Pages

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Attorney for Trump: President not under investigation...

So the first question would be, how would the Trump attorney know what the FBI is and is not investigating? Isn't that done in the semi-private catacombs of the deep state, where the only people in the know are the reporters with unnamed sources?

Jay Sekulow - Trump not under investigation

Well, the attorney seems to be suggesting that Donald Trump has not been sent any sort of target letter, or any other form of legal notification. A target letter is sent out (by federal investigators) when an investigation becomes serious enough that it would require investigators to issue any summons, subpoenas, search warrants, etc.

Is it possible that someone in the Mueller team is doing some cursory research on the matter? Of course it's possible.  But in order to move forward with anything that required them to call in witnesses, or ask for documentation related, they would send a target letter. In theory, that letter would likely come prior to any subpoenas or warrants, but they could come together.

More to the point, much of what they know is probably the same thing we know. So it's not so much a matter of "investigating" anything, but rather a matter of deciding if there are facts there that can truly justify looking at it criminally. I would offer that the lion's share of objective (non-media) legal scholars are steadfast that such a case would be difficult, if not impossible to bring.

What we can generally believe to be factual is (that as of today) nobody from the Trump legal team has been notified, summoned, subpoenaed, or been provided with any warrant or other legal requests in relation to any investigation of any sort that is specific to Donald Trump.


58 comments:

wphamilton said...

Oh well if Trump's personal attorney said it, then that settles it. We don't need to know what the Special Investigator is doing, let alone read about the leaks.

That's how it works when you're a Winner, working for a hugely winning winner.

Good ole gentle truth-seeking James said...

Wonder why the Special Counsel has not himself stated that there is no investigation of the President going on...

wphamilton said...

In other words CH you have to ask, or answer a few pertinent questions about this. If, as you say, the investigation is at most going through the motions because there is no evidence of anything, then why are they interviewing top Trump officials? Why go to the lengths that Mueller has, to assemble a team of legal talent? Are all of these leaks made up, or are they indicative of what the investigative team is actually doing? And finally, WHY would Mueller act as if he is conducting an actual investigation, if he's really not investigating anyone? Are you suggesting that he's in the tank for Trump and putting on a show, and if so, why is Trump attacking him and his investigation?

Good old James said...

You got some 'splainin' to do, Ch.

KD, WP you want this so bad, it is comical, Trump must be removed from office said...

CHT, Has Jane Sent you a Target Letter yet?

IF, not what is taking her so long, it really is true, nothing like a woman scorned.

KD, Day 3 and still Jane runs like a girl from his Threats toward CHT and others said...


June 17, 2017 at 9:21 AM"

Waiting for your letter to be sent to the ACLU and posted here.

When will the letter be posted here so we can all LOL @ James???


Jane you have the time, clearly, but do you have the will, looks like you don't. What a nanci-boy.

James said...

Shut up, KD. I will move on that when I decide to, in my own good time and in my own way.

Meanwhile, the questions asked by Wp and myself on this thread stand.

KD, said...



let alone read about the leaks." WP

And we were told that Mueller would conduct this inquestion with the highest of standards, well, we know now that ain't happin'.

Mueller the sieve. like Comey the queen, leak like a dirty tampon.

And Mueller is staffing up with Hillary/Obama recommended and at one time or another employed by those two reprobates.

All in all this is pure political junk.

KD, Jane white Flag of Defeat flies high on CHT Adult Blog said...

Jane, you stupid faggot coward, you made it your issue, calling you on it is what we do, you got nothing.

Again, you prove to this blog and the internet you are a nanci-boy.

Oh and fuck you, telling me to shut up, you would never do that to my face, I am sure of that.

So having called you out as the nanci-boy your are and humiliated you again, I will drop this, after all your white flag of defeat made from one of your pair of girlie panties is clear for all to see.

As for your so called question, get real, you ask us to answer yours, yet when your asked , you run, you are a coward like all Liberals.

wphamilton said...

Those who are already bad-mouthing the investigation, and the Special Investigator's team, since there is little objective reason to do so, are already worried about what that team will find. You are worried about the political ramifications, for your favored political party and the agenda you hope can be accomplished.

The difference with me is that I want to get at the truth. I am not hoping that Trump is guilty of something, and I don't hope that he is exonerated. These allegations are serious enough that for the good of our nation, for any patriotic American finding the truth is the only priority.

Loretta said...

Stupid obnoxious James Boswell trolling.

Loretta said...

Stupid obnoxious James Boswell trolling.

James said...

Shut up, KD. Shut up, "Loretta."

Adults like Wp, and I, and maybe Ch are having as real conversation here.

Loretta said...

Produce it, bitch

James said...

Re 2:38 I too want to get at the truth, Wp, and I agree with you that getting at the truth should be the highest priority. Also that the allegations are serious enough to demand an investigation. (There are even some strongly partisan Republicans who agree with that.)

I will admit, however, that I would like to see the truth sink this person who in my opinion has entered the White House by means that are more questionable than unquestionable and whose mental attitude is actually frightening. I want to see him removed from access to the nuclear codes, and feel that it is my patriotic duty to feel that way and say so.

Good ole gentle truth-seeking James said...

And why shouldn't I be concerned, when there are so many Republicans who are so concerned they won't even work for the Trump administration?

https://politicalwire.com/2017/06/18/republicans-wont-work-trump-administration/

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling.

WP is producing valid arguments.

Like the little bitch you are, you're riding his coattails.

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling.

Good ole gentle truth-seeking James said...

Wp is an adult. If he wishes to complain to me about something, he can. He doesn't need help from Mama Loretta.

PS Ch says he discourages personal insults. Would that include "bitch"?

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling, little bitch.

Good ole gentle truth-seeking James said...

Waiting for intelligent commentary on what Wp said or I said.

Loretta said...

Waiting for Boswell to put forth intelligent commentary.

Commonsense said...

There is the all important word. Yet.

I doubt Mueller will just let it go.

He should, since there's nothing really there, but that's just not how special prosecutors work.

Which is why I was against the statute to begin with.

wphamilton said...

I'm not getting into the byplay of this thread.

"since there's nothing really there, but that's just not how special prosecutors work."

but this is actually a good point by CS, in that with special prosecutors there is scope creep, or expansion of the scope, when there isn't enough for the initial target. But this one was pretty broad to begin with, and including Trump and his staff's contacts with Russia are pretty much in the original scope IMO. If Mueller goes off the rails and starts looking into, say, Trump's business deals or tax returns for money laundering, I'll probably be complaining with the rest of you.

C.H. Truth said...

James - if you looked up what special counsels are designed to do, it's to investigate "outside" of the normal chain of command and normal politics. Unless special counsel determines that indictment is warranted, the general public would never know what was going on.

For instance... six weeks into a two year investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald sent a letter to the Attorney General letting him know that there was no crime in the leaking of Valerie Plame, asking for plenary powers to basically dig around.

The general public was not told of this (if they had, I am pretty sure the political pressure to end the probe would have been overwhelming).

So there isn't going to be media updates from Mueller.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

You are still not willing to admit that the NYT report regarding the so-called contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence was wrong. In spite of the FBI director testifying as much under oath. It never happened, yet you hang on to it as evidence.

So I would expect that you would obviously take whatever new "story" being reported by whoever as the end all be all of the truth.

I see no reason why a high profile attorney would go on multiple television shows and simply lie. Using nothing more than the actual percentage of the accuracy of "media reports from unnamed sources" - there is a reasonable chance that this story is also wrong, just as so many of them have been.

Commonsense said...

WP The original charge for Mueller was to investigate accusations of collusion between Trump's campaign and whether any laws were broken.

It is a highly dubious proposition since the things we know Russia did (Op eds, favorable stories in RU today etc.) are perfectly legal.

There's that pesky 1st amendment again.

C.H. Truth said...

If Mueller goes off the rails and starts looking into, say, Trump's business deals or tax returns for money laundering, I'll probably be complaining with the rest of you.

Doubtful. You won't complain.

If you believe media reports (and it's obvious that you believe most everything you read) - then that is exactly what Mueller and his team is looking to do.

They can simply argue that it's "part of the probe" because they have to eliminate the possibility that any of Trump's financial dealings might have to do with Russians.

That's your "justification" for looking through any and all business dealings, and would also explain why Mueller is hiring "attorneys" rather than law enforcement investigators to round out his team.

James said...

WP HAMILTON SAID: If Mueller goes off the rails and starts looking into, say, Trump's business deals or tax returns for money laundering, I'll probably be complaining with the rest of you.
__________

JAMES SAID: You might want to reconsider that a little, Wp, after reading the following from SLATE:
__________

... special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating Trump’s inner circle for financial crimes. This aggressive shift toward Trump associates’ personal dealings is disastrous news for the president, his allies, and his enablers. At long last, federal investigators will probe Trump’s sprawling network for wrongdoing, picking up where reporters left off, only this time with subpoena power. And Trump can only stop them by firing Mueller—a blatant obstruction of justice that would likely be more damaging than any crime the president may have committed in the past.

In fairness, we still know little about what potential misconduct investigators are scrutinizing. But we know nothing they find is liable to be good news for Trump. The Post revealed that, in addition to exploring obstruction of justice, Mueller’s team is “looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates.” The Times elaborated that Mueller’s investigation “was looking at money laundering” among Trump’s inner circle in the form of a “financial payoff” from Russian officials routed “through offshore banking centers.”

These inquiries are bound to draw Mueller deeper into the details of the Trump family’s business empire. And even if they do not reveal outright collusion with Russia, they will allow Mueller to study complex transactions conducted behind closed doors with little oversight. Mueller can depose witnesses, subpoena records (including tax returns), and interview the president himself under oath. His skilled staff can pursue multiple leads and offer immunity to witnesses who are willing to talk. The special counsel can follow the breadcrumbs of criminality wherever they lead him, even if—especially if—they lead to the Oval Office.

And what, exactly, will Mueller find now that he has substantially broadened the scope of his investigation? It’s impossible to say, but easy to speculate. Reporters have already uncovered an astonishing amount of disturbing information about Trump. There’s the Azerbaijan hotel project propped up by graft and bribery with ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The charitable foundation accused of self-dealing and tax fraud. The questionable Deutsche Bank loans with ties to Moscow. The close association with allegedly criminal international companies. The journalists chasing these leads have hit snags, obstacles, and insurmountable walls, leading to stories that suggest the possibility of law-breaking but end with lingering uncertainty. Mueller need not put up with such stonewalling. He has the tools to dig much deeper.

James said...

continued from SLATE:

Trump is now in a painful position: Either allow the investigation to continue and risk exposure of his possible criminality or fire Mueller and weather the resulting political catastrophe. Trump has already entertained the idea of terminating the special counsel. Although his advisers talked the president out of it for now, his surrogates have begun spreading anti-Mueller talking points—a coordinated effort to smear the special counsel that seems designed to preserve the possibility of his firing. Kellyanne Conway claimed Mueller’s team opposed Trump’s presidency, while Newt Gingrich insisted Mueller is “setting up a dragnet of obstruction” aimed at “undermining and crippling the Trump presidency.” Trump himself has tweeted that Mueller’s investigation is “the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history- led by some very bad and conflicted people!”

If Trump does fire Mueller, he will prove that he truly is terrified to have his past inspected by law enforcement—so terrified that he’d be willing to spark an enormous political firestorm. It’s not clear, however, that terminating Mueller would help Trump in any way. Trump thought he could stop the Russia investigation by firing FBI Director James Comey, going so far as to tell Russian officials that Comey’s termination would solve the problem. But it only saddled Trump with Mueller.

Sacking Mueller would end the special counsel investigation, at least temporarily. It would also constitute a clear case of obstruction of justice, one that would instigate an immediate, immense outcry. Washington would screech to a halt; any hope of passing health care or tax cuts would vanish. Republicans, no longer able to squeeze their agenda through to Trump’s desk, would see little reason to continue propping up the president. New investigations would follow, focusing squarely on an impeachable offense that Trump committed in broad daylight.

That is the dilemma that Trump faces: Answer for his old crimes, or commit a new one. Neither option will allow him to get to the business of governing; both pave the way to impeachment if the GOP grows frustrated by the lack of legislative progress. Mueller’s deepening dragnet has greatly increased the likelihood the president will face real consequences for his actions. We don’t yet know what those consequences look like. But they seem to be fast approaching.

James said...

Re 5:45PM above
Ch, it seems to me that "media updates" from Mueller will hardly be needed as long as we keep getting reports (leaks) from terrified Trump associates who are being subpoenaed.

James said...

In my humble opinion, the last several blogs above suggest why it is sometimes a good thing to throw a C & P into a discussion. As I did at 8:25 and 8:26.

wphamilton said...

"You are still not willing to admit that the NYT report regarding the so-called contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence was wrong."

CH is confused - by "intercepted communications of Russian Intelligence" I meant Russian intelligence to their superiors. These are not "fake news"

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell spamming.

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling spamming

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling

C.H. Truth said...

WP - There is a better than average chance that most everything you read from anonymous sources is "fake news". These reports have been wrong more often than they have been right.

That being said... who even knows what the hell "intercepted communications of Russian intelligence" even means? I have no idea which of the 150 different fake news reports you are referring to.

What we KNOW for sure is what real people with real identities with real information tell us.

Such as both Republicans and Democrats from the the Intelligence committees who have been briefed on this investigation, has subpoena rights to the information from the investigation, and has interviewed people of interests from this investigation... and has told us that there is no evidence of collusion.

We also know that James Comey testified under oath that the President himself was not under investigation for any of the various situations that they were looking into.

We know Comey testified UNDER OATH that the President did not discourage him from investigating anyone's ties to the Russians, and that the two other Sr intelligence administrators also testified under oath that they were not asked to interfere or anything else.

_____

Base on everything we KNOW - the President has not been and is not currently under investigation.

Quite honestly, do you really think anything has changed since Comey was fired? You really believe that suddenly (in a manner of a couple of weeks) Mueller has found the missing evidence of the Trump Russia conspiracy?

You assume because someone in the press writes something that it's true... even as most of what they have written so far has been "untrue". Or you assume that you can logically make an assumption that Mueller would not hire anyone to help sort out an investigation unless he has already uncovered something?

(Of course, if the sources in question were even 1/100 as good as you assume them to be, then that brand new evidence should have been leaked by now).

Seems like a HUGE logical stretch, based on possibilities and a little wishful thinking.

James said...

CHTRUTH said: "Quite honestly, do you really think anything has changed since Comey was fired?"

JAMES SAYS: Well, Ch, one thing that has changed is that the President has stopped saying he is not under investigation and is now saying he is.

Care to explain that?

James said...

I would now like to challenge either Ch or Wp to tell us exactly what is erroneous in the SLATE article above.

If either or both of them can find nothing wrong in it, they can of course choose to remain silent.

Commonsense said...

That's easy. No one from Mueller's office has confirmed those reports and Slate has not seek independent confirmation.

Slate's journalistic standards have dropped below those of the National Enquirer but sadly, they are not alone,

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell spamming.

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell spamming.

James said...

5:34 Well, Common, you made a general statement, but would you like to address this?:
__________
Reporters have already uncovered an astonishing amount of disturbing information about Trump. There’s the Azerbaijan hotel project propped up by graft and bribery with ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The charitable foundation accused of self-dealing and tax fraud. The questionable Deutsche Bank loans with ties to Moscow. The close association with allegedly criminal international companies. The journalists chasing these leads have hit snags, obstacles, and insurmountable walls, leading to stories that suggest the possibility of law-breaking but end with lingering uncertainty. Mueller need not put up with such stonewalling. He has the tools to dig much deeper.
__________

Would that explain why Trump has begun yelling at TVs?


KD, President Trump, Never President Kankles said...

Jane , unlike you telling people here to "shut up" when you hear something you don't like, I want you and your ilk to keep talking. Not only do I want you to, you have a right to under the US Constitution.

Your beloved left is shutting down debate because it might offend your little ears, to bad.

Loretta said...

Obnoxious James Boswell trolling

Commonsense said...

5:34 Well, Common, you made a general statement, but would you like to address this?

Sure with a few questions:

Where they not so much as uncovered as made up?

Where is the evidence of a crime?

What is the crime suppose to be?

Amused, James said...

Trump lawyer insists there is no obstruction investigation — but then hedges
WASHINGTON POST
















2



Anonymous said...

Another Con, acting out like rat....Tpp stupid for words. You all deserve celebrities like this....

Jenner was asked about the shooting, which wounded members of Congress and Capitol Police officers.

“Nobody deserves what happened out there; there’s no justification,” she said, according to People magazine.


"It’s happened then and it will happen again, unfortunately,” she added, blaming “crazy people.”

“Fortunately, the guy was a really bad shot. Yeah, liberals can’t even shoot straight,” she said, mocking James Hodgkinson, the Bernie Sanders supporter who police say opened fire on the baseball practice.


The audience erupted in applause and cheers in a video posted to the College Republican Federation of Virginia's Facebook page. That video appears to have been deleted but later appeared on YouTube.

>> Read more trending news
She went on to answer questions about being transgender, being Republican, supporting President Donald Trump, whether she shops at Nordstrom and her work attempting to build bridges between transgender Americans and the Republican Party.

Roger Amick said...

In my spare time I have been, bottom line, how skilled The President at deceiving even intelligent analyst. There is public evidence that the President is subject to investigation. Late last week, he has successfully changed the topic. No questions on his illegal actions, all the questions are on the credibility of the "Fake News".

KD, Yellen is on purpose damaging the US Economy said...

President Trump hit 50 % approval rating.


Is he getting the "Clinton Effect", see WE as voters don't like it when our President is under attack from DC insiders.

KD, Yellen is on purpose damaging the US Economy said...

Jane even fails at "cut-n-paste"

GOT LETTER ?

LOL @ fag Jane .

James said...

Ch, why is Trump's lawyer backtracking?

KD, Yellen is hurting the US Economy By Design said...

Jane, that is a fine white flag of defeat you have flying over your home.


Never ever make a threat you are unable to fulfill.

C.H. Truth said...

James - I just watched Trump's lawyer twice yesterday. He never backtracked.


Let me guess... you read a blogger somewhere who said he backtracked and therefor it must be true.

I have read lots of interesting things being said about lots of people (including you). Should I believe them all to be true?

opie said...

. He never backtracked.

Did he not say trump was under investigation before he said he wasn't????

Fair minded James said...

CHTRUTH SAID: Let me guess... you read a blogger somewhere who said he backtracked and therefor(sic) it must be true.

JAMES SAYS: You guessed wrong. See my 6:09 AM above.

That is a WaPo headline. Readers can go to that article and decide for themselves whether Trump's attorney backtracked.

C.H. Truth said...

So thanks for admitting it James... you got your information from a blogger from WaPo. You didn't watch (or judge) for yourself. Because, of course, you are incapable of it.

If you truly want to "judge for yourself" James... then you should watch the interview "YOURSELF". By definition, reading someone else's opinion of what happen cannot by any means be "judging for yourself". By nature it is you simply agreeing with someone else's judgement.

______

To be clear I "did" watch the interview between Wallace and Sekulow, and he never "hedged" other than claiming he wasn't a mind reader and saying he cannot accurately predict what will happen in the future.

But he steadfastly held 100% to the concept that they have not been legally notified of any investigation, which would mean that they have not been sent a target letter, or that they have not received any summons, warrants, subpoenas, etc...

From a purely legal standpoint Sekulow stated over and over (and as Donald Trump's attorney Sekulow would be the first to be notified differently)... Trump is not under criminal investigation by Mueller or anyone else.