Did the NYT writers (Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman) insert their own "who has a history of making false statements and contradicting himself" or was that part of how their source described Trump's lawyers' concern? It makes a big difference! The lawyers could be concerned simply because prosecutors looking to charge somebody for something might lure the interviewee into useful contradictions and misstatements or because someone like Trump, with little experience listening carefully to questions and framing legalistic answers, risks too much.
Refusing to sit for an interview opens the possibility that Mr. Mueller will subpoena the president to testify before a grand jury, setting up a court fight that would drastically escalate the investigation and could be decided by the Supreme Court.That sounds threatening — drastically escalate! — but I would love to see this issue wrestled into a sober, serious legal framework. I think a lot of people will be surprised at what they see, though most people — including most law-trained people — will obsess over the politics of the individual Justices. There will be a lot of talk of Nixon and his Watergate tapes, but Trump isn't withholding words already recorded. He's holding back what's in his mind. Even if Trump is in the end forced to submit to the interview, it's not the same as Nixon handing over the Watergate tapes. Nixon knew what was in the tapes and how it would hurt him. Trump would only need to begin to speak, and he could speak concisely and with circumspection (and the ability to resort to claims of executive privilege).
But John Dowd, the longtime Washington defense lawyer hired last summer to represent Mr. Trump in the investigation, wants to rebuff an interview request, as do Mr. Dowd’s deputy, Jay Sekulow, and many West Wing advisers, according to the four people.So "four people" are leaking about what Dowd and Sekulow supposedly think.
The lawyers and aides believe the special counsel might be unwilling to subpoena the president and set off a showdown with the White House that Mr. Mueller could lose in court.I'd love to see the showdown. Maybe if Mueller thinks he's likely to lose or doesn't want to expose his arguments about executive power to the scrutiny of the court, he'll simply accept Trump's refusal to do the interview. I can see why Dowd and Sekulow would predict that outcome. And I can see why they would want their opinion to leak to the NYT, though I'm pretty sure they didn't want to see that business about the "history of making false statements and contradicting himself."
One of the few voices arguing for cooperating with Mr. Mueller is Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer whom Mr. Trump also brought on to deal with Mr. Mueller’s investigation.... Since last summer, the White House has been in what Mr. Cobb has called “total cooperation mode.”...There could be a strategy here of exhibiting "total cooperation mode" until you have to draw the line. Mueller may decide not to go where that line would be drawn, and so Trump can continue to look like the cooperative guy with nothing to hide. We see friendly, open Trump until he turns around and fights. If you don't want fighting Trump, then you have to cooperate with him. In this case, whatever the lawyers are saying in private, we don't get to see the resistant, closed-off Trump unless and until Mueller demands that Trump speak to him. And the NYT is performing the work of reminding us that that Trump is ready to emerge: Don't provoke him!
Posts
187 comments:
Taking the Fifth has never looked so presidential.
@ARM He will assert Executive Privilege.
I'm not sure why Trump would talk to a compromised thug like Mueller.
ARM’s arguments are a lot stronger when he is allowed to put words in people’s mouth.
Which everyone will perceive as taking the fifth.
The Watergate Tapes case said that the President has executive privilege. It's just not an absolute privilege. There's a weighing process, and I think the balance here strongly favors the President. I'd like to see the dispute in court if only to get across to the people what the law is here. The fact that ARM referred to "taking the Fifth" shows that executive privilege is not understood (or even remembered!).
As you suggest, there should be some face-saving solution for both sides.
"Maybe if Mueller thinks he's likely to lose or doesn't want to expose his arguments about executive power to the scrutiny of the court, he'll simply accept Trump's refusal to do the interview"
Maybe. Maybe he'll even quit, admitting that he his whole operation is illegal, since his appointment violates the special counsel statute and does not address and actual crime. Maybe!
Then again, maybe the SC witch hunt is a Deep State operation to protect the FBI and Get Trump, legalities be damned.
You shouldn't need a lawyer, if you are innocent, but it doesn't seem that you can really trust law enforcement agencies, at any level, when it comes to answering questions. Too many instances of the authorities twisting things to get a conviction/"admission" of something.
Executive Privilege like when Obama refused to turn over information about the Tax forms that Lois Lerner, who actually did take the fifth, sent to the White House. But it was all hunky dory then because “reasons.” All “reasonable” men know about the “reasons” rule of logic, first proposed by Aristotle and one of the founding principles of the western tradition.
"Which everyone will perceive as taking the fifth."
To "take the 5th" requires you to assert that what you would say would tend to incriminate you. To assert executive privilege is to protect the President's function speaking in confidence with his advisers.
If "everyone" really confuses these 2 things, then I hope there's a big conspicuous court case to make the difference obvious. We talk talk talk about this controversy, without understanding the most basic things!
The lawyers could be concerned simply because prosecutors looking to charge somebody for something might lure the interviewee into useful contradictions and misstatements or because someone like Trump, with little experience listening carefully to questions and framing legalistic answers, risks too much.
Perhaps his lawyers simply see no need for him to testify, yet the editors of the NYT know their last hope for Mueller to bring any charges is for perjury or false statements - the process crimes which are the consolation prizes of these investigations.
Perhaps it's already been leaked to them that Mueller has nothing and they're trying to bait Trump into testifying by appearing to his ego - he can't testify because he's untruthful and a braggart - so he'll show them by sitting down under oath to Mueller has a shot at him.
Perhaps Trump's lawyers, by playing "will he or won't he", are trying to get Mueller's team to disclose whatever they think they have so they can negotiate the terms of any questioning under the guise of Trump not having to exert executive privilege in the middle of the deposition.
There are so many possibilities here that "Trump will say anything" can hardly be the real story. And I say that because "Trump will say anything" has ceased to be a story in any other context.
I think that the only part of ARM’s dispassionate intellect that actually works properly is the part that assesses partisan advantage fo taking a position in each new situation, unhindered by his same positions in the past.
For the record, I don't think Trump should testify. His primary mode of interacting with the world is lying, which is not an optimal strategy in that setting. It is difficult to break habits of a life time under pressure and I don't want to see Trump impeached. I think that would be bad for the country.
"You shouldn't need a lawyer, if you are innocent..."
You have to be "innocent" in the sense of dangerously naive to believe that.
A lot of people talk to the police thinking it will do them good, manifesting innocence, if they speak without legal advice, but you might feel innocent and not know enough about what the crimes are or what will be evidence of a crime.
To "take the 5th" requires you to assert that what you would say would tend to incriminate you. To assert executive privilege is to protect the President's function speaking in confidence with his advisers.
What he means Ann is that the media will repeat that Trump "took the 5th" ad nauseam such that any normal citizen will believe it's true.
Yes, you will write a post clearly outlining the differences and Alan Dershowitz will go on CNN once to explain they're putting out false information, but ARM and his cohorts will sit there day after day typing "Trump took the fifth" into comment section after comment section even though they'll know it's not true.
Because that's what their pathetic little lives will depend on at that point.
It’s interesting that Dowd is on the legal team. His approach when dealing with the government, no matter what the request from the government may be, is to respond with some version of “go fuck yourselves.” He usually believes his best shot is at trial. Has Trump decided to fight, or does he just want to make sure he’s getting advice from both fighters and cooperators?
Never talk to a representative of the Govt. Ever. That's my advice. The Government does not have your best interests at heart>. Ever.
Ann Althouse said...
If "everyone" really confuses these 2 things, then I hope there's a big conspicuous court case to make the difference obvious. We talk talk talk about this controversy, without understanding the most basic things!
I and most others understand the legal difference quite clearly. It is the practical difference that is less clear. I don't think Trump should testify because he is a walking talking self-incrimination machine.
Look what happened with the Nunes memo. Was there a thoughtful discussion of the facts it contained? Or was there immediate spin to misstate the facts and what people said about them?
The thoughtful response from the left would not have been to try to pick apart its sentence structure, but to say this may look bad but let's wait until the Democratic response clears proper channels before we jump to conclusions.
That we didn't get that tells you the mental state of half the country.
Re: My comment at 7:49: Do I sound paranoid?
What is this "Russia" of whom you speak?
So what if Trump just took the fifth and said nothing? Then what?
I and most others understand the legal difference quite clearly. It is the practical difference that is less clear.
Politics first! Truth if convenient.
"I and most others understand the legal difference quite clearly."
You made that quite clear with your first comment! Lulz
Ann Althouse said...
The Watergate Tapes case said that the President has executive privilege.
That could certainly cover things since he was President. Would that cover his conversations while President-elect? I would guess so. What about while only a candidate?
o “take the 5th" requires you to assert that what you would say would tend to incriminate you.
You would think so, wouldn’t you. Let’s look at what Lois Lerner said during the IRS scandal:
I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.
She then asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege “not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing.” - The Daily Mail
But that was all right wing fever dreams, even if it happened before Congress on cameras, so Inga’s Razor applies here and this fact can be dismissed.
Ty Cobb. Wow - I thought he was dead. Heck of a player! I have a book about him.
Turns out he wasn't really a racist, so I don't know why he's working for Trump.
I don't think Trump should talk to Mueller. because Mueller would take him literally, but not seriously.
MadisonMan said...
Re: My comment at 7:49: Do I sound paranoid?
Yes, but that's not the correct question. The correct question is, do you sound paranoid enough? The answer to that is probably no.
The Media teams are all ( except for many on Fox News) desperate to bring down Trump. But the movement of events today is watching the Media self destructs as it fails again in a syncronized blather pretending the latest mass BS phrased in Watergate comparisons that they have been instructed to try out against him.
The Media has gone from Fake News to Completely Pretended News.
And Trump's team is going along, playing for time to complete Trump's real war which is with the international support system of corrupted Trillionaires and our rogue CIA that have long targeted the USA through its corrupt politicians.
To your point: Trump will have Mueller, McCabe and Rosenstein indicted for actual Obstruction of Justice and massive RICO crimes long before Mueller figures out that Obstruction of a Witchhunt is never a criminal.
I think Trump should agree to an interview, but only under certain conditions. First, the topic of the interview should be strictly limited to Trump's campaign's interactions with the Russian government. No other topics are permitted to be raised. (Other topics are beyond the proper scope of Muller's inquiry.)
Second, Muller's team needs to lay out in advance whether or not Trump is or is not suspected of committing any crimes. The scope of Muller's inquiry was counter intelligence -- a non-criminal matter -- AND any crimes discovered while conducting the counter intelligence investigation. That is, Muller was to look into the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election and discover if any crimes were committed as part of that interference. I've had the 'privilege' of being interviewed by the FBI as a witness. Before my attorney would let me talk with them, it was clarified that I was a fact witness and NOT a target of their investigation (although that could have changed). Trump should be accorded the same courtesy that most others are.
Third, it needs to be agreed that nothing said in the interview will be used against Trump. That is, process crimes are off the table. If Trump, during the campaign, committed a crime, prosecute him. Do not use this interview to create a crime. Trump's answers to questions may not jive with the answers to given by others. That's not unusual nor is it proof that Trump (or the others) are lying. But, a skillful attorney can make the disparate answers appear to be perjury rather than different recollections or different points of view. The ground rules to any interview should take such a possibility off the table.
Fourth, if Muller's team wants to discuss obstruction of justice relating to the firing of Comey, they should say so (see my first and second points). If necessary, Trump's attorneys should go to court to curtail Muller's investigation back to its proper scope. Comey's firing has nothing to do with Russia's involvement in our election or the Trump campaign's collision with said government -- the proper subjects of Muller's investigation.
Maggie Halberman’s only product is fake news.
I wonder why anyone talks to federal investigators. Ever. You just get thrown in jail for lying to investigators about something that has nothing to do with the investigation. Even if you tried to tell the truth. Isn't this counter-productive for the feds in the long run?
"Comey's firing has nothing to do with Russia's involvement in our election or the Trump campaign's collision with said government -- the proper subjects of Muller's investigation." Since a special counsel is supposed to investigate a crime, and "collusion" is not a crime, the with hunt has never been focused on "proper subjects."
OK, Trump says no to interview. They subpoena him. He says no. The SCOTUS says yes. He does interview, says nothing. What are they going to do? Arrest the President? Who's going to do that?
Say they do arrest him. He's still the President. If he hasn't been impeached and convicted, he's still commander in chief. He could theoretically order any law enforcement to release him. If they don't, um, who do they work for, again? Isn't that a coup?
People who dream of judicial removal of the President are in la-la land. The only two constitutional ways to get rid of Trump is impeachment or, HORRORS, the 2020 election. The people have spoken.
Look at the difference between how Trump is being treated and how Hillary was treated.
Cheryl Mills, the same Cheryl Mills who cleaned out Vince Foster’s office before investigators got there, was given immunity along with several other people who could have been considered co-conspirators. Evidence was destroyed as part of the deal, transcripts were not taken. As the FBI texts showed, great care was taken to ensure that the proper agents were selected to get to the correct “outcome” and the persons responsible for selecting these agents talked about being careful to not piss off Hillary on government phones. Anyway, it goes on and on...
I just can’t believe that people who call themselves “liberals” are so copasetic with the idea of a completely different set of rules and even laws depending on political party.
It's all politics and positioning until an actual meeting or interview is held. Mueller is setting up Trump for charges of being uncooperative, Trump is talking about submitting to the interview to show he is happy to cooperate. As you say Ann, they can play this game, and see where it leads the politics, until a formal request is made for an interview.
Questions: would the interview be under oath? If so, could Trump cite executive privilege and/or the 5th to not answer questions?
-sw
A president needs to be impeached before subjected to criminal proceedings.
The existence of Mueller's investigation is the thing preventing Trump from conducting his own investigation into the spying and other election meddling and who knows what else that was done by the FBI/DOJ. If Trump tried to clean house they'd call it further obstruction of justice. At this point we're relying on Congress, but they are slow and relatively ineffective.
What would happen to the investigation if the court decided Trump has executive privilege?
Would Mueller have to wrap it up? Would Trump's hands be untied? They can't let that happen.
It seems to me that Mueller has kept his head down and remained silent during this investigation. All the noise appears to be coming from others. It would be wonderful if all the progressive's machinations are brought to light and they are properly hoisted by their own petard. I can dream. As for the issue at hand, it sounds like they are negotiating the terms of his interview, in private and in the press. They are making a deal but the deal can be "no deal."
What a partisan joke and with hunt this Mueller investigation has become. Mueller is a drama queen and part of the Deep State. He has no evidence of Russian collusion and should admit that in writing and close down his shop.
Then we need a special counsel, selected from outside the Imperial City, who will investigate the Obama admin and the DOJ/FBI.
@Sebastian - "Since a special counsel is supposed to investigate a crime, and 'collusion' is not a crime, the with hunt has never been focused on 'proper subjects.'"
I'm aware of that, and I agree. The regulations covering the use of a special counsel do not appear to allow their use for counter intelligence matters. At best, it is silent on the subject. It appears that the DOJ decided that silence is the same as permission in this case, but that is all the more reason why Muller's team needs to be kept on a very short leash to ONLY look at matters related to the counter intelligence case and crimes arising from it.
Something is not right.
Ken Starr punctiliously reported every step of his investigation(s) to Janet Reno at the DoJ, who then presumably passed the information right along to the Clinton White House, the DoJ being an executive department.
Is an "independent counsel" really all that independent?
Would not the President have to volunteer to testify before such counsel?
Does not the Constitution say that impeachment is Congress' business?
The "I do not recall" gambit seems to work for some people.
Here’s All 40 Times Hillary Clinton Told the FBI She Couldn’t Remember Something
https://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/heres-all-40-times-hillary-clinton-told-the-fbi-she-couldnt-remember-something/
Why isn't anyone talking more about the fact that Carter Page was an FBI plant? If he was working for the FBI, then he was most definitely NOT a Russian spy, and it proves that the entire basis for the Title I FISA warrant was fraudulent. End of story. This should be front-page news and cause an immediate end to Mueller's investigation!!!
Russia Inquiry
L. Fucking O. L.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a13135811/russian-facebook-ads-2016/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/russian-ads-facebook-targeting/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/facebook-russia-ads-posts-hillary-clinton-most-bizarre-posts-election-2016-a8032436.html
"Like if you want Jesus to win!"
While the investiture of the presidency is Trump’s nobody can touch him, save by impeachment and senate trial.
Trump should not agree to a spoken interview. The "interview" should be written questions with written answers.
Unknown said...
Questions: would the interview be under oath? If so, could Trump cite executive privilege and/or the 5th to not answer questions?
Not generally. But that doesn't change the fact that lying would be illegal.
Either way, Trump could cite the 5th, unless granted immunity ( which could happen iff someone other than Trump were the real target. )
Either way, Trump could claim executive privilege, the limits of which might require a court decision, particularly if he tries to claim executive privilege regarding things that happened before he was sworn in.
Here's a question for the good professor.
Donald Trump, as chief executive of the US, is the highest law enforcement officer in the US, essentially the highest official of the DOJ. Lying to a law enforcement officer is a crime.
What if Donald Trump insists that Robert Mueller testify to him, under oath? Like Michael Flynn's interview with Strzok; surprise him when he walks in the door.
That could prove amusing. Set up a perjury trap on the trapper.
Has Mueller asked to interview Trump?
If so, he needs to specify the reason (i.e. the alleged crime) and the material he has to cover. One cannot sit a POTUS down for an open ended interview and claim he lied because a statement was inconsistent with others' (see Scooter Libby) or taped conversations (see Mike Flynn).
Mueller's task is to investigate the non-crime of collusion with Russia (whatever that means). It is not to protect the Dems and the FBI by finding a process crime.
If I were Trump's lawyer, I would not let him sit down for an interview. Trump has been an unexpectedly good POTUS, but he runs off at the mouth and puts himself at jeopardy for lying.
Of course, Trump is the only POTUS who has ever lied. Doncha know?
Why isn't anyone talking more about the fact that Carter Page was an FBI plant?
Because he most likely wasn't an FBI plant. He was just someone associated with the Trump campaign that could be plausibly claimed was someone worth monitoring under FISA. Carter had been a fact witness for the FBI in 2013. (The Democrats are shouting that he was been under surveillance in 2013. No, he wasn't. He came into contact with a Russian who was. Carter cooperated with the FBI in the FBI's investigation of the Russian.) His frequent trips to Russia and business contacts their made it easier to paper up a warrant application that allowed the FBI access to Carter's future phone calls and to collect his future and PAST emails. In addition, this gave them cover for looking into Carter's 'known associates' -- anyone else on the Trump campaign, even though Carter was no longer with the campaign.
So, he wasn't a plant. He was just used by the FBI.
"Why isn't anyone talking more about the fact that Carter Page was an FBI plant?"
Is that a fact? I've seen speculation, but not proof. Maybe I missed it.
There is no way Mueller won’t subpoena Trump. Dowd and Sekulow are trying to convince Trump’s base that Trump can get away without testifying.
Joshua Barker said...
Why isn't anyone talking more about the fact that Carter Page was an FBI plant?
I'm not sure it is true that nobody is talking about it. As far as him being a plant, I see several possibilities:
1) He never worked for the FBI. The undercover employee was someone else. While I don't think this is likely, I don't think is role as an UCE has been confirmed or proven.
2) He was a foreign agent, who the FBI pressured to flip for that case, but who went back to being a foreign agent. Unlikely, because he would have known the FBI would be keeping tabs on him.
3) He was a foreign agent, but he acted like a UCE and fooled, or thought he fooled the FBI, so after the UCE gig he continued as a foreign agent, and the FBI figured that out. Not likely, he would have to assume that the FBI continued to keep tabs on former UCEs.
4) He was not a foreign agent at the time he was a UCE, but was recruited later. Again, not likely.
5) He worked as a UCE, then, on his own, worked for the Trump team. He was not a plant, not a foreign agent, and was only an excuse for the FBI.
6) He was a plant.
I assume that as more information comes out, we will be able to narrow down the list. ( Or add more options. )
Dilbert: "If I'm ever accused of obstructing justice, I want to be accused of obstructing a witch hunt."
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get ya.
“As you suggest, there should be some face-saving solution for both sides.”
Pretty sure Trump declining to be interviewed is that solution. Mueller shrugs, says he’s got nothing without a Trump interview, and folds his tent.
Mueller could say Trump is as pure as driven snow and the Golden Shower Left will still spend the rest of Trump’s presidency raving and spinning conspiracy theories. Paradoxically, the hysteria of the Left has stripped their witch-hunt of any power or significance.
Ever notice how ARM can be so unreasonable so often?
Is it just me, or have been seeing a vast expansion of this kind of speculative journalism. "If Trump does this, it will be trouble." "No proof has been found ... yet."
Let's apply this kind of reporting to stories about NYT reporters: Headline: Concern raised about Maggie Haberman's news sourcing. Sentences from such an imaginery story: "Should an investigation show that Haberman actually made up news sources, or statements, it is unlikely that she would suffer any repercussions, say those with knowledge of the NYTimes decision making process." "To date, no published information definitively proves that Haberman made up sources or attributed statements; however that investigation continues." "Haberman's critics call for more serious consequences. A media critic, who spoke on the conditions of anonymity for fear of being made fun of, says, 'Haberman is a clown, and should never have been given such a position at the Times. These Haberman stories illustrate the degree to which Times editorial process has deteriorated in recent years.'"
come on people - Trump should offer to do the interview via twitter - Trump is ninja master with that weapon.
the world can follow along - no secrecy.
I, too, think Trump should not testify and should force Mueller to subpoena him and fight the subpoena through the Supreme Court. Forcing Mueller to put some cards on the table will help educate everyone to what a witch hunt this is. I also agree that calling Mueller's bluff would force him to fold. If he can't find evidence of "collusion" without Trump's testimony then there is no evidence. If Mueller wants Trump to testify it is only for the purpose of instigating a process crime. As far as morphing into an "obstruction" investigation: Mueller has the various memos regarding Comey's firing and he can read the Constitution regarding executive powers, I don't think he'd have a prayer at SCOTUS.
As I write this I am more firmly convinced that Trump's best strategy is to tell Mueller to go fuck himself and force him to go public with any "charges" he may have.
My suggestion, if the Mueller team press openly for n interview with Trump, is just to release all the documents in the FISC warrant case. After all, such an interview would contradict the whole concept of confidential communications with the president.
That would set the cat amongst the pigeons.
Mueller does not have subpoena power over Trump. Think "Executive Privilege."
If prosecutors or special counsels had that power of subpoena, every POTUS would be subpoenaed for speculative crimes and misdemeanors when the opposition party controlled the Congress or when the mob demanded that there was something wrong because their candidate lost.
Inga would like to have a soft coup, but that fantasy will have to be shelved with all of her other fantasies.
Rasmussen has Trump at 49% approval today. 5 point jump from last week. If I were a Dem I would not want to give Trump another platform from which to demonstrate what a shithole DC is. Rasmussen ( and everyone else) has a healthy majority of American voters favoring Trump's immigration plan. Should Schumer go for another shutdown? If he does Trump's approval will break 50%.
ARM as usual gives little credit to the American people that they can't understand the difference between refusing to talk to the scum at the FBI and pleading the 5th when talking to the FBI, or Congress or anybody else.
A Timeline Of The FBI And DOJ's Involvement In Hillary's Emails And The Trump Dossier
What about the 3000 lawsuits we heard so much about citizen trump being involved in?
What was the win loss ratio? If it had not been reasonably good I am sure we would have heard a lot about it.
I would guess he's testified in a few. I suspect he knows how to do it effectively.
I would trust him to testify but, as someone else noted, never talk to the government.
I think he should decline.
John Henry
If the Tweeter in Chief talks he might commit treason by his definition and we can't have that--
"Which everyone will perceive as taking the fifth."
-- Not everyone is that stupid. When Obama used Executive Privilege, did you perceive him as taking the fifth?
You know who took the 5th 125 times?
Hillary's private IT guy.
So "four people" are leaking about what Dowd and Sekulow supposedly think.
Four has been a fairly consistent number for NYT leaks. Is that because:
(1) Three doesn't seem adequate on a serious leak?
(2) Five seems like a mob that someone should be able to ID?
(3) They've used the fake number four previously and didn't get caught?
(4) Larry, Darrell, Darrell and Bob were available?
ARM. INGA
Breaking. News.
Stock market declares Trump innocent of all perceived crimes. Stock market signals Mueller is finished. Breaking news.
I have to remark (the threshold is so high!) that it was refreshing to see ARM write in his own voice that he is 90% of the time trolling us here with stuff he knows is bullshit. Not that we didn’t all infer that sometime ago, it’s nice to see him own it.
"You shouldn't need a lawyer, if you are innocent,"
-- This is wrong. Let's say a cop has testimony from an old college buddy who swears they saw your car at the park the crime happened in, and you say you weren't there.
A lawyer would have stopped you from saying that -- now the cop has testimony to impeach your credibility. The innocent man needs the lawyer as much, if not more, than the guilty.
did you perceive him[Obama] as taking the fifth?
In ARM’s defense, I did, and so did you, so did ARM. ARM will never confess to that though, it would be 'unhelpful to the narrative.'
Althouse, I understand your concern about how the Times' reporters and editors put out that sentence as to Trump's untruthfulness and self-contradiction. I think your criticism is fair.
But substantively, do you not agree that Trump has a remarkable history for telling untruths, fabrications, exaggerations, and self-contradictions?
Even this very topic involves a Trump falsehood and/or self-contradiction: Trump's statement that he was willing to testify, under oath:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says-he-would-like-to-testify-in-mueller-probe-1516839151
It's all always been just a maneuver in a propaganda war.
This is yet another maneuver to generate material for the MSM Wurlitzer.
Trump just might be the bastard that takes this charade of “executive privilege,” used by Obama so much in all of his “non-scandals,” all the way to the Supreme Court! It has always been handled in the past as a “let’s not go there” issue because the consequences for losing would be far too high for both sides.
But I think he could simply refuse to testify, since he only suffers this stupid infestigation (though he has had some fumigation success) and persecution for political reasons, not legal.
We can start the analysis acknowledging the reality that the ultimate purpose of the interview would be to lay the groundwork for impeachment if and when (and if) the Democrats retake the House this November, and that the FBI agents and DoJ attys involved have been hand picked for just that purpose. I don’t think that it was strictly Mueller picking his people, but leftist Deep State operatives at the highest levels in these agencies determining initial staffing. Mueller may have, have had, veto power (which may, ultimately have been used to remove Peter Stryck from the investigation). Add in that the FBI does not apparently use modern technologies, such as video recording, to memorialize interviews, but rather, just written summaries of the agents involved. Which, given the intentional biases of those involved, means that anything they do to memorialize the interview is suspect (and why there are rumors that Gen. Flynn is reconsidering his guilty plea). So, that means that if there is an interview, Trump’s attys need to guarantee that it is recorded, and they have a copy of the recording (which, more and more, sounds like something anyone talking to the FBI should consider).
Beyond that, everything is political. Mueller can’t require that his boss’ boss’ boss testify under oath. Bottom line is that, legally, he works for Trump. And with the expiration of the Independent Counsel Law, Mueller doesn’t even have a fig leaf of independence. I don’t see getting to Executive Privilege, or invoking the 5th Amdt, if Trump and his attys don’t want to. They can just tell Mueller the rules, and all that Mueller can do is whine to the opposition (including the MSM). I don’t see him as having standing to go to court to get his boss’ boss’ boss to do what he wants, esp since he would, essentially, be utilizing Trump’s Article II Executive power to compel such. In the end, it is Trump’s power to delegate, and Mueller has none of his own that Trump hasn’t delegated to him.
So, the question is, I think, what is best politically for Trump. I think that that may be a limited interview, with attys present, limited to counterintelligence matters involving Russian interference with the election by Trump and his team. That it be strictly limited to Mueller’s mandate - no fishing expedition, no tax returns, etc. And no chance at process crimes. Maybe even set the day, time, place, and limitations, without consultation with the Mueller team, and expect them to show up. Give them maybe an hour, and that is it. After all, Mueller and his team serve at Trump’s convenience, and not the other way around. We shall see.
Make them submit written questions to which Trump and his team can submit written answers on their terms.
@DK: "the DOJ decided that silence is the same as permission in this case, but that is all the more reason why Muller's team needs to be kept on a very short leash to ONLY look at matters related to the counter intelligence case and crimes arising from it."
Don't mean to nitpick, since we mostly agree, but I'm not sure Rosenstein "decided" it that way. The whole point of the "investigation" was to unleash Mueller, so that the witch hunt can find the witches it needs. Certainly DoJ has done nothing to keep him on a short leash.
It’s like a pin in chess, this move by Mueller and the New York Times. We shall see if Trump can come up with a counter from dimension six. I am betting yes.
Like most normal people Trump does not speak as if he is giving testimony.
You could record my daily conversation (it would not be good dramatic material) and parse it into "perjury".
“Mueller does not have subpoena power over Trump. Think "Executive Privilege."”
No, I don’t think so. Mueller does have subpoena power. Trump’s Executive Privilege only goes so far. Think, Bill Clinton.
By an odd coincidence, this year is the 20th anniversary of Bill Clinton’s testimony before a grand jury after Kenneth Starr subpoenaed him. I suppose my memory might be foggy, but I’m pretty sure Republicans back then insisted unanimously that Starr did indeed have the standing to subpoena Clinton. Right?
Since the Democrats have squandered an 18 point lead in the generic ballot to take the house with their sky screaming, and are now effectively behind the Republicans, impeachment is a non starter.
Inga scores one. See, that’s what it feels like to have facts on your side! But one difference was the existence of an actual crime.
This "history of making false statements and contradicting himself" is an interesting phrase.
I think I will use it each time I refer to Obama, who has a history of making false statements and contradicting himself.
And the NYT, which has a history of making false statements and contradicting itself.
And Maggie Haberman, who has a history of making false statements and contradicting herself.
If Trump refuses the subpoena, it will ultimately go to the Supreme Court to decide if he has to testify or not, no?
The NYTimes is "making" this story because it fits the narrative they want to publish (that Trump and his team are nervous and its only a matter of time before heads start rolling).
Who are the sources? Not the actual lawyers. Not Trump. Not anyone named as a source. Just anonymous, unnamed sources (but if its FOUR unnamed sources, then I guess it must be true, huh?).
I call BS.
“But one difference was the existence of an actual crime.”
We don’t know what the crime is, we don’t know what the investigation of the Trump campaign was based on. It’s only speculation that there was no crime. How could you possibly know this?
@MadMan, I lived in and around Washington, DC for nearly fifty years. Your comment at 7:49 is not nearly paranoid enough.
If Trump is subponeaed, open the flood gates. Subpoena Schiff about the leaks in the investigation. Subpoena EVERYONE.
Seriously, subpoenaing Trump is a declaration of open political lawfare. If that's the game, both sides need to play.
Clinton testified because he thought he was much much smarter than his interlocutors. Which gave us the famous question of what the meaning of is is. Smugly.
Trump not so smooth but perhaps smart enough to play this to his advantage to the very end.
I want Trump to force Mueller to file formal charges before Trump testifies in writing.
"Show the American people and me what you got, Mr. Mueller."
like you I think the USA is better off if the current regime forces this issue throough the courts and up to the SCOTUS.
"I think that that may be a limited interview, with attys present, limited to counterintelligence matters involving Russian interference with the election by Trump and his team."
-- Sitting down and not answering a question will be spun as obstruction. Talking to Mueller at all is a losing gambit.
“Seriously, subpoenaing Trump is a declaration of open political lawfare. If that's the game, both sides need to play.”
Clinton was subpoenaed and appeared in front of a grand jury, no President is above the law.
Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman were some of those intrepid lefty reporters who were convinced, and helped convinced their readers, that Hillary and the DNC had nothing at all to do with the hoax dossier.
And they peddled that lie for over a year.
So we should totally believe everything they write about the inner workings of Trumps legal team.
I mean, I'm sure Haberman and Schmidt have, like, totally zillions of insider republican contacts......
Inga: "Clinton was subpoenaed and appeared in front of a grand jury,..."
About an actual underlying crime.
Fake news.
Watergate was nearly 50 years ago. Memories fade and imaginations flower. Compared to this scandal, Nixon was guilty of malicious mischief.
Otherwise, I'm with DKWalser on this topic.
Like I wrote a couple of weeks ago- Trump was trolling Mueller and people like Inga with that comment about talking to Mueller. Trump will never sit for an interview, and Mueller will, at best, get to submit written questions with maybe one round of followup written questions, and he might not even get that. And, I also wrote that if the goal of the interview is to get actual information, then you can't beat written questions and answers for getting accurate information- a face to face interview only has an advantage if the goal to get a process crime.
Also, Mueller will almost certainly not try to subpoena Trump.
"Clinton was subpoenaed and appeared in front of a grand jury, no President is above the law."
-- Yeah. See, but we were actually investigating real crimes there. Missing documents, etc, etc.
Point to an actual crime Trump can be charged with.
Haberman ALWAYS inserts her personal views into her "reporting."
You need a decoder ring to grapple with the NYT these days.
I think we need the input of a constitutional lawyer/scholar.
Anyone?
If Page isn't been charged with something, how can they feasibly have something on Trump? "The guy we thought was a spy? He wasn't! Just so happens the guy we all hate? He WAS REALLY A SPY! What a coinky-dink!"
You gotta love this from Inga:
"We don’t know what the crime is, we don’t know what the investigation of the Trump campaign was based on. It’s only speculation that there was no crime. How could you possibly know this?"
Inga wrote this despite having assured us for over a year that Trump is dead man walking. I just love the idiocy of it all.
Remember the heady days Schiff was promising us hard evidence of collusion, "more than circumstantial" was the claim.
Good times.
Inga said...
Clinton was subpoenaed and appeared in front of a grand jury, no President is above the law.
Inga doing some solid work here schooling the lawyers.
Here's the problem: Obama? He *was* above the law. We know he ordered illegal wiretaps of journalists and Congress. We know he illegally fired an IG. We know he used Clinton's illegal server to conduct government business.
And nothing happened to him. So, I find it hard to believe the left when suddenly "No president is above the law." Their last two presidents were Obama and a rapist. Clearly, some presidents ARE above the law for them.
Obama oversaw the IRS + Department of State's illegal destruction of subpoenaed evidence and held no one accountable. So, some politicians ARE above the law.
ARM: "Inga doing some solid work here schooling the lawyers"
LOL
And with that, you're basically done.
Mark O: "Compared to this scandal, Nixon was guilty of malicious mischief."
Compared to this scandal, Nixon was guilty of ringing a strangers doorbell and running away laughing....while wearing shorts with black socks and wingtips.
Tim in Vermont said...
Inga scores one. See, that’s what it feels like to have facts on your side! But one difference was the existence of an actual crime."
No, she didn't score. Ken Starr was an Independent Counsel, Mueller is not.
Harping on what crime the investigation was based on is a bit silly. We won’t know this until we are told this, we won’t be told this until Mueller completes his investigation, no? Why do commenters here think they are privy to this knowlege at this point?
I appear to have company in suggesting that declassifying the whole mess is the solution to Trump testifying.
We need more than just memos released — we need the evidence behind them. Americans need to know what really happened, so that we can push past the partisan spin and see the truth. The FBI has weathered scandals before, and it is in the interest of the public trust for Americans to know what happened — and for those involved to apologize and prevent this from happening again.
Let it all hang out. The Russians and Chinese know all this thanks to Hillary.
“Ken Starr was an Independent Counsel, Mueller is not.”
Doesn’t matter. Mueller has subpoena powers, Rosenstein gave him those powers, no? Will Rosenstein take subpoena power away from Mueller? Very doubtful.
Any lawyer care to refute this?
The President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice," the court said in 1974.
Twenty-three years later, the Supreme Court ruled that President Bill Clinton was not immune from a lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, who accused him of sexual harassment.
It's settled law, the court said, "that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances."
"Harping on what crime the investigation was based on is a bit silly."
Preserved for posterity.
It's settled law, the court said, "that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances."
The operative phrase there is "in appropriate circumstances." Fishing expeditions over non-crimes in the hope of tricking someone into a process crime may not qualify as "appropriate circumstances" for a presidential subpoena.
The question is "appropriate circumstances." Note that Clinton was in a lawsuit. The rules were clear. Starr didn't just sit down to him to ask questions about whatevs. You have a right to know the charges/legal proceedings being brought against you.
Inga said...
Harping on what crime the investigation was based on is a bit silly. We won’t know this until we are told this, we won’t be told this until Mueller completes his investigation, no? Why do commenters here think they are privy to this knowlege at this point?"
Simply because there is there there. No actual crime. So unless there is evidence that the Russians were involved in rigging voting machines there is no crime. If the Russians were actually involved with exposing Hillary's email scandals or the DNC email scandals unless they faked the emails, there is no crime. So the whole thing is garbage from the jump. However the real criminals, the Democrats do need investigation and prosecution.
Fabi said...
"Harping on what crime the investigation was based on is a bit silly."
The Left: Keep on investigating until we find a crime!!!
“The operative phrase there is "in appropriate circumstances." Fishing expeditions over non-crimes in the hope of tricking someone into a process crime may not qualify as "appropriate circumstances" for a presidential subpoena.”
We don’t know that there was not a crime that this investigation was based on. Why are people so certain there was no underlying crime?
“Simply because there is there there. No actual crime.”
How do you know this?
"We don’t know that there was not a crime that this investigation was based on. Why are people so certain there was no underlying crime?"
-- Because no evidence has been presented of one. Remember how they had to produce evidence against Clinton before he'd answer questions (the lawsuit, testimony about putting ice on it, etc.?) They didn't just say: "Clinton may or may not be under investigation. NOW ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS."
Yes, exiled -- with that Inga unknowingly admitted this a witch hunt.
Also, Comey testified that Trump *wasn't under investigation.* What has changed since then?
"We don’t know that there was not a crime that this investigation was based on. Why are people so certain there was no underlying crime?"
Also preserved for posterity.
Honestly, let's say Trump WAS a Russian spy.
Isn't it good luck that they serendipitously caught him while spying on Carter Page?
Like, think of the luck.
"Well, we finally got something on Page. He went to Russia! That's what Steele says. So, let's finally get some surveillance going."
"Holy. Will you look at this? Trump's a Russian Spy!"
"What about Page?"
"Eh, nothing enough to press charges."
"But, you're sure on the Trump stuff?"
"Damn sure."
Not sure whose opinion I should trust, Alan Dershowitz's or Inga's, about the existence of an underlying crime.
Anyone who wants to read a first-person account of how federal prosecutors* can use laymen's sworn testimony to suggest perjurious statements which are then used to intimidate them, should read "Cardiac Arrest," by Howard Root.
He's written an appalling & enthralling account of his & his company's journey through the federal criminal justice system.
* no, they're not all like this, but how many are? Root had the legal training & corporate experience, the backing of his BOD, and most important, the money (~$25 million in all) to fight the charges against him & his company for FIVE years, but how many of us do?
The two "underlying crimes" I've seen posited are telling Russia to hack Clinton... which has problems (the hack had been done by the time Trump remarked if they had the emails, release them), and firing Comey (which is his right, even if it wasn't politically smart.)
So... unless there's something so well hidden no one's seen it, I don't know WHAT he can possibly be charged with.
Any lawyers care to refute this?
The conversation about emails is possibly a critical piece of evidence, legal analysts said. That is because one charge that investigators might try to substantiate against those higher in the Trump campaign is a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"We talk talk talk about this controversy, without understanding the most basic things!"
Evergreen, as the kids say on Twitter
#IngaKnew cut and pasted this: "The President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice," the court said in 1974."
What part of "for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice" do you not understand.
Too bad you can't cut and paste yourself a fucking brain. Sad.
"The conversation about emails is possibly a critical piece of evidence, legal analysts said. That is because one charge that investigators might try to substantiate against those higher in the Trump campaign is a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
-- Not a lawyer, but unless there exists more than anyone has seen or leaked, there is no way Trump suggesting someone release emails they'd already stolen before he mentioned can be a crime any more than me telling a bank robber: "Hey, do something good with the money you stole" is a crime.
James K said...
Not sure whose opinion I should trust, Alan Dershowitz's or Inga's, about the existence of an underlying crime.
Simple. Did Dershowitz's daughter get named Senior Sailor of the Year?
In addition, we now know several of those emails the FBI claimed they couldn't find or no longer existed that Trump joked about still existed, and the FBI had simply lied to us about. They found them later, without Russia's help. They also found even more on Wiener's laptop. If the FBI isn't going to put Abedin in jail for this, or fire the FBI people who claimed the information was gone and lost forever before it was found under duress, you really can't do anything to Trump for mocking people for thinking RUSSIA STOLE IT, when in reality... the FBI had most of it the whole time.
Also, if Trump can go to jail for this, then what should happen to Obama for joking about auditing his enemies, and then the IRS illegally doing so?
Like, again: I'm all for the president being bound by the law. But, by goodness, they better ALL be bound by the same rules.
I would like to hear from Jonathon Turley or Alan Dershowitz. They seem to be honest, well informed Democrats.
Inga has no clue, just fantasies. ARM is a phony and a liar. I see no point in even reading his posts. He's just a more urbane version of Ritmo - a colossal waste of time.
Is it even possible to know that "Russia stole the e-mails" given that the DNC didn't allow the server to be examined by the FBI?
I'd still like to know the crime Trump is being charge with.
“No, I don’t think so. Mueller does have subpoena power. Trump’s Executive Privilege only goes so far. Think, Bill Clinton.”
Big difference there - that was the Judicial Branch, and with Trump, it is the Executive Branch. Clinton’s testimony involved a civil suit brought against him personally (for actions that predated his Presidency) in a federal district court. The Judicial and Executive Branches are coequal. In Trump’s case, Mueller and his band of political thieves work for Trump, who is granted the entirety of Executive Power by the first clause of Article II of our Constitution, and Mueller, et al, have only so much power as he chooses to delegate to him. Legally, Mueller’s staff report to him, he reports to DAG Rosenstein, who reports to AG Sessions, who reports to Trump personally. If Trump says that Mueller doesn’t have subpoena power over him, he doesn’t have such, because subpoena power is one of those Article II Executive powers that a President can, and does, delegate to his Justice Dept.
"Inga said...
Any lawyers care to refute this?
The conversation about emails is possibly a critical piece of evidence, legal analysts said. That is because one charge that investigators might try to substantiate against those higher in the Trump campaign is a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
Refute "possibly" and "might try?" That's what's left? Yep, our resident dullard is schooling all the lawyers ARM!
"Is it even possible to know that "Russia stole the e-mails" given that the DNC didn't allow the server to be examined by the FBI?"
-- We can't know for sure, but I doubt Russia stole them any more than EVERY OTHER INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ON THE PLANET did when they left gaping security holes in their system. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if America stole the emails too at some point.
Page claims he never talked to Trump, which if true... means getting anything on Trump via the Page surveillance even murkier than before.
"legal analysts said. "
Who are these "legal analysts," I wonder.
I asked the mechanics changing the oil on my car if they thought Trump should talk to Mueller. "How the fuck should I know?" they said.
"Legal analysts expressed uncertainty..."
Also, here are some criminal actions Mueller's probe has uncovered (or has been part of the uncovering since he's within the Executive branch) he hasn't followed up on.
* Abedin's continual perjury.
* Podesta's Manafort-style campaign goofiness.
* The Clinton campaign's illegal use of campaign dollars to pay Steele/GPS Fusion.
* Several instances of perjury from Steele/Fusion GPS.
* Comey's stealing of government documents and admitting to leaking classified documents.
* Nadler's leaks.
* Schiff's leaks.
Yet... none of his broad range of investigative powers are looking at any of those crimes. Curious.
Matthew Sablan said...
Page claims he never talked to Trump, which if true... means getting anything on Trump via the Page surveillance even murkier than before.
That maybe material, but it's irrelevant. Page didn't need to talk directly to Trump to be of use to the FBI [dare I say, cabal?]: they had the warrant to surveil any and all of Page's contacts within and without the Trump campaign and organization, both backward and forward in time.
"exiledonmainstreet said...
"legal analysts said. "
Who are these "legal analysts," I wonder."
Asked no Inga ever.
When will Stzork and Page be brought up for conspiring to avoid the laws requiring retention of documentation and misuse of government property? Mueller's investigation uncovered that criminality too. I'm sure he's just a straight shooting lawman.
(eaglebeak)
1. Never ever ever talk to the Government--the only time you have to is when they put you in a grand jury or on the witness stand and immunize you (two experiences I have undergone).
2. Stay off the witness stand or its equivalent in your own trial or anything that resembles a trial (e.g., a chat with Mueller). I also had the experience of being on trial and deciding to take the stand--in my case it worked out well, but it is one of the most harrowing and risky things you can possibly do. You must ANSWER THE QUESTION, not answer what you think the question is, or what you think the prosecutor means, or what you think he should mean... Very limited responses.
That is extremely hard to do, and I think it would be very hard for Trump. Despite Inga and ARM, I think Trump is sometimes embarrassingly honest, but I think his chief problem as a witness would be in not restricting himself to the literal words of the question, and instead haring off after some point he wanted to make.
3. As to the emails (presumably we'e talking about the transition team emails)--it's my understanding that Trump does not use, and has not used, email. Doesn't send them and evidently doesn't read them.
That's a smart move, and suggests that as the CEO and sole owner of a big corporation often involved in lawsuits, Trump was nobody's fool.
"they had the warrant to surveil any and all of Page's contacts within and without the Trump campaign and organization, both backward and forward in time." Chances are, the "backward" part was the insurance policy: justifying surveillance they had already done, after the fact.
Mind you: If Manafort and Flynn and Papadopulus broke the law, I'm fine with them facing the music. But, as the investigation only seems to be interested in bringing charges against one political group while ignoring others, it looks more and more like a witch hunt and less and less like Sheriff Mueller being a straight shooting lawman.
Manu Raju
@mkraju
Nunes declines to comment after GOP Conference meeting. I asked him if the WH had any role in his memo. His response: "Democracy dies in darkness, my friend. Get to work."
No further comment"
That's great.
Exactly.
Thank you for that explanation, Bruce Hayden.
Inga said...
“Harping on what crime the investigation was based on is a bit silly. We won’t know this until we are told this, we won’t be told this until Mueller completes his investigation, no? Why do commenters here think they are privy to this knowlege at this point?“
Stalinists gotta be like Stalin.
I am going to enjoy your squealing while you watch Obama and all his minions go to jail for spying on political opponents.
Achilles, Obama will never go to jail, but I sure hope at least a few of his minions do.
I love "total cooperation mode." Nixon gave us the wonderful classification scheme: full hangout, partial hangout, stonewall. Maybe Trump has practised "full hangout" with Mueller until now, but is considering "stonewall" in the future. Whatever we have had, full or partial hangout, has worked extremely well for Trump, making most of his enemies look like fools. I agree with our host that it would be great to have a Supreme Court decision on executive privilege when, as far as we know, there is absolutely no evidence that Trump has committed any crime. There are at least two differences between Nixon and Trump: the extent of the bad deeds the president committed, and could be shown to have committed; and the competence and care with which the president's enemies built their case. Trump confronts a chorus of clowns. Maybe Mueller will prove to be different, and reveal some harsh truths about some of his best friends from his long years in government. Maybe.
Joshua Barker at 8:25 AM
Why isn't anyone talking more about the fact that Carter Page was an FBI plant?
I agree with the a former FBI agent named Mark Wauck, as he explained in his blog meaning in history, in an article titled "My Theory of the Carter Page FISA Fraud".
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-theory-of-carter-page-fisa-fraud.html
Former FBI agent Wauck thinks that DOJ/FBI, during the 2016 election race, was wire-tapping Donald Trump's campaign staff without a FISA warrant. Then on August 16, 2016, Andrew McCabe conducted a meeting of the conspirators, who discussed the possibility that Trump might win, become President and subsequently learn that his campaign staff had been wire-tapped by DOJ/FBI.
The DOJ/FBI conspirators needed an "insurance policy" for that possibility. The "insurance policy" was to obtain a FISA warrant to wire-tap Carter Page. Then, if DOJ/FBI ever had to explain itself to a President Trump, then DOJ/FBI would explain that all such wire-tapping was done on account of Page.
In the weeks after that meeting in McCabe's office, Fusion GPS concocted the necessary allegations that Page had become an agent of the Russian Intelligence service. Using the Fusion dossier, McCabe and his co-conspirators obtained a FISA warrant, Title I, to wire-tap Page.
Of course Page was not really an agent, and the DOJ/FBI conspirators knew that page was not an agent.
The FISA wire-tap on Page was the "insurance policy" that the DOJ/FBI conspirators ever had to explain the wire-tapping to a President Trump.
-----
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-theory-of-carter-page-fisa-fraud.html
-----
Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse interprets Page's role similarly to Wauck's theory.
-----
Another way that the DOJ/FBI conspirators used the FISA warrant was to leak to Trump-hating journalists information that such an FISA warrant existed.
* The mere existence of the warrant proved that DOJ/FBI was investigating Trump-Russia collusion.
* The mere existence of the "investigation" proved that there was Trump-Russia collusion.
* Where there is smoke, there is fire.
For that reason, DOJ/FBI leaked repeatedly during 2016-2017 that there was such a FISA warrant -- and also that the subject suspect was, specifically, Carter Page.
Joshua Barker and some others have mentioned Carter Page and how he might have been an FBI plant. I had seen that and have seen Page's name keep popping up in recent months. I'd never paid much attention to his background until the No Agenda boys ( www.noagendashow.co ) were discussing him on Sunday's show. They are of the opinion that he is a CIA asset, mainly based on his background. They discussed some of the key points in his Wikipedia page:
Page graduated in 1993 from the United States Naval Academy;
Distinguished Graduate (top 10% of his class)
Navy's Trident Scholar program
During his senior year at the Naval Academy, he worked as a researcher for the House Armed Services Committee.[13]
He served in the U.S. Navy for five years, including a tour in western Morocco as an intelligence officer for a United Nations peacekeeping mission. (Emph added)
1994, completed a Master of Arts degree in National Security Studies at Georgetown University.
After leaving the Navy, Page completed a fellowship at the Council on Foreign Relations
2001 received a Master of Business Administration degree from New York University.
2000, he began work as an investment banker with Merrill Lynch in the firm's London office, was a vice president in the company's Moscow office,[3] and later served as COO for Merrill Lynch's energy and power department in New York.[11]
After leaving Merrill Lynch in 2008, Page founded his own investment fund, Global Energy Capital with partner James Richard and a former mid-level Gazprom executive, Sergei Yatsenko.[15][3] The fund operates out of a Manhattan co-working space shared with a booking agency for wedding bands, and as of late 2017, Page was the firm's sole employee.[2] Other businesspeople working in the Russian energy sector said in 2016 that the fund had yet to actually realize a project.[2][3]
Page received his Ph.D. in 2012 from SOAS, University of London,
Above from Wikipedia
The comments about his doctoral dissertation are interesting"
His doctoral dissertation on the transition of Asian countries from communism to capitalism ("The influence of semiperipheral powers on the balance between capitalism and socialism in Central Asia: an analysis of Russia’s impact on governance and the regional energy sector 1987-2007") was rejected twice before ultimately being accepted by new examiners. One of his original examiners later said Page "knew next to nothing" about the subject matter and was unfamiliar with "basic concepts" such as Marxism and state capitalism.[16]
He sought unsuccessfully to publish his dissertation as a book; a reviewer described it as "very analytically confused, just throwing a lot of stuff out there without any real kind of argument."[2] Page blamed the rejection on anti-Russian and anti-American bias.[16] He later ran an international-affairs program at Bard College and taught a course on energy and politics at New York University.[17][18]
-----
Very interesting background. Since he purports to be in the investment business but has yet to complete a project, I wonder how he is putting food on the table? Where does his money come from? His parents don't seem wealthy.
Was he planted by the CIA into the Trump campaign?
John Henry
Hugh Hewitt used to be a prosecutor, so I suspect he might know a bit more about the law than a retired RN. His take:
"Upon publication of the Nunes memo, a retired federal judge emailed me: "There is not an officer of the court in the land who in the context of this particular application to the FISA court should not have identified the source of the information as having been the [Democratic National Committee] and the Clinton Campaign. If I had granted the application and then subsequently learned that the information was sourced to the DNC and the Campaign, I would have rescinded the authorization and issued a show-cause order to the Government to explain who and why this sourcing was not made known to the court. The fact (if it be that) that the Government told the court that it was a political source, but did not identify who, in this particular instance, is highly probative that the Government purposely misled the court."
Following up my own comment at 11:45 AM
The "insurance policy" meeting in Andrew McCabe's office took place on August 16, 2016.
The FISA judge's decision to elevate Carter Page from Title VII to Title I was issued on October 21, 2016.
So, a little more than two months between those two events.
Former FBI agent Mark Wauck describes events related to Carter Page as follows:
[quote]
... By June 6, 2016, Fusion GPS ... had begun producing the first of its reports that were later compiled into the famous Trump "dossier." These early reports primarily targeted Trump, offering up salacious tales ... stressing the theory that Trump might be susceptible to Russian blackmail attempts.
Carter Page is mentioned as well. ...
These early reports were very quickly put to practical use by the FBI ... they were the basis for a FISA application that mentioned Donald Trump by name. ...
What happened next leads us directly to Carter Page. On July 7, 2016, Page took a trip to Moscow. Fusion GPS quickly seized on this trip to begin producing reports for the dossier which spoke of "secret meetings" between Page and various Russian bad actors. By the end of the month, "late July", according to the NYT, the FBI had opened an investigation on Carter Page. ...
[The "insurance policy" meeting took place in McCabe's office on August 16.]
Carter Page wasn't a perfect fit for this new role [being the "insurance policy"] ... but he was as good as it could get in the time available--he had the Russia connections at least. So, the call went out to Christopher Steele, and maybe Fusion GPS: we need more "stuff" on Carter Page, ASAP.
And between the August 16 meeting and October 21st, when they applied for and were given a FISA warrant on Carter Page, they got the stuff they needed.
[end quote]
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/my-theory-of-carter-page-fisa-fraud.html
-----
Darkisland, thanks for your great comment at about Page perhaps being the CIA's plant.
I wish people who doubt Inga would be more precise in their criticism.
Her daughter was named "Adimiral of the Oceans Sea." By Queen Isabella.
Get it right.
@Sebastian: Don't mean to nitpick, since we mostly agree, but I'm not sure Rosenstein "decided" it that way. The whole point of the "investigation" was to unleash Mueller, so that the witch hunt can find the witches it needs. Certainly DoJ has done nothing to keep him on a short leash.
I agree. I believe whatever legal reasoning Rosenstein may have used to support Muller's appointment was merely a fig leaf. From all outward appearances, Rosenstein hasn't supervised Muller and has allowed the scope of Muller's investigation to morph well beyond what may have been initially justified.
In this, the FISA warrants issued against Carter Page are similar to Rosenstein's appointment of Muller. From 30', the warrants (and the appointment) appear to have been properly issued. It's only when you look more closely that you notice the departures from standard practice. In both cases, there is an appearance of propriety, but not the substance. In the Muller case, that may only be demonstrated by Muller's actions (and Rosenstein's lack of supervision) after the appointment. That is, there is at least a color-able argument that the DOJ can appoint a special counsel in counter intelligence matters. In the case of the FISA warrants, they were rotten to the core and demonstrably so when issued.
Curious George: "Refute "possibly" and "might try?" That's what's left? Yep, our resident dullard is schooling all the lawyers ARM"
ARM "lost the bubble" on the issues at work so he outsourced his thinking to the "any port in a storm" option.
LOL
Darkisland, thanks for your great comment at about Page perhaps being the CIA's plant.
2/6/18, 12:36 PM
Yes, John Henry, that was a very informative comment.
Thanks to Mike Sylwester as well for setting out the timeline.
Inga said...
Any lawyers care to refute this?
The conversation about emails is possibly a critical piece of evidence, legal analysts said. That is because one charge that investigators might try to substantiate against those higher in the Trump campaign is a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
Inga you realize these very same charges you are so hoping for to be used against Trump can far better be justified in putting a good portion of the Obama Administration including Obama himself in prison.
“Doesn’t matter. Mueller has subpoena powers, Rosenstein gave him those powers, no? Will Rosenstein take subpoena power away from Mueller? Very doubtful.”
Except, of course, that Rosenstein got them from Sessions, who got them from Trump.
The public still knows practically nothing about the FISA application that was rejected in about June 2016.
I perceive indications, however, that the subject was George Papadopoulos and that the justification for the application had to do with his activities on Donald Trump's campaign staff.
I speculate as follows.
Even though this FISA application was rejected, the FBI nevertheless proceeded to wire-tap Papadopoulos -- and his contacts on the Trump staff -- as if the application had been approved. Perhaps the FBI intended to re-submit an improved application soon but did not manage to do so.
This lack of FISA authorization for the continued wire-tapping of Papadopoulos, etc., became a discussion topic at the meeting in Andrew McCabe's office on August 16, 2016. Because Trump might win the election after all, these unauthorized wire-tappers better arrange an "insurance policy" to explain their unauthorized wire-tapping.
The "insurance policy" turned out to be the FISA warrant to wire-tap Carter Page. It was much easier to elevate Page's Title VII up to a Title I than it was to get a Title 1 on Papadopoulos.
Inga you realize these very same charges you are so hoping for to be used against Trump can far better be justified in putting a good portion of the Obama Administration including Obama himself in prison.
2/6/18, 1:25 PM
In that case, I am sure she will say that no President should be above the law.
The Nunez memorandum’s last page said basically that there was no conspiratorial relationship between Carter Page (the memorandum’s main subject) and George Papadopoulos (previously not mentioned in the memorandum).
This last page indicates to me that the FISA application to elevate Page from merely Title VII up to Title I insinuated some relationship between Page and Papadopoulos.
This insinuation supports my speculation that Page became the subject of the second FISA application – after the first application against Papalopoulos persistently failed.
I liked NR's Andrew McCarthy's take that Trump should say "no" to an interview on principle. The POTUS is too busy for this and baring some crisis should never be bothered with an investigation unless he is the only one who can answer a key question or detail. "Sod off Swampy!" is the best course of action not just for Trump but for any future president.
Chuck said...
Althouse, I understand your concern about how the Times' reporters and editors put out that sentence as to Trump's untruthfulness and self-contradiction. I think your criticism is fair.
Chuck, it's curious that you want, ask, expect, sometimes demand answers, not merely from fellow commenters but from La Emerita herself, but you cannot be relied upon to answer others, even when the questions are not overtly abusive. I wonder if you realize that is a problem. What do you have to say about that?
Chuck, would it help if I asked you what you've heard lately about Barron Trump?
Another way that the DOJ/FBI conspirators used the FISA warrant was to leak to Trump-hating journalists information that such an FISA warrant existed.
* The mere existence of the warrant proved that DOJ/FBI was investigating Trump-Russia collusion.
* The mere existence of the "investigation" proved that there was Trump-Russia collusion.
* Where there is smoke, there is fire.
It's starting to seem to me that the main reason for the FISA warrant was to leak it in order to smear Trump. The existence of this oh-so-super-secret FISA warrant was immediately leaked to the media. The headlines and internet trolls were triumphantly proclaiming that Trump's team was under investigation therefore he's guilty of something!!!! And then Comey tells Trump he was NOT under investigation, so all that media hoopla was bullshit?
Trump then fires Comey-- at the recommendation of Rod Rosenstein, btw, for among other things being an incompetent asshole. Comey then leaks some classified information in violation of the law, and then Trump is put under investigation for maybe intending to "obstruct justice". Really? Doesn't Comey's immediate criminal action prove Trump was right to fire this corrupt idiot? And how does firing one man obstruct anything? Whatever super-sleuth Comey was investigating would be picked up by his replacement.
Is anyone else losing patience with this farce?
On the bright side, maybe Schiff found those naked Trump photos he was looking for.
The opening analysis is astute.
The conflation of executive privilege and taking the 5th here is instructive and probably reflects the confusion and distortion that will characterize the ensuing public debate should Trump refuse to be questioned.
There will be a political firestorm should Trump refuse and the pull between the legal advice and the political advice would make one want to be a fly on the wall to those discussions.
My inclination fwiw, would be for him not to be interviewed and to litigate his need to do so and then brazen out the political firestorm.
Finally, I think it’s a safe assumption that Trump’s lawyers made no disparaging comments to the press about Trump’s public speaking. If so, it’s sneaky and unbecoming for the reporters to smuggle in that disparagement and make it appear it came from his lawyers.
Hilarious. That is some brain trust the democrats have in Schiff. This guys sounds desperate enough to fall for anything at this point.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5355713/Adam-Schiff-spoofed-Russian-claim-nude-Trump-pic.html
Trump is crazy if he gives Mueller and his Democrat button men and interview.
Trump should invite Mueller personally. Then, when he gets there, turn on the TV cameras and ask, "Before we get started Mr. Mueller, what, exactly, is the crime you are supposedly investigating?"
Then, when he refuses to answer, fire him.
Post a Comment