Oh shit, what are we gonna do now?

[beatbandito]

This has probably already been covered, but none of the new sites' wordings were clear enough for me.

Can proof, or major evidence, of crimes or suspected crimes not tied in any way to the Russians or the 2016 election that are discovered by Mueller still be prosecuted or at least used as a basis for new prosecution?

[Yoji]

Not to change the subject, but I guess Mike Pompeo called Clinton to help prep him for his senate confirmation. Like Hillary, the Harpy of Benghazi, Clinton. Ain't that fuckin' rich?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/ ... ton-512155

[Mongrel]

Not to change the subject, but I guess Mike Pompeo called Clinton to help prep him for his senate confirmation. Like Hillary, the Harpy of Benghazi, Clinton. Ain't that fuckin' rich?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/ ... ton-512155

"Crawl, Mike. No, lower. Lower than that. Come on Mike... you can get your belly lower than that."

[Cait]

This has probably already been covered, but none of the new sites' wordings were clear enough for me.

Can proof, or major evidence, of crimes or suspected crimes not tied in any way to the Russians or the 2016 election that are discovered by Mueller still be prosecuted or at least used as a basis for new prosecution?

Things that are not in the direct scope of Mueller's investigation but appear to be criminal are forwarded to the FBI or other appropriate authorities. For example, the Cohen raid came down from a New York district court, not Mueller's investigation.

[Mongrel]

When I say The Best, I mean THE BEST!

[Thad]

This has probably already been covered, but none of the new sites' wordings were clear enough for me.

Can proof, or major evidence, of crimes or suspected crimes not tied in any way to the Russians or the 2016 election that are discovered by Mueller still be prosecuted or at least used as a basis for new prosecution?

The special prosecutor is allowed to follow whatever threads he uncovers in the course of his investigation. That's how an investigation of Bill Clinton's real estate holdings turned into impeachment proceedings for lying under oath about an extramarital affair.

Mueller can issue indictments (and has), but he won't indict the president. Whatever he finds, he'll submit to Congress, and it'll be up to the House to decide whether to impeach. A simple majority in the House triggers impeachment proceedings, a 2/3 majority in the Senate will remove the president from office.

(I think impeachment is quite possible if the Democrats win in November. Actual removal is a lot less likely; I think it would take a decisive victory by the Democrats and some far more damning revelations in Mueller's report than what we've seen so far. The Senate Republicans have stood by Trump through everything he's done so far; the only thing that's going to get them to change their minds is if they feel the political costs of standing by him outweigh the political costs of removing him.)

The Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting president can be sued in civil court. There are multiple pending suits against Trump right now.

There's also New York AG Schneiderman. Mueller has, very deliberately, not charged Manafort, Gates, et al with everything he could. This means that, if Trump fires Mueller, Schneiderman can prosecute them in state court for any crimes that Mueller hasn't gone after them for. And if they're convicted in a state court, Trump can't pardon them.

As far as I know, the question of whether a sitting president can be prosecuted by a state has no precedent. If Schneiderman attempts to prosecute Trump while he's in office, that's likely to go to the Supreme Court. But Schneiderman can always wait until Trump's out of office to prosecute him.

[Mongrel]

[Thad]

More from Ken White on the Cohen raid, at Popehat and in the Failing New York Times.

Recently I've been listening to the Podcast "Slow Burn," about Watergate. There's a fascinating theme throughout it: when you're living a historical event, how do you know? How can you tell when a development is a Big Deal?

This is a big deal.

[Mongrel]

So today it came out that Cohen taped his conversations with Trump, so there's almost certainly a mycrimes.wav of Trump's that got grabbed in the Cohen raid.

Maybe it won't even be missing 17 and a half minutes this time!

[Mongrel]

ABC: Trump has a signed pardon for Scooter Libby ready for release

Scooter Libby? lmao ok! Sure man, whatever!

[beatbandito]

This has probably already been covered, but none of the new sites' wordings were clear enough for me.

Can proof, or major evidence, of crimes or suspected crimes not tied in any way to the Russians or the 2016 election that are discovered by Mueller still be prosecuted or at least used as a basis for new prosecution?

The special prosecutor is allowed to follow whatever threads he uncovers in the course of his investigation. That's how an investigation of Bill Clinton's real estate holdings turned into impeachment proceedings for lying under oath about an extramarital affair.

Mueller can issue indictments (and has), but he won't indict the president. Whatever he finds, he'll submit to Congress, and it'll be up to the House to decide whether to impeach. A simple majority in the House triggers impeachment proceedings, a 2/3 majority in the Senate will remove the president from office.

(I think impeachment is quite possible if the Democrats win in November. Actual removal is a lot less likely; I think it would take a decisive victory by the Democrats and some far more damning revelations in Mueller's report than what we've seen so far. The Senate Republicans have stood by Trump through everything he's done so far; the only thing that's going to get them to change their minds is if they feel the political costs of standing by him outweigh the political costs of removing him.)

The Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting president can be sued in civil court. There are multiple pending suits against Trump right now.

There's also New York AG Schneiderman. Mueller has, very deliberately, not charged Manafort, Gates, et al with everything he could. This means that, if Trump fires Mueller, Schneiderman can prosecute them in state court for any crimes that Mueller hasn't gone after them for. And if they're convicted in a state court, Trump can't pardon them.

As far as I know, the question of whether a sitting president can be prosecuted by a state has no precedent. If Schneiderman attempts to prosecute Trump while he's in office, that's likely to go to the Supreme Court. But Schneiderman can always wait until Trump's out of office to prosecute him.

So, My Favorite Copyright Attorney, Leonard French, surprisingly made a video on the topic. It sounds like the attorney-client privilege may make things a bit more murky.



Basically it sounds like the FBI took everything and looked at nothing, a third-party group will go through everything and pass only what they consider relevant to the enacted warrant forward to prosecution so that they can determine if they have a case. As was already covered, the fact that the warrant happened at all is proof enough that they have some good info, but it sounds like tapes about using cocaine payments to hire all the illegitimate daughters he had with his staff as prostitutes to fill a pool he didn't pay for the construction of with piss would just go right back to Cohen without further review.

[Thad]

That depends.

There are exceptions to attorney-client privilege. If you and your attorney are plotting criminal activity together, that's not privileged.

It's unclear how much, if any, of what they seized was direct communication between Trump and Cohen; Trump doesn't use e-mail, so none of the e-mails they've got were to or from him.

But it appears they got recordings of conversations -- not necessarily conversations with Trump, but Cohen liked to record conversations.

Whatever's in there, the Failing New York Times is reporting that Trump Sees Inquiry Into Cohen as Greater Threat Than Mueller.

And whatever they've got, they wouldn't have conducted the raid if they didn't expect to find something they can use, even after the taint team goes through everything and screens out all the privileged material.

[Mongrel]

Trump just used "Mission Accomplished!" unironically.

[Mongrel]

Should we have a dedicated "ICE should be shut down" thread?

[Mongrel]

Also, I can't find the tweet now, but Cohen has paid hush money to women for both of his other clients.

:that stupid "HMMMMM..." emote:

[Caithness]

Wait who was the second one?

[Mongrel]

GOP fundraiser Elliot Broidy

[Thad]

Pretty irritated to see Comey treated as a celebrity, and even a hero.

Adam Serwer at the Atlantic sums up my feelings pretty well in a piece called James Comey Is No Hero. Not only does Serwer remind us that Comey probably tipped the election to Trump, he also points out that his rationale for sending that letter has been inconsistent.

Why did Comey make that decision? His book, A Higher Loyalty, will be released on Tuesday. But accounts of its contents and excerpts published by outlets that have obtained copies of the book make clear that he concedes that he believed Clinton was going to win. “It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president,” Comey wrote, “my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls. But I don’t know.”

This is an astonishing admission. Justice Department guidelines bar officials from making important disclosures related to investigations close to elections to avoid influencing them. Comey took it upon himself to decide that, based on his concern that keeping the news confidential could call the legitimacy of a Clinton presidency into question, he had to announce that the investigation was being restarted. But that was not his decision to make; the role of the FBI is to investigate crimes, it is not to use its authority to protect or harm the legitimacy of a given politician. A hypothetical Clinton administration’s legitimacy should not have been a factor in Comey’s decision whatsoever; Comey should only have been concerned with following the Justice Department’s guidelines, which exist to protect the integrity of the democratic process, and which Comey followed in the case of the Republican candidate.

[...]

Comey’s admission that he believed Clinton would win is also dramatically at odds with Comey’s own sworn testimony before the Senate in May of 2017. “There was a great debate. I have a fabulous staff at all levels and one of my junior lawyers said, ‘Should you consider that what you’re about to do may help elect Donald Trump president?’” Comey said. “And I said, ‘Thank you for raising that, not for a moment because down that path lies the death of the FBI as an independent institution in America. I can’t consider for a second whose political fortunes will be affected in what way.’” Now, Comey admits Clinton’s political fortunes were a factor in his decision, which means that by his own assessment, he personally put the FBI’s political independence at risk.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Trump likely obstructed justice by firing Comey, but that doesn't make Comey some kind of goddamn martyr.

So no, in case anyone was wondering, I don't intend to watch Colbert's interview with him.

[Mongrel]

Recent conversation a friend had put it well:

Maybe it's just me...the more I hear from Comey, the more conflicted I feel. I want to believe him that this is all about loyalty to country and inviolable respect for the truth. But damn, the guy has a big ego, is selectively inconsistent. I find him obnoxiously self-righteous.

Feels pretty simple: he's a sanctimonious prick but he's telling the truth

[Bal]

Celebrity angle aside, Comey was pretty interesting and often on point in his interview with Colbert.