies and senior White House aides are actively concerned about, and trying to game out, what to do if Cohen flips.

Jay Goldberg, one of Trump’s longtime legal advisers, even told The Wall Street Journal that he spoke with the president in recent days about Cohen and specifically cautioned Trump about putting his trust in Cohen to stay loyal if there are criminal charges.

Three different officials and associates in Trumpworld independently expressed worry to The Daily Beast this month that Cohen could quickly become just another “snitch.”

The premise that there is something to “snitch” about was simply taken for granted. And it’s infused public commentary about the issue too.

“Is [Michael Cohen] wilting under the feds’ pressure tactics? Why is he giving [interviews] to news outlets hostile to @realDonaldTrump? We address that & much more—10p ET @FoxNews,” host Laura Ingraham—a close ally to the Trump family who interviewed for the job of Trump's White House press secretary—tweeted on April 10.

Multiple sources who have spoken with Trump about this insisted to The Daily Beast in recent days that the president is not completely losing his faith in Cohen’s loyalty. At least not yet.

In private conversations, Trump has emphasized his deep annoyance and fury over federal investigators and authorities who he believes have gone beyond the pale in probing his inner circle, his business empire, and his family. When it comes to how Cohen will stand up—or fall down—under pressure, several people close to President Trump have noticed him uttering a familiar refrain and vocal tic: “We’ll see.”

Cohen, for his part, has long held himself out as an unbreakable ally to the president, even though there are numerous questions about how the president treats and feels about him.

“I’d rather jump out of a building than turn on Donald Trump,” Cohen reportedly said earlier this month.

Those close to the president—as well as, and perhaps especially, the president himself—are watching closely to see how strongly that statement holds.

“How tall is the building?” one senior White House official asked.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-rag ... ref=scroll
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:27 am

Comey Memos: Clear Proof Trump Repeatedly Lied About His Trip To Moscow
By Josh Marshall | April 20, 2018 10:52 am

There are a host of revelations and confirmations in the Comey memos released yesterday evening. I want to zero in on one point: The President repeatedly and demonstrably lied about his November 2013 trip to Moscow. This is the visit in which the ‘pee tape’ was purportedly recorded. There’s no evidence in the memos that that tape exists or that the President spent the night with prostitutes. But again, he clearly and repeatedly lies about the trip itself, specifically how long he was there. This seems highly significant to me.

Let’s look at the details.

First, in his conversations with James Comey, Trump repeatedly not only denied the ‘pee tape’ accusations but he went on to say that he had not even spent the night in Russia. He apparently also told his high level staffers this. Then Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was present during one of these encounters with Comey.

Image

This first conversation is on January 28th, 2017, one week into the presidency. Trump claims he didn’t even spend the night in Russia on the Miss Universe trip. He says he arrived the morning of the day of the pageant (Saturday, November 9th) and departed late that evening.

He repeated this claim a little more than a week later (February 8th, 2013) in a conversation in which Reince Priebus was also present.

Image

On its own this is hardly a plausible claim. A flight from Moscow to New York takes between 9 and 10 hours. The idea that you’d fly there and return the same day makes no sense. But we don’t have to rely on what makes sense.

There’s ample evidence that Trump stayed not one but two nights. In July 2017, Bloomberg News’s Vernon Silver and Evgenia Pismennaya reported out a detailed reconstruction of the trip based on FAA records, social media postings and interviews. They showed clearly that Trump flew from North Carolina to New York on the evening of November 7th (Thursday) and then proceeded on to Moscow overnight and arrived sometime early on November 8th (Friday). He overnighted in Moscow. He was in Moscow all of November 9th (Saturday), the day of the pageant, and departed for New York early November 10th. For the details of how we know these facts, see the Bloomberg article. It is forensic in its detail.

Clearly, Trump lied about not spending the night in Russia. It’s conceivable that he forgot he’d spent the night. But again, the whole idea is wildly implausible. He said he’d discussed the details of the trip with others. Surely they would have reminded him. And he stayed not one but two nights. Clearly, Trump was lying about this. He lied about it repeatedly to Comey. And Priebus’s presence during one of the encounters strongly suggests he’d told this same lie to his senior staff.

And there’s more.

In November of last year the President’s longtime bodyguard Keith Schiller spoke to congressional investigators about the 2013 Moscow trip and other topics. Schiller’s account makes very clear that Trump did stay overnight in Moscow. But his account was much more specific. Schiller adamantly denied Trump cavorted with prostitutes. But he did say that a Russian businessman Trump met with offered to “send five women” to Trump’s hotel room that night. According to Schiller, he rebuffed the offer and even viewed it as a “joke.” “We don’t do that type of stuff,” he says he responded.

There’s an additional detail. According to Schiller, as he was walking Trump back to his hotel room on the night in question — apparently November 9th — he mentioned the offer to Trump and the two men joked about it. Here’s the account from NBC News.

That night, two sources said, Schiller said he discussed the conversation with Trump as Trump was walking back to his hotel room, and Schiller said the two men laughed about it as Trump went to bed alone. Schiller testified that he stood outside Trump’s hotel room for a time and then went to bed.

One source noted that Schiller testified he eventually left Trump’s hotel room door and could not say for sure what happened during the remainder of the night.

Once again, Schiller said he was confident the encounter never happened. He stood outside Trump’s hotel room for a while after closing the door and then went to bed. So according to Schiller’s testimony, not only did Trump definitely stay two nights. He was told about the offer of the prostitutes before going to bed the second night. Perhaps Trump forgot about this. But it seems unlikely, especially in the context of lying about spending two nights in the Ritz-Carlton.

Conceivably, Trump was so adamant about denying the prostitute story that he poured on extra lies (not spending the night) to make his denial more plausible. But in any court, this lie would be entered as evidence of his lack of credibility on the main point. There’s zero question he lied about this repeatedly and to multiple people. You can be the judge of why.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/co ... re-1124840



4/20/2018

The Comey Memos: Man, Trump's a Sad Worm

The memos of former FBI director James Comey were leaked to the press literally minutes after they were given to a congressional committee led by craven twat mite Devin Nunes. While there are some interesting things we can tease out of the details, most of the big revelations have been out there for a bit.

Still, what we get is the image of Donald Trump, our goddamn president, that confirms all the worst shit about him: that he's a self-aggrandizing buffoon, a sad worm of a man, a lump of failure, and a fucking moron. Each meeting with Comey was about Trump trying and failing to assert some alpha dog status over a man who he thought was on his side. Trump wants Comey to be grateful to him. He wants Comey to plead for his job. He wants to own Comey. And when Comey doesn't allow himself to be owned, it fuckin' drives Trump nuts.

Trump begs for Comey's approval in a way that's so pathetic that, if Trump were a dog, you'd take him to the vet to have him put down so you wouldn't have to look at how pathetic he's become. Trump talks about Bill O'Reilly interviewing him and that "O'Reilly's question about whether he respected Putin had been a hard one...He said he does respect the leader of a major country and though that was the best answer. He then said, 'You think my answer was good, right?'" Who needs that kind of validation? Someone who is used to having people around him constantly assuring him that his answers are awesome and he's awesome and every word dingleberry that shits out of his mouth is awesome.

At other points, Comey quotes Trump trying to sound tough, telling Comey, "I have been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know?" Comey comments about Trump's low-rent Mamet plea, "I did not reply or ask him what he meant by 'that thing.'" Although, c'mon, it's obvious that Trump thinks Comey pledged loyalty to him probably because Jared or Reince told that Comey did.

And Trump would need someone to remind him because he repeats himself again and again, which ought to be way more disconcerting than anyone is saying. He brings up Andrew McCabe at least 3 times and how he was "rough" on McCabe and his wife during the campaign. Each time, Comey says that McCabe is "a pro." Trump brings up Russia and hookers and the golden showers show a few times, so concerned for how he appeared. Let's put it this way: If you have to say, "Can you imagine me? Hookers?" or that you're "the kind of guy who didn't need to 'go there,'" then you are exactly the kind of guy who goes there and bangs hookers.

In one really weird moment, Trump says that he talks to world leaders on this "beautiful phone," and Comey describes him "touching the gray phone on his desk." It's a fuckin' phone, man. They all pretty much look the same. And in another, he relates how upset he was that Michael Flynn didn't tell him soon enough about a congratulatory phone call from Vladimir Putin after election, freaking out about it.

Nothing is really surprising anymore. It's not like we didn't know that Trump is such a sad, deranged sack of a human that if his dad hadn't been super-rich, he'd be wandering around Jamaica, Queens, in his robe, yelling at women to suck his old dick and grabbing himself constantly.

Except he's president of the United States. Shit and shit again.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com



Slats Henry


As most of us know, attorney Alex van der Zwaan, 33, a Dutch national and formally an associate in the London office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pleaded guilty in February to one count of making a false statement in violation of 18 USC 1001 to Mueller's team. /1
7:19 PM - 22 Apr 2018


He was sentenced earlier this month to 30 days in prison, to be followed by 60 days of supervised release, and also fined $20,000. Alex van der Zwaan was also fired by Skadden Arps for his conduct. /2


Specifically, Alex van der Zwaan admitted that he lied to Mueller’s people in November, 2017 about communications he in fact had in September, 2016 with Manafort associates Rick Gates and “Person A” (almost certainly GRU-linked Konstantin Kilimnik) /3
https://www.justice.gov/file/1036406/download
]
Alex van der Zwaan’s discussion with the two men was in regards to a report Skadden Arps had written in 2012 for the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice legitimizing the prosecution of Yanukovych enemy Yulia Tymoshenko, allegedly part of a PR whitewash organized by Manafort. /4

Furthermore, as we also know, Alex van der Zwaan’s wife, Ava, is the daughter of German Khan, a Russian oligarch and a beneficial owner of Alfa Bank, along with two other Russian oligarchs, Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven. Fridman and Khan are citizens of both Russia and Israel. /5

Alex van der Zwaan’s marriage raises questions about his relationship with German Khan. However, his collaboration with Manafort associates Gates and “Person A” in whitewashing the Tymoshenko prosecution calls into question not only his connections to the Oligarchs ... /6

... but also those of his former employer, Skadden Arps. a large, international law firm based in New York. /7

According to the Financial Times, “Mr. van der Zwaan’s profile, since deleted from Skadden’s website, also listed work for Gennady Bogolyubov, a Ukrainian oligarch, when the businessman was sued by his fellow countryman Victor Pinchuk in 2013.” /8


“He also acted for Mr. (Roman) Abramovich’s businesses in relation to mining assets in Ukraine, according to the profile.” /9

“Last summer, the associate’s connections to the oligarch world deepened when he married Eva Khan, a daughter of Mr. Khan, the Russian-Ukrainian billionaire whose interests Skadden has represented in the past alongside Mr. Fridman.” /10

When it comes to Alex van der Zwaan’s employer, Skadden Arps, the Financial Times article links the firm to its extensive representation of Mikhail Fridman and Roman Abramovich over the years. /11

“Mikhail Fridman, the Ukrainian-born billionaire and co-founder of Alfa Group, would rely on Skadden in his battles with the British government and with BP, the UK oil and gas group. Roman Abramovich, the Russian billionaire, trusted the firm so much that he made ... " /12

... the head of its European operations the chairman of Chelsea football club after he acquired the team in 2003.” /13

“Skadden would advise the oligarch (Abramovich) in his successful court battle with Boris Berezovsky, his one-time friend and mentor who fled Russia in 2000 after clashing with Vladimir Putin. Skadden’s fees in the Berezovsky case in 2012 were a reported £35m." /14

Berezovsky, once one of Russia’s most powerful oligarch, was found dead in a locked bathroom in his home near London in 2013, an apparent suicide by hanging. /15

Skadden Arps has 22 offices around the globe, including London and Moscow, with more than 1,700 attorneys. According to the firm’s website, “Skadden advises businesses, financial institutions and governmental entities around the world ... /16

According to Skadden’s own website, several of the firm’s partners/associates in its London, Frankfurt and Moscow offices have represented/advised companies Mikhail Fridman controls (Alfa Group, Letter One (L1), Vimplecom) as well as the AAR (Alfa-Access-Renova) consortium. /17

AAR is a consortium controlled by three other oligarchs besides Fridman (Alfa Group): Len Blavatnik (Access), Viktor Vekselburg (Renova), and German Khan (Alfa). AAR formed a major RU oil company in 2003, TNK-BP, through a joint partnership with BP. /18


TNK-BP was ultimate acquired by Rosneft from AAR and BP for $55 billion in 2013. /19

Skadden Arps London partners Linda Davies, Mark L. Darley, Scott V. Simpson, Ingrid Vandenborre and Mikhail Koulikov (associate, Moscow office) represented/advised AAR in the consortium’s sale of TNK-BP to Rosneft. (see http://skadden.com/professionals/d/davies-linda …, etc.) /20


Also, Skadden Arps London partners David M. Edwards and David Kavanagh represented/advised the AAR consortium in a multi-billion dollar dispute with BP over an attempted partnership with Rosneft for oil exploration in the Arctic Circle. (see https://www.skadden.com/professionals/e/edwards-david-m … ... etc.) /21


Edwards also represented Alfa Group’s telecom business (Altimor) against Norway’s Telenor, as well as L1 Energy in the courts on matters related to its North Sea oil and gas assets. /22

Furthermore, Dr. Matthias Horbach, a partner in Skadden Arps Frankfurt office, represented Fridman’s Letter One in its $1.6 billion acquisition of E.ON E&P Norge AS, as well as its US$725 million sale of DEA UK Holdings. /23

Above is not intended to be an exhaustive listing, but merely examples of some of the representations publicly acknowledged on Skadden Arps website made by its partners/associates on behalf of Mikhail Fridman’s companies. /24

As the Financial Times article from February indicated, and confirmed by the firm's own website, Skadden Arps, particularly its partners/associates in London, has done a lot of business with Mikhail Fridman's companies as well as those of his Russian oligarch friends. /25

And that makes one wonder about what else that Alex van der Zwaan knows about the business secrets of his father-in-law German's Alfa Group partner, Mikhail. As well as what he might have told Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III about them. /26

One last Skadden Arps fun fact: Dorian M. Barak, the Israel based financial advisor and personal attorney to Erik Prince, was a merger & acquisitions and corporate finance attorney in the New York office of Skadden Arps. /27
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stoc ... ENCE%20LTD


https://twitter.com/SlatsHenry/status/9 ... 4646422528
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:08 pm

Russia likely targeted more than 21 states before 2016 election: official

BY MORGAN CHALFANT - 04/24/18 10:54 AM EDT 70



Russia likely targeted more than 21 states before 2016 election: official

A top Department of Homeland Security official said Tuesday that Russian hackers likely targeted more than 21 states before the 2016 election as part of a broader effort to interfere in the vote.

Jeanette Manfra, the official, acknowledged that the department only had enough “visibility” to confirm activity targeting 21 states because of sensors in place in the state systems and information provided by the intelligence community.


“I think we can assume that the majority of the states were probably a target,” Manfra said during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing in response to questioning from ranking member Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).
But Manfra pushed back on McCaskill’s assertion that states where activity was not detected were likely more vulnerable to Russian hackers because they didn't have tools in place to detect breach attempts. Manfra noted that most of the activity Homeland Security analyzed involved hackers scanning for vulnerabilities, rather than trying to break into systems.

Manfra stressed that only a small number of state systems were actually breached.

“I think the American people have been misled here,” McCaskill fumed. “It’s likely that all 50 states were likely affected.”

Homeland Security officials said last year that Russian hackers targeted election-related digital systems in 21 states before the 2016 presidential election. Federal officials maintain that hackers did not target systems involved in vote-tallying, and that there is no evidence any vote tallies were changed.

While federal officials have not offered much specific information on the targeting, officials in Illinois have said that the state voter registration database was breached. Arizona also found malware on a local election official’s computer, but officials say they shut down the state voter registration database before hackers made their way in.

After detecting the Russian activity in 2016, Homeland Security opened election infrastructure up to voluntary federal protections. Manfra said Tuesday that 17 states had requested rigorous, on-site vulnerability assessments of their systems to shore up security ahead of future elections.

Manfra told lawmakers that the agency has adopted an “aggressive posture” to prevent future election meddling.

“We cannot let it happen it again,” Manfra said.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity ... re-than-21



AG Jeff Sessions has decided against recusing himself from the investigation into Trump lawyer Michael Cohen

By staying involved, Sessions is entitled to briefings on the Cohen investigation, conducted by US Attorney’s Office of Southern District of NY.


Trump Is So Panicked About Michael Cohen That He’s Unable To Perform Basic Presidential Tasks

MON, APR 23RD, 2018 BY SEAN COLAROSSI

Donald Trump is so panicked about the Michael Cohen raids that he can’t carry out the basic tasks required of a president.

According to The Atlantic reporter Elaina Plott, who appeared on MSNBC on Monday, Trump is “consumed” by the recent Cohen developments and “isn’t in the headspace” to think about anything else.

Video:

Plott reported that Trump’s unhealthy obsession with Cohen is the reason why the president can’t even think about firing EPA head Scott Pruitt, despite everybody in the administration wanting him to do so:

I want to be careful to delineate between the White House and Donald Trump. What I’m told by sources in the EPA, at this point it’s everyone but Trump now who wants Scott Pruitt gone. I’ve also been told that right now Donald Trump is consumed by Michael Cohen. The news of the raid, whether he might flip. That just consumes his every waking moment and he doesn’t have the head space right now to even think about Scott Pruitt.

Trump is so scared, he’s incapable of doing his job

For years, American television-watchers saw Donald Trump bask in the glory of firing people on his reality show. Now, as he’s paralyzed with fear over the legal trouble he and his personal lawyer could be in, he can’t even complete that simple task.

If Trump doesn’t have the mental wherewithal to remove a corrupt individual from his administration, then how can the American people trust him to do the more complicated aspects of his job?

The simple answer, of course, is something we’ve known since very early on in this president’s term: The American people can’t trust him to carry out the functions of this powerful position.

Mentally, morally and intellectually, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President of the United States. This fact becomes clearer each day, especially as a legal hurricane continues to swirl ever closer to the White House.
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/04/23 ... tasks.html




"3 weeks ago I said (Cohen) would flip I was the first one to call it.. Now people close to the president are telling him the same ... I'm going to make a prediction now: I do not think the President will serve out his term" - MichaelAvenatti


Bezos Says That When Pee Tape Is Released It Will Be Free for All Amazon Prime Members

Andy Borowitz

SEATTLE (The Borowitz Report)—Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, announced on Tuesday that when the purported “pee tape” becomes available it will be offered free to all Amazon Prime members.

Speaking to reporters in Seattle, Bezos said that the pee-tape offer was “consistent with Amazon’s mandate to offer the highest-quality content to our customers.”

Bezos acknowledged that the tape had not surfaced yet, but said that Amazon was “working around the clock to make that happen.”

Bezos’s offer drew a mixed response from Prime members, with some begging Amazon not to offer the pee tape to them.

Over all, though, interest in the tape was robust, as pre-orders for the item quickly made it the highest-ranking product on the entire Amazon site.

According to its product page, customers who bought the pee tape also bought “A Higher Loyalty” by James Comey.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowit ... EwNzI4NAS2



Image
Image
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:32 pm

Trump and Cohen Ready With Teams of Lawyers for Records Review
By Bob Van Voris and David Voreacos
April 25, 2018, 8:28 AM CDT Updated on April 25, 2018, 5:01 PM CDT
Judge Wood calls a Thursday conference on seized evidence
Prosecutors at odds with Trump, Cohen over review method

Trump Loses Cohen Papers Decision
President Donald Trump, his personal business and his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen say they’re ready with teams of attorneys to conduct a review of materials seized during an FBI search of Cohen’s premises for materials that may be protected by attorney-client privilege.

Trump, the Trump Organization and Cohen responded Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood’s directive to outline a plan for a quick document review.

Wood issued her directions in a brief order indicating she might appoint a special master -- an independent judge or lawyer -- to review evidence Trump, the organization or Cohen say shouldn’t be seen by investigators because it’s privileged. The judge has scheduled a hearing about the matter in Manhattan federal court on Thursday.

Cohen, Trump and the Trump Organization each said they could assemble an impressive array of legal firepower to get the job done quickly, as requested.

Cohen’s lawyers at McDermott Will & Emery LLP told Wood that the firm’s “well-equipped to conduct this review in an expeditious manner,” with a team of 27 attorneys and technology professionals who have handled large document reviews under tight deadlines. The firm has another eight lawyers in New York and Washington who can jump in, according to its letter.

“We can add as many other attorneys as needed,” Cohen’s lawyers Todd Harrison and Stephen Ryan told Wood in a letter.

Trump Review

Trump’s law firm, Spears & Imes LLP, promised that it would hire a “preeminent forensic e-discovery and legal technology solutions vendor.” If necessary, it would hire a second vendor that uses experienced contract attorneys.

The Trump Organization said it would use “a leading third-party e-discovery provider,” as well as five of its own lawyers and three from the firm of its outside attorney, Alan Futerfas.

In her order, Wood said the lawyers “should be prepared to address the process to be undertaken by a special master, should one be appointed.” She asked what resources each party could have in place for the “expeditious” production of non-privileged materials, and to provide the special master “with any necessary information to make timely and accurate determination as to privilege.”

Cohen’s home, office, hotel room and safety-deposit box were searched by the FBI on April 9 as part of a long-running criminal investigation into his activities. Agents seized documents and made copies of computer hard drives and mobile phone data.

Unusual Raid

It’s rare for federal agents to seize an attorney’s records, and unprecedented to take those of a president’s personal lawyer.

The case has generated intense media attention, with adult film actress Stormy Daniels having attended a hearing April 16. She got a $130,000 payment from Cohen in 2016 to keep quiet about allegedly having sex with Trump in 2006. The hearing created a bigger sensation when it was disclosed Fox News host Sean Hannity was one of three of Cohen’s clients.

U.S. prosecutors oppose the appointment of a special master, saying a separate team of government lawyers, unrelated to the investigation, would move faster to weed out material. Wood has seven names -- four from Cohen’s legal team and three from the government -- to consider.

She may issue a decision on whether she’ll choose a special master, and who she’ll pick, at Thursday’s hearing.

Prosecutors in New York haven’t identified what specifically they’re probing in relation to Cohen, although they said in a court filing that "the investigation relates in large part to conduct by Cohen in his personal business and financial dealings."

The Washington Post reported that Cohen is under investigation for bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign finance violations. CNN said investigators were also seeking information about the hush agreement with Daniels.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is separately examining possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 election.

The case is In the Matter of Search Warrants Executed on April 9, 2018, 18-mj-3161, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ce-in-case



Lawyers for attorney Michael Cohen submitted a court document Wednesday asserting his 5th Amendment rights in the lawsuit brought against him and President Donald Trump by adult film actress Stormy Daniels


Giuliani reopens negotiations about presidential interview with Mueller, but cautions special counsel that Trump remains resistant
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby BenDhyan » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:35 pm

Robert Mueller’s investigation of Trump ‘needs to conclude,’ Jeff Sessions says

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday that an ongoing probe into President Trump “needs to conclude” in order to let him focus on North Korea, the U.S.-Mexico border and other world negotiations.

Mr. Sessions also said he expects the Justice Department inspector general to finish his investigation into the department’s and FBI’s handling of investigations into Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election in a “few weeks,” saying that will provide more information for decisions on whether there was wrongdoing.

Testifying to the House on Thursday, Mr. Sessions was pressed by a lawmaker who said he saw a “double standard” in comparing the ongoing special counsel probe into Mr. Trump, while Mr. Sessions has declined to name a second special counsel to review the way the department and the FBI handled Mrs. Clinton.

“At the very root of this, I think my constituents are frustrated, are angry, they see a double standard historically. They want justice,” said Rep. Evan Jenkins, West Virginia Republican, ticking off a number of red flags he said deserved the heightened powers a special counsel should look at.

Mr. Sessions said he didn’t want to appoint special counsels “willy-nilly” but said his department is taking deliberate steps. He’s named a U.S. attorney to oversee an investigation and coordinate with the inspector general whose probe has been ongoing for months.

He also said they’re sharing an unprecedented amount of information with GOP-led congressional committees who are probing the same matters.

“If there’s wrongdoing we’re going to take action about it,” he said.

He said he knows the president is “concerned” about the ongoing special counsel investigation into figures surrounding Mr. Trump, and Mr. Sessions said it needs to end so the president can deal with the job of running the executive branch.

“He’s dealing with France and North Korea and Syria and taxes and regulations and border and crime every day,” Mr. Sessions said. “This thing needs to conclude. So I understand his frustrations and I understand the American people’s frustrations.”

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/26/sessions-trump-investigation-needs-conclude/?__twitter_impression=true

Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:55 am

Stormy Daniels Lawyer: I "absolutely" think it's more likely we will be able to depose Trump before Mueller:


Fox News poll: Majority think Mueller will find Trump committed criminal or impeachable offenses
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 04/25/18 07:07 PM EDT 767

A Fox News poll released Wednesday reported that a majority of Americans believe that special counsel Robert Mueller will find that President Trump committed criminal or impeachable offenses.

Fifty-six of respondents in the poll said they believed Mueller’s probe will find that Trump committed the offenses. And 67 percent say they believe it’s at least somewhat important that Mueller’s investigation continues.

However, 71 percent said they think that Trump will fire Mueller before the probe is over.

Democrats polled were far more likely than Republicans to predict Mueller would find Trump committed such offenses, at 85 to 22 percent. But a majority of both Democrats and Republicans expected Mueller to be fired, at 82 percent of Democrats to 61 percent of Republicans.


Sixty-four percent of respondents in the poll overall also said they believe Mueller is treating the White House fairly.

The latest poll results come amid ongoing speculation that Trump could fire Mueller.

Trump has pushed back against reports that he's considering dismissing Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after the FBI raid on Trump's personal attorney's office. Mueller gave a partial referral for the raid and Rosenstein personally signed off on it.

The White House said earlier this month that Trump believes he has the power to fire Mueller.

Fox News conducted phone interviews with 1,014 registered voters from April 22-24. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -committed


Senate Republicans just defied Trump and McConnell with a powerful move to defend Mueller

By Grant Stern April 26, 2018

A Republican-controlled Senate committee just defied GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell by passing a special bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) voted by 14-7 to pass the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act (S. 2644), only hours after the President went on a winding rant on a live Fox News interview promising to interfere in the Justice Department. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sponsored the bill, which garnered votes from every Senate Democrat on the panel and three other Republicans, Senators Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chairman Grassley.

Facebook's new algorithm changes have decimated the reach and the ad revenue of independent news sources like ours. Please become a patron of our news website and help us pay our writers by making a small contribution:
View our Patreon page >

The bill would fill in numerous important details about the circumstances under which any special prosecutor could be removed, but the most critical detail is guaranteed to infuriate President Trump, who believes that he has the power to remove Special Counsel Mueller. The bill says:


In General.—A special counsel appointed by the Attorney General, or any other official appointed by the Attorney General who exercises a similar degree of independence from the normal Department of Justice chain of command, may be removed from office only by the personal action of an Attorney General who has been confirmed by the Senate, or, if the Attorney General is recused from the matter, the most senior Department of Justice official who has been confirmed by the Senate and is not recused from the matter.

If the Senate and House pass this bill, it will permanently settle the matter of President Trump’s power to fire Special Counsel Mueller once and for all time.

But the bill goes much further, by limiting the circumstances under which a special counsel may be dismissed as “only for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause, including violation of policies of the Department of Justice.”

A ten-day written notice of removal with specific reasons would also be established, during which time a special counsel could challenge their appointment in front of a panel of three federal judges. If that doesn’t settle matters, then that special counsel could appeal to the Supreme Court.


Senator Graham’s bill contains numerous other provisions intended to provide certainty and avoid a constitutional crisis in the unlikely event that a special prosecutor is dismissed.

It gives the court power to decide if that special counsel remains in office during the appeal, keeps a new special counsel from being appointed in the interim and would require that the investigatory documents are preserved.

Unfortunately, the Special Counsel Integrity and Independence Act will still require votes of the Senate and then the House before its sensible, common-sense provisions become law.


Republican Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says that he won’t take up the bill for a vote, even though there are enough votes to pass the legislation 53-49 based on today’s Judiciary Committee vote.

If both the House and Senate pass Sen. Graham’s bill, then it will go to President Trump’s desk, where a veto would be politically difficult to issue, but likely. Then, a vote of both 2/3rds of the House and Senate would be required to override Trump’s prospective veto and pass the Special Counsel Integrity and Independence Act into law.

America’s government relies on political norms; the idea that politicians should have a broad mandate to act, but limit those actions to set good precedents and make ethical decisions.


President Trump clearly doesn’t have any of those ideas in mind, as he goes on live television to threaten another Saturday Night Massacre if his political enemies aren’t vanquished and imprisoned by the Department of Justice.

It’s an urgent time for Congress to act now, to restrict President Trump from causing a constitutional crisis and complete disorder in the top of the Justice Department and to protect Special Counsel Mueller.

Watch the Senate Judiciary panel’s vote on the bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller:
https://washingtonpress.com/2018/04/26/ ... um=twitter

Former U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones, who has also served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the S.D.N.Y and Chief Assistant to D.A. Robert Morgenthau, is an outstanding choice for Special Master in the Cohen search matter.


Michael Avenatti

Most interesting fact from today’s hearing IMO - FBI imaged 16 (by my count) cell phones and blackberries seized in MC raids. Usually not a good sign when the target appears to have saved old phones and there are that many phones recovered. BIGLY bad...for many. #basta



The FBI just revealed the very suspicious evidence they found in Trump’s lawyer’s office
BY COLIN TAYLOR
PUBLISHED ON APRIL 26, 2018


The legal battle between President Donald Trump and his ex-mistress Stormy Daniels took a stunning turn on Thursday when the adult actress and director’s lawyer revealed that sixteen cellphones had been seized from Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s office by the FBI.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation raided Cohen’s offices a few weeks ago, collecting evidence for the investigation into the non-disclosure agreement and hush money payment that Cohen arranged with Daniels shortly before the 2016 election – an agreement that Trump never signed and now appears to have been a major violation of campaign finance law.

Daniels’ lawyer, Michael Avenatti, took to Twitter to taunt the president and his cronies with Trump’s personal lingo over the discovery – and to hit home just how suspicious it is that Cohen had that many old cell phones stashed away in his office.


It’s hard to imagine why anyone who wasn’t involved in some kind of criminal activity would need sixteen cellphones – and it’s clear that the FBI has uncovered more than a few skeletons from Cohen’s closet. It’s likely that we’re only just scratching the surface of the criminal activity that the president and his bumbling attorney have gotten up to the over the past few decades.

Good thing he saved all the evidence for us.
https://washingtonpress.com/2018/04/26/ ... rs-office/


"Mr. Ehrlich invited Mr. Cohen to his wedding and was amused to hear he bragged to another guest that he belonged to the Russian mob."
Image
Image


Attorney Michael Avenatti hints $1.6 million abortion payout was for Trump — not GOP donor
Travis Gettys TRAVIS GETTYS
26 APR 2018 AT 09:27 ET


The lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels suggested that a $1.6 million hush money payoff to a Playboy model was actually made on behalf of President Donald Trump — and not a Republican donor.

Attorney Michael Avenatti appeared Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where he gave a wide-ranging interview on the lawsuit against the president and a related criminal investigation of Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen — and he said reporting on the case had missed an important detail.

“So, Mika, you are familiar with the fact that a week ago, Judge (Kimba) Wood ordered Michael Cohen’s attorneys to disclose all of his clients for the last three years,” Avenatti said, “and there were three clients listed — three clients listed. Do you recall which three?”

Brzezinski listed Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Republican donor Elliott Broidy — but Avenatti said she was making the same mistake everyone else had.

“No, no, no,” he said. “Mr. Trump, the Trump organization and Sean Hannity. Mr. Broidy was not disclosed in open court as one of Michael Cohen’s clients.”

Co-host Joe Scarborough asked the attorney what that meant.

“I think at some point we are going to find out, if in fact, the client in connection with the ($1.6 million) settlement was, in fact, Mr. Broidy. I’m going to leave it at that.”

Avenatti wouldn’t say it, but the implication seems clear.

Cohen negotiated a $1.6 million hush money payment to a Playboy model who became pregnant during an affair and then had an abortion.

News reports had identified Broidy as the client who agreed to pay the woman in installments over two years if she agreed to remain silent about the relationship — but Avenatti said Cohen’s lawyers ruled him out in open court.

That would leave Trump, or possibly Hannity, as the likely clients who arranged the payment.

Broidy resigned earlier this month as deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee after the payments were reported
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/attorn ... mo.twitter



Michael Avenatti

See, we can agree on things.

Image


RUMORS

Tom Arnold

one the one hand it's nice Elliott Broidy fundraises for Israel but holy moly.....


He took the fall for Trump with Bechard, didn't he?

I mean... she looks a lot like Stormy (and also Ivanka...).

Image


Brzezinski listed Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Republican donor Elliott Broidy — but Avenatti said she was making the same mistake everyone else had.

“No, no, no,” he said. “Mr. Trump, the Trump organization and Sean Hannity. Mr. Broidy was not disclosed in open court as one of Michael Cohen’s clients.”

Co-host Joe Scarborough asked the attorney what that meant.

“I think at some point we are going to find out, if in fact, the client in connection with the ($1.6 million) settlement was, in fact, Mr. Broidy. I’m going to leave it at that.”
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: NSA Chief Russia Hacked '16 Election Congress Must Inves

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:56 am

16 cell phones?

He's GD Saul Goodman incarnate.

Sometimes you don't need a criminal lawyer. You need a criminal lawyer.
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests