MidwestGorilla219
Well-Known Member
I think he gets voted out in 2020, hoping moderates take back power and everything becomes normal again.
The "D" day pool, best guess as to when Trump is out
- Thread starter DIY-HP-LED
- Start date
blake9999
Well-Known Member
Trump inaugural committee suspected of conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud and money laundering, subpoena indicates
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-inaugural-committee-investigation-president-mueller-fraud-money-laundering-a8763526.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-inaugural-committee-investigation-president-mueller-fraud-money-laundering-a8763526.html
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
No Collusion!! Witch hunt.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
yes and no....anyone taking power from trump is a good thing.....but i don't want things to go back to "normal"......"normal" is big business buying politicians, and i'm about tired of that shit. government by the people, for the people.....not for fucking profit
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
No surprise. Known for some time that was coming.
Every single organization he has is under investigation or already shut down. It's pathetic how absolutely rotten to the core he is and people are still stupid enough to support him.
MidwestGorilla219
Well-Known Member
I agree, lobbying is just legal bribery. I want changes in that regard I'm just hoping moderates take back power with new ideas better for the American people. I'm worried we will go back and fourth hard left and right, and never get shit done.
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Never.
He's a racist, womanizing asshole. He's them. They love him for it and will to the bitter end.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i tried to find one good thing trump has ever done....EVER...and could not find any such information....every single positive thing i found about him was later contradicted, turns out the only time he's ever done anything charitable was when it would profit him in the end.....
has billlions (supposedly)...and as far as i can tell, he's never given a single dollar to any charitable organization that he didn't own himself, and skim out of to begin with...
https://www.apnews.com/021a4d59669949e1be59382c058c07db
trump's charity gave millions to veterans organizations...because trump, a three time draft dodger, values them and the sacrifices they made? or because he wanted to buy their endorsement?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/politics/donald-trump-foundation-charity/index.html
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-obama-salary-donations/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-and-the-truth-his-charitable-giving
trump loves trump....the rest of us can help trump, or get fucked.....
has billlions (supposedly)...and as far as i can tell, he's never given a single dollar to any charitable organization that he didn't own himself, and skim out of to begin with...
https://www.apnews.com/021a4d59669949e1be59382c058c07db
trump's charity gave millions to veterans organizations...because trump, a three time draft dodger, values them and the sacrifices they made? or because he wanted to buy their endorsement?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/politics/donald-trump-foundation-charity/index.html
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-obama-salary-donations/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-and-the-truth-his-charitable-giving
trump loves trump....the rest of us can help trump, or get fucked.....
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
two years ago?
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Well choices have consequences and middle class tRUmp voters are now learning that. People filing their taxes are freaking out because instead of the promised larger return many are reporting that they now owe money. Wow what a news flash, the conman liar screwed someone over. I don't have any sympathy for those idiots but I do for the working people that didn't vote for the orange turd.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Donald's SOTU threat to not investigate him or the country will suffer didn't have the desired effect...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Intel Outlines Parameters Of Donald Trump Investigations | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
Rachel Maddow reviews the five threads of investigation outlined by the House Intelligence Committee now chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Intel Outlines Parameters Of Donald Trump Investigations | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Democrats just called Trump's 'investigations' bluff
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/donald-trump-investigation-adam-schiff-jerry-nadler/index.html
(CNN)In his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Donald Trump minced no words when it came to the ongoing -- and planned -- investigations into him and his Cabinet.
"If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation," Trump said, to murmurs of disapproval from many Democrats in the House chamber.
The message was simple: If you like the current run of economic prosperity and (relative) peace in the world, then you had better end the special counsel investigation being run by Robert Mueller and stop before you start any congressional investigations. If you don't, bad -- if amorphous -- things will happen to the country.
That threat didn't hold for 12 hours. By Wednesday morning, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (California) announced he was launching a wide-ranging inquiry into Trump's finances and whether financial considerations were driving decisions made by the administration.
The investigation will "allow us to investigate any credible allegation that financial interests or other interests are driving decision-making of the President or anyone in the administration," explained Schiff.
Also on Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (New York) forewarned acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker that he would be expected to answer questions -- and not simply cite executive privilege -- in a hearing scheduled for this Friday. Nadler has gone so far as to issue a subpoena to compel Whitaker to testify in the event the acting AG chooses not to answer questions Friday.
Trump whacked the ball into Democrats' court on Tuesday night. And they whaled it right back at him today.
The Point: There'll be no retreat and no surrender in this fight between House Democrats and the Trump administration. I can make that promise.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/donald-trump-investigation-adam-schiff-jerry-nadler/index.html
(CNN)In his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Donald Trump minced no words when it came to the ongoing -- and planned -- investigations into him and his Cabinet.
"If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation," Trump said, to murmurs of disapproval from many Democrats in the House chamber.
The message was simple: If you like the current run of economic prosperity and (relative) peace in the world, then you had better end the special counsel investigation being run by Robert Mueller and stop before you start any congressional investigations. If you don't, bad -- if amorphous -- things will happen to the country.
That threat didn't hold for 12 hours. By Wednesday morning, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (California) announced he was launching a wide-ranging inquiry into Trump's finances and whether financial considerations were driving decisions made by the administration.
The investigation will "allow us to investigate any credible allegation that financial interests or other interests are driving decision-making of the President or anyone in the administration," explained Schiff.
Also on Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (New York) forewarned acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker that he would be expected to answer questions -- and not simply cite executive privilege -- in a hearing scheduled for this Friday. Nadler has gone so far as to issue a subpoena to compel Whitaker to testify in the event the acting AG chooses not to answer questions Friday.
Trump whacked the ball into Democrats' court on Tuesday night. And they whaled it right back at him today.
The Point: There'll be no retreat and no surrender in this fight between House Democrats and the Trump administration. I can make that promise.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many NRA people this guy is gonna roll over on to keep from spending the rest of his life behind bars. No wonder the NRA leadership is panicking and running for the hills, they laundered tens of millions of Russian cash into the 2016 election and should be very worried. Wayne Lapierre won't like prison very much and being a convicted felon who will have to give up his guns even less, assuming he ever gets out of prison.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political operative who was dating alleged Russian spy Maria Butina indicted
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/paul-erickson-indicted-russia-maria-butina/index.html
Washington (CNN)Paul Erickson, the political operative who was dating alleged Russian spy Maria Butina, has been indicted on wire fraud and money laundering charges, the US attorney in South Dakota announced on Wednesday.
The charges pertain to defrauding investors and are unrelated to the conspiracy that Butina pleaded guilty to in December. Butina pleaded guilty in federal court to attempting to infiltrate Republican political circles and influence US relations with Russia before and after the 2016 presidential election.
Butina has been cooperating with investigators and offering information on Erickson, who helped her make inroads into the conservative groups she was trying to influence, CNN reported in December.
"The Indictment alleges that on or about 1996, through August of 2018, Erickson knowingly and unlawfully devised a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money from many victims by means of false and fraudulent pretense, representations, and promises," a news release by the office of US Attorney Ron Parsons reads.
"Erickson made various false and fraudulent representations to individuals located in South Dakota and elsewhere, to induce those investors to give him money to invest in his businesses, which were part of a scheme to defraud them and personally enrich Erickson," the press release reads.
Erickson was released on bond, according to the release, and a trial date has not been set.
"Mr. Erickson is anxious to let the criminal justice process play out and believes a story different from the Government's will emerge," Clint Sargent, Erickson's attorney in South Dakota, told CNN.
Erickson did not immediately respond to a request from CNN to comment.
Erickson is also the target of an investigation in Washington, although he has not yet faced any charges in that probe. His attorney in Washington, William Hurd, declined to comment.
While Erickson's charges appear largely unrelated to the conspiracy Butina was engaged in, there are clues in the indictment that some of the financial transactions may be linked to her. The money laundering portion of the indictment notes a $20,472.09 payment from one of Erickson's accounts to American University in 2017, when Butina was attending graduate school there. Another $9,000 in payments were directed to a recipient whose initials are listed as "M.B." in the indictment. Butina's lawyer, Robert Driscoll, declined to comment.
Paul Erickson Fraud Charges Eyed For Connections To Maria Butina Case | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
Seth Tupper, enterprise reporter for The Rapid City Journal, talks with Rachel Maddow about the indictment of Republican operative Paul Erickson and potential ties between his case and that of his girlfriend, admitted Russian agent Maria Butina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political operative who was dating alleged Russian spy Maria Butina indicted
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/paul-erickson-indicted-russia-maria-butina/index.html
Washington (CNN)Paul Erickson, the political operative who was dating alleged Russian spy Maria Butina, has been indicted on wire fraud and money laundering charges, the US attorney in South Dakota announced on Wednesday.
The charges pertain to defrauding investors and are unrelated to the conspiracy that Butina pleaded guilty to in December. Butina pleaded guilty in federal court to attempting to infiltrate Republican political circles and influence US relations with Russia before and after the 2016 presidential election.
Butina has been cooperating with investigators and offering information on Erickson, who helped her make inroads into the conservative groups she was trying to influence, CNN reported in December.
"The Indictment alleges that on or about 1996, through August of 2018, Erickson knowingly and unlawfully devised a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money from many victims by means of false and fraudulent pretense, representations, and promises," a news release by the office of US Attorney Ron Parsons reads.
"Erickson made various false and fraudulent representations to individuals located in South Dakota and elsewhere, to induce those investors to give him money to invest in his businesses, which were part of a scheme to defraud them and personally enrich Erickson," the press release reads.
Erickson was released on bond, according to the release, and a trial date has not been set.
"Mr. Erickson is anxious to let the criminal justice process play out and believes a story different from the Government's will emerge," Clint Sargent, Erickson's attorney in South Dakota, told CNN.
Erickson did not immediately respond to a request from CNN to comment.
Erickson is also the target of an investigation in Washington, although he has not yet faced any charges in that probe. His attorney in Washington, William Hurd, declined to comment.
While Erickson's charges appear largely unrelated to the conspiracy Butina was engaged in, there are clues in the indictment that some of the financial transactions may be linked to her. The money laundering portion of the indictment notes a $20,472.09 payment from one of Erickson's accounts to American University in 2017, when Butina was attending graduate school there. Another $9,000 in payments were directed to a recipient whose initials are listed as "M.B." in the indictment. Butina's lawyer, Robert Driscoll, declined to comment.
Paul Erickson Fraud Charges Eyed For Connections To Maria Butina Case | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
Last edited:
blake9999
Well-Known Member
The Mueller investigation has sprouted. Therein lies the jeopardy for Trump.
If the old Watergate expression is “It’s not the crime; it’s the coverup,” then today’s equivalent might be “It’s not the crime; it’s the crime’s offspring.”
Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York served a sweeping subpoena on President Trump’s inaugural committee on Monday. Nothing could more clearly illustrate the breadth of the president’s legal exposure and the limits of his nearly two-year strategy to attack and undermine special counsel Robert S. Mueller III — because the special counsel’s work is merely the sturdy root of a veritable Mueller family tree. What began as an FBI counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has sprouted into multiple investigations in multiple jurisdictions examining multiple possible crimes. The case against the president’s personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen is the direct line, the first child. The investigation of the inaugural committee, which sprang from the Cohen case, is the grandchild. And on it goes.
The president no longer faces jeopardy from just one federal criminal probe, but at least three, and not just one prosecutor’s office, but the full resources of the entire Justice Department. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump asserted that “ridiculous partisan investigations” threatened the “economic miracle” that was happening on his watch. The threat of the investigations, however you characterize them, is to the president himself.
Prosecutors looking into illegality in one area of the president’s life have discovered evidence of potential crimes in other areas. Mueller’s discovery of wrongdoing by Cohen led to a referral to prosecutors in Manhattan, who secured a guilty plea from Cohen for violating campaign finance laws and alleged in court papers that it was Trump who directed Cohen to break the law. That investigation in turn produced evidence of wrongdoing at the Trump inaugural committee, which has led to an investigation of a Trump donor, a Los Angeles venture capitalist with ties to Qatar.
To open a new investigation, prosecutors need a credible predicate to believe that a crime has been committed. They must develop probable cause to believe they will uncover evidence or the fruit of a crime to persuade a federal judge to issue a search warrant. None of this suggests the witch hunt Trump often claims it is.
[Mueller has already issued most of his report, one indictment at a time]
Federal investigations are serious business, with high stakes for those involved. Public corruption cases undergo internal scrutiny at the Justice Department to avoid the possibility of political maneuvering. An individual who becomes a target in one wants to limit the possible crimes he faces to as narrow a range as possible. That is doubly true for a political officeholder, who must manage the political fallout of investigations as well as the prospect of being charged in court. Trump, however, is now fighting a legal battle on multiple fronts, both substantively and geographically. He is in jeopardy. Criminal charges once he leaves office or referrals to the House of Representatives for an impeachment inquiry before then are real possibilities.
Compounding all this is the fact that related investigations cross-pollinate. Evidence and cooperating witnesses produced in one case can help prosecutors in another, increasing the risk that wrongdoing, if it exists, will be uncovered. For example, once he pleaded guilty and became a cooperator, the president’s former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates served as a witness against Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort at his trial. But as both a former campaign and inaugural staffer, Gates also has information that is useful in the other probes. Mueller recently told a judge in Washington that Gates continues to cooperate in “several ongoing investigations.”
Similarly, Cohen first agreed to plead guilty in the Southern District’s campaign finance probe, but then he became a cooperator for Mueller and provided, in the course of seven interviews, what the special counsel called “useful information’’ concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation. The same is true for Michael Flynn, who has cooperated in at least two separate investigations after pleading guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The pool of knowledge developed through crossover investigations amplifies prosecutors’ ability to uncover evidence and increases the likelihood they will have sufficient proof to bring charges.
[Michael Cohen is probably just trying to avoid testifying, threats or no threats]
Each new rock the Justice Department turns over holds the potential to launch entirely new lines of inquiry. In addition to the three investigations into the president and the organizations he has headed, Mueller has already referred multiple cases that we know of to prosecutors in Manhattan and Washington. The U.S. attorney in D.C. has secured guilty pleas from a former Senate staffer (for lying to investigators) and a Republican lobbyist (who arranged for foreigners to contribute to the president’s inauguration using straw donors), while SDNY continues to investigate whether prominent lawyers and lobbyists working with Manafort on behalf of Ukraine violated laws on foreign registration. Furthermore, the New York state attorney general is investigating the Trump Foundation, extending the president’s exposure beyond the Justice Department.
If Mueller is indeed winding down in the near future, as acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker recently claimed he was, it could only be with referrals to U.S. attorneys’ offices around the country. The reality is that in prosecutions, it’s never over until it’s over. New evidence can come to light at a late stage and trigger new investigations. Mueller’s reported interest in interactions between the representatives of the government of the United Arab Emirates and the Trump transition team seems ripe for such a referral. There are also concerns over potential financial improprieties in the development of Trump Tower Moscow. And this doesn’t even account for any unknown areas Mueller may be pursuing.
It’s this threat of multiple ongoing investigations spanning the foreseeable future that should frighten the president the most. Whatever his personal criminal liability, it’s now proven that the organizations he has run — business, political and governmental — have been populated with actual criminals. Six of his associates, including his longtime friend and political adviser, his lawyer, his campaign chairman, his deputy campaign chairman and a foreign policy adviser have been indicted or pleaded guilty. It would be naive at this point to believe that more such charges are not coming. That apple could fall very near the tree indeed.
If the old Watergate expression is “It’s not the crime; it’s the coverup,” then today’s equivalent might be “It’s not the crime; it’s the crime’s offspring.”
Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York served a sweeping subpoena on President Trump’s inaugural committee on Monday. Nothing could more clearly illustrate the breadth of the president’s legal exposure and the limits of his nearly two-year strategy to attack and undermine special counsel Robert S. Mueller III — because the special counsel’s work is merely the sturdy root of a veritable Mueller family tree. What began as an FBI counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has sprouted into multiple investigations in multiple jurisdictions examining multiple possible crimes. The case against the president’s personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen is the direct line, the first child. The investigation of the inaugural committee, which sprang from the Cohen case, is the grandchild. And on it goes.
The president no longer faces jeopardy from just one federal criminal probe, but at least three, and not just one prosecutor’s office, but the full resources of the entire Justice Department. In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump asserted that “ridiculous partisan investigations” threatened the “economic miracle” that was happening on his watch. The threat of the investigations, however you characterize them, is to the president himself.
Prosecutors looking into illegality in one area of the president’s life have discovered evidence of potential crimes in other areas. Mueller’s discovery of wrongdoing by Cohen led to a referral to prosecutors in Manhattan, who secured a guilty plea from Cohen for violating campaign finance laws and alleged in court papers that it was Trump who directed Cohen to break the law. That investigation in turn produced evidence of wrongdoing at the Trump inaugural committee, which has led to an investigation of a Trump donor, a Los Angeles venture capitalist with ties to Qatar.
To open a new investigation, prosecutors need a credible predicate to believe that a crime has been committed. They must develop probable cause to believe they will uncover evidence or the fruit of a crime to persuade a federal judge to issue a search warrant. None of this suggests the witch hunt Trump often claims it is.
[Mueller has already issued most of his report, one indictment at a time]
Federal investigations are serious business, with high stakes for those involved. Public corruption cases undergo internal scrutiny at the Justice Department to avoid the possibility of political maneuvering. An individual who becomes a target in one wants to limit the possible crimes he faces to as narrow a range as possible. That is doubly true for a political officeholder, who must manage the political fallout of investigations as well as the prospect of being charged in court. Trump, however, is now fighting a legal battle on multiple fronts, both substantively and geographically. He is in jeopardy. Criminal charges once he leaves office or referrals to the House of Representatives for an impeachment inquiry before then are real possibilities.
Compounding all this is the fact that related investigations cross-pollinate. Evidence and cooperating witnesses produced in one case can help prosecutors in another, increasing the risk that wrongdoing, if it exists, will be uncovered. For example, once he pleaded guilty and became a cooperator, the president’s former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates served as a witness against Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort at his trial. But as both a former campaign and inaugural staffer, Gates also has information that is useful in the other probes. Mueller recently told a judge in Washington that Gates continues to cooperate in “several ongoing investigations.”
Similarly, Cohen first agreed to plead guilty in the Southern District’s campaign finance probe, but then he became a cooperator for Mueller and provided, in the course of seven interviews, what the special counsel called “useful information’’ concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation. The same is true for Michael Flynn, who has cooperated in at least two separate investigations after pleading guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The pool of knowledge developed through crossover investigations amplifies prosecutors’ ability to uncover evidence and increases the likelihood they will have sufficient proof to bring charges.
[Michael Cohen is probably just trying to avoid testifying, threats or no threats]
Each new rock the Justice Department turns over holds the potential to launch entirely new lines of inquiry. In addition to the three investigations into the president and the organizations he has headed, Mueller has already referred multiple cases that we know of to prosecutors in Manhattan and Washington. The U.S. attorney in D.C. has secured guilty pleas from a former Senate staffer (for lying to investigators) and a Republican lobbyist (who arranged for foreigners to contribute to the president’s inauguration using straw donors), while SDNY continues to investigate whether prominent lawyers and lobbyists working with Manafort on behalf of Ukraine violated laws on foreign registration. Furthermore, the New York state attorney general is investigating the Trump Foundation, extending the president’s exposure beyond the Justice Department.
If Mueller is indeed winding down in the near future, as acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker recently claimed he was, it could only be with referrals to U.S. attorneys’ offices around the country. The reality is that in prosecutions, it’s never over until it’s over. New evidence can come to light at a late stage and trigger new investigations. Mueller’s reported interest in interactions between the representatives of the government of the United Arab Emirates and the Trump transition team seems ripe for such a referral. There are also concerns over potential financial improprieties in the development of Trump Tower Moscow. And this doesn’t even account for any unknown areas Mueller may be pursuing.
It’s this threat of multiple ongoing investigations spanning the foreseeable future that should frighten the president the most. Whatever his personal criminal liability, it’s now proven that the organizations he has run — business, political and governmental — have been populated with actual criminals. Six of his associates, including his longtime friend and political adviser, his lawyer, his campaign chairman, his deputy campaign chairman and a foreign policy adviser have been indicted or pleaded guilty. It would be naive at this point to believe that more such charges are not coming. That apple could fall very near the tree indeed.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Trump is pissed so Schiff must be doing something right! I have a feeling Adam Schiff is gonna be the target of many upcoming tweets, Donald might even forget about Mueller and the SDNY prosecutors for awhile. The focus of the media is gonna be on the house hearings from now on with bad news for Donald coming almost daily from multiple committees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump furious after Schiff hires former NSC aides to help oversee his administration
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/adam-schiff-trump-white-house-staffers/index.html
Washington (CNN)House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has hired officials with experience at the National Security Council to help with his panel's oversight of President Donald Trump's administration, according to a committee aide.
The aide declined to say how recently the newly hired officials worked at the council, whether they served under Trump or to identify the individuals. But the move appears to have enraged the President and some members of his senior staff, who view the move as an intrusion. It comes as Democrats prepare to wield new investigative power after winning a House majority in 2018.
Trump fumed on Twitter Thursday about the recently launched investigations led by the Democratic intelligence chair and suggested he was raiding the White House staff.
more...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump furious after Schiff hires former NSC aides to help oversee his administration
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/adam-schiff-trump-white-house-staffers/index.html
Washington (CNN)House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has hired officials with experience at the National Security Council to help with his panel's oversight of President Donald Trump's administration, according to a committee aide.
The aide declined to say how recently the newly hired officials worked at the council, whether they served under Trump or to identify the individuals. But the move appears to have enraged the President and some members of his senior staff, who view the move as an intrusion. It comes as Democrats prepare to wield new investigative power after winning a House majority in 2018.
Trump fumed on Twitter Thursday about the recently launched investigations led by the Democratic intelligence chair and suggested he was raiding the White House staff.
more...
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I have a feeling a subpoena is on the way, there shouldn't be too much litigation required to get him in the hot seat, sounds like Matt has something to hide. I'm sure Trump has been pumping him for information on the Mueller and SDNY investigations and he probably provided it. Trump is known to publicly cut the throats of those who have done him favors and Matt Whitaker must be worried that Donald will blurt out something told to him in confidence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whitaker says he will not appear before House panel unless he gets guarantee he won't face subpoena
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/matthew-whitaker-subpoena-house-judiciary-committee/index.html
(CNN)The Justice Department told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday afternoon that acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker would not appear at Friday's closely-watched oversight hearing unless he receives a written assurance he won't be served with a subpoena.
The threat for Whitaker not to testify comes after the House Judiciary Committee voted earlier Thursday to authorize a subpoena for Whitaker ahead of his Friday testimony — which House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said he would use only if Whitaker did not appear or would not answer the committee's questions, including about conversations with the White House involving special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.
But the escalating dispute between Nadler and the Justice Department now raises questions about the likelihood of Whitaker appearing in what could be his only congressional testimony while leading the Justice Department, with William Barr on a path to be confirmed as the permanent attorney general by the Senate next week.
In the letter, the Justice Department criticized Nadler for authorizing the subpoena "even though the Committee had not yet asked him a single question" and suggested Democrats were seeking to "transform the hearing into a public spectacle."
"The committee evidently seeks to ask questions about confidential presidential communications that no attorney general could ever be expected to disclose under the circumstances," Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote in the letter, obtained by CNN. The letter outlined a number of questions that Whitaker is prepared to answer and gave Nadler a 6 p.m. Thursday deadline to provide assurances he would not issue a subpoena before or during Friday's hearing.
"The Acting Attorney General will testify that at no time did the White House ask for, or did the Acting Attorney General provide, any promises or commitments concerning the Special Counsel's investigation," Boyd wrote. "With respect to the Special Counsel investigation, the Department has complied with the Special Counsel regulations, and the Acting Attorney General will make clear that there has been no change in how the Department has worked with the Special Counsel's office."
In a statement, Whitaker said he would be willing to testify with the assurance that the committee wouldn't issue a subpoena and would "engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road."
A senior Justice Department official told CNN that the bottom line is that the Department is not aware of any precedent for the authorization of a subpoena before questioning.
"This is a breach of the agreement," and a "striking departure from long-standing processes."
Asked about Whitaker testifying before Congress, President Donald Trump called Whitaker an "outstanding person" and said he would do very well should he testify.
"I think he's an outstanding person. I would say, if he did testify, he'd do very well. He's an outstanding person, a very very fine man," Trump said during a presidential memorandum signing in the Oval Office Thursday.
Asked whether Whitaker wouldn't testify due to a subpoena threat, Trump replied, "That I don't know."
Democrats approved giving Nadler the authority to subpoena Whitaker over the objection of Republicans earlier on Thursday, passing the resolution on a party-line vote, 23-13.
Nadler said that authorizing a subpoena for Whitaker was necessary because Whitaker failed to tell the committee whether the Trump administration would invoke privilege with respect to a series of questions they intend to ask about Whitaker's conversations with the White House about Mueller's probe and his decision not to recuse himself from the matter.
Nadler argued in a letter sent to Whitaker last month that he could not claim the White House reserved the right to claim executive privilege to avoid answering those questions. He asked Whitaker to consult with the White House ahead of the hearing and tell the committee whether he would invoke privilege.
"The subpoena will only be issued if he refuses to answer questions on a speculative basis of privilege," Nadler said. "If he does not show up — though I do expect he will — but if he refuses to answer questions he ought to answer, then we will have the tools we need to ensure that we may adequately meet our own responsibilities."
Republicans slammed Nadler for pre-emptively planning a subpoena for a witness who had voluntarily agreed to testify, saying it was setting a troubling precedent.
"A subpoena should only follow a breakdown of the accommodation process and as a last resort against persons seeking to frustrate legitimate oversight on this committee," said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee's top Republican. "There has been no breakdown here."
Collins said that the Justice Department's response to the subpoena vote showed that Democrats "overplayed their hand."
"In a quest to score political points against the President, they authorized a preemptive subpoena, treating a voluntary witness as hostile," Collins said.
Republicans proposed an amendment, offered by Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, to add Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- a familiar target of the GOP given his past oversight of the Mueller probe -- to Nadler's subpoena, which was rejected by Democrats.
Several Republicans on the committee pushed for former Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, to subpoena Rosenstein in the last Congress, though he ultimately did not appear.
Whitaker has been undertaking significant preparations ahead of the hearing, including conducting briefings with every the Justice Department component and participating in several mock hearings, according to the officials.
Acting Attorney General won't testify if subpoenaed
The Justice Department told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday afternoon that acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker would not appear at Friday's closely-watched oversight hearing unless he receives a written assurance he won't be served with a subpoena.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whitaker says he will not appear before House panel unless he gets guarantee he won't face subpoena
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/matthew-whitaker-subpoena-house-judiciary-committee/index.html
(CNN)The Justice Department told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday afternoon that acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker would not appear at Friday's closely-watched oversight hearing unless he receives a written assurance he won't be served with a subpoena.
The threat for Whitaker not to testify comes after the House Judiciary Committee voted earlier Thursday to authorize a subpoena for Whitaker ahead of his Friday testimony — which House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said he would use only if Whitaker did not appear or would not answer the committee's questions, including about conversations with the White House involving special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.
But the escalating dispute between Nadler and the Justice Department now raises questions about the likelihood of Whitaker appearing in what could be his only congressional testimony while leading the Justice Department, with William Barr on a path to be confirmed as the permanent attorney general by the Senate next week.
In the letter, the Justice Department criticized Nadler for authorizing the subpoena "even though the Committee had not yet asked him a single question" and suggested Democrats were seeking to "transform the hearing into a public spectacle."
"The committee evidently seeks to ask questions about confidential presidential communications that no attorney general could ever be expected to disclose under the circumstances," Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote in the letter, obtained by CNN. The letter outlined a number of questions that Whitaker is prepared to answer and gave Nadler a 6 p.m. Thursday deadline to provide assurances he would not issue a subpoena before or during Friday's hearing.
"The Acting Attorney General will testify that at no time did the White House ask for, or did the Acting Attorney General provide, any promises or commitments concerning the Special Counsel's investigation," Boyd wrote. "With respect to the Special Counsel investigation, the Department has complied with the Special Counsel regulations, and the Acting Attorney General will make clear that there has been no change in how the Department has worked with the Special Counsel's office."
In a statement, Whitaker said he would be willing to testify with the assurance that the committee wouldn't issue a subpoena and would "engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road."
A senior Justice Department official told CNN that the bottom line is that the Department is not aware of any precedent for the authorization of a subpoena before questioning.
"This is a breach of the agreement," and a "striking departure from long-standing processes."
Asked about Whitaker testifying before Congress, President Donald Trump called Whitaker an "outstanding person" and said he would do very well should he testify.
"I think he's an outstanding person. I would say, if he did testify, he'd do very well. He's an outstanding person, a very very fine man," Trump said during a presidential memorandum signing in the Oval Office Thursday.
Asked whether Whitaker wouldn't testify due to a subpoena threat, Trump replied, "That I don't know."
Democrats approved giving Nadler the authority to subpoena Whitaker over the objection of Republicans earlier on Thursday, passing the resolution on a party-line vote, 23-13.
Nadler said that authorizing a subpoena for Whitaker was necessary because Whitaker failed to tell the committee whether the Trump administration would invoke privilege with respect to a series of questions they intend to ask about Whitaker's conversations with the White House about Mueller's probe and his decision not to recuse himself from the matter.
Nadler argued in a letter sent to Whitaker last month that he could not claim the White House reserved the right to claim executive privilege to avoid answering those questions. He asked Whitaker to consult with the White House ahead of the hearing and tell the committee whether he would invoke privilege.
"The subpoena will only be issued if he refuses to answer questions on a speculative basis of privilege," Nadler said. "If he does not show up — though I do expect he will — but if he refuses to answer questions he ought to answer, then we will have the tools we need to ensure that we may adequately meet our own responsibilities."
Republicans slammed Nadler for pre-emptively planning a subpoena for a witness who had voluntarily agreed to testify, saying it was setting a troubling precedent.
"A subpoena should only follow a breakdown of the accommodation process and as a last resort against persons seeking to frustrate legitimate oversight on this committee," said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee's top Republican. "There has been no breakdown here."
Collins said that the Justice Department's response to the subpoena vote showed that Democrats "overplayed their hand."
"In a quest to score political points against the President, they authorized a preemptive subpoena, treating a voluntary witness as hostile," Collins said.
Republicans proposed an amendment, offered by Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, to add Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- a familiar target of the GOP given his past oversight of the Mueller probe -- to Nadler's subpoena, which was rejected by Democrats.
Several Republicans on the committee pushed for former Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, to subpoena Rosenstein in the last Congress, though he ultimately did not appear.
Whitaker has been undertaking significant preparations ahead of the hearing, including conducting briefings with every the Justice Department component and participating in several mock hearings, according to the officials.
Acting Attorney General won't testify if subpoenaed
Last edited:
