Patterico's Pontifications

2/7/2018

Biden: Trump Really, Really Shouldn’t Do That Interview with Mueller

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:15 am



It’s hard to see this as anything but a troll. Democrats know that it would be a disaster for Trump if he let Mueller have a crack at him — not because there’s anything to the Russia investigation (I doubt there is), but because Trump can’t talk for five minutes without fibbing or exaggerating about something. Putting him in a situation where his habitual lies become illegal is a Trump-hater’s dream. So how do you try to social engineer a prideful guy into doing something that’s obviously a dumb move? You troll him, by suggesting that he can’t handle it, man!

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that if he were one of President Donald Trump’s attorneys, he would suggest Trump not consent to a special counsel interview for fear of being caught misleading investigators.

“The President has some difficulty with precision,” Biden said in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo.

Biden said he marvels at some of the comments Trump makes and referenced a line from Trump on Monday that Democrats who did not applaud his State of the Union address were “un-American” and “treasonous.”

The White House has since called the remark tongue-in-cheek, with press secretary Sarah Sanders saying on Tuesday that Trump was “clearly joking.”

“Well let me tell you, he’s a joke,” Biden said in response.

I’m sorry to lose the main thread here, but I just have to take a moment to reflect on the state of affairs where Joe Freakin’ Biden is calling another politician a “joke.” That’s like Teddy Kennedy calling someone else a lecherous drunken criminal. Before Donald Trump, no American politician was a walking, talking punch line as often as Joe Biden. Biden’s perpetually inappropriate comments and demeanor made for constant good fun, like the time he told a dude in a wheelchair to stand up:

Or the time that he extolled diversity in Delaware while talking to an Indian American by saying: “In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

All I’m saying is: maybe Joe Biden is kind of a joke too.

Part of me hopes that the trolling doesn’t work. Because I’m not really up for several months of having people explain to me why Obvious Trump Lies Nos. 1-37 listed in Bob Mueller’s report to Congress are all actually truthful. That part of me says: Don’t take the bait, Mr. President. You’re totally precise and everything, OK? You don’t need to prove it by talking to Bob Mueller.

Then again, I’m not sure how well refusing to talk to Mueller would play politically.

Ah, well. I’m sure Trump will figure out something. And I doubt Biden’s advice is going to figure into his decision much, one way or the other.

Unless, that is, they discuss it on “Fox & Friends.” Then all bets are off.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

123 Responses to “Biden: Trump Really, Really Shouldn’t Do That Interview with Mueller”

  1. I don’t see the upside in this. It’s a perjury trap, pure and simple, and as we all know the Democrats are on record on the subject of Presidents committing perjury.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  2. The wise thing for any target of an investigation is not to talk to the investigator. One will almost inevitably be tripped up in some kind of a process violation, even if you are totally innocent. History bears that out.

    But just because that is the wise thing to do does not mean Trump will do it. Wisdom is not one of Trump’s strong points.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  3. I don’t see the upside in this.

    But, you see, Donald Trump is the smartest human being who has ever lived, or will ever live, and you are not.

    Dave (dee2c2)

  4. Wisdom is not one of Trump’s strong points.

    Donald Trump is smarter than the other 7.6 billion people on earth, put together.

    Dave (dee2c2)

  5. As I’ve said before, Mueller is a scrub if all he walks away with are a few dozen perjury counts on Trump.

    I think the over/under is at least two counts of attempted obstruction of justice committed during the interview.

    Dave (dee2c2)

  6. There should be a beacon, a siren, or a signal like papal smoke when each instance occurs.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  7. Kimberley Strassel
    @KimStrassel
    1) Why isn’t the (mostly) unredacted Grassley memo front page news? Here’s why: Because it confirms the Nunes memo and blows up the Schiff talking points (which the media ran with).

    2)It is confirmation that the FBI’s FISA application relied on the dossier and a news article, and worse, on the credibility of a source in the employ of the Clinton campaign.

    3) It is proof that the FBI did not tell the Court the extraordinarily partisan provenance of the dossier.

    4) It provides evidence that the FBI presented the FISA Court with materially false evidence, in the claim that Steele had not talked to the press. And then shows that even after Steele admitted under oath that he had, the FBI did not tell the FISA Court in its renewal.

    5) It provides evidence that Steele was getting information from the Clinton team itself! Via the State Department! So now, not only do we have a dossier based on unnamed shady Russians, but on Sidney Blumenthal. How much of this was engineered by the Clinton campaign from start?

    —-

    Chunkyness
    @ChunkyTWshngtn
    Replying to @KimStrassel
    You add in the fact that Trump asked Comey to investigate the origins of the dossier and he shot it down.

    Now we know why.

    They wanted us to believe the dossier without investigating it.

    harkin (75fedf)

  8. As a lawyer who’s had to present many, many witnesses (including clients) who share characteristics with Trump that make them terrible witnesses under oath in a formal Q&A setting, I empathize with the POTUS’ legal advisers. Sometimes that’s the hand you’re dealt.

    The political reality, though, is that if the POTUS doesn’t sit for questioning — and if I were Trump’s lawyers, I’d want a very formal, on-the-record and on-videotape process with a judge or magistrate in the room empowered to rule on objections on the spot, not some FBI interview in which the FBI agents’ notes become the quasi-“record” of the proceedings — he’ll lose a ton of political support among Republican members of the House and Senate. The “I-word” will become a whole lot less theoretical at that point.

    This is the inevitable consequence of the incalculably stupid and self-destructive way in which Trump went about firing Comey after having earlier urging Comey to go easy on Flynn. From that day forward, it’s been obvious that the POTUS will ultimately lose in court if he tries, as Clinton did, to hide behind his office.

    To those who say, “This is a perjury trap!” I respond: Yes, there’s a serious risk that Trump will further blunder into something like that. But all Trump need do to avoid any and all “perjury traps” is to tell the truth as he knows it. The reason his lawyers and many of his supporters are panicked by that prospect is because Trump may be incapable of doing that, despite their best efforts to advise, prepare, and even coach him. Accordingly, my empathy for his legal advisers doesn’t extend to Trump. If he can’t tell the truth, he shouldn’t be the POTUS.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  9. Ask Stephen hatfill, maybe it was mere incompetence, 16 years ago, except he repeated the same mistake with Bruce ivins.

    narciso (d1f714)

  10. 7… thanks for providing something of substance, harkin.

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  11. “Then again, I’m not sure how well refusing to talk to Mueller would play politically.”

    Doesn’t matter.

    Old Slow Joe just gave Trump the PERFECT reason NOT to talk to Mueller.

    No partisanship from the other side will be taken seriously.

    Thanks JOE !!

    Bahahawwawaawawa

    Steve_in_SoCal (58e1f9)

  12. The reason his lawyers and many of his supporters are panicked by that prospect is because Trump may be incapable of doing that

    In fairness to Trump, how can you expect him to be good at telling the truth when he gets so little practice?

    Dave (dee2c2)

  13. There should be a beacon, a siren, or a signal like papal smoke when each instance occurs.

    Actually, there will be, if you know what to look for.

    When one team of attorneys is carried out on stretchers after biting down on hidden cyanide capsules, and another team of replacements is brought in, we’ll know.

    Dave (dee2c2)

  14. Then we can see what his lieutenant did to Arthur Anderson, yes the court called it an overreach but by then, it was renamed Accenture and had fired half its work force.

    But if listening to the paste eating schlub suggests wisdom, the n needs must.

    narciso (d1f714)

  15. @ Bored Lawyer (#2): Bill Clinton, after being forced by the SCOTUS to testify in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit, chose to perjure himself, and then later chose to obstruct justice in trying to cover that up. He got caught up in allegations of “process crimes” because he committed process crimes, not because such allegations are inevitable.

    But there’s actually a pretty extensive history of Presidents and Vice Presidents who’ve sat for examination by Congress, going back to Lincoln.

    And most recently, George W. Bush — despite warnings about perjury traps and process crimes — voluntarily sat for an interview with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in L’Affaire Plame in 2004. Dubya was likewise reputed to be inarticulate and vulnerable, and his political enemies were as highly motivated to lure him into some process crime that they could then use to drive him from office. That didn’t happen; Bush told the truth and that was, as far as allegations against him were concerned, essentially the end of it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  16. This is an illegitimate investigation generated through fraudulent means as we arev iscoverbing

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. Huh. His own lawyers are in effect telling him he can’t handle it. I guess their trolling him and they’re jokes too.

    Tillman (a95660)

  18. their -> they’re

    Tillman (a95660)

  19. The way words can so often be twisted into the opposit of what was intended, it is beyond obvious that Trump shouldn’t put himself into a vulnerable position.

    Our Constitution provides protections against forcing Americans into becoming witnesses against themselves. Trump’s enemies are ruthless, powerful, desperate and well organized. Consequently, Trump should avail himself of every protection permitted by law. Make no mistake, Mueller, the FBI, the CIA, and others are out to destroy the Trump presidency by any means possible.

    Dice are rolling and the knives are out, it’s a fight to the finish. If Trump stays in office Obama, Hillary, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Lynch, Holder, Learner, Rice, Powers, Brenner, Clapper, Rhodes, Blumenthal, Sherer, et al are likely headed for GITMO.

    PS: Trump haters are playing with dynamite, they appear unaware that forcing the legitimately elected president out of office would open Pandora’s box.

    ropelight (6db485)

  20. It would be kind of poetic justice if Trump agrees to an interview with Mueller and pulls a Hillary Clinton by failing to recall the particulars of just about everything that happened over the past eighteen months. A whole bunch of “I don’t recall that” or “my memory of those events is really hazy” would make me chuckle, especially if Trump were coached to use Hillary’s exact phrasing.

    JVW (42615e)

  21. 3) It is proof that the FBI did not tell the Court the extraordinarily partisan provenance of the dossier.

    The Democrats are lying about that till this day, claiming taht Steele was first hired by some Republican (the Washington Free Beacon.)

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/inline-headers/FINAL%20DRAFT%20–%20Dear%20Colleague%20on%20Nunes%20Memo.pdf

    We have no idea if Christopher Steele even knew the source of his funding when Fusion GPS first hired him to research Donald Trump’s connections to the Russian government. In fact, Fusion GPS initiated the project on behalf of the conservative Washington Free Beacon, not the DNC. The firm’s task was to provide credible research, and they hired an expert for the job—a retired British intelligence officer, experienced in Russian affairs and well-known to the FBI as a useful source of valuable intelligence in earlier investigations.

    Not true!!

    http://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/fusion-gps-washington-free-beacon/

    the Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for, any work performed by Christopher Steele.

    This lie made it into a New York Times editorial that appeared in print last Saturday:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/opinion/nunes-memo-trump-taxes.html

    First, they included in their warrant application a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, without telling the court that Mr. Steele’s research was partly funded by the Clinton campaign.

    No, not partly.

    Entirely.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  22. As a point of history and law, hasn’t this been settled?

    Paula Jones went to the SCOTUS to clarify whether or not the POTUS was required to make time in his busy schedule to be deposed and give testimony under oath. IIRC, SCOTUS said POTUS must, like it or not.

    Whether or not the president’s lawyers like it, I think Mr Trump should make time to appear.

    I don’t know or any law or history, though, that requires him to actually open his mouth. Why not say ” ” ?

    Or say, “My attorneys would like to respond.”

    Or say, “I don’t recall the exact details, some of which I never learned in the first place, and since I don’t want to mislead this investigation, I respectfully suggest you ask (other people.)”

    Honestly, after the very public lessons imparted in the Martha Stewart case, why would ANYONE say ANYTHING to ANY federal investigator? No conviction for an actual crime, but a conviction for saying something to investigators that other witnesses contradicted? They get to pick and choose who was “telling truth” and who was “covering up” or “manipulating the stock”?

    As is, Trump could swear under oath the sky was blue and somebody somewhere would report the clouds were gray and, therefore, Trump was lying, Trump was denying climate change, Trump was flouting international treaties generally and the Paris Accords specifically, Trump was poisoning Earth’s atmosphere with burnt oil emissions (which are GREY, not BLUE) and killing Parisian and other European babies, Trump was thereby provoking an international incident and a constitutional crisis, Trump was literally worse than Hitler and so, Trump must be immediately impeached.

    pouncer (915d55)

  23. A NYT article yesterday says Trump has managed in the past to tell the truth in civil depositions.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  24. Paula Jones went to the SCOTUS to clarify whether or not the POTUS was required to make time in his busy schedule to be deposed and give testimony under oath. IIRC, SCOTUS said POTUS must, like it or not.

    That was regarding a civil matter brought by a private citizen (i.e., Paula Jones). I think the Court’s ruling made that point clear. It does not mean that the President is required to sit for an interview in an investigation with potentially criminal implications.

    JVW (42615e)

  25. “Paula Jones went to the SCOTUS to clarify whether or not the POTUS was required to make time in his busy schedule to be deposed and give testimony under oath. IIRC, SCOTUS said POTUS must, like it or not”

    That was a civil case in which POTUS was a defendant. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a party to appear at deposition.

    There is no general obligation to speak to a prosecutor or the FBI. Not for POTUS or anyone else.

    They could serve him with a grand jury subpoena. That is when there will be a legal issue.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  26. I agree with Beldar here. As an attorney, I would not want Trump as a client, and I would advise him to refrain from talking to federal investigators under *any* circumstances where he could get away with it.

    But politically doing so will be really damaging to Trump, and as a *political* advisor, I’d tell him to go have the conversation because stonewalling until there’s a grand jury subpoena, and then fighting it in the courts, will hurt him politically.

    His call which advisor’s advice to take.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  27. Maybe he can testify under the condition he has three days to correct himself.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  28. 22. Trump could always take the 5th amendment.

    Not a good idea politically.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  29. Trump’s lawyers are also challenging some topics Mueeller wants to question him on, like the composition of that misleading statement about the June 2016 meeting between Trump’s son and Kushner and Manafort and some Russians. Not a crime in any case!

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  30. Whether for purposes of the “false statement” crime or outright perjury, the target’s false statement must be on a material matter. They also must be matters of fact, not opinion.

    If Trump says under questioning from Mueller, “I’m the smartest POTUS ever,” that would be a very doubtful statement. But it’s a statement of opinion, not of fact, and it’s not material to anything Mueller’s investigating. If he says, “More people showed up for my inaugural than at any prior presidential inauguration,” that’s a matter of fact, not opinion; but it’s still not material to anything Mueller is looking into. A great, great many of Trump’s reflexive, constant whoppers fall into one or both of these categories.

    Trump’s lawyers will have enough of a challenge just trying to keep him on the straight and narrow on matters that are indeed material, especially because some of those are matters of fact which are capable of verification only through circumstantial means — critically, Trump’s subjective mental intent at the time he took certain actions.

    In a formal Q&A with a stenographer, the structure of the proceedings would actually work to Trump’s advantage, just as it was to his advantage to shut up at least occasionally during the primary and general election debates instead of constantly blathering and interrupting. It’s his blather and interruptions — his deep-seated instinct to “punch back” immediately and without reflection, the way he often does on Twitter, like a tough guy instead of a smart guy — that tend to get him into the worst trouble.

    In a formal setting, when his lawyers hear the question that could be triggering those instincts in him, they can use a variety of techniques to help him avoid hoisting himself on his own petard. Simply lifting a hand (signaling Trump not to answer yet) and saying to the court reporter, “May I hear that question back again, please?” can give the POTUS a few moments to collect himself, to actually listen to the question, and to preview his answer in his own head before blurting it out on the record.

    And if the questions are genuinely bogus — argumentative, assuming false premises, whatever — then Trump would be benefited by having a judicial officer present to make on-the-spot rulings to Trump’s lawyer’s legitimate objections. Recall that U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright personally presided over Clinton’s original deposition in the Paula Jones case for just that purpose.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  31. No this is an illegitimate inquiry carried out through unethical if not illegal means, enabled by conflicted persons.

    narciso (d1f714)

  32. Were I Trump I would, at best, demand written questions and agree to provide written answers.

    But mostly Trump should hammer Muller as an unethical weasel, beneath his contempt.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  33. @ Bored Lawyer, who wrote (#25):

    There is no general obligation to speak to a prosecutor or the FBI. Not for POTUS or anyone else.

    They could serve him with a grand jury subpoena. That is when there will be a legal issue.

    Yes, that’s how it would play out if everyone plays hardball. And Trump will lose if everyone plays hardball. And then he’s just another grand jury witness — no judge in the room to protect him, no lawyer in the room to advise him, just a presumptively hostile prosecutor and the court reporter — in short, the worst conceivable circumstances for Trump to avoid making things much worse for himself. That prospect is what gives Mueller all of his current leverage in negotiations, and because of the stupid way that Trump went about firing Comey, Mueller has the upper hand strategically.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  34. Trumpkins really live in a cartoon world, don’t they? “[M]ostly Trump should hammer Muller as an unethical weasel, beneath his contempt.” Yeah, that’s the ticket. That’s how Trump should testify. Then Captain America and the Justice League will crash in through the window, bind and gag the court reporter and videographer, and banish Mueller to the Neutral Zone in the seventh dimension.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  35. This special counsel investigation was conjured like Athens, from zeus’s head. This is political warfare as we’ve seen the battlefronts innanchirage Austin Richmond and madison.

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. Dollars to donuts Trump won’t sit for an interview. Of course he said he would (and was eager to do so), but like most things Trump says (literally – most things) that was said without any attention to the facts or to his honest intentions (“honest intentions” being almost an oxymoron, as applied to Trump). Trump said he’d release his tax returns … NO SHOW … Trump said Mexico’d pay for the wall . . . NO SHOW . . . Trump said xyz … NO SHOW . . . He’s nothing but a rather pathetic circus barker looking for airtime and to gin up his ego and the media — albeit one who (among other horrors) has almost nil self-understanding or self-restraint and happens to hold the nuclear codes. . .

    Q! (86710c)

  37. no, narciso, this investigation was triggered by a series of spectacular, stupid blunders by Donald J. Trump & Co.

    If Donnie Jr. hadn’t been eager to get dirt on the Clintons even from Russian sources, that wouldn’t be an area of inquiry for Mueller.

    If Trump hadn’t personally involved himself, while flying on Air Force One, in peddling a false story about that meeting for national distribution, that wouldn’t be an area of inquiry for Mueller.

    If Trump had announced, during the transition period, his decision to remove Comey from office on Inauguration Day based on the very same facts set out in the Rosenstein memo, that wouldn’t be an area of inquiry for Mueller.

    And so forth. All of this is the product of stupid, impulsive, childish decisions by Trump (or in Donnie’s case, the fruit of Trump’s loins). Yes, his enemies have exploited every mistake ruthlessly, and yes, they’ve gone beyond that to also lie and cheat in their efforts to bring him down. But he’s handed them a bunch of ammunition.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  38. 20 – “It would be kind of poetic justice if Trump agrees to an interview with Mueller and pulls a Hillary Clinton by failing to recall the particulars of just about everything that happened over the past eighteen months.”

    If he’s going to pull a ‘Hillary’ he also needs to refuse to be put under oath plus not allow ANY recording of the interview, not even in writing.

    “Most qualified candidate ever”

    harkin (75fedf)

  39. How “Individual A” helped Dennis Hastert become Speaker of the House

    http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2018/02/06/how-individual-a-helped-dennis-hastert-become-speaker-of-the-house/

    Truthbetold (60181b)

  40. Beldar:

    “Trumpkins really live in a cartoon world, don’t they?”

    Good argument, offensive, nasty, full of assumptions about someone you don’t know. Does that approach work for you in court? Because by golly you’ve persuaded me.

    And you misunderstood my comment, which was not perfectly phrased, but you sure got your exercise jumping to a conclusion. I did not intend to suggest that Trump should ‘testify’ that Mueller is a weasel, but rather that he should refuse to be ‘interviewed’ for that reason.

    Also, please do not mistake for a Trumpkin someone who merely thinks that Trump is somewhat better than the alternative.

    Even the mention of Trump seems to make heads explode. Oh well, an enraged lawyer is easy to beat.

    I still like the idea of written interrogatories. Trump could even release the questions while he ponders them, hopefully for the amusement and edification of all of us, especially the Trumpelstiltskins, a term I personally prefer.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  41. Putinesque military parade designed to compete with May Day Penile Promotion. We got bigger missiles..
    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/372667-speier-on-trumps-desire-for-military-parade-we-have-a-napoleon-in-the-making

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  42. Also, please do not mistake for a Trumpkin someone who merely thinks that Trump is somewhat better than the alternative.

    How is that a mistake? You can’t be just a little pregnant.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  43. @ Fred Z: I see. Your position isn’t that Trump should call Mueller an unethical weasel during testimony, but that instead, Trump should refuse to testify and try to justify that refusal by calling Mueller an unethical weasel, beneath his contempt, in public.

    Trumpkin Nation will shout, “You tell ’em, Mr. President!” The federal courts will be less impressed.

    The key question in any investigation of obstruction of justice is the actor’s intent. Written questions are the very worst tool to probe someone’s intent because lawyers always write the answers. Mueller will never accept that, and if Trump’s lawyers try to insist on limiting the special prosecutor to written questions and answers alone — there might well be some of that on preliminary matters, to good effect for both sides to streamline the actual in-person interview or questioning — Mueller won’t go along. He’ll go the grand jury subpoena route, and he’ll be able to point to Trump’s opposition to more reasonable measures as his justification for doing so.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  44. I think Mueller gets to decide how to question Trump, although it’s open to negotiation. But it seems unlikely Mueller would agree to interrogatories since Trump’s attorneys would certainly answer them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  45. Where was he going to get the info from, the rizzotto press, you forget the dossier used info from Russia and turned it into the basis dor a visa warrant as well as an official govt document, crunchy irony.

    So a star chamber tribunal with red queens associates, enablers of her many malfeasance,

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. 2010 — In New York City, Russian spies Igor Sporyshev, Victor Podobnyy, and Evgeny Buryakov began work on several economics-related objectives on behalf of Russia’s SVR ‘Directorate ER’; their efforts started shortly after guilty pleas by members of Russian ‘Illegals’ spy ring and their expulsion.

    14 DEC 2012 — Bipartisan Magnitsky Act (Pub.L. 112–208) passed and signed into law.

    XX JAN 2013 — Carter Page met Podobnyy in New York City at an Asia Society meeting where the topic was China and Chinese energy development. (specific date TBD).

    2013 — Podobnyy and Sporyshev attempted to recruit Page. Special agents with the FBI’s New York Field Office Counterintelligence Division surveilled and investigated spies and Page.

    XX JUN 2013 — FBI interviewed Page about his contacts with Russians and cautioned him he was being recruited (specific date TBD).

    25 AUG 2013 — In a letter this date sent to an academic press, Page refers to himself as “an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin.”

    13 APR 2013 — In response to the Magnitsky Act, Russian lawmakers banned 18 Americans from entering Russian Federation, including Preet Bharara, a judge and 12 other DOJ/DEA personnel from the Southern District of New York. Russia also barred adoptions of Russian children by U.S. citizens.

    2014 — FBI obtains a FISA warrant to monitor Page‘s communications (specific date TBD).

    26 JAN 2015 — Russian spy Buryakov arrested; he had non-official cover as an employee of Vnesheconombank. Igor Sporyshev and Victor Podobnyy had already left the country; both had diplomatic immunity. Case was under U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s office for Southern District of New York. Page‘s identity was masked and appeared in the complaint against the spies as “MALE-1.” (See Buryakov, et al complaint (pdf))

    DEC 2015 — George Papadopoulos began work for Ben Carson’s presidential campaign as a foreign policy advisor.

    Late 2015 — New York’s GOP chair Ed Cox was in contact with Page. It is not clear from Page‘s testimony how this contact occurred; Page uses the word volunteered more than once.

    JAN 2016 — Page had at least one meeting with campaign officials based on his contact with Ed Cox; in his HPSCI testimony he said he met Corey Lewandowski. Page was an unpaid adviser. Unclear from testimony if Sam Clovis had Page sign an NDA now or later in the campaign, before the July trip to Moscow.

    FEB 2016 — Papadopoulos left Carson’s campaign.

    Early MAR 2016 — Sam Clovis recruited Papadopoulos to work for Trump’s campaign as a foreign policy advisor.

    06 MAR 2016 — Clovis relayed to Papadopoulos that “a principal foreign policy focus of the campaign was an improved U.S. relationship with Russia,” according to court records related to Papadopoulos’ eventual indictment. Clovis later denied saying this.

    14-21 MAR 2016 — Prof. Joseph Mifsud met twice with Papadopoulos; Mifsud brought to the second meeting “Olga” who posed as Putin’s niece.

    XX MAR 2016 — Page had breakfast in “March-ish” timeframe with Sam Clovis in Falls Church, VA to discuss NDA and “general foreign policy topics.”

    21 MAR 2016 — Page joined Trump campaign as one of five foreign policy advisors, including George Papadopoulos.

    MAR-APR 2016 — Dialog continued between Papadopoulos, Mifsud, Olga Vinogradova (referred to as Olga Poloskaya in some earlier reports). [link, link]

    24 MAR 2016 — Papadopoulos sends an email copying campaign foreign policy advisers and Sam Clovis, offering to set up “a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss US-Russia ties under President Trump.”

    28 MAR 2016 — Article: Donald Trump Hires Paul Manafort to Lead Delegate Effort

    26 APR 2016 — Papadopoulos learned the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton consisting of “thousands of emails.”

    05 MAY 2016 — Trump is the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. Page emailed fellow foreign policy adviser Walid Phares and J.D. Gordon, asking them to contact him via cell phone or iMessage, adding “P.S. I forgot to mention that I also have the Middle East staple of [redacted]* as well. So that’s another global connectivity alternative if you want to get in touch there.” (* Believed to be the name of a regionalized communications system. See testimony transcript (pdf).)

    16 MAY 2016 — Page sent an email to Walid Phares and J.D. Gordon, suggesting that Trump visit Russia (see testimony transcript (pdf)).

    24 MAY 2016 — Page emailed J.D. Gordon: “FYI: At the Newark Sky Club, Delta has a private room when you can have a confidential conversation, but, unfortunately, no such luck at Third-World LaGuardia. So I’ll mostly be on the receive mode, since there are a significant number of people in the lounge. Rather than saying too much, I’ll just refer to the seven points on my list which I sent last night.” (see testimony transcript (pdf)).

    26 MAY 2016 — Page emailed J.D. Gordon and another foreign policy team member, Bernadette Kilroy, letting them know he will be speaking at the New Economic School’s commencement alongside Russia’s Sberbank’s chair and CEO (see testimony transcript (pdf)).

    27 MAY 2016 — Page may have met Paul Manafort associate Rick Gates at Trump’s North Dakota speech event (see testimony transcript (pdf)).

    Early JUN 2016 — Page called Putin “stronger and more reliable than President Obama” and “touted the positive effect a Trump presidency would have on U.S.-Russia relations” according to attendees of a meeting of campaign foreign policy team members with India’s Prime Minister Modi. Modi’s trip was five days long, beginning June 8.

    09 JUN 2016 — Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya et al., ostensibly about Russian adoptions.

    XX JUN 2016 — After back-and-forth and an initial refusal with Corey Lewandowski, J.D. Gordon, and Hope Hicks, Page finally obtains approval from Lewandowski to travel to Russia as a campaign team member (specific date TBD). In HPSCI testimony there is an exchange about an email he sent asking for feedback about the speech he was going to give in Moscow; same email mentions Russia’s Minister of Economics and Trade Herman Gref was expected to speak at the same event.

    30 JUN 2016 — On the Thursday before his Moscow trip Page attended a dinner meeting at the Capitol Hill Club in DC at which both Sen. Jeff Sessions and George Papadopoulos were present and seated next to each other. Page testified to HPSCI this is the last time he saw Papadopoulos, and that he (Page) wasn’t going to Russia as part of the campaign team.

    05 JUL 2016 — Page‘s trip to Russia. (05-09 JUL 2016; in his HPSCI testimony he said he left Sunday night, which would have been July 3.)

    06 JUL 2016 — In his HPSCI testimony Page admits to meeting Rosneft’s Directer of Investor Relations Andrey Baranov at a Morgan Stanley-hosted Europa football event as well as [redacted] Nagovitsyn* of Gazprom; he also admitted to having a 10-second exchange with Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich as well as meeting members of the Duma. (* This may be Oleg Nagovitsyn who in 2014 had been CEO of Gazprom Investproekt, a subsidiary entity; Nagovitsyn has been elevated to General Director of Gazprom if this is the same Oleg.)

    07 JUL 2016 — Page gave a speech at New Economic School; his speech is critical of U.S. foreign policy. He testified that the school paid for his expenses. (video)

    08 JUL 2016 — Page attended and gave commencement speech at New Economic School graduation. (video) Page avoided answering journalists’ questions both days regarding officials Page may have/will meet with in Russia. Page emailed campaign advisers Tera Dahl and J.D. Gordon, telling them he would send them “a readout soon regarding some incredible insights and outreach I’ve received from a few Russian legislators and senior members of the Presidential administration here.”

    14 JUL 2016 — Page praises fellow foreign policy advisers and campaign team members J.D. Gordon, Walid Phares, Joseph Schmitz, Bert Mizusawa, Chuck Kubic, and Tera Dahl for their work changing the GOP platform on Ukraine.

    18-21 JUL 2016 — Page spoke with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kisylak during the Global Partners in Diplomacy event associated with the RNC Convention in Cleveland (specific date TBD).

    19 JUL 2016 — Former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele wrote a memo about Page‘s July trip to Moscow. Steele’s intelligence said Page met with Rosneft’s Igor Sechin and Russian Internal Affairs minister Igor Diveykin.

    U.S. received intelligence that Page met with Igor Sechin, Putin associate, former Russian deputy prime minister, and executive chairman of Rosneft, but it isn’t clear whether this intelligence is based on Steele’s dossier alone and/or if disinformation involved.

    After 22 JUL 2016 — Australia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Joe Hockey disclosed to the FBI that diplomat Alexander Downer learned from George Papadopoulos the Trump campaign had “dirt” on HRC in the form of emails.

    XX JUL 2016 — Page had dinner alone with Sam Clovis some time after the July trip to Moscow.

    05 AUG 2016 — Article: Trump adviser’s public comments, ties to Moscow stir unease in both parties; includes a profile of Page. Hope Hicks characterized Page as “informal policy adviser.”

    19 AUG 2016 — Paul Manafort resigns from the campaign two days after Trump’s first security briefing. Steve Bannon assumes Manafort’s role for the campaign.

    26 AUG 2016 — Sen. Harry Reid sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey asking for the investigation of Russian hacking and influence on the 2016 election with publication of findings. Reid cited the example of an unnamed Trump adviser “who has been highly critical of U.S. and European economic sanctions on Russia, and who has conflicts of interest due to investments in Russian energy conglomerate Gazprom, met with high-ranking sanctioned individuals while in Moscow in July 2016…” (link)

    XX AUG 2016 — Page said he sold his ADR shares in Gazprom this month, approximately five months after joining the campaign; it’s not clear whether this sale happened before or after Sen. Reid’s letter (see written testimony (pdf)).

    XX AUG 2016 — Page traveled to Hungary and met with the ambassador to the US; the ambassador had already met Page at the RNC convention. They discussed U.S.-Russia policy as it affected Hungary — “in general,” according to Page‘s testimony.

    23 SEP 2016 — Article: U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.

    25 SEP 2016 — Page wrote to Comey and asked him to end the investigation into his trip to Russia (see written testimony).

    26 SEP 2016 — Page left Trump campaign.

    Mid to Late SEP 2016 — After discussing the matter with Fusion GPS’ Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele metwith the FBI in Rome to share what he had learned about the Trump campaign and related Russian efforts. Steele was concerned there was a crime in progress; some of his research shared included information about Page‘s interactions with key Russians during his July trip.

    21 OCT 2016 — FISA warrant on Page obtained.

    24-OCT-2016 — Page did an interview with Russian media outlet RT on its Going Underground program. Program host and Page characterized Page‘s status as “on leave” from the campaign. Page‘s written testimony shared that Wikileaks and leaked emails “tangentially came up.” (video, uploaded to YouTube on 29-OCT-2016.)

    08 NOV 2016 — Election Day.

    08 DEC 2016 — Page took another trip to Russia; Arkady Dvorkovich stopped by a dinner Page attended and said hello according to Page‘s testimony (specific date TBD). Page also met Shlomo Weber again; he had lunch with Andrey Baranov, a bank analyst with Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, and a third person whose names were redacted at Page‘s request. He had a laptop with him at the lunch which he said he used to share his speech and slides for another academic presentation. The Kremlin’s spokesperson, Dmitri Peskov, said there were no plans to contact Page yet managed to see Page just before a television interview.

    XX DEC 2016 — On the return leg to the U.S., Page stopped in London to attend an energy conference. While in London he met with a Russian national, Sergey Yatsenko, in London on return from Moscow; they talked about opportunities in Kazahkstan related to the country’s privatization process and the sovereign wealth fund, Samruk Kazyna. They were joined by the Kazahk ambassador to the U.K. and an aide.

    10 JAN 2017 — BuzzFeed published 35 pages of the dossier Steele prepared for Orbis under contract to Fusion GPS.

    Mid JAN 2017 — Jones Day LLP, White House counsel Don McGahn’s former law firm, communicated with Page, instructing him not to depict himself as a representative of the campaign. Steve Bannon conveyed a similar message by text to Page.

    XX JAN 2017 — In an interview with ABC News, Page said he didn’t meet with any Russian officials on behalf of Trump campaign or with Igor Sechin (specific date not clear in ABC’s report).

    18 JAN 2017 — Deadline, FISA renewal required (before inauguration).

    19 JAN 2017 — Article: Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates; Page along with Paul Manafort and Roger Stone have become subjects of an investigation.

    20 JAN 2017 — Inauguration Day.

    31 JAN 2017 — Trump nominated Maryland’s U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General.

    31 JAN 2017 — Page told ABC News’ Brian Ross he never talked to anyone in the Kremlin about the campaign during his July trip, “not one word.”

    15 FEB 2017 — Interview: Former Trump adviser says he had no Russian meetings in the last year

    JUDY WOODRUFF:
    Did you have any meetings — I will ask again — did you have any meetings last year with Russian officials in Russia, outside Russia, anywhere?

    CARTER PAGE:
    I had no meetings, no meetings.

    I might have said hello to a few people as they were walking by me at my graduation — the graduation speech that I gave in July, but no meetings.

    02 MAR 2017 — Interview: Page: ‘I don’t deny’ meeting with Russian amb.; Page admitted meeting Russia’s Ambassador Kislyak during the campaign.

    04 MAR 2017 — Corey Lewandowski told Fox News, “I never met Carter Page.”

    11 MAR 2017 — Preet Bharara fired by USAG Jeff Sessions.

    11 MAR 2017 — Page sent a letter to the HPSCI asking to be interviewed in a public hearing. His letter coincided with letters from Paul Manafort and Roger Stone who both volunteered to be interviewed.

    03 APR 2017 — ABC News and BuzzFeed contacted Page about his role as MALE-1 in Buryakov et al spy ring case ((see written testimony (pdf))

    13 APR 2017 — Page told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that he “said hello briefly to one individual, who was aboard member of the New Economic School where I gave my speech” during his July 2016 to Moscow. He also hedged as to whether he had any discussion of sanctions while in Russia.

    05 APR 2017 — Evgeny Buryakov was released from prison on March 31 and expelled from the U.S. days later; he had been credited with time served while in custody against his 2.5 year sentence. His deportation shortened his sentence by a couple of months.

    ~19 APR 2017 — Deadline, FISA renewal required (specific date TBD).

    25 APR 2017 — Rod Rosenstein confirmed by Senate as Deputy Attorney General.

    28 APR 2017 — Senate Intelligence Committee sent a letter to Page along with Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone asking for records related to the campaign, including a “list of all meetings between you and any Russian official or representative of Russian business interests which took place between June 16, 2015, and Jan. 20, 2017.”

    05 MAY 2017 — Senate Intelligence Committee chair and vice chair sent a joint statement to Page to insist on his cooperation with their investigation.

    09 MAY 2017 — FBI Director James Comey fired.

    21 MAY 2017—Page requested appealed to the DOJ, FBI, NSA for disclosure of “information, applications and other materials related to my illegitimate FISA warrant” (see written testimony (pdf)).

    ~18 JUL 2017 — Deadline, FISA renewal required (specific date TBD).

    04 OCT 2017 — HPSCI issued a subpoena to Page.

    10 OCT 2017 — Page informed the Senate Intelligence Committee he would plead the Fifth Amendment and not testify in front of the SIC.

    30 OCT 2017 — Excerpt from interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes suggests Page expected House Speaker Paul Ryan to release the FISA warrant documentation (video, about 06:57):

    HAYES: Did you bring an attorney to you when you spent five hours before the Senate?

    PAGE: Nope. Nope. I’m very, very open and happy to give all the information I can. In the interest of really getting the truth out there, because I think when the truth comes out, when Speaker Paul Ryan says the FISA warrant or the details about the dodgy dossier and what happened and all this documents around that is going to be released, that’s what I’m really excited about. And I think the truth will set a lot of people free.

    02 NOV 2017 — In testimony submitted to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Page said he briefly met Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich during his July trip. Page pleaded the Fifth Amendment on some of the materials responsive to the HPSCI’s subpoena.

    14 NOV 2017 — Jeff Sessions testified before the House Judiciary Committee; he said he did not remember seeing Page at the June 30, 2016 dinner with campaign team members, nor did he recall any communications about Page‘s trip to Moscow.

    Again, this is not a complete timeline of Trump-Russia events, let alone a complete timeline of everything Carter Page. It captures some key points from just before the FBI became aware of Carter Page through the release of the Nunes’ memo Friday last week.

    https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/07/ruin-a-movie-with-a-name-get-carter-page/

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  47. Heh. We think alike.

    DRJ (15874d)

  48. 41.Putinesque military parade designed to compete with May Day Penile Promotion. We got bigger missiles..


    I thought you communists loved big parades. But the anti American in you just can’t stand the thought of a parade to honor our military on Veterans Day. Figures. You guys really hate and resent us soldiers, don’t you?

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  49. sleazy no-integrity fbi buttsuck Bob Mueller wants him a process charge

    cause girlfriend can’t prove no collusion

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  50. @ harkin, who wrote (#):

    If he’s going to pull a ‘Hillary’ he also needs to refuse to be put under oath plus not allow ANY recording of the interview, not even in writing.

    What makes you think he gets to set these rules? The default for witnesses in a criminal investigation — the grand jury route — doesn’t even allow him to have his lawyer in the room while he’s testifying under oath and with a court reporter.

    If he’s not under oath, he’s still subject to potential criminal jeopardy for making a false statement. (Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart weren’t under oath either.) So that’s a distinction without a material difference. And therefore, for PR purposes he ought to insist upon being put under oath IMHO; it would make him look like he was trying to cooperate, without materially increasing his odds of criminal jeopardy.

    If there is no written record, then the FBI agents would come testify as to their recollections of what Trump said. Given Trump’s tendency to engage in rambling, self-contradictory eruptions of word salad, the FBI agents will recall things consistently with their own presumptions going into the interview. At least if the agents make notes, then their notes, as evidence of present-recollection recorded, might create a basis for impeaching them if they come to the stand later with testimony about their recollections. If they’re going on memory alone, they can get away with anything, and Trump’s lawyers would have no avenue at all for effective impeachment.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  51. you can’t trust the notes of trashy fbi agents cause they lie so much

    they’re incredibly dishonest and scummy people

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  52. Hoagie: I resent poseurs who claim to support the military but dodge service like the influenza. You’re the exception to that rule but you keep bad company.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  53. the military’s so good

    it’s fun to cut their budgets and watch them do more with less

    look at them go!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  54. image: https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/wonkette_logo_2015_mobile_retina.png

    Wonkette
    MILITARYPOLITICSNATIONAL POLITICSNEWSTRUMPUS OF AMERICA NEWSWHITE HOUSE
    Tin Soldiers And Donald’s Cumming
    Cadet Bone Spurs Orders Great Big Military Parade For No Reason At All
    By Doktor Zoom – February 7, 2018 – 9:58am 486
    Flip
    image: https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/penguin-parade.jpg

    Image stoled gleefully from Mr. Charlie Pierce
    We really need to stop saying Donald Trump is a brainless dolt who can’t keep his mind focused on anything for more than a few seconds, because when he gets a seriously stupid idea in his head — like, say, wanting a big grand military parade through the streets of Washington DC — that sucker will end up lodged in there more firmly than “It’s a Small World” or that damn song from Frozen (you’re welcome!). Since the presidency is something America lets Donald Trump amuse himself with, Donald Trump is damn well getting a military parade, according to officials who spoke anonymously to the Washington Post. We may have the greatest military machine in the world, but that doesn’t stop TrumpWorld from leaking like a Soviet-era nuclear submarine.

    Trump made his longstanding desire for a big military parade known during a January 18 meeting held in a secure Pentagon facility that’s usually “reserved for top-secret discussions,” the Post said, although the story didn’t specify whether the meeting was called for the purpose of talking about a parade, or if Trump just blurted out the demand when he got bored in the middle of talks on something important:

    Surrounded by the military’s highest-ranking officials, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., Trump’s seemingly abstract desire for a parade was suddenly heard as a presidential directive, the officials said.

    “The marching orders were: I want a parade like the one in France,” said a military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the planning discussions are supposed to remain confidential. “This is being worked at the highest levels of the military.”

    Another unnamed official from the White House said that the parade is only in the “brainstorming” phases and that “Right now, there’s really no meat on the bones.” It could be just about anything as long as it’s big and loud and makes Trump happy in his swimsuit area:

    “The president wants to do something that highlights the service and sacrifice of the military and have a unifying moment for the country,” the official said.

    He wants to honor the service and sacrifice of the military? Hey, he could commit to reducing wait times and providing better care for PTSD at Veterans Administration hospitals, maybe! Even better, he could give us all some kind of hint he won’t throw their lives away — and a few million Koreans, we suppose they matter too — in a war against North Korea to prove his button is biggest.

    Germaine
    image: https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/NK-parade.jpg

    Military Parades? We Did Nazi That Coming!
    As has been previously reported and mocked, Trump came into office with a stiffy for military parades, was disappointed his inauguration wasn’t marked with a military parade, and was re-inspired to do this stupid thing when he visited France last July and watched their big military parade for Bastille Day with Emmanuel Macron. Boy, does he love a parade!
    Trump was awestruck by the tableau of uniformed French troops marching down Avenue des Champs-Elysees with military tanks, armored vehicles, gun trucks and carriers — complete with fighter jets flying over the Arc de Triomphe and painting the sky with streaks of blue, white and red smoke for the colors of the French flag.

    He apparently couldn’t stop talking about the nifty parade all the way back home on Air Force One, and said he wanted one of his own, he wanted it, and he would hold his breath until he got one. And he wanted a big white horse and sunglasses and a spiffy uniform with epaulettes and a big gun of his very own. He just wouldn’t let the idea go, no he would not. And when he saw Macron again at the UN in September? There may have been some talk about trade and security and boring stuff, but mostly, President Tittybaby wanted to talk PARADES:

    Also, he was inspired by a FRENCH display of military hard-ons, so don’t you go drawing parallels to the USSR or North Korea, you non-clapping traitors.

    So apparently this beautiful, pointless display that will cost millions of dollars, take troops and equipment away from actual training and readiness, and, not incidentally, tear up the streets, since Pennsylvania Avenue isn’t built to handle M1A1 Abrams tanks, is definitely a thing that will happen; after WaPo published its story online, the planning was confirmed by Sarah Huckabee Sanders and by the Pentagon. It’s not authoritarian, it’s not something you’d expect from a tinpot dictator with delusions of godhood, and it’s certainly nothing like the parades of marching soldiers and military hardware for Kim Jong Un. It’s for the troops and America, you see.

    Read more at https://wonkette.com/629438/cadet-bone-spurs-orders-great-big-military-parade-for-no-reason-at-all#G5WQbWQKFiOYdhbW.99

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  55. In answering Mueller’s interrogatories, Trump’s lawyers would cleverly cover their tracks by writing their responses in crayon.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  56. Dang it. Foiled by software again.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  57. We really need to stop saying Donald Trump is a brainless dolt who can’t keep his mind focused on anything for more than a few seconds, because when he gets a seriously stupid idea in his head — like, say, wanting a big grand military parade through the streets of Washington DC — that sucker will end up lodged in there more firmly than “It’s a Small World” or that damn song from Frozen (you’re welcome!). Since the presidency is something America lets Donald Trump amuse himself with, Donald Trump is damn well getting a military parade, according to officials who spoke anonymously to the Washington Post. We may have the greatest military machine in the world, but that doesn’t stop TrumpWorld from leaking like a Soviet-era nuclear submarine.

    Wonkette truly slayed me.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  58. Is there a technical case there now?” Holder said in response to questions from POLITICO after a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Wednesday. “I think so. Now.”

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  59. Hey Ben.

    Knock it off posting the minutes of clueless central, chuckle head.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  60. I keep it short when I can but you guys need details as you become capable readers.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  61. Why the diesel fuel for transport might have a cost approaching Melanomas shoes.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  62. Gulf War 91 National Victory celebration.

    I support the military parade. Excellent idea.

    Only one modification, there are 35,000 plus agents working for the FBI. Those dudes and dudettes work for the CIC also, and they are in desperate need of reminding who they work for, so 10 ~ 20 k of them, dressed in the standard black business suits, with ear pieces, and dark sun glasses, should be out marching in formation for review as well. Director Wray leading the procession.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  63. Porter’s second wife, Jennifer Willoughby, told the Mail that Porter called her a “fu<king b'tch” on their honeymoon, and once pulled her naked out of the shower. In response, Kelly put out a statement calling Porter “a man of true integrity and honor” and a “trusted professional.” But shortly after Kelly rallied behind his colleague, Porter’s first wife came forward with additional harrowing allegations. Colbie Holderness, who married Porter in 2009, told the Daily Mail that Porter punched her in the face and choked her, among other alleged abuses. The article included a photo of her with a black eye. “It was not hard enough for me to pass out, but it was scary, humiliating, and dehumanizing,” she said. Porter told the Daily Mail that the allegations were “slanderous and simply false.”

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/john-kelly-defense-of-rob-porter-roils-the-west-wing

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  64. Re-reading Bubba’s deposition in the Paula Jones civil case, I’m reminded that earlier, Judge Wright had also presided over the taking of Bubba’s videotaped testimony at the White House in preparation for the criminal trial of Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and James & Susan McDougal as part of Whitewater. The McDougals, of course, were part of Bubba & Hillary’s own obstruction of justice scheme, but Bubba avoided ever being charged with a process crime out of that particular bit of sworn testimony (the prosecutors being unaware of the McDougals’ promises to protect Bubba’s & Hillary’s secrets unto death).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  65. OT: As long as the music is confined to Sousa and military/college marching bands, I’m all in favor of Fourth of July parades to salute the military. If the entertainment devolves into the kind of crap shown at the last three dozen Super Bowl halftimes, then no. And if it’s a thinly veiled Trump campaign rally (one focusing on him, or even his support for the military), then hell no.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  66. Yes McDougall was a Dreyfus case of malicious persecution. That’s why Trump will never beat this. I never thought I would have a positive thing to say about Ken Starr. Thank you false prophet.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  67. I swear to God, Ben. Don’t make me get pull a Jay and Silent Bob about this thing.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  68. Trump:

    J’accuse!

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  69. it was probably a note in passing, our military has been in multiple campaigns for nearly 17 years now, that’s unheard of even in the history of expeditionary forces,

    I don’t know who wonkette can sit down, if you catch my drift, their star correspondence who slimed her way to luce’s lament, was famous for showcasing a certain fmr hill staffers proclivities,

    narciso (d1f714)

  70. razor back omerta, but that involved bank fraud, mail fraud by conveyance and property fraud,

    narciso (d1f714)

  71. Happy Tiger meet old fart

    https://youtu.be/8QJiAK-s5a0

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  72. so coordination re this grishenko tableau,

    https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/3962

    narciso (d1f714)

  73. Afghanistan: the one-year we fight for fifteen years and to perpetuity.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  74. Dudes and dudettes? You lifted that from Jimmy Walker in a Good Times episode.

    And Ben, back to a point I made in an earlier post.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  75. Urban: all I’m saying is the lesser weevil is better than rumpublican dear leadership. But the ship must be righted first.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  76. If Trump is actually cooperating whole-heartedly with his own lawyers — which I think is very much open to doubt — then they, unlike us, already know the “worst case scenarios” in terms of what smoking-gun documents exist, or what skeletons are hidden away waiting for the right question to the right witness to uncover. They know already whether, for instance, Flynn or Manafort had anything to trade. They have some idea, and in most cases a reasonably good idea, of what other Trump-related witnesses (e.g., former chief of staff Reince Priebus) have told Mueller in their interviews so far. They know quite a bit about what kinds of subject areas Mueller’s team is already focused upon.

    That’s not quite the same thing as saying they already know whether Trump is “guilty” of anything. But they have a lot better-informed view than outsiders like us regarding the likelihood of Trump ever being proved guilty — whether for political purposes in an impeachment inquiry, or criminal jeopardy in criminal proceedings.

    If they know that there’s an iceberg’s worth of bad stuff still hidden from the public, then simply the desire to postpone for as long as possible the consequences of that information coming to light might override every other consideration when deciding whether Trump should permit an interview or sworn questioning. Hunkering down and stalling throughout three, or seven, more years seems improbable, but maybe that’s their best option if they already know the POTUS has been very, very naughty.

    If instead they know that there’s no “‘there’ there,” and that Trump’s really as innocent as he publicly insists, then they still have to worry about him making a poor appearance and falling into some trap that makes him look guilty. It would be entirely legitimate for them to try to extract concessions from Mueller, e.g., allowing Trump to have counsel present, limiting the length, limiting the permissible topics. But having done their best in that respect, and having done their best to prepare Trump, and then their best in representing him during the questioning, they’d still have an opportunity, perhaps, to come back and “clean up” whatever innocent misrepresentations or mistakes Trump may have made.

    Under any conceivable scenario in which Mueller exonerates Trump, though, Mueller has to be given an opportunity to question Trump in person regarding his intentions. Settling for less than that, in an inquiry that turns on subjective intents, would subject Mueller to legitimate accusations of participating in a whitewash. Every good scenario for Trump involves letting Mueller finish his work.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  77. meanwhile across the pond,

    https://news.sky.com/story/man-who-fought-is-charged-with-terror-offence-11240363

    no good deed goes unpunished

    narciso (d1f714)

  78. Recall the recent kerfuffle over whether Trump said “I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un” or instead the conditional and hypothetical “I’d probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un.”

    Close examination of the audio proved Trump was speaking hypothetically (if preposterously) and exonerated him of one particular lie he’d been accused of.

    That’s a perfect example of why, counter-intuitively, I think Trump is actually better off doing a formal Q&A on the record, with not only a stenographer but very good audio and video recording. An FBI agent testifying from notes in which he’d written down that Trump had said, “I probably have [present tense and without conditioning] a very good relationship” would have left Trump with no way to dispute the agent’s notes and recollection, and most people would have believed the agent.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  79. 8 — I think the work being done in Congress right now is going to give Trump cover to not talk to Mueller, or at least to talk to Mueller only about his views on Russian interference in the election — which is what he was charged to pursue — and nothing else.

    If Mueller asks any questions regarding the decision to fire Comey, or comments about wanting to fire Sessions, the lawyers should intercede, state that the President has the constitutional authority to remove any Executive Branch official from their executive responsibilities, and he’s not going to explain his reasoning for doing so — then instruct Trump to not answer the question.

    In response to the blowback, the WH should simply point to the Rosenstein appointment of Mueller, and the fact that Mueller was charged with investigating Russian interference in the campaign. Trump will cooperate in that effort. Beyond that its POTUS’s view that Mueller is acting beyond the boundaries of his authority — which he actually derives from POTUS — and simply decline to further such actions on Mueller’s part by responding.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  80. Prosecution strategy has been similar to DEEfense…pandering and pimping

    Trumps long-term (6 mos) strategy always worked in the past.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  81. seeing as Rosenstein, signed off on the renewals of the surveillance, on carter page, clear the gig is up, but try telling Andrew McCarthy that,

    narciso (d1f714)

  82. when the sleazy fbi buttmunches ask their questions President Trump should just say what i can’t hear you please talk LOUDER

    I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA

    Ha!

    if this isn’t fun why do it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  83. Cheri Jacobus
    @CheriJacobus
    The Grassley-Graham letter is a panicked Hail Mary pass because the Nunes memo hit with a thud and then it was exposed that Nunes had lied in it.

    —-

    Chuck Ross
    @ChuckRossDC
    If you didn’t know that the Graham-Grassley memo was submitted two weeks before the Nunes memo (and you didn’t) then you probably shouldn’t be commenting on this stuff.

    harkin (75fedf)

  84. A lotta frantic beenburned mincing in this thread. Why is he so a-scared?

    Colonel Haiku (1d71cc)

  85. But all Trump need do to avoid any and all “perjury traps” is to tell the truth as he knows it.

    That’s a problem when one is a perpetual liar, and truth is a stranger. Dubya may have been inarticulate and vulnerable to Democrats looking to trip him up, but he was not a known compulsive fibber and *could* actually discern truth and articulate it effectively. I don’t believe that’s so with this president.

    Dana (023079)

  86. President Trump’s a vastly better president than anything that scummy Bush family ever produced

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  87. I think the over/under is at least two counts of attempted obstruction of justice committed during the interview.

    Given that Trump is discussing this with his advisors, Mueller could probably charge them with attempting a conspiracy to attempt to obstruct justice.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  88. Beldar–

    Are you seriously suggesting that Trump’s firing of Comey after asking him to go easy on Flynn (on a meaningless process crime) is a high crime worthy of impeachment? If so, that’s something that only a lawyer could believe. The 101% of Trump’s supporters who are not lawyers would be digging up their guns.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  89. The fact is that Trump could tell Mueller to go F himself, in those words, and he’d gain votes. Would the Senate want to impeach him? Not if any of them want to win another primary.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  90. I don’t like Trump, and I think that he’s often beyond the pale. If I had to vote on impeaching him for conduct unbecoming, I’d have to think about it.

    But impeachment is POLITICAL, not legal and impeaching a president for firing a subordinate (however you want to frame it) would be regarded as bullsh1t by all of his supporters and most of the center, and would rebound badly on those who did it. Only those who 1) are lawyers, or 2) hate Trump’s guts would accept an impeachment for firing Comey for insubordination.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  91. I think Trump will surprise everyone and handle this just fine.

    And I don’t think Biden is trolling Trump. He is setting the stage for charges from the Democrats and their media lap dogs that Trump lied or confessed or blundered or embarrassed himself at the interview, which will inevitably come no matter what Mueller says.

    nk (dbc370)

  92. Beyond that its POTUS’s view that Mueller is acting beyond the boundaries of his authority — which he actually derives from POTUS — and simply decline to further such actions on Mueller’s part by responding.

    As in: “I did not conspire with Russians to influence the election, and I do not know of anyone who did. We’re done now.”

    Kevin M (752a26)

  93. Here’s Trump’s video deposition from June 16, 2016, in a lawsuit over a lease termination, for those who are curious about his self-discipline or lack thereof as a witness. I hadn’t seen this before today, but I’m watching it now.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  94. @ Kevin M: And when Trump says, “We’re done now,” what do you think Mueller will say or do?

    Because I think he’d move for contempt — and win.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  95. @ Kevin M, who asked (#91):

    Are you seriously suggesting that Trump’s firing of Comey after asking him to go easy on Flynn (on a meaningless process crime) is a high crime worthy of impeachment?

    I’m suggesting it might be, depending on what Trump’s subjective intentions were. I’m also suggesting that if his lawyers went into court to argue — as you just did — that Flynn’s conviction was on a “meaningless process crime,” they’d get a very, very bad reaction from any judge, because your judgment of what’s “meaningless” doesn’t match the judgment of conviction against Flynn based on his guilty plea.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  96. As to what sixteen current GOP senators might believe, I’m guessing there are already about ten who would be predisposed to agree with Mueller, not with you and Trump.

    Look, Nixon tried the whole, “I’m POTUS so I don’t have to answer” schtick. Didn’t work for him. Didn’t work for Clinton until his Senate impeachment trial, either. Won’t work for Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  97. Didn’t work for Clinton until his Senate impeachment trial, either. Won’t work for Trump.

    Thank the gods for silver linings.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  98. In the 24 hours before White House staff secretary Rob Porter resigned amid reports that he had been emotionally and physically abusive to two of his wives, the White House was ratcheting up a campaign in his defense.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-white-house-tried-and-failed-to-keep-aide-rob-porter-after-accusations-of-wife-beating-surfaced

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  99. Meh. I ended up reading the transcript rather than watching the whole depo from the restaurant case. Trump was a lousy witness in the sense that he volunteered a ton of information rather than just answering the question and stopping. Every time he did that, he took risks his lawyers would have rather he’d avoided. But the lawyer questioning him was fairly clueless, and the things he volunteered didn’t seem to hurt him or his litigation position. So perhaps this suggests that nk is right (#94) and that Trump would do just fine despite his lawyers’ (leaked) concerns.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  100. There is nothing to this, but again ask Stephen hatfill, if that mattered.

    narciso (d1f714)

  101. 97 – the interview is voluntary. Where is the courts authority?

    Shipwreckedcrew (8665ef)

  102. Kevin M,

    I thought Bill Clinton should be impeached for lying under oath because he was the President and a lawyer, so he had no excuse for undermining the Rule of Law. But most Americans thought lying to avoid the consequences of an affair was understandable. The Rule of Law had been on a downhill trajectory for many years and for many reasobs, but it became a quaint anachronism from that point on. IMO it’s a big reason why we are so partisan now, because we have no code of conduct or set of rules that we all agree bind us.

    So I guess I agree with you that “Trump’s firing of Comey after asking him to go easy on Flynn (on a meaningless process crime)” is not a high crime worthy of impeachment by today’s standards, but that’s only because everything is a meaningless process crime to most Americans. Most see the rules as a game if gotcha, not a valuable set if rules thst protect us all.

    As a result, the standard for impeachment and conviction has now become so partisan, preposterous, and characterless that I’m not sure any President can be convicted at this point. Even if he shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.

    DRJ (15874d)

  103. You mean the motive derived from those supposed memos, that judge boasberg won’t let us see. Or some hallucination vovan and plexus shipped to schiff.

    narciso (d1f714)

  104. 22 out of first 106 posts (22%) were beenburned’s frantic mincing missives… and he didn’t even get started until just before noon Pacific. He must’ve gotten Rush Limbaugh’s 11AM Welfare wake-up call.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  105. Yes its high on the wookie/cochran ratio

    narciso (d1f714)

  106. I’m suggesting it might be, depending on what Trump’s subjective intentions were. I’m also suggesting that if his lawyers went into court to argue — as you just did — that Flynn’s conviction was on a “meaningless process crime,” they’d get a very, very bad reaction from any judge, because your judgment of what’s “meaningless” doesn’t match the judgment of conviction against Flynn based on his guilty plea.

    1) How was justice obstructed if they got their plea?
    2) Again, you legal folks seem to think that there are rules in a knife fight. This is politics, not law.
    3) What would his lawyers be doing in a court? It’s long established that the president cannot be charged with a crime while in office.
    4) Mueller gets fired before he moves for contempt, and even if he manages to, so what? No one is going to bring charges. Or are you saying that a judge is going to order the President into jail? What fun.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  107. because your judgment of what’s “meaningless” doesn’t match the judgment of conviction against Flynn based on his guilty plea.

    A guilty plea obtained without informing him that the witness against him was fired for cause, apparently due to the I.G.’s investigation. Sure, they *may* be able to get away with withholding exculpatory evidence at that time, but when it came out it would look worse than it does now.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  108. One can indeed be guilty of an attempt to obstruct justice without necessarily having been successful in it, Kevin M. It’s the attempt that’s the crime, and there’s no safe harbor for unsuccessful attempts. The only long establishment that a POTUS can’t be indicted is an internal DoJ policy; the courts haven’t considered the question. But realistically what we’re talking about here would be a finding by Mueller in a report to Rosenstein regarding whether there’s probable cause to charge, which in turn Rosenstein would (consistent with the standing policy) not immediately act upon but refer to Congress. There the determination of high crimes & misdemeanors is indeed a political rather than legal one, but as in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments (but not the Andrew Johnson one), the POTUS’ violation of criminal laws, as those laws have been interpreted by the courts in past criminal prosecutions, would likely drive the political discussion (if not the ultimate voting; most senators who voted to acquit Clinton did so despite the overwhelming evidence of his violation of the criminal laws, including the perjury that resulted in civil findings which he did not appeal and which led to his surrender of his law license). If Mueller gets fired, there will be a successor appointed, until Trump runs out of Senate-confirmed appointees at the DoJ anyway. But Mueller’s never going to sit down with Trump anywhere outside a grand jury room unless and until Trump, through his lawyers, has committed to answer questions on specific topics that are going to include a lot more topics than direct collusion with Russia.

    As when Starr took Clinton’s testimony for that grand jury, the ultimate compulsion is a grand jury subpoena. It’s the threat of that which will oblige Trump’s lawyers to settle instead for the same kind of protections around the margins that Clinton got, e.g., getting to have his lawyer in the same room while he’s being questioned, and having the questioning done at the WH or in a law firm conference room instead of at the federal courthouse. Having already been made into an obvious perjurer by the combination of his deposition testimony in the Paula Jones case (“There is no sexual relationship”) and the DNA from the blue dress, Clinton’s lawyers didn’t quibble much about Starr’s demands that he again testify, under oath albeit by video, for that grand jury. Likewise, when Bush-43’s lawyers worked out the deal under which he was interviewed by Patrick Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald reserved the right — if, for example, Bush had clammed up and tried to shut down the interview — to serve Bush with a grand jury subpoena that would have forced the issue.

    The POTUS isn’t above the law. He doesn’t get to snap his fingers and make criminal investigations go away without any potential consequences. And when he starts urging prosecutors to go easy on witnesses, or starts firing prosecutors while providing conflicting and mutually inconsistent justifications for that, he certainly sets himself up for serious questioning about his motivations in doing so.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  109. * “to go easy on accused defendants,” I meant, not witnesses.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  110. If Trump’s lawyer’s can succeed in keeping Mueller out of Trump’s tax returns, they’ll have earned ten times whatever he’s paying them (assuming he is, which he has a reputation for not doing, in fact).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  111. After 14 years you should know that was a bogus investigation, too, who directed none other than James comey who put no guardrail on pat Fitzgerald most recently white washing michigan state, while his firm is part of the anti magnitsky alliance.

    narciso (d1f714)

  112. So I guess I agree with you that “Trump’s firing of Comey after asking him to go easy on Flynn (on a meaningless process crime)” is not a high crime worthy of impeachment by today’s standards

    I thought about what was bothering me, and it is this:

    Trump had a legal right to fire Comey for cause, such as insubordination. The assertion is that if he did it to stop a prosecution of an aide then it is “obstruction” as apparently there are limits on a President’s powers. Would PARDONING Flynn be obstruction as well? Why one power and not another?

    Was Ford guilty of obstruction for pardoning Nixon? If not, why not, and why is firing Comey different?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  113. Was Ford guilty of obstruction for pardoning Nixon? If not, why not, and why is firing Comey different?

    You really don’t see the difference between going on the record to issue a public pardon, and attempting to covertly, corruptly and unaccountably obstruct an on-going investigation behind the scenes, turning it into a whitewash?

    Dave (445e97)

  114. I would think that charging the President with a crime based on his actions as President would be struck down by the courts even though the Constitution is silent.

    Looking at the many immunities built up over the years (as well as the enumerated ones for Congress) it would be very hard to square those and say that the President’s exercise of the powers of his office could be questioned in court — particularly “crimes” based on his motives.

    Sure, if he “shot someone on 5th Avenue” that would be a different matter, just as senators can be charged with bribery. But that’s not the issue here.

    There is a remedy, and it is impeachment. That impeachment is a political trial, not a legal one, was settled last during the Clinton case when Rehnquist admitted that the Senate was NOT a jury.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  115. Dave, I am pretty sure that he fired Comey publicly. And there were those who said that Ford’s pardon was corrupt.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  116. Those words you are using, impeachment for what, mostly for the high has prices after the 73 oil shock, and the economic dislocation that resulted from same

    narciso (d1f714)

  117. And, Dave, you duck the real question. Would PARDONING Flynn be obstruction?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  118. And do you say that pardoning Nixon did NOT obstruct justice? Pretty sure Nixon was guilty of several counts of obstruction himself.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  119. What getting in the way of a Democrat vendetta is not obstructing justice, it is the definition of it, and I don’t credit Goldwater magnanimity it’s more like sadomachism in that way and only that way is maverick his heir.

    narciso (d1f714)

  120. Would PARDONING Flynn be obstruction?

    Probably not. If his only purpose was to get Flynn off the hook, then no.

    If he intended to thwart the process of justice in some other case by pardoning Flynn, then I think it could be.

    Suppose Flynn were negotiating an immunity deal to testify in some case that Trump didn’t want prosecuted, and Trump pardoned him with the express intention of preventing the immunity deal and resulting testimony. That seems like obstruction in practice.

    Let’s take a very extreme, but still similar, example.

    Just as the Constitution grants Trump the power to pardon, it also makes him Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Suppose Trump, in his capacity as Commander in Chief, determines that there may be an Islamic terrorist hiding in Bob Mueller’s home preparing to detonate a WMD, and orders a drone strike that tragically kills Mueller. It turns out there was no Islamic terrorist or WMD there, either, thank God!

    The president, as Commander in Chief, does not need to justify his orders to anyone. All he did was exercise one of his constitutionally granted powers. Is Trump in the clear for Mueller’s death?

    Dave (445e97)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1287 secs.