Tag Archives: russia

Manafort Flips Again

27 Tuesday Nov 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted court filings indicating that his team will not be recommending that Paul Manafort’s, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, sentence be reduced as previously considered, because Manafort has not been cooperative with his investigation. Manafort plead guilty to two counts of conspiracy pursuant to a deal he made with prosecutors; however, contrary to that agreement, Manafort has been lying to authorities (about some unspecified things). David S. Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, believes Manafort’s lack of cooperation may be due to a belief that he will ultimately receive a pardon for his crimes. The consequences of such a pardon and similar pardons have previously been considered on this blog.

manafort.jpg

 

Will the Investigative Torch Pass to the House?

13 Tuesday Nov 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

With Jeff Sessions gone as Attorney General and Matt Whitaker positioned as acting AG, one has to wonder how much longer Mueller will be able to carry on his investigation unhindered. It may be the Special Counsel will have to pass his baton over to the House. But will  House Democrats vigorously investigate?

This article from Vox, written by Ezra Klien, correctly points out that because Democrats took the House but not the Senate, they will have trouble passing legislation into law. Much of what power is left to them is in the  investigation of President Trump. With their new found majority, Democrats are taking over vital investigative committees in the House. New York Democrat Nita Lowey, will chair the Appropriations Committee, and has “a laundry list of potential areas for inquiry. . . . [including the] family separation policy and hurricane relief in Puerto Rico.” California Rep. Adam Schiff will lead the House Intelligence Committee, which has already been engaged in the Trump investigation.

However, Democrats may be reluctant to shift their focus to investigation. Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader, has said that any investigations will be “strategic” aimed at “seek[ing] the truth.” And Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California, expressed a similar sentiment, stating: “if Mueller sends us an exploding bomb, we may have an obligation to deal with that. But absent that, I don’t think the country will be on board with impeachment, and nor should we.” She feels that focusing on the investigation will distract from what “really matters to people.” It may be Democrats are unwilling to focus their energy of uncovering a truth that, even if it leads to impeachment in the House, will fail to cause removal by the Senate.

pelosi.jpgJ. Scott Applewhite

Stone and WikiLeaks

30 Tuesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators are looking into comments Roger Stone, an adviser to President Trump and self-proclaimed “ultimate political insider,” made to those who called on his political insight. Stone said he knew of WikiLeak’s plans to release information which would affect the 2016 election, apparently referring to the Democratic National Convention emails which were hacked by Russian Intelligence Officials. Roger Stone also claimed to have a relationship with the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. The natural conclusion to be drawn here, is that a connection between Stone and WikiLeaks is a connection between Stone and Russia, which is ultimately a connection between Trump and Russia. Though Stone has yet to be indicted, he did admit in August that such a thing is possible. The possibility now is greater than it was then, and with Stone’s indictment may come a plea deal and cooperation.

roger_stone_ap_file.jpgANDREW HARNIK/ASSOCIATED PRESS/FILE

The Russians Influenced the Election — So What?

25 Tuesday Sep 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New Yorker writes today that Russian bots and trolls likely did influence the 2016 election; or rather Kathleen Hall Jamieson, author of  “Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President—What We Don’t, Can’t, and Do Know,” asserted as much during her interview with the paper. She writes about how, through an online campaign, Russian hackers influenced voters to garner support for Trump. These trolls adopted pseudo-American-identities to better influence their audience, and, according to Jamieson, succeeding in swaying the vote.

Though this is an alarming proposition, it is worth noting that it is not one that needs to be established for a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States. A showing of success is not necessary for a charge of collusion — all that is necessary is that there is a conspiracy with the aim of defrauding the U.S. and some overt act taken in pursuit of that goal. Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 214, 125 S. Ct. 687, 691, 160 L. Ed. 2d 611 (2005). As such, it would be sufficient if Trump were to have conspired with Russian hackers, the Russian hackers assumed American avatars, and then the whole plan went belly up. That being said, the idea that the presidency was handed to Trump by internet trolls could add fervor to impeachment efforts.

trump.jpg

Presidential Obstruction of Justice

20 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article from the California Law Review, written by Daniel J. Hemel and Eric A. Posner and entitled Presidential Obstruction of Justice, examines the standard for charging a United States president with obstruction of justice in light of his role as head of the executive branch and federal law enforcement. The authors assert that a president does violate the law when he obstructs justice with an improper purpose and explore what that improper purpose might be. They ultimately claim that when a president acts/obstructs justice to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” his purpose is proper, but that otherwise it is not.

This analysis is of course significant in light of President Trump’s firing of Former FBI James Comey which some believe was an act obstructing justice. The friction between Comey and Trump was brought to the forefront again on Monday when the President ordered that Comey’s communications be released to the public along with ” 20 pages of a 2016 surveillance application targeting former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr’s notes related to the Russia probe.” Comey believes that Trump is trying to root out a procedural mistake made by the FBI, but is confident he will not find one.

comey.jpgCarsten Koall/Getty Images

The Anonymous Letter

06 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by in Articles

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The nation is abuzz with talk of the anonymous op-ed piece published by the New York Times. The writer is apparently a senior official in the Trump Administration and names him-or-herself  as part of the “quiet resistance.” The piece describes efforts taken by its author and others to walk-back, avoid, and otherwise subvert the President’s more rash decisions. In essence, it paints Trump as an out-of-control child. Some readers will wonder how this is news; however the piece is significant for several reasons. 1) It corroborates other, similar accounts of the Trump administration, such as those leaked by aides and those written in “Fear,” Bob Woodward’s book; 2)  it simultaneously bolsters and rebuffs the 25th amendment theory of removal. The author of the piece wrote that Trump’s cabinet considered removing the President for incompetence, but ultimately decided against it because “no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.” This confirms both that at some point use of the 25th amendment was a real possibility and also that it will likely never happen. That being said, confirmation of the President’s incompetence could add strength to other removal proceedings, such as through impeachment in the House; 3) perhaps most importantly, it helps to resolve the mixed relationship the Trump Administration has with Russia. The author wrote that though Trump has complained about Russian sanctions, the ‘resistance’ has worked to ensure it sanctioned and otherwise punished the nation for stepping out of line. Trump has boasted in the past that “there’s never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been.” Now we know that the punitive steps that the Trump Administration has taken towards Russia may very well have had nothing to do with Trump or have been done in spite of him. Though it may seem a small thing in light of evidence mounting elsewhere, this strengthens the case for collusion and could perhaps help to usher in impeachment.

920x920.jpgSusan Walsh, AP

The Value of Weisselberg

25 Saturday Aug 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This Bloomberg article, written by Justin Sink, accounts for each of the Trump associates which are now helping to build a case against the President. Interestingly, included among their numbers is Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. Information from Weisselberg could prove especially threatening to Trump.  He has been the C.F.O of the Trump Organization for years,  has worked with the Trump family in some capacity since 1970, serves as treasurer to President Trump’s personal foundation, and is the only non-family member that serves as a trustee to the trust that owns the Trump Organizations business interests. This is significant, because investigators have been previously unable to access Trump’s financial records. Now they have the next best thing. Weisselberg, with his intimate knowledge of the President’s finances, could provide the information previously sought from the records, such as evidence of Russian dealings or violations of the foreign emoluments clause. Even if this information is not sufficient to build a case, it could very well be sufficient enough to get a subpoena for the President’s records.

im-23399.jpgThe Wall  Street Journal

The Consequences of Pardoning Manafort

18 Saturday Aug 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today marked the second day of jury deliberations for the trial of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. Manafort is being tried for 18 criminal charges for bank and tax fraud related to the time he spent working for a Ukrainian political party. Manafort refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and it has been theorized that this decision was based on a belief that President Trump would pardon him if he were convicted.

Whether Trump will pardon Manafort is unknown; however he has used his pardon power politically in the past, and his former lawyer, John Down, apparently broached the subject of a possible pardon with Manafort’s lawyers. When asked whether he would consider pardoning Manafort, the President refused to say, but did comment that  “the whole . . .  trial is very sad.”

In an article written for the American Constitutional Society, entitled Why President Trump Can’t Pardon His Way Out of the Special Counsel and Cohen Investigations, Noah Bookbinder, Norman Eisen, Caroline Fredrickson, and Conor Shaw write that “a prospective pardon of a witness in the Russia investigation might . . . constitute an obstruction of a criminal investigation . . . .” They are referring to section 1510 of title 18 of the the United States Code, which makes the “[willful endeavoring], by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator” a federal crime. If President Trump did, directly or indirectly, promise Manafort a pardon in exchange for his refusal to cooperate with Mueller, then he may not only be subject to criminal indictment but yet another article of impeachment as well.

5b3f9a219e2a102f008b47ed-750-375.jpgDrew Angerer/Getty Images

 

12 Agents, Butina, and Helsinki

17 Tuesday Jul 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Good news! The Russian scandal now officially can be sung to the tune of the Twelve Days of Christmas: 12 Russian agents, Butina’s russian channel, election interference, PUTIN “STRONG AND POWERFUL!”  Which is good, because everything else is not sounding quite so festive.

The indictments of 12 Russian agents, for the hacking of the Democratic National Convention and the Clinton Presidential Campaign, and the filing of charges against Mariia Butina, a Russian woman who allegedly tried to broker secret meetings between President Putin and President Trump, further confirm  what the intelligence community already knew: that Russia interfered with the 2016 federal elections. As if that wasn’t frightening enough, our President doesn’t seem to mind. After meeting with Putin in Helsinki and asking him about the Russian meddling, Trump could only comment about the strength of Putin’s denial. Needless to say, Americans are feeling a bit miffed. But where does this leave us in the impeachment debate?

There are two arguments to be made here. The first and, most obvious, is that all this adds to potential charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States. The more certain we are that Russia interfered with the election, the stronger the case for collusion becomes. Of course to establish collusion, it would have to be shown that there was some agreement between Trump and Russia. To that point it helps that there are ties between the indicted Russians and members of Trump’s campaign. In addition, though Trump’s ongoing support of Putin is not direct evidence of conspiracy, it does have a suggestive quality and could indicate a more nefarious relationship between the two.

One may also consider Trump’s reaction as an example of his unfitness. It can be argued that a failure to reprimand the leader of a country which has taken action to defraud the United States is a failure of one of the most basic duties of the President: that of the Chief Diplomat. This can be added to the list of the President’s other shortcomings; however it is unclear how long a list is required to lead to removal.

download.jpgYURI KADOBNOV/AFP/Getty Images

 

The G-7 plus 1?

09 Saturday Jun 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Trump, at the annual summit meeting, suggested that Russia be readmitted into the G-7, the group of 7 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) which meet to discuss world-economic policy. Russia was ousted from the then G-8 in 2014 for seizing parts of the Ukraine. Trump defended his suggestion, stating as follows:

“You know, whether you like it or not — and it may not be politically correct — but we have a world to run. And in the G-7, which used to be the G-8, they threw Russia out. They should let Russia come back in. Because we should have Russia at the negotiating table.”

President Trump acted antagonistically at the summit meeting, rendering himself an outsider, and causing some to refer to it as “G-6 plus 1.”  For some this is a cause of concern: Trump treating allies as enemies and enemies as allies. And it could further bolster the theory that there was and is collusion going on between Russia and Trump; however, it is unclear that that rejoining the G-8 is actually on Putin’s agenda. In response to the news, the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, said that “we are putting emphasis on different formats,” insinuating that Russia is not particularly interested in rejoining the G-7. Russian officials made similar comments in 2014 when they were removed: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia was “not attached to this format and we don’t see a great misfortune if it will not gather.” So if Trump is acting on behalf of Russia, it is the result of some very coy maneuvering. Regardless of the reason for his stance, however, it betrays more of the same peculiar friendless we have seen since the beginning of Trump’s presidency. We will find out exactly what it means in due time.

g7-summit-trump-may-merkel-macron-809690.jpgexpress.co.uk