Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Czer, Jun 30, 2017.
Sounds like a treasonous Tweet to me. How dare he disparage the Shining Star of Mount McKinley ?
Sources: Chief of Staff John Kelly expressed to President Trump willingness to resign
President Donald Trump, furious over the handling of domestic abuse allegations involving one of his closest aides, has spoken to confidantes about the possibility of replacing embattled Chief of Staff John Kelly, sources close to the president tell ABC News.
One confidante — longtime friend and former executive chairman of his inaugural committee, Tom Barrack — was approached to gauge his interest in the chief of staff position, a source familiar with the matter told ABC News. Barrack said he won’t take the job, the source said.
Kelly has made clear to the president in the last 24 hours that he's willing to resign in light of the president's dissatisfaction over the West Wing's handling of the allegations against former Staff Secretary Rob Porter, according to sources who have spoken with Trump and Kelly.
Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images, FILE
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly chats with reporters before a roundtable discussion on the MS-13 gang in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Feb. 6, 2018.more +
While Kelly’s fate is in question, sources familiar with the matter said they did not believe his departure is imminent. Kelly was seen working in the West Wing on Friday, leading his daily senior staff meeting and joining Trump in the Oval Office during an afternoon photo op.
"General Kelly has not offered his resignation to the President," White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley said in a statement. When asked if Kelly has expressed interest in offering his resignation, Gidley said "Not to my knowledge, no."
Several Trump confidantes reached by ABC News said the president is considering multiple names as possible Kelly replacements, among those, top economic adviser Gary Cohn, Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney and Rep. Mark Meadows.
Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images, FILE
White House chief of staff John Kelly, shown with White House staff secretary Rob Porter look on after President Donald Trump signed a proclamation calling for a national day of prayer for those affected by Hurricane Harvey, Sept. 1, 2017.more +
Kelly, whose appointment as chief of staff was initially seen as an step towards restoring order and discipline, has been the subject of growing controversy over the past several weeks.
Kelly faced criticism earlier this week over comments labeling undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children as “lazy,” and received a public rebuke from President Trump after saying in an interview last month with Fox News that the president’s campaign promises regarding a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border were “uninformed.”
But it was Kelly’s management of the most recent controversy involving Staff Secretary Porter that ignited a firestorm, after the Daily Mail published multiple allegations of domestic abuse by his two ex-wives.
Evan Vucci/AP, FILE
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly walks with White House staff secretary Rob Porter to board Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Nov. 29, 2017.more +
In response to the story, Kelly issued an on-record statement calling Porter “a man of true integrity and honor” but making no mention of the alleged victims.
Under pressure, Porter offered his resignation Wednesday afternoon. It wasn’t until late that evening, and after images of the alleged abuse were revealed, that Kelly issued a new statement saying he was “shocked by the new allegations," adding “there is no place for domestic violence in our society.”
ABC News reported that senior members of Trump's administration knew for months that there was a personal issues haunting Porter, according to multiple sources — raising questions among staffers about why he was allowed to continue in such a prominent role in the West Wing. Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said Thursday that Kelly did not have “detailed updates about what may or may not have been alleged.”
I've already reported TZT to the ministry of truth. We never knew how Ut was gong to get it, but I think we know now. Trump is gonna do what no one here had the balls to do, and the guy that made those tweets is the only one who called it.
GOP leaders unveil revamped Pennsylvania congressional map
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Republican leaders of the Pennsylvania Legislature on Friday produced a new proposed map of the state’s congressional districts, three weeks after the state Supreme Court declared the former map unconstitutional.
The proposal drafted by House Speaker Mike Turzai and Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati would make widespread changes, eliminating dozens of municipal and county divisions while keeping nearly 70 percent of residents in their old districts.
They forwarded the map and other materials to Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, who has until Thursday to tell the justices if he supports it. If not, the court has indicated it will develop its own map.
Scarnati’s top aide, Drew Crompton, told reporters he was confident the draft met standards outlined in the majority opinionreleased two days earlier.
“Unless the Supreme Court changes the rules again, that map is per se constitutional,” Crompton said.
Some — if not many — of the finer points of the old map that have drawn criticism were addressed. The map puts several cities that had been split into single districts, including Erie and Harrisburg. Easton would be rejoined to other parts of the Lehigh Valley.
A suburban Philadelphia district whose sprawling shape has drawn comparisons to the cartoon characters Goofy kicking Donald Duck looks much more compact. Populous Montgomery County in the suburbs would be divided among four districts, rather than five. Crompton said its size meant it may not be possible to split it fewer than three ways.
Wolf’s spokesman said the governor and his redistricting team will review the map, adding that an update before Monday was unlikely.
“The original map was fundamentally unfair in a multitude of ways and, from the court’s orders and majority opinion, it is clear the gerrymandering of the current map went beyond manipulating the shape of the districts,” said Wolf press secretary J.J. Abbott.
Crompton said the map will be turned into legislation but a decision about whether to bring it up for floor votes early next week will partially depend on the response from Wolf.
Democratic leaders in the Legislature promptly released a letter sent to Wolf, urging him to reject the map because it was a product of the two Republican leaders, as opposed to the General Assembly as a body.
They argued that violated the court order’s discussion of “enactment of a remedial congressional districting plan.”
“The Republican leadership in both chambers blocked this process, refused to negotiate and have now submitted a map directly to your office that we have not even seen,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa and House Minority Leader Frank Dermody.
The GOP-drawn map passed in 2011 has been a political winner for Republicans, giving them a 13-5 advantage in three straight elections in a state with more registered Democrats than Republicans.
The decision by the Democratic majority on the court to throw out the map has raised Democrats’ hopes that different districts could help them flip enough seats to retake the majority in Congress.
“The unknown at this point is what kind of partisan split could be predicted from these districts,” said House Democratic spokesman Bill Patton. “A 9-9 balance in a state like this would be fairest.”
The Republican leaders said their map splits only 32 counties and municipalities, 62 fewer than the 2011 map. It maintains a majority-minority district in Philadelphia and increases the minority numbers in a second city district.
The court’s majority opinion issued Jan. 22 said the plan violates a provision of the state constitution that guarantees “free and equal” elections, subverting redistricting objectives such as compactness and minimal municipal splits to the goal of gaining partisan advantage.
The court has said a new map will be in place by Feb. 19. It will be used for the May 15 primary, but not for the March 13 special election to fill a vacant congressional seat in southwestern Pennsylvania.
Trump Blocks Release of Democratic Rebuttal to GOP Probe Memo
President Donald Trump on Friday declined to release a House Democratic rebuttal of a Republican memo alleging bias and misconduct by the FBI and Justice Department early in their investigation of Russian election interference.
Trump is unable to do so because it contains “numerous properly classified and sensitive passages,” White House counsel Donald McGahn wrote in a letter to the House Intelligence chairman, Republican Representative Devin Nunes of California. McGahn said the Justice Department concluded that portions of the memo were highly sensitive.
The president would consider releasing the document if changes were made “to mitigate the risks" determined by the Department of National Intelligence and Justice Department of releasing those sensitive parts,” McGahn wrote.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, blasted Trump’s decision.
“The president’s double standard when it comes to transparency is appalling,” he said in a statement late Friday. “The rationale for releasing the Nunes memo, transparency, vanishes when it could show information that’s harmful to him.”
Adam Schiff of California, the panel’s top Democrat who wrote the memo, which is about 10 pages long, said that Trump was treating it differently from the four-page Republican version commissioned by Nunes that was released last week. He said the committee would review the concerns expressed by the FBI and Justice Department.
“After ignoring urging of FBI & DOJ not to release misleading Nunes memo because it omits material facts, @POTUS now expresses concerns over sharing precisely those facts with public and seeks to send it back to the same Majority that produced the flawed Nunes memo to begin with,” Schiff tweeted late Friday.
Nunes said in a statement that "Intelligence Committee Republicans encourage the minority to accept the DOJ’s recommendations and make the appropriate technical changes and redactions so that no sources and methods are disclosed and their memo can be declassified as soon as possible.”
The decision to block the Democratic memo is a political risk for Trump, who claimed the Republican-authored version vindicated his claims of unfair political influence in investigations at the Justice Department. He approved the release of the GOP memo over the objections of FBI Director Christopher Wray, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Schiff had submitted the memo to the FBI and Justice Department so they could vet it for sensitive information.
The White House released a letter from Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that said they have given details to the Intelligence Committee about which portions of the Democratic memo are too sensitive to release.
The decision to completely block the memo’s release -- rather than redact particular excerpts objected to by law enforcement and intelligence agencies -- could give further ammunition to critics who say the president is politicizing the process.
Fact-Checking the Disputed Republican Memo on the Russia Probe
Already, the White House was grappling with the sense the original Republican document had done little to change the narrative on the Russia investigation, which has proven a chronic issue during Trump’s first year in office. In a Quinnipiac University poll released this week, 56 percent of Americans said they saw Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian involvement in the 2016 election as fair -- down just 3 points from the previous month.
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have several options. They could accept Trump’s offer for help from the Justice Department to scrub the memo of sensitive information. Under the obscure rule the panel is using to release both memos, known as Rule X, they could also call for a vote on releasing it over the objections of the president. But that would require the support of Republicans on the panel.
The dueling memos both examine the origins of the Russia inquiry, including how the FBI obtained a surveillance warrant for Carter Page, a low-level Trump campaign adviser. Much of the underlying evidence, including the warrant application, remain classified.
Schiff’s memo challenges a GOP assertion that the FBI based its surveillance application almost entirely on an unverified dossier paid for by Trump’s political opponents, including Hillary Clinton, and that it kept the dossier’s origins from the court that approved the warrant. Democrats say the court was informed that a former British spy, Christopher Steele, who assembled the dossier, was politically motivated.
The Democratic memo also says that the FBI had other legitimate evidence that prompted the investigation into possible links between Trump associates and Russia.
The rebuttal was the latest Democratic volley against a Republican assault on the legitimacy of the government’s Russia investigation. Schiff and other Democrats say the Republicans are trying to undermine the Mueller inquiry.
House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy, an Intelligence Committee member who wrote the GOP memo, said earlier this week on Fox News that Democrats may have purposely included classified or sensitive information in their rebuttal.
“I think the Democrats are politically smart enough to put things in the memo that require either the bureau or the Department of Justice to say it needs to be redacted. Therefore, it creates this belief that there’s something being hidden from the American people," Gowdy had said.
In response, Schiff told Bloomberg News, “That’s their spin,” referring to Republicans. He said of his memo, ”It sets the context. And there’s a lot we left out.”
“So, I’m not surprised they would like to see some omitted from our response,” he added.
Trump: Democrats Must ‘Redo’ Their ‘Very Political’ Memo
President Trump on Saturday told Democratic lawmakers to “redo” their classified memo countering Republican claims of FBI wrongdoing, saying it was “very political and long.” He suggested the memo was a set-up to make the White House look bad, saying Democrats “knew” their memo revealed “sources and methods” that would have to be redacted. By submitting it in its current form, he said, they hoped to “blame the White House for lack of transparency.” “Told them to redo and send back in proper form,” he tweeted early Saturday. Democratic and Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to release the Democrats’ memo earlier this week. Trump’s decision to block it was met with criticism Friday, with many questioning why the Democrats' memo should be treated any differently than the Republican one, which was released with Trump’s approval last week. In that document, Trump’s Republican allies alleged the FBI and Justice Department abused their power to obtain a surveillance warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, a claim that threatens to undermine the ongoing Russia probe.
"Redact it and send in only things that benefit me like Ivan, I mean Nunes did"
The domestic abuse stuff lol.
Russian President Signs Law To Decriminalize Domestic Violence
February 16, 2017
Russian President Vladimir Putin has just signed a law decriminalizing domestic violence. It's opposed by some women's groups, but both sides of the debate claim they are protecting families.
CIA calls report of $100K payment to Russian "fictional"
February 10, 2018
The CIA is pushing back against reports that American spies attempted to retrieve sensitive documents from a shadowy Russian, and were offered documents alleging compromising information about Donald Trump.
The Intercept's James Risen first reported Friday that the U.S. intelligence community attempted to recover stolen NSA records related to hacking capabilities, and was working to repossess those records when Russians offered information about Mr. Trump and the 2016 campaign. A Russian who was working as a go-between for the Russians and the Americans asked the Americans for a payment, The Intercept reported. But the Americans were "ambivalent" about whether they wanted the documents allegedly related to Mr. Trump, Risen said on CBSN.
"It's a very complicated story," Risen said on CBSN Saturday. "First, the CIA and the NSA were trying to recover stolen NSA documents that allow people to do very sophisticated hacks, and they were worried that those documents would allow for really horrible hacks of American systems. So that was their main focus, was to try to buy back documents from the Russians on that. And in this process of conducting a secret channel with the Russians, some of the Russians began to offer documents related to Trump and to the 2016 campaign. And the Americans were very ambivalent about whether they wanted to get these documents, because they know how explosive this whole issue is."
"So there was a lot of back and forth between the Russians and the Americans about whether the Americans would even accept the documents about Trump," he said. "And so finally it appears that they accepted some, but their primary goal all along for the CIA and the NSA was to get these documents back from a group called Shadow Brokers."
Shortly after The Intercept published its story on Friday, The New York Times reported that a shadowy Russian who claimed to have the NSA cyberweapons and compromising information on Mr. Trump bilked the Americans out of $100,000 last year, citing American and European Intelligence officials. The Times reported that cash — government money, but routed through an indirect channel — was delivered to a Berlin hotel room in September of 2017.
Reacting to the story on Saturday, the CIA called it "fictional," saying the reporters who worked on it -- Risen and The New York Times' Matt Rosenberg -- were the ones who were "swindled."
"The people swindled here were James Risen and Matt Rosenberg," the CIA said in a statement provided to CBS News. "The fictional story that CIA was bilked out of $100,000 is patently false."
But Rosenberg, who wrote The New York Times story, said in a tweet later on Saturday, "@CIA is denying something we did not write - the @nytimes story does not specify CIA as source of funds, which we write came 'through an indirect channel.'"
President Trump also responded to the story but he had a different response, seeming to give credence to Times' report on Twitter.
"I hope people are now seeing & understanding what is going on here," he tweeted Saturday, despite his past references to The New York Times as "fake news."
"DRAIN THE SWAMP!" the president tweeted.
The Times reported that the Russian, early in the negotiations, dropped the asking price from $10 million to $1 million for the cyber tools and the Trump-related information.
U.S. officials had said the payment was intended to recover the alleged NSA materials and was abandoned after the Russian produced "possibly fabricated" information on Mr. Trump related to the 2016 presidential election and alleged ties between his associates and Russia, the Times reports. The U.S. agents reportedly considered the information "tabloid gossip pages" rather than intelligence gathering and ultimately terminated the deal. Several American officials said they did not want the alleged information about Mr. Trump.
The Times reports that the coveted cyberweapons were built to break into the computer networks of Russia and China, but wound up in the hands of a mysterious group called the "Shadow Brokers." The weapons have helped hackers breach millions of computers around the world, including hospitals, businesses and factories, the Times reports.
The Times claimed it obtained four of the documents the Russian tried to give to American intelligence, noting that the newspaper did not pay for the documents. The documents, according to the newspaper, discuss former Trump campaign aide Carter Page and billionaire GOP donors Robert and Rebekah Mercer. But the reports, according to the Times, draw almost entirely from publicly available news reports.
‘News’ Site Run By Nunes Campaign Goes Offline After Report Exposes It
After Politico reported on Sunday morning that Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-CA) campaign runs its own “news website,” the site went offline, with a message on its Facebook page claiming that the website was the victim of an “attack” on its servers.
“Due to heavy traffic and an attack on our servers, you may encounter an error message when attempting to reach The Republican,” a message on the Facebook page for the “California Republican” read on Sunday evening. “We apologize for the inconvenience.”
Politico reported Sunday morning that a website called the “California Republican,” which was billed as a news website, was paid for by Nunes’ campaign. A line at the bottom of the cached page reads, “Paid for by the Devin Nunes Campaign Committee.”
Headlines from the site shared recently on its Facebook page include “Understanding the process behind #ReleaseTheMemo” and “Sacramento mandates push CA Dairies to pack up milk cartons and shutdown plant.” According to Politico’s review of the website before it went offline, most of the articles on the website pull from conservative and other news outlets.
The website was registered by political consultant Alex Tavlian, according to Politico. Tavlian told Politico that he did not manage the website, however. Nunes’ office refused to comment on the website to Politico until the news organization “retracts its multitude of fake stories on Congressman Nunes.”
Spy chief warns on Trump aides' clearance
A US spy chief has warned that presidential aides with interim security clearances should have "limited" access to secret information.
US Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said the clearance process was "broken" and needs to be reformed.
He was responding to a question about former White House aide Rob Porter, an alleged wife beater, and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Mr Kushner is only allowed interim security clearance, like Mr Porter.
Mr Coats was one of several spymasters who gave evidence on Tuesday to the Senate Intelligence Committee about global threats facing the US.
"Sometimes it is necessary to have some type of preliminary clearance in order to fill a slot," the US director of national intelligence said in response to a question from Democratic New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich.
"But if that is the case the access has to be limited in terms of the kind of information they can be in a position to receive."
He told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday there is currently a government-wide backlog of 700,000 security clearance applications.
"The process is broken, it needs to be reformed. It's not evolution, it's revolution," he said.
Mr Coats' testimony comes amid controversy over the interim security clearance granted to Mr Porter, the former White House staff secretary who was forced out last week after two ex-wives told US media he was emotionally and physically abusive to them.
In Tuesday's hearing, FBI director Christopher Wray appeared to contradict the White House's account of when it knew about the allegations against the president's gatekeeper, which he denies.
Mr Wray said the bureau notified the White House about problems in Mr Porter's background check in March last year.
That is months earlier than the White House said it received the information.
Mr Wray also said the FBI delivered the final results in January of its background investigation into Mr Porter.
But the White House said last week that Mr Porter's background investigation was "ongoing" at the time he quit.
The White House is also facing questions about presidential adviser Mr Kushner's access to classified material.
Despite his lack of a full security clearance, Mr Kushner is able to read the President's Daily Brief, a top secret intelligence report that Mr Trump himself does not bother to read, according to reports.
Mr Kushner is one of dozens of White House employees still awaiting permanent clearance, according to the Washington Post.
His lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the 37-year-old's application is taking longer than usual "because of the extent of his holdings, travels and lengthy submissions", according to the newspaper.
The wealthy New York real estate developer has had to refile the national security questionnaire required of all prospective White House employees after making a number of omissions.
Last October, the head of the National Background Investigations Bureau told Congress he has "never seen that level of mistakes" on any security clearance application.
FBI says information on Trump aide sent to WH last year
WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI Director Christopher Wray said Tuesday the agency provided the White House with information twice last year about the top Trump aide who resigned as staff secretary last week after domestic violence allegations from two ex-wives became public.
Wray said the bureau closed its background investigation on Rob Porter in January, weeks before the allegations were published.
That timeline called into question White House assertions that Porter’s “background investigation was ongoing” when he resigned his position, and that the first the White House learned of the detailed allegations against him was last Tuesday.
Porter had been serving with an interim security clearance while his background check was pending, the White House said, a common occurrence for officials in a government facing a backlog of hundreds of thousands of such reviews.
As questions swirled about how Porter kept his access to highly sensitive information and President Donald Trump despite accusations of domestic violence, the administration’s intelligence chief told The Associated Press that the government’s system of security clearances for top officials is “broken” and must be completely overhauled.
Dan Coats’ assessment in a telephone interview came just before he briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill about global threats facing the United States. Coats was immediately confronted Tuesday by a top Democratic senator about continued questions about Porter, who resigned as Trump’s staff secretary after the stories emerged detailing his ex-wives’ accounts of abuse.
“We have a broken system and I think everybody’s come to agree with that now,” Coats told the AP.
As for Porter, Wray said the FBI submitted a “partial report on the investigation in question” in March 2017 and a completed background investigation in late July. Soon after that, the agency received a request for a follow-up inquiry, and it provided that information in November, Wray said.
He did not say who requested the follow-up. “And then we administratively closed the file in January, and then earlier this month we received some additional information and we passed that on as well,” he added without elaborating further.
Wray said he was “confident” that the bureau followed proper protocol in investigating Porter.
Coats called for a “revolutionary change” in how the U.S. government vets its own people. He said what’s needed is a process that takes advantage of new technologies and information on social media to provide “early awareness of individuals.” He said such an approach would be faster and more effective than an investigation “having to go to 19 different places to talk to people, neighbors and school classmates and so forth.”
“We have to basically start with a clean sheet and say, ’What can we do better to make sure that we get the correct background info necessary to certify that someone should be working within our community and in the government?’” Coats said. “But how can we do it in a way that doesn’t leave us with hundreds of thousands waiting to be looked at and certified, with key slots open in various agencies?”
“We have moved this to a very top priority because it is really undermining our ability to get the right people into the right place at the right time,” the director of national intelligence added.
Talk of reforming security clearances is hardly new. Some 700,000 reviews have stacked up across the government, leading agencies like the Defense Department to inadvertently issue interim passes to criminals — even rapists and killers — prompting calls for better and faster vetting of people with access to the nation’s secrets. It currently takes about four months to acquire a clearance to gain access to “secret” information on a need-to-know basis, and nine to 10 months for “top-secret” clearance.
The questions about Porter’s behavior and ability to secure an interim clearance have only accelerated the demands for a better process. President Trump’s White House has stressed that background checks are handled by the FBI and other intelligence agencies through the same process that administrations have relied on for decades.
Checking federal employees and private contractors is a laborious process that requires an extensive background check and an effort to judge a person’s trustworthiness. Ninety-five percent of all background investigations are conducted by the National Background Investigations Bureau, which does some of the work itself and contracts the rest to private firms.
“We need to do more to reform the broken security clearance system,” Sen. Mark Warner, the Senate intelligence committee’s top Democrat, told Coats at a hearing Tuesday, noting that government auditors had declared the current program as “high risk.” He said the inefficiency was “costing us millions of dollars,” and hurting efforts to recruit and retain intelligence officials.
The government hasn’t said how many interim clearances have been issued, but outside experts say they could total more than 200,000. People being investigated for interim clearances are subject to background checks, too, but quick access to state and local records can be challenging.
Coats told the AP it’s necessary, “particularly in a new administration” or one with turnover, for interim security clearances to be granted.
“But if you do that, it has to be a specific interim with controlled access and limited access, and that has to be clear right from the beginning,” he said. “You can’t just say an interim allows me to do anything.”
A court might hand Mueller a new asset in his quest to get Trump to testify
A court has decided to release documents related to independent counsel Ken Starr's investigation into former President Bill Clinton that eventually led to Clinton's impeachment.
That investigation was similar to the special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation several ways.
It may provide clues for Mueller on how to get President Donald Trump to testify under oath.
Trump's lawyers though have been stonewalling Mueller — and negotiations between the two legal teams might take up to six months.
A federal court in Washington, DC, will unseal a trove of documents related to independent counsel Ken Starr's investigation into former President Bill Clinton that eventually led to his 1999 impeachment, CNN reported.
The documents, which had remained sealed for almost 20 years, will likely shed light on how Starr was able to get Clinton to testify in his investigation after six months of negotiating with his legal team.
Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice in the probe, has found himself increasinglystonewalled by White House lawyers in his bid to get testimony from Trump.
Starr and Mueller's investigations are similar in that they both issued grand jury subpoenas to witnesses and were led by an independent investigator. Although Mueller had hoped to sit down with Trump within the first few months of 2018, if Starr's precedent is any indication, Mueller will need to endure months of back-and-forth negotiations, potentially resulting in a showdown at the Supreme Court.
The documents the DC court is set to unseal are related to eight different cases in which individuals were handed subpoenas requiring them to testify. Individuals mentioned in the cases will have a chance to voice any concerns about the documents' release, according to CNN.
Trump's counteroffensive also relies on a Clinton-related probe
Trump's legal team is reportedly also hoping to use a Clinton-related investigation from the 1990s as a model for how to avoid an interview with Mueller.
Business Insider has reported that Trump's team is using a 1994 investigation by an independent counsel into a Clinton administration official as a roadmap to limit the scope of questioning in the event that the president will eventually be forced to testify.
But Lanny Davis, a former special counsel, said Trump might be running out of options.
"No matter how much huffing and puffing Trump's lawyers do, they cannot escape a grand-jury-issued subpoena," Davis said.
But Trump's current strategy is much different from the one he initially articulated in January before reporters.
"I am looking forward to it, actually," Trump said, when asked if he would be willing to sit down with Mueller. "Here is the story: There has been no collusion whatsoever. There is no obstruction whatsoever. And I am looking forward to it."
Trump's lawyers quickly walked back that statement, saying they would ultimately decide whether he would talk with Mueller.
Trump lawyer says he paid porn actress out of his own pocket
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s personal attorney said Tuesday he paid $130,000 out of his own pocket to a porn actress who allegedly had a sexual relationship with Trump in 2006.
Michael Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times that he was not reimbursed by the Trump Organization or the Trump campaign for the payment to Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
Cohen wrote, “The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”
Cohen told the Times he had delivered a similar statement to the Federal Election Commission in response to a complaint filed by Common Cause, a government watchdog group.
Common Cause had asked the FEC to investigate the source of the $130,000 payment and determine whether it represented an excessive campaign contribution. Cohen told the Times, “The allegations in the complaint are factually unsupported and without legal merit.”
The Wall Street Journal reported in January that Cohen had arranged the payment to Clifford in October 2016 to keep her from publicly discussing the alleged sexual encounter during the presidential campaign.
A week later, In Touch magazine published a 2011 interview with Clifford in which she claimed she and Trump had a sexual encounter after meeting at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, a year after Trump’s marriage to his third wife, Melania.
At the end of January, Daniels said in a statement that the alleged affair never occurred. But in a TV appearance the same day, Daniels appeared to disown the statement, saying she didn’t know where it came from and the signature didn’t look like hers.
at least post a good one bro
What are you talking about pal mine is a QT
Separate names with a comma.