Agree Agree:  995
Likes Likes:  727
Page 335 of 335 FirstFirst ... 85235285310325331332333334335
Results 5,011 to 5,024 of 5024
  1. #5011

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    I really can't find a joke to counter yours because... you are joking? Right?
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  2. #5012
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    South Central PA
    Blog Entries

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Quote Originally Posted by ponchi101 View Post
    I really can't find a joke to counter yours because... you are joking? Right?
    A tiny bit.
    Winston, a.k.a. Alvena Rae Risley Hiatt (1944-2019), RIP

  3. #5013

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Quote Originally Posted by dryrunguy View Post
    A tiny bit.
    Pun intended I suppose...
    Meet again we do, old foe...

  4. #5014

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Trump Pushed CIA to Give Intelligence to Kremlin, While Taking No Action Against Russia Arming Taliban

    by Ryan Goodman
    July 8, 2020

    Why would the Russian government think it could get away with paying bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers? One answer to that question may be the extraordinary response that Moscow received when the Trump administration learned of a precursor to the bounty operation. From mid-2017 and into 2018, Pentagon officials became increasingly confident in intelligence reports that the Kremlin was arming the Taliban, which posed a significant threat to American and coalition forces on the ground in Afghanistan.

    Trump’s actions in the face of the Russia-Taliban arms program likely signaled a weak US resolve in the eyes of Putin and Russian military intelligence.

    Three dimensions of Trump’s response are described in detail in this article, relying on several former Trump administration officials who spoke to Just Security on the record.

    First, President Trump decided not to confront Putin about supplying arms to the terrorist group. Second, during the very times in which U.S. military officials publicly raised concerns about the program’s threat to US forces, Trump undercut them. He embraced Putin, overtly and repeatedly, including at the historic summit in Helsinki. Third, behind the scenes, Trump directed the CIA to share intelligence information on counterterrorism with the Kremlin despite no discernible reward, former intelligence officials who served in the Trump administration told Just Security.

    Most of these officials emphasized, as a caution, the significant qualitative difference between arming the Taliban and paying bounties to kill American service members—a massive escalation. Unlike bounties, the Russian-Taliban arms program could also be potentially explained, or plausibly denied, by Moscow as an effort to assist the Taliban’s fight against the common enemy of ISIS. That said, the arms also reportedly became increasingly sophisticated in what appears to provide the Taliban an edge against NATO and Afghan government forces.

    The failure to push back on the weapons program signaled to Putin that he could press further, said Michael Carpenter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense with responsibility for Russia in the Obama administration. “When Western powers fail to push back, the Kremlin keeps prodding and probing — until it meets resistance, or until the costs for President Putin and his regime exceed the perceived benefits,” Carpenter wrote in Just Security on Friday.

    What we now know is that President Trump not only failed to push back against Russia’s arming the terrorist group. That extraordinary act of omission was coupled with the president’s effort to push the CIA to cooperate with Russia by providing U.S. intelligence to the Kremlin on counterterrorism operations despite getting nothing in return, according to former officials.

    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.

  5. #5015

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Trump Pushed CIA to Give Intelligence to Kremlin, While Taking No Action Against Russia Arming Taliban P2

    A. Top Military Officials Sounds the Alarm

    President Trump has denied being informed of U.S. intelligence reports on the Russian bounty operation, but the same can’t be so easily claimed about the Russian weapons to the Taliban. Over the course of 2017 and 2018, senior military officials began speaking openly, in media interviews and before Congress, about their increasing confidence in the intelligence picture of the Russian arms and the significant concerns it raised for U.S. and Coalition troops.

    The following Timeline shows the series of public statements by senior military officials about the Kremlin’s provision of weapons to the Taliban.


    Feb. 9, 2017: Gen. John Nicholson, Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan and NATO’s Resolute Support Mission, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee made headlines by drawing attention to Russian efforts to support the Taliban; over the following months, senior military officials would specifically identify the problem of Russian provision of weapons to the Taliban

    Note on President Trump: On Feb. 16, 2017 President Trump says in a press conference, “by the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia;” “If we could get along with Russia, that’s a positive thing. We have a very talented man, Rex Tillerson, who is going to be meeting with them shortly. And I told him, I said, I know politically it’s probably not good for me;” “if we could get along, it would be a positive thing, not a negative thing.”

    March 23, 2017: Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, Commander, U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee raises the Russian arms issue

    March 29, 2017: Gen. Joseph L. Votel, Commander, U.S. Central Command in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee raises the Russian arms issue

    April 24, 2017: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Gen. John Nicholson, Commander, Resolute Support and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, in a press conference held in Afghanistan raise the Russian arms issue

    Note on President Trump: On May 10, 2017, Trump meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the Oval Office, where the President reportedly passes highly classified information to the two Russian officials

    Note on President Trump: On May 25, 2017, in Europe, Trump chastises NATO leaders for their “chronic underpayments” to the alliance and fails to reaffirm U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter for collective self-defense in a speech; the omission surprises Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and National Security Advisor McMaster, who endeavored to include language supporting Article 5 in Trump’s remarks prior to the summit, Politico reports

    Note on President Trump: On July 9, 2017: Upon returning from his first face-to-face meeting with Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, Trump tweets, “Now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia!”

    Note on President Trump: July 19, 2017: US officials announce that Trump has decided to end a program to arm Syrian rebels. An anonymous current official tells the Washington Post, “This is a momentous decision. … Putin won in Syria.” A former White House official tells the Post, “People began thinking about ending the program, but it was not something you’d do for free.” “To give [the program] away without getting anything in return would be foolish.” These statements are even more relevant in consideration of Russia’s arming of the Taliban at the time.

    Sept. 28, 2017: Sec. Mattis in a joint press conference with Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg raises the Russian arms issue

    Note on President Trump: On Jan. 29, 2018: The White House announces it will not impose new sanctions on Russia

    March 23, 2018: Gen. John Nicholson, Commander, Resolute Support and U.S. Forces Afghanistan in an interview with the BBC raises the Russian arms issue

    Note on President Trump: On July 5, 2018: President Trump says at a political rally, “I might even end up having a good relationship, but they’re going, ‘Will President Trump be prepared? You know, President Putin is KGB and this and that.’ You know what? Putin’s fine. He’s fine.”

    Note on President Trump: On July 16, 2018, in a very friendly summit between the two leaders at Helsinki, President Trump publicly sides with President Putin over the U.S. intelligence community on the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections
    On Sept. 1, 2018, Gen. Nicholson told the Voice of America, “We know that Russia is attempting to undercut our military gains and years of military progress in Afghanistan, and make partners question Afghanistan’s stability.” A few days later, he steps down, as scheduled, after serving in the position for over two years. Mattis resigns that December over sharp policy differences with the president.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.

  6. #5016

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Trump Pushed CIA to Give Intelligence to Kremlin, While Taking No Action Against Russia Arming Taliban P3

    B. President Trump’s Noticeable Silence

    Absent from those public statements by top military officials were similar public statements or public protestations by President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, or Mattis’s successors. “Nicholson’s 2018 interview was a rare public protest by a U.S. official. Trump didn’t press the Russians to stop, and so they continued,” wrote the Washington Post’s David Ignatius last week.

    Peter Bergen observed a similar discrepancy between Nicholson’s BBC interview and President Trump’s disposition toward Putin, in Bergen’s 2019 book, Trump and His Generals: The Cost of Chaos.

    If anything, there was reason for administration officials to intensify their public opposition to Russian military support for the Taliban, not quiet themselves. That’s in part because the Kremlin’s support became more sophisticated and a greater threat to US, NATO, and Afghan forces, Carpenter told me. In an email, he said:

    The type of equipment the Russians transferred to the Taliban also shows how the Kremlin was becoming increasingly confrontational over time. At first, the Russians were mostly providing excess AK-47s, weapons that are found in almost every major global conflict. More recently, however, they also started transferring night-vision equipment, which is both in shorter supply in Russia but also specifically intended to equalize the gap between NATO forces and the Taliban. Throughout the conflict in Afghanistan, U.S. special forces have always “owned the night.” The Russians wanted to change that to the detriment of the U.S. and its NATO allies.
    At a press conference this past Wednesday, July 1, Pompeo suggested that he repeatedly confronted his Russian counterparts about the arms program, even though the reporter had not asked about that program. The reporter posed a question about the bounties:

    On this bounty issue, you had some conversations with senior Russian officials after your aides were told about evidence of the Russian bounties. Did you use those opportunities to tell Moscow not to endanger U.S. troops in that manner?
    In his response, Pompeo raised the arms program:

    We took this seriously; we handle it appropriately. The Russians have been selling small arms that have put Americans at risk there for 10 years. We have objected to it. To your point, when I meet with my Russian counterparts, I talk with them about this each time: “Stop this.” … So yes, maybe not every time, but with great frequency, when I speak to my Russian counterparts we talk about Afghanistan. We talk about the fact that we don’t want them engaged in this.
    In his reply, Pompeo had made one of the strongest statements to date of the administration’s confidence in the intelligence assessment of the Russian-Taliban arms program and its threat to US forces. (See also Pompeo’s reiterating those claims later the same day in a Fox News interview.)

    But Pompeo’s claim to have “handle[d] it appropriately” and to have raised the arms supplies with his Russian counterparts, presumably including Foreign Minister Lavrov, is dubious.

    “To my knowledge, this was never raised with Putin by Trump or any other senior officials, nor am I aware of any specific high-level pushes for this to be raised with senior Russian officials,” a former senior Trump administration official told Just Security.

    Nonetheless, it can’t be completely ruled out that Pompeo raised the issue, for example, in one-on-one meetings. But how much would that matter without President Trump’s taking action including in his public statements about Russia and engagements with Putin?

    In speaking about both the Kremlin’s arms and bounty programs, Brett McGurk, who served as Special Presidential Envoy until December 2018, told me, “Both should have been flagged and raised in Trump’s frequent engagements with Putin. It’s even worse if Pompeo was raising the arming issue with Lavrov (as he claims) or Khalilzad with his counterpart, but Trump never raised the issue with Putin. That makes whatever Pompeo may have said irrelevant, as the Russians dismiss anything Americans officials say if not backed from the top.”

    I asked Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former senior CIA official with expertise on Russia and counterterrorism, how the President’s inaction in this policy space would affect any similar efforts on the part of senior intelligence officials to raise concerns with their Russian counterparts. “Given Trump’s permissive relationship with Putin, and his generally skeptical attitude concerning US intelligence, Russian special services would feel more inclined to ignore any US demands for action if they doubted the president’s resolve to back up the US intelligence community,” Mowatt-Larssen told me.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.

  7. #5017

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Trump Pushed CIA to Give Intelligence to Kremlin, While Taking No Action Against Russia Arming Taliban P4

    C. Trump Pushes CIA to Share Intelligence with Russia

    At the same time that senior US military officials were publicly expressing concerns that Russia was arming the Taliban’s terrorist activities that threatened U.S. personnel, President Trump was pushing the CIA to share counterterrorism intelligence information with the Kremlin.

    In the first weeks of the administration, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn tried to push the Defense Department to engage in cooperation with Russia, but the Pentagon and Centcom opposed his efforts, the Daily Beast’s Spencer Ackerman reported. He was not the first to consider such an idea. Secretary of State John Kerry floated the concept of cooperation with Russia against terrorist groups in Syrian during the final year of the Obama administration, but was rejected by Defense Secretary Ash Carter and other parts of the administration. Like Kerry, Flynn ran into a roadblock: a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act strictly prohibits “bilateral military-to-military cooperation” between the United States and Russia, unless the Secretary of Defense issues a waiver and notifies Congress. Mattis reportedly refused to issue a waiver.

    [For more on that statute, see former Department of Defense Acting General Counsel Robert S. Taylor’s analysis and my earlier coverage at Just Security in 2018.]

    But there’s no analogous statute barring cooperation by the CIA.

    That’s where the White House succeeded in pushing the CIA to cooperate with Russia despite analysts determining the Kremlin would provide nothing in return, two former CIA officials who served in the Trump administration told me.

    “There was a consistent push for CT cooperation with Moscow, coming from the White House, despite near universal belief within the IC that this effort would be one sided and end up being a waste of time and energy,” said Marc Polymeropoulos, who retired in mid-2019 from the Senior Intelligence Service at the CIA.

    “To be fair, every administration wants a reset with Moscow, and thus the IC dutifully attempted to engage with the Russian government on CT matters,” he added in discussing the Trump policy. “Bottom line, we tried, as this was the guidance from policy makers. There was no ‘deep state push back,’ there was no stalling, there was a concerted effort to work with the Russians.”

    Douglas London, a CIA Senior Operations Officer who retired at the end of 2018, told me that “despite increasing reflections of Russian material support to the Taliban raised publicly by Defense Secretary James Mattis in 2017 and throughout 2018 by General John Nicholson, President Trump pressured CIA to invest time and resources increasing counterterrorist cooperation with Russia.”

    Prior administrations had also considered counterterrorism cooperation with Russia but learned the lesson that it was a one-way street on “cooperation.” In testimony before the Congressional Helsinki Commission, Carpenter gave the example of attempted cooperation around the Sochi Olympics. “We discovered that our chief interlocutor was not a counterterrorism expert but rather a counter-intelligence official, bluntly demonstrating Moscow’s chief priority lay in collecting intelligence on foreigners rather than sharing information on terrorist threats,” the former deputy assistant secretary of defense said.

    Polymeropoulos who was personally involved in making a trip to Moscow in late 2017 to advance the cooperation policy told me of a similar conclusion to the effort. “As we anticipated, however, it was a sisyphean task. We ended up only giving information, and not receiving anything worthwhile. I cannot think of anything of value that the Russians provided us, that saved any US lives, or was worth even the time it took to pick up the phone to set up the meetings.”

    “It was always the same line from downtown, even when failure was so evident and so obvious–keep engaging on CT.” Polymeropoulos said. “This myth that Russians could be a good CT partner—that former National Security Advisor Flynn first perpetuated and then became the cornerstone of this farcical engagement strategy–was by 2019 met with near total derision and eye rolling in the IC.”

    “The direction [from President Trump] came despite assessments that Russia was not being forthcoming,” London said. “Failing to reciprocate U.S. willingness and share information on what ostensibly represented threats from common adversaries such as al-Qa’ida and ISIS, Russian counterparts used counterterrorism engagements to further counterintelligence.”

    Before entering the administration, Pompeo himself had expressed contempt for the idea of cooperating with the Russians on counterterrorism. Asked to comment on Secretary Kerry’s proposal in October 2016, then-Congressman Pompeo was nothing short of scathing, “For the United States to share intelligence in a way that they hope we can keep sources and methods secure is foolish. … a dumb idea … such an awful idea … I hope that the silliness of Secretary Kerry on this issue will never come to fruition. It would be bad … for America.”

    Pompeo served as CIA Director during the program described by Polymeropoulos and London. He left the CIA for the State Department in late April 2018.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.

  8. #5018

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Trump Pushed CIA to Give Intelligence to Kremlin, While Taking No Action Against Russia Arming Taliban P5

    D. Protections of US Personnel on the Ground: Getting Priorities Straight

    The heart of the criticism of President Trump’s handling of Russian bounty intelligence reports has been his lack of action toward Moscow to safeguard American troops threatened by Russia’s aggression. Trump’s lack of response to the Russian arms to the Taliban may have helped pave the way to the increasingly audacious acts by Putin against U.S. forces. Was it a case of the President Trump making tradeoffs in his relationship with Putin?

    “The operators on the ground are always victims of this strategic chess game,” Polymeropoulos said.

    Polymeropoulos advised putting it in the context of Pakistan’s support for the Taliban and the failure of administrations’ to push back adequately with Islamabad. “Pakistan is far more complicit, Russians did it but not to the level of the Pakistanis, until the bounty issue. The bounty issue takes this to another level perhaps putting Russia now in the category of Pakistan, as a state sponsor of terrorism, in my view.”

    Bipartisan legislation in the Senate, co-sponsored by Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Sen. Robert Menendez, (D-NJ) and passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in December, would place pressure on the State Department to designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. Politico reported, in the wake of revelations about Russia’s bounty operation, that Gardner has renewed his push for the legislation with Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) voicing support in recent days.

    I also communicated with Ambassador Todd Buchwald who retired from the State Department in July 2017, after serving across five Republican and Democratic administrations. As the Special Coordinator for the Department’s Office of Global Criminal Justice since 2015, one of Buchwald’s areas of expertise is the International Criminal Court’s investigation of US forces in Afghanistan.

    Buchwald compared President Trump’s response to the Russian arms and bounty programs to the administration’s most recent actions toward the ICC. He provided a comment by email:

    This episode just underscores how hard it is to figure out how the Administration decides what are and what are not our urgent national priorities – the situations in which it is appropriate for the President to invoke the extraordinary authorities that Congress long ago entrusted to Presidents upon a “declaration of national emergency.” Look at the administration’s reactions to two threats: the potential for an ICC case alleging U.S. detainee abuse in Afghanistan, and Russian support for the actual slaughter of U.S. service members there.

    Just three weeks ago, the President asserted his “steadfast commitment to protecting American service members and defending our national sovereignty” as his basis for his Executive Order imposing sanctions against the International Criminal Court. There are lots of different views about the Court but in fact it has never — in its history – actually convicted, or even prosecuted, the acts of a service member of the standing military of any state, much less a state as strong — and as committed to the rule of law — as the United States. Meanwhile, the Russians have — since the early days of the Administration (see here and here) — been smuggling secret weapons to our battlefield adversaries, intent on conducting actual deadly attacks on those service members; and then, following the President’s lack of objection, appear to have breathtakingly upped the ante by offering bounties for killing American troops.

    It is fair to ask: which of the two – the ICC or the Russians – actually imperils our troops in Afghanistan?; and which — in the words of the President’s Executive Order — actually constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security?
    On Thursday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing titled, “Russian Bounties on U.S. Troops: Why Hasn’t the Administration Responded?” The witnesses include Gen. Nicholson and former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell.

    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.

  9. #5019

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Having just read this whole mess, I come back to where I've felt for weeks now: Trump has done so many horrible things in the past few weeks (not to mention the last 3 1/2 years of course) that I still favor impeaching him again. Make every Congressman have to record a vote on this, then make every Senator record a vote on conviction. I still feel every Democrat in the country facing an incumbent Republican would like to have that information when campaigning. I'm beginning to think this could even be of benefit in the fairly red states (like Kentucky and South Carolina). One big thing this go round should be the possibility of his actions endangering the troops. At least when it is politically expedient for them, Republicans want to "Support our Troops" pretty aggressively.

    I know he wouldn't be convicted. But I would love for all those votes to be recorded. (and I also know it's not going to happen)


  10. #5020

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    The thuggery of Billy Barr, meeting Berman in a hotel room and calling him on a non-official cell phone, is notable.

    Clandestine meeting in a hotel room and a call from a burner phone. Nice.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.

  11. #5021

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Supreme Court says Manhattan prosecutor may pursue Trump’s financial records, denies Congress access for now

    Robert Barnes
    July 9, 2020 at 1:15 p.m. EDT

    The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Trump’s assertion that he enjoys absolute immunity from investigation while in office, allowing a New York prosecutor to pursue a subpoena of the president’s private and business financial records.

    In a separate case, the court sent a fight over congressional subpoenas for the material back to lower courts because of “significant separation of powers concerns.” Since both cases involve more work at the lower level, it seems unlikely the records would be available to the public before the election.

    Combined, the decisions offer the court’s most detailed examination of presidential power and congressional authority in decades, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority in both 7-to-2 decisions. The court seemed to avoid some tough questions in an attempt to achieve greater agreement.

    All members of the court rejected a sweeping claim of immunity promoted by the president and his lawyers.

    “In our judicial system, ‘the public has a right to every man’s evidence,’ ” Roberts wrote in the New York case, citing an ancient maxim. “Since the earliest days of the Republic, ‘every man’ has included the President of the United States.”

    Trump nominees Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed with the outcomes of the cases. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.

    Trump reacted angrily, and inaccurately, on Twitter: “Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference’. BUT NOT ME!”

    Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said in a statement: “This is a tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice and its founding principle that no one — not even a president — is above the law. Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury’s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead.”

    The president’s lawyer Jay Sekulow said in a statement, “We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the President’s tax records. We will now proceed to raise additional constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.”

    The majority said that while Trump could not avoid a subpoena, he could challenge the specifics of it. And Kavanaugh and Gorsuch emphasized that in their concurring opinion, noting the court “unanimously agrees that this case should be remanded to the District Court, where the President may raise constitutional and legal objections to the subpoena as appropriate.”

    In the congressional case, the court tried to strike a balance between the chief executive and Congress, while lamenting that in the past, such conflicts were most often worked out between the political branches.

    The court reinforced Congress’s broad investigative power, but said it is not limitless and must be more targeted when it comes to subpoenas for a president’s personal information.

    Without limits, the court warned, “Congress could declare open season on the President’s information held by schools, archives, internet service providers, e-mail clients, and financial institutions.”

    The majority came up with a new four-part test for courts to analyze the validity of subpoenas aimed at the president.

    The court said Congress cannot seek the president’s information as part of a case study for general legislation if other sources are available. Lawmakers also must narrow their requests and detail how the president’s information will advance possible legislation.

    But even with the restrictions, the court rejected the administration’s view of how limited Congress’s inquiries may be.

    “The standards proposed by the President and the Solicitor General — if applied outside the context of privileged information — would risk seriously impeding Congress in carrying out its responsibilities,” the court said.

    House Democrats called the decision a win, but one with a cost.

    “While defeated on his claim that he’s above the law, Trump is now beyond the law until after November,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which requested Trump’s tax returns. “He may not be able to outrun the law, but he’s outrunning the clock.”

    Vance is investigating whether the Trump Organization falsified business records to conceal hush payments to two women — including pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels — who alleged they had affairs with Trump years ago. Trump has denied those claims.

    Vance is seeking Trump’s tax returns, among other records. Trump, unlike previous modern presidents, has refused to make them public. Because the records are for a grand jury investigation, they probably would not be disclosed before the election.

    Separately, three House committees have sought to bypass the president to obtain his financial records from his longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, and financial institutions. The committees, all controlled by Democrats, say they are needed to check Trump’s financial disclosures and inform whether conflict-of-interest laws are tough enough.

    Lawmakers’ line of investigation is more expansive than the district attorney’s. They have demanded information “about seven business entities, as well as the personal accounts of President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump,” according to the brief filed by the president’s private lawyers.

    The congressional subpoenas followed testimony from Trump’s former fixer, attorney Michael Cohen, who told lawmakers that Trump had exaggerated his wealth to seek loans. Two committees subpoenaed Capital One and Deutsche Bank as part of their investigation into Russian money laundering and potential foreign influence involving Trump.

    Federal judges in New York and the District of Columbia — at the district court and appeals court levels — had moved swiftly by court standards and repeatedly ruled against Trump and to uphold Congress’s broad investigative powers.

    Ann E. Marimow contributed to this story.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.

  12. #5022

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Jackie Speier @RepSpeier

    If anyone has any doubt Trump has something to hide – Russian masters, cooked books, profiting from the presidency & pandemic? – all they need to do is look at his unhinged response to today’s #SCOTUS rulings. The truth WILL eventually come out & he knows it. #TrumpMeltdown

    More projection. More telling on himself.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.

  13. #5023

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    You know what? He still does not get to show them.
    Pyrrhic Victory. BFD.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  14. #5024

    Re: A Chronicle of our Descent to Hades

    Tom Winter @Tom_Winter

    BREAKING / NBC News: Michael Cohen has been remanded back into the custody of federal authorities and will be sent back to jail.

    This comes after pictures were taken of Cohen at a Manhattan restaurant outside of his residence this weekend. NBC's Adam Reiss reports.

    Michael Cohen wasn't on probation, wasn't on house arrest, he was a prisoner who was allowed, because of COVID-19, to serve the remainder of his sentence at home.

    He willfully went to Manhattan restaurants and tweeted, all things a prisoner can't do. He can only blame himself.

    STORY: Law enforcement officials said Cohen refused to sign documents prohibiting him from interacting with the media or writing a book.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.

Page 335 of 335 FirstFirst ... 85235285310325331332333334335


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts