The Russia Investigations and other Trump-related cases

[RoseMorninStar]

Sara Sanders released a doctored video on her official WH twitter page of the Jim Acosta video. The outright lies & propaganda, it's distressing and downright frightening.

If Trump's firing of Sessions & hiring of Whittaker don't stink to high heaven of corruption I don't know what will wake people up. This was supposed to be a 'red line he shouldn't cross'.

[Frelga]

To be fair to the people, there were massive protests across the country demanding that the Congress protects the investigation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal (that liberal bastion of fake news!) reports Trump played key role in coordinating hush money payments to Daniels, McDougal

[yovargas]

I mean....duh?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It may be "duh!" that it is true, but it is not "duh!" that prosecutors have evidence that it is true. That is potentially a big deal.

[Primula Baggins]

A very big deal. Which (IMO) is why Trump is scrambling so hard right now. Some matters are closing in (he may not be able to fire Mueller before the report is published; Jerrold Nadler will head the House judiciary Committee next term; Elijah Cummings will head up Oversight and Government Reform). Some of the power with which he has planned to defend himself is slipping away.

I hope he can retain some self-control, or that others are ready to intervene instantly if he doesn't.

[River]

I mean....duh?

It's sort of like a medical test. You've had some symptoms, you know something's up...but now there's a lab slip with abnormal findings in your hand and the doctor's got a diagnosis and oh $%#$, game is on.

[yovargas]

Seriously though, didn't we already have a bunch of evidence that he knew and was involved?

[Dave_LF]

Nailing him over the Daniels payment would be a little like getting Capone for tax evasion.

[Túrin Turambar]

In the 538 LiveChat someone (Micah Cohen, from memory) made the point that a lot of Democrats seem determined to find some magic bullet to take down Trump, and this probably isn't a particularly good strategy. I agree with this. After every U.S. Presidential election I've followed (starting in 2004) there seems to be some section of the losing party for whom simply opposing the President and working towards a mid-term victory is not enough; they want to prove that his election was invalid in the first place. This never seems to work, and as far as I know, hasn't actually worked since 1973. If Trump is defeated in 2020, it will be through a conventional campaign.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Seriously though, didn't we already have a bunch of evidence that he knew and was involved?

No, the only thing that was publicly known was Michael Cohen's vague statement in his guilty plea that his actions were made "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office." This Wall Street Journal report suggests that investigators have much more specific evidence implicating Mr. Trump than just Mr. Cohen's word.

In the 538 LiveChat someone (Micah Cohen, from memory) made the point that a lot of Democrats seem determined to find some magic bullet to take down Trump, and this probably isn't a particularly good strategy. I agree with this. After every U.S. Presidential election I've followed (starting in 2004) there seems to be some section of the losing party for whom simply opposing the President and working towards a mid-term victory is not enough; they want to prove that his election was invalid in the first place. This never seems to work, and as far as I know, hasn't actually worked since 1973. If Trump is defeated in 2020, it will be through a conventional campaign.

The key phrase in there is "hasn't actually worked since 1973." In my opinion, the only U.S. President remotely analogous to Mr. Trump in recent U.S. history is Mr. Nixon. However, as John Dean, Nixon's White House counsel who was a key figure in bringing Nixon down, recently said "History will treat Nixon’s moral failures as relatively less troubling than Trump’s sustained and growing decadence, deviousness and self-delusive behavior. Nixon=corrupt; Trump=evil."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

‘New indictments coming as soon as today’ in Mueller probe: CBS News


I'll believe it when I see it. Any new indictments would need to be approved by the Acting Attorney General.

[Frelga]

What do you think about the Maryland lawsuit?

NPR

Maryland is arguing that Matthew Whitaker's appointment as acting attorney general violates the Constitution, which requires that principal officers of the United States be appointed "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." https://t.co/c02p9VRJ9J

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I had seen that they had filed a suit seeking an immediate injunction but I hadn't seen the details until reading your NPR link. Very interesting tact, and different than what I was expecting to see. I know other jurisdictions have threatened to sue over his oversight of the Mueller probe, but I don't think any other suits have actually been filed as of yet. Even if Maryland isn't specifically addressing that question, the same arguments would apply. I happen to think the argument is a good one, but I am doubtful that it will succeed.

[RoseMorninStar]

I had read this (and I hope it's true):

Michael Hussein Tallon

November 11 at 5:56 PM

The piece is mostly rehash of the news over the past week, but Schindler has been pretty solid throughout and if he's claiming IC insider info, he's got a good track record. Presuming he's right, I suspect the sealed indictments will come out at the same time Mueller delivers his report to Whitaker. Here's the logic.

1. If the indictments are sealed and ready to go, they are - if I understand this correctly - essentially pre-approved by Rosenstein, as such, no Whitaker clearance necessary. I don't think he can stop them.

2. If the indictments are unsealed (and people are arrested), it will then be untenable for Whitaker to close-hold the report, which is clearly an intention of his appointment. But if the news is a huge front-page splash of arrests, Congress - even a Republican-held one - will be compelled to hold hearings if Whitaker refuses to release the Mueller report.

3. If it all comes down in a "settle all family business" way, it will make it a particularly sticky wicket for the President to issue either selective or blanket pardons without incurring a heavy political penalty, particularly as he will also be fighting to put out fires on the Congressional front AND dealing with a dipshit, conman, criminal in Whitaker at Justice.

This was in reference to this piece by the Observer.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I saw that too, Rose. I really don't know what to believe. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true; it seems like the type of thing Mueller and his team would have done, knowing that it was likely that Trump would replace Sessions as soon as possible after the midterms. But we just don't know.

[RoseMorninStar]

I am wont to say in these dark days (only partially tongue-in-cheek), "You're our only hope Obi-won Mueller'. I think he knows what he's dealing with and that he's dealt with corruption before. I have hope that he's dotted every i and crossed every t and covered every base and angle. I confess that anything less would greatly disappoint me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No indictments yet. I am guessing that if there are any this week, it will be late Friday afternoon. That has been the special counsel's typical pattern in the past.

And of course it still not clear what role the new acting AG will have on whether indictments are allowed to go forward. If the indictments are for people like Corsi or even Stone, I doubt he will block them. If they are for people like Donald Trump, Jr. or Jared Kushner I doubt he will let them go through without attempting to block them.

[Primula Baggins]

Can he block them? (I mean, in a way that would stand up in a higher court?)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If there were sealed indictments that had already been approved by Rosenstein before Sessions was forced out, probably not. Otherwise, technically he has the authority to approve or reject any new indictments, and we may never even know that there were indictments that he rejected. If you will remember, previously indictments were announced not be Mueller or any of his team, but by Rosenstein himself.