Rosenstein's authorization of Robert Mueller's investigation explicitly directs Mueller to pursue "any matters which arose or may arise directly from the investigation". Similar language in Ken Starr's investigation is how an investigation into an Arkansas land deal ended up with a recommended indictment for perjury about a semen-stained dress.
Manafort's attorneys made this same request in January and it was rejected by the court. I don't think there's any reason to believe that making the same request using more and longer words is going to produce a different result this time around.
In other words, while it's possible that Manafort may evade conviction, it doesn't seem likely that he can avoid a trial.
The FBI says that during the 2016 campaign Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, were in touch with a Manafort associate who had an ongoing relationship with Russian intelligence, according to court documents filed late Tuesday by prosecutors for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Was it? I have found nothing about either the lawsuit that Manafort filed against the DOJ (the action from January) or either the motion to dismiss in DC or Virginia have been adjudicated. The docket report from Manafort v. DOJ shows that the DOJ filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and the court has yet to rule on that one.
On the subject of veracity I have always held to there being two kinds of information; truth and lies. If the info is a lie, what is there to worry about? On the other hand, truth can be comfortable or uncomfortable and it’s the latter and the latter alone that give rich and powerful people the cold sweats
On the subject of veracity I have always held to there being two kinds of information; truth and lies.
Except it's not true. A lie is a mistruth deliberately told with intent to deceive. If I think my brother is 5'8" and tell you so, but it turns out he's really 5'6", I haven't lied to you, but I have not told the truth either.
There is only one kind of information, but many kinds of disinformation that categorize the location, extent and motivation of the error.
(Misinterpretations, mis-speakings, typographical errors, technically correct but misleading answers, lies, delusions, paranoia...)
A couple of points: while Trump may want to pardon Manafort, I would see that as political suicide. Goes to obstruction of justice.
Two while Tramp may try to pardon Manafort, he can only do that at the Federal level. It will not apply to any state prosecution. The New York State Attorney General will likely file a case for money laundering under state law.
Of note, even if Mueller can finish his inquiry, he may not be able to release it to the public. He is compelled to send it only to one person: Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the US--a Trump appointee. Rosenstein could just file it in the same pigeon hole as the Lost Ark It would not necessarily see the light of public scrutiny if the Republicans can win the 2018 Congressional elections.
A couple of points: while Trump may want to pardon Manafort, I would see that as political suicide. Goes to obstruction of justice.
I don't think exercise of legitimate legal powers could be seen as obstruction of justice in a legal sense, and I think pardoning is a legitimate presidential power. It would only be obstruction if on top of the pardoning, Trump was pressuring Manafort to not talk, or saying to others that they ought to keep schtum in expectation of the same favour etc.
Of note, even if Mueller can finish his inquiry, he may not be able to release it to the public. He is compelled to send it only to one person: Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the US--a Trump appointee. Rosenstein could just file it in the same pigeon hole as the Lost Ark It would not necessarily see the light of public scrutiny if the Republicans can win the 2018 Congressional elections.
"Compelled to" send it to Rosenstein but is he compelled not to release the inquiry's conclusions? And if Rosenstein files it in the circular file, would Mueller be blocked from revealing its conclusions to the press or in a book?
A couple of points: while Trump may want to pardon Manafort, I would see that as political suicide. Goes to obstruction of justice.
I don't think exercise of legitimate legal powers could be seen as obstruction of justice in a legal sense, and I think pardoning is a legitimate presidential power. It would only be obstruction if on top of the pardoning, Trump was pressuring Manafort to not talk, or saying to others that they ought to keep schtum in expectation of the same favour etc.
A couple points here. First, it is possible to use what are otherwise legitimate constitutional powers in illegitimate ways. For example, the president is the commander-in-chief of the American military. He also has the power to grant pardons. That doesn't mean that sending a detachment of marines to the Russell Office Building to summarily execute a group of opposition Senators followed by pardoning the troops involved isn't an abuse of power.
Second, obstruction of justice does not require an explicit quid pro quo agreement between Trump and Manafort (though that would make them both guilty of conspiracy, a different offense), simply the expectation on Trump's part that the actions he takes will impede or derail a legitimate legal inquiry through destroying or concealing evidence.
Compelled to" send it to Rosenstein but is he compelled not to release the inquiry's conclusions?
The directive that authorizes the Mueller investigation comes from the Attorney Generals office and specifically says that the report is to go to the AG. But, since Sessions had to recuse himself, it goes to the second in command, Rosenstein. Note, I said Mueller may not release his findings to the public. That is because under any investigation there would not be any public release unless it is allowed by the authorizing official.
When a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Clinton, it was Congress that authorized the investigation. Ken Starr had more latitude on what he could do with the information he had. Democrats felt he abused his power. Consequently, when they came into power they restricted what a special prosecutor could do with the information he or she would gather.
The only ways the conclusions of the Mueller investigations can come to light is if Rosenstein releases the information on his authority or if Congress subpoenas the report.
However, we are getting a good idea of where it is going through the indictments that are being handed down.
So Trump is claiming that construction has started on his border wall and Tweeted out some pictures of construction. The only problem is that those pictures are from 2009 and construction hasn't really started yet.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Trump says something untrue, news at 11:00. My question is whether this is because Trump is making stuff up to impress his base or whether it's because his staff is lying to him to keep him calm and he really believes his "big, beautiful wall" is being built right now? The latter seems almost as likely as the former and has some disturbing implications.
There was a joke floating around about a year ago, suggesting that we just let Trump tell everyone that the wall got built and Mexico paid for it. A third of the country believes it, and the rest of us save billions.
There was a joke floating around about a year ago, suggesting that we just let Trump tell everyone that the wall got built and Mexico paid for it. A third of the country believes it, and the rest of us save billions.
My question is whether this is because Trump is making stuff up to impress his base or whether it's because his staff is lying to him to keep him calm
I was under the impression that the president (capital letter to be restored upon filling the office) was requiring his staff and the Cabinet et al. were required to begin meetings by offering praise and gratitude to their boss, essentially lying to him to buoy his spirits. So what else would be new?
I was under the impression that the president (capital letter to be restored upon filling the office) was requiring his staff and the Cabinet
(tangent alert) "president" does not have to be capitalized even after a future change in the regime. Only has to be capitalized when you are speaking about a specific office holder--current holder excepted. But you did capitalize "cabinet." Again, does not have to be capitalized, especially referring to the current secretaries. (/tangent alert)
There was a joke floating around about a year ago, suggesting that we just let Trump tell everyone that the wall got built and Mexico paid for it. A third of the country believes it, and the rest of us save billions.
Maybe this strategy is coming to fruition?
Or that we allow Trump to live in the White House, surrounded by his favorite people who tell him he's doing a great job, while Truman-style, it's all just a charade for his amusement. Meanwhile the post-25th amendment some duly appointed or elected grown up is running things from a secure location
Interesting notion. All it would take is a video feed to the White House, a mock-up of the Fox & Friends set, and a group of plausible look-alikes. (Though how many Steve Doocy impersonators can there really be in the world?)
It is not out of the question that Mueller would seek the DoJ's permission to indict Trump directly . Rosenstein (to whom the decision would fall) might consider that an uncertain outcome from the inevitable SCOTUS escalation is better than a certain refusal to impeach by a GOP majority in the Senate. And impeachment then remains an option, with tremendous moral pressure on the Senate who will have seen the counts of indictment.
Pence's near-invisibility indicates that he knows that he will be indicted if Trump is, and he might even have come to a deal with Mueller that he'll testify against Trump and resign.
Ryan is done for.
So things aren't so bleak for the #Resistance as we might imagine. Speaker Pelosi here we come.
"Westward, look, the land is bright"
I don't think exercise of legitimate legal powers could be seen as obstruction of justice in a legal sense, and I think pardoning is a legitimate presidential power.
First, it is possible to use what are otherwise legitimate constitutional powers in illegitimate ways.... doesn't mean that sending a detachment of marines to the Russell Office Building to summarily execute a group of opposition Senators followed by pardoning the troops involved isn't an abuse of power.
Sure, but in that case there's the illegitimate order to execute senators in the mix. Pardoning them might well be part of the evidence that the president made the illegitimate order, but of itself I don't think could be called obstruction of justice.
(By definition, a pardon always obstructs justice in some sense doesn't it?)
Second, obstruction of justice does not require an explicit quid pro quo agreement between Trump and Manafort (though that would make them both guilty of conspiracy, a different offense), simply the expectation on Trump's part that the actions he takes will impede or derail a legitimate legal inquiry through destroying or concealing evidence.
So I guess the challenge would be demonstrating that expectation. It might be an obvious balance of probabilities, but I'm not sure whether that meets legal standards for establishing guilt.
The President just attended an Easter Sunday service at an Episcopal parish in Palm Beach, Florida, hours after tweeting that there would be no more deal for Dreamers and that Republicans should use the nuclear option (abolishing the filibuster) to pass a tough immigration law. I wonder what the sermon was like - the preacher must have known in advance the President was coming.
It is unprecedented for a sitting president to single out one company for such vicious attacks, says the BBC's Business Correspondent, Joe Lynam.
I am sure he is at least serving his own interests in seeking to introduce another diversion in the news cycle. But what other interests is he serving? Given that the contract with Amazon is profitable, as the article claims, why go fishing?
Given that the contract with Amazon is profitable, as the article claims, why go fishing?
There seems to be some debate about how the Post Office allocates its overheads between the parcel and letter services, and depending on what assumptions you make, you can decide that parcel delivery is profitable, or is run at a loss.
I'm not familiar enough with the figures to know who is closer to the truth in this particular discussion, but the general subject is one I've heard on and off over the years, long before Trump got involved.
As we've seen in discussions re trade deficits Trump uses whatever interpretation of figures suits his argument. I took the BBC at its word in saying that the Postal Regulatory Commission, which has oversight, reported the deal as profitable. Their oversight will have involved a more careful examination of the numbers than Trump has given them. Given his track record, I'd say that's a safe bet.
Jeff Bezos is an extremely successful businessman worth over $100 billion, possibly the wealthiest person in the world (earned money, not inherited from daddy). So of course Trump hates him.
Jeff Bezos is an extremely successful businessman worth over $100 billion, possibly the wealthiest person in the world (earned money, not inherited from daddy). So of course Trump hates him.
I'm not so sure about this line of reasoning. Trump apparently has no problem whatsoever with another contender for the "wealthiest person in the world" title.
At a London bar in May 2016, after numerous drinks, Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat the Russians had obtained damaging information on Hillary Clinton. The diplomat reported the conversation to American officials, which prompted the FBI to launch their investigation of the Trump campaign and its connections to Russia.
On Thursday at a Chicago nightclub, Papadopoulos had some drinks and, in a conversation with a new acquaintance, allegedly made new and explosive claims about Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Papadopoulos, according to this new acquaintance, said that Sessions was well aware of the contact between Papadopoulos and Joseph Mifsud, an academic from Malta with high-level connections in Russia. Papadopoulos’ indictment revealed that Mifsud had told Papadopoulos that the Russians had “‘dirt’ on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of ‘thousands of emails.'”
Jason Wilson, a computer engineer who lives in Chicago, told ThinkProgress that Papadopoulos said during their conversation that “Sessions encouraged me” to find out anything he could about the hacked Hillary Clinton emails that Mifsud had mentioned.
In true "pics or it didn't happen" style, there is a selfie proving that Wilson and Papadopoulos at least met at the bar in question. (The address is conveniently right there in the background.) There is, of course, only Wilson's word that Papadopoulos said anything potentially incriminating about Sessions. Simona Mangiante (Papadopoulos' wife) later claimed via text that "there is nothing george could reveal about the investigation apart from commenting what is already public". I think that "could" should be read as "should". I'm guessing that there's a reason Papadopoulos is having his wife do damage control on this. He obviously can't not leak, a problem which is apparently only exacerbate by alcohol.
I think trump might be capable of leaving all of us caught up in a military action as a distraction from his own gross failings. So yes, the comparison might have some mileage. Right now we're waiting to see when and where he starts the war.
Trump attended Bethesda Episcopal Church where Melina and he were married. Here is a link to the sermon http://www.bbts.org/resources/watch-sermons/ I tried to post this as a regular link but no can do.
A senior official at the Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday that putting troops on the U.S.-Mexico border had been under discussion but that no roll-out had been planned because of unresolved policy issues. The official said Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who was at Tuesday's White House meeting, did not want armed troops at the border.
And this.
Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Tuesday he disagreed with sending troops to the border.
“These people should be stopped at the border and vetted out, just the normal process," Rooney told Fox News. "I would rather have the dealings with immigration be handled in a civil context rather than a military one.”
Well, exactly. And I'm sure General Mattis thinks the same. I wonder how long he will last?
Uh...I think David had deeper faith than Donald Trump.
I'm still struggling through The Faith of Donald J. Trump. I'm aiming to post a brief summary of what I've learned if I can make it to the end. One thing I can say though is that Trump-voting evangelicals appear to suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Half the time Trump is God's anointed leader because of his spiritual qualities, half the time Trump is God's anointed leader despite obviously lacking any; like Cyrus.
Comments
In other words, while it's possible that Manafort may evade conviction, it doesn't seem likely that he can avoid a trial.
Full report: here.
Unless he is pardoned.
(Misinterpretations, mis-speakings, typographical errors, technically correct but misleading answers, lies, delusions, paranoia...)
A couple of points: while Trump may want to pardon Manafort, I would see that as political suicide. Goes to obstruction of justice.
Two while Tramp may try to pardon Manafort, he can only do that at the Federal level. It will not apply to any state prosecution. The New York State Attorney General will likely file a case for money laundering under state law.
Of note, even if Mueller can finish his inquiry, he may not be able to release it to the public. He is compelled to send it only to one person: Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the US--a Trump appointee. Rosenstein could just file it in the same pigeon hole as the Lost Ark It would not necessarily see the light of public scrutiny if the Republicans can win the 2018 Congressional elections.
Good to be here and see you all.
I don't think exercise of legitimate legal powers could be seen as obstruction of justice in a legal sense, and I think pardoning is a legitimate presidential power. It would only be obstruction if on top of the pardoning, Trump was pressuring Manafort to not talk, or saying to others that they ought to keep schtum in expectation of the same favour etc.
A couple points here. First, it is possible to use what are otherwise legitimate constitutional powers in illegitimate ways. For example, the president is the commander-in-chief of the American military. He also has the power to grant pardons. That doesn't mean that sending a detachment of marines to the Russell Office Building to summarily execute a group of opposition Senators followed by pardoning the troops involved isn't an abuse of power.
Second, obstruction of justice does not require an explicit quid pro quo agreement between Trump and Manafort (though that would make them both guilty of conspiracy, a different offense), simply the expectation on Trump's part that the actions he takes will impede or derail a legitimate legal inquiry through destroying or concealing evidence.
The directive that authorizes the Mueller investigation comes from the Attorney Generals office and specifically says that the report is to go to the AG. But, since Sessions had to recuse himself, it goes to the second in command, Rosenstein. Note, I said Mueller may not release his findings to the public. That is because under any investigation there would not be any public release unless it is allowed by the authorizing official.
When a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Clinton, it was Congress that authorized the investigation. Ken Starr had more latitude on what he could do with the information he had. Democrats felt he abused his power. Consequently, when they came into power they restricted what a special prosecutor could do with the information he or she would gather.
The only ways the conclusions of the Mueller investigations can come to light is if Rosenstein releases the information on his authority or if Congress subpoenas the report.
However, we are getting a good idea of where it is going through the indictments that are being handed down.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Trump says something untrue, news at 11:00. My question is whether this is because Trump is making stuff up to impress his base or whether it's because his staff is lying to him to keep him calm and he really believes his "big, beautiful wall" is being built right now? The latter seems almost as likely as the former and has some disturbing implications.
Maybe this strategy is coming to fruition?
There's a Doonesbury strip from 1976 that details such a strategy in action.
I was under the impression that the president (capital letter to be restored upon filling the office) was requiring his staff and the Cabinet et al. were required to begin meetings by offering praise and gratitude to their boss, essentially lying to him to buoy his spirits. So what else would be new?
(tangent alert) "president" does not have to be capitalized even after a future change in the regime. Only has to be capitalized when you are speaking about a specific office holder--current holder excepted. But you did capitalize "cabinet." Again, does not have to be capitalized, especially referring to the current secretaries. (/tangent alert)
Or that we allow Trump to live in the White House, surrounded by his favorite people who tell him he's doing a great job, while Truman-style, it's all just a charade for his amusement. Meanwhile the post-25th amendment some duly appointed or elected grown up is running things from a secure location
At least he is not known to be a womanizer.
Pence's near-invisibility indicates that he knows that he will be indicted if Trump is, and he might even have come to a deal with Mueller that he'll testify against Trump and resign.
Ryan is done for.
So things aren't so bleak for the #Resistance as we might imagine. Speaker Pelosi here we come.
"Westward, look, the land is bright"
Sure, but in that case there's the illegitimate order to execute senators in the mix. Pardoning them might well be part of the evidence that the president made the illegitimate order, but of itself I don't think could be called obstruction of justice.
(By definition, a pardon always obstructs justice in some sense doesn't it?)
So I guess the challenge would be demonstrating that expectation. It might be an obvious balance of probabilities, but I'm not sure whether that meets legal standards for establishing guilt.
Only the House of Representatives can impeach. The Senate can convict based on the impeachment.
Including this remarkable quote.
I am sure he is at least serving his own interests in seeking to introduce another diversion in the news cycle. But what other interests is he serving? Given that the contract with Amazon is profitable, as the article claims, why go fishing?
Another note for the Mueller files, no doubt.
There seems to be some debate about how the Post Office allocates its overheads between the parcel and letter services, and depending on what assumptions you make, you can decide that parcel delivery is profitable, or is run at a loss.
I'm not familiar enough with the figures to know who is closer to the truth in this particular discussion, but the general subject is one I've heard on and off over the years, long before Trump got involved.
I'm not so sure about this line of reasoning. Trump apparently has no problem whatsoever with another contender for the "wealthiest person in the world" title.
In true "pics or it didn't happen" style, there is a selfie proving that Wilson and Papadopoulos at least met at the bar in question. (The address is conveniently right there in the background.) There is, of course, only Wilson's word that Papadopoulos said anything potentially incriminating about Sessions. Simona Mangiante (Papadopoulos' wife) later claimed via text that "there is nothing george could reveal about the investigation apart from commenting what is already public". I think that "could" should be read as "should". I'm guessing that there's a reason Papadopoulos is having his wife do damage control on this. He obviously can't not leak, a problem which is apparently only exacerbate by alcohol.
Uh...I think David had deeper faith than Donald Trump.
I think trump might be capable of leaving all of us caught up in a military action as a distraction from his own gross failings. So yes, the comparison might have some mileage. Right now we're waiting to see when and where he starts the war.
Or maybe just another form of distraction?
I noted this without surprise.
And this.
Well, exactly. And I'm sure General Mattis thinks the same. I wonder how long he will last?
I'm still struggling through The Faith of Donald J. Trump. I'm aiming to post a brief summary of what I've learned if I can make it to the end. One thing I can say though is that Trump-voting evangelicals appear to suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Half the time Trump is God's anointed leader because of his spiritual qualities, half the time Trump is God's anointed leader despite obviously lacking any; like Cyrus.