‘This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked.' - A Yellow Wall Nightmare

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Roger Stone barred by U.S. judge from posting on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook through trial

A federal judge on Tuesday barred Roger Stone from all communications through Instagram, Twitter and Facebook until after his trial, rebuking the longtime Republican operative for resorting to “middle-school” behavior online that could prejudice future jurors.

The judge ordered Stone not to post anything on the three popular sites, extending a previous gag order that prohibited him from discussing his case or participants in it with the media, on other social media or in public settings.

For the close confidant of President Trump, social media platforms have been a mainstay as he contests — and disparages — his prosecution on charges of lying to Congress and witness tampering brought by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s displeasure with Stone was evident as she read aloud from months of Stone’s online postings and reprimanded the defendant as he sat in court.

“What am I supposed to do with you? . . . Once again I am wrestling with behavior that has more to do with middle school than a court of law,” Jackson said, adding that whether the problem is “you can’t follow orders, or won’t, I need to help you out.”

Stone has pleaded not guilty to charges of lying about his efforts to gather information about Democratic Party emails hacked and leaked by Russian operatives in 2016. He has a trial scheduled for November.

Jackson in February ordered Stone to cease making public statements attacking his indictment, the conduct of the FBI, intelligence agencies and government officials in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, after Stone ignored earlier warnings and posted a photograph of the judge’s face next to what appeared to be gunsight crosshairs.

Jackson did not say how she would enforce the expanded order but held out the possibility of a contempt hearing after trial. Holding such a hearing now would waste the resources of the court and the legal teams, and it could generate more pretrial publicity that the order is meant to tamp down, she said.

Stone was in court Tuesday for a previously scheduled hearing on a request from his lawyers to suppress evidence they said was gathered through a flawed search warrant underpinned by what the defense says was secondhand unreliable information.

Prosecutors led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kravis said Stone’s efforts appeared aimed at creating an ongoing “sideshow” and to “backdoor a defense conspiracy theory” into the case, namely that government findings of Russian interference in the campaign were based on a “false narrative.”

Jackson took the motion under advisement and said she would rule later.

The judge then turned to Stone’s compliance with her gag order, saying it had been “as clear as day,” before reading from some of Stone’s vitriolic and profane social media attacks.

She said postings in Stone’s Instagram account included photos of commentators referring to the “Russia Hoax” and claiming Stone’s defense has exposed “the ‘intelligence community’s’ betrayal of their responsibilities” and revealed “deeply disturbing lessons about the level of corruption at the top levels of the agencies charged with protecting us from external threats.”

Jackson also cited a March 29 posting by Stone using scatological terms to mock House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif), whose committee also investigated the Russian election effort, and a June 2 message in which Stone called John O. Brennan, CIA director at the time of the election, a “psycho” who “must be charged, tried, convicted — and hung for treason.”

With Stone sitting at a defense table in a light blue suit with arms tightly folded, Jackson also cited a Feb. 27 text by Stone to a BuzzFeed reporter denying the truthfulness of House testimony by a witness in the investigation, Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

In Stone’s defense, attorney Bruce Rogow called the gag order, which he had helped draft, “overbroad,” and said Stone should not be prevented from commenting about the media, court filings or U.S. officials in general.

Above all, Rogow said, Stone’s social media following was minimal. According to his Instagram account, Stone has about 50,000 followers, but only one hundred to two hundred “liked” some of the posts in dispute. Stone was banned by Twitter in October 2017 for expletive-laden tweets about CNN.

“None of these things are the kind of thing that have any reasonable basis for affecting a fair trial,” Rogow said.

“I am sorry the court is offended by these things and thinks they violate the court’s order. I understand how one can look at them and come to the conclusion and find they’re at the line or across the line,” Rogow acknowledged. “But Mr. Stone has tried to hew to that line.

Jackson responded sternly, “There’s some added verbiage there. I don’t think recognizing or determining a line has been crossed has to do with whether a person is offended.”

She said Rogow “twisted himself into a pretzel” trying to defend Stone.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

What I Would Ask Robert Mueller

If I were a member of Congress with five minutes to question Robert Mueller, I would ask short questions drawn from the report’s executive summaries.

Volume One: Russia

Did you find that there were a series of contacts between the Trump campaign and individuals with ties to the Russian government? (p. 5)

In particular, did you find that a Trump foreign policy adviser learned that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails? (pp. 5-6)

Did you find that the Trump foreign policy adviser said the Trump campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton? (p. 6)

Did you find that senior members of the Trump campaign met with Russian representatives at Trump Tower after being told in an email that the meeting was part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump? (p. 6)

Did you find that, despite the fact that candidate Trump said he had "nothing to do with Russia," his organization had been pursuing a major Moscow project into the middle of the election year and that candidate Trump was regularly updated on developments? (vol 1, p. 5: vol 2, p. 19)

Did the Trump campaign report any of its Russian contacts to the FBI?

Not even the indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton?

Volume Two: Obstruction

Did you reach a judgment as to whether the president had committed obstruction of justice crimes?

Did you find substantial evidence that the president had committed obstruction of justice crimes?

For example, did you find that the president directed the White House counsel to call the acting attorney general and tell him the special counsel must be removed? (p. 4)

Did you find that the White House counsel decided he would rather resign than carry out that order? (p. 4)

Did you find that the president later directed the White House counsel to say he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed? (p. 6)

Did you find that the president wanted the White House counsel to write a false memo saying he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed? (p. 6)

Did you find that the White House counsel refused to do that because it was not true? (p. 6)

Did you find that the president repeatedly asked a private citizen—his former campaign manager—to deliver a message to the attorney general to restrict the special counsel to investigating only future campaign interference? (p. 5)

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Democrats Are Setting Themselves Up To Fail On Mueller Hearings

In a House Judiciary Committee hearing about the most controversial topic of the day 12 years ago, Robert Mueller provided testimony that sharply contradicted the sworn testimony of the Attorney General. He confirmed that the March 10, 2004 hospital confrontation between Jim Comey and the White House concerned a disagreement about the legality of the Stellar Wind warrantless wiretapping program, contrary to the earlier claims of Alberto Gonzales.

“I had an understanding that the discussion was on a N.S.A. program,” Mr. Mueller said in answer to a question from Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas, in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

Asked whether he was referring to the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or T.S.P., he replied, “The discussion was on a national N.S.A. program that has been much discussed, yes.”

Mr. Mueller said he had taken notes of some of his conversations about the issue, and after the hearing the committee asked him to produce them.

snip

In a four-hour appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Mr. Gonzales denied that the dispute arose over the Terrorist Surveillance Program, whose existence was confirmed by President Bush in December 2005 after it had been disclosed by The New York Times. Mr. Gonzales said it centered on “other intelligence activities.”



That event, like Russian investigation, involved a constitutional crisis and uncertain matters of law. It involved issues made more controversial by Jim Comey’s at times imperfect efforts to uphold principle. Mueller’s testimony specifically confirmed suspicions about the deceit and criminal exposure of the Attorney General, possibly contributing to his resignation a month later.

Sheila Jackson Lee — who remains on HJC — asked the question, and Mueller answered truthfully, and then provided evidence to back up his testimony.

And yet, even after studying Mueller’s past testimony to Congress (presumably including that hearing), House Democrats have themselves convinced that Mueller won’t be all that forthcoming in his hearing next week.

“I don’t think Mr. Mueller, based on everything I know about him, that anyone should expect any major departure from the contents of the report,” said Rep. David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “I do think the contents of the report are so significant and so damning that when Mr. Mueller brings them to life and actually tells the American people … it will have an impact.”

The committees recognize that Mueller is a reluctant witness, and has stated he does not intend to answer questions beyond the contents of his report. The committee aides said they planned to respect Mueller’s desires but noted Congress isn’t bound by such limits. The aides anticipate questions will go beyond what’s written in the report, such as asking Mueller whether certain episodes detailed would have been crimes had they not involved the President — after Mueller said that his office followed Justice Department legal opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

[snip]

Mueller’s long government career has given the two committees plenty of material to study from Mueller’s past congressional appearances. The bottom line is they don’t expect Mueller to readily volunteer information, aides say, particularly given that he doesn’t want to testify before Congress.

As Jackson Lee demonstrated years ago, a properly phrased question will elicit an honest answer from Mueller.

But that’s not my main complaint about the reported preparations for Mueller’s testimony next week: it’s that Democrats have locked themselves into a division of labor — with HJC focusing on the evidence showing Trump obstructed justice and the House Intelligence Committee focusing on details of Trump’s enthusiasm for the Russian attack — that leaves out the larger framework of the investigation (and aftermath), may not touch on the area that, given the focus of his press conference, Mueller’s likely to be most forthcoming about (the extent of the Russian operation), and threatens to make a weaker case for both obstruction and “collusion.”

I hope to finally write my narratology of the Mueller Report to lay out the latter point. My questions for Mueller (which I’ll update before next Wednesday) include some that — like the Jackson Lee question twelve years ago — are factual questions that may do more to illuminate the actions of others than questions designed solely to get Mueller to recapitulate what’s already in the report.

But one of the biggest reasons I’m concerned about this approach is that Democrats are adopting a structure Mueller did –separating Trump associates’ efforts to obstruct an investigation into a possible conspiracy from Trump’s own efforts to obstruct an investigation into a conspiracy — that serves to water down the impact of the report.

This report was not, as most people commenting on it seem to believe, a report “of what Mueller found.” Rather, it is strictly limited to prosecutorial decisions, and as such doesn’t include evidence Mueller obtained that’s not important to explain why he chose to charge people or not.

His report produced the following prosecutorial decisions:



As noted with the shading the break between Volume I and Volume II is not actually a break between the conspiracy investigation (Russia’s interference in the election and Trump Associates’ ties with Russia) and the obstruction investigation (matters arising from the investigation). Prosecutorial decisions relating to the cover-up appear in both Volume I and Volume II. It’s unclear why Mueller organized it like that (this would actually be an interesting question); perhaps he did it because he didn’t reach a prosecutorial decision about Trump or perhaps because he wanted to provide an impeachment referral for Congress.

But the effect of the organization is that it severs the discussion of the suspicious actions from the efforts to cover up those actions.

To illustrate why this is important, consider the June 9 meeting. The actual events behind that are:

Don Jr willingly accepted dirt on Hillary offered as part of the Russian government’s support for Trump

According to two witnesses, Trump probably knew about the meeting ahead of time (but did not plan a speech around it, as some suspected)

Don Jr and Emin Agalarov had several conversations about what the meeting would be
At the meeting, Don Jr agreed to consider sanctions relief even after he grew fed up that the dirt wasn’t very interesting

When the Trump team identified this meeting as an area of focus for Congressional and other investigations, Trump repeatedly responded in a way that — according to Hope Hicks — was totally uncharacteristic; either he or she also considered withholding the evidence from investigators

Trump personally issued a blatantly misleading statement on the meeting (after talking with Putin about that cover story, though that detail doesn’t show up in the report, which is another thing worth asking about)

Although he willingly sat for interviews with three Congressional committees — even after the report came out — Don Jr refused to appear before the grand jury

Emin Agalarov canceled an entire concert tour to avoid being questioned about the meeting or — more importantly — what he told Don Jr on those phone calls

From the point of view of the crime of obstruction of justice, the June 9 meeting is the weakest case, in part because Don Jr avoided getting caught in a lie about it (and so was not charged in parallel with Flynn and Stone). Given their focus on treating Volume II as an obstruction of justice impeachment referral rather than the complete cover-up, HJC is not treating this incident. But it’s one of the most damning examples showing that Trump and his family acted to accept Russian help.

And consider how Manafort’s sharing of polling data will get watered down with this approach to questioning. One of the most obvious ways to illustrate the impact of Trump’s obstruction is to lay out that Mueller was never able to establish why Manafort was trading Ukraine away at a meeting where he also discussed how to win MI and WI. It looks like a smoking gun, but Mueller was never able to fully investigate it (Manafort’s use of encryption helped things along here, too). And one key reason why he was never able to investigate it is because Manafort believed Trump would pardon him if he lied, and he did lie.

Note, too, that while Mueller notes that Manafort lied in footnotes, unless he’s the redacted person who lied to the grand jury in the prosecutions section, Mueller did not describe his prosecutorial decision not to charge Manafort for lying to the grand jury in that section.

As laid out (according to these reports), HPSCI is going to investigate the equivalent of the Watergate burglary, while HJC will investigate the cover-up of the burglary. Worse, HJC will go first, so it’s not like people watching the entire day will have been reminded about the burglary before HJC delves into the cover-up of it.

In other words, dividing the questioning the way reports say the committees will separates a discussion of the cover-up from the actions Trump covered up. That, in turn, makes it a lot harder to show that one reason Mueller didn’t collect enough evidence to charge a conspiracy is because of that cover up.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

House Democrats demand Hope Hicks clarify testimony after Cohen document dump

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday demanded Hope Hicks return for a second round of questioning within the next month to clarify what it described as "inconsistent" testimony she gave about Donald Trump's hush-money payments to an adult film actress.

Democratic panel chairman Jerry Nadler in a five-page letter cited newly released court documents that raise questions about whether the former White House communications director and longtime Trump aide misled his panel about her role in the scheme during a closed-door interview last month.

"As I reminded you at the outset of your interview, anything other than complete candor can have very serious consequences," Nadler said in the letter to Hicks, which set an August 15 deadline for her to voluntarily return for additional questioning otherwise he'd issue a subpoena.

At issue is testimony Hicks gave in June before Nadler's panel about what she knew concerning the payments made to the actress, Stormy Daniels, in a bid to silence her story before Election Day 2016.

Hicks told the committee she had no direct knowledge of the payments and that she didn't have any contact during the presidential campaign with several of the key participants, including Keith Davidson, a lawyer for Daniels, and executives at American Media, Inc., the parent organization of the National Enquirer that was planning to buy the actress's story to bury it.

She also told the House panel that she was never present for discussions about the issue involving Trump and Michael Cohen, the Trump attorney who is now serving a three-year prison sentence in part for his role in violating campaign finance laws tied to the payments to Daniels.

In his letter to Hicks, Nadler said her testimony on each of her statements dealing with the issue "appears to be inconsistent with the evidence" released earlier Thursday in newly unsealed portions of the FBI's search warrants on Cohen.

One example Nadler cited from the search warrant involves an early October 2016 phone call between Hicks, Trump and Cohen as the presidential candidate and his attorney were beginning negotiations on a deal to try and keep Daniels from going public with the allegations about an affair with Trump.

According to the document, Hicks called Cohen on Oct. 8, 2016. Sixteen seconds later, Trump himself was dialed into the call, which continued for over four minutes. The FBI agent said it was the first call Cohen had received or made to Hicks in at least multiple weeks, and Cohen and Trump had spoken only about once a month prior to that.

Cohen and Hicks then spoke again for about two minutes after the call with Trump ended.

Several other examples of Hicks' involvement are also in the court records released Thursday, including testimony from an FBI agent who said she was part of a series of calls, text messages and emails about the payments to Daniels with Trump, Cohen, Davidson and the American Media executives, David Pecker and Dylan Howard.

Chronological accounts from the FBI agents also describe Hicks communicating with the same group of people about the Daniels payments, as well as their anticipation of a separate Wall Street Journal story that was about to publish that detailed another alleged Trump affair with Karen McDougal, a Playboy model that the National Enquirer had also paid $150,000 to bury her story.

Hicks’ participation in all of those moments, coming as Trump’s campaign was scrambling to bury the women's stories in the final weeks of a tumultuous 2016 presidential race, puts her in an awkward spot to explain her closed-door congressional testimony last month.

In that private interview, Hicks gave a categorical denial to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) when she asked whether Hicks was ever present when Trump and Cohen had discussed Daniels.

“No, ma’am,” Hicks replied.

“You were never present when they discussed Stormy Daniels?” Jackson Lee asked again, according to a transcript released by the panel.

“No,” Hicks answered.

Jackson Lee then pressed a third time. “I’m going to say it again. Were you ever present when Trump and Mr. Cohen discussed Stormy Daniels, since it was all over the news that that occurred?” the lawmaker asked.

After a White House attorney, Patrick Philbin, interjected to ensure the question to Hicks was focused only on her time on the Trump campaign, Hicks again replied, “So, no is my answer.”

Also in the interview, Tennessee Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen asked Hicks directly if she had "no knowledge - any information about hush money payments to Ms. Stormy Daniels. How about to Ms. - was it - McDougal, Miss August?"

Hicks replied, "I wasn't aware of anything. I wasn't aware of a hush payment agreement."

She also testified that she didn't have "any direct knowledge" about the payments made to Daniels during the campaign.

Asked when she learned about the payments to the actress, Hicks replied in questioning from the committee's lawyers that she did not recall speaking to Cohen about the Daniels episode "other than to relay what the reporter said to me, that she would be mentioned in [a] story, but there was no additional context."

"I know the president had conversations with Michael separate from me, so it's possible it was part of those. I don't recall being part of those conversations," Hicks added.

Hicks’ responses to the House committee also appears to conflict with what an FBI special agent wrote in support of the bureau’s request for search warrants of Cohen’s home, office and hotel room. In a footnote about the Trump-Cohen-Hicks call, the agent described a conversation with another official from the bureau who had interviewed Hicks.

“I have learned that Hicks stated, in substance, that to the best of her recollection, she did not learn about the allegations made by [Daniels] until early November 2016,” the agent wrote. “Hicks was not specifically asked about this three-way call.”

On Friday, Robert Trout, a lawyer for Hicks, issued a statement addressing the testimony.

“Reports claiming that Ms. Hicks was involved in conversations about 'hush money' payments on October 8, 2016, or knew that payments were being discussed, are simply wrong," Trout said. "Ms. Hicks stands by her truthful testimony that she first became aware of this issue in early November 2016, as the result of press inquiries, and she will be responding formally to Chairman Nadler’s letter as requested.”

The new questions about Hicks’ testimony come as some in Trump’s orbit are starting to breathe a little easier. Audrey Strauss, lead U.S. attorney in New York handling Cohen’s case, sent a letter to a federal judge earlier this week that the government’s probe had concluded into who else might be criminally liable for the campaign finance violations to which Cohen pleaded guilty.

Strauss also said the Manhattan-based investigation into whether anyone else gave false statements or obstructed justice is over.

While the New York-based federal prosecutor made no mention about additional charges, several legal experts told POLITICO on Wednesday that the government’s confirmation that it has closed its investigation suggests no one else from the Trump Organization faces legal liability.

“Case closed,” Trump personal attorney Jay Sekulow said in a text message to POLITICO on Thursday.

But others aren’t so sure Hicks is in the clear.

"Looks like Hope Hicks lied during Congressional investigation when we at @HouseJudiciary interviewed her," tweeted Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who sits on the judiciary panel. "That's two felonies: Perjury & Obstruction of Justice. Hicks consulted with lawyers throughout her interview. Did @TheJusticeDept or @WhiteHouse lawyers know she was lying?"

Added Bradley Moss, a Washington-based national security attorney, “I’m going to be surprised if there isn’t a 1001 violation referral for Hope Hicks by the end of tomorrow. It appears rather clear she lied to Congress about the Stormy Daniels saga.” He was referring to the federal statute prohibiting material false statements.

Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: [Poole hands Gerard a set of unlocked leg irons, and he brandishes them in the Old Guard's face] Oh! Wow, gee whiz, looky here! You know, we're always fascinated when we find leg irons with no legs in them. Who held the keys, sir?

Old Guard: Me.

Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: Where those keys at?

Old Guard: I don't know.

Poole: Care to revise your statement, sir?

Old Guard: What?

Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: Do you want to change you bullshit story, sir?

-The Fugitive, [which ironically might refer to Donald J. Trump soon]

#Resist