Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the greatest danger for President Donald Trump in the raids on his personal attorney’s office, home, and hotel room. Michael Cohen’s real threat may be as bait — either by design or default. It is the perfect Wolf Pit and Trump could prove the ultimate prize if he is not restrained in his reaction to the raid. The most significant blows for his Administration has been the result of Trump’s responses to events. The most obvious was his disastrous decision to fire Comey in the middle of the Russian investigation. Already, the Cohen raid has reportedly pushed Trump away from speaking with Mueller. Cohen has already maximized the damage to himself and his client. He may now have derailed the effort of Trump’s D.C. legal team to prepare him for a sitdown with Mueller on four categories. At the same time, Trump is reportedly back to threatening that he might fire Mueller or Rosenstein or Sessions. Despite the overwhelming view of experts and Republican leaders that such a move would highly damaging to his Administration and could trigger impeachment proceedings, there is still a palpable fear that that Trump could take such a self-defeated course.
Here is the column:
The image of FBI agents carting away computers and records of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer, is just the latest cringeworthy moment from the life and times of the attorney. Few would be surprised by Cohen being criminally charged. However, Cohen’s greatest danger to Trump may be not as a defendant but as bait.
Consider the curious aspect of this referral: A year ago, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had no problem with expanding Robert Mueller’s mandate to allow him to investigate and order a “no-knock raid” on former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Those crimes were far removed from the original purpose of the special counsel investigation, and included business transactions linked to his work in Ukraine and conduct years before the election.
Media is reporting that Mueller went to Rosenstein with the evidence against Cohen for fraud and other offenses in Russia and Ukraine, including campaign finance violations in the very election that is the subject of the original mandate. Yet, now, Rosenstein reportedly wanted Cohen investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. If so, why? The offenses are far closer to Trump and the campaign than those allowed against Manafort.
This is why the referral to the Southern District was a move that may be as cunning as it is hostile. The timing and the manner of the raid have all of the characteristics of a wolf pit, and Trump — not Cohen — could prove to be the prize. For centuries, farmers dug pits with sharp spikes at the base, and place branches over the hole. They placed a piece of meat on the branches to attract the wolf, so that it would fall into the pit.
As I have previously written, Mueller does not appear to have a compelling criminal case against Trump for collusion with the Russians. Indeed, Trump remains a “subject,” not a target, an unchanged status after more than a year of investigation and multiple cooperative witnesses. If Trump simply stays where he is, under cover, he could well run out this investigation without a charge. But that depends on him staying there.
Cohen, however, may be just the right carrion to draw this wolf into the open. Until the raid, Trump appeared, finally, to be following the advice of his lawyers in the White House and preparing for a negotiated interview with Mueller. One day after reportedly starting to prepare for that interview, the president was thrown into a rage over the raiding of his personal lawyer’s office.
Suddenly, Trump was back on camera denouncing Mueller, Rosenstein, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, fired FBI director James Comey and others, as well as discussing the possible firing of Mueller. Most competent lawyers agree that firing Mueller, like the disastrous firing of Comey, would present an existential threat to Trump’s presidency.
Like any good wolf trap, this set-up, first and foremost, protects the hunters. By referring the matter, Mueller and Rosenstein protected themselves from criticism of expanding the investigation. At the same time, they brought into the mix U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, who Trump interviewed and nominated, as well as a neutral magistrate who signed the search warrant.
Any evidence gathered by Berman would be shared with Mueller and could be prosecuted directly in the Southern District. Moreover, even if Trump fired Mueller, he would have to move against the Southern District to shut down this investigation. That would play directly into calls for impeachment. The point of a wolf pit is that the more the wolf thrashes around, the more he harms himself.
What must be endlessly frustrating to Trump’s legal team in Washington is that this controversy continues to be driven by the likes of Cohen. All of the lawyers around Trump have struggled mightily to control the damage caused by Cohen. Now, Cohen may force the next steps and put Trump at even greater peril. To make matters worse, Trump would fall into this particular trap with a lawyer who may have tossed away any protections for his client.
To use that privilege, you first have to confirm you are acting as a lawyer and not as a friend, fixer or business associate. Cohen seemed to relish his mixing of those roles, and that fluid, ambiguous role could now strip him and his principal client of the privilege. Cohen’s bizarre concept of representation is so convoluted and conflicted that, after months of litigation, we still are unclear as to whether Cohen was acting for himself or his client or his shell company in paying off adult film star Stormy Daniels just days before the election.
Cohen signed the now-infamous nondisclosure agreement with Daniels on behalf of “EC LLC,” which is basically himself. He allegedly never conferred with Trump or got his consent for paying $130,000 in hush money. Moreover, Cohen has talked about securing $20 million in penalties from Daniels for himself, not for Trump.
Even when a valid, clear attorney-client relationship exists, that privilege can be set aside in cases of crime or fraud. That is precisely what Cohen is being investigated for, in transactions extending from California to Russia to Ukraine. Already, Mueller not only has used that exception to strip away privilege from Manafort but he effectively turned Manafort’s attorney, Melissa Laurenza, into a witness against her client.
Cohen now could be looking at serious criminal exposure and, if charged with campaign-finance and fraud violations, only two men will be able to deliver him from the quagmire of his own making: Trump and Mueller. The president could ultimately pardon Cohen, while the special counsel could give him a deal. Some at the Justice Department may be counting on Trump’s aggressive tendencies to do the rest. In running to Cohen’s rescue, the president could easily find himself the prize rather than the predator in this conflict.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
JT discusses the strategery (Dubya word) of all of this, but skirts around the real issue, which is that Trump is dirty, pure and simple. Dirty as to his lack of personal integrity, lack of ethics, and dirty as to his business dealings and the manner in which he got away with “winning” the “victory”. Trump is not a victim–rather, the American people, American values, the integrity of our electoral processes and the dignity of the Office of the President are the victims. He needs to go. And, no, a litany of the alleged faults of Democrats, the Clintons, or anyone else does not mitigate Trump’s unfitness for office. A Kellyanne Pivot won’t do.
Another lead story today is that Trump’s buddy (a man ironically named “Pecker”–hummm) at the National Enquirer bribed a former doorman at Trump Tower not to disclose what he knew about Trump allegedly impregnating a female employee. The bribe was in the form of a payment for an “exclusive” right to tell the story, which got spiked, of course. According to former Enquirer employees, the doorman passed a polygraph test.
The question really is: when is enough enough?
We’ve had enough. Every day we have had enough.
And you know what?
Hillary Rodham Clinton is STILL not President of the United States.
That’s all that matters.
More please.
Your followers can’t become parasites.
There is a old political saying, when you run with a pack of wolves, don’t trip. And Trump thru his own sheer incompetence and the incompetence of the people he hires, his pack of poodles are dead meat.
I support this message.
this is to fishy with the poodles.
Plus, honestly – these emotionally unhinged reactive columns, media, congressional employees are so off the target it is hard to even follow the insanity. Unfortunately JT’s columns fall in that category. He should spend some time researching what is readily available prior to throwing out reactive emotional columns. It is all there for those interested in legal fact finding.
Fortunately, on any given day, less than 5 million Americans are reading/listening/partaking in this fear/fake mongering nonsense.
The rest, and the rest is all that matters, will pay attention only when criminal charges are filed.
Trump will come out looking like a victimized do-gooder citizen whose only crime was to win an election.
I seriously love this entire ‘war’ – the sunlight was way overdue .
INlegaleagle
Stick with Breitbart and Infowars.
All Trump. All good. 365 24/7
With many amusing whacky conspiracy theories to boot.
Cordially, Bill
Autumn, apparrently Mr. Woodstock never heard of the crime/fraud exception to attorney client privlege. Perhaps that’s a second year course at his law school?
Cordially, Bill
Trump is learning the hard way, what everybody who has worked in or with government closely already knows. When you win public office, the first thing on your agenda is to clean house. The old saying about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer no longer applies. You can still keep your friends close, of course, but your enemies must be eliminated. And even if the people you thought were your friends begin to falter and demonstrate disloyalty, then they too must be terminated. Yet, Trump foolishly packed his administration with the likes of Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey, etc.
In some lines of work, the termination must be of the permanent variety, and not a metaphor. But the metaphor is a good one to keep in mind, as illustrated so well in The Godfather (novel and movie):
Sessions has been ineffectual, not nefarious. Comey was appointed under the previous administration. The FBI director ordinarily serves a standard term. The president has the discretion to dismiss him, but seldom does. Rosenstein’s the schemer here. He, Comey, and Mueller are out of the same stable and he indubitably got the appointment because he’s worked for George W. Bush. What those who put him forward did not realize is that he would use his position to undermine the administration.
Ralph,
A cabal of Republicans is plotting to oust the depraved orange imbecile, aka the Republican President?
Rosenstein, Mueller and Sessions. All Republicans.
Rather remarkable, even for a whacky conspiracy theory, don’t you think?
Cordially, Bill
WB99 – Ralph is right. Ever heard of RINOs? They despise Trump – would rather have had HRC in there to get the TPP through and keep business going as usual. You know, the crossing the aisle jerks who coalesce to screw the American people. I have issues with the Donald but one thing I’ll give him – he is destroying the establishment neo lib /neo con Republican and Democrat parties. Kudos for that.
We, the majority of “the American people” didn’t vote for him, don’t like him, and want him gone.
Did you mean Americans or illegal hyphenates?
ha ha ha. Entertaining and predictable as always Nutchacha. CA and NY “voted” for HRC – the rest of the nation voted Trump, Stein, Johnson and/or wrote in a candidate or stayed home.
2016 was the election from Hell, the two worst candidates in American history running against each other.
I wouldn’t despise Trump so much if he weren’t so depraved and despicable.
Is that my fault?
Have a great day
WB99 – I agree “2016 was the election from Hell, the two worst candidates in American history running against each other”
however, I would only categorize HRC as ” so depraved and despicable”
The voters knew her record — Trump was a “possible evil” whereas she had already been confirmed as such.
Many of us voted 3rd party.
@Autumn April 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM
“I have issues with the Donald but one thing I’ll give him – he is destroying the establishment neo lib /neo con Republican and Democrat parties. Kudos for that.”
Is he? What about his making John Bolton his National Security Advisor, his nominating Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, and his nominating Gina Haspel as CIA Director?
Not in their alternative world and facts.
More parallels than you can shake a stick at.
Only difference is our Keefer, et. al. simply don’t like the captain and deem their hatred of him a sufficiently Noble Cause to excuse all their corrupt means of getting rid of him.
Trump as Queeg.
Yes, I see what you mean.
Have a great day.
Is Keefer Rosenstein or Mueller – the perpetrator of a malicious prosecution?
Keefer is the elitist mindset within the media, DOJ, FBI and DNC seeking to railroad the captain.
Just now, when I went looking for a transcript of the scene, I found this:
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/c8d49904/is-trump-a-captain-queeg
Trump may be a boorish buffoon, but he’s the legally elected captain. And half the country is willing to commit fraud and treason to oust him; just to serve their own ego and pride.
Best take on this I’ve seen. Kudos Bob.
Thanks Mark. I figured if there was anyone here who might get it; it would be you.
Today Professor Turley tells us again that Cohen is problematic, a theme the professor has hit on many times. This paragraph in particular stands out: “Cohen signed the now-infamous nondisclosure agreement with Daniels on behalf of “EC LLC,” which is basically himself. He allegedly never conferred with Trump or got his consent for paying $130,000 in hush money. Moreover, Cohen has talked about securing $20 million in penalties from Daniels for himself, not for Trump”.
It illustrates again what I have noted previously. That Cohen is Trump’s pit bull acting on Trump’s worst tendencies. And according to Professor Turley, Cohen’s practices could prove more deadly to Trump than even the Russia Probe itself.
Observing from a federal courthouse from afar – sloppy desperation from an adversary is always, always, telling.
‘Team Coup’ was incredibly and egregiously sloppy this week. They screwed up. Very satisfying from a prosecutorial perspective.
The ‘subject’ wins this round, again.
The ‘winning’ and the ‘losing it’ really has been phenomenal to watch from outside the bubble.
Sessions/Horowitz/Huber. The team to watch.
The rest is just desperation.
If this is winning, may the Depraved Orange Buffoon have many more such victories.
Good grammar. If you are addressing someone then you use this : Not a comma.
So.
Mr. President: Have pity on the working man.
Now some on the blog would think I am relating to some good grandma. No.
Turley wrote, “A year ago, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had no problem with expanding Robert Mueller’s mandate to allow him to investigate and order a “no-knock raid” on former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Those crimes were far removed from the original purpose of the special counsel investigation, and included business transactions linked to his work in Ukraine and conduct years before the election.
Media is reporting that Mueller went to Rosenstein with the evidence against Cohen for fraud and other offenses in Russia and Ukraine, including campaign finance violations in the very election that is the subject of the original mandate.”
I honestly can’t tell anymore whether Turley is merely pretending to be obtuse or whether Turley actually might be obtuse. First Turley claims that Manafort’s work assisting the Russian information warfare operation in The Ukraine is far removed from the Russian information warfare operation in the 2016 US election. Second Turley claims that Cohen’s alleged fraud and “other offenses” in Russia and The Ukraine are closer to the Russian information warfare operation in the 2016 US election.
From whence came the evidence against Cohen that Mueller forwarded to Rosenstein? Could it be, shall one suppose, that the evidence against Cohen for fraud and “other offenses” in Russia and The Ukraine came from Rick Gates? Or from the special counsel’s investigation of Manafort’s work assisting the Russian information warfare operation in The Ukraine? Perhaps Turley does not know, or has since forgotten, that the Trump-Russia dossier alleged that Cohen became the intermediary between the Trump campaign and The Russians after Manafort was forced to resign as Trump’s campaign manager.
Remember: Rick Gates did not resign and stayed on as a member of Trump’s transition team. Also remember: Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and D. C. Leaks and Wikileaks leaked them. Also remember that Roger Stone used Randy Credico as an intermediary to communicate with Julian Assange.
As strange as it might seem to Turley, there is a definite possibility that Mueller is still pursuing a case against the Trump campaign for coordinating their campaign activities with the Russian information warfare operation in the 2016 US election. If so, then Cohen’s alleged fraud and “other offenses” in Russia and The Ukraine might very well be “the coordination” that Mueller seeks to demonstrate.
“Could it be” = the entire premise of your post. Otherwise known as fantasy.
Bob, Esq.,,,
– You might be interested in previous conments on L4D’s complex ” what if” constructs.
See my comments, and Olly’s, in the “Man from Rule X” JT Column.
Feb.2, 2018…the comments I refer to begin at 9:31AM, Feb.2, 2018
All conjecture on what Mueller may or may not have uncovered so far is essentially imaginary at this point.
I plan on waiting to see the finished product before making a judgement.
Have a great day.
Ditto, WB. Mueller’s team doesn’t leak, so JT doesn’t know what they have, and there are no grounds to assume that if there is a smoking gun, it would have turned up by now. It takes time to dig through layers of obtuse uncooperative people who may also have committed crimes, and emails, reports and other documents to get to the truth. It hasn’t even been a year yet.
Mueller’s team doesn’t leak,
LMAO
Bobesque said, ““Could it be” = the entire premise of your post. Otherwise known as fantasy.”
The word your looking for, Bobesque, is guess, or surmise, or conjecture, or whatever other synonym for guess you prefer. Guessing is allowed, because guessing is all that is available to any of us who have nothing but press reports with which to work. As such, your premise that guessing is fantasy is, in and of itself, a fantasy.
Have you heard that there’s a special counsel’s investigation under way? You’re merely guessing, Bobesque, that the special counsel’s investigation is a conspiracy to frame Trump for a crime that Trump did not commit and a crime that is not even a crime, at that. Because that’s Joe di Genova’s fantasy. And because Trump has not yet been charged with any crime, at all. To presume Trump’s innocence is a perfectly legitimate position to stake out.. But to presume that the special counsel’s investigation is a conspiracy to frame Trump is quite fantastical.
P. S. Do you really want the readers of Res Ipsa Loquitur to associate Bobesque with minstrelsy?
Strike ministrelsy and make that penguins, instead.
Then strike ministrelsy and that that penguins, too.
O! Bother!
@Late4Dinner April 12, 2018 at 8:54 AM
“Also remember: Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and D. C. Leaks and Wikileaks leaked them.”
Do you subscribe to that school of thought that thinks that if you repeat a lie or an evidence-free claim a sufficient number of times, that lie or unfounded claim will be transmogrified into indubitable Truth?
Or are you simply ignorant of the fact that NSA whistleblower William Binney and other former intelligence officers have reviewed and publicly stated the technological evidence of hacking vs leaking of the DNC and Podesta emails and have concluded that a leak, not a hack, made the emails available to WikiLeaks?
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7jxaxb/jimmy_dore_interviews_nsa_whistleblower_bill/
See, too:
“Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any ‘hacked’ emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks.
“Unless [that is] we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-20170105-story.html
So, unless you can rebut their expert technical analysis or have evidence of your own that a Russian government mole inside the DNC leaked the emails to WikiLeaks, and assuming you have at least a modicum of intellectual integrity, you’ll stop parroting the claim debunked by objective intelligence experts that agents of the Russian government hacked the DNC and Podesta emails.
What’s it going to be?
“Do you subscribe to that school of thought that thinks that if you repeat a lie or an evidence-free claim a sufficient number of times, that lie or unfounded claim will be transmogrified into indubitable Truth?”
Ken, Diane (L4D) can’t help herself. Her cortical functions are deteriorating and she can’t remember which lie she has recently used.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.
If Allan claimed that the US intelligence community has not yet proven that Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta emails, then the burden of proof would fall upon the US IC to do so.
If, however, Allan claims that the US IC lied when it said that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta emails, then the burden would fall on Allan to prove that the US IC lied.
Otherwise, there is only a claim that is in dispute. Would Allan claim that anyone who disputes Allan’s claims is lying? Be careful how you answer that last question, Allan.
Anyone reading the above with a rational mind realizes how scatterbrained the above thinking processes are. What she wishes to prove is untrue and her convoluted statements demonstrate a warped mind. As I said above Diane’s cortical functions are deteriorating.
The intelligence community didn’t say it was a Russian hack, the DNC made that claim so Diane starts off with a false premise and continues to dig her hole deeper. The intelligence community couldn’t prove a Russian hack if one existed because the DNC refused to turn over their computers to them so they could identify where the leak came. That shows that the DNC doesn’t care about American security one bit and that was seen in the Awan case which jeaopardized top secret material on many Democratic Congressmen’s computers. (Awan is a criminal from Pakistan hired by DWS and most of his family were permitted to leave the country before their and his arrest) We also see this lack of concern for American security in Hillary’s emails and private server along with a lack of law abiding concern when she bleached her hard disc.
One can only believe the DNC has lost concern for American security.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
That is a good idea, Diane. Provide an HTTP because you recognize your inability to interpret and transmit information.
Excerpted from the DNI Intelligence Assessment linked above:
Cyber Espionage Against US Political Organizations.
Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.
We assess Russian intelligence services collected against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape future US policies. In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.
The General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) probably began cyber operations aimed at the US election by March 2016. We assess that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.
Ken Rogers said, “. . . stop parroting the claim . . . that agents of the Russian government hacked the DNC and Podesta emails.”
Allan said, “Ken, Diane (L4D) . . . can’t remember which lie she has recently used.”
Allan said, “The intelligence community didn’t say it was a Russian hack . . . ”
From the DNI Intelligence Assessment cited above:
We assess [ that] . . . In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.
We assess that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.
“In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks ”
Two points:
1) Gained access means they accessed information from the DNC network. That doesn’t tell us how the access occurred which is what the question is all about. An inside leak of DNC computers that ended up in Russia’s hands is different than the Russians electronically or through a spy removing that information.
Diane, you have added nothing to the specific question under review and your subsequent comments drew conclusions not justified in the report.
2) If Russians directly (without an intermediary leaker) infiltrated DNC computers then the DNC, by refusing to let the FBI evaluate its computers, has aided and abetted an enemy government. I think if that was the case then whoever was responsible for preventing the proper evaluation of the computer system should be tried, convicted and jailed for treasonous activity.
Binney’s conclusions are inconclusive:
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/
Excerpted from the article linked above:
The implications of this leap-to-conclusions analysis of the VIPS memo—which centers on claiming as an unassailable and immutable fact that the DNC “hack” was committed by an insider with direct access to the DNC server, who then deliberately doctored data and documents to look like a Russian or Russia-affiliated actor was involved, and therefore no hack occurred (consequently, ipso facto, the Russians did not do it)—are contingent on a fallacy.
Data-transfer speeds across networks and the Internet measured in megabits per second (or megabytes per second) can easily achieve rates that greatly exceed the cited reference in the VIPS memo of 1,976 megabytes in 87 seconds (∼22.71 megabytes per second or ∼181.7 megabits per second), and well beyond 50 megabytes, depending on the capacity of the network and the method of access to that network. Speeds across the network vary greatly, and sustained write speeds copied out to local devices are often quite a bit slower.
The environment around Trump, Russia, et al. is hyperpolarized right now, and much disinformation is floating around, feeding confirmation bias, mirroring and even producing conspiracy theories.
Ken Rogers said, “So, unless you can rebut their expert technical analysis or have evidence of your own that a Russian government mole inside the DNC leaked the emails to WikiLeaks, and assuming you have at least a modicum of intellectual integrity, you’ll stop parroting the claim debunked by objective intelligence experts that agents of the Russian government hacked the DNC and Podesta emails.”
Ken Rogers is just another Whack-A-Mole mole popping up out of just another Whack-A-Mole hole. Only this time, the Whack-A-Mole mole at issue has somehow managed to convince himself of his own “modicum of intellectual integrity” most likely because Ken Rogers has not yet figured out that he is “parroting” the propaganda of Putin.
Don’t feel so bad, Ken Rogers. “The Nation” fell for it, too. But then they let go of it. Your turn, now.
There are alternate theories of the hack still to consider:
https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-first-to-alert-u-s-about-russian-hack-of-democratic-party.html
Excerpted from the article linked above:
“The information shared by The Netherlands about the hacks at the DNC ended up on the desk of Robert Mueller, the Special Prosecutor leading the FBI investigation into possible Russian interference in the American elections. As early as December, the New York Times reported that information from, among others, Australia, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands had propelled the FBI investigation.”
The main reason Mueller hasn’t indicted the Russian hackers (that we know of) is the likelihood of Russian retaliation against American intelligence operatives working in Russia. Of course, there could be a sealed indictment against the Russian hackers that we don’t know about and possibly never will. And that’s what allows the Russians to keep spreading propaganda and disinformation about their hack of the DNC and Podesta emails in the alternative right media in America.
From the Wikipedia article on William Binney:
Binney had been one of the inventors of an alternative system, ThinThread, which was shelved when Trailblazer was chosen instead. Binney has also been publicly critical of the NSA for spying on U.S. citizens, saying of its expanded surveillance after the September 11, 2001 attacks that “it’s better than anything that the KGB, the Stasi, or the Gestapo and SS ever had” as well as noting Trailblazer’s ineffectiveness and unjustified high cost compared to the far less intrusive ThinThread. He was furious that the NSA hadn’t uncovered the 9/11 plot and stated that intercepts it had collected but not analyzed likely would have garnered timely attention with his leaner more focused system.
So Binney is a disgruntled malcontent with a financial axe to grind against the NSA. But Ken Rogers calls Binney a whistleblower, instead.
More from Wikipedia about William Binney:
Binney . . . has appeared on Fox News at least ten times between September 2016 and November 2017 . . . Binney said that the “intelligence community wasn’t being honest here”. He has also been frequently cited on Breitbart News. In November 2017 it was reported that a month earlier, Binney had met with CIA Director Mike Pompeo at the behest of President Trump.
On January 23rd 2018, Binney made an appearance on the Infowars news program in connection with the Nunes memo, a Congressional document alleging irregularities in the application of the FISA Act, which at that time was not publicly available although its potential release was a topic of public debate. During the show, host Alex Jones announced that Binney had been able to provide him with the actual memo, and the purported leaked document was shown on air. However, this was in fact a public document that had been available on the website of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence since at least May 2017. The actual Nunes memo was released February 2, 2018.
So the disgruntled malcontent with a financial axe to grind against the NSA has been earning a living feeding fake news to the tin-foil hat conventioneers. But Ken Rogers calls Binney an “. . . objective intelligence expert,” instead.
This is getting so far out of hand and beyond the scope of its original intent I am at the point where I do now think it is time to can Mueller.
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Co ey in testimony be re the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links an or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Note (ii) “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”
Cordially, Bill
Oh come on, he’s not going to fire Mueller. Doing that would not end the investigation as someone else would be appointed to fill that position. Now firing Sessions would be understandable given the evidence of crimes discovered before and during this investigation that have been ignored by the DOJ. Now maybe Sessions is acting on those behind the scenes, but that is not what the public sees.
No, he could fire Mueller and shut the office down.
Firing Rosenstein and Mueller is not a question of ‘if’ but of ‘when’. As for Sessions, he does a fantastic imitation of someone who’s a weak manager whose employees defy him without consequence.
The idea of firing Mueller or Rosenstein reminds me of this exchange in My Cousin Vinny.
Stan: Why didn’t you ask them any questions?!
Vinny: Questions? Ask who questions?
Bill: You knew you could ask questions, didn’t you Vin?
Stan: Maybe if you put up some kind of a fight, you could have gotten the case thrown out!
Vinny: Hey, Stan. You’re in Ala-f’in’-bama. You come from New York. You killed a good ol’ boy. There is NO WAY this is not goin’ to trial.
If he fires Mueller and shuts down the office, two more will open up. He will have an electron microscope pointed directly at anything and everything he has done since birth. They might track down his ancestors looking for crimes.
Now what he should do is turn the IRS on these investigators and …oops, wrong administration.
Which ‘two more’? The D o J works for him.
I’m wagering that Rosenstein and Mueller will be discharged at such a time as the contrived nature of the ‘investigation’ is too blatant for anyone to defend them with a straight face.
Lawrence Walsh’s office was shut down and several of his victims pardoned when he secured an indictment of Caspar Weinberger for ‘perjury’. He announced the indictment days before a presidential election, the indictment was invalid due to the passage of time, and the contention in the indictment was that Weinberger had committed a crime because of a discrepancy between his notes of a meeting (volunterily provided to Walsh) and his oral testimony about that meeting. The discrepancy concerned a matter of scant importance and the oral testimony was delivered 15 months after the meeting was held. A partisan Democrat of my acquaintance said, “What? I can’t remember what I said to someone last week.” See Robert Bork on the Walsh investigation. It turned into a disgrace.
The culture is different than it was in 1992, but I still think there might be Democrats who are going to have that ‘What?’ moment. Republicans knew the wheels had fallen off the Starr investigation when Julie Hiatt Steele was put on trial.
Olly, I agree with you. Though he has the legal right to fire anyone hired in the executive branch I don’t think now is the time to fire Mueller or Rosenstein. The blowback would likely be too great and we would likely see a replacement for Mueller over and over again.
Mueller has nothing on Trump. If he had something we would have known it already. What is better for Mueller? Coming up empty or being fired? I think the latter. What would join many Democrats and RINO’s together? The firing of Mueller. Whatever Mueller comes up with won’t be of significance and the question of impeachment lies with the 2018 election, not with what Mueller finds. Impeachment or not the Senate will not find Trump guilty. Impeached or not, minor irregularity or not, those that like Trump today will mostly vote for him. Those that don’t like him today are unlikely to change their minds. We can’t predict what that large number in the middle will say, but Americans will frequently become sympathetic to the underdog.
The end game, even if unfavorable to Trump, is the pardon. Trump can pardon anyone at any time and I think that by itself could end the Mueller investigation. Right now Trump should stay on course and continue making the country economically and physically stronger. More people have jobs and more money in their pockets. Trump signed an executive order making Welfare recipients work if they are able. Trump has saved the nation from a stagnating economy and has made the future brighter for all.
After February 1975, the Watergate special prosecutor’s office was absorbed with defending against appeals, producing reports and other ancillary matters. After April 1990, the Iran-Contra force was deployed with appellate work, miscellaneous ancillary matters, prosecuting people on mickey-mouse process crimes, and prosecuting some peripheral figure for tax evasion.
You give these guys 32 months, and that’s June 2019. Give them 42 months, and that’s April 2020. I suspect it will be manifest at one point or another that they’re just harassing people, like the partisan Democrats who gave you the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/11/politics/rod-rosenstein-house-republicans-nunes/index.html
It appears the investigation began in July 2016. The FISA warrants were obtained in October. Soooo, the buzzers sound in March 2019 and January 2020.
One other thing. The Whitewater investigation began in January 1994 and Gov. Tucker and the McDougals were convicted of fraud at the end of May 1996. That’s 29 months. The 2d stage of the Whitewater investigation, which began in August of 1996, was impeded when Susan McDougal elected to cool her heels in federal jails for 18 months rather than answer questions in front of a grand jury.
“….he does a fantastic imitation of someone who’s a weak manager whose employees defy him without consequence”. That describes your favorite current President.
Add debauchery and mind numbing ignorance to the equation and it’s dead on.
Cordially, Bill
Olly,…
I think Rosenstein probably has the least job security, and maybe Sessions would get the boot at the same time.
As you said, that would not stop the investigation. But just striking back at DOJ might be enough of a motive for Trump, even though Trump is known for his restraint and deliberation😊😂 before attacking others.
If both Sessions and Rosenstein go, then there’s a new/newer #3 person at DOJ ( after the recent resignation of the other deputy who was #3).
I think Robert Bork was the #3 guy after Nixon fired his AG( Eliot Richardson?) and his deputy in The Saturday Night Massacre.
As I remember, Bork concluded that Nixon was within his rights to demand that DOJ fire the Special Prosecutor, so Bork was the one who bounced Archibald Cox.
None of these potential actions by Trump would stop the investigation, but it seems like a 2018 version of the 1973 Sat. Night Massacre would disrupt it for a while.
I agree Tom, but this has never been about justice. This is Lawfare, pure and simple. President Trump will never be saved by a constitution that his enemies disregard anyway.
The Kochtopus’ crafted interpretation of the Constitution, is not the same thing as the Constitution.
Had the brothers lived during Lincoln’s time, would they have funded the confederacy?
Olly,..
Just an additional point on the 1973 Nixon firings..I think Nixon also sealed off the office of the Special Prosecutor right after he fired the AG and Deputy AG.
I don’t know if Mueller’s office(s) are as easily accessed for authorities if they ‘ re ordered to block it off, or if his team has enough redundant back-up material secured in other locations to compensate for the loss of access to the office(s).
If he’s fired he’s fired. Robert Bork conferred with Elliot Richardson and Wm. Ruckelshaus and agreed to remain in place and fire Archibald Cox. The statutory order of succession governing the D o J went from the Atty-Gen to the Deputy Atty-Gen to the Solicitor-General, to a discretionary appointee of the president should all three positions be vacant. The three of them were worried that Nixon would appoint ‘some White House lawyer’ as acting attorney – general and that ‘the lawyers in the department would walk out’. That was then. The culture of the bar and the D o J is now such that a claque of government lawyers threatens to ‘walk out’, you say ‘is that a threat or a promise?’.
I think Mueller’s team has a pretty good idea of who they’re dealing with and what they’re capable of.
Cohen now could be looking at serious criminal exposure and, if charged with campaign-finance and fraud violations,
The ‘campaign finance violation’ is humbug dreamed up by a Justice Department lawyer to get John Edwards. Edwards was acquitted.
You keep blaming Cohen, even though you do hot have granular knowledge of the division of labor among Trump’s lawyers, and not acknowledging that Rosenstein and Mueller are scheming crooks. There isn’t any reason for Trump to talk to Mueller except that you fancy Trump should play nice with others so the world doesn’t get the impression Mueller is what he is. Trump’s looking out for his own interests, not for the maintenance of guild mythology.
Hiel Hitler. Hiel Comey. Hiel Turley.
Well, none of this would be taking place, sans the king pin……He is at the centre of all of this.
He’s the expert on everything. Will not listen..to anybody. He’s up to his tonsils now and yes, it’s not going to be pretty. One way or the other, he’s coming across as a sick man and a corrupt one.
Even the gall of someone with his baggage, running for office and DARING anyone to expose him….that is arrogance and then some.
Time to rid the GOP of this fossil. But he has damaged them big time. They deserve it. Couldn’t stand up to pure evil….we need a third party.
@Guinness April 12, 2018 at 7:20 AM
“Time to rid the GOP of this fossil. But he has damaged them big time. They deserve it. Couldn’t stand up to pure evil….we need a third party.”
I’m with Ralph Nader’s dad:
“I once said to my father, when I was a boy, ‘Dad we need a third political party.’ He said to me, ‘I’ll settle for a second.’
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ralph_nader_454609
The Republican and Democrat wings of the War Party seem fiercely determined to get us all killed.
JT says, “Cohen, however, may be just the right carrion to draw this wolf into the open.”
And “For centuries, farmers dug pits with sharp spikes at the base, and placed branches over the hole. They placed a piece of meat on the branches to attract the wolf.” During the Vietnam war, those were referred to as man traps.
Then it’s not a Wolf Trap, but a Vulture feeding frenzy instead.
Oh, THAT Wolf Trap. I thought you were writing about the music venue in Vienna, VA.
So why don’t these very smart lawyers e.g. Turley, Dershowitz, diGenova, etc etc…DO SOMETHING TO HELP TRUMP? He has had NO ONE to help him since day one. I’ve been watching this tragedy play out since summer 2016. I really can’t take much more of it. SOMEONE needs to stop TALKING and WRITING about this travesty and DO SOMETHING!
He doesn’t need help as he is a very stable genius.
He alone can fix it……
You are aware, Cynthia, that lawyers don’t fall for the con of not being paid, when that con is widely known?
Cohen dipped into his home equity to pay Stormy, with whom he had no connection. His client had the connection and the non-disclosure agreement benefitted that client while harming the U.S. electorate. Information that was silenced would have persuaded the fine men leading evangelicals to withdraw support for the GOP Presidential candidate because they oppose the sins of deceit and sexual immorality.
@Cynthia o. April 12, 2018 at 1:28 AM
“So why don’t these very smart lawyers e.g. Turley, Dershowitz, diGenova, etc etc…DO SOMETHING TO HELP TRUMP? ”
Well, they’ve all three, among several others, advised him publicly concerning what they think he should do (and avoid), and two of them you mention (Dershowitz and diGenova) privately, as well.
What else do you think they can do? Challenge Mueller to an arm-wrestling contest, winner take all?
As with all of us, Trump is his own worst enemy, but his affective lability puts him at unusually high risk of being politically done in by that hostile entourage.
It also puts the rest of us in the world in high peril, if we’re to take seriously his recent saber-rattling vis a vis Syria and Russia.
Sorry- country.
Well, the cpuntry too, whatever that is.
Why give him free legal advice? He is wrecking the cpuntry.
Sorry Stuart. While Pres. Trump certainly has issues, without his election to the Presidency, we would have never had confirmation of the depths of corruption in the hierarchy of the DOJ and FBI.
While Mr. Mueller is having a hard time finding a crime to pin on Pres. Trump, he has had to resort to bankrupting people that have helped candidate Trump in attempting to roll on the President.
Meanwhile, we have learned of many actual crimes committed by FBI and DOJ employees and strangely enough, none of them have been charged.
Oh have we now?
Mike – It’s amazing the clarity with which people can see the alleged corruption in the FBI, DOJ, and of Hillary and Obama, and be blinded to the criminals currently in or recently of the White House. Let’s say Trump pardons any of them lie for example Cohen. How can that not accurately be seen as obstruction of justice?
Trump does have his “issues,” some are that he’s surrounded by grifters and criminals, I have no doubt he’s guilty of financial crimes and that the Special Counsel already has the data. He may not have personally conspired with Russians nor did Nixon personally break into the Watergate Hotel. I can’t wait to hear all about the negotiations around Trump Tower Moscow and the real money laundering in Trump Tower’s Panama and Toronto. The bribes in foreign countries, the mob connections (Russian and US), Buying popcorn in bulk, unless of course he now starts a war as a diversion.
Enigma,…
On that point ( Trump Tower Moscow), I think Cohen’s close freind and associate, Felix the Fink Sater, was involved in ( maybe spearheaded) those negotiations.
I haven’t seen much news about Sater yet, but anyone stupid enough to put themselves at risk by getting involved in illegal activity with Sater deserves what they get.
So Sater had no involvement with Trump and neither do Stone and Putin? Trump’s tax records…
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-soho-has-a-sordid-history-highlights-photos-2017-11
Sigh. I would write that Trump defenders make it too easy. But, given the structural deficits associated with their arguments, they deserve a pat on the back for valiant attempts at the impossible.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/985138716678262785
Who’d’ve thunk it? That fella, what’s-his-name?
I’ve been in Prague along with millions of others. I’ve been in Russia and I have been in the White House. I have even met with a former President. Does that convince you that I and that former President are colluding with Russia?
Tom is touching on something important here. If Mueller can firmly link Cohen to Felix Sater that would portray Trump in a very bad light. Robert Mueller is no doubt angling for such a link.
Peter,…
I don’t know how far Cohen would actually go with his claim that he’d “jump out of a building” out of loyalty for Trump.
Sater might save him the trouble by pushing him out of high story window.
@Peter Hill April 12, 2018 at 9:46 AM
“Tom is touching on something important here. If Mueller can firmly link Cohen to Felix Sater that would portray Trump in a very bad light. Robert Mueller is no doubt angling for such a link.”
How far are you willing to go with your guilt-by-association tactic?
As Trump and Mueller both live in The Swamp, Washington, DC, doesn’t that already “portray Trump in a very bad light”?
Before you carry on in this vein (and risk embarrassing yourself further), I invite you (and Enigma, et al) to consider the illogicality of your argument:
“Guilt by Association
Alias:
Bad Company Fallacy
The Company that You Keep Fallacy
Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy >Informal Fallacy > Red Herring > Guilt by Association > The Hitler Card
Example:
‘The al Qaeda Cheering Section
The most telling moment in last night’s [State of the Union] speech came after the president noted that “key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year.” In response, notes the New York Times, “some critics in Congress applauded enthusiastically.” If Osama bin Laden watched the speech, one imagines him applauding too.’
Source: James Taranto, ‘The al Qaeda Cheering Section,’ Best of the Web Today, 1/21/2004 ”
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html
I suggest that proffering bogus arguments against Trump, the man, not only distracts attention from the legitimate concerns that non-partisan observers (of whom I count myself one) have called attention to regarding Trump’s behavior, but actually discourages objectivity about those concerns on the part of his defensively partisan supporters.
Ken, do you even ‘know’ who Felix Sater is?? I ask because they probably don’t cover him in right-wing media. But Sater, a convicted felon who did prison time for violent assault, had an office in Trump Tower and business cards that said he was with the Trump Organization. What’s more Sater had some involvement with the development of Trump’s So-Ho Hotel.
Therefore your claim that I’m making a ‘bogus argument’ is totally off-base. ‘You’ are the one embarrassing himself. If Robert Mueller can find correspondence, from the Cohen raid, linking Felix Sater to the never-built Trump Tower Moscow, that would indeed cast Trump in a bad light. It would mean that a convicted felon and alleged mobster was serving as Trump’s liaison to Russian investors.
Sater got in a bar fight 27 years ago. He was 25 years old at the time.
From the LA times:
Court records were sealed to protect Sater’s identity, so his role in the fraud case stayed secret for a decade while he was at Bayrock. After a court hearing in 2009, he was fined $25,000 but was not sent to prison or ordered to pay restitution.
i.e. Trump didn’t know about his 1998 conviction for the first six years with which he was acqauinted with Sater.
What I find interesting is what Peter Hill says (regarding Sater), “they probably don’t cover him in right-wing media.” Then he goes on to talk about Sater without knowing the details and essentially screwing up any rational understanding of Satar. That is so typical of the pompousness of those that root for team Left rather than having a solid understanding of what they are rooting for. I won’t bother with Peter’s lack of understanding of the law as it seems guilt by association is guilt in Peter’s mind as long as the guilty party is on the right.
Allan, if Trump were only a Reality Star no one would care about Felix Sater. But no President wants to be linked with someone like that.
Sater becomes one more piece in the Russia puzzle. That’s what makes him bad for Trump. If you don’t get it’s because you don’t want to.
Ken Rogers,..
– I don’r know if you are familiar with Sater’sbackgrpund, but most businesses would not want a guy with his record in,their organization.
He clearly has had ties with Russian mobsters and their illegal activities, he served time for a violent assault, he escaped prison time in connection with the Russian mob activity by becoming an informant.
This is the guy in Moscow in 2015 negotiating for a Trump Tower in Moscow.
In one of his emails, he wrote that “I will get Putin in on this and we will get Donald elected”.
I don’t know what investigators have found out about Sater’s activities in Moscow, or other questionable actions.
His friendship with the president’s lawyer Cohen goes back 30 years….most lawyers are not close personal friends with guys who have a background like Sater’s.
None of this proves that Trump is guilty of a criminal act, or prove that Sater can be charged with anything.
It does seem to contradict Trump’s “I have nothing to do with Russia” comment during the campaign, but telling lies to the media or the public by a candidate is not a crime.
So this is more about the question of “what the hell are Trump and Cohen doing, having close ties with a someone like Sater?”…rather than any proof of guilt by association.
He wasn’t working for the Trump Organization, but for another company with which Trump had a joint venture. Since the records from his 1998 stock fraud plea were sealed for 11 years, Trump likely wouldn’t have known of it when he met Sater in 2003 or during most of the time ruing which the SoHo property was being developed (2006-10)
Ken Rogers asked, “How far are you willing to go with your guilt-by-association tactic?”
Ken Rogers is equivocating shamelessly. And committing false attribution against Peter Hill, as well. The proper distinction to be drawn is suspicion by association. Not guilt by association. Perhaps Ken Rogers has made a Freudian slip by substituting guilt for suspicion. Well, Ken?
Do you suspect that Trump might be guilty of money laundering, bank fraud and tax fraud? Or do you deny the very legitimacy of anyone harboring any suspicion against Trump for possibly having committed financial crimes on the basis of the circumstantial elements known as motive, means and opportunity?
Once again, the presumption of Trump’s innocence is a perfectly legitimate position to stake out. But to suggest that the presumption of innocence should somehow shield Trump from any serious, thorough investigation of Trump’s finances and business deals is a manifestly illegitimate position to take.
I’m blinded by ‘Let’s say’? You are supposing that there are financial crimes. I’m not stating there aren’t but certainly no proof has been presented at this point.
And since he hasn’t pardoned anybody, please show where there’s been any obstruction? There has been zero obstruction to this point. Not one investigation has been stymied. Reportedly every participatory request from Mr. Mueller has been fulfilled. No one has refused to testify UNDER oath. Millions of documents have been supplied.
But Mr. Mueller has still seen the need to conduct bullying search warrants despite the cooperation. Attempting to defend oneself can essentially bankrupt the individual.
So you can certainly try again to counter my opinion, but this first attempt doesn’t hold up.
Mike Peterman said, ” You are supposing that there are financial crimes. I’m not stating there aren’t but certainly no proof has been presented at this point.”
It is true that there is not yet any proof of Trump’s suspected financial crimes. There is only the circumstantial elements known as motive, means and opportunity. And Trump’s choice of Manafort for campaign manager and his partner Gates as a transition team member. Plus the special counsel’s indictments against Manafort and Gates for financial crimes as well as Gates plea deal to become a cooperating witness.
So, yes, we are supposing that Trump may have laundered money for Russians armed only with suspicion and without any proof thus far that Trump laundered money for Russians.
It is also true that Res Ipsa Loquitur is not a court of law; and that the commenters on Res Ipsa loquitur do not have to be lawyers, nor adhere to rules of evidence and rules of procedure.
Your comment reflects an attitude that the means justify the end – emblematic of the cancerous mobocracy marching Gestapo-like over our civil liberties.
The Weyrich training manual for conservatives posted at Theocracy Watch, indeed, spells out explicitly that means justify ends, lying is necessary, and the appearance of brutality is the approach to use. Weyrich was the founder of the Heritage Foundation, ALEC and was the architect of the religious right.
My oh my! There is an Amazonian rain forest needing to be yanked from both of your eyes.
If only, Oiley’s hyperbole explained away the conservative training manual (Theocracy Watch), the Koch network’s grants to the NRA (Mother Jones), the NRA’s influx of $28 mil. in 2016 (TPM), the affinity for a Koch defense, that one can deduce, comes from Russian/Ukrainian bot/troll farms (Turley blog comment threads)….if only, oligarchs were honorable people.
OK Linda, you are OK with no-knock pajama/panty raids taking place in our nation’s capital and world’s financial capital. If no-knock 4:00 AM raid on Hilary and Bill took place in pursuit of missing emails you would be outraged. These Gestapo tactics are not about left or right – they are plain wrong – and we should all be united in our resistance to this. It stinks.
Cohen desired the FBI as polite in seeking the information that a judge signed off on, because probable cause had been established. Bill, you should have recorded what you saw.
Editing software changed “described” to desired.
Dear Linda, Was that the same judge that FBI went to for raid warrant on Hillary Clinton in pursuit of deleted emails? Oh that’s right, FBI was too busy writing exoneration in advance of face-to-face meeting with Ms. Clinton to even bother looking for that missing/destroyed evidence. No-knock warrants for these types of investigations are horrible precedents for this country (bad for everybody – left, right, centrist). Good Day Ma’am.
@Bill Martin April 12, 2018 at 6:06 AM
“Your comment reflects an attitude that the means justify the end – emblematic of the cancerous mobocracy marching Gestapo-like over our civil liberties.”
As is all too common a practice among commenters here, you haven’t identified the comment which you’re criticizing, which is no doubt to be found somewhere in the 50+ comments preceding yours.
How is a reader supposed to appreciate the value of a comment, if the comment to which it’s a response is anybody’s guess, particularly when there are multiple candidates to which it may be a response?
I doubt that I’m alone in tending to gloss over and/or ignore the comments that criticize (or agree with) a preceding comment, but which don’t specify which comment that happens to be.
Just saying.
That was in response to:
Stuart Newman
April 12, 2018 at 12:36 AM
“Why give him free legal advice? He is wrecking the cpuntry”.