2:48 PM 9/11/2017 – Mueller is right to follow the money, to interview up to a dozen White House aides


Special counsel Robert Mueller is expected to interview up to a dozen White House aides in the coming weeks as the Russia investigation intensifies, Politico reported. Former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Communications Director Hope Hicks, former Press Secretary Sean Spicer, and Chief Counsel Don McGahn will all likely face inquiries from Mueller and his team. Investigators are said to be interested in a session on Air Force One in which White House aides wrote a misleading statement about the meeting with a Russian lawyer who promised compromising information about Hillary Clinton.

WSJ.com: World News: Hurricane Irma Blamed for 10 Deaths in Cuba

Hurricane Irma killed at least 10 people as it slammed into Cuba and scraped across its northern coast over the weekend, the communist islands official media reported Monday.

WSJ.com: World News


Saved Stories – None
Mueller is right to follow the money – Chicago Tribune
Russian pol: US ‘intelligence missed it while Russian intelligence stole the president of the United States’ – The Hill
Jeff Sessions Considering a New Weapon in His War on Leakers – Vanity Fair
TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION Update 9:22 AM 9/11/2017: Why Robert Mueller May Have to Give Donald Trump Immunity By BENNETT GERSHMAN
Stephen Bannon says James Comey’s firing was biggest mistake in ‘modern political history’ – New York Daily News
Bannon criticizes Comey firing and calls out Hillary on 60 Minutes – Daily Mail
A History Of Donald Trump’s Tasteless Comments About 9/11
Question of the Day: Remembering 9/11 – Ricochet.com
Russian news agency that pushed DNC conspiracy reportedly under FBI investigation – Business Insider Nordic
Donald Trump – Google News: When Donald Trump’s instincts got it right – Chicago Tribune
When Donald Trump’s instincts got it right – Chicago Tribune
September 11, 2001: Deadliest Terrorist Attack Carried Out On American Soil – Oxygen (blog)
Escaped from mafia Slava Kemerovsky convoyed from Spain to Estonia – https://en.crimerussia.com/
Stephen Bannon is threatening to blow up the Republican Party – Washington Post
Bannon: Trump’s firing of Comey may be biggest mistake ‘in modern political history’ – Charlotte Observer
National Security-Related Congressional Hearings, September 11-16
FBI probes Russian news agency over election propaganda – New York Post
Steve Bannon: Firing Comey was the biggest mistake in ‘modern political history’ – Business Insider
The real reason Reince Priebus and Don McGahn have hired the same Trump-Russia attorney
Steve Bannon’s nervous defense of Trump on Russia is telling – Washington Post
What happens when know-nothings and amateurs hold power – Washington Post
How a Former Governor Invaded Ukraine – Bloomberg
Miss America gets political: Trump takes flak over Charlottesville and Russia – The Guardian
Bannon: Comey firing was worst mistake in ‘modern political history’ – East Idaho News
Republican attempt to deflect Trump-Russia probes could backfire -sources – Reuters

  • 3

TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION – Update – 9:22 AM 9/11/2017: Why Robert Mueller May Have to Give Donald Trump Immunity – By BENNETT GERSHMAN



Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to question key West Wing aides and Trump campaign officials, including figures such as former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, interim communications director Hope Hicks, former press secretary Sean Spicer and chief counsel Don McGahn, Josh Dawsey reports at POLITICO.

President Trump’s firing of former F.B.I. Director James Comey was the biggest mistake in “modern political history,” the former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon said in an interview said yesterday, adding that the firing would not have led to the wider-ranging investigation into links between Trump campaign and Russian election interference by Robert Mueller and his team. Fred Barbash reports at the Washington Post.

The congressional investigations into Russian electoral interference last week have revealed some key information, Morgan Chalfant sets out five major details at the Hill.

President Trump is likely to be subpoenaed by the federal grand jury impaneled by Mueller and it is “conceivable that the prosecutors will grant him immunity and thereby compel him to testify,” Bennett Gershman writes at The Daily Beast.

Why Robert Mueller May Have to Give Donald Trump Immunity


1 Share

The Trump-Russia Investigation has accelerated. Armed with more evidence, and assisted by many of the most talented prosecutors and investigators in the country, special counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., to investigate whether President Trump and his associates colluded with Russian operatives to win the White House.

The fact that a federal grand jury has been impaneled is a significant development by itself; prosecutors don’t ordinarily convene grand juries unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The grand jury probe has expanded to include whether Trump obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James Comey. And it is also reasonable to believe that Mueller’s team is presenting evidence to the grand jury relating to financial connections between Trump, the Trump Organization, and Trump’s business associates with Russia and Russian interests.

We have a fairly good picture of where the grand jury investigation will go. Although it is not known who all has been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury, many of them have already made statements, and we can reasonably assume that many of them already have been interrogated by federal investigators. We do not know whether any of these individuals has sought immunity from prosecution, been granted immunity, and has given testimony. Also, the fact that investigators obtained a search warrant to search Paul Manafort’s home in July is quite significant. Manafort was Trump’s campaign manager and had the most far-reaching financial ties with the Ukraine and Russia. Prosecutors in order to obtain a warrant must demonstrate probable cause to believe that Manafort committed federal crimes.

But clearly the most critical witness of all, and a likely target of the investigation, is Trump himself. As the grand jury investigation accelerates, and it focuses on Trump’s role, he will almost certainly be subpoenaed, and his testimony demanded. When that happens, what follows is unclear. Given Trump’s almost pathological contempt for the rule of law and for Mueller’s investigation, which Trump has repeatedly disparaged as a “witch hunt,” it is reasonably predictable that Trump’s lawyers will flout the grand jury’s investigation, mock Mueller, and refuse to testify. Will Trump succeed in spurning the process?

It should be emphasized that Trump has no legal privilege to avoid testifying before the grand jury. A grand jury, the most formidable investigative body in the United States, has the power to compel testimony from anyone, even a president, as Bill Clinton was compelled to do for the first time in U.S. history in the 1998 investigation by independent counsel Kenneth Starr into whether he lied about having an inappropriate relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. And the Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the awesome powers of the grand jury, stating that “the public has a right to every man’s evidence,” including the president.

Although Trump’s lawyers most likely will advise him to resist testifying, probably claiming, as did former President Richard Nixon, some type of executive privilege, they will almost certainly lose. The Supreme Court decisively rejected that claim when Nixon refused to comply with a grand jury subpoena for records of conversations with White House associates.

When Trump is summoned, and presumably despite his resistance if ordered by a court to testify, will he comply? If not, will he be held in contempt? If Trump and the prosecutors try to negotiate some compromise, it is conceivable that the prosecutors will grant him immunity and thereby compel him to testify. As long as the prosecutors are careful, giving Trump immunity will not necessarily have any significant legal impact on the investigation, or the ability of prosecutors to charge Trump with crimes.

Immunity prevents the prosecutors from using Trump’s testimony against him, and from using any evidentiary leads gained from his testimony. But assuming that proof of Trump’s criminal offenses has already been discovered—such as proof of his obstruction of justice in seeking to halt the Flynn investigation or firing Comey—then despite giving him immunity, that proof can legally be used to prosecute him. And despite immunity, Trump can be prosecuted for perjury for giving false testimony.

Based on information that already is known, and reasonable inferences from other information that has likely been discovered (such as Trump’s financial records and testimony from other witnesses), these are some of the general areas that Trump likely would be questioned about. It is important to note that each of these areas is a relatively core subject, and would likely be the foundation to develop peripheral questions:

– Did Trump know when he was running for president and hired Paul Manafort as his campaign manager that Manafort had extensive financial dealings and lobbying work with Ukrainian and pro-Russian officials? Did he discuss Manafort’s connections with anyone?

– What was the basis for Trump’s decision to fire Comey? With whom did he discuss the firing? Did he discuss the firing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions?

– Did Trump know that his son Donald Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Paul Manfort met with a Russian lawyer during the campaign and allegedly obtained damaging information about Hillary Clinton? When did he learn about the meeting? From whom? What was his response?

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

– Did Trump alter Don Jr.’s initial statement about the Russia meeting, in which Don Jr. stated that he met to discuss Russian adoption but then changed this fabricated story to a new explanation that he wanted to judge Clinton’s “fitness.”

– Did Trump know that during his campaign his company was seeking to develop a real estate project in Moscow? What was he told? By whom?

– Did Trump have any financial dealings, projects, loans, and any other financial or other interests with Russia, Russian officials, and Russian business interests?

– Did Trump know of any contacts between persons involved in his campaign and Russian intelligence operatives? Who were these persons? Did he have any conversations with them?

As with so many other grand jury investigations, it is possible that the substantive offenses that the grand jury is investigating—here the principal focus is collusion between the Trump team and Russian officials to undermine the presidential election—may not be able to be proved conclusively. Nevertheless, when confronted with specific questions about their knowledge of certain facts, their previous statements, previous meetings, and numerous other relevant albeit peripheral details about subjects that reasonably should be memorable to the witness, it is not uncommon for the witness either to claim lack of memory, or lie.

And if Trump becomes a grand jury witness, and given his abundantly documented penchant for lying, brazenly, and almost reflexively, it is very likely that the prosecutors will be able to pose clear, specific, and non-ambiguous questions to Trump of which he might claim an inability to remember, but which he also might answer falsely and thereby commit a felony. Indeed, that is exactly how Independent Counsel Starr was able to lay the foundation for the impeachment of President Clinton by in effect trapping Clinton into lying about his conduct with intern Lewinsky.

Whether Trump will be indicted, for what, and the legal consequences, are not clear or predictable. Indeed, the question of whether a sitting president can be prosecuted at all has been hotly debated. Whether Trump is able to claim some type of presidential immunity from prosecution may ultimately have to be ruled on by the Supreme Court, as was the case with Nixon. The court did hold in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit that Clinton enjoyed no immunity from civil liability for unofficial acts committed before he became president. The lesson in that case is that

no person is above the law, even a president. Whether that lesson applies to Trump may likely be decided soon.

Read the whole story
· · · · ·

First Read’s Morning Clips: Remembering 9/11


Western security officials are closely monitoring Russia as it prepares for large-scale joint “Zapad” military exercises with Belarus starting Thursday, David Filipov and Michael Birnbaum explain at the Washington Post.

German officials have been mystified by the lack of Russian interference in September’s upcoming election, having expected a series of revelations following the suspected hacking by Russians into the German Parliament in 2015. Griff Witte reports at the Washington Post.


Attorney General Jeff Sessions proposed giving polygraph tests to National Security Council staff to establish who has been leaking information, according to a source familiar with the matter. Kaitlan Collins reports at CNN.


  • 3