Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

[Lord Jim]

Senate Judiciary Committee opens investigation into Trump for firing former FBI Director James Comey

The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that the Senate Judiciary Committee will investigate President Donald Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey.

According to the report, senators want to know if Trump acted improperly when he allegedly fired Comey to influence an investigation into Russia’s hacking of the 2016 U.S. election.

“The Judiciary Committee has an obligation to fully investigate any alleged improper partisan interference in law enforcement investigations,” Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said in a statement. “It is my view that fully investigating the facts, circumstances, and rationale for Mr. Comey’s removal will provide us the opportunity to do that on a cooperative, bipartisan basis.”

“The American people deserve a full accounting of attempts to meddle in both our democratic processes and the impartial administration of justice,” the chairman added.

Grassley’s statement came after Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) called for an investigation into the firing of Comey.

“I think we need to know more about that, and there’s only one way to know about it and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that,” Ms. Feinstein said during a recent interview with CNN.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/senate- ... mes-comey/

This is a particularly noteworthy development, because Grassley has previously been reluctant to criticize Trump, and has been resistant having Judiciary Committee hearings focused on him...

Now if only the House Judiciary Committee would get in gear...

[Lord Jim]

The boy just never learns...

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 46m46 minutes ago

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA
13,113 replies 7,126 retweets 22,693 likes

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref ... r%5Eauthor

[Guinevere]

Congressman Seth Moulton already addressed this (the Trumpanzee has used the witch hunt analogy before):

[Lord Jim]

I forget who it was, but I heard some pundit say in the last week that "If there's a witch hunt, it's because Trump keeps getting caught stirring his caldron and flying around on his broom"....

[Sue U]

Witches everywhere are offended.

[Lord Jim]

Brian Klaas‏Verified account @brianklaas

Brian Klaas Retweeted Donald J. Trump

Like a witch hunt where the witch's staff defended the witch & then the witch went on TV, told Lester Holt: "I am a witch" & then tweeted it

Brian Klaas added,
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!

https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/8 ... 4642898944

[Lord Jim]

Special counsel Mueller investigating Jared Kushner's finances, Washington Post reports

Special counsel Robert Mueller is scrutinizing White House adviser Jared Kushner's "finances and business dealings" as part of the ongoing probe into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, The Washington Post reported Thursday, citing unnamed officials familiar with the matter.

The financial dealings of other people tied to President Trump have also been examined by the FBI and federal prosecutors, the Post reported. Among them are former national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and former adviser Carter Page.

The lawyer for Kushner, the president's son-in-law and close adviser, said there was nothing surprising about the Post's report.

"We do not know what this report refers to," attorney Jamie Gorelick said in a statement. "It would be standard practice for the Special Counsel to examine financial records to look for anything related to Russia. Mr. Kushner previously volunteered to share with Congress what he knows about Russia-related matters. He will do the same if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry."

USA TODAY previously reported that the FBI was investigating Kushner for his contact with Russian officials, but there was no word at that time that his financial dealings were part of the probe.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 102904432/

[Lord Jim]

Donald Trump's Latest Approval Rating Plunges As Support Among Republicans, Whites Drops

In the early hours of Thursday morning, President Donald Trump fired off a tweetstorm complaining that "they made up a phony collusion with the Russians story" and that he was the subject of the "single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history."

But while Trump might think issues facing the White House have been created by a mysterious "they," Americans don't seem to trust the president's commitment to running the government properly—in fact, many think he is downright undemocratic. Sixty-five percent of respondents in an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research​ poll released Thursday said the president either doesn't have much or any respect for the "country's democratic institutions and traditions." Nearly a third of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents said the same.

The Associated Press-NORC survey also found Trump wasn't a particularly popular president. Just 35 percent of Americans approved of the job he's doing as president, the poll found. Sixty-four percent—and one-quarter of Republicans—disapproved of Trump's job performance. [I wish it was higher, but at least it's going steadily in the right direction] In March, the the Associated Press-NORC poll found 42 percent of Americans approved of the job Trump was doing. Just one-in-five Republicans disapproved of the president in March.

In the latest poll, roughly 50 percent of whites without a college degree—one of Trump's strongest demographics in the 2016 presidential election—approved of the job the president was doing. That's down 8 percentage points from Associated Press-NORC poll in March.

The Associated Press-NORC survey interviewed 1,068 adults both online and over the phone from June 8 through June 11. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-la ... ops-626096


I've posted these poll results in the Impeachment thread, because it's Trump's standing with Republicans and non-college educated whites that forms a critical part of the equation for creating the political will for GOP members to break with Trump...

If they could wave a magic wand and simply make Trump disappear, I doubt there are half a dozen Republican lawmakers on The Hill who wouldn't at this point gladly do so. But it's the fear of a backlash from these groups, either supporting a primary opponent, and/or not turning out to vote for them in what will already be a tough 2018 midterm election cycle for Republicans, that fuels the timidity to jump ship on Trump among many rank-and-file GOP legislators.

These poll numbers show things trending in the right direction; hopefully as the investigations (and Trump's self-destructive reactions to them) go on, they will continue in this direction...

[Guinevere]

You mean, if Paul Ryan finds his backbone.

I don't believe Yertle McTurtle has one.

[Lord Jim]

Yet another Trump Minion makes a complete fool of himself in a televised interview...

This time the guy to don the colorful belled hat and curl-toed shoes was Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow, and the fool-maker was Chris Wallace...

The topic was whether or not Trump is under investigation for obstruction by the Special Counsel:

[Sue U]

Jay Sekulow is now working for Trump in the Russia/obstruction thing??? Sekulow, whose legal career consists of trying to re-institute (Christian) prayer in schools and anti-gay litigation? Sekulow, who is one of the scammiest scammers fleecing the rubes of the religious right? Oh, now it makes sense.

Cohen, Kasowitz and now Sekulow. These guys are virtually a cartoon of lawyering. Seriously, this is the Worst Legal Team Ever. Is this Trump's idea of stellar, or even competent, representation? He's in even worse trouble than he thinks.

ETA:

Now I'm wondering whether Trump is actually paying him and he's taking a leave of absence from his "ACLJ," or whether he's just siphoning more off one of his "charities." Given this crew's M.O., I'm betting the latter. There will probably a good fraud investigation to be had there.

[Lord Jim]

Is this Trump's idea of stellar, or even competent, representation? He's in even worse trouble than he thinks.

He'd have been better off hiring J. Cheever Loophole or Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel...

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'm glad you're here Sue. I had assumed that Sekulow was just another cookie cutter lawyer making his name and fortune by hewing to his rich client's needs. (And BTW cookie-cutter in that sentence is by no means intended as a comment on lawyers as a group, just the specific species of which Sekulow appeared to be a member.). Per Wikipedia he got his PhD from Regent University. Back when Pat Robertson started the place, it was the Christian Broadcasting Network University. Sekulow's PhD thesis was on religious influence on SCOTUS.

One of the things I found which took some getting used to when I arrived on these (US) shores 33 years ago was that on reviewing a resume, I had to pay attention to where s/he gained a degree. Back in the UK pretty much a degree from University A was worth the same as one from B, with the possible exception of Oxbridge. Same with A levels (UK's school leaving exams) which, although they might be administered by different academic groups, were reasonably well calibrated such that they were more or less equivalent. It didn't take me long to realize that the spectrum in this country was very wide and that there were colleges out there that would award a degree based on the student's willingness to show up for lectures and that they had a discernible pulse.

[Lord Jim]

The Trump team’s spin about the Russia probe sinks deeper into absurdity

Everybody is making a big deal about the extraordinary exchange between Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow and questioner Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” and for good reason. Sekulow repeatedly insisted that Trump is not under investigation, but then admitted he does not know this to be the case and struggled to explain why President Trump had confirmed on Twitter that he is indeed a target. Sekulow made this assertion — that Trump is not under investigation — on multiple other shows, with little success.

But for purposes of gaming out where this story is headed in coming days, there are two other major pieces of spin from Sekulow that need to be addressed. Both will be extensively employed by Team Trump in the future, and both highlight areas of critical unknowns that will be subjected to intense scrutiny soon enough.

To be sure, the claim that Trump is not under investigation is itself worth some attention. Sekulow repeatedly said Trump has not been notified that he is a target. This was in response to a Post report that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has widened the Russia probe to include an examination of whether Trump attempted to obstruct the inquiry. But as lawyers told the New York Times, it would not be unusual for Trump to be notified much later in the process that his conduct is being examined. Indeed, Sekulow acknowledged as much when he allowed he could not know for certain whether Trump is a focus. But this aside, here are two other important pieces of spin Sekulow offered:

Sekulow renewed the suggestion that Trump fired the FBI director at the recommendation of the deputy attorney general. NBC’s Chuck Todd pressed Sekulow on whether Trump had made the decision to fire former FBI director James B. Comey himself or at the recommendation of deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein. Sekulow mostly sidestepped the question, but he did suggest that Trump reached his decision through a “collaborative process” in which Trump considered Rosenstein’s recommendation (made in a memo criticizing Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails).

This is absurd, because as we already know, Trump has confirmed on national television that he was going to fire Comey regardless of Rosenstein’s recommendation and that his motive was rooted in unhappiness with Comey’s handling of the Russia probe. But, more to the point, the fact that Sekulow is going here — again — means scrutiny will intensify on the meeting that Trump held with Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions just before firing Comey. The Post has reported that in that meeting, Trump — having already decided to fire Comey — demanded that Rosenstein memo as a rationale.

And so, investigators will likely try to determine whether Trump indicated in that meeting that he’d already made his decision, and indicated to them his reason for it, in effect enlisting them in an effort to create a cover story for the firing. Thus, Sekulow’s spin itself serves as a reminder that Trump’s conduct leading up to the firing of Comey will likely be examined. It’s hard to imagine this meeting not coming under scrutiny.

Sekulow deliberately narrowed the scope of the Trump conduct that’s at issue. On “Fox News Sunday,” Sekulow put additional spin on the idea that Trump fired Comey at Rosenstein’s recommendation, by complaining that Trump is “being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination.”

This notion, which reprises a complaint Trump himself voiced on Twitter, buffoonishly contradicts the suggestion that Trump isn’t under investigation, but put that aside for now. Sekulow is basically narrowing the question to one over whether Trump is being (or whether he should be) investigated for obstruction over the isolated act of firing Comey.

But this clever rhetorical trick deliberately excludes all of the other Trump conduct that is at issue. As noted above, questions remain about the process leading up to the firing. But beyond this, there are Comey’s claims to Congress that Trump demanded his loyalty as a condition for continuing to serve as FBI director at his pleasure, and that Trump pressed Comey to drop his probe into the Russia ties of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Trump also reportedly tried to get other top intelligence officials to intervene in the Flynn probe. Indeed, The Post’s report claiming that Trump is being examined for possible obstruction also noted that Mueller is reportedly set to interview those very officials.

As Lawfare Blog founder Benjamin Wittes has noted, in obstruction cases, prosecutors examine a pattern of conduct. Trump is accused of demanding that Comey shed his institutional independence as a condition for continued employment; of directly leaning on Comey to drop aspects of the probe into Trump’s campaign; and of trying to enlist other intel officials in that project. Trump did subsequently fire Comey when he refused Trump’s directives; and Trump’s own admitted reason for doing so strongly suggests he may have tried to enlist Sessions and Rosenstein in the creation of a fake cover story for that disturbing abuse of power.

The known fact pattern is already deeply troubling, whether or not it ends up amounting to obstruction, and Sekulow’s rhetorical chicanery cannot make it disappear. Does anyone really believe that Mueller will not look at this pattern of conduct?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... 123397ca1a

[dales]

He'd have been better off hiring J. Cheever Loophole or Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel...

Perhaps Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe might be a better choice.

[Sue U]

Sekulow is just really terrible at this. I mean, Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ, even Trump's other idiot lawyer knows enough to hire a pro. This is not Amateur Hour -- or at least it wouldn't be for any sane and rational person. Or maybe this is part of Trump's plan to sabotage himself so he can get out of presidenting while whining about how he's just the poor victim of a witch hunt by losers who don't want him to MAGA on them. Or maybe he really is that stupid.

[Scooter]

Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ

I think you mean "Christ en bicyclette sur Calvaire".

[Lord Jim]

even Trump's other idiot lawyer

Oh yeah, Michael "Says who?" Cohen:

[Big RR]

Or maybe he really is that stupid

I usually don't like to underestimate people, but I'm being led to th einevitable conclusion tha5t yes, he is that stupid and then some.

[Sue U]

Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ

I think you mean "Christ en bicyclette sur Calvaire".

Bien-sur. Tabarnak!!