Devin Nunes' challengers are using his obstruction of Russian investigations against him in their campaigns.

Courtesy of USA Today:  

Rep. Devin Nunes' handling of the Russia investigation as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has become a major campaign issue as he seeks a ninth term in Congress. 

Both the California Republican and his Democratic challenger, Fresno County Deputy District Attorney Andrew Janz, are using Nunes' high-profile role in the bitterly partisan Russia inquiry to appeal for campaign cash throughout the nation.

 Janz said he has raised more than $1 million in the first quarter of 2018 in part because donors were upset by the now famous "Nunes memo" — which accused the FBI and Department of Justice of abusing their surveillance power to target a Trump campaign aide with ties to Russia. 

Democrats have denounced the memo as a blatant attempt by President Trump and House Republicans to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin and possible obstruction of justice by the president. 

"Traditionally, the prosecution of crimes has been a non-partisan activity, so I'm really disappointed to see my opponent and the Trump White House attacking federal law enforcement agencies and officials," said Janz, who has worked with FBI agents as a prosecutor. "It really undermines our criminal justice system, which is a cornerstone of our democracy."

That's very smart. I see Nunes' obstructionism as his main weakness. 

And I am going to be watching this race very closely because Devin Nunes is at the top of my list of motherfuckers that gots to go.

Devin Nunes' Democratic challenger has raised more than one million dollars in the first quarter.

Courtesy of CNN: 

A Democratic candidate challenging House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes took in more than $1 million in the first quarter of 2018, a sign of Democrats' enthusiasm to oust the California congressman who has allied himself closely with President Donald Trump. 

Andrew Janz, the Deputy District Attorney in Fresno County, is still considered a long shot in his bid to unseat Nunes. CNN currently rates the 22nd District as a "safe Republican" seat. But Nunes' role in running interference for Trump on the investigations into Russia's role in the 2016 election has made him a target for Democrats nationwide. 

According to fundraising figures provided to CNN by the campaign, Janz has raised more than $1 million so far in 2018 with just three days left in the first quarter. The campaign received a huge influx in fundraising cash from donors across the country in the wake of Nunes role in releasing a controversial memo detailing concerns Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee had with the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

"We feel like he is the one person that is really standing in the way of the (FBI Special Counsel) Robert Mueller investigation," Janz told CNN. "We think people deserve to know what happened to our elections in 2016 and what is happening in 2018. And every day my opponent is out there trying to undermine federal law enforcement, the special prosecutors probe and really working for Trump instead of the American people."

I think that Devin Nunes is toast.

And deservedly so.

He almost single handedly quashed the House Intelligence Commmittee's Russia investigation to protect Putin's White House asset and he deserves to be humiliated in this next election, investigated for obstructionism, and ultimately thrown in jail.

In other words Fuck Devin Nunes!

Robert Mueller may delay bringing obstruction charges against Trump and his associates, until he has also completed his collusion and conspiracy investigations.

Courtesy of Bloomberg:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice is said to be close to completion, but he may set it aside while he finishes other key parts of his probe, such as possible collusion and the hacking of Democrats, according to current and former U.S. officials. 

That’s because Mueller may calculate that if he tries to bring charges in the obstruction case -- the part that may hit closest to Trump personally -- witnesses may become less cooperative in other parts of the probe, or the president may move to shut it down altogether. 

The revelation is a peek into Mueller’s calculations as he proceeds with his many-headed probe, while pressure builds from the president’s advisers and other Republicans to show progress or wrap it up. 

The obstruction portion of the probe could likely be completed after several key outstanding interviews, including with the president and his son, Donald Trump Jr. The president’s lawyers have been negotiating with Mueller’s team over such an encounter since late last year. But even if Trump testifies in the coming weeks, Mueller may make a strategic calculation to keep his findings on obstruction secret, according to the current and former U.S. officials, who discussed the strategy on condition of anonymity.

Mueller may have concerns that if he moves forward with the obstruction charges that Trump will pull out all of the stops in shutting him down.

Apparently while Trump still has some small hope of vindication, he is less likely to freak out.

However that freak out is definitely coming.

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors have invoked an unusual "conspiracy to defraud the government" charge to ensnare a Russian cyber network and could use the same legal strategy to go after President Trump and his associates, even if the conspiracy is not linked to a criminal act.

Last month, Mr. Mueller, a Republican and former FBI director indicted 13 Russian nationals connected to the Internet Research Agency (IRA) Russian "troll farm," accusing the IRA of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by spreading fake news stories through U.S. social media. The same approach was employed in securing a plea deal last month with Rick Gates, the aide for former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. 

What has attracted attention in legal circles is the underlying legal theory behind the indictments, accusing the Russians of essentially committing a crime by preventing agencies of the U.S. government from carrying out the duties. Mr. Mueller appears to be leveraging the theory "into a powerful instrument with respect to both foreign and domestic actors," according to a recent article on Lawfare, a national security blog by the Lawfare Institute and Brookings Institution. 

Emma Kohse, Harvard International Law Journal editor-in-chief, Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the Lawfare blog's top editor, argue that, based in the language of the indictments and the legal precedents behind them, the "conspiracy to defraud the government" charge provides the Mueller team with significant flexibility in trying to build a case against Mr. Trump and members of his 2016 campaign.

Yeah, at this point the noose must be so tight that it is starting to cut off Trump's circulation. 

Atlantic journalist lays out why Robert Mueller will never indict Donald Trump. Not what we want to hear, but he makes a good point.

Courtesy of The Atlantic:  

Mueller will not indict Trump for obstruction of justice or for any other crime. Period. Full stop. End of story. Speculations to the contrary are just fantasy.

(Yes, I wanted to stop reading right about here as well, but I urge you to at least read to the bottom of the post.)

He won’t do it for the good and sufficient reason that the Department of Justice has a long-standing legal opinion that sitting presidents may not be indicted. First issued in 1973 during the Nixon era, the policy was reaffirmed in 2000, during the Clinton era. These rules bind all Department of Justice employees, and Mueller, in the end, is a Department of Justice employee. More to the point, if we know anything about Mueller, we think we know that he follows the rules—all of them. Even the ones that restrict him in ways he would prefer they not. And if he were to choose not to follow the rules, that, in turn, would be a reasonable justification for firing him. So … the special counsel will not indict the president. 

What can Mueller do if he finds evidence of criminality involving the president? He can and will (as authorized by Department of Justice regulations) file a report on his findings with the attorney general (or, since Attorney General Sessions is, in this case, recused, with the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein). Rosenstein will then be faced with the important decision of whether and how to make that report public—whether to convey it to Congress or not; whether to release it publicly or not. The regulations are so vague (they say only that he “may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions”) that they, in effect, give Rosenstein plenary discretion to do whatever he thinks is in the best interest of the country. 

So, every time you read about the threat to fire Mueller, remember this—the critical actor in most future scenarios is not Mueller, but Rosenstein. Knowing Rosenstein personally, I have high confidence that he will make what he thinks is the best decision for the country—the same may not be true of his replacement (or of the replacement attorney general, should Sessions be fired). That, of course, is why the highly dubious “secret memo” prepared by House Republicans reportedly targets Rosenstein—even though he is a Trump appointee who advocated firing Comey, Trump supporters fear he will follow the rule of law.

Well that sucks.

It also could help to explain not only why Trump seems so convinced that the Mueller investigation will not end his presidency, but also why the Republicans are attempting to undermine Rosenstein.

If Trump replaces Rosenstein with his own guy, he could make sure that Mueller's findings, no matter how scandalous, will never see the light of day.

That means, and has likely always meant, that the only way to remove Trump from office is through impeachment.

And the only way to accomplish that is to flood the House and the Senate with as many Democrats as possible.

In other words it is up to us, the voters.

It appears that the Republicans may be using the "secret memo" as an excuse to attack Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it. 

The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent. But the reference to Mr. Rosenstein’s actions in the memo — a much-disputed document that paints the investigation into Russian election meddling as tainted from the start — indicates that Republicans may be moving to seize on his role as they seek to undermine the inquiry. 

The memo’s primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant for surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator, Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. 

Democrats who have read the document say Republicans have cherry-picked facts to create a misleading and dangerous narrative. But in their efforts to discredit the inquiry, Republicans could potentially use Mr. Rosenstein’s decision to approve the renewal to suggest that he failed to properly vet a highly sensitive application for a warrant to spy on Mr. Page, who served as a Trump foreign policy adviser until September 2016.

Of course if the Republicans manage to undermine Rosenstein's reasoning behind his Carter Page warrant, they can then move on to attacking his judgement in appointing Robert Mueller and can start working to further undermine the investigation.

Obviously this is an attempt to accomplish what Trump wanted when he tried and failed to fire Robert Mueller, and do it in a way that the Republicans feel offers some protection from accusations of obstructionism.

But of course it does no such thing, because it is only the most recent in a long line of attempts to obstruct this investigation. 

Which we saw more of today with the firing of Andrew McCabe. 

It looks like Donald Trump just forced FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe out of his job. That is two, count them two, FBI agents kicked to the curb. Update!

Courtesy of NBC News:  

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who has been attacked by President Donald Trump, stepped down Monday, multiple sources familiar with the matter told NBC News. 

McCabe will remain on the FBI payroll until he is eligible to retire with full benefits in mid-March, the sources said. 

One source said McCabe was exercising his retirement eligibility and characterized his decision as "stepping aside."

McCabe has been at the center of ongoing tensions between the White House and the FBI and has reportedly been under pressure to quit from Trump, whose presidential campaign is being investigated for possible collusion with Russia. 

Earlier this month, The Washington Post reported that after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, he met with McCabe in the Oval Office and asked him whom he had voted for in the 2016 election. 

Trump, the officials told The Post, also vented his anger at McCabe over hundreds of thousand dollars in donations that his wife, a Democrat, received for her failed 2015 Virginia state Senate bid from a political action committee controlled by a close friend of Hillary Clinton.

When reached for comment Trump had nothing to say on the matter, but this has his fingerprints all over it.

Trump has been attacking McCabe for months on Twitter, and of course also pressured Jeff Sessions to fire him as reported recently.

Oddly enough while NBC News was careful not to characterize this as a firing, Fox News just laid it on the line: 

Top FBI official Andrew McCabe has been "removed" from his post as deputy director, Fox News is told, leaving the bureau after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans including President Trump. 

A source confirmed to Fox News that McCabe is taking “terminal leave” – effectively taking vacation until he reaches his planned retirement in a matter of weeks. As such, he will not be reporting to work at the FBI anymore.

Other sources are also reporting that this was not McCabe's decision alone. 

#BREAKING: Andrew McCabe - one of three FBI officials who could corroborate Comey's account of Trump pressuring him to drop the Russia probe before firing him - was just "forced" to step down as FBI deputy director https://t.co/1cdKBwet7m

— Caroline O. (@RVAwonk) January 29, 2018

Yes, as that tweet suggests Andrew McCabe was indeed one of Comey's backups in his story about Trump pressuring him to drop the Michael Flynn investigation.

And perhaps that, more than anything else, put a target on his back. 

Of course this "forcing out" changes absolutely nothing about that, as Mueller can still, and probably already has, interviewed Andrew McCabe.

However it does certainly add more fuel to that obstructionism fire, now doesn't it?

Update: FBI field agents were taken by surprise.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Appearing on CNN Monday, reporter Shimon Prokupecz said that he’s heard from leaders in FBI field offices across the country who say they and their teams are frustrated that they are first hearing about these resignations through news reports and not through official channels. 

“This comes as a surprise to many people,” Prokupecz said of McCabe’s departure. “Certainly the initial reaction from folks in the field — and these are the field agents and the field leaders at the field offices — is that people are pretty angry right now. They are hearing about FBI leadership moves from the news.” 

Prokupecz said that because news of McCabe’s departure broke in the news before it was announced internally, it has added to a sense of chaos engulfing the agency. 

“There is some concern among field leaders, among field agents among the FBI staff about what the hell is going on and who is running the FBI,” he explained, before noting that McCabe’s abrupt departure was very similar to the firing of former FBI Director James Comey.

I think "What the hell is going?" on is a very reasonable question to be asking right about now. 

Sources say that Donald Trump personally directed Steve Bannon not to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee.

Courtesy of Foreign Policy: 

President Donald Trump personally made the decision to curtail the testimony of former chief White House political strategist Steve Bannon before the House Intelligence Committee, according to two people with firsthand knowledge of the matter. 

Trump acted to limit Bannon’s testimony based on legal advice provided by Uttam Dhillon, a deputy White House counsel, who concluded that the administration might have legitimate executive privilege claims to restrict testimony by Bannon and other current and former aides to the president, according to these same sources.

Bannon infuriated both Republicans and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee by refusing to answer questions this week regarding his role in the presidential transition and later as a White House advisor. Repeatedly during Bannon’s executive session testimony, he and his attorney took numerous breaks to confer via phone with the White House counsel’s office as to what questions he should answer and which ones he would not.

This report seems to explain how chief of staff John Kelly was able to say that the White House did NOT advise Bannon not to answer questions, while Bannon claimed that he was getting direction from the White House.

Apparently Kelly was left out of the loop, and Trump was directly obstructing this investigation on his own.

By the way, everybody seems to agree that these tactics simply will not work when Bannon stands before Robert Mueller's grand jury.

Republicans now take aim at the author of the Russian dossier, Christopher Steele.

Courtesy of WaPo: 

A pair of GOP senators sent a letter to the Justice Department on Friday urging an investigation into Christopher Steele, the intelligence agent behind that famous dossier from the Russia investigation. 

And the whole thing is rather strange. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) sent the letter to the DOJ and FBI. In it, the pair says they have reason to believe Steele might have lied about disseminating information from the dossier. 

But while they make the allegation publicly in the letter, the details of Steele's potential lying are contained within an attached document marked classified. In other words, they are suggesting Steele may have lied, but don't say what he might have lied about.

As the New York Times points out these are allegations that Steele lied to the FBI, which is a crime: 

More than a year after Republican leaders promised to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election, two influential Republicans on Friday made the first known congressional criminal referral in connection with the meddling — against one of the people who sought to expose it. 

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a senior committee member, told the Justice Department they had reason to believe that a former British spy, Christopher Steele, lied to federal authorities about his contacts with reporters regarding information in the dossier, and they urged the department to investigate.

Gee, I cannot begin to imagine why they are doing this. Can you?

And if you are confused keep in mind that House Republicans are also calling for Jeff Sessions to step down.

So to sum up the Senate Republicans are trying to undermine the honesty of the former spy who compiled the dossier, while the House Republicans are working to remove Sessions, so that Trump can appoint a new Attorney General, who will then put a halt to the Robert Mueller investigation.

What's the definition for "collusion" again?

Or "obstructionism?"

Or "treason." 

FBI Deputy Director set to retire after blistering attack from Republicans and Twitter tirade from Donald Trump.

The President of the United States is a profoundly bad person. pic.twitter.com/YEu9lNbG3D

— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) December 23, 2017

Courtesy of Vox: 

The reason Trump is so angry goes back to a long-running controversy over McCabe’s wife’s allegedly compromising political ties to Hillary Clinton. In 2015, McCabe’s wife ran for a state Senate seat in Virginia, backed in part with money provided by the state Democratic party and a Clinton ally — the “Clinton Puppets” in Trump’s first tweet. Trump and other Republicans have used this probe to argue that McCabe is secretly harboring an anti-Republican agenda. 

The reason it’s coming now, despite this having been known for over a year, is that McCabe’s name surfaced in a controversial text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was recently removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe over evidence of anti-Trump political bias. Strzok had mentioned someone named “Andy” in a text message with federal attorney Lisa Page, seeming to suggest there was a discussion about Trump — and not a positive one — in McCabe’s office. 

These revelations have led a number of prominent Republicans in Congress to outright call for McCabe’s firing. 

“He oughta be replaced. And I’ve said that before and I’ve said it to people who can do it,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told reporters earlier in the week. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chair of the House Oversight Committee, went even further during a Fox News appearance on Tuesday, suggesting that McCabe would likely be gone in the next week. 

But there is little evidence so far that McCabe harbors some kind of personal vendetta against the president, let alone any evidence that it’s affecting his job performance.

All of the reasons given above for this coordinated attempt to push McCabe out seem legitimate, and they may in fact be the reasons, but I tend to think there might be another reason.

Courtesy of The Hill: 

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified before the House Intelligence Committee that former FBI Director James Comey told him about conversations he had with President Trump, including Trump’s request for loyalty, according to a new report. 

CNN reports that McCabe told lawmakers during his testimony this week that Comey told him about conversations he had with Trump after they occurred. 

McCabe told the committee that Comey also told him about Trump’s request for loyalty, according to CNN’s Manu Raju.

McCabe was one of the few people that James Comey confided in after having that bizarre meeting with Trump, during which he was asked to back off the Flynn investigation, and to pledge his loyalty to Trump.

In other words McCabe's testimony offers proof that Trump engaged in obstructionism.

Trump can't let that guy stick around, now can he?

 Of course it might be a little too late, since obviously McCabe has already shared this information with investigators. And could continue to do so whether he stays in the FBI or not.

Robert Mueller's focus on the Michael Flynn timeline suggests that he is building a case for obstruction. Update!

Courtesy of NBC News:

Special counsel Robert Mueller is trying to piece together what happened inside the White House over a critical 18-day period that began when senior officials were told that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was susceptible to blackmail by Russia, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. 

The questions about what happened between Jan. 26 and Flynn's firing on Feb. 13 appear to relate to possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump, say two people familiar with Mueller's investigation into Russia's election meddling and potential collusion with the Trump campaign. 

Multiple sources say that during interviews, Mueller's investigators have asked witnesses, including White House Counsel Don McGahn and others who have worked in the West Wing, to go through each day that Flynn remained as national security adviser and describe in detail what they knew was happening inside the White House as it related to Flynn.

Some of those interviewed by Mueller's team believe the goal is in part to determine if there was a deliberate effort by President Trump or top officials in the West Wing to cover up the information about Flynn that Sally Yates, then the acting attorney general, conveyed to McGahn on Jan. 26. In addition to Flynn, McGahn is also expected to be critical to federal investigators trying to piece together a timeline of those 18 days.

Essentially Flynn lied to the FBI. two days later Sally Yates told Don McGahn that Flynn lied, McGahn told Trump, Trump fired Yates, and then only after the press started to report on some of this did Trump finally fire Flynn.

So it would appear that there is a solid case to be made for obstruction.

However I actually think that Mueller is coming at this from several different angles.

I think that he well might make a case for obstructionism, but that he is also looking to flip Manfort and then Kushner and make the case for conspiracy as well.

I think that is why Trump is starting to lose his shit and why there is increasing talk about firing Mueller, while the Right Wing propaganda outlets prepare the base to accept that decision.

Courtesy of New York Magazine: 

Trump is preparing to shut down Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian intervention in the 2016 election. 

The administration and its allied media organs, especially those owned by Rupert Murdoch, have spent months floating a series of rationales, of varying degrees of implausibility, for why a deeply respected Republican law-enforcement veteran is disqualified to lead the inquiry: He is friends with James Comey, who is biased because Trump fired him; Comey is biased because he pursued leads turned up in Christopher Steele’s investigation, which was financed by Democrats; Mueller has failed to investigate Hillary Clinton’s marginal-to-nonexistent role in a uranium sale. 

The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in his statement condemning Clinton’s email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller. His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from his team, but that is not enough for Trump’s supporters, who are seizing on Strzok’s role as a pretext to discredit and remove Mueller, too. The notion that a law-enforcement official should be disqualified for privately expressing partisan views is a novel one, and certainly did not trouble Republicans last year, when Rudy Giuliani was boasting on television about his network of friendly agents. Yet in the conservative media, Mueller and Comey have assumed fiendish personae of almost Clintonian proportions.

As I have said before, if this happens it will blow this investigation wide open, and essentially prove the case for obstruction.

I would bet big money that Trump is itching to fire Mueller and that the only thing holding him back are his lawyers and advisers telling him that it would be political suicide.

The only question is, how long can they hold him at bay?

Update:  

Okay this tidbit from the NBC report was brought to my attention, take a look at this: Mueller is trying to determine why Flynn remained in his post for 18 days after Trump learned of Yates' warning, according to two people familiar with the probe. He appears to be interested in whether Trump directed him to lie to senior officials, including Pence, or the FBI, and if so why, the sources said.

Okay well that is a whole new dimension to all of this.

That is suggesting that Mueller may have evidence that Trump not only ignored evidence that Michael Flynn lied to the FBI, but that he himself may have instructed him to do so.

If that pans out, I do not think that even the Republican majorities in the Senate and House can protect him from impeachment.

Dianne Feinsten says that Senate Judiciary Committee is now building a case for obstructionism against Donald Trump. Update!

Courtesy of NBC News:  

A Senate investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election has revealed a possible obstruction of justice case against President Donald Trump, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on "Meet The Press" Sunday. 

"The [Senate] Judiciary Committee has an investigation going as well and it involves obstruction of justice and I think what we're beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice,” Feinstein, the panel's top Democrat, said.

“I think we see this in the indictments, the four indictments, and pleas that have just taken place and some of the comments that are being made," Feinstein added, referencing the indictments of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates, who face charges that include conspiracy and money laundering that were uncovered during Special Counsel Bob Mueller's investigation into potential links between Trump and Russia. Also charged in connection to the Mueller investigation are Trump's former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who both pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. 

"I see it in the hyper-frenetic attitude of the White House, the comments every day, the continual tweets. And I see it most importantly in what happened with the firing of Director [James] Comey, and it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to ‘lift the cloud’ of the Russia investigation. That’s obstruction of justice,” Feinstein said.

Gonna be kind of hard to call this all "fake news" when the courts issue a subpoena charging you with obstruction of justice, now isn't it?

Of course Trump's lawyers have a response to that as well:

John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice. 

The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims. 

I'm sorry, what?

I swear it's like this Trump legal team all got their license to practice law from a box of  "Cracker Jacks."

Man so far December has rocked.

Update: Here is more from CNN:  

The White House's chief lawyer told President Donald Trump in January he believed then-national security adviser Michael Flynn had misled the FBI and lied to Vice President Mike Pence and should be fired, a source familiar with the matter said Monday. 

The description of the conversation raises new questions about what Trump knew about Flynn's situation when he urged then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn and whether anyone in the White House, including the President himself, attempted to obstruct justice. Special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russians, a probe led by Comey until Trump fired him. 

White House counsel Donald McGahn told Trump that based on his conversation with then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates, he believed Flynn had not told the truth in his interview with the FBI or to Pence, the source said.

So Trump was told that Flynn had lied not only to Mike Pence, but also the FBI, but did not decide to fire him until the Washington Post story came out almost two weeks later. 

Damn, Donald Trump really IS bringing Christmas back!

Donald Trump realizes that we can see him openly trying to influence these Russia investigations right?

Just had ph call from Pres Trump + he assured me he's pro ethanol +I'm free 2 the ppl of Iowa he's standing by his campaign PROMISE

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) August 30, 2017

(I think that "the" was supposed to be a "tell.")

Tlkd 2 @realDonaldTrump about ethanol +he knows that ethanol is good good good

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) August 30, 2017

(Actually Ethanol's days are numbered, as we are rapidly moving toward electric automobiles all around the world.)

Courtesy of WaPo:  

President Trump called the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee to talk about one of his most important parochial issues — ethanol — shortly before the committee is slated to interview his son in its ongoing Russia probe. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley’s panel will be hosting Trump’s son next month for an interview behind closed doors in its ongoing Russia probe — something the committee has been trying to do since it was revealed that Donald Trump, Jr. accepted a meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer claiming Kremlin connections during the campaign. 

Headlines about that committee meeting, which Grassley (R-Iowa) has been trying to set up for weeks, gripped headlines and cable news chyrons on Tuesday night. On Wednesday morning, Grassley announced via Twitter that the president had called him to discuss not Russia, but ethanol, proudly announcing that “he assured me he’s pro ethanol” and that Grassley was free to tell the people of Iowa “he’s standing by his campaign PROMISE.”

Wait, so just days after it was announced that Eric "The Dumb One" Trump was going to be testifying before the Senate  Judiciary Committee, which Grassley chairs, Donald Trump suddenly makes these calls in support of Grassley's favorite bio-fuel?

What a coinky dink.

Please, does this orange tinted asshole think we are all as stupid as his supporters?

Obviously that is a rhetorical question.

Methinks we better keep an eye on ole Chuck "I Love Ethanol" Grassley.

New Trump campaign ad identifies Democrats and the media as the enemies of success.

WATCH: DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. RELEASES NEW CAMPAIGN AD #MAGA pic.twitter.com/pV2G9u64be

— Official Team Trump (@TeamTrump) August 13, 2017

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

“Democrats obstructing, media attacking our president, career politicians standing in the way of success. But President Trump’s plan is working,” the advert stated.

“One million jobs created, more Americans working than ever before, unemployment: lowest since 2001, the stock market: all time record high, the strongest military in decades. The president’s enemies don’t want him to succeed, but Americans are saying ‘let president Trump do his job’,” the advert added. 

The campaign advert, whose message was approved by President Trump, reiterated the message put out by the president, particularly in recent months, that he is being blocked by Democrats despite having a majority in the White House, the House and the Senate.

So Trump approved this ad huh? Well that's interesting.

So he has no problem accusing Maxine Waters, Joe Scarborough, Elizabeth Warren, and Anderson Cooper of being un-American, but he can't bring himself to say the same about the Neo-Nazis? 

Well that's pretty telling.

Personally I don't call the media and Democrats blocking Donald Trump's plans "obstructionists."

I call them HEROES.

Law professor says that obstruction case against Donald Trump is a slam dunk.

Courtesy of Business Insider:

In the weeks since the New York Times reported that President Trump allegedly asked James Comey to drop a pending criminal investigation of Michael Flynn, there has been much debate about whether the president committed obstruction of justice. 

Looking at the entire affair from the standpoint of strict legal analysis, there's just one conclusion: All available evidence says he did. 

Under such a plain legal analysis, of the sort my students and I conduct in the law school classroom, it is highly likely that special counsel Robert Mueller will find that there is a provable case that the president committed a federal felony offense. 

The Justice Department, as well as many scholars, have opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted and tried for a crime. So the ultimate issue, whatever Mueller's findings, will come down to the political question of impeachment. But Mueller's determination will be critical because the crime of obstruction would be the most legally potent charge in any impeachment debate, as it was in the articles of impeachment against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton. 

It's worth looking at the already strong publicly available evidence, as well as the supposed flaws in that case. Even taking into account possible shortcomings, the current case for an obstruction of justice charge is crystal clear.

The professor goes on to state categorically that the three basic legal elements of obstruction of justice are satisfied in this case.

First Trump's request to Comey that he drop the case against Michael Flynn clearly qualifies as an attempt to obstruct  an ongoing investigation.

Second the request was clearly made to rescue his former national security adviser from prosecution.

And third the attempt was made with the "corrupt intent" of obstructing justice.

According to Professor Samuel Buell that is all it takes for this case to move forward.

The professor does recognize that Trump's attorneys will have a number of tactics at their disposal for arguing that this case is without merit or that Trump is immune from prosecution, which is why it will be left up to the House and Senate to determine how to deal with Mueller's findings.

And while we have every reason to doubt that the Republicans will want to move for impeachment of their president, literally every day Trump does or says something so troubling that it may leave them with little choice in the end.

Trump attorney now claims that he is not under investigation by the Special Counsel, after his boss admitted he was. Update!

Jay Sekulow

Courtesy of Politico:  

President Donald Trump is not under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, a member of his legal team said Sunday morning. 

"The president is not under investigation by the special counsel," Jay Sekulow, a member of President Trump’s legal team, told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd. He also made similar comments to Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union."

Well this is odd since on Friday Trump tweeted this:

I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017

But of course the lawyer had an excuse for that as well: 

"The tweet from the president was in response to the five anonymous sources that were purportedly leaking information to The Washington Post about a potential investigation of the president," Sekulow said. "But the president, as James Comey said in his testimony and as we know as of today, the president has not been and is not under investigation." 

“He's not afraid of the investigation. There is no investigation,” Sekulow added. 

Uh huh.

So are we to believe the tweets of a man who lies with almost every breath, or the man who is hired to cover for that man when he inadvertently tells the truth?

In the meantime there are reports that Trump is hiding out at Camp David, but according to his lawyer NOT from an obstruction investigation being conducted by the Special Counsel.

And of course he is tweeting:

The MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN agenda is doing very well despite the distraction of the Witch Hunt. Many new jobs, high business enthusiasm,..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2017

...massive regulation cuts, 36 new legislative bills signed, great new S.C.Justice, and Infrastructure, Healthcare and Tax Cuts in works!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2017

The new Rasmussen Poll, one of the most accurate in the 2016 Election, just out with a Trump 50% Approval Rating.That's higher than O's #'s!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2017

The Rasmussen poll?

He is now hiding behind the Rasmussen Poll?

That poll is one of the least reliable polls out there.

 It is essentially the Fox and Friends of political polls. 

It ALWAYS skews in favor of conservatives, and it is typically off by double digits.

But hey whatever Orange Hitler needs to tell himself.

Yes Commander Cheeto, you are not under investigation for obstruction and you are more popular that President Obama. Oh and your golf clothes are very slimming, and your wife tells all of her girlfriends about your prowess in the sack.

Update: And then there's this:

Is EVERYBODY associated with Trump this incompetent.

Never mind, trick question. 

The Special Counselor is now looking in to Trump's son-in-law's business dealings, and VP Mike Pence lawyers up.

Courtesy of the Washington Post: 

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is investigating the finances and business dealings of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, as part of the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter. 

FBI agents and federal prosecutors have also been examining the financial dealings of other Trump associates, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Carter Page, who was listed as a foreign-policy adviser for the campaign. 

The Washington Post previously reported that investigators were scrutinizing meetings that Kushner held with Russians in December — first with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and then with Sergey Gorkov, the head of a state-owned Russian development bank. At the time of that report, it was not clear that the FBI was investigating Kushner’s business dealings.

Oh yeah, that noose is getting much tighter now.

So tight in fact that Mike Pence has decided that he needs legal assistance before it starts cutting off his air supply.

Also courtesy of WaPo:

Vice President Pence has hired outside legal counsel to help with both congressional committee inquiries and the special counsel investigation into possible collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia. 

The vice president’s office said Thursday that Pence has retained Richard Cullen, a Richmond-based lawyer and chairman of McGuireWoods who previously served as a U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Here is Rachel Maddow explaining why this is such a big deal:  

Maddow said Thursday that Pence hiring lawyer Richard Cullen as his personal attorney is evidence that he is running scared. 

“It’s very interesting that the vice president has felt the need to hire private counsel, right?” she said. “The specific private counsel he’s chosen? Who knows if we should extrapolate from those previous experiences in previous Republican presidential scandals. … But, you know, it would appear that Vice President Mike Pence does have stuff to worry about here. … It’s not surprising that the vice president has now found himself a private lawyer, but oh what a private lawyer he has got.” 

Cullen also had involvement in other Republican scandals like former President Nixon’s Watergate and President Reagan’s Iran-Contra.

That is a pretty big hitter to hire if Pence really believes has nothing to worry about.

And just to drive that point home it appears that the Senate is seeking to once again have James Comey provide testimony under oath.

Courtesy of Politico: 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants former FBI Director James Comey to return to Capitol Hill to testify before her panel — and says Democrats are willing to back a subpoena for Comey if he refuses. 

I have a feeling that now that we know Trump is being investigated for obstruction that these questions to Comey will be a bit more targeted.

I think I know now what inspired Trump's Twitter tantrum this morning. 

Just in case anybody was still wondering, yes Donald Trump is now under criminal investigation. Update!

Dammit! Comey said I wasn't being investigated!

Courtesy of WaPo: 

The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said. 

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said. 

Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing. 

Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.

According to the article this investigation actually started right after Trump fired James Comey, which was even BEFORE they appointed Robert Mueller to be the Special Counsel.

This also means that while Comey was testifying in that Senate hearing regarding his assurances to Trump that he was not under investigation he must have been using every bit of his self control not to break into a huge smile knowing that was no longer the case.

The article also reasserts this from earlier reporting: 

Officials said one of the exchanges of potential interest to Mueller took place on March 22, less than a week after Coats was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the nation’s top intelligence official. 

Coats was attending a briefing at the White House with officials from several other government agencies. When the briefing ended, as The Washington Post previously reported, Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. 

Coats told associates that Trump had asked him whether Coats could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials. Coats later told lawmakers that he never felt pressured to intervene. 

A day or two after the March 22 meeting, Trump telephoned Coats and Rogers to separately ask them to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government. 

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the president’s requests, officials said.

That is obstruction of justice, plain and simple.

Well so much for the GOP talking points that the president himself is not under criminal investigation, because oh yes he is!

And Trump is seriously pissed off about it:

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

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

No no, I saw the greatest witch hunt in American political history during those Benghazi hearings.

But nice try.

What do you want to bet that now Trump will try to find a way to fire Robert Mueller insuring that this investigation gets turned up to eleven?

So now the president chosen for us by a foreign government is being investigated for attempting to obstruct an investigation into that fact, because he fired the guy leading that initial investigation, while his party scrambles to survive the scandal of his presidency.

Even the current season of House of Cards did not have quite this much political intrigue and drama. 

Update: Oops, somebody leaked the Republican talking pints for refuting this story.

A source sent me RNC/Trump talking points for Repubs seeking to discredit tonight’s WaPo scoop on Mueller investigating Trump obstruction —> pic.twitter.com/ctwy2si9A7

— Philip Rucker (@PhilipRucker) June 15, 2017

Damn, this just keeps getting better and better.

James Comey to be asked directly if Donald Trump attempted to interfere in Russia probe.

Courtesy of Reuters:  

Former FBI Director James Comey will be grilled on whether President Donald Trump tried to get him to back off an investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, key U.S. senators said on Sunday ahead of Comey's testimony this week on Capitol Hill. 

Comey, who was leading the Federal Bureau of Investigation's probe into alleged Russian meddling in last year's U.S. presidential election, was fired by Trump last month, four years into his 10-year term. 

The move sparked accusations that Trump dismissed Comey to hinder that investigation and stifle questions about possible collusion between his campaign and Russia. 

"I want to know what kind of pressure - appropriate, inappropriate - how many conversations he had with the president about this topic?" Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS's "Face the Nation" program on Sunday.

According to Raw Story what Comey does not say may be just as damaging to Trump as what he does say:  

The worst-case scenario for President Donald Trump when former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate this week might be if he refuses to answer questions about their meetings because they're part of a criminal investigation. 

That is thought to be one of the more likely results of at least some of Comey's testimony. 

Comey clearly has a story to tell. His not telling it may indicate that the president is in jeopardy from the criminal investigation, which is now run by former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was appointed special counsel in the case.

I have to admit I am looking forward to this testimony on Thursday even more than I am looking forward to the summer blockbusters.

And for a movie buff that is saying a lot. 

I even rearranged my schedule on Thursday so that I could watch the entire thing uninterrupted.

Trump lawyer turns down request to testify and provide documentation for Russian probe.

Courtesy of Politico:  

President Donald Trump’s longtime personal attorney has turned down a request to be interviewed and provide documents in the congressional probe into Russian interference into the 2016 election. 

Michael Cohen, who worked at the Trump Organization until January and remains the president’s private counsel, confirmed Tuesday he would not cooperate with Capitol Hill investigators as they examine contacts between Trump’s circle of aides and Russian officials. 

"I declined the invitation to participate as the request was poorly phrased, overly broad and not capable of being answered,” Cohen told POLITICO via text message. He did not specify which House or Senate panels had sought him out as part of their investigations.

Just take a moment to get over the irony of an attorney for Donald Trump referring to something as "poorly phrased." 

It should also be noted that Michael Flynn is pleading the fifth, and therefore ALSO refusing to provide documentation or provide testimony.

So I have to wonder is this now the strategy moving forward?

Does this mean that Jared Kushner will refuse to cooperate? As well as others who might be called to provide information?

Because if that is the case, I think we can essentially state unequivocally that obstructionism is now being carried out in full view of the public.

Caught between a rock and a hard place Sarah Palin attempts to defend both Donald Trump and the Freedom Caucus, but throws Paul Ryan under the bus without a second thought.

Okay, stay calm, I can do this.

Courtesy of the Wasilla Wendigo's Facebook page:

1) Freedom Caucus members who opposed the Trump Movement in 2016 were dead wrong to do so, as proven by we who are on the front lines of the real (hurting) world knew from the start that only Donald Trump could defeat Hillary Clinton and her liberal media minions. Thank God, literally, Trump won, or we'd hit the rocks under Obama 2.0 with Hillary at the helm. Guarandamnteed.  ("Guarandamnteed?")

2) But they learned... and the Freedom Caucus just saved us from Obamacare 2.0, which would have codified the unaffordable, unsustainable, unwanted government-controlled medical Ponzi scheme that the vast majority demanded be stopped. (Only an idiot would call that train wreck Obamacare 2.0. Oh that's right, I forgot.) If Barack Obama had proposed that government-forced unfunded insurance mandate, not a dang Republican would have voted for it.

3) Since when do the duly elected - actually standing on Republican planks to empower the people and build a great nation via government shrinkage (Is that what Todd calls it?)- deserve to get clobbered by RINOs, liberals and neophyte public servants all at once, without Conservatives and Independents stiffening the spine and proclaiming we've got their back? Freedom Caucus members need to hear it. Especially those who since the Trump Movement roared across the country realized we're dead serious about D.C. fulfilling campaign promises to create a smaller, smarter government to salvage our sovereignty and solvency. ("Smarter?" Has she seen the intellectual lightweights this man has appointed to his cabinet? Oh I forgot, that IS her peer group.) I'll bet they hear loud and clear we'd suffer under TPP, blown up debt ceilings, bogus "stimulus" packages full new government entitlements created by politicians picking winners and losers in our fragile economy, and other boondoggles they may have previously been conjoled (Not a word.) into supporting under GOPe leadership. (Okay is she not aware that Trump has his own "stimulus package" coming in the form of  a trillion dollar infrastructure package? I mean it will likely fail, but that is still his plan. So is she encouraging them to block that plan?)

4) Interesting the Freedom Caucus is hammered for previously going along with Big Government types acting as Congressional leadership. Well, so did everyone else in their ranks! Lesson learned. I'm sure they now realize Speaker Paul Ryan - who's only adult life experience is growing government - does not speak for pro-private sector freedom-loving Americans. (Look I am all for piling on Paul Ryan, but he was only doing Trump's bidding with that healthcare plan. Whether Palin wants to admit it or not.)

Now, get it together, GOP. We didn't spill our blood, sweat and tears building tracks for the Trump Train to lead to a land of disarray and democrat empowerment. (Oh come on! That was where it was headed before it even left the station.) Those of us who spent our political capital to usher in positive change - losing jobs and friends along the route - will use obstruction as fuel to barrel through the next election too, ensuring even more D.C. shake-up. (So to be clear, even though HER president is now in the White House, and the Republicans are in charge of both the House and the Senate, Palin continues to encourage her supporters to work as obstructionists and to undermine government efforts at every step. Good to know.)

- Sarah Palin

It looks as if Palin is taking a page out of the Jeanine Pirro playbook and attempting to excuse Donald Trump, as well as the artist formerly known as the Tea Party, of any wrong doing while laying all of the blame on Paul Ryan whose job is only slightly less enviable than Sean Spicer's.

However defending BOTH the Freedom Caucus AND her orange tinted boyfriend is going to prove increasingly difficult if Trump keeps tweeting things like this:

The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 30, 2017

I see a very explosive head on crash coming in the near future.

I wonder if Palin will become a casualty of that, or if she will jump off the Trump train before it happens?