RussiaGate

[RavenSky]

Bye bye First Amendment

Oh come on! You don't really think they're going to stop publishing because some fat orange turd tells them to, do you? Especially after all this free publicity, it will be much easier to seek forgiveness than permission!

I know they aren't going to refrain from publishing. In fact, they've moved up the release date.

Trump, however, stays true to form... he thinks he is a dictator

 

[braces_for_impact]

Uh oh.

The special counsel has received handwritten notes from Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, showing that Mr. Trump talked to Mr. Priebus about how he had called Mr. Comey to urge him to say publicly that he was not under investigation. The president’s determination to fire Mr. Comey even led one White House lawyer to take the extraordinary step of misleading Mr. Trump about whether he had the authority to remove him.

 

[Ford]

Uh oh.

The special counsel has received handwritten notes from Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, showing that Mr. Trump talked to Mr. Priebus about how he had called Mr. Comey to urge him to say publicly that he was not under investigation. The president’s determination to fire Mr. Comey even led one White House lawyer to take the extraordinary step of misleading Mr. Trump about whether he had the authority to remove him.

Lordy!

 

[ZiprHead]

Senate Judiciary Committee interview of Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS

 

[Artemus]

Senate Judiciary Committee interview of Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS

That's going to be good reading tonight!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Senate Judiciary Committee interview of Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS

Jebus... based on the first 20 pages, it looks like they are trying to convict Simpson of something.

Look at these questions:

Q. To the best of your knowledge, has Fusion
GPS ever had an arrangement with a client in which
the company was specifically tasked with getting
government agencies to initiate an investigation?

Q. Has Fusion GPS ever had arrangements with
clients in which the amount of Fusion's
compensation was dependent on government agencies
initiating an investigation?

No seriously, what are you trying to imply. I'm completely at a loss.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

"Marco Rubio's Conservative Solutions PAC and his Florida First Project received $1.5 million through Blavatnik's two holding companies. Other high dollar recipients of funding from Blavatnik were PACS representing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker at $1.1 million, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham at $800,000, Ohio Governor John Kasich at $250,000 and Arizona Senator John McCain at $200,000.

In January, Quartz reported that Blavatnik donated another $1 million to Trump's Inaugural Committee."

 

[Copernicus]

Senate Judiciary Committee interview of Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS

It is also newsworthy that Senator Feinstein unilaterally released this report without consulting Chuck Grassley, the committee chair, who had recently refused to release it. Grassley was relying on a Democratic spirit of bipartisanship and precedent to keep this report away from the public. Apparently, Feinstein had gotten the message finally drilled into her that Grassley and the Republicans in Congress are not into bipartisanship, let alone doing what is best for the country. Finally.

 

[ZiprHead]

Senate Judiciary Committee interview of Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS

It is also newsworthy that Senator Feinstein unilaterally released this report without consulting Chuck Grassley, the committee chair, who had recently refused to release it. Grassley was relying on a Democratic spirit of bipartisanship and precedent to keep this report away from the public. Apparently, Feinstein had gotten the message finally drilled into her that Grassley and the Republicans in Congress are not into bipartisanship, let alone doing what is best for the country. Finally.

Grassley promised to release the transcript in August of last year.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Senate Judiciary Committee interview of Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS

It is also newsworthy that Senator Feinstein unilaterally released this report without consulting Chuck Grassley, the committee chair, who had recently refused to release it. Grassley was relying on a Democratic spirit of bipartisanship and precedent to keep this report away from the public. Apparently, Feinstein had gotten the message finally drilled into her that Grassley and the Republicans in Congress are not into bipartisanship, let alone doing what is best for the country. Finally.

Grassley promised to release the transcript in August of last year.

Give him a break. He was busy not overturning ACA.

 

[Copernicus]

Senate Judiciary Committee interview of Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS

It is also newsworthy that Senator Feinstein unilaterally released this report without consulting Chuck Grassley, the committee chair, who had recently refused to release it. Grassley was relying on a Democratic spirit of bipartisanship and precedent to keep this report away from the public. Apparently, Feinstein had gotten the message finally drilled into her that Grassley and the Republicans in Congress are not into bipartisanship, let alone doing what is best for the country. Finally.

Grassley promised to release the transcript in August of last year.

You need to get a better translator for politician-speak. What Grassley said, when confronted by a hostile constituent, was "I don't see why I wouldn't". That left the door open for him to say that he would see it at a later date. A subtle distinction that would not be lost on most lawyers but would be lost on most news reporters and voters.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Washington (CNN)The White House is working behind the scenes to limit the testimony to congressional investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources.

The attempts to curtail testimony to congressional investigators became clear this week when former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and infuriated both sides of the aisle by refusing to answer questions about his work during the presidential transition and in the White House.
At some points during Bannon's six hours of closed-door testimony, his attorney took breaks to confer via telephone with the White House counsel's office to clarify what questions could be answered and came back with the same guidance: Bannon could not discuss any activities related to the transition or his tenure in the White House.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/steve-bannon-white-house-limit-testimony/index.html

So the House can impeach, they just aren't allowed to know any information in order to impeach because Twitler says so. Congress critters with the highest level of national security clearance are not allowed to hear answers because of "Executive Privilege." This "Executive Privilege" even back-applies to before Twitler was President because the mentally healthy Orange Menace says so.

 

[blastula]

Sounds innocent. No collusion!

 

[Opoponax]

Washington (CNN)The White House is working behind the scenes to limit the testimony to congressional investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources.

The attempts to curtail testimony to congressional investigators became clear this week when former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and infuriated both sides of the aisle by refusing to answer questions about his work during the presidential transition and in the White House.
At some points during Bannon's six hours of closed-door testimony, his attorney took breaks to confer via telephone with the White House counsel's office to clarify what questions could be answered and came back with the same guidance: Bannon could not discuss any activities related to the transition or his tenure in the White House.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/steve-bannon-white-house-limit-testimony/index.html

So the House can impeach, they just aren't allowed to know any information in order to impeach because Twitler says so. Congress critters with the highest level of national security clearance are not allowed to hear answers because of "Executive Privilege." This "Executive Privilege" even back-applies to before Twitler was President because the mentally healthy Orange Menace says so.

But eventually, the Executive privilege here is going to fail provided it pertains to a criminal matter.

As far as any of us know, this investigation is into a number of criminal matters. Trump and Co. are eventually going to have to hand over what's asked for. If they refuse, or fail to turn over relevant documentation/information, then they're looking at, well, obstruction of justice and contempt charges.

Trump/GOP is going to push the law to its absolute limits to see what they can get away with. And for the umpteenth time, it's a legitimate question ask: what if Trump just flat out refuses to obey the law?

For example, here, what if Trump refused to turn over what's demanded? I'm talking about a court order specifically.

Who would do what?

Would a judge issue a warrant for his arrest? Who would carry out that arrest?

But hey, at least we didn't get Hillary (no roll eyes emoji could possibly suffice here).

 

[Copernicus]

Washington (CNN)The White House is working behind the scenes to limit the testimony to congressional investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources.

The attempts to curtail testimony to congressional investigators became clear this week when former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and infuriated both sides of the aisle by refusing to answer questions about his work during the presidential transition and in the White House.
At some points during Bannon's six hours of closed-door testimony, his attorney took breaks to confer via telephone with the White House counsel's office to clarify what questions could be answered and came back with the same guidance: Bannon could not discuss any activities related to the transition or his tenure in the White House.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/steve-bannon-white-house-limit-testimony/index.html

So the House can impeach, they just aren't allowed to know any information in order to impeach because Twitler says so. Congress critters with the highest level of national security clearance are not allowed to hear answers because of "Executive Privilege." This "Executive Privilege" even back-applies to before Twitler was President because the mentally healthy Orange Menace says so.

This was not a case of executive privilege. It was worse than that. The argument was that Bannon could answer no questions so that the White House could at some later date, at its option, try to exert some kind of privilege. The questions being asked were about many things that would not normally be covered by executive privilege, e.g. conversations he had with people other than the President.

There is a bit of Kabuki theater going on here, because Mueller apparently did not want Bannon to answer any questions. Had he done so, that testimony would have been conveyed straight to the White House by Congressional allies and tipped them off as to what kind of defense they needed to mount against the Mueller investigation, when Mueller eventually got around to questioning Bannon. Bannon seems to now have an agreement with Mueller to cooperate fully with his investigation. If true, that is very bad news for Trump. Meanwhile, Bannon will not be called back in the near future to answer questions that he really was obligated to answer in the first place. Short of asserting his 5th amendment rights, he had no privilege to ignore the congressional subpoena.

 

[Malintent]

For example, here, what if Trump refused to turn over what's demanded? I'm talking about a court order specifically.

Who would do what?

Would a judge issue a warrant for his arrest? Who would carry out that arrest?

This is what I have been thinking about.... If not the Secret Service themselves, then no one. A clear message may need to be sent to the SS that the best way to keep the indicted / guilty of high crimes / guilty of contempt / president would be to put him safely in a jail where he can be kept safe.

I am wondering how a citizens arrest would go. Talking 10,000 people descending on him and his handful of palace guards. Literally a mini-revolution.

I can also see States warning the president that they intend to assist the Federal courts and that if his plane lands in their state he will be arrested by local police... no sanctuary in this state for you... no fuel for your jet to leave.

Something I am afraid of is that Don the Con might strike a deal with the special counsel where he simply resigns under the claim that it is just best for the country because of the hateful media and unhelpful democrats, but really as an exchange for not getting indicted for Money Laundering, Treason, etc... I am afraid of that because I rather he spend another year in office and then spend the rest of his life in prison than leave now with no lasting repricussions.

A strong message need be sent to our future politicians.... zero tolerance. you are in it for the country, or you are an enemy of all humanity and will be treated as such.

Does Trump own a white Bronco he can use?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Washington (CNN)The White House is working behind the scenes to limit the testimony to congressional investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources.

The attempts to curtail testimony to congressional investigators became clear this week when former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and infuriated both sides of the aisle by refusing to answer questions about his work during the presidential transition and in the White House.
At some points during Bannon's six hours of closed-door testimony, his attorney took breaks to confer via telephone with the White House counsel's office to clarify what questions could be answered and came back with the same guidance: Bannon could not discuss any activities related to the transition or his tenure in the White House.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/steve-bannon-white-house-limit-testimony/index.html

So the House can impeach, they just aren't allowed to know any information in order to impeach because Twitler says so. Congress critters with the highest level of national security clearance are not allowed to hear answers because of "Executive Privilege." This "Executive Privilege" even back-applies to before Twitler was President because the mentally healthy Orange Menace says so.

This was not a case of executive privilege. It was worse than that. The argument was that Bannon could answer no questions so that the White House could at some later date, at its option, try to exert some kind of privilege. The questions being asked were about many things that would not normally be covered by executive privilege, e.g. conversations he had with people other than the President.

My understanding is that they argued for Executive Privilege but that it wasn't which is why I put it in quotes and was being facetious except when I was being sarcastic and/or ironical.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually, it gets weirder, as Trump's lawyers are threatening suing Bannon over violating the non-disclosure agreement. Isn't that an admission that what he said is true, or do those agreements include lies as well?

When you have an NDA you are supposed to neither confirm nor deny what is in the subject matter covered. For instance, once WikiLeaks spilled a whole bunch of state secrets, people who have inside knowledge were told that they are to neither confirm nor deny, as either statement reveals something about the subject matter.

Seriously, saying "that did not happen" or "that is not one of our secrets" does actually reveal something about the content of what is covered. That is why "no comment" is the appropriate answer for any and every instance of someone who holds a secret to someone who is trying to get it. Even a denial is information.

 

[jab]

Washington (CNN)The White House is working behind the scenes to limit the testimony to congressional investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources.

The attempts to curtail testimony to congressional investigators became clear this week when former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and infuriated both sides of the aisle by refusing to answer questions about his work during the presidential transition and in the White House.
At some points during Bannon's six hours of closed-door testimony, his attorney took breaks to confer via telephone with the White House counsel's office to clarify what questions could be answered and came back with the same guidance: Bannon could not discuss any activities related to the transition or his tenure in the White House.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/steve-bannon-white-house-limit-testimony/index.html

So the House can impeach, they just aren't allowed to know any information in order to impeach because Twitler says so. Congress critters with the highest level of national security clearance are not allowed to hear answers because of "Executive Privilege." This "Executive Privilege" even back-applies to before Twitler was President because the mentally healthy Orange Menace says so.

This was not a case of executive privilege. It was worse than that. The argument was that Bannon could answer no questions so that the White House could at some later date, at its option, try to exert some kind of privilege. The questions being asked were about many things that would not normally be covered by executive privilege, e.g. conversations he had with people other than the President.

There is a bit of Kabuki theater going on here, because Mueller apparently did not want Bannon to answer any questions. Had he done so, that testimony would have been conveyed straight to the White House by Congressional allies and tipped them off as to what kind of defense they needed to mount against the Mueller investigation, when Mueller eventually got around to questioning Bannon. Bannon seems to now have an agreement with Mueller to cooperate fully with his investigation. If true, that is very bad news for Trump. Meanwhile, Bannon will not be called back in the near future to answer questions that he really was obligated to answer in the first place. Short of asserting his 5th amendment rights, he had no privilege to ignore the congressional subpoena.

I though he was not subpoened in his Congressional meeting, but that they are now considering that.

 

[Elixir]

I though he was not subpoened in his Congressional meeting, but that they are now considering that.

Did something change?

"The House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon Tuesday after members said he refused to answer questions..."