The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

Fordham confirms that Trump team threatened the school if his grades became public

Fordham University is confirming it received a letter from Donald Trump’s then-lawyer threatening legal action if Trump’s academic records became public.

Ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has testified to Congress that Trump directed him to write letters warning his schools and the College Board not to disclose his grades or SAT scores.



Cohen has given the House Oversight and Reform Committee a copy of his letter to Fordham. It was dated May 2015, about a month before Trump started his presidential campaign.

Fordham says the letter from Trump’s lawyer was preceded by a phone call from a campaign staffer. Fordham says it’s bound by federal law barring the release of student records.

Trump attended the Roman Catholic university in New York City for two years. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania.

Penn and the College Board declined to comment.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Part of Michael Cohen's testimony could spell trouble for Trump in Mueller's investigation

Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen uncorked many disturbing allegations in his seven hours of congressional testimony this week, but only one that could be crucial to the future of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Cohen testified he was in the room when Republican strategist Roger Stone called President Donald Trump and told him about an impending WikiLeaks release of stolen Democratic National Committee emails. Stone and Trump have not only denied that claim — but also done so in a coordinated way that may shape what Mueller ultimately does.

The consequences here are simple.

If Cohen lied to Congress, he could be indicted for it and the world would soon find out.

If Cohen told the truth, then Trump is in trouble.

The allegation could be pivotal because Trump and Stone have been united in denying it, not only in public statements, but also in legally binding assurances to the government.

Lying in public is legal. Lying to the government is a crime. That is why this part of Cohen’s allegation poses such serious legal risks to both Stone and Trump.

Unfortunately for the White House, Cohen’s account has extra corroboration, which provides more supporting evidence than his other new claims that could be dismissed as a “he said/he said” dispute.

Here is why. Cohen testified he “was in Mr. Trump's office” in July 2016, when Stone called Trump to warn about an impending “WikiLeaks drop of emails.”

That matches the broader evidence Mueller has on Stone, Trump's longtime confidant. The special counsel’s indictment states that "around June and July 2016," Stone told senior Trump campaign officials about the email dump. In legal terms, Mueller believes he has the evidence to back up that claim, which he must do to prove Stone lied about it.

We don’t know everything Stone told the House in closed testimony, but we do know about a key exchange, because in order to indict Stone, Mueller had to publicly file it. Stone was asked, “Did you discuss your conversations with the [WikiLeaks] intermediary with anyone involved in the Trump campaign?”

Stone replied, “I did not.”

That is part of what got Stone indicted. Mueller supports the charge with language in the indictment that, in light of Cohen’s new testimony, is even more interesting: “Stone spoke to multiple individuals involved in the Trump Campaign about what he claimed to have learned.”

One of those multiple individuals could be Trump. After all, though Cohen’s testimony is new to us, Mueller’s team has been sifting through it for months. Or Mueller may be referring to Stone’s contacts with other “individuals” in the Trump campaign, to avoid relying on Cohen as a witness at Stone’s trial. (These kinds of indictments deliberately avoid naming the “individuals.”)

Either way, there’s one sign Mueller thinks this line of inquiry is vital: It was reportedly on his list of questions for the president.

Mueller had this question for Trump, according to The New York Times: “What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange, or WikiLeaks?”

In public, Trump flatly denied Stone told him anything about WikiLeaks.

Now in fairness, if that is false, it is always possible Trump’s lawyers got him to be more accurate (or evasive) when privately answering Mueller. No one knows because the special counsel has kept Trump’s answers secret.

There are two hints, however, suggesting Trump may have given the same denial to Mueller.

First, CNN reported that’s exactly what the president did.

“Trump told special counsel Robert Mueller in writing that Roger Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks,” the news organization reported in November, citing two sources. (NBC News has not confirmed that account.)

The second hint involves a Trump loyalist who is standing firm while others flip. He’s the self-proclaimed “dirty trickster” with a Nixon back tattoo: Roger Stone.

Even after his indictment, Stone made a point of proclaiming that his story matches Trump’s secret written answers to Mueller. This was important, and suspicious, even before Cohen told his WikiLeaks story to Congress.

Stone, who insists he’s not in touch with Trump about this, still decided to tell the world his denial matches one of the most closely guarded secrets in the Mueller probe — what Trump told the special counsel about intelligence that could relate to collusion.

In an exchange with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, which could draw scrutiny from Mueller’s office, Stone said after his indictment that he hasn’t discussed these topics with Trump — but that somehow he knew his denial matched Trump’s secret answers to Mueller.

“When the president answered the written interrogatories, he correctly and honestly said ‘Roger Stone and I never discussed this’ — and we never did,” Stone said.

Think about it: Stone knows what he did, but how could he be so confident about what Mueller actually asked Trump? Or how Trump responded?

It sounds suspicious on its own. Then factor in that Mueller has amassed evidence to conclude Stone is lying. So if Stone and Trump’s answers do match, that same evidence could be marshaled against the president.

Lying to the special counsel is a crime. And Mueller has already indicted others for doing it.

In the special case of presidential oversight, any crime committed while a president is in office is more significant than a crime committed before taking office. The Constitution provides a structure that may hold presidents more accountable for lies a president tells prosecutors than for other lies, such as lying to the public, or statements made before assuming office.

If Cohen is telling the truth and Mueller has the evidence, this is the crux of why Cohen’s account could be troubling for Trump.

Finally, it is worth appreciating how this legal predicament is based on the relatively thin clues in the public record. There are two more unknowns that may ultimately focus or resolve the situation.

What other secret evidence do investigators have? And, if the Trump campaign did nothing wrong and Stone merely touted WikiLeaks access he did not have, why not just admit that and move on? Instead, we are witnessing the spectacle of Stone and Trump loudly denying an alleged 2016 phone call that simply echoed their public messaging at the time — the view that WikiLeaks was a “treasure trove” and Stone had an inside line. There’s no legal reason to “cover up” that conversation, if that’s all it was.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Lawmakers exploring possible pardon talks involving Michael Cohen

Lawmakers are investigating whether President Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was involved in any discussions about possible pardons — which they view as a potentially ripe area of inquiry into whether anyone sought to obstruct justice, people familiar with the matter said.

Cohen has said publicly he never asked for — and would not accept — a pardon from Trump. But people familiar with the matter said his knowledge on the topic seems to extend beyond that statement.

Privately, lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees pressed Cohen this week on whether he had had any discussions about a possible pardon, and if so, when and with whom those conversations took place, the people said. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the testimony was not public.

It was not immediately clear what, if anything, Cohen told lawmakers to pique their interest. Depending on the details, such pardon talks could be incendiary, suggesting an effort to dissuade Cohen from cooperating with law enforcement. Cohen is to return to the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, declined to comment on the closed-door testimony, though he said on MSNBC on Thursday night that “new information was developed that could be game changing,” and it was about “lying and obstruction evidence.”

“It’s pretty explosive,” he said.

Cohen — who pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, bank and tax fraud and lying to Congress and was sentenced to three years in prison — is not a completely reliable narrator, and he and his allies have been known to exaggerate. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) wrote Thursday to Attorney General William P. Barr asking him to investigate whether Cohen had perjured himself when he insisted to the House Oversight Committee he had not wanted a job in the Trump administration and was content to serve as Trump’s personal lawyer.

That assertion has been called into question by Cohen’s own public statements and White House officials. Trump tweeted after the hearing that Cohen “committed perjury on a scale not seen before.”

Cohen described in testimony this week how he lied over and over for the president — even if it put himself in legal jeopardy because he sought to cover up crimes, or relayed falsehoods to Congress. But he asserted he was no longer under the spell of the commander in chief and was ready to come clean.

“I am no longer your fixer, Mr. Trump,” Cohen declared.

As part of a broader inquiry into whether the president’s campaign conspired with the Kremlin to win the election, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has been investigating whether Trump sought to obstruct justice. Mueller’s obstruction probe has focused on the firing of James B. Comey as FBI director — which Trump has said publicly he did while thinking about the Russia investigation — as well as Trump’s repeated attacks on the Justice Department and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing what would become Mueller’s inquiry.

Mueller is widely expected to be nearing the end of his investigation, and Congress has been pressing to make sure the Justice Department will turn over his findings in full.

Legal analysts said Cohen’s testimony, while noteworthy, probably offered more new details to lawmakers and the public than it did to law enforcement. Cohen has said he would continue to cooperate with the special counsel and federal prosecutors, and he revealed during his testimony that he was in “constant” contact with the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

“I can’t imagine he was saying things that suddenly comprised new information for the Southern District of New York or for Mueller to consider,” said James M. Trusty, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department organized-crime chief now in private practice at Ifrah Law.

Cohen said notably before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday that he knew of no “direct evidence” that Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia. But he alleged that the president knew in advance of a July 2016 email dump by the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks, which obtained Democrats’ emails that Mueller has alleged were hacked by Russian operatives. And Cohen said the president vigorously urged his advisers to send the message that there had been no dealings with Russia — which could inform Mueller’s obstruction case.

Cohen asserted that the president and his supporters even threatened him as he prepared to testify before Congress. On the eve of his public appearance Wednesday, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) tweeted, without evidence, an allegation that Cohen had extramarital affairs. Gaetz soon deleted the message and apologized.

Cohen also hinted at an investigation involving the president, asserting that federal prosecutors in Manhattan had asked him not to discuss his communication with Trump after the FBI raided his home and office in April.

Asked whether there was “any other wrongdoing or illegal act that you are aware of regarding Donald Trump” that had not been discussed at the hearing, Cohen responded, “Yes, and again, those are part of the investigation that’s currently being looked at by the Southern District of New York.” A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.

Perhaps most notable in the area of obstruction, Cohen said that in May 2017, he met with Trump and Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s lawyers, to discuss testimony Cohen was to give to the House Intelligence Committee. Trump, Cohen said, “wanted me to cooperate.” But he said Trump also repeated a refrain that is now familiar to those on Twitter.

“He goes, ‘It’s all a witch hunt,’ and he goes, ‘This stuff has to end,’ ” Cohen said.

“Did you take those comments to be suggestive of what might flavor your testimony?” Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) asked.

“Sir, he’s been saying that to me for many, many months, and at the end of the day, I knew exactly what he wanted me to say,” Cohen responded.

Ultimately, Cohen would testify to Congress that discussions about a possible Trump Tower project in Moscow ended in January 2016 — when in fact they continued for months after that, into the heart of the presidential campaign. Cohen would later plead guilty to the lie.

The topic remains of keen interest to lawmakers. Cohen conceded that Trump had not asked him to lie, though he noted that Sekulow, as well as attorney Abbe Lowell — who represents Ivanka Trump, Trump’s daughter, and her husband, Jared Kushner — reviewed his written testimony before it was submitted.

At one point, Cohen suggested that Sekulow was involved in a change about “the length of time that the Trump Tower Moscow project stayed and remained alive.” And Davis, Cohen’s lawyer, said of the statement on MSNBC on Thursday night, “Everybody knew it was a lie” — effectively accusing Sekulow or others of knowingly passing on Cohen’s false statement.

But Davis corrected the statement and apologized Friday, saying, he had meant to say “the president and many of his advisers must have known” Cohen’s statement was false.

“I should not have used the words that ‘everyone knew’ the statement was false,” Davis said. “My only excuse for the error is sleep deprivation. Apologies.”

A person familiar with Cohen’s account said he cannot say with certainty whether Sekulow, Lowell or other White House advisers knew the discussions about the Trump Tower project extended well into 2016, and thus knew Cohen’s statement was false. Sekulow said in a statement that Cohen’s assertion that “attorneys for the President edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false.”

A person familiar with the matter said Lowell did not edit Cohen’s statement but did voice a concern about the accuracy of some mention of Ivanka Trump’s dealings with Russian athlete Dmitry Klokov. Cohen ultimately did not address Klokov in the statement. Lowell declined to comment.

Cohen’s team is working to find drafts of Cohen’s statement that would reflect who edited what, and turn them over to lawmakers, people familiar with the matter said. Even that, though, might not implicate lawyers in knowingly passing along a lie — if their clients had not been truthful with them.

“The greatest fear of the best lawyers is clients who do not come entirely clean with them,” said Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice at Dickinson Wright.

While Cohen said Trump often talked in “code,” he suggested that the president was not always subtle in directing a coverup. For example, Cohen said that at Trump’s direction he paid $130,000 to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in October 2016 so that she would stay quiet about an alleged affair with Trump, and that Trump reimbursed him for it the following year. Cohen has admitted that the payment violated campaign finance laws.

Cohen said that Trump asked him to lie about the Stormy Daniels matter to Melania Trump, and that he did, and that in 2018, when news of the payments broke, Cohen said Trump called him while he was meeting with a reporter and suggested he say the president “was not knowledgeable of these reimbursements and he wasn’t knowledgeable of my actions.”

Cohen said that in a meeting in the Oval Office, he and the president had discussed Cohen’s being repaid, and he said also that during his presidency, Trump personally signed a check to reimburse him.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Rep. Eric Swalwell: 'There Is At Least One Indictment Waiting For President Trump'

NPR's Ari Shapiro speaks with Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and member of the House Intelligence Committee, about whether he believes President Trump is complicit in Michael Cohen's crimes.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

It is rare to see someone turn against a president as dramatically and publicly as Michael Cohen, the man who was President Trump's fixer and personal lawyer for a decade. This was Cohen's third day of testimony before Congress. Yesterday's public hearings stretched on for hours. He testified in private on Monday and again today, answering questions from the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, was part of today's hearing. And he joins us now from the Capitol. Thank you for being here.

ERIC SWALWELL: Of course, Ari. Thanks for having me back.

SHAPIRO: Michael Cohen worked with President Trump on a lot of deals that are now under federal investigation, from hush money payments to plans for Trump Tower Moscow. After yesterday's hearing, what were you most keen to follow up on today?

SWALWELL: We wanted to really dive much deeper into what was candidate Trump's knowledge about the Trump Tower in Moscow, which went much longer than Michael Cohen had told Congress. And he said he lied because he was indirectly told to by candidate Trump. We wanted to also know about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton where Mr. Cohen thinks that - based on interactions he observed between candidate Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. - that the knowledge of that meeting was possessed by candidate Trump and then, of course, the Roger Stone phone call.

You had Roger Stone calling candidate Trump in the presence of Michael Cohen, saying that Stone had been in contact with Julian Assange and that there was going to be new emails dumped on Hillary Clinton. And Mr. Trump had said, wouldn't that be great - so really just going into candidate Trump's knowledge, which he has told the public and the American people that he had no knowledge of Russia - no Russia, no collusion, no witch hunt, as he so often says.

SHAPIRO: So really Russia at the center of your questioning. As many Republicans have pointed out, yesterday Michael Cohen publicly said he had not seen evidence of collusion. He said that doesn't mean that there was none. After today's questions, what do you see as the evidence?

SWALWELL: Well, first, Mr. Cohen actually said yesterday - and he has been consistent with this - that he has suspicions of collusion and that he saw no direct evidence of collusion. Now, of course direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are treated the same legally. And he laid out yesterday, you know, many of his concerns from what he saw that circumstantially would show collusion.

Also, Ari, it's really interesting that the Republicans, who want to dismiss everything Michael Cohen says that hurts them, would like to also amplify anything that helps them. You know, you really have to take the good with the bad here. And, you know, I think he came across as very credible. He had the sword of Damocles hanging over him in that he would get a much more significant jail sentence if he lied to Congress.

SHAPIRO: One big question here is whether President Trump is complicit in some of the crimes that Michael Cohen is now going to prison for. Have you seen evidence that convinces you he is?

SWALWELL: I'm convinced that there is at least one indictment waiting for President Trump. If you look at the payoffs to the women during the campaign at the direction of candidate Trump and then making the payments while he was president, it's hard to really believe how any prosecutor would not indict based on that evidence that the president...

SHAPIRO: So the crime there would be campaign finance violations.

SWALWELL: Well, co-conspirator, I think, would be the crime. You know, the violation was by Mr. Cohen. And the co-conspirator would be Mr. Trump.

SHAPIRO: Looking ahead, NPR has learned that your committee plans to call Allen Weisselberg, the CFO and treasurer of the Trump Organization, to testify. What would you hope to learn from him?

SWALWELL: Well, you know, Mr. Weisselberg is a relevant witness for many committees. You know, he knows where the money in the Trump Organization went to and, you know, money that came in. We have a Trump Organization that for a very long time has wanted to do business in Russia and has also had Russians invest in Trump Tower in the United States. The Trump children have said publicly that they have a lot of money flowing in from Russia.

And we know that the Trump Organization's bank, which Mr. Weisselberg would interact with, Deutsche Bank, just as recently as 2017 was fined $300 million for a multibillion-dollar Russian money laundering scheme. So it's to really find out if this president is financially compromised by the Russians.

SHAPIRO: Congressman Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California. Thanks so much.

SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thanks, Ari.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

At this point, what difference does it make?....Get over it.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

“I’M SORRY FOR THE TWEET THAT I SENT”: INSIDE THE BONKERS MICHAEL COHEN-MATT GAETZ APOLOGY

Michael Cohen was trying to decompress. He’d just returned to his hotel room after his five-hour public hearing before the House Oversight Committee during which he called President Donald Trump a cheat, a liar, a racist, and a con man. Now, room service was set out on a table by the door, and a T.V. blared the wall-to-wall coverage of the fiery testimony. His phone buzzed endlessly. Reporters checked in. Friends told him they were proud. His lawyers reached out with prep work for the following day’s hearing.

One text broke through the noise. The previous night, congressman Matt Gaetz had tweeted a missive at Cohen: “Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot...” Gaetz, a Trump Fox News warrior and vitriolic representative of the Florida panhandle, initially defended his comments, noting during a speech on the House floor that it was “entirely appropriate for any member of this body to challenge the truthfulness, veracity and character of people who have a history of lying and have a future that undoubtedly contains nothing but lies.” He told reporters he was “witness testing, not witness tampering.” That evening, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned him that such comments could affect the committee’s ability to “obtain the truthful and necessary information. The Florida Bar Association confirmed that it has opened an inquiry into whether his tweets violated any laws, and other law makers suggested that he could be referred to the Ethics Committee for witness intimidation or tampering. After this whipped around Washington for hours, Gaetz again tweeted, attempting to try to settle things down. “It was NOT my intent to threaten, as some believe I did,” though he added that “it is important 2 create context around the testimony of liars like Michael Cohen.” He wrote that he was deleting the initial tweet and “should have chosen words that better showed my intent. I’m sorry.” Throughout the hearing the following day, Gaetz tweeted and retweeted articles disparaging Cohen and his testimony, even as lawmakers and critics continued to ridicule his comments.

Now, after Cohen’s day on the Hill, Gaetz was backpedaling even further. “Mr. Cohen, this is Congressman Matt Gaetz,” he wrote in a text to Cohen. “I am writing to personally tell you I’m sorry for the tweet that I sent which many believe was threatening to you. It was never ever ever my intent to threaten you in any way.”

“While you don’t know me,” he continued, “that is not who I am and how I operate. I do not wish any harm to you or your family. I was upset at what was transpiring and chose my words poorly. I will work to be better, as I know you said today you will as well. Have a good evening. – Matt.”

Cohen wasted no time in responding. “Congressman Gaetz, I cannot thank you enough for your message. The tweet, sadly, has only made a bad situation worse . . . not only for my wife but for my children as well. With your permission, I would like to share your message with my wife and children. Hopefully, it will bring a little peace to their damaged life. We all make mistakes especially in this crazy partisan time. Thank you again for your text and I hope that the tweet does not cause you any harm. If it does, and there is anything I can do to help you correct it, please feel free to reach out and I would be happy to assist.” (A spokeswoman for Gaetz did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Cohen did not respond to an immediate response for comment, either.)

Later that evening, Gaetz tweeted that he had personally apologized to Cohen “4 referencing his private family in the public square. Regardless of disagreements, family members should be off-limits from attacks from representatives, senators & presidents, including myself. Let’s leave the Cohen family alone.”

Gaetz repeated his apology in an interview with Fox News on Friday night, saying he should not have invoked Cohen’s family. He took the opportunity to pat himself on the back, and to chastise those he feels are unduly hard on him because of his vocal support for the president. “The reason your network has me on a lot is because I’m one of the leading voices standing up for the president,” he said. “This time I crossed the line. It’s a sign of valor that I’m willing to admit that.” He added that “it seems as though the people who defend the president most vigorously do spend their time in the barrel with the Ethics Committee, so I guess it’s my turn.”

Gaetz’s unseemly tweets may also recall a different sort of symbolism. One of the most poignant moments of Cohen’s testimony occurred when he turned the tables on his inquisitors. During one fraught moment, Cohen pointed to a poster that a Republican lawmaker had assembled with the words “LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!” next to a blown-up photo of him. “I did the same thing that you’re doing now for 10 years,” he told Republican committee members. “I protected Mr. Trump for 10 years. The more people that follow Mr. Trump as I did blindly are going to suffer the same consequences that I’m suffering.”

For much of the last two years, the president’s Republican defenders have turned a blind eye to the president’s bad behavior and written off the collusion probe as a witch hunt. They have also shrugged off Trump calling Kim Jong un a “real leader” and his refusal to condemn Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman after the brutal murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The vast majority of Republicans have not voiced disapproval of Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency at the Mexican border, either. Gaetz, of course, has gone a step beyond simply failing to speak out publicly. He has introduced a slew of bills calling for Robert Mueller to resign, and attempting to launch investigations into James Comey and Hillary Clinton. He also introduced a resolution calling for a number of Obama-era officials to be charged with lying to Congress.

For some, this blind loyalty is part of a Republican tradeoff; swallow the unseemly rhetoric and attacks on the Justice Department in exchange for judicial appointments and preferred Supreme Court picks. For others, it’s an electoral survival strategy. As Gaetz told The Daily Beast last week, “I enjoy tremendous support in my district, in no small part because they see that I’m an aggressive defender of the president.”

But as Cohen has shown, fealty to Trump only gets you so far. Those who know Trump, who have aligned themselves with him with the expectation that he would reciprocate, know how this could turn out for Republicans. Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide, relayed to me a piece of advice that Roger Stone offered him when he entered Trump’s circle. “Roger warned me, ‘you need to be careful. I’ve seen it many times. When people start hanging around Trump, they start thinking they are Trump,’” he recalled. “You start thinking you can do the things he does—try to intimidate people, do outlandish things against them—and you won’t face consequences. He might not face consequences, but you’re going to. Everyone could become a kamikaze for him. Just look at Michael.”

Gaetz, far from an insider, appears willing to take his chances. On Saturday, the congressman was scheduled to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Virginia, but his spot on the main stage was bumped when Trump’s own speech stretched for close to two hours. As Gaetz waited for his car back to Washington, he told The Daily Beast, he was a “willing volunteer” in yielding his spot to Trump, who name-checked him during his remarks. “The ones that love Trump, the ones that are really the Trumpers—like Meadows, Jordan, Gaetz—so many of them—they are the ones that win,” he said. “It’s the ones that are a little shy about embracing what we’re all about, they get clobbered.”

Perhaps that’s true. But a number of people who were once “really Trumpers” have gotten clobbered, too. Cohen heads off to federal prison in two months; Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is awaiting sentencing and could spend the rest of his life in prison; his former National Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, awaits sentencing, too; as does Rick Gates, and Stone's fate hangs in the balance. House Committees have said this week that they plan to seek documents and testimony from Trump’s adult children and executives from the Trump Organization. Any number of people close to Trump have been burned by association. So far, only the only person to remain untouched is the president.

Matt Gaetz only became sorry when the FL Bar Association was going to investigate his witness tampering ass.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump has made 9,014 false or misleading claims over 773 days

Powered by his two-hour stemwinder at the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 2 — which featured more than 100 false or misleading claims — President Trump is on pace to exceed his daily quota set during his first two years in office.

The president averaged nearly 5.9 false or misleading claims a day in his first year in office. He hit nearly 16.5 a day in his second year. So far in 2019, he’s averaging nearly 22 claims a day.

As of the end of March 3, the 773rd day of his term in office, Trump accumulated 9,014 fishy claims, according to The Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president.

Trump’s performance at CPAC is emblematic of his version of the truth during his presidency — a potent mix of exaggerated numbers, unwarranted boasting and outright falsehoods. His speech helped push March 3 to his fourth-biggest day for false or misleading claims, totaling 104.

The speech included his greatest hits: 131 times he has falsely said he passed the biggest tax cut in history, 126 times he has falsely said his border wall is already being built and 116 times he has asserted that the U.S. economy today is the best in history. All three of those claims are on The Fact Checker’s list of Bottomless Pinocchios, as well as other claims Trump made during his CPAC speech.

Since the Bottomless Pinocchio list was introduced in December, it has continued to grow. The president now has 20 claims that qualify.

Here’s a sampling of other claims from the CPAC address, drawn from the database:

“A state called Michigan, where — by the way — where Fiat Chrysler just announced a four and a half billion dollar incredible expansion and new plant doubling their workforce. Many, many car companies have moved back to Michigan and are continuing to do so.”

Fiat Chrysler did announce this expansion in Michigan, but Trump leaves out that it announced 1,500 layoffs in Illinois at the same time. It’s a big exaggeration to say many car companies have moved back to Michigan, though Chrysler has announced several new investments there under Trump.

“The Green New Deal … No planes. No energy.”

The Green New Deal is a nonbinding resolution in Congress, and it would not ban air travel or energy. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a sponsor, released an FAQ document alongside the resolution that mused about banning air travel. But it was not a definitive call to end air travel, and, in any case, Ocasio-Cortez retracted the FAQ within days.

“When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric.”

Nope. Wind turbines do not generate power when there’s no wind, but the power grid can handle this variability.

“I’ve learned because, with the fake news, if you tell a joke, if you’re sarcastic, if you’re having fun with the audience, if you’re in live television with millions of people and 25,000 people in an arena, and if you say something like, ‘Russia, please, if you can, get us Hillary Clinton’s emails. Please, Russia, please. Please get us the emails! Please!’ So everybody’s having a good time, I’m laughing, we’re all having fun. And then that fake CNN and others say, ‘He asked Russia to go get the emails.’ Horrible.”

Trump in previous comments has said earnestly that he wanted Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s emails. In July 2016, he said it gave him “no pause” to call for these emails’ release.

“Of the 25 [percentage] points [in the China tariffs], we’ve paid for four points and China’s paid for 21 points. Okay? Twenty-one. That’s what the numbers are, it’s very simple. You know everyone said, ‘Oh, it’s a tax on our …’ It’s not really. And what China and other countries do sometimes is they will subsidize it.”

Trump appears to be quoting from a study by European economists that predicted that a 25 percentage point increase in tariffs raises U.S. consumer prices on all affected Chinese products by only 4.5 percent on average, while the producer price of Chinese firms declines by 20.5 percent. The study was released in November, using previously released studies from the 1990s, not actual data on prices. But a paper published the day before Trump spoke, by three prominent U.S. economists, found exactly the opposite had happened when actual trade data was studied.

“Overall, using standard economic methods, we find that the full incidence of the tariff falls on domestic consumers, with a reduction in U.S. real income of $1.4 billion per month by the end of 2018,” the economists reported. “We find that the U.S. tariffs were almost completely passed through into U.S. domestic prices, so that the entire incidence of the tariffs fell on domestic consumers and importers up to now, with no impact so far on the prices received by foreign exporters. We also find that U.S. producers responded to reduced import competition by raising their prices.”

Another paper, published March 3, found similar results, with the impact heaviest in Republican counties. “We estimate that the U.S. economy has lost $68.8 billion due to higher import prices,” the economists concluded.

“Robert Mueller put 13 of the angriest Democrats in the history of our country on the commission. Now how do you do that? These are angry, angry people; you take a look at them. One of them was involved with the Hillary Clinton foundation, running it.”

Eleven out of 16 attorneys on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team made public have contributed to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The other five have no record of political contributions, though the Daily Caller says 13 are registered Democrats. One attorney who donated the maximum amount represented the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 lawsuit; she did not run it, as Trump claimed. Another attorney without a record of political donations represented a Clinton aide at one point. Both attorneys worked for WilmerHale, a firm that also represents Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, as well as Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Moreover, under federal law, Mueller is not allowed to consider the political leanings of his staff when hiring them. Mueller was a registered Republican when he was nominated to be FBI director in 2001 but is considered apolitical.

“That’s the other thing. If you use your rights, you use your power, if you use Article II, it’s called obstruction, but only for Trump, for nobody else.”

Obstruction-of-justice charges were part of the impeachment resolutions against Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. Trump has not been formally accused by anyone of obstructing justice, though some Democratic lawmakers say they believe he did so. Potential obstruction also appears to be a line of inquiry for the special counsel, according to news reports.

“We never had an empty seat. We went out and helped Ted Cruz. We went out and helped so many people. And I’ll tell you what, if we didn’t do those 32 rallies — and it wasn’t easy when you’re doing rallies with 25, 30 thousand people.”

There were empty seats at Trump’s Houston rally with Cruz. “Many hundreds of seats were empty, including all of the boxes on both tiers of the mezzanine,” the Dallas Morning News reported.

“You have the best employment and unemployment numbers we’ve ever had.”

False. More people are working than ever before as a consequence of steady population growth, but the labor force participation rate is below levels seen in the 1990s and 2000s. The unemployment rate has declined but not achieved record lows under Trump.

“And one of the other things we did in our tax package is … [allowing oil drilling in] perhaps the largest field in the world oil and gas. I got it approved.”

Trump signed legislation allowing drilling in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The drillable portions of the area are not the largest in the world (it’s a relatively small area), and oil production capacity is less than that of Saudi Arabia, according to congressional Republicans.

“One in three women is sexually assaulted on the dangerous journey north.”

It’s undeniable that there is a pattern of women suffering sexual abuse on the journey north, but it’s hard to quantify. This 1-in-3 statistic comes from Doctors Without Borders, which interviewed 56 women for a report in 2017 and found that 31.4 percent were “sexually abused” on the journey; 10.7 percent were raped. But the figure was not based on a random sample and thus is not representative of the entire migrant population traveling through Mexico.

“Nobody shows up [for immigration hearings]. Three percent of the people come back for a trial. It’s insane.”

Justice Department data shows 60 to 75 percent of non-detained migrants have attended their immigration court proceedings. For the specific group of migrants Trump was addressing, asylum seekers, data suggests the return rate is even higher. The data for a program that Trump ended in June shows participants had a 100 percent attendance record at court hearings. They also had a 99 percent rate of check-ins and appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to a report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General.

“We had a rally at the airport [in Macon, Ga.] where 55,000 people showed up to the airport. It was one hangar. They had three other hangars that were full. They went so far back.”

Trump says he filled airport hangars — not one but four! — during a rally with Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp in Georgia. He previously claimed it was two hangars. But there was only one hangar. The crowd at this event was divided in three: people inside, people just outside the open hangar and a third group watching a TV screen on a different part of the premises, sandwiched between the airport and a corporate office.

Kemp’s campaign estimated that 10,000 people attended in total, and the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office estimated 12,500 inside and nearly 6,000 outside, according to a fact check by WMAZ. The overflow crowd sandwiched between the airport and the corporate office numbered in the “hundreds,” according to Atlanta magazine. The most generous tally, 18,500, is a far cry from the 55,000 Trump claimed.

“One administration gave billions of dollars to him [North Korea] and got nothing, and we haven’t given him anything yet.”

Trump may not have given North Korea cash, but he has elevated the country’s dictator on the international stage and given Kim Jong Un fodder for propaganda back home. He also exaggerates the money that previous presidents gave to North Korea. Under Bill Clinton’s 1994 accord with North Korea, between 1995 and 2003 the United States spent about $400 million supplying the fuel oil to North Korea that was required under the deal, according to the Congressional Research Service. An international consortium spent about $2.5 billion to replace the North’s plutonium reactor with two light-water reactors; the project was not completed before the deal collapsed, but the money mostly went to South Korean and Japanese companies, not North Korea. North Korea received some payments for incidentals, like phone lines, but it mostly just got the oil.

Trump says Clinton got “nothing,” but while the deal was in place, North Korea’s nuclear program was frozen and the regime did not have access to nuclear material for weapons production; Pyongyang’s stash of plutonium in spent fuel rods was kept in cooling ponds under the constant supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. When the deal collapsed in a dispute with the Bush administration, North Korea broke the seals, removed the rods and began building nuclear weapons.

More than a quarter of Trump’s claims since he became president, 2,574, came during remarks during press events. An additional 2,088 came during remarks at his campaign rallies, and 1,576 were the result of the president’s itchy Twitter finger. Another 1,374 occurred during interviews.

In terms of subjects, false or misleading claims about immigration top the list, totaling 1,688. Claims about foreign policy were second, at 1,015, followed by claims about trade (939), the economy (840) and jobs (815).

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump blames Cohen testimony in part for failed deal with North Korea

President Trump said Sunday that the congressional testimony of Michael Cohen, his former personal lawyer and fixer, was in part responsible for the collapse in negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear program last week — continuing to vent about the investigations encircling him and his associates.

During seven hours of testimony Wednesday, Cohen said that Trump manipulated financial records and that Trump knew in advance about WikiLeaks’ efforts to release damaging information about his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 campaign, among other allegations.

The testimony unfolded as Trump had traveled to Hanoi to try to forge a deal with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un over curbing the North Korean nuclear program.

While in Vietnam, the president said he walked away from the summit with Kim because of a disagreement about economic sanctions on North Korea. But he gave another explanation for the failure of the talks on Twitter on Sunday evening.

“For the Democrats to interview in open hearings a convicted liar & fraudster, at the same time as the very important Nuclear Summit with North Korea, is perhaps a new low in American politics and may have contributed to the ‘walk,’ ” he tweeted. “Never done when a president is overseas. Shame!”

Lanny Davis, Cohen’s attorney, declined to comment on Trump’s tweet Sunday night.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), had gone through multiple dates for its highly anticipated hearing with Cohen, who has been called to appear before several congressional panels and is scheduled to go to prison in May.

Cohen had been slated to appear publicly before the Oversight Committee on Feb. 7 but canceled, citing potential threats against his family. On Feb. 20, the committee said that it had rescheduled Cohen’s testimony for last Wednesday. The president had announced the dates for his second summit with Kim during his State of the Union address on Feb. 5.

Some of Trump’s closest allies similarly criticized Democrats for holding a hearing with Cohen while the president was overseas. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called the scheduling a “new low” and accused Democrats’ “hatred of Trump” of undercutting the nuclear talks.

A spokeswoman for the Oversight Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday night.

Trump has repeatedly complained about the Cohen testimony and the escalating investigations of him since he returned from Hanoi without an agreement with Kim. He derided “bull----” investigations and mocked the “collusion delusion” in a long-winded speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in suburban Washington on Saturday afternoon.

And earlier Sunday evening, he tweeted — as he has done many times before — about “Presidential Harassment” from “crazed” Democrats, calling it at the “highest level in the history of our Country.”

#Resist

[Athos_131]

House Democratic chairmen need to keep pounding away on these points

Republicans seem not to appreciate that there are things much worse for Trump than a failed impeachment and removal effort. On Sunday, we started to get a peek at what that might look like.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) explained that before anyone starts talking about impeachment, there needs to be investigation — lots of it:

NADLER: Our core job is to protect the rule of law, and there have been no investigations [under Republicans]. We’ve seen real threats to the rule of law from this White House, whether personal enrichment — the White House seems to have used its power for personal enrichment in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, we’ve seen abuses of power, obstruction of justice, threats to the Mueller investigation, threats to witnesses, all of these have to be an abuse of — all of these have to be investigated and laid out to the American people.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me pick up on that abuse of power that you lay out. There’s one school of thought that a sitting president can’t be indicted, especially for actions he takes in office.

But some of your fellow Democrats already say that the evidence the president has obstructed justice in the Russia investigation is an abuse of power that justifies impeachment.

So can there be impeachable offenses like that that are not crimes?

NADLER: Oh, sure. Crimes and impeachable offense is two different things. There can be crimes that are impeachable offenses and impeachable offenses that are not crimes. They’re just two different tests.

But we have to lay out for the American people and we can’t depend on the Mueller investigation for this. The Mueller investigation, number one, we don’t know when it’s ending despite lots of rumors, number two it’s focused on specific crimes. . . .

We’ve seen attacks on the freedom of the press, the press called the enemy of the people, we’ve seen attacks on the Department of Justice, attacks on the FBI, attacks on — on judges. All of these are very corrosive to liberty and to the proper functioning of government and to our constitutional system.

All this has to be looked at and the facts laid out to the American people.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think the president obstructed justice?

NADLER: Yes, I do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If that’s —

NADLER: It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice. It’s very clear — 1,100 times he referred to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt, he tried to – he fired – he tried to protect Flynn from being investigated by the FBI. He fired Comey in order to stop the Russian thing, as he told NBC News. He — he’s dangled part —

STEPHANOPOULOS: But —

NADLER: He’s threat — he’s intimidated witnesses. In public.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If that’s the case, then is the decision not to pursue impeachment right now simply political? If you believe he obstructed justice?

NADLER: No. We have to — we have to do the investigations and get all this. We do not now have the evidence all sorted out and everything to do — to do an impeachment. Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen. You have to persuade enough of the — of the opposition party voters, Trump voters, that you’re not just trying to . . .

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s a very high bar.

NADLER: Yeah. It is a very high bar. That you’re not just trying to steal the last — to reverse the results of the last election. We may or may not get there. But what we have to do is protect the rule of law. . . .

STEPHANOPOULOS: One final question. The president put out a tweet yesterday morning — early yesterday morning, want to show it up on the screen, “Very proud of perhaps the greatest golf course anywhere in the world. Also furthers U.K. relationship.” That of course is a Trump golf course in Scotland. Many ethics experts came out and said that’s a violation of the emoluments clause. Do you agree?

NADLER: It certainly seems to be. He seems to have violated the emoluments clause in a lot of different ways and that’s one of the things we should be investigating under — under abuses — under abuses of power. Let me say this; Congress has to do its job. And Congress has to do its job whether it’s investigating the administration, holding the administration accountable, which Republicans in Congress absolutely refuse to do, and dealing with our other problems. . .

To sum up: The Mueller investigation is one piece of the puzzle. To do its job, Congress must investigate it all — from emoluments to obstruction to financial crimes. The investigation is a goal unto itself, for it reveals to voters the nature of this presidency and allows them to hold him accountable at the ballot box. (Indictments can take place after he leaves office.)

#Resist

[Athos_131]

House Democrats demand documents from more than 80 people and institutions affiliated with Trump

House Democrats sent more than 80 letters Monday demanding documents from family members, business associates, political confidants and others with connections to President Trump, opening a sprawling investigation of whether he and his administration have engaged in obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power.

The farthest-reaching request since Democrats took control of the House underscored lawmakers’ determination to hold Trump and those around him accountable for controversies that have dogged the president during his first two years in office — and perhaps lay the grounds for impeachment proceedings.

Those receiving letters from the House Judiciary Committee include the president’s two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump; his son-in-law, Jared Kushner; his former personal secretary Rhona Graff; Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization; and former top White House aides Hope Hicks, Sean Spicer and Stephen K. Bannon.

Other demands for documents are directed to institutions including the White House, the Justice Department, the Trump campaign, the Trump transition team and the Trump Organization.

Recipients have two weeks to comply with the requests. Should they not do so, the Judiciary Committee will subpoena the documents, panel staff members told reporters on a call Monday morning.

The demands, made by Chairman Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), cover communications between former White House counsel Donald McGahn and the president relating to Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s fired national security adviser, as well as Flynn’s statements to the FBI about contacts with Sergey Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador to Washington.

“We will act quickly to gather this information, assess the evidence, and follow the facts where they lead with full transparency with the American people,” Nadler said in a statement. “This is a critical time for our nation, and we have a responsibility to investigate these matters and hold hearings for the public to have all the facts. That is exactly what we intend to do.”

In a statement Monday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders acknowledged receipt of Nadler’s letter and said officials “will review it and respond at the appropriate time.” She did not comment further.

Nadler is also seeking to learn about communications regarding Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as FBI director, as well as what occurred at a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower in New York. That meeting included Trump Jr., Kushner, then-campaign manager Paul Manafort and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who had “dirt” to offer about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to an email that was made public.

Nadler has also asked American Media Inc. and its chief executive, David Pecker, a longtime Trump ally, about hush payments or “any payment” that Michael Cohen, then Trump’s personal lawyer, made to assist Trump during the campaign.

The documents Nadler requested are a first step in the committee’s effort to explore possible obstruction of justice by the president in connection with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign and whether Trump or anyone close to him coordinated with the Russians during the campaign.

Aides said the panel is exploring two other broad issues: public corruption and abuse of power.

The investigation of public corruption includes potential violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which prohibits presidents from accepting gifts from foreign states, as well as possible campaign finance violations. Potential abuses of power include attacks on the news media and the judiciary, and the use of presidential pardon power, Judiciary Committee aides said.

Nadler’s request is significant not only because he is seeking an expansive amount of material but because his committee has jurisdiction over impeachment. Any hearings exploring whether Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” would take place before the panel.

Nadler’s requests come as House Democrats are ramping up numerous investigations of the president, their first steps in a months-long effort that could lead to impeachment proceedings.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee received testimony from Cohen last Wednesday in a high-profile hearing where the president’s former lawyer accused Trump of lying to the public about his business interests in Russia, his role in silencing women who alleged sexual encounters during the 2016 campaign and his knowledge of WikiLeaks’s hacked material that was damaging to Clinton.

The oversight panel also has given the White House until Monday to respond to document requests surrounding its clearance process, some of which panel Democrats have been seeking for months.

The latest letter — what House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) warned was his “final” request for voluntary compliance — followed news that Trump had personally instructed his then-Chief of Staff John Kelly to give Kushner a security clearance.

At the same time, the House Ways and Means Committee has created a framework for requesting Trump’s tax returns. Although the tax panel has not asked for the documents yet, lawyers for the committee have instructed other panels to help make the case to the public about why the forms are essential to investigating the president.

Nadler’s letter to the Justice Department seeks a wide variety of documents that go to the heart of Mueller’s work, even as senior department officials have publicly and privately expressed a reluctance to share those kinds of investigative documents.

The list, which asks for materials concerning possible obstruction of justice by the president, or possible conspiracy between Trump associates and Russian officials, marks the opening salvo of what some expect to be a fight between Congress and the Justice Department over Mueller’s files.

Nadler’s requests include information about some well-known episodes, but also cover some incidents that have received relatively little attention, such as an effort in 2016 by Peter Smith, a now-deceased Chicago-based Republican fundraiser, to reach out to Russian hackers to get copies of Clinton’s deleted emails.

It sent a request to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been living in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London under a grant of asylum, seeking information relating to its alleged receipt of hacked Democratic emails from the Russian government as well as any contacts with members of the Trump campaign or Trump Organization during the 2016 campaign.

Cohen alleged last week that in July 2016, he overheard a phone call between Trump and longtime adviser Roger Stone in which Stone said he had just spoken to Assange, who within “a couple of days” would release “a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” Stone has repeatedly denied that he conspired with WikiLeaks.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Jed_]

#Resist

Yes, crooked Donald and the extended Trump crime family will finally have their reckoning, and justice will prevail.

[psiberzerker]

[Athos_131]

Democrats make sweeping request for information in Trump probes

Here is the list of the 81 requests - sent to individuals and organizations - for information about various subjects.

Alan Garten (letter, document requests)
Alexander Nix (letter, document requests)
Allen Weisselberg (letter, document requests)
American Media Inc (letter, document requests)
Anatoli Samochornov (letter, document requests)
Andrew Intrater (letter, document requests)
Annie Donaldson (letter, document requests)
Brad Parscale (letter, document requests)
Brittany Kaiser (letter, document requests)
Cambridge Analytica (letter, document requests)
Carter Page (letter, document requests)
Columbus Nova (letter, document requests)
Concord Management and Consulting (letter, document requests)
Corey Lewandowski (letter, document requests)
David Pecker (letter, document requests)
Department of Justice (letter, document requests)
Don McGahn (letter, document requests)
Donald J Trump Revocable Trust (letter, document requests)
Donald Trump Jr. (letter, document requests)
Dylan Howard (letter, document requests)
Eric Trump (letter, document requests)
Erik Prince (letter, document requests)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (letter, document requests)
Felix Sater (letter, document requests)
Flynn Intel Group (letter, document requests)
General Services Administration (letter, document requests)
George Nader (letter, document requests)
George Papadopoulos (letter, document requests)
Hope Hicks (letter, document requests)
Irakly Kaveladze (letter, document requests)
Jared Kushner (letter, document requests)
Jason Maloni (letter, document requests)
Jay Sekulow (letter, document requests)
Jeff Sessions (letter, document requests)
Jerome Corsi (letter, document requests)
John Szobocsan (letter, document requests)
Julian Assange (letter, document requests)
Julian David Wheatland (letter, document requests)
Keith Davidson (letter, document requests)
KT McFarland (letter, document requests)
Mark Corallo (letter, document requests)
Matt Tait (letter, document requests)
Matthew Calamari (letter, document requests)
Michael Caputo (letter, document requests)
Michael Cohen (letter, document requests)
Michael Flynn (letter, document requests)
Michael Flynn Jr (letter, document requests)
Paul Erickson (letter, document requests)
Paul Manafort (letter, document requests)
Peter Smith (Estate) (letter, document requests)
Randy Credico (letter, document requests)
Reince Priebus (letter, document requests)
Rhona Graff (letter, document requests)
Rinat Akhmetshin (letter, document requests)
Rob Goldstone (letter, document requests)
Roger Stone (letter, document requests)
Ronald Lieberman (letter, document requests)
Sam Nunberg (letter, document requests)
SCL Group Limited (letter, document requests)
Sean Spicer (letter, document requests)
Sheri Dillon (letter, document requests)
Stefan Passantino (letter, document requests)
Steve Bannon (letter, document requests)
Ted Malloch (letter, document requests)
The White House (letter, document requests)
Trump Campaign (letter, document requests)
Trump Foundation (letter, document requests)
Trump Organization (letter, document requests)
Trump Transition (letter, document requests)
Viktor Vekselberg (letter, document requests)
Wikileaks (letter, document requests)
58th Presidential Inaugural Committee (letter, document requests)
Christopher Bancroft Burnham (letter, document requests)
Frontier Services Group (letter, document requests)
J.D. Gordon (letter, document requests)
Kushner Companies (letter, document requests)
NRA (letter, document requests)
Rick Gates (letter, document requests)
Tom Barrack (letter, document requests)
Tom Bossert (letter, document requests)
Tony Fabrizio (letter, document requests)

#Resist

[wayne3218]

    
    
Re: The Trump thread: All things Donald
« Reply #5210 on: Today at 05:24:41 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote
Democrats make sweeping request for information in Trump probes

Quote
Here is the list of the 81  85 requests - sent to individuals and organizations - for information about various subjects.


Athos (document request)
Joan (Personal correspondence)
P S I Berzerker (Physiology documents)
Lois (NRA, correspondence)
KB (unidentified members)

Alan Garten (letter, document requests)
Alexander Nix (letter, document requests)
Allen Weisselberg (letter, document requests)
American Media Inc (letter, document requests)
Anatoli Samochornov (letter, document requests)
Andrew Intrater (letter, document requests)
Annie Donaldson (letter, document requests)
Brad Parscale (letter, document requests)
Brittany Kaiser (letter, document requests)
Cambridge Analytica (letter, document requests)
Carter Page (letter, document requests)
Columbus Nova (letter, document requests)
Concord Management and Consulting (letter, document requests)
Corey Lewandowski (letter, document requests)
David Pecker (letter, document requests)
Department of Justice (letter, document requests)
Don McGahn (letter, document requests)
Donald J Trump Revocable Trust (letter, document requests)
Donald Trump Jr. (letter, document requests)
Dylan Howard (letter, document requests)
Eric Trump (letter, document requests)
Erik Prince (letter, document requests)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (letter, document requests)
Felix Sater (letter, document requests)
Flynn Intel Group (letter, document requests)
General Services Administration (letter, document requests)
George Nader (letter, document requests)
George Papadopoulos (letter, document requests)
Hope Hicks (letter, document requests)
Irakly Kaveladze (letter, document requests)
Jared Kushner (letter, document requests)
Jason Maloni (letter, document requests)
Jay Sekulow (letter, document requests)
Jeff Sessions (letter, document requests)
Jerome Corsi (letter, document requests)
John Szobocsan (letter, document requests)
Julian Assange (letter, document requests)
Julian David Wheatland (letter, document requests)
Keith Davidson (letter, document requests)
KT McFarland (letter, document requests)
Mark Corallo (letter, document requests)
Matt Tait (letter, document requests)
Matthew Calamari (letter, document requests)
Michael Caputo (letter, document requests)
Michael Cohen (letter, document requests)
Michael Flynn (letter, document requests)
Michael Flynn Jr (letter, document requests)
Paul Erickson (letter, document requests)
Paul Manafort (letter, document requests)
Peter Smith (Estate) (letter, document requests)
Randy Credico (letter, document requests)
Reince Priebus (letter, document requests)
Rhona Graff (letter, document requests)
Rinat Akhmetshin (letter, document requests)
Rob Goldstone (letter, document requests)
Roger Stone (letter, document requests)
Ronald Lieberman (letter, document requests)
Sam Nunberg (letter, document requests)
SCL Group Limited (letter, document requests)
Sean Spicer (letter, document requests)
Sheri Dillon (letter, document requests)
Stefan Passantino (letter, document requests)
Steve Bannon (letter, document requests)
Ted Malloch (letter, document requests)
The White House (letter, document requests)
Trump Campaign (letter, document requests)
Trump Foundation (letter, document requests)
Trump Organization (letter, document requests)
Trump Transition (letter, document requests)
Viktor Vekselberg (letter, document requests)
Wikileaks (letter, document requests)
58th Presidential Inaugural Committee (letter, document requests)
Christopher Bancroft Burnham (letter, document requests)
Frontier Services Group (letter, document requests)
J.D. Gordon (letter, document requests)
Kushner Companies (letter, document requests)
NRA (letter, document requests)
Rick Gates (letter, document requests)
Tom Barrack (letter, document requests)
Tom Bossert (letter, document requests)
Tony Fabrizio (letter, document requests)

[Athos_131]

   
    
Re: The Trump thread: All things Donald
« Reply #5210 on: Today at 05:24:41 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote
Democrats make sweeping request for information in Trump probes

Quote
Here is the list of the 81  85 requests - sent to individuals and organizations - for information about various subjects.


Athos (document request)
Joan (Personal correspondence)
P S I Berzerker (Physiology documents)
Lois (NRA, correspondence)
KB (unidentified members)

I know Trump's your boy and all but lay off the meth, bro.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

Physiological documents?  Even assuming I was a Democrat (You don't have to be to see that Goldfinger is an unfit president) what possible physiological documents could I want, in any related case.  A report from his proctologist?

[Subject appears to be full of shit.]

Yeah, we knew that.  I don't really need a second opinion on it.  Honestly more interested in the Financial stuff, especially the money hidden untaxed overseas.

[Athos_131]

House Democrats likely to seek 10 years of Trump’s tax returns in coming weeks

Congressional Democrats are likely to request 10 years of President Trump’s tax returns in coming weeks, tailoring their inquiry in a way they hope will survive a court battle, according to lawmakers and others involved in the discussions.

The exact parameters of the request are still in flux, including whether to seek tax returns related to Trump’s many business enterprises in addition to his personal returns.

But Democrats led by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), along with congressional lawyers, are in the advanced stages of preparing the request. They’re relying on a 1924 law that gives chairmen of House and Senate tax-writing committees broad powers to demand the tax returns of White House officials.

They said they are being deliberate so as not to make a mistake that jeopardizes the investigation.

“If we had done this a month and a half ago, we would not be prepared, we would be falling on our face, and we’d be looking at the rationale for what we’re doing,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.), who along with other Democrats has pushed for congressional action to get at the tax returns practically since Trump took office. “Would I have liked it to go faster? I started two years ago. Yes, of course.”

Pascrell, a member of Neal’s committee, would not give an estimate for when the inquiry could come, but he said he is advocating for a sweeping request for records, which would include both personal and business tax filings in search of a comprehensive view of Trump’s compliance with the law.

As House Democrats begin to roll out probes of the Trump administration on multiple fronts, some lawmakers say Trump’s tax returns could contain information critical to many of their inquiries and, as such, could become the linchpin to their oversight responsibilities and the focus of one of the most important court fights they will wage.

Trump has made clear to associates that he has no plans to allow Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to turn over his personal tax records, according to three people who have been briefed on the discussions but spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The 1924 law does not appear to give Mnuchin much flexibility to deny a congressional request, as the law says he “shall” turn over the records.

But if he refuses, Democrats would probably try to compel Mnuchin to comply by filing a lawsuit in federal court. That could drag the process out for months or more than a year, which could be one of Trump’s primary legal strategies, particularly if he thinks Republicans might take control of the House of Representatives during the 2020 elections.

“What the president will do is: He will, first of all, respond grudgingly and slowly. They will then negotiate,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). “They will be subpoenaed. They will take that all the way to the Supreme Court.”

George Yin, former chief of staff for Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, said there is no precedent for a treasury secretary to refuse to comply with a congressional request for tax returns, but if the matter goes to court, Democrats could be forced to prove the inquiry is part of Congress’s “lawmaking function or its oversight responsibilities.”

Congressional leaders have never used the 1924 law to seek the tax returns of a sitting U.S. president, but no president in recent history has refused to voluntarily disclose his tax returns. House Democrats included a new requirement for presidential candidates to release 10 years’ worth of personal tax returns in legislation on campaign finance and government ethics they plan to pass this week, although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made clear he won’t take up the bill.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump gave a variety of reasons for why he would not release his tax returns. One of the most prominent reasons was his claim that the tax returns were being audited by the Internal Revenue Service and that he would release them when that process is over. He repeated that claim in November, after Democrats won the midterm elections.

“Nobody turns over a [return] when it’s under audit,” he said during a news conference.

But that characterization came into question last week, when Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, told a House committee that his understanding was that Trump didn’t release his tax returns for a much different reason.

“What he didn’t want is to have an entire group of think tanks that are tax experts run through his tax return and start ripping it to pieces, and then he’ll end up in an audit, and he’ll ultimately have taxable consequences, penalties and so on,” Cohen said, adding that, “I presume that he is not under audit.”

A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment about the tax return issue. In 2017, Mnuchin told a congressional committee that he wasn’t aware of whether Trump’s tax returns were being audited, as “I don’t have access to that, that’s within the IRS. I don’t have access to specific taxpayer-level information.”

Steve Moore, who was an economic adviser to Trump during the 2016 campaign, said he advised Trump to “never, ever, ever, ever release his tax returns.”

Moore said Democrats tried to make an issue of Trump’s refusal to release the tax returns during the 2016 campaign, and Trump’s victory in the election should serve as validation that voters weren’t particularly interested in what the returns said.

“It would be a total abuse of power and a violation of Donald Trump’s right of privacy,” Moore said.

Democrats have said they want to review Trump’s tax returns to see whether there’s any evidence of conflicts of interest, inappropriate business relationships and improper influence by foreign governments. They’re also looking to understand the precise impact of the 2017 tax cuts on his personal finances, as well as whether he has used inappropriate or illegal tax schemes in the past.

“There’s always a legitimate reason to look at your president’s tax returns,” said Janice Mays, a managing director of PwC who spent 40 years on the House Ways and Means Committee as a Democratic aide.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), another member of the Ways and Means Committee, said Democrats must move as soon as possible because he believes it will take a long time to review the tax returns once they are provided.

“If the desire is to get this information and have it be properly analyzed, it’s essential action be taken immediately,” he said in an interview.

Neal’s office declined to comment. Ashley Etienne, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said the Ways and Means Committee is consulting with other committees to make sure House lawmakers “present the strongest possible case.”

But Gingrich said he believes the inquiry is part of a desperate attempt by Democrats to try to bring Trump down after previous efforts and investigations have failed. He said Democrats are trying to throw the “kitchen sink” at the White House because they have been unable to prove that Trump colluded with the Russian government in the run-up to the 2016 election, among other things.

Gingrich said that even if Democrats somehow were able to obtain the documents, they would be required under law to keep the documents confidential, something he believes would prove impossible for Democrats to do.

“Is there anybody in Washington who believes it will not be leaked?” he said.

House Democrats could hold a series of votes to publicly release the records, but that could also force them to explain what the precise legislative purpose would be for such a move.

Mnuchin has said he would review any congressional inquiry regarding tax returns but has not committed to turning over any records. He could be pressed to explain his rationale as soon as next week, though, when he’s expected to testify before Neal’s committee.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Senate Republicans: Cheap dates and small men

As of this writing only four Senate Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky — have agreed to support the resolution ending President Trump’s fraudulent emergency declaration. Tillis and Collins are up for reelection in 2020 in purple states, and Murkowski has been the least sycophantic Republican on major votes (e.g., repeal of Obamacare, confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh). Only Rand Paul in this group would be described as a solid conservative who has supported Trump regularly on policy but here takes a principled stance based on constitutional principles.

Oh sure, there are many more Republicans harrumphing and mumbling about being “uncomfortable” with a blatant power grab-- including staunch, self-proclaimed constitutional conservatives such as Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) and moderates such as Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). It remains unclear whether there will be any other votes to defend the Senate’s core legislative function. (The New York Times reported, “Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Mike Lee of Utah have all voiced concern on the constitutional question, though none of them has explicitly promised to overturn the emergency declaration.”) Now Cruz was just reelected, but with nearly six years before facing the electorate he’s skedaddled whenever reporters pressed him for an answer. In fact, of the five I just listed, only Inhofe would possibly be on the ballot in 2020.

It’s possible the fourth “no” vote from Paul will allow others to step forward. I’d like to think every Republican senator I’ve mentioned and more who should know better will follow Paul, but the majority, maybe the overwhelming majority, of Republicans will — as they have on virtually everything else — stick with Trump.

Why do Republicans, even ones in safe seats and ones not facing the voters for years, shed any semblance of principle to show mindless fidelity to Trump?

It still amazes some voters. It shouldn’t. These are not political giants; you’ll find no Sen. J. William Fulbright or Hubert H. Humphrey in this crowd. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) died in 2018, the last lawmaker distinguished by his consistent refusal to put party above country and by his contempt for spineless courtiers. The Republicans who populate the Senate cannot imagine losing their perch; they live in fear of becoming politically irrelevant. They fear the wrath of the entire right-wing machine, which includes Trump, Fox News, radio talk show hosts, right-wing billionaire donors, utterly corrupt evangelical conservative leaders and intellectually hypocritical think tankers.

Such lawmakers will do just about anything to stay in the right wing’s good graces, which they perceive as essential to their retention of power. Some like Rubio had brushes with heresy (e.g., on immigration) but now have returned to servility.

The overwhelming number of Republicans do not believe they can defend themselves if they were to act independently — or fear even risking it. They generally know what Trump is saying is bunk (whether it is Trump’s latest conspiracy theory about the FBI or some uber-theory of executive power or his fearmongering about immigrants), but they understand Trump’s grip on the base and figure it’s easier to echo Trump, snow voters whom they consider incapable of independent thought and just regurgitate the same garbage Trump spews.

Maybe Paul will shame a few into supporting the resolution. However, I fear Eliot Cohen is on the money when he writes:

They know, in their timid breasts, that they would have howled with indignation if Barack Obama had declared a national emergency in such a circumstance. As they stare at their coffee cup at breakfast, the thought occurs to them that a future left-wing president could make dangerous use of these same powers—because Speaker Nancy Pelosi rubbed that fact in their face. Some of the brighter ones might even realize that emergency powers are a favored tool of authoritarians everywhere.

But they are afraid. They are afraid of being primaried. They are afraid of being called out by the bully whom they secretly despise but to whom they pledge public fealty. They are afraid of having to find another occupation than serving in elective office. And the most conceited of the lot—and there are quite a few of those, perhaps more in the Senate than in the House—think that it would be a tragedy if the country no longer had their service at its disposal.They know, in their timid breasts, that they would have howled with indignation if Barack Obama had declared a national emergency in such a circumstance. As they stare at their coffee cup at breakfast, the thought occurs to them that a future left-wing president could make dangerous use of these same powers—because Speaker Nancy Pelosi rubbed that fact in their face. Some of the brighter ones might even realize that emergency powers are a favored tool of authoritarians everywhere.

But they are afraid. They are afraid of being primaried. They are afraid of being called out by the bully whom they secretly despise but to whom they pledge public fealty. They are afraid of having to find another occupation than serving in elective office. And the most conceited of the lot—and there are quite a few of those, perhaps more in the Senate than in the House—think that it would be a tragedy if the country no longer had their service at its disposal.

You can call such pols them overly ambitious, but I wish their ambition was much grander. If only they yearned to make history, to walk in McCain’s footsteps, they might get a line in the history books. Unfortunately, if they are remembered at all, it will be for their docility in the face of an authoritarian president and for their willingness to disregard their oaths for the security of another term or a gig on Fox News after retirement or a cheesy award from some right-wing group. These are cheap dates and small men.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

Looks like we're going to get to see his Tax Returns after Obama's Birth Certificate, and before Hillary's Emails.

Remember those?  They keep going on, and on about how the Cohen evidence doesn't point to his collusion with Russia.  When we have him, on tape, mocking himself pleading for the Russians to hack the State Department emails.  (On a private server.)  We don't really have to prove a conspiracy with an Excited Utterance Confession.

Anybody else catch that Meltdown of a public speech, with a creepy hug for the Stars and Stripes as a warmup?  He ranted so long, I was starting to suspect he was opening up for Henry Rollins!