dagblog - Comments for "The Really Big Shoe"

But wait, there's more:

artappraiser — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 19:31:09 +0000

But wait, there's more: Jennifer Rubin @ WaPo today "from the right" is basically saying "off with all their heads" and Mr. John Dean his very self finds this interesting enough to tweet a link and comment:

Jennifer Rubin makes the case that Nunes and his kind should be investigated for obstruction of justice b/c that is precisely what they are trying to do. Nunes was elected by low info voters. They should be told of his nefarious activities. https://t.co/fdxIFoi9NK
— John Dean (@JohnWDean) July 30, 2018

Exactly. Nothing that

barefooted — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 05:53:47 +0000

In reply to FWIW reminder about Pence

Exactly. Nothing that happened during Trump's transition could have/should have happened without Pence's knowledge and approval - he became the head of it after Christie was dumped. No need to go into detail about what he knew about Flynn "lying to him", and how he in turn lied about it to the media and by extension the public - we all know the details. Your point here is a good one. If by the grace of some political magician (Mueller?) we can rid ourselves of both Trump and Pence, then who's next is huge.

FWIW reminder about Pence

artappraiser — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 05:33:30 +0000

In reply to The Really Big Shoe

FWIW reminder about Pence from Scott Dworkin on MSNBC today:

“There’s a paper trail that proves Pence knew Flynn was a foreign agent” for Russia, they hired him anyways. “There’s no way that Mike Pence didn’t know. He’s too hands on of a guy.” Scott Dworkin (Rep. Cummings and I made two separate paper trails) #AMJoy https://t.co/mK7L0yJI2Y
— Scott Dworkin (@funder) July 29, 2018

If this happens to be a something rather than an uninvestigated nothing, makes the midterm elections also about: might be extra important who the next Speaker of the House is.

Shoes really driving him

artappraiser — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 03:12:08 +0000

In reply to The Really Big Shoe

Shoes really driving him crazy, trying everything he can think of:

Trump lashes out at Mueller for alleged conflicts of interest

By Brett Samuels @ TheHill.com, 07/29/18 04:50 PM EDT

Trump on Sunday renewed his accusations that special counsel Robert Mueller has "conflicts of interest" in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, citing a previous business dispute between the two men.

In a sequence of tweets attacking the special counsel's credibility, Trump noted that he and Mueller had "a very nasty & contentious business relationship."

Is Robert Mueller ever going to release his conflicts of interest with respect to President Trump, including the fact that we had a very nasty & contentious business relationship, I turned him down to head the FBI (one day before appointment as S.C.) & Comey is his close friend..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2018

Trump has alleged on multiple occasions via Twitter that Mueller has unspecified conflicts of interest, however, Sunday's tweet marks the first time he's elaborated beyond such accusations.

The president seemingly confirmed a New York Times report from January that said Trump attempted to fire Mueller in June 2017 over alleged conflicts of interest.

The Times reported that Trump listed three conflicts he believed should disqualify Mueller: A dispute over fees at Trump’s National Golf Club in Virginia, his interview for FBI director before being named special counsel, and Mueller’s previous employment at a law firm that represents Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Trump reportedly backed off his demand after White House counsel Don McGahn refused Trump’s order and threatened to quit [....]

The WSJ version of the

artappraiser — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:49:23 +0000

In reply to The Really Big Shoe

The WSJ version of the Weisselberg story just loaded in full for me via this link (don't know if it's because it's being tweeted by one of the 4 reporters or because they are having a freebie period):

NEWS: Longtime Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg has been called to testify before a federal grand jury in the criminal probe of Michael Cohen's business dealings. w/@rebeccadobrien @mrothfeld @AlexandraBerzon https://t.co/UNb9r0VdK2
— Rebecca Ballhaus (@rebeccaballhaus) July 26, 2018

The NYTimes has now

artappraiser — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 05:04:14 +0000

In reply to The Really Big Shoe

The NYTimes has now published a long piece on the Weisselberg story:

Prosecutors Seek to Question Trump Organization’s Finance Chief

By Maggie Haberman, Michael S. Schmidt & Sharon LaFraniere, July 26, 2018

Federal investigators in Manhattan have asked to interview Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, as part of their investigation into President Trump’s former lawyer Michael D. Cohen, according to two people familiar with the matter.

It was not clear whether Mr. Weisselberg was issued a subpoena or was asked to answer questions voluntarily. Either way, the development suggests that federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are scrutinizing at least some financial dealings of the Trump family business, a line that the president has publicly warned the special counsel in the Russia investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, not to cross.

The New York prosecutors, who are operating on a separate track from Mr. Mueller’s team, are investigating Mr. Cohen on a number of fronts, including payments he arranged before the presidential election to women who had claimed that they had affairs with Mr. Trump. The prosecutors’ interest in Mr. Weisselberg was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The development set off alarm bells within the Trump Organization, an umbrella company for Mr. Trump’s holdings, because of the scope of Mr. Weisselberg’s responsibilities. He has handled its finances for decades, has been involved with the Trump Foundation, has managed the president’s private trust and has at times reviewed the Trump presidential campaign’s books [....]

Haberman has tweeted a different excerpt with a comment:

The Mueller probe is not likely as problematic for Trump as the SDNY probe into Cohen is https://t.co/SIlcA0yWmb pic.twitter.com/ywC7ZJzKvo
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) July 27, 2018

She also tweeted this comment earlier with a link to the article:

It's worth bearing in mind how focused Trump was on whether to keep @preetbharara, whose office had jurisdiction over Trump Tower, in his job during transition. He was ultimately fired along with dozens of other US attys https://t.co/SIlcA0yWmb
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) July 27, 2018

Preet Bharara re-tweeted

artappraiser — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 04:59:57 +0000

In reply to The NYTimes has now

Preet Bharara re-tweeted Haberman's above comment about him, adding an emoji of two eyes wide open as a comment, effectively endorsing it

Preet Bharara re-tweeted

artappraiser — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 04:59:29 +0000

In reply to The NYTimes has now

delete

Nunberg saying back in March

artappraiser — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 04:32:31 +0000

In reply to This too:

Nunberg saying back in March he was talking about the meeting a week before:

From March: https://t.co/RtJs8BjvyO
— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) July 27, 2018

Mueller Examining Trump’s

artappraiser — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 03:23:48 +0000

In reply to The Really Big Shoe

Mueller Examining Trump’s Tweets in Wide-Ranging Obstruction Inquiry

By Michael S. Schmidt & Maggie Haberman @ NYTimes.com, July 26, 2018

[....] The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is scrutinizing tweets and negative statements from the president about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to three people briefed on the matter.

Several of the remarks came as Mr. Trump was also privately pressuring the men — both key witnesses in the inquiry — about the investigation, and Mr. Mueller is examining whether the actions add up to attempts to obstruct the investigation by both intimidating witnesses and pressuring senior law enforcement officials to tamp down the inquiry.

Mr. Mueller wants to question the president about the tweets. His interest in them is the latest addition to a range of presidential actions he is investigating as a possible obstruction case: private interactions with Mr. Comey, Mr. Sessions and other senior administration officials about the Russia inquiry; misleading White House statements; public attacks; and possible pardon offers to potential witnesses.

None of what Mr. Mueller has homed in on constitutes obstruction, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said. They argued that most of the presidential acts under scrutiny, including the firing of Mr. Comey, fall under Mr. Trump’s authority as the head of the executive branch and insisted that he should not even have to answer Mr. Mueller’s questions about obstruction.

But privately, some of the lawyers have expressed concern that Mr. Mueller will stitch together several episodes, encounters and pieces of evidence, like the tweets, to build a case that the president embarked on a broad effort to interfere with the investigation. Prosecutors who lack one slam-dunk piece of evidence in obstruction cases often search for a larger pattern of behavior, legal experts said [....]