The Russiagate conspiracy theory

[Rob Dekker]

Russiagate should be view in terms of Russia's larger expansionist agenda in Europe and the rest of the world:

Title: "Russia is biggest threat to UK since cold war, says head of British army"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/22/russia-is-biggest-threat-since-cold-war-says-head-of-british-army

Extract: "The chief of the general staff, Gen Sir Nicholas Carter, has described Russia as the biggest state-based threat to the UK since the cold war and warned that hostilities could begin a lot sooner than the UK expects.
..
Meanwhile, the former defence secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, used his first speech since resigning in November to add to calls for increased defence spending, citing what he called growing threats from Russia and cyber-attacks."

HOLD THE PRESS
The British MIC cites threats from outside as they ask for additional funds.

I wonder if you would recognize a warning about Russia from the highest level in the UK without questioning motives.

Your apologistic stand regarding Russia's actions really shines through.

[TerryM]

Didn't the house recently vote on impeachment?
Didn't the Democrats overwhelmingly vote against it?


Terry

At least I made a clear projection.  What exactly is your point?

My point was more history than projection.
The House recently voted against impeachment, 55 to 364, with 4 absent.


Washington (AP) -- The House overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to kill a resolution from a liberal Democratic lawmaker to impeach President Donald Trump as most Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the move.


according to Bloomberg
Terry

[TerryM]

Russiagate should be view in terms of Russia's larger expansionist agenda in Europe and the rest of the world:

Title: "Russia is biggest threat to UK since cold war, says head of British army"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/22/russia-is-biggest-threat-since-cold-war-says-head-of-british-army

Extract: "The chief of the general staff, Gen Sir Nicholas Carter, has described Russia as the biggest state-based threat to the UK since the cold war and warned that hostilities could begin a lot sooner than the UK expects.
..
Meanwhile, the former defence secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, used his first speech since resigning in November to add to calls for increased defence spending, citing what he called growing threats from Russia and cyber-attacks."

HOLD THE PRESS
The British MIC cites threats from outside as they ask for additional funds.

I wonder if you would recognize a warning about Russia from the highest level in the UK without questioning motives.

Your apologistic stand regarding Russia's actions really shines through.

We may never know.
Terry

[AbruptSLR]

Didn't the house recently vote on impeachment?
Didn't the Democrats overwhelmingly vote against it?


Terry

At least I made a clear projection.  What exactly is your point?

My point was more history than projection.
The House recently voted against impeachment, 55 to 364, with 4 absent.


Washington (AP) -- The House overwhelmingly voted Wednesday to kill a resolution from a liberal Democratic lawmaker to impeach President Donald Trump as most Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the move.


according to Bloomberg
Terry

You seem to be associating my projection for an indictment from Mueller on obstruction of justice charge by February 23 2018, with an impeachment vote by the House.  These are two very different things, so I think that your history lesson can safely be ignored in this case.

[AbruptSLR]

Is Rick Gates negotiating to become a fully cooperating witness for Mueller?

Title: "Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates hires lawyer known for negotiating plea deals with feds"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-campaign-aide-rick-gates-adds-lawyer-negotiating/story?id=52576551

Extract: "Rick Gates, an embattled former campaign aide to President Trump, has added a veteran Washington defense attorney to his legal team to oversee discussions with the special counsel investigating possible collusion with Russia."

[AbruptSLR]

Talk about obstruction of justice:

Title: "After Comey firing, Trump asked acting FBI director who he voted for"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-asked-andrew-mccabe-who-he-voted-for-during-meeting/

&

Title: "CIA chief Mike Pompeo interviewed in Mueller's Russia investigation – report"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/24/cia-director-mike-pompeo-mueller-trump-russia

Extract: "Pompeo said to have been ‘peripheral witness’ to Comey’s firing"

[AbruptSLR]

If Trump delays his interview with Mueller, & forces Mueller to issue a subpoena, then I will likely need to shift my February 23, 2018 deadline for an obstruction of justice indictment to sometime in March:

Title: "Day of bombshells takes Mueller probe to critical point"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/politics/mueller-investigation-analysis/index.html

Extract: "Mueller's request to question Trump, and news that his team has already interviewed fired FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, indicate that the special counsel has a clear picture of where he is headed in what could turn into an obstruction of justice case, legal experts said.

"It's possible that Mueller is closing in on his determination about what obstruction looks like, whether it is a criminal offense in his mind, whether it is an impeachable offense, or whether it amounts to nothing," Michael Zeldin, a former senior aide to Mueller at the Justice Department, told CNN's Brooke Baldwin.
…
Refusing Mueller's request could force the special counsel to subpoena the President to testify to a grand jury, a step that would put him in an even more perilous situation."

[AbruptSLR]

Apparently, Mueller is scheduled to interview Bannon within the next week:

Title: "Mueller set to question Bannon on Flynn and Comey"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/politics/robert-mueller-steve-bannon-questioning/index.html

Extract: "Bannon is set to interview with Mueller by the end of the month, these people say, as the special counsel's investigation moves closer to President Donald Trump's inner circle."

[AbruptSLR]

While the Mueller investigation is clearly heating up (in that Mueller is negotiating to interview Trump), it is definitely not coming to an end any time before October, as we have not yet got to money laundering, conspiracy etc.:

Title: "Is the Mueller Probe Heating Up?"

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/mueller-probe/551360/

Extract: "The special counsel has interviewed many of Trump's closest aides and is now reportedly negotiating to speak with the president—but that doesn’t necessarily mean the end is in sight."

[AbruptSLR]

If Grassley doesn't agree to give Trump Jr.'s "explosive" testimony to Mueller (privately), then the Democrats could release it to the public thus exposing Trump Jr.'s demonstrable lies to the public:

Title: "Judiciary Democrats want to share Trump Jr. testimony with Mueller"

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/24/donald-trump-jr-congress-testimony-mueller-366653

Extract: "Two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday pressed the committee's Republican chairman to provide special counsel Robert Mueller with transcripts of the panel's interviews with key witnesses in its Russia probe, including Donald Trump Jr.

The request, from Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), reflected the partisan tension in a judiciary committee whose investigation has for months been splintered along party lines.

It also amounted to a suggestion that witnesses — potentially including Donald Trump Jr., who sat for an interview in September — may have made false statements to the committee. In a recent interview, Blumenthal predicted the Trump Jr. transcript would be “explosive” if released."

[AbruptSLR]

Manafort lawyer posted some of his case notes on a publically accessible government website.  This gives Manafort a perfect excuse (to The Donald) to negotiate a plea denal with Mueller:

Title: "Manafort Lawyers Accidentally Included Apparent Internal Memo About the Press in Latest Court Filing"

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/manafort-lawyers-accidentally-included-apparent-internal-memo-about-the-press-in-latest-court-filing/

[Buddy]

Wouldn't it be funny.....if it turned out that Melania actually had a conscience?  Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned....

I'm not holding my breath, nor do I give her much of a chance of having a conscience....BUT...you never know.  EVERYONE has their breaking point.... 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scandals-wake-melania-keeps-distance-donald-care-202535527.html

[AbruptSLR]

Hopefully, when he makes his case for Trump's obstruction of justice charge, Mueller will remember the publically available record that Erik Prince, Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump conspired to intimidate James Comey prior to the 2016 election:

Title: "The Domestic Conspiracy That Gave Trump The Election Is In Plain Sight"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-domestic-conspiracy-that-gave-trump-the-election_us_587ed24fe4b0b110fe11dbf9

Extract: "Information presently public and available confirms that Erik Prince, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump conspired to intimidate FBI Director James Comey into interfering in, and thus directly affecting, the 2016 presidential election."

[Susan Anderson]

@Buddy: imho, Melania is part of the problem, not part of the solution. She is in it for herself, and her silence is clever but I doubt it is good.
---
The following may look OT to some, but I think it belongs here because it addresses in my limited way a problem about sourcing and social likes and dislikes that affects our selective preference for information that confirms our opinions. This has resulted in an argument where people have dug in and are refusing information that they don't like and attacking the source rather than the idea. (In general, I think Facebook (which was formed originally to get back at a girlfriend, and has made Zuckerberg a billionaire by exploiting free content and our emotional lives) can be even worse, but I don't watch Fox.)

@TerryM. A long time ago, you and I established that we want the same thing but disagree as to the means to get there. This conversation has been degraded and I feel that on several occasions you have used my honest mistakes as gotchas. However, you bring up an interesting point about sources and resources. I grew up without TV, and only in the last decade or so have become a regular consumer. Al Gore wrote an excellent book, The Assault on Reason, right after AIT, that describes an opinion about lowest common denominator media that I suspect you and I share.

Though Neven has expressed his dislike, I think Rachel Maddow is brilliant. Her reporting and research are outstanding. Her efforts have been a bit narrow focused on Trump corruption, and I think rightly so, because there is an out and out war on the truth here in the US. We mostly all agree about climate, and are used to the prevalence of false argument there and they way it gains credibility (there is at least one regular on this forum who would claim I and my colleagues who follow science are the phonies). The parallel to other areas of governance here arouse a variety of responses that include what I sometimes call the purity monster: the claims of outsiders that all you have to do is remove corruption "on both sides" and start afresh and we can then make progress. These idealists have high standards and admirable opinions. I hope they will enter politics and try to work to get those ideals enacted, finding out along the way that other people exist and don't necessarily agree, and that money as a means of exchange is not always pure evil.

When I began watching TV and finally discovered MSNBC, it was a new experience to see reporting at the highest level covering current developments and providing information of that quality. I don't subscribe, so I mostly have to look her up on the internet and use pirated versions, but I have found this to be more than worthwhile, despite the repetitions that keep the bigger picture in focus for casual visitors as well as those who have been following all along.

In general, it seems to me social media have allowed people to isolate themselves, and despite all the good it does, in sum it seems to create division and help real villainy. We are all addicts!

[Susan Anderson]

aSLR, thanks for the mention of Prince et al. Yes, it's a gallimaufry of villains of all stripes. Diehard Sessions is a dangerous blowhard, whose belief in himself and his race and privilege (and hatred of climate science) he attributes to "God". Sadly, he's the top legal power in the country. Betsy DeVos is Prince's sister, by the way, and she is all set to destroy what's left of quality free public education with giveaways to the privileged.

[SteveMDFP]

Hopefully, when he makes his case for Trump's obstruction of justice charge, Mueller will remember the publically available record that Erik Prince, Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump conspired to intimidate James Comey prior to the 2016 election:

Title: "The Domestic Conspiracy That Gave Trump The Election Is In Plain Sight"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-domestic-conspiracy-that-gave-trump-the-election_us_587ed24fe4b0b110fe11dbf9

Extract: "Information presently public and available confirms that Erik Prince, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump conspired to intimidate FBI Director James Comey into interfering in, and thus directly affecting, the 2016 presidential election."

Quite right.  It's clear in the article that the FBI's actions weren't just injurious to Hillary's campaign, they were highly asymmetric with regards to the Trump campaign:

. . . NYPD and the FBI appear to have leaked repeatedly to the Trump campaign, yet there have been no leaks whatsoever regarding the FBI and CIA’s ongoing investigation into Trump’s ties with Russia. It is thus clear that better understanding the scope, purpose, and players of the domestic conspiracy to elect Donald Trump will also shed light on how the FBI and CIA managed to conduct little or no investigation of criminal allegations exponentially more serious than any of those leveled against Hillary Clinton.

[AbruptSLR]

There are fewer and fewer shadows for Team Trump to hide in:

Title: "Senate Judiciary to release Trump Tower witness transcripts"

https://www.axios.com/senate-chuck-grassley-release-trump-tower-interview-transcripts-e8340237-f2a4-49a2-a427-d4bd93fa62d3.html?source=sidebar

Edit, see also:

Title: "Judiciary chairman plans to release Donald Trump Jr. transcript"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/politics/grassley-donald-trump-jr-transcript-release/index.html

Extract: "Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said Thursday he wants to release the transcript of the committee's closed-door interview with Donald Trump Jr., joining Democrats on the committee who have pressed to make it public.

Grassley said he will now move to release all of the panel's interviews involving the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between a Russian lawyer and Trump Jr., the President's son-in-law Jared Kushner and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort."

[AbruptSLR]

If Terry is correct that Axios is just a Koch Brother's mouthpiece, then the linked Axios article stating that Team Trump is preparing an "everyone's dirty" campaign to smear not only Mueller, but the entire intelligence community; should provide good insight into the next phase of the knife fight that the resistance is in for on the road to impeachment.

Personally, it seems to me that this "everyone's dirty" scenario may play well with his base (including with the House of Representative GOP members); however, it is not likely to play well with Mueller's Grand Juries; and will likely not stop the blue wave during the mid-term elections.  By this line of logic, Mueller can indict Trump several times (obstruction of justice, money laundering, treason, etc.) between now and the mid-term election; but impeachment will likely need to wait until Democrats regain control of the House in January 2019:

Title: "Trump's "everyone's dirty" strategy"

https://www.axios.com/trumps-everyone-dirty-strategy-fbi-mueller-ae2126e7-4d57-4df9-af88-b7a8f6d56410.html

Extract: "The "everyone's dirty" scenario is less a coordinated strategy — with careful planning involved — than it is a reflection of Trump's genuine belief that the intelligence community is out to get him …"

[SteveMDFP]

  Mueller can indict Trump several times (obstruction of justice, money laundering, treason, etc.) between now and the mid-term election; but impeachment will likely need to wait until Democrats regain control of the House in January 2019:
 

I think House Democrats need to be very careful and very strategic about voting to impeach.
A President can be impeached by the House (essentially like an indictment) by a simple majority vote.  However, actual removal from office requires 2/3 majority in a "trial" in the Senate.  Republicans are certain to hold more than 1/3 of seats for the duration of Trump's term.

Here's a question I've not heard addressed.  If the House votes to approve articles of impeachment and the Senate fails to remove, can the House later approve the same articles of impeachment again?  The Constitution prohibits "double indemnity," trying a person twice for the same crime.  Does this prohibition extend to the President's impeachment "trial" in the Senate?

That likely would require a Supreme Court decision.  I suspect, however, the SC would say the protection extends to the President in impeachment proceedings.  As the Senate "trial" is conducted by the Chief Justice of the SC, the question might boil down to Justice Roberts' decision alone.

Voting in the House to impeach, before a Senate conviction is assured, might prove to be profoundly counter-productive.

P.S. Make that "double jeopardy."

[AbruptSLR]

Trump's desperate attempts to like McCabe to Hillary Clinton may work on his base, but as a defense against an obstruction of justice charge it is just pathetic:

Title: "The 35 most amazing lines from Donald Trump's impromptu press conference"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/politics/trump-interview-analysis/index.html

28. "Well McCabe got more than $500,000 from essentially Hillary Clinton, and is he investigating Hillary Clinton?"

Nope! McCabe's wife, when she was a candidate for state Senate in 2015, got a $467,000 contribution from a super PAC associated with then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Yes, McAuliffe is a longtime friend of the Clintons. But he is not, in fact, Hillary Clinton.

29. "Now Terry is Hillary."
Who wants to tell him?

[AbruptSLR]

Voting in the House to impeach, before a Senate conviction is assured, might prove to be profoundly counter-productive.

It would certainly appear that a large part of the GOP (& particularly GOP Senators) is/are guilty of pandering to Russian interests.  Maybe a blue wave putting democrats in charge of the Senate could fix this conflict of interest.

Title: "Dallas Morning News: Russian money to GOP campaigns

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/4/1687031/-Dallas-Morning-News-Russian-money-to-GOP-campaigns

Extract: "Donald Trump and the political action committees for Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich and John McCain accepted $7.35 million in contributions from a Ukrainian-born oligarch who is the business partner of two of Russian president Vladimir Putin's favorite oligarchs and a Russian government bank."

[Buddy]

Just a reminder....that support for Tricky Dick didn't start to break down until March of 1974....which in RussiaGate terms is one and a half months from now.  Granted...the Dems controlled the Senate...

Also keep in mind that there are at least 4 states that COULD be forced to redraw their district lines because they have been deemed to be "gerrymandered".  IF....BIG IF....the Supreme  Court upholds those lower court decisions to force the redrawing of districts... that will further put Republicans in the House in a bind.  And it means that the House Committees will be under Domocratic control.

Things can change quickly as more indictments come out.....

[TerryM]

@TerryM. A long time ago, you and I established that we want the same thing but disagree as to the means to get there. This conversation has been degraded and I feel that on several occasions you have used my honest mistakes as gotchas. However, you bring up an interesting point about sources and resources. I grew up without TV, and only in the last decade or so have become a regular consumer. Al Gore wrote an excellent book, The Assault on Reason, right after AIT, that describes an opinion about lowest common denominator media that I suspect you and I share.

Though Neven has expressed his dislike, I think Rachel Maddow is brilliant. Her reporting and research are outstanding. Her efforts have been a bit narrow focused on Trump corruption, and I think rightly so, because there is an out and out war on the truth here in the US. We mostly all agree about climate, and are used to the prevalence of false argument there and they way it gains credibility (there is at least one regular on this forum who would claim I and my colleagues who follow science are the phonies). The parallel to other areas of governance here arouse a variety of responses that include what I sometimes call the purity monster: the claims of outsiders that all you have to do is remove corruption "on both sides" and start afresh and we can then make progress. These idealists have high standards and admirable opinions. I hope they will enter politics and try to work to get those ideals enacted, finding out along the way that other people exist and don't necessarily agree, and that money as a means of exchange is not always pure evil.

When I began watching TV and finally discovered MSNBC, it was a new experience to see reporting at the highest level covering current developments and providing information of that quality. I don't subscribe, so I mostly have to look her up on the internet and use pirated versions, but I have found this to be more than worthwhile, despite the repetitions that keep the bigger picture in focus for casual visitors as well as those who have been following all along.

In general, it seems to me social media have allowed people to isolate themselves, and despite all the good it does, in sum it seems to create division and help real villainy. We are all addicts!

Re. the bolded. If I have been playing "gotcha" I do apologize. I'll try to do better in the future.


As far as you venturing OT, this thread has evolved into a "Mueller's Investigation" thread with Russia playing an ever decreasingly important role.


Have you ventured into JimD's "A Must Read" thread yet? It's a scholarly look at the last election that anyone interested in the outcomes of 2018 and 2020 should familiarize themselves with.
The last newscaster I had respect for was Walter Cronkite, but as years past it became clear that even Uncle Walt told some whoppers in his day.


I'm not certain of which groups you're referencing when you say "social media". I shy away from facebook and twitter, but sites like this, that allow experts and the curious to exchange information about climate change, or other matters of import, must surely be net positive.


Terry

[TerryM]

Just a reminder....that support for Tricky Dick didn't start to break down until March of 1974....which in RussiaGate terms is one and a half months from now.  Granted...the Dems controlled the Senate...

Also keep in mind that there are at least 4 states that COULD be forced to redraw their district lines because they have been deemed to be "gerrymandered".  IF....BIG IF....the Supreme  Court upholds those lower court decisions to force the redrawing of districts... that will further put Republicans in the House in a bind.  And it means that the House Committees will be under Domocratic control.

Things can change quickly as more indictments come out.....

What indictments have come out?
Terry

[AbruptSLR]

It would certainly appear that a large part of the GOP (& particularly GOP Senators) is/are guilty of pandering to Russian interests.  Maybe a blue wave putting democrats in charge of the Senate could fix this conflict of interest.

Title: "Dallas Morning News: Russian money to GOP campaigns

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/4/1687031/-Dallas-Morning-News-Russian-money-to-GOP-campaigns

Extract: "Donald Trump and the political action committees for Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich and John McCain accepted $7.35 million in contributions from a Ukrainian-born oligarch who is the business partner of two of Russian president Vladimir Putin's favorite oligarchs and a Russian government bank."

One does have to wonder whether McConnell's ties to Russian campaign contributions gave him the political courage to block Merrick Garland, until Trump could appoint Neil Gorsuch:

Title: "Did Mitch McConnell Say One of His Proudest Moments Was Telling Obama 'You Will Not Fill This Supreme Court Vacancy'?"

https://www.snopes.com/mitch-mcconnell-one-of-my-proudest-moments/

Extract: "In March 2016, following the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, a Reagan appointee and one of the more conservative voices on the court, President Obama nominated federal appellate judge Merrick Garland, who was described as “centrist” by the mainstream media and “left-leaning” by those on the right, to fill the vacancy. He did this despite the fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had already announced — on the day Scalia died — that the Republican-controlled Senate had no intention of confirming any nominee chosen by Obama.
…
Six months later, as reported by the Washington Post, McConnell boasted to constituents at a 6 August 2016 political event in his home state of Kentucky about successfully blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland:

“One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,’” he said to cheers at the annual Fancy Farm Picnic."

See also:

Title: "Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation"

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation

[AbruptSLR]

The Democrats are increasingly finding that they have to actively resist (such as by Feinstein's release of the Fusion GPS transcripts from the Senate Judiciary Committee) the GOP campaign to try to smear the Russiagate investigation.  If this keeps up we can expect minority reports from a number of congressional committees investigating Russiagate:

Title: "A perfect “storm”: The far right’s latest pro-Trump conspiracy theory explains everything"

https://www.salon.com/2018/01/25/a-perfect-storm-the-far-rights-latest-pro-trump-conspiracy-theory-explains-everything/

Extract: "The Deep State, Pizzagate and the “secret society”: Your crazy racist uncle now runs the conservative movement"

&

Title: "As Mueller Closes In, Paranoia Spreads in the White House"

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/mueller-closes-paranoia-spreads-white-house

Extract: "Jeff Sessions tries to purge FBI of Comey’s influence, while right-wingers spread outrageous conspiracy theories."

&

Title: "Greg Sargent: How bad is the Republican cover-up on Trump and Russia? We may soon find out."

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/03/greg-sargent-how-bad-is-the-republican-cover-up-on-trump-and-russia-we-may-soon-find-out/

Extract: "In an interview with me, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut — the number two Democrat on the House intel committee — said that Democrats are seriously exploring the possibility of issuing a minority report that details the degree to which Republicans tried to impede a full investigation, should that end up happening. In this scenario, the public would at least have a clear sense of just how far Republicans went to protect Trump and his top officials from accountability."

[Susan Anderson]

@TerryM, thanks for the pleasant response. I felt a need to advocate for the excellence of Rachel Maddow's research, organization, morality, and intelligence. I guess I do feel that you are eager to condemn some people I support, and exonerate those whom I regard as doing harm, and I wonder where you get support for that. Please note my careful hedging, as I acknowledge that I too have opinions and convictions. TV (subset Fox, the rest, MSNBC), social media, whatever, certain sets of opinions seem to come from an opinionated bloc that is not open to what I believe is going on. I cede to aSLR the specifics which are now coming in fast and furious, and who does a good job of sourcing his material.

@aSLR et al.: Gorsuch is, imho, monstrous, but some of you may not know that he is the son of Anne Gorsuch, of Reagan EPA fame - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuchs-mother-once-ran-the-epa-it-was-a-disaster/

By the end of her stint at EPA, Anne Gorsuch was under siege. A half dozen congressional committees were looking into allegations of mismanagement of the Superfund program, which was designed to clean up abandoned toxic waste sites around the country. The House voted to cite Gorsuch for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over subpoenaed records.

“Anne Gorsuch inherited one of the most efficient and capable agencies in government,” read a New York Times editorial in early 1983. “She has turned it into an Augean stable, reeking of cynicism, mismanagement and decay.”

Gorsuch’s credibility, and that of other top EPA leaders, was in tatters. And the debacle reflected poorly on Reagan, who eventually forced her to step down.

She died of cancer (a heavy cigarette smoker) at age 62.

Judge Gorsuch's level of right-leaning prejudice is extreme even for this bunch.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/17/the-conservative-pipeline-to-the-supreme-court

Behind the scenes, during Republican Administrations, they are very engaged in identifying and recruiting for judges candidates who are ultra-conservatives—who are opposed to our rights and liberties across the board, whether it’s women, the environment, consumer protections, worker protections.” Gorsuch is likely to be only the first of Leo’s Trump Administration appointees: he is preparing for yet more vacancies on the Supreme Court, and also finding candidates for some of the hundred-plus vacancies on the lower courts, deepening his imprint on the judiciary.

[TerryM]

It would certainly appear that a large part of the GOP (& particularly GOP Senators) is/are guilty of pandering to Russian interests.  Maybe a blue wave putting democrats in charge of the Senate could fix this conflict of interest.

Title: "Dallas Morning News: Russian money to GOP campaigns

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/4/1687031/-Dallas-Morning-News-Russian-money-to-GOP-campaigns

Extract: "Donald Trump and the political action committees for Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich and John McCain accepted $7.35 million in contributions from a Ukrainian-born oligarch who is the business partner of two of Russian president Vladimir Putin's favorite oligarchs and a Russian government bank."

One does have to wonder whether McConnell's ties to Russian campaign contributions gave him the political courage to block Merrick Garland, until Trump could appoint Neil Gorsuch:

Title: "Did Mitch McConnell Say One of His Proudest Moments Was Telling Obama 'You Will Not Fill This Supreme Court Vacancy'?"

https://www.snopes.com/mitch-mcconnell-one-of-my-proudest-moments/

Extract: "In March 2016, following the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, a Reagan appointee and one of the more conservative voices on the court, President Obama nominated federal appellate judge Merrick Garland, who was described as “centrist” by the mainstream media and “left-leaning” by those on the right, to fill the vacancy. He did this despite the fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had already announced — on the day Scalia died — that the Republican-controlled Senate had no intention of confirming any nominee chosen by Obama.
…
Six months later, as reported by the Washington Post, McConnell boasted to constituents at a 6 August 2016 political event in his home state of Kentucky about successfully blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland:

“One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,’” he said to cheers at the annual Fancy Farm Picnic."

See also:

Title: "Senate Pulls 'Nuclear' Trigger To Ease Gorsuch Confirmation"

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation

You're referring to the donations from Sir Leonard Blavatnik, Britain's richest man. After moving to New York when 20 he graduated from Columbia with an MS, he then attained an MBA from Harvard.
He holds both a UK and an American citizenship & his Philanthropy in Israel, New York and London has received much press.
While I don't appreciate anyone's donations to Republican's, American citizens, as far as I know can contribute to either party.


Terry

[AbruptSLR]

You're referring to the donations from Sir Leonard Blavatnik, Britain's richest man. After moving to New York when 20 he graduated from Columbia with an MS, he then attained an MBA from Harvard.
He holds both a UK and an American citizenship & his Philanthropy in Israel, New York and London has received much press.
While I don't appreciate anyone's donations to Republican's, American citizens, as far as I know can contribute to either party.


Terry

The world of influence peddling is a murky one, so I provide a link to the original Dallas News article, so that readers themselves can decide for themselves whether this information links both Trump and the GOP leadership to the convoluted web of Putin's oligarchs:

Title: "GOP campaigns took $7.35 million from oligarch linked to Russia"

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/03/tangled-web-connects-russian-oligarch-money-gop-campaigns

Extract: "The convoluted web that links Putin's oligarchs to Trump's political associates and top Republicans is difficult to take in."

[TerryM]

Try Wikipedia, or


http://global-citizen.com/who-is-len-blavatnik/


They have his picture with Bill Clinton, an interesting anecdote about him, Jane Fonda and Mick Jagger, but no mention of Putin.
BTW, he owns Warner Music.


Why would Dallas News not mention his connection with Bill?

Terry

[Jim Pettit]

Things can change quickly as more indictments come out.....

What indictments have come out?
Terry

A refresher:

Click for PDF:


Manafort is Trump's former campaign chairman, and Rick Gates is Manafort's former business partner.

[Buddy]

Will Moron Don sit down with Mueller for questioning?  Will he sit down more than once with Mueller?

Right now Donnie is no doubt doing some calculus as to the effects of Donnie NOT sitting down...and then being subpoenaed before a grand jury, and taking the 5th amendment.

Donnie seems to have set up "the backdrop" for Donnie to come out and say "I want to be interviewed by Mueller but my team thinks the FBI is so tainted...they think I should not talk with them."

I believe....that given the extent of the money laundering probe... and the number of entities to wade through....hundreds..... that the money laundering phase of the investigation may not be done until the last quarter of this year AT THE EARLIEST.  That is why they may request more than one sit down session.

But I think the chance of this heading to a fifth amendment situation is increasing.

[AbruptSLR]

I hope that Mueller indicts Trump on obstruction of justice before we see another Saturday Night Massacre:

Title:"Trump ordered Mueller's firing last year but stopped by WH counsel: report"

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370817-trump-ordered-mueller-fired-last-year-but-was-stopped-by-wh-counsel

Extract: "... Trump ordered Mueller to be fired in June, according to four people with knowledge of the matter.
...
Mueller recently found out about Trump's attempt to have him fired, according to the Times, as his team has begun interviewing top current and former Trump officials."

[AbruptSLR]

Is Trump slowly tearing the GOP apart with all of his flip-flopping?

Title: "White House jumps back into Dreamer battle with citizenship offer"

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/25/white-house-presents-immigration-plan-with-path-to-citizenship-for-18-million-369457

Extract: "The White House is hoping to woo Democrats by offering protection to undocumented immigrants in exchange for border wall funding — and sharp restrictions on family reunification.
...
One conservative staffer who was on the White House call and opposes granting citizenship to 1.8 million undocumented immigrants said: "This is the beginning of the end of the GOP majority in the House. In a year when the Democrats impeach Trump, we can point to this moment.""

[AbruptSLR]

We will soon see whether Trump follows in Nixon's obstructionist footsteps:

Title: "Donald Trump Wants to Fight the FBI? It’s a Suicide Mission."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/donald-trump-wants-to-fight-the-fbi-its-a-suicide-mission-216533

Extract: "On Friday, April 27, 1973, a dozen armed FBI agents left their headquarters in the Old Post Office building — today a gilded Trump hotel — and marched up Pennsylvania Avenue. Waving their badges, they walked into the White House.

Their orders were to stand guard in the West Wing, wherein lay evidence of high crimes. “They’re going to lock down and secure the business offices, including the president’s,” the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, Jack McDermott, told an astonished Secret Service man.

Caught in the web of Watergate, President Richard M. Nixon returned from Camp David and found a skinny young FBI man standing at attention down the hall from the Oval Office. Screaming in rage, he grabbed the agent by the lapels. “What the hell is this?” he shouted.

These would be suicide missions. Ever since Nixon, no president has won a face-to-face battle with the FBI or a special counsel investigating the White House. And Richard Nixon, for all his deviousness and duplicity, was an infinitely more sophisticated political operator than Donald Trump.
…
On March 22, 1973, as the breath of the FBI’s bloodhounds grew hot, Nixon had a heart-to-heart with John Mitchell, the man who’d been his campaign manager, attorney general and criminal co-conspirator. The president concluded that a continuing obstruction of justice was his only recourse. The White House tapes spun silently: “I don’t give a shit what happens,” Nixon said. “I want you all to stonewall it … plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up. ... We’re going to protect our people, if we can.”"

[AbruptSLR]

The evidence of Russian interference is coming into focus:

Title: "The Russia threat is real -- and it matters"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/26/europe/russia-threat-real-or-hysteria-intl/index.html

Extract: "Dutch state media revealed this week that Dutch cyber spies -- the Joint Sigint Cyber Unit (JSCU) -- were able to hack into the closed-circuit television of the building where a Russian hacking organization known as Cozy Bear worked, and observe them coming and going from offices where they hacked the Democratic National Committee in the US. The Dutch told the Americans, touching off the US investigations. According to the Dutch, the Americans then helpfully told the media they were tipped off by a Western intelligence agency, prompting the Russians to turn off the Cozy Bear CCTV hack."

See also:

Title: "Dutch intelligence agency spied on Russian hacking group: media"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-russia-cybercrime/dutch-intelligence-agency-spied-on-russian-hacking-group-media-idUSKBN1FE34W

[AbruptSLR]

Trump's promiscuous use of the phrase "Fake News" means that he has not actually denied that he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller in June of 2017:

Title: "No, Trump Did Not “Deny” Reports That He Tried to Fire Mueller"

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/01/no-trump-did-not-deny-reports-that-he-tried-to-fire-mueller/

Extract: "Yet Trump also obviously wanted to downplay the Times story. By labeling the scoop “fake news,” Trump obfuscated while giving his supporters something to rally behind. When publications describe Trump’s non-denial as a denial, they are unwittingly assisting him in this effort."

[AbruptSLR]

If Trump delays his interview with Mueller, & forces Mueller to issue a subpoena, then I will likely need to shift my February 23, 2018 deadline for an obstruction of justice indictment to sometime in March:

Title: "Day of bombshells takes Mueller probe to critical point"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/politics/mueller-investigation-analysis/index.html

Extract: "Mueller's request to question Trump, and news that his team has already interviewed fired FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, indicate that the special counsel has a clear picture of where he is headed in what could turn into an obstruction of justice case, legal experts said.

"It's possible that Mueller is closing in on his determination about what obstruction looks like, whether it is a criminal offense in his mind, whether it is an impeachable offense, or whether it amounts to nothing," Michael Zeldin, a former senior aide to Mueller at the Justice Department, told CNN's Brooke Baldwin.
…
Refusing Mueller's request could force the special counsel to subpoena the President to testify to a grand jury, a step that would put him in an even more perilous situation."

According to the attached Tweet from a lawyer, Mueller is not empowered to indict a sitting president, so it looks like my projection is inaccurate, but this will not stop Mueller from compiling evidence that Rod Rosenstein could make public, at the appropriate time (assuming Trump does not fire Sessions and replace him with someone like Scott Pruitt as an acting AG).

[AbruptSLR]

The linked op/ed opines that Congress should be prepared to defend the US legal system if/when Trump fires Muller (possibly by firing Sessions and moving an already Senate approved cabinet member (like Scott Pruitt et al) in as acting AG who could then fire both Rod Rosenstein and Bob Mueller directly.

Title: "Trump Will Try to Fire Mueller. Again."

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-26/trump-will-try-to-fire-mueller-again

Extract: "As the White House gets rattled further, Trump will test how deeply Congress believes in and respects the rule of law. The U.S. legal system, whatever its imperfections, is a pillar of American life and liberty. Republicans and Democrats in Congress should remind themselves of that and prepare for the very real possibility that the president will try to fire the special counsel again -- especially if Mueller's probe ensnares any of the Trumps, including the paterfamilias."

[AbruptSLR]

According to the linked Foreign Policy twitter feed, last June Trump asked his senior aides "… to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI official after learning that those specific official were likely to be witnesses against him."  Talk about witness tampering.

https://twitter.com/ForeignPolicy/status/957013124527345665

[AbruptSLR]

According to the linked Foreign Policy twitter feed, last June Trump asked his senior aides "… to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI official after learning that those specific official were likely to be witnesses against him." 

I highly suspect that Mueller will be investigating Stephen Miller as to whether he collaborated with Trump to obstruct justice.

[AbruptSLR]

We all knew that Trump's promise to an interview with Mueller, while under oath, in the coming weeks was just a bait and switch tactic.  I think that Mueller should prepare his Grand Jury subpoena for Trump now, because he is going to need it:

Title: "Trump’s Lawyers, Seeking Leverage in Russia Probe, Comb ’90s Court Ruling"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-lawyers-seeking-leverage-in-russia-probe-comb-90s-court-ruling-1517009835

Extract: "White House legal team may look to delay, limit or avoid a possible interview of the president by Mueller"

[AbruptSLR]

It appears that the Dutch are angry that the Trump Administration outed their hacking of 'Cozy Bear':

Title: "Dutch intelligence first to alert U.S. about Russian hack of Democratic Party"

https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-first-to-alert-u-s-about-russian-hack-of-democratic-party.html

Extract: "As of now, the AIVD hackers do not seem to have access to Cozy Bear any longer. Sources suggest that the openness of US intelligence sources, who in 2017 praised the help of a Western ally in news stories, may have ruined their operation. The openness caused great anger in The Hague and Zoetermeer. In the television programme College Tour, this month, AIVD director Bertholee stated that he is extra careful when it comes to sharing intelligence with the U.S., now that Donald Trump is President."

Edit: Don't forget that right after he fired Comey, Trump personally passed Israeli intelligence directly to Lavrov while in the Oval Office, which burned the associated Israeli operative.

[Susan Anderson]

NYTimes today had a good opinion piece about the treachery of Devin Nunes, who seems wholly committed to undermining the work of the committe he (sic) heads. It is still 11+ months before Democrats (hopefully) take over at least one house of congress (early January 2019, if elected) and that's a lot of harm that can be done.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/opinion/devin-nunes-republicans-memo.html

[Buddy]

Watergate had 69 indictments and 48 of those were found guilty.  The count so far in RussiaGate is 4 and 2.  I expect Watergate numbers will be exceeded before RussiaGate is over.😳😳

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that in recent weeks Trump has pressured his advisors to fire Rod Rosenstein, but the advisors pushed back to prevent such an act of obstruction of justice:

Title: "Frustrated by Russia investigation, Trump turns ire toward Rosenstein"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/26/politics/donald-trump-rod-rosenstein-frustration/index.html

Extract: "Months after his reported effort to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, President Donald Trump is still fuming over the Russia investigation and has Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in his crosshairs.

The President has been venting about Rosenstein -- who oversees Mueller and the special counsel investigation -- in recent weeks, according to four sources familiar with the situation. At times, Trump even gripes about wanting Rosenstein removed, two of those sources said. One source said the President makes comments like "let's fire him, let's get rid of him" before his advisers convince him it's an ill-fated idea."

[AbruptSLR]

The media keeps giving Trump the benefit of the doubt; but even if Mueller shows corrupt intent but cannot indict a sitting president for obstruction of justice, hopefully Rod Rosenstein can do so as acting AG in this investigation.  Under Federal law (18 U.S.C. 1505) Rosenstein, as head of the Russiagate investigation, has the right to charge/indict Trump for obstruction of justice; however, if the Supreme Court does not back-up this interpretation then responsibility to indictment of Trump would fall on the House of Representatives, either before, or after January 2019:

In this regards, see:

Title: "Donald Trump can't talk his way out of legal peril in the Robert Mueller investigation"

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-collusion-a8180151.html

Extract: "Trump may be innocent. But Lord it’s hard to understand why he has behaved the way he has if he is"

&

Title: "Can the President Obstruct Justice?"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/04/can-the-president-obstruct-justice-216008

Extract: "Previous investigations of presidents—including Watergate, Iran Contra and Whitewater—have proceeded under the assumption that the president could be indicted. And in past cases that have involved subjecting the president to judicial process, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that due deference to the constitutional responsibilities of the president requires only special accommodation, not absolute immunity.
…
It is clear from both of these precedents that a president may be held to account for obstructing justice, at least by Congress.
…
Of course a president can obstruct justice: A corrupt intent can turn a legal action into an illegal one.
…
The applicable criminal provision—18 U.S.C. 1505—makes no reference to the idea that the president is excluded from its scope. To avoid interfering with the duties of otherwise lawful authorities, that provision specifically requires the existence of threats or corrupt intent in order to apply.

Those caveats distinguish, for example, a president’s general constitutional authority to direct the FBI to conduct an investigation from a circumstance in which that order was given with corrupt intent. The same logic would apply if the order were given by the attorney general or the director of the FBI, both of whom retain their own respective authorities to control the course of investigations and, if necessary, prosecutions.

None of this, of course, changes the unresolved issue of whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime. If President Trump is ever “charged” with obstruction of justice, it will more than likely only come about in the political context of impeachment proceedings on Capitol Hill, not a criminal prosecution."

[AbruptSLR]

President Trump reportedly implemented a policy allowing him to keep otherwise 'refundable' golf "… membership fees and spend said money on anything he wanted."   When Mueller quit one of Trump's golf clubs in 2011, Trump alleged that Mueller was upset by Trump's policy allowing him to keep 'refundable' initiation fees, and thus Mueller was bias against Trump.  It seems to me that Trump is running a racketeering scheme while president and should not be allowed to try to intimidate Mueller (by threatening to fire him for not remaining part of Trump's racketeering scheme):

Title: "Why Did Mueller Quit Trump’s Golf Club? Dispute Reportedly Key to President’s Desire to Fire Special Counsel"

http://www.newsweek.com/mueller-quit-trump-golf-club-792562

Extract: "Trump argued that Mueller had three conflicts of interest preventing him from leading a fully unbiased investigation, according to the New York Times. The first two conflicts being Mueller’s previous work for a law firm that represented Jared Kushner; the second being Mueller interviewing to return for a second stint as FBI director immediately before being appointed as special counsel in May.

But arguably the most eye-catching alleged conflict of interest involves a purported dispute between Mueller and the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, in October 2011. President Trump claimed Mueller resigned his membership at the club due to the alleged disagreement over fees and believes he still holds a grudge against him over the matter.

Mueller, who was FBI director at the time of the alleged dispute, denied the incident and any potential hard feelings.
…
The hefty fees members are required to pay at Trump golf properties have caused issues in the past.

The one-time initiation fee, which does not include the annual fee, can range anywhere from $14,000 to $450,000 per person, depending on the club location.

And Trump reportedly pockets a large amount of this sum—even as president. The president chose not to sell his businesses after taking office but instead promised to cede control to his sons Donald Jr. and Eric.

Trump is said to have had access to almost $100 million in refundable fees in 2004, these fees coming from just four of his clubs.

The president implemented a policy allowing him to keep the membership fees and spend said money on anything he wanted—a policy that Jay Karen, CEO of the National Golf Course Owners Association, deemed “definitely unusual” in 2017."

Edit: "... per the Washington Post, Mueller merely “sent a letter requesting a dues refund in accordance with normal club practice and never heard back.”"

Obviously, Trump retains initiation fees as sign of fealty, and Mueller betrayed that fealty.

[Tor Bejnar]

President Grant got a traffic ticket for speeding. He wasn't above that law.

[SteveMDFP]

It seems that Mueller can't file an indictment against Trump without the OK of his boss (currently Rosenstein, but maybe it'll be, god-forbid, Pruitt soon).

However, I'm pretty sure a Grand Jury could do so without having to get anyone's OK.  In legal theory, Mueller serves the direction of the GJ, even if, in practice, they tend to operate the opposite way. 

Then the Supreme Court would surely be asked if a grand jury can indict a sitting president.  I'm optimistic they'd say yes.