For more than a year, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has questioned witnesses broadly about their interactions with well-connected Russians. But three sources familiar with Mueller’s probe told The Daily Beast that his team is now zeroing in on Trumpworld figures who may have attempted to shape the administration's foreign policy by offering to ease U.S. sanctions on Russia.
The Special Counsel’s Office is preparing court filings that are expected to detail Trump associates’ conversations about sanctions relief—and spell out how those offers and counter-proposals were characterized to top figures on the campaign and in the administration, those same sources said.
And Flynn wasn’t the only figure talking sanctions during that transition period, three sources with knowledge of the probe said. Several individuals in Trump’s inner circle were developing their own plans to put pressure on other parts of the government to roll back the sanctions, which have cost the Russian economy more than $100 billion, according to Kremlin estimates.
Around the same time, Trump reportedly asked staffers in the State Department to come up with a plan to roll back sanctions. But the department’s transition team was disorganized and understaffed, according to one person on the team. The request never made its way to people tasked with advising the White House on sanctions, according to two former national-security officials.
“The Russians were definitely looking to ease sanctions, or the relaxation of sanctions,” said one former Treasury official. “There was clearly a person they supported in the election and Trump clearly had a favorable view of Russia. But the transition was a mess and it took more time to get their feet under them. By the time they got their stuff together, Congress was increasing sanctions.”
How were they so incompetent at everything?
It would seem even the Russians that supported them were caught off guard by how ineffective they were at Presidentin'
So what more can Flynn possibly offer? Testifying in a trial? Are they going to delay Flynn's sentencing until after all relevant trials against Trump are concluded, even if that process takes years?
Is there any limit on how long the sentencing can be delayed? Is Flynn being held without bail in the meantime?
well he has a few months to try to figure that out because clearly the judge wants to see more so flynn better sing harder.
+1
Options
Drake ChambersLay out my formal shorts.Registered Userregular
Kyle Griffin of MSNBC: Andrea Mitchell notes on @MSNBC: Michael Flynn's plea agreement with the Special Counsel's Office said that he waived his right to appeal the sentence in this case.
Whatever he gets. He gets.
Waiving your right to appeal in a plea deal is generally a bad practice on the government’s behalf. That may not apply here—Flynn has at least had the time and counsel to make that an informed decision—but generally speaking the average citizen can be screwed for life by being pressured into a “no take backs” deal.
For example, there was a case where the defendant was given half an hour, and no opportunity to consult with his family, to choose between a death penalty sentence and a life w/o parole sentence + waiving his appeals, in a case that had a lot of appealsworthy issues.
This is one of those “it’s a shame Manafort has to wear prison clothes” things where I’m not saying Flynn should be the first person to get sympathy over this; but it is a real issue in criminal justice reform that people should be aware of.
I think this is a subjective thing and not like universal. Your example is bad, but someone like Flynn who had every advantage and then some was not pressured into this deal. In this case not being able to appeal the plea seems reasonable to me, dude is admitting what he did and getting a deal out of it from the government.
If anything Flynn should have to do time for what he did especially if he could be tried for fucking Treason which is a literal death penalty offense.
I’m not getting too worked up about it in Flynn’s case, but the issue bothers me in general. The whole point of the appeals process is to double check the results of the judicial process; if there are ultimately no issues, the government wastes some time and money working against the appeal, but at least we checked. If there are any issues, and the government uses its considerable leverage to get the defendant to waive appeals, then the system doesn’t get that check and it’s a problem.
The reason to avoid that here would really be to avoid the appearance of injustice. “Flynn was convicted and sentenced but if you’ll watch my Youtube video you’ll see he was unfairly pressured not to appeal and he would have won those appeals because x y and z” versus “Flynn was convicted and sentenced and although he appealed, every judge up to and including SCOTUS ruled against him.”
The point of "no appealing" is that Flynn is that Flynn doing this time is part of the deal. Appeals are him trying to weasel out of the deal. They are not allowing him to do that.
This is another one of those matters of federal criminal procedure that I think is getting blown up because people haven't heard of it before. Waiver of appeal is so boilerplate as far as plea agreements are concerned that it would be news if it wasn't included.
To the concern about the checks on justice: first, the waiver is not universal. A sentence can still be appealed on the basis of ineffective counsel, civil rights violations (e.g. the subject asserts that they received a more serious sentence because they're black), or if the sentence imposed exceeds statutory maximums.
Second, it is drilled really hard by the judges that the subject understand what they're getting into when they waive any of their rights.
Can government-drafted plea agreements weigh unfairly in the government's favor? Yes, absolutely! That's why they're negotiated extensively with the defense. Could a subject that doesn't understand the system put themselves in a bad situation by agreeing to something they shouldn't? Yes, absolutely! Flynn is not that guy.
This bit of procedure is not one of the many things that is actually special about this case.
Kyle Griffin of MSNBC: Andrea Mitchell notes on @MSNBC: Michael Flynn's plea agreement with the Special Counsel's Office said that he waived his right to appeal the sentence in this case.
Whatever he gets. He gets.
Waiving your right to appeal in a plea deal is generally a bad practice on the government’s behalf. That may not apply here—Flynn has at least had the time and counsel to make that an informed decision—but generally speaking the average citizen can be screwed for life by being pressured into a “no take backs” deal.
For example, there was a case where the defendant was given half an hour, and no opportunity to consult with his family, to choose between a death penalty sentence and a life w/o parole sentence + waiving his appeals, in a case that had a lot of appealsworthy issues.
This is one of those “it’s a shame Manafort has to wear prison clothes” things where I’m not saying Flynn should be the first person to get sympathy over this; but it is a real issue in criminal justice reform that people should be aware of.
I think this is a subjective thing and not like universal. Your example is bad, but someone like Flynn who had every advantage and then some was not pressured into this deal. In this case not being able to appeal the plea seems reasonable to me, dude is admitting what he did and getting a deal out of it from the government.
If anything Flynn should have to do time for what he did especially if he could be tried for fucking Treason which is a literal death penalty offense.
I’m not getting too worked up about it in Flynn’s case, but the issue bothers me in general. The whole point of the appeals process is to double check the results of the judicial process; if there are ultimately no issues, the government wastes some time and money working against the appeal, but at least we checked. If there are any issues, and the government uses its considerable leverage to get the defendant to waive appeals, then the system doesn’t get that check and it’s a problem.
The reason to avoid that here would really be to avoid the appearance of injustice. “Flynn was convicted and sentenced but if you’ll watch my Youtube video you’ll see he was unfairly pressured not to appeal and he would have won those appeals because x y and z” versus “Flynn was convicted and sentenced and although he appealed, every judge up to and including SCOTUS ruled against him.”
The point of "no appealing" is that Flynn is that Flynn doing this time is part of the deal. Appeals are him trying to weasel out of the deal. They are not allowing him to do that.
This is another one of those matters of federal criminal procedure that I think is getting blown up because people haven't heard of it before. Waiver of appeal is so boilerplate as far as plea agreements are concerned that it would be news if it wasn't included.
To the concern about the checks on justice: first, the waiver is not universal. A sentence can still be appealed on the basis of ineffective counsel, civil rights violations (e.g. the subject asserts that they received a more serious sentence because they're black), or if the sentence imposed exceeds statutory maximums.
Second, it is drilled really hard by the judges that the subject understand what they're getting into when they waive any of their rights.
Can government-drafted plea agreements weigh unfairly in the government's favor? Yes, absolutely! That's why they're negotiated extensively with the defense. Could a subject that doesn't understand the system put themselves in a bad situation by agreeing to something they shouldn't? Yes, absolutely! Flynn is not that guy.
This bit of procedure is not one of the many things that is actually special about this case.
Beat me to it
A plea deal is a resolution of the case - it doesn't make sense that you'd resolve the case without waiving your right to appeal your conviction. You also give up your right to a trial, to confrontation, to remain silent, etc...
As long as you make a knowing and voluntary waiver of your right to appeal, and your counsel was not ineffective in advising you, and the prosecutors did not commit misconduct, and the judge didn't violate your civil rights or the Constitution in entering your sentence, you aren't able to appeal after a plea deal. This is standard.
The Judge is back on the bench and appears to have remembered that his comments will lead to him being on the business end of a Trump rant, as well as the ire of every Fox News pundit ever.
Eric covers the Justice Department for the Associated Press
Sounds like the judge saw the information and then had a natural human reaction before going to calm down and realising maybe he should try to sound more impartial.
Can you imagine? A judge who privately and personally probably thought all of this was a witch hunt and suspicious of the FBI and then he actually gets through the documentation and the interview and has his own "It's true.... ALL OF IT" moment. Seeing Flynn in person in his courtroom after that well, we can read what happened.
I think what happened is flynn's legal team just pooped themselves and realize how badly they goofed up. Now flynn is in a position where he is going to have to find something more to cooperate with because clearly what is there already does not seem enough to the judge to avoid prison time.
Well now, gee, what could that possibly be, I wonder?
State-owned "the Corporation" of "Country A" has been held in contempt for violating a grand jury subpoena, the tune of $(Y*days+X), after DC court denied it's appeal to quash the subpoena on the grounds that compliance would violate their laws, or that the action at hand was covered by the Foreign Sovereigns Immunity Act.
(Caveat: May or may not actually be Russia, Gulf Kingdom, or Mueller related. But this is one of those sealed subpoena fights (18-3071, 1:18-mj-41-BAH) that people were positing could involve Trump or high level officials:
What was the name of the bank that was headed by that guy who graduated from Russia's spy school, was hand picked to lead it by Putin, and came to the US in December to meet with Kushner, even though Kushner's company couldn't actually do business with that bank because they were and are currently under sanction?
That was Kushners excuse by the way. "Totally unrelated business matter".
Man, I totally forgot about that "Do this for us and we'll give you 19.5% of Gazprom" part of the dossier and how coincidentally, shortly after the election the Russian Government gave exactly 19.5% of Gazprom to an undisclosed entity.
That seems like a very "assholes on Fox are going to be shitty about this, let's lead them through it by the nose so they at least have to work for their drummed up outrage" kind of statement.
But that might just be my own personal bias doing a little happy dance...
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
It’s like that scene in Liar Liar where th judge asks what the problem is and Jim Carrey blurts out “I... CAN’T... LIE!” and the judge says “well that’s commendable, but are there any actual issues with this case?” And Carray squeaks out “No!”
Man, I totally forgot about that "Do this for us and we'll give you 19.5% of Gazprom" part of the dossier and how coincidentally, shortly after the election the Russian Government gave exactly 19.5% of Gazprom to an undisclosed entity.
Rosneft, not Gazprom.
It was sold through a (private?) Singaporean investment vehicle to a Qatari sovereign investment fund (QIA) and Glencore, a private Swiss company, then they were to sell a big chunk to China's CEFC in September of last year.
So that's three state owned companies (Rosneft, QIA, CEFC) in one deal which was, at least, potentially affected by the state of US-Russian relations and sanctions.
The Judge is back on the bench and appears to have remembered that his comments will lead to him being on the business end of a Trump rant, as well as the ire of every Fox News pundit ever.
Eric covers the Justice Department for the Associated Press
Sounds like the judge saw the information and then had a natural human reaction before going to calm down and realising maybe he should try to sound more impartial.
Can you imagine? A judge who privately and personally probably thought all of this was a witch hunt and suspicious of the FBI and then he actually gets through the documentation and the interview and has his own "It's true.... ALL OF IT" moment. Seeing Flynn in person in his courtroom after that well, we can read what happened.
Thought that was the Manafort judge and this is a different judge?
It feels like just yesterday when Trump denied having anything to do with it.
This is prime material for blackmail and bribery.
Trump advocated for loosening sanctions on Russia, which would have been a huge financial windfall for him.
Trump lied, repeatedly, that he had no business dealings with Russia.
Russia meanwhile knew he was lying, and helped maintain the lie. Then Russia went all out attempting to influence the election to support Trump and oppose Clinton.
The best possible interpretation of Trump's actions is just that he was cooperating in a con-job with Russia. The worst is that he was essentially compromised by Russia.
Of course the correct answer, we should definitely know by now, is definitely whatever the stupidest scenario is. Which, don't get me wrong, is still really bad.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I'm stealing this from a Reddit post but this is a good summary as to why we are in 'holy shit' territory as to that letter of intent that was signed by Trump
>Trump was advocating dropping sanctions without disclosing that for the US to do that would be a huge financial windfall for him, because now we know Trump and his business at that time were secretly negotiating a gigantic business deal for Trump Tower Moscow that was being financed by a Russian sanctioned bank. The deal could only go ahead if Russia dropped sanctions. Trump new that at the time but he lied about it repeatedly. Insisted he had no business in Russia over and over. But Trump knew that he did. And Russia knew that he did.
>We now know the Kremlin was actively involved in discussions with the Trump Organization about the project, about the financing, even about Putin's free $50 Million dollar penthouse. Trump knew this was in the works, but was keeping it secret. The Kremlin knew it was in the works and that Trump was keeping it a secret. They even helped him keep it a secret. In a call with Reporters, the senior Kremlin official who was managing the project put out a statement denying any Kremlin involvement. The Kremlin was helping cover this up too.
>**As a candidate, we now know, Trump was definitely compromised by Russia. He was lying about his dealings with Russia and Russia knew it and Russia was helping him to keep it a secret. We have a presidential candidate who is lying about Russia's plan to provide him with hundreds of millions of dollars for that real estate project if he gets sanctions removed.**
7/11/2015
>Maria Butina, the now arrested Russian spy, feeds the question to soon to be candidate Trump where he first starts saying in public the US should drop Russian sanctions.
>Keep in mind Trump KNEW his deal with Rozov involved Kremlin consent because COHEN TOLD HIM SO after speaking repeatedly with Sater. So **Trump was *knowingly doing business with active enemies of the US* while promising them the most historically pro-Russia foreign policy ever.**
>Why did Cohen lie? **Because the truth is evidence that Trump was compromised by Russia while Putin plotted to attack the election.** (Offering Trump "lucrative real estate" deals was part of the Kremlin's "cultivation operation" for Trump, per the dossier.)
>**When Trump was running for president as the 'America First Candidate' his company was secretly interacting with Putin's own office so that he could do a deal in Russia to make money for Donald Trump - and not telling the public. There's a defrauding of the American voter underway.**
_____________
ICYM
Here's the trump family repeatedly lying about contacts with Russia
>Trump was advocating dropping sanctions without disclosing that for the US to do that would be a huge financial windfall for him, because now we know Trump and his business at that time were secretly negotiating a gigantic business deal for Trump Tower Moscow that was being financed by a Russian sanctioned bank. The deal could only go ahead if Russia dropped sanctions. Trump new that at the time but he lied about it repeatedly. Insisted he had no business in Russia over and over. But Trump knew that he did. And Russia knew that he did.
>We now know the Kremlin was actively involved in discussions with the Trump Organization about the project, about the financing, even about Putin's free $50 Million dollar penthouse. Trump knew this was in the works, but was keeping it secret. The Kremlin knew it was in the works and that Trump was keeping it a secret. They even helped him keep it a secret. In a call with Reporters, the senior Kremlin official who was managing the project put out a statement denying any Kremlin involvement. The Kremlin was helping cover this up too.
>**As a candidate, we now know, Trump was definitely compromised by Russia. He was lying about his dealings with Russia and Russia knew it and Russia was helping him to keep it a secret. We have a presidential candidate who is lying about Russia's plan to provide him with hundreds of millions of dollars for that real estate project if he gets sanctions removed.**
7/11/2015
>Maria Butina, the now arrested Russian spy, feeds the question to soon to be candidate Trump where he first starts saying in public the US should drop Russian sanctions.
>Keep in mind Trump KNEW his deal with Rozov involved Kremlin consent because COHEN TOLD HIM SO after speaking repeatedly with Sater. So **Trump was *knowingly doing business with active enemies of the US* while promising them the most historically pro-Russia foreign policy ever.**
>Why did Cohen lie? **Because the truth is evidence that Trump was compromised by Russia while Putin plotted to attack the election.** (Offering Trump "lucrative real estate" deals was part of the Kremlin's "cultivation operation" for Trump, per the dossier.)
>**When Trump was running for president as the 'America First Candidate' his company was secretly interacting with Putin's own office so that he could do a deal in Russia to make money for Donald Trump - and not telling the public. There's a defrauding of the American voter underway.**
_____________
ICYM
Here's the trump family repeatedly lying about contacts with Russia
The 116th Congress convenes right after the New Year, right? 115th has adjourned?
Mueller's team seems content in giving them a lot to work with right out of the gate. That's nice.
Its a two way street
I fully expect Schiff will send Mueller half a dozen lying to Congress charges in a nanosecond.
Oh yes I think a lot of those that gave the I don't want to answer because I don't feel like it responses or obvious now untruths should be sleeping very poorly thinking about what will happen in a couple weeks.
Do you think Trump is going to attempt the "Just because I signed it doesn't mean I read it or knew what it was about" defense?
Yes, absolutely.
"I get a lot of papers across my desk, you can't expect me to read them all, that's what I pay people for, and someone dropped the ball. Probably Michael Cohen."
I wonder if Schiff has enough just sitting around that he can release that gets Nunes indicted for obstruction sooner rather than later
I hope it happens, but I'm kinda concerned that the whole clubhouse bullshit comes into play. That House Democrats might go after Trump, or his campaign, or even the RNC, but use kid gloves on House Republicans because the "have to work with these people".
Despite Nunes deserving an investigation that should probably be done with the supervision of a proctologist, I'm thinking "decorum" in that case might hold sway.
Hope I'm wrong.
Either way, I agree with @kaid that anyone not a House Republican, who did something egregious, is pretty much fucked.
Posts
It would seem even the Russians that supported them were caught off guard by how ineffective they were at Presidentin'
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
well he has a few months to try to figure that out because clearly the judge wants to see more so flynn better sing harder.
This is another one of those matters of federal criminal procedure that I think is getting blown up because people haven't heard of it before. Waiver of appeal is so boilerplate as far as plea agreements are concerned that it would be news if it wasn't included.
To the concern about the checks on justice: first, the waiver is not universal. A sentence can still be appealed on the basis of ineffective counsel, civil rights violations (e.g. the subject asserts that they received a more serious sentence because they're black), or if the sentence imposed exceeds statutory maximums.
Second, it is drilled really hard by the judges that the subject understand what they're getting into when they waive any of their rights.
Can government-drafted plea agreements weigh unfairly in the government's favor? Yes, absolutely! That's why they're negotiated extensively with the defense. Could a subject that doesn't understand the system put themselves in a bad situation by agreeing to something they shouldn't? Yes, absolutely! Flynn is not that guy.
This bit of procedure is not one of the many things that is actually special about this case.
Beat me to it
A plea deal is a resolution of the case - it doesn't make sense that you'd resolve the case without waiving your right to appeal your conviction. You also give up your right to a trial, to confrontation, to remain silent, etc...
As long as you make a knowing and voluntary waiver of your right to appeal, and your counsel was not ineffective in advising you, and the prosecutors did not commit misconduct, and the judge didn't violate your civil rights or the Constitution in entering your sentence, you aren't able to appeal after a plea deal. This is standard.
Can you imagine? A judge who privately and personally probably thought all of this was a witch hunt and suspicious of the FBI and then he actually gets through the documentation and the interview and has his own "It's true.... ALL OF IT" moment. Seeing Flynn in person in his courtroom after that well, we can read what happened.
Well now, gee, what could that possibly be, I wonder?
-BuzzfeedNews DC Court reporter
State-owned "the Corporation" of "Country A" has been held in contempt for violating a grand jury subpoena, the tune of $(Y*days+X), after DC court denied it's appeal to quash the subpoena on the grounds that compliance would violate their laws, or that the action at hand was covered by the Foreign Sovereigns Immunity Act.
(Caveat: May or may not actually be Russia, Gulf Kingdom, or Mueller related. But this is one of those sealed subpoena fights (18-3071, 1:18-mj-41-BAH) that people were positing could involve Trump or high level officials:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/10/31/no-mueller-probably-didnt-subpoena-trump-yet/)
What was the name of the bank that was headed by that guy who graduated from Russia's spy school, was hand picked to lead it by Putin, and came to the US in December to meet with Kushner, even though Kushner's company couldn't actually do business with that bank because they were and are currently under sanction?
That was Kushners excuse by the way. "Totally unrelated business matter".
With a bank he cannot do business with.
Man, I totally forgot about that "Do this for us and we'll give you 19.5% of Gazprom" part of the dossier and how coincidentally, shortly after the election the Russian Government gave exactly 19.5% of Gazprom to an undisclosed entity.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
But that might just be my own personal bias doing a little happy dance...
This seems like the Judge basically asking:
"Do you have any actual objections that aren't just pure bullshit?"
"No your honour"
Rosneft, not Gazprom.
It was sold through a (private?) Singaporean investment vehicle to a Qatari sovereign investment fund (QIA) and Glencore, a private Swiss company, then they were to sell a big chunk to China's CEFC in September of last year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-08/china-s-cefc-buys-stake-in-rosneft-from-glencore-and-qatar
But then China backed out and Qatar will now own 19% to Glencore's 0.5%.
https://www.rferl.org/a/qatar-takes-20-percent-stake-russia-rosneft-oil-giant-after-deal-with-china-cefc-falls-through/29209725.html
So that's three state owned companies (Rosneft, QIA, CEFC) in one deal which was, at least, potentially affected by the state of US-Russian relations and sanctions.
Not a bad guess.
Thought that was the Manafort judge and this is a different judge?
I’m sure she doesn’t care, she might be one of those “better a Russian, than a Democrat” types.
She looks like the woman who got arrested on the subway after attacking an Asian woman who stood to close to her.
It feels like just yesterday when Trump denied having anything to do with it.
Russia does make good winter clothes.
And substances to numb the pain of existence
That's a grandma. If that hat isn't lined with Q-brand tinfoil, I will eat it. Well Rudy's apparent lie there is kind of interesting.
Is it possible that Trump also lied to his attorneys about it-
let me finish
-who then, armed with an unsigned copy, confidently told Mueller that he didn't?
...
Dear Santa,
The idea is basically "what if Trump's repeated his lies for public consumption to his attorneys and/or Mueller's written questioning."
I seriously doubt that occurred, especially not in a way that makes him legally culpable.
"I don't think I ever met Mr. Trump personally, all I know is that he was occasionally seen getting coffee for some cabinet members."
This is prime material for blackmail and bribery.
Trump advocated for loosening sanctions on Russia, which would have been a huge financial windfall for him.
Trump lied, repeatedly, that he had no business dealings with Russia.
Russia meanwhile knew he was lying, and helped maintain the lie. Then Russia went all out attempting to influence the election to support Trump and oppose Clinton.
The best possible interpretation of Trump's actions is just that he was cooperating in a con-job with Russia. The worst is that he was essentially compromised by Russia.
Of course the correct answer, we should definitely know by now, is definitely whatever the stupidest scenario is. Which, don't get me wrong, is still really bad.
>Trump was advocating dropping sanctions without disclosing that for the US to do that would be a huge financial windfall for him, because now we know Trump and his business at that time were secretly negotiating a gigantic business deal for Trump Tower Moscow that was being financed by a Russian sanctioned bank. The deal could only go ahead if Russia dropped sanctions. Trump new that at the time but he lied about it repeatedly. Insisted he had no business in Russia over and over. But Trump knew that he did. And Russia knew that he did.
>We now know the Kremlin was actively involved in discussions with the Trump Organization about the project, about the financing, even about Putin's free $50 Million dollar penthouse. Trump knew this was in the works, but was keeping it secret. The Kremlin knew it was in the works and that Trump was keeping it a secret. They even helped him keep it a secret. In a call with Reporters, the senior Kremlin official who was managing the project put out a statement denying any Kremlin involvement. The Kremlin was helping cover this up too.
>**As a candidate, we now know, Trump was definitely compromised by Russia. He was lying about his dealings with Russia and Russia knew it and Russia was helping him to keep it a secret. We have a presidential candidate who is lying about Russia's plan to provide him with hundreds of millions of dollars for that real estate project if he gets sanctions removed.**
7/11/2015
>Maria Butina, the now arrested Russian spy, feeds the question to soon to be candidate Trump where he first starts saying in public the US should drop Russian sanctions.
10/13/2015
>[Letter Of Intent for Trump World Tower Moscow emailed to Michael Cohen](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tower-moscow-letter-of-intent-2017-9)
10/22/2015
>Letter of Intent signed by Trump.
[Abramson](
>Keep in mind Trump KNEW his deal with Rozov involved Kremlin consent because COHEN TOLD HIM SO after speaking repeatedly with Sater. So **Trump was *knowingly doing business with active enemies of the US* while promising them the most historically pro-Russia foreign policy ever.**
[NatashaBertrand](
>Why did Cohen lie? **Because the truth is evidence that Trump was compromised by Russia while Putin plotted to attack the election.** (Offering Trump "lucrative real estate" deals was part of the Kremlin's "cultivation operation" for Trump, per the dossier.)
[David Corn, Mother Jones, Washington Bureau Chief](
>**When Trump was running for president as the 'America First Candidate' his company was secretly interacting with Putin's own office so that he could do a deal in Russia to make money for Donald Trump - and not telling the public. There's a defrauding of the American voter underway.**
_____________
ICYM
Here's the trump family repeatedly lying about contacts with Russia
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
This is all just on the Cohen track
Flynn may have more to add to this but he could also just cough up the dirt on the Mideast track (the Kushner track)
Mueller's team seems content in giving them a lot to work with right out of the gate. That's nice.
116th is seated January 3rd. The 115th is still in session.
Its a two way street
I fully expect Schiff will send Mueller half a dozen lying to Congress charges in a nanosecond.
Oh yes I think a lot of those that gave the I don't want to answer because I don't feel like it responses or obvious now untruths should be sleeping very poorly thinking about what will happen in a couple weeks.
lord only knows whats actually in those.
Yes, absolutely.
"I get a lot of papers across my desk, you can't expect me to read them all, that's what I pay people for, and someone dropped the ball. Probably Michael Cohen."
That'll be his line, almost word for word.
I hope it happens, but I'm kinda concerned that the whole clubhouse bullshit comes into play. That House Democrats might go after Trump, or his campaign, or even the RNC, but use kid gloves on House Republicans because the "have to work with these people".
Despite Nunes deserving an investigation that should probably be done with the supervision of a proctologist, I'm thinking "decorum" in that case might hold sway.
Hope I'm wrong.
Either way, I agree with @kaid that anyone not a House Republican, who did something egregious, is pretty much fucked.