More Mueller news: Whitaker, Treason, and Farage.

[The Romulan Republic]

Given that even Hilary thought it was actionable intelligence that Iraq had chemical agents, you should be far more lenient on Mueller.

Ah yes, the same person who helped stage a coup in the Ukraine and installed a bunch of honest to god Nazis in power there.
There's a reason we call her "Hitlery".

Because you're using a cheap Godwin to play false equivalency in order to defend Trumpers/Russia?

[Gandalf]

I find it amusing that a defence of Mueller is that somehow Saddam bamboozled him, leading to the US invasion of Iraq. Is this the ideal choice for an investigation of auch seriousness?

[The Romulan Republic]

I find it amusing that a defence of Mueller is that somehow Saddam bamboozled him, leading to the US invasion of Iraq. Is this the ideal choice for an investigation of auch seriousness?

Is that addressed at me? Because I offered no such "defense".

[Gandalf]

If you made that defence, it would have been aimed at you. It was more aimed as GAFfe.

[The Romulan Republic]

Congressman Schiff says that the House Democrats will sue the Trump administration, call Mueller to testify on Capitol Hill, and subpoena Mueller's report if the full report is not made public:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/u ... l-mueller/

A top House Democrat threatened on Sunday to call special counsel Robert Mueller to Capitol Hill, subpoena documents and sue the Trump administration if the full report on Mueller’s Russia investigation is not made public.
Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said his committee will keep close watch on new Attorney-General William Barr to see if he were “to try to bury any part of this report.” Schiff, D-Calif., also pledged to “take it to court if necessary.”
He said anything less than complete disclosure would leave Barr, who now oversees the investigation, with “a tarnished legacy.”
Schiff’s comments come as Democrats have made it clear that they are ready for an aggressive, public fight with the Justice Department if they are not satisfied with the level of access they have to Mueller’s findings.
Mueller is showing signs of wrapping up his nearly 2-year-old investigation into possible co-ordination between Trump associates and Russia’s efforts to sway the 2016 election. The report isn’t expected to be delivered to the Justice Department this coming week.

Barr has said he wants to release as much information as he can. But during his confirmation hearing last month, Barr made clear that he will decide what the public sees, and that any report will be in his words, not Mueller’s.
Schiff, in a television interview, suggested that anything short of Mueller’s full report would not satisfy Democrats. He pointed to a public interest in seeing some of the underlying evidence, such as information gathered from searches conducted on long-time Trump adviser Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, a former Trump campaign chairman.
With Democrats taking control of the House in January and Schiff now the committee chairman, he has undertaken his own investigation. That means re-examining issues covered by a now-closed GOP probe that concluded there was no evidence Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia. Schiff has said the committee also will pursue new matters, including whether foreign governments have leverage over Trump, his relatives or associates.
Some Democrats are pointing to documents that Justice Department officials provided to Congress in the wake of the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails, as well as information that Republicans demanded as part of their own inquiries.
Schiff said he told department officials after they released information related to the Clinton investigation that “this was a new precedent they were setting and they were going to have to live by this precedent whether it was a Congress controlled by the Democrats or Republicans.”

Story continues below advertisement

Beyond that, however, is “the intense public need to know here, which I think overrides any other consideration,” he said.
Democrats could use Mueller’s findings as the basis of impeachment proceedings. In a letter Friday, Democrats warned against withholding information on Trump on the basis of department opinions that the president can’t be indicted.
“We are going to get to the bottom of this,” Schiff said. “If the president is serious about all of his claims of exoneration, then he should welcome the publication of this report.”
Many Republicans have also argued that the full report should be released, though most have stopped short of saying it should be subpoenaed.
“We need to get the facts out there, get this behind us in a way that people thought that anybody that should have been talked to was talked to any question that should have been asked, was asked,” said Sen. Roy Blunt, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
But asked if he thought there could be a subpoena, Blunt, R-Mo., said, “I don’t know that you can.”

The Senate committee also has been investigating whether Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia. Blunt suggested a conclusion in that probe might wait until after Mueller’s report.
“We’d like to have frankly a little more access to the Mueller investigation before we come to a final conclusion,” Blunt said. “His report will help us write our final report. We’ve given Mueller full access to all of our interviews all of our investigation. We haven’t had that reciprocated and so we’ll soon find out what else is out there that we might not know about.”
Schiff appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” and Blunt was on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Konstantin Kilimnik, anyone?

In the nearly two years that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, has been investigating whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, few figures seem to have offered more promising leads than Konstantin V Kilimnik.

A diminutive, multilingual political operative who was born in Ukraine while it was still part of the Soviet Union, Kilimnik has continued to attract intense interest from prosecutors for his interactions with his long-time boss and mentor, Paul Manafort, and his suspected ties to Russian intelligence.

Kilimnik pops up repeatedly as a possible connection between the Trump campaign and Russia, with ties to both sides that are as enigmatic as they are deep.

Link.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Konstantin Kilimnik, anyone?

In the nearly two years that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, has been investigating whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, few figures seem to have offered more promising leads than Konstantin V Kilimnik.

A diminutive, multilingual political operative who was born in Ukraine while it was still part of the Soviet Union, Kilimnik has continued to attract intense interest from prosecutors for his interactions with his long-time boss and mentor, Paul Manafort, and his suspected ties to Russian intelligence.

Kilimnik pops up repeatedly as a possible connection between the Trump campaign and Russia, with ties to both sides that are as enigmatic as they are deep.

Link.

Given that he dropped off the face of the earth after this entire thing got steam, there are a handful of scenarios and two of them being the most likely: a) he's back to Russia (and thus gone for good) or b) his body is lying in a ditch somewhere with a 9mm 'retirement package' (dead men tell no tales)...

Congressman Schiff says that the House Democrats will sue the Trump administration, call Mueller to testify on Capitol Hill, and subpoena Mueller's report if the full report is not made public:

As long as the classified bits stay classified, I'll be happy.

[Vympel]

Reminder: "Saddam bamboozled the poor US" is the most brazen, easily disprovable and audacious lie of the Iraq WMD narrative. It's trivially, provably false by anyone with an even passing familiarity of what the run-up to war was like, and any idiot can search my posts on this very forum back in 2002-2003 to see how easily available sources and reports were to debunk the carnival of lies under Bush's circus tent. No one who had a clue about Iraq, anywhere, actually believed anything Bush was saying.

Hillary didn't advocate the Iraq War (and she was a key enabler of Bush in this regard, forcefully advocating for it from what laughably passed as the 'left' back then - because she's a warmongering idiot and always has been) because she was somehow tricked, she did it because it accorded with her ideology to do so.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can't get inside peoples' heads and say how many were knowingly, willfully lying, and how many were rationalizing things to find what they wanted/expected to find (people in general are frighteningly good at that, smart people probably more so, and smart people who work in politics or law probably most of all). But yeah, it can't be handwaved as "Saddam tricked them".

[Gandalf]

I can't get inside peoples' heads and say how many were knowingly, willfully lying, and how many were rationalizing things to find what they wanted/expected to find (people in general are frighteningly good at that, smart people probably more so, and smart people who work in politics or law probably most of all). But yeah, it can't be handwaved as "Saddam tricked them".

Considering how demonstrably false it was at the time and that nothing has exonerated them since, I don't see how one could interpret it any other way than Clinton, Mueller, and others lying in support of an invasion that they wanted.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can't get inside peoples' heads and say how many were knowingly, willfully lying, and how many were rationalizing things to find what they wanted/expected to find (people in general are frighteningly good at that, smart people probably more so, and smart people who work in politics or law probably most of all). But yeah, it can't be handwaved as "Saddam tricked them".

Considering how demonstrably false it was at the time and that nothing has exonerated them since, I don't see how one could interpret it any other way than Clinton, Mueller, and others lying in support of an invasion that they wanted.

Maybe, but people can genuinely believe some frighteningly stupid and baseless things if it fits their existing world view to do so (climate deniers, Birthers, 9/11 Truthers, hell, most religion...). No doubt there were people who willfully, knowingly lied- but I am hesitant to presume that everyone was without stronger evidence than that they backed the wrong conclusion.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another difference I forgot to mention: Bush had the post-9/11 fervor to shield him from public scrutiny. Trump, thankfully, doesn't.

[The Romulan Republic]

Other news: A Federal court just struck down a challenge to the legality of Mueller's appointment:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/ ... al-1186701

Meanwhile, House Democrats have filed legislation to ensure that Mueller's report is released:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4316 ... t-released

[The Romulan Republic]

Going back to "Why prosecuting Trump isn't like prosecuting Bush", another, very important reason, comes to mind:

Because you're right, Gandalf, insofar as the Democrats didn't have their hands clean on Iraq. Some Democratic politicians opposed it- but most were on board, or at least willing not to raise a fuss over it. So to go after Bush would have meant either a) an enormous and obvious double-standard, or b) questioning the actions of prominent Democrats as well.

Its not noble, its not fair, but it is much easier for Dems to go after Trump, because their own party's hands are collectively cleaner when it comes to his administration's crimes than they were on Iraq.

[Gandalf]

If that's the road down which you want to go, then why trust any Democrat ever, since they're voluntarily a part of said organisation?

[The Romulan Republic]

If that's the road down which you want to go, then why trust any Democrat ever, since they're voluntarily a part of said organisation?

Because contrary to the Burn it All mentality of the "anti-establishment" crowd (who by and large can be more accurately described as just "anti-Democrat"), the Democrats are not a homogenous block who act like a hive mind on all issues. There are some Democrats I don't trust. There are others I would trust on some issues but not on others. There are some I would generally trust. Because I actually have more nuance to my views than "They're all Just As Bad".

Edit: All of which is off-topic because Mueller is not a Democrat.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, Cohen testified before Congress today. Meanwhile, Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz took the opportunity to post this on Twitter:

Hey @MichaelCohen212 - 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...

So, threatening a witness/witness tampering. By a sitting member of Congress. Then again, he's only taking his cue form the PotUS.

Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. replied on twitter, calling for an investigation by the House Ethics committee, citing the specific law Congressman Gaetz may have violated:

https://twitter.com/BillPascrell/status ... 2048608256

I also like the comment below it calling out Twitter for not banning the Congressman after he used his account for threats and witness intimidation.

[aerius]

So, Cohen testified before Congress today. Meanwhile, Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz took the opportunity to post this on Twitter:

Hey @MichaelCohen212 - 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...

So, threatening a witness/witness tampering. By a sitting member of Congress. Then again, he's only taking his cue form the PotUS.

Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. replied on twitter, calling for an investigation by the House Ethics committee, citing the specific law Congressman Gaetz may have violated:

https://twitter.com/BillPascrell/status ... 2048608256

I also like the comment below it calling out Twitter for not banning the Congressman after he used his account for threats and witness intimidation.

Clearly, his twatter account was hacked by Russians.
Mr. Gaetz is a respectable gentleman who'd never say such things.

In all seriousness, Matt Gaetz is a dick but good luck proving intent for witness tampering. Any decent lawyer will have an easy time claiming that it was a bad joke, taken out of context, or Gaetz being a drunken dickwad. We know why he said it, proving it in a court of law is a whole 'nother story. We don't do thought crime, and you better be thankful for that.

[The Romulan Republic]

If its that hard to prove, I almost wonder why they even have witness tampering laws.

Also, even if they can't convict him in court, the House can vote to expel a member (though it requires a two thirds vote and thus is very rarely done*). Or they can get booted from any committee assignments they have, like what happened to Congressman King when he said the stuff Republicans are supposed to keep behind closed doors (defending white nationalism) in public.


*The historical record is admittedly not in our favor here- according to Google, all five persons historically expelled from the House were Democrats.

[The Romulan Republic]

Cohen's testimony includes claims that he overheard Trump talking to Roger Stone about communications with Wikileaks regarding the release of information damaging to the Democrats, and that Trump may have been aware of the infamous Trump Tower meeting in advance:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/27/politics ... index.html

(CNN)Donald Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen is prepared to testify that Trump was aware of longtime adviser Roger Stone's efforts to reach out to WikiLeaks in advance of its release of damaging information about Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, according to a copy of his public testimony submitted to Congress and obtained by CNN.
In a stunning 20-page statement provided Tuesday night to lawmakers, Cohen details a wide range of allegations against Trump -- from making racist comments about African-Americans to participating during his presidency in an illegal hush-money scheme to keep his alleged extramarital affairs quiet -- as well as suggesting Trump faked a medical condition to get out of serving in the Vietnam War.
And Cohen will provide new details saying Trump was engaged in an aggressive pursuit of a major project in Russia in 2016, alleging the President's attorneys edited Cohen's 2017 testimony when he lied to Congress, downplaying the efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
He says Trump never directly ordered him to lie to Congress but he believed he was carrying out an order given his interactions with Trump, who was making public statements about not having any business dealings with Russia.



In short, Cohen calls Trump a "racist," a "conman" and a "cheat."
In the testimony, Cohen will allege that, in 2016, he witnessed Trump taking a phone call from Stone, who was on speakerphone.
"Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton's campaign," Cohen will say, according to his prepared testimony.
Trump responded, according to Cohen: "Wouldn't that be great."
Cohen's allegations, if true, would amount to the first time anyone with direct knowledge has said that the President had advance knowledge of the WikiLeaks dump of Clinton emails. Cohen also said the President's personal lawyers "reviewed and edited" his 2017 statements when Cohen lied to Congress about the Trump Organization's pursuit of a massive project in Moscow.
READ: Michael Cohen's opening statement to Congress
Stone -- who has been indicted on charges of making false statements, witness tampering and obstructing justice -- has denied discussing the matter with Trump or having any such interactions with WikiLeaks. He is fighting his charges in court.
Cohen's opening statement also suggests that Trump may have been aware in advance of a 2016 meeting set up by Donald Trump Jr. and Russians at Trump Tower -- something that Trump and his eldest son have long denied. Cohen will tell Congress that he witnessed Trump Jr., in June 2016, tell his father: "The meeting is all set."
Cohen acknowledges not knowing for sure that Trump's son's comments were in reference to the meeting with Russians.
"I also knew that nothing went on in Trump world, especially the campaign, without Mr. Trump's knowledge and approval," Cohen will say. "So I concluded that Don Jr. was referring to that June 2016 Trump Tower meeting about dirt on Hillary."
The White House has attacked Cohen's credibility, calling him someone who cannot be trusted given he has already pleaded guilty to lying.
When asked for comment on Cohen's prepared testimony, the White House referred to press secretary Sarah Sanders' Tuesday statement on Cohen's testimony.
"Disgraced felon Michael Cohen is going to prison for lying to Congress and making other false statements," Sanders said in that statement. "Sadly, he will go before Congress this week and we can expect more of the same. It's laughable that anyone would take a convicted liar like Cohen at his word, and pathetic to see him given yet another opportunity to spread his lies."
According to a copy of the opening statement he prepares to deliver to the House Oversight Committee Wednesday, Cohen says Trump lied repeatedly about a number of matters -- and made a host of racist statements.


House panel to Dems: Russia off limits in Cohen's public hearing
He also provides new details suggesting Trump was heavily involved in the pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow project in 2016.
"To be clear, Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Tower negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it," Cohen will tell the committee. "He lied about it because he never expected to win the election. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project."
Cohen says that Trump did not "directly" tell him to lie to Congress. "That's not how he operates," Cohen says.
But he says that Trump would tell him and the public he has "no business" with Russia, even as he was negotiating the Moscow project.
"In his way, he was telling me to lie," Cohen says.
ANALYSIS: What Michael Cohen needs to answer for
Cohen also says he's providing the panel with several documents to back up his allegations, including a check Trump wrote from his bank account to reimburse him for hush money payments to silence Stormy Daniels' story in 2016 about her alleged affair with Trump. Trump denies having an affair with Daniels.
But in the testimony, Cohen recounts how he was visiting Trump in February 2017 in the White House when the President assured him his reimbursement checks were coming in the mail. He said Trump made 11 payments of $35,000 each to reimburse him in the hush-money scheme, saying he's providing the House panel with a copy of an August 2017 check signed by the President from his personal bank account.
"The President of the United States thus wrote a personal check for the payment of hush money as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws," Cohen will say.
Cohen also says he's providing the committee with copies of letters he wrote threatening Trump's high school, college and the College Board not to release his grades or test scores.
Moreover, Cohen says he has documentation showing Trump arranging a bidder at an auction to purchase a portrait of himself, which he later reimbursed the bidder for from his charitable organization.
And he provides information about Trump's decision to avoid serving in the Vietnam War. Cohen was directed to avoid answering reporters' questions about the matter, he will say. Trump, who has long claimed his deferment was due to a bone spur, had no medical records to provide because there was no surgery, Cohen said.
"You think I'm stupid, I wasn't going to Vietnam," Cohen recalls Trump as saying.

In jarring testimony, Cohen also says Trump repeatedly made racist comments about African-Americans. While driving through a poor neighborhood in Chicago, Trump allegedly told Cohen that "only black people could live that way."
Cohen added that Trump said that African-Americans "would never vote for him because they were too stupid."

This is, I believe, the first major evidence tying Trump directly to collusion. Republicans are scrambling to brand Cohen a liar- which he is, but consider his situation. He's already going to prison, and you can bet that if one word of his testimony to Congress contradicts what he said to the FBI, they'll pounce on him. He has nothing to gain by lying here.

Cohen also called Trump a "racist", "conman", and "cheat", described his illegal payoffs to hide his affairs, suggests that he faked a medical condition to avoid being drafted, and says that he will provide Congress with several documents supporting his claims.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

THIS is why you don't fuck over your fixer. He'll make sure that if he goes down, then he'll take you with him.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Listening to the Testimony on NPR.
They have several checks signed by Trump to pay Cohen off for Stormy Daniels... Signed AFTER he was elected President, AFTER he said he would give up control of his personal assets, and of course long AFTER he swore he had nothing to do with payments to stormy Daniels.

It feels good to hear this.

It feels bad to know there is not a single Trump voter who will care.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Also HOLY FCK what an ass that rep from Tennessee was... goes off on Cohen, naturally saying “fake witness fake documents fake news” and tries to make it seems he’s being paid to lie,.
Cohen tried to speak up, and the rep says:
“I have a very limited amount of time to talk”

Then asks “so who paid you to be here today? Who paid your expenses?”Cohen says:
“I did, every last penny I had”
Rep responds...
“I yield all my remaining time to the chair” and shuts up

[Gandalf]

Because contrary to the Burn it All mentality of the "anti-establishment" crowd (who by and large can be more accurately described as just "anti-Democrat"), the Democrats are not a homogenous block who act like a hive mind on all issues. There are some Democrats I don't trust. There are others I would trust on some issues but not on others. There are some I would generally trust. Because I actually have more nuance to my views than "They're all Just As Bad".

Edit: All of which is off-topic because Mueller is not a Democrat.

Sure, they're not homogenous, but at the same time they all wear the same brand. It's why I also judge the whole Republican party by Trump/Bush et al.

But yeah, this is way off topic.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because contrary to the Burn it All mentality of the "anti-establishment" crowd (who by and large can be more accurately described as just "anti-Democrat"), the Democrats are not a homogenous block who act like a hive mind on all issues. There are some Democrats I don't trust. There are others I would trust on some issues but not on others. There are some I would generally trust. Because I actually have more nuance to my views than "They're all Just As Bad".

Edit: All of which is off-topic because Mueller is not a Democrat.

Sure, they're not homogenous, but at the same time they all wear the same brand. It's why I also judge the whole Republican party by Trump/Bush et al.

But yeah, this is way off topic.

The difference being that the Republicans appear to be by and large way more lockstep in following their leader into absolutely horrific things (a few notable examples aside). But yeah, none of that has any bearing on Mueller.

It is, however, an extremely important point, because branding an entire party by the actions of its worst members rather than the overall climate of the party is how the "Both Sides are Just As Bad" narrative thrives, how it spreads cynicism and apathy, and how it ultimately falsely normalizes the worst players (like Trump) while destroying trust in democracy.