We're Taking Your President From You, Ep. I - Mueller to question 6 White House staff

[Baneth]

With a Picked Lock and a Threatened Indictment, Mueller’s Inquiry Sets a Tone

WASHINGTON — Paul J. Manafort was in bed early one morning in July when federal agents bearing a search warrant picked the lock on his front door and raided his Virginia home. They took binders stuffed with documents and copied his computer files, looking for evidence that Mr. Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, set up secret offshore bank accounts. They even photographed the expensive suits in his closet.

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, then followed the house search with a warning: His prosecutors told Mr. Manafort they planned to indict him, said two people close to the investigation.

“They are setting a tone. It’s important early on to strike terror in the hearts of people in Washington, or else you will be rolled,” said Solomon L. Wisenberg, who was deputy independent counsel in the investigation that led to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999. “You want people saying to themselves, ‘Man, I had better tell these guys the truth.’”

Mr. Manafort is under investigation for possible violations of tax laws, money-laundering prohibitions and requirements to disclose foreign lobbying. Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, is being scrutinized for foreign lobbying work as well as for conversations he had last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States. On Monday, Mr. Flynn’s siblings announced the creation of a legal-defense fund to help cover their brother’s “enormous” legal fees.

But associates of both Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn have received more peremptory treatment. Instead of invitations to the prosecutor’s office, they have been presented with grand jury subpoenas, forcing them to either testify or take the Fifth Amendment and raise suspicions that they had something to hide. At least three witnesses have recently been subpoenaed to testify about Mr. Manafort: Jason Maloni, a spokesman who appeared before the grand jury for more than two hours on Friday, and the heads of two consulting firms — Mercury Public Affairs and the Podesta Group — who worked with Mr. Manafort on behalf of Viktor F. Yanukovych, the pro-Russia former president of Ukraine.

Mr. Mueller’s team also took the unusual step of issuing a subpoena to Melissa Laurenza, a specialist in lobbying law who formerly represented Mr. Manafort, according to people familiar with the subpoena. Conversations between lawyers and their clients are normally considered bound by attorney-client privilege, but there are exceptions when lawyers prepare public documents that are filed on behalf of their client.

“They seem to be pursuing this more aggressively, taking a much harder line, than you’d expect to see in a typical white-collar case,” said Jimmy Gurulé, a Notre Dame law professor and former federal prosecutor. “This is more consistent with how you’d go after an organized crime syndicate.”

The tactics reflect some of the hard-charging — and polarizing — personalities of Mr. Mueller’s team, seasoned prosecutors with experience investigating financial fraud, money laundering and organized crime.

Some lawyers defending people who have been caught up in Mr. Mueller’s investigation privately complain that the special counsel’s team is unwilling to engage in the usual back-and-forth that precedes — or substitutes for — grand jury testimony. They argue that the team’s more aggressive tactics might end up being counterproductive, especially if some grand jury witnesses turn out to be more guarded than they would have been in a more informal setting or invoke the Fifth Amendment.

The longer Mr. Mueller’s investigation goes on, the more vulnerable he will be to allegations that he is on a fishing expedition, said Katy Harriger, a professor of politics at Wake Forest University and the author of a book on special prosecutors. Such accusations dogged the investigation of Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation of Mr. Clinton stretched on for years.

To a degree, Mr. Mueller is in a race against three congressional committees that are interviewing some of the same people who are of interest to the special prosecutor’s team. Even if the committees refuse to grant them immunity, congressional testimony that becomes public can give other witnesses a chance to line up their stories.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said committee staff members were going to great lengths not to get in Mr. Mueller’s way. But Senator Charles E. Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated last week that his committee might subpoena witnesses to testify about the circumstances of Mr. Comey’s firing even over Mr. Mueller’s objections.

Mr. Mueller’s need to navigate this complex landscape could explain the timing of the raid on Mr. Manafort’s house, which took place in the early hours of July 26. The raid came one day after Mr. Manafort was interviewed by staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

On the day of the raid, Mr. Manafort was scheduled to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee, an interview that was eventually canceled.

It is unusual for a prosecutor to seek a search warrant against someone who, like Mr. Manafort, had already put his lawyer in contact with the Justice Department. No search warrants were executed during the investigations by Mr. Starr or Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a special counsel appointed during the George W. Bush administration to investigate the leak of the name of a C.I.A. officer.

To get the warrant, Mr. Mueller’s team had to show probable cause that Mr. Manafort’s home contained evidence of a crime. To be allowed to pick the lock and enter the home unannounced, prosecutors had to persuade a federal judge that Mr. Manafort was likely to destroy evidence.

Said Mr. Gurulé, the former federal prosecutor, “Clearly they didn’t trust him.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/u...stigation.html

[Breccia]

Not satisfied with merely paying his son's legal bills, Trump is now using both his 2020 campaign funds, and also RNC funds, to pay for his own legal bills as well.

That's right: Trump, who prides himself on being rich, is taking donations to his political party and using them to pay his legal bills. We've seen this crowdsourcing before, Flynn to be more precise, but Trump claims to be a billionaire. And has multiple lawyers on his payroll already. For Trump to take funds donated for his, and other Republicans, re-election efforts and spend them on costs that have nothing to do with his re-election, or that of other Republicans, should be viewed with skepticism. It's legal to use campaign funds to pay legal bills for legal issues involved with being a candidate. How that applies to 2020 funds for a 2016 offense is murky. How it relates to Trump cheating is not.

Trump would be the first U.S. president in the modern campaign finance era to use such funds to cover the costs of responding to a criminal probe, said election law experts.

And, as a reminder, Trump did not fire Comey while candidate. If the lawyers are defending him from the obstruction of justice probe, spending the campaign funds in that way is not just unethical, but illegal.

So Republicans, I hope you feel your RNC donations are going to a good cause: letting a millionaire spend them, instead of his own money, to pay for his and his children's lawyers. I hope you like it just as much as using taxpayer money on Trump properties.

[Glorious Leader]

Not satisfied with merely paying his son's legal bills, Trump is now using both his 2020 campaign funds, and also RNC funds, to pay for his own legal bills as well.

That's right: Trump, who prides himself on being rich, is taking donations to his political party and using them to pay his legal bills. We've seen this crowdsourcing before, Flynn to be more precise, but Trump claims to be a billionaire. And has multiple lawyers on his payroll already. For Trump to take funds donated for his, and other Republicans, re-election efforts and spend them on costs that have nothing to do with his re-election, or that of other Republicans, should be viewed with skepticism. It's legal to use campaign funds to pay legal bills for legal issues involved with being a candidate. How that applies to 2020 funds for a 2016 offense is murky. How it relates to Trump cheating is not.



And, as a reminder, Trump did not fire Comey while candidate. If the lawyers are defending him from the obstruction of justice probe, spending the campaign funds in that way is not just unethical, but illegal.

So Republicans, I hope you feel your RNC donations are going to a good cause: letting a millionaire spend them, instead of his own money, to pay for his and his children's lawyers. I hope you like it just as much as using taxpayer money on Trump properties.

The word millionaire should probably be in quotes at this point.

[Heladys]

So Republicans, I hope you feel your RNC donations are going to a good cause: letting a millionaire spend them, instead of his own money, to pay for his and his children's lawyers. I hope you like it just as much as using taxpayer money on Trump properties.

Has anyone asked if they're tired of winning yet?

[Lothar from accounting]

The word millionaire should probably be in quotes at this point.

If you start with millions and then spend as much of your time as possible spending other people's money it's surprisingly easy to still be a millionaire or 'millionaire' if you prefer.

[Glorious Leader]

If you start with millions and then spend as much of your time as possible spending other people's money it's surprisingly easy to still be a millionaire or 'millionaire' if you prefer.

I mean unless you own foreign institutions actual millions. Then millionaire really ought to be in quotes. Sadly it seems we will never know.

[Breccia]

There are two bills coming up, one of which requires a judge's consent to fire special counsel, the other allows a special counsel to challenge his firing.

Both have GOP co-sponsors and could come up at the Senate Judiciary Committee next week.

Firing Mueller could be a lot more difficult, soon.

[cubby]

I would love more than anything in this world to see Trump removed from office and him and his entire criminal mafia empire imprisoned for life. I've had such a rough past 10 months I now have heart problems. But let's be realistic here. Trump is not getting impeached, no matter what Mueller comes back with, and I'll prove it to you right now and make you immediate realize the folly of ever pretending he will be. I just have one question to ask you.


What are the chances Bob Goodlatte advances articles of impeachment on the President, and what are the chances of a majority vote in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate if by some Christmas miracle he did?

"Oh but the House could flip blue"

Okay, and if Trump is charged with premeditated obstruction of justice, perjury, witness intimidation, and RICO related charges, Pence would have to be charged as well for misprision of a felony and perjury, which means they'd both be impeached and tried in the Senate, and with a blue House that means President Nancy Pelosi. Do you really think GOP Senators will convict Pence and allow Pelosi to become President? They'll acquit Pence, Pence will become President and name Rubio his VP.

You make very good and appealing points. But the House doesn't have to act on both Articles simultaneously. And if Trump is Impeached or resigns, Pence will be instated as President, even if Articles are pending. And the very FIRST thing he'll do is nominate a VP, perhaps Rubio, and that will keep the penalty train running.

Pelosi will never be President - and I think both sides of the table are glad.

[Skroe]

You make very good and appealing points. But the House doesn't have to act on both Articles simultaneously. And if Trump is Impeached or resigns, Pence will be instated as President, even if Articles are pending. And the very FIRST thing he'll do is nominate a VP, perhaps Rubio, and that will keep the penalty train running.

Pelosi will never be President - and I think both sides of the table are glad.

A new VP would require Senate Confirmation iirc. It would almost certainly have to be a unifying figure.

Not gonna say Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney. But probably not. Somebody like that.

[DarkTZeratul]

Pelosi will never be President - and I think both sides of the table are glad.

Yeah, most Democrats don't even like Pelosi.

I'm not a Republican, but right now my best-case (albeit unlikely) scenario ends with President Orrin Hatch.

[Mekkle]

Yeah, most Democrats don't even like Pelosi.

I'm not a Republican, but right now my best-case (albeit unlikely) scenario ends with President Orrin Hatch.

I feel like Pelosi is like a shittier version of Hillary.

[Felya]

I feel like Pelosi is like a shittier version of Hillary.

She is... Hillary has balls... huge ones... I think it's why there were images of her supposedly having issues walking. Those are some meaty clunkers.

[Mekkle]

She is... Hillary has balls... huge ones... I think it's why there were images of her supposedly having issues walking. Those are some meaty clunkers.

Nah, That's just were she hides her emails

Don't tell Ransath.

[Breccia]

Surveillance of Paul Manafort occurred during 2016 campaign

According to a former U.S. official, the intercepts picked up conversations between Manafort and Russian individuals about the campaign. The intercepts potentially include conversations between Manafort and President Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

Mueller interviews Rosenstein.

[Heladys]

Not gonna say Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney. But probably not. Somebody like that.

Mitt looks awfully good with 20/20 relativist glasses.

[Mormolyce]

There are two bills coming up, one of which requires a judge's consent to fire special counsel, the other allows a special counsel to challenge his firing.

Both have GOP co-sponsors and could come up at the Senate Judiciary Committee next week.

Firing Mueller could be a lot more difficult, soon.

One at least will pass - the Republicans will ensure it does. It's a matter of survival for them, just look at how they went all in on preventing recess appointments for Sessions.

Trump firing Comey tipped off a constitutional crisis and Mueller is the only plug in that hole.

[Anevers]

A new VP would require Senate Confirmation iirc. It would almost certainly have to be a unifying figure.

Not gonna say Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney. But probably not. Somebody like that.

When are we getting the 2nd installment soon?

[Skroe]

When are we getting the 2nd installment soon?

Very shortly.

[Poopymonster]

I'm not that familiar with US political system. Is there a reason someone might not want to be Vice President, like in general? Can it affect how their political career goes afterwards?

It can affect their career. An example is Gerald Ford. VP who may/may not have been part of the Watergate scandal. He was considered bad product by association. It got worse after he pardoned Tricky Dick Nixon, but he was president by then.

Bush suffered some, coming off his role as VP for Saint Ronald of Reagan. But the real one, who raised taxes. IMO he was like a younger sibling, about 4 years younger. He watched, saw, when he graduated into High School he had high expectations to live up to. And he didn't.

Overall it would depend on who you are VP to. Pence will almost guaranteed to be viewed with suspicion for his role as Dolan's VP.

[cubby]

All he has to do is squeal.

I know the squealers when I see 'em.

- - - Updated - - -

A new VP would require Senate Confirmation iirc. It would almost certainly have to be a unifying figure.

Not gonna say Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney. But probably not. Somebody like that.

It does, but since the nuclear option was unleashed, the GOP controlled Senate could slam anyone they want in that seat. 51 votes is all it takes - and really any one of several people could meet the unifying qualifications. Romney is definitely a front runner. Rubio is also (for some reason).

The only issue is that many of the GOP Senators might want that spot, which could hurt the vote.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, most Democrats don't even like Pelosi.

I'm not a Republican, but right now my best-case (albeit unlikely) scenario ends with President Orrin Hatch.

I agree, Hatch would be an excellent result - and I'm a Dem as well. He would be a terrific care-taker President. But the GOP would never let it go down the line of succession. If Articles come up against both Trump and Pence simultaneously, they'll have some administrative maneuvers available to them (to the GOP) preventing both Trump and Pence from exiting at the same time.

So, ideally, Trump Impeached/resigns - Pence is sworn in - possibly with Articles already drawn up, he's still President. His first order of business will be nominating a VP. Then addressing anything after that - including the Articles. The GOP might also be thinking that whomever takes the helm will be viable as a candidate for 2020.

In my darkest times, however, I'm in agreement with @ringpriest that we'll see Gilead descend and the U.S. will cease to be as it is currently known.

- - - Updated - - -

Mitt looks awfully good with 20/20 relativist glasses.

Literally any ticketed general election presidential candidate from either party who ran in the past 100 years looks better than our current Clown. I'd take either Bush or Romney in a heartbeat. Shit, even Cheney at this point would be a relief.