|
FOCUS: The Mueller Questions Map Out Cultivation, a Quid Pro Quo, and a Cover-Up (Part One, Cultivation) |
|
|
Thursday, 03 May 2018 11:05 |
|
Wheeler writes: "I am going to do my own version of the questions, as released by the NYT."
Robert Mueller. (photo: Getty)

The Mueller Questions Map Out Cultivation, a Quid Pro Quo, and a Cover-Up (Part One, Cultivation)
By Marcy Wheeler, Emptywheel
03 May 18
wasn't going to do this originally, but upon learning that the Mueller questions, as NYT has presented them, don’t maintain the sixteen subjects or even the 49 questions that Jay Sekulow drew up from those 16 areas of interest, and especially after WaPo continues to claim that Mueller is only investigating “whether Trump obstructed justice and sought to thwart a criminal probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election,” I am going to do my own version of the questions, as released by the NYT.
I’m not pretending that this better represents what Mueller has communicated to Sekulow, nor am I suggesting NYT’s version isn’t valid. But the questions provide an opportunity to lay out a cultivation, quid pro quo, and cover-up structure I’ve been using to frame the investigation in my own mind.
This post lays out the “cultivation” questions Mueller wants to pose.
The cultivation
The questions start well before the election, focusing on both Trump’s persistent interest in building a Trump Tower in Moscow, the cultivation of Trump by the Agalarov camp, and Trump’s interest in becoming best friends with Vladimir Putin. The questions may also include other real estate deals that would be less obviously tied to Russia, but possibly just as compromising. It’s worth remembering, Trump probably didn’t expect he’d win. So the Trump Tower offers were a prize that would be available (and easier to take advantage of) based on the assumption he’d lose.
November 9, 2013: During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?
On November 9, 2013, the Agalorovs helped Trump put on Miss Universe in Moscow; Trump Tower meeting attendees Rob Goldstone and Ike Kaveladze were both also involved. If the pee tape — or any kompromat involving “golden showers,” as Jim Comey claims Trump called it — exists, it was made on November 8, 2013.
Leading up to the event, Trump talked about meeting Putin and “will he become my new best friend?,” but that reportedly did not happen. But he did meet a bunch of other oligarchs. In the aftermath of the event, the Agalorovs floated building a Trump Tower in one of their developments.
November 2, 2015 to November, 2016: What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?
On November 3, 2015, at a time when Trump’s campaign was experiencing remarkable success, and well after (per the Internet Research Agency indictment) the election year operation had started, Felix Sater approached Michael Cohen to pitch yet another Trump Tower in Moscow deal. He tied the deal explicitly to getting Trump elected.
Michael I arranged for Ivanka to sit in Putins [sic] private chair at his desk and office in the Kremlin. I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected. We both know no one else knows how to pull this off without stupidity or greed getting in the way. I know how to play it and we will get this done. Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get Putins [sic] team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.
Remember: Mueller’s subpoena to Sam Nunberg goes back to November 1, 2015, suggesting this is the timeframe he’s thinking explicitly about.
The initial public story about the deal — which Cohen tried to squelch before his congressional interviews — claimed that the deal fizzled out in January 2016. More recent reporting has revealed that one of the people involved in this deal has ties to GRU, the Russian intelligence organization behind the hack-and-leak, and that Cohen pursued it at least as late as June, 2016.
Around that time (possibly on July 22, with the involvement of Ivan Timofeev, who was involved in offering up emails), Sergei Millian — who had brokered Trump business with Russians in the past — started cultivating George Papadopoulos. After the election, Millian pitched that the two of them should do a Trump Tower deal.
The Trump Tower offers are only the most obvious election-related deal Mueller might be interested in. In October 2016, for example, Cypriot businessman Orestes Fintiklis obtained a majority stake in the troubled Trump Panama development, which he has since taken over (possibly along with a bunch of papers showing the money laundering Ivanka did to fill the building). And all that’s before you consider any deals Jared was pitching.

|
|
What Robert Mueller Knows |
|
|
Thursday, 03 May 2018 08:52 |
|
Excerpt: "The 49 questions that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, hopes to ask President Trump as part of the yearlong Russia investigation suggest that Mr. Mueller knows a great deal more than he's letting on - and he hasn't even gotten to the follow-ups yet."
Special counsel Robert Mueller. (photo: Getty)

What Robert Mueller Knows
By NY Times Editorial Board
03 May 18
he 49 questions that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, hopes to ask President Trump as part of the yearlong Russia investigation suggest that Mr. Mueller knows a great deal more than he’s letting on — and he hasn’t even gotten to the follow-ups yet.
After the questions, which were published by The Times on Monday, were provided to Mr. Trump’s legal team in March, John Dowd, the president’s lead personal lawyer at the time, urged him to avoid sitting for an interview with Mr. Mueller. When Mr. Trump said he intended to anyway, Mr. Dowd resigned.
Reading through the list, it’s clear why Mr. Dowd was so concerned. Federal investigators don’t like being lied to, and Mr. Trump has a marked tendency to say things that aren’t true. If he agrees to speak with Mr. Mueller’s team, he will have to answer some very basic questions about what he knew, when he knew it and what motivated some of his most shocking and inexplicable actions over the past year.
READ MORE

|
|
|
The Democratic Base Overwhelmingly Supports Progressive Positions. It's Time the Party Started Paying Attention |
|
|
Thursday, 03 May 2018 08:41 |
|
Excerpt: "Maybe Democrats will win the House in 2018, and even the Senate and presidency in 2020, without shifting to the left. However, public opinion suggests there is plenty of space for the party to move in a more progressive direction."
Former Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., takes the stage during the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Monday, July 25, 2016. (photo: John Locher/AP)

The Democratic Base Overwhelmingly Supports Progressive Positions. It's Time the Party Started Paying Attention
By Sean McElwee and and Colin McAuliffe, Vice
03 May 18
The Democratic base overwhelmingly supports progressive positions. It's time for the party to pay attention.
olitical parties are perpetually wrestling with a fundamental dilemma: tack toward the proverbial “middle” and seek common ground with their opponents, or shift aggressively to the political pole and feed the base? This debate has long animated the American left, never more obviously than during the 2016 presidential primary, when the two sides were personified in Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Two years later, individual Democratic candidates all over the country are wrestling with that question, and their decisions will dramatically shape the rhetorical and policy choices of progressives moving forward into 2018 and 2020—when hopefully the Trump era will come to an end. The question is, what will replace it?
Our new Data for Progress report, commissioned by the progressive PAC Justice Democrats, uses data to make the case that it the Democratic Party does not need to move toward the mythical center of plutocratic and white-resentment politics. At the heart of our analysis is a novel crossing of public opinion research with an analysis of actual roll call voting. The result is stark: On issues from racial justice to economic equality, Democratic primary voters are increasingly united around progressive policies, and those who represent them (or aspire to), would do well to act and vote accordingly.
To begin, we analyzed the preferences of Democratic base, finding increasing support of progressive politics rather than centrism. One metric: The share of white Democrats who believe that racial inequality is caused by a “lack of willpower” among black people has declined dramatically and more white Democrats accept that racial inequality is due to discrimination, according to the General Social Survey. In 2008, 48 percent of white Democrats said “lack of willpower” explained racial inequality, and 37 percent said “discrimination.” Less than a decade later, in 2016, 34 percent said willpower and 48 percent discrimination.

Or to take another measure of progressivism, even though many Democratic politicians recently voted to gut regulations on big banks, the Democratic base supports more aggressive regulation on banks, as well as additional action to take on inequality. According to the 2016 American National Election Studies survey, 92 percent of Democratic primary voters support more government regulation of banks, 80 percent say the government should reduce inequality, and 86 percent say the government should guarantee healthcare.
The days when Democrats like Jim Webb could call affirmative action “state-sponsored racism” (as he did in 2000) are long gone. Even since the 2008 election, Democrats have moved to the left on racial justice and economic inequality. That means that a “pivot to the center” carries far bigger risks than it did just a few years ago, and could easily alienate Democratic voters.
Our think tank Data for Progress used data from the Pew Research Center and Kaiser Family Foundation to model state-level support for Medicare for all and a $15 minimum wage. We also analyzed support for the Hyde Amendment (which bans federal funding for abortion) and regulating CO2 and ending mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes modeled by political scientist Christopher Skovron using Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) data. These policies have all been the subject of intra-Democratic Party debates, with progressives demanding the party stand up for their values and party elites claiming that doing so would risk electoral backlash.
For both the minimum wage and Medicare for all, we were able to compare our estimates to actual Senate legislation. The chart below shows that both policies have support in a wide range of states. Seventy-six percent of Democratic senators represent states where modeled support for a $15 minimum wage is greater than 55 percent. But only 61 percent of those senators support a $15 minimum wage. Sixty-seven percent of Democrats in the Senate represent states where modeled support for Medicare for all is greater than 55 percent, but only 33 percent of Senate Democrats support Medicare for all. Despite the fact that 86 percent of Democratic senators represent states with 55 percent support for repealing the Hyde Amendment, we couldn’t find any Senate legislation that has been introduced to repeal Hyde. And despite the fact that every Democratic senator represents a state where support for regulating CO2 is 55 percent or greater, only five senators currently support transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. Finally, though every Democratic senator represents a state where support for ending mandatory minimums for nonviolent crimes is 55 percent or greater, the only legislation on the issue is a bipartisan bill that only slightly curbs mandatory minimums.

We find similar patterns in the House: 92 percent of Democrats in the House represent districts where modeled support for repealing the Hyde Amendment is greater than 55 percent, but only 70 percent of House Democrats support repealing the Hyde Amendment. That is, while Republicans have elected radical right-wing politicians in deep red states (or even purple states like Florida and Nevada), many solidly blue states are represented by Democrats who are centrist.
One reason that Democrats feel they have very little space to move low is that persistently low voter turnout in the US means that the voting population is to the right of the general public. That means the path forward for Democrats needs to include mobilizing marginal voters, individuals who drift in and out of the electorate. These voters are overwhelmingly more supportive of progressive policies than individuals who consistently vote. According to Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) 2016 data, individuals who voted for Barack Obama but stayed home in 2016 preferred Democratic candidates in the House 83 percent to 14 percent (the rest preferred a third-party candidate). Ninety-one percent of those nonvoters support increasing the minimum wage to $12, 72 percent believe white people have advantages, 76 percent support a renewable fuel mandate, and 82 percent support an assault weapons ban.

Maybe Democrats will win the House in 2018, and even the Senate and presidency in 2020, without shifting to the left. However, public opinion suggests there is plenty of space for the party to move in a more progressive direction. If Democrats don’t go to where the base is sooner or later, the Democratic Party won’t find a new constituency—the constituency will find some new politicians.

|
|
Trump Deletes Nine Tweets While Attempting to Spell "Subpoena" |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 02 May 2018 13:49 |
|
Borowitz writes: "Donald J. Trump deleted nine tweets early Wednesday morning in a failed attempt to spell the word 'subpoena,' a White House source confirmed."
President Trump.
(photo: Allen Eyestone/Zuma Press)

Trump Deletes Nine Tweets While Attempting to Spell "Subpoena"
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
02 May 18
The article below is
satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York
Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The
Borowitz Report." 
onald J.
Trump deleted nine tweets early Wednesday morning in a failed attempt to
spell the word “subpoena,” a White House source confirmed.
According to the source, Trump spent more than an hour
angrily trying to spell the legal term before giving up in disgust.
“I’ve never seen him so enraged,” the source said. “He
hates the word ‘subpoena’ more than the E.P.A. hates the words ‘climate’
and ‘change.’ ”
Having been flummoxed in the past while trying to
spell such words as “heel” and “tap,” Trump now believes that the word
“subpoena” is “out to get him,” the source said.
Speaking to reporters later in the morning, Trump
called the word “subpoena” “disgraceful” and said that it had treated
him “very unfairly,” but stopped short of threatening to fire it from
the dictionary.

|
|