Tag: Mueller investigation

Poll: Nearly half still think Trump obstructed Russian probe

The special counsel’s report may have concluded there was no conspiracy or coordination between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign, but a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows the political fog around the president remains.

The poll shows a plurality of voters, 47 percent, think Trump “tried to impede or obstruct the investigation into whether his campaign had ties to Russia” — despite the fact that Special Counsel Robert Mueller didn’t reach a decision on the question. Thirty-nine percent don’t think Trump tried to impede the investigation, and 14 percent don’t know or had no opinion about whether Trump tried to obstruct the investigation.

Following the release of the report’s summary, the president is not riding a new wave of popularity. His approval rating in the poll remains underwater — 42 percent approve of the job he is doing, compared to 55 percent of voters who disapprove of the job he is doing — which is essentially unchanged over the past few weeks. And when asked whether Attorney General WIlliam Barr’s letter summarizing the report changed their opinions of Trump, voters fell predictably along partisan lines.

View the complete March 26 article by Steven Shepard on the Politico website here.

Trump plots post-Mueller payback

President Trump and his allies on Monday sought to exact political revenge on congressional Democrats and the news media, seizing momentum generated by the end of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The clear signal from Team Trump is that they think they can go on offense by using Mueller’s findings to jam Democrats and juice Trump’s base in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential race.

A summary of the special counsel’s conclusions released Sunday by Attorney General William Barr said that Mueller had not found enough evidence to prove a conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Moscow. The special counsel did not make a determination on if the president had obstructed justice.

View the complete March 25 article by Jordan Fabian on The Hill website here.

Mueller says Flynn’s cooperation ‘complete’

Michael Flynn’s cooperation in Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation is complete, lawyers for the special counsel said in a Tuesday night report to a federal judge presiding over the former Trump national security adviser’s case.

In the same joint status report, Flynn’s lawyers asked for a 90-day delay in their client’s sentencing so he could continue to cooperate with the government in his former business partner’s upcoming trial in Alexandria, Va. Flynn expects to testify in the mid-July trial against Bijan Rafiekian, who faces charges of conspiracy and acting as an unregistered foreign government agent for Turkey.

“At this time, the defendant continues to request a continuance since the case in EDVA has not been resolved, and there may be additional cooperation for the defendant to provide pursuant to the plea agreement in this matter,” Flynn’s attorneys said in the report to U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, referring to the Eastern District of Virginia.

View the complete March 12 article by Darren Samuelsohn on the Politico website here.

Here’s What Happens When Robert Mueller Is Done

Will Mueller’s report be made public? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

WASHINGTON — This is not a story about when special counsel Robert Mueller will finish his investigation, or when he’ll submit his final report. Speculation has floated for weeks that he’s close to finishing, but no one knows for sure. This is about what will happen once he’s done and what happens after Mueller and his team of prosecutors disband.

The big picture: When the investigation is over, Mueller will submit a report to Attorney General Bill Barr, and Barr will submit a report of his own to Congress. Neither report must be public, but both can be. Pending prosecutions and investigations, such as the criminal case against longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, will continue; Mueller’s office has been partnering with other federal prosecutors who can take over. Mueller will no longer be the most watched man in America, and he could return to the lucrative job he left in private practice — or at least go to an Apple Store or the airport without having his picture taken. Continue reading “Here’s What Happens When Robert Mueller Is Done”

Roger Stone’s lawyers tell judge: We didn’t try to hide anything

Lawyers for longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone told a federal judge Monday that they were not trying to hide anything from the court at a gag-order-related hearing last month where they failed to mention that Stone was in the midst of releasing a book trashing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

In a submission ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, Stone attorney Bruce Rogow said it did not occur to him until after the Feb. 21 hearing that the newly crafted introduction for a paperback edition of Stone’s book on the 2016 campaign might land him in hot water.

“Reading for the first time the New Introduction, while waiting for a plane back to Fort Lauderdale, brought the issue home and led to the Motion to Clarify,” wrote Rogow and other lawyers defending Stone against false-statement and witness-tampering charge.

View the complete March 11 article by Josh Gerstein on the Politico website here.

Barr Thinks DOJ Practice Allows Him to Bury Mueller’s Report: He’s Wrong. January 31, 2019

At his hearing, Barr stated that he would consult career ethics officials regarding recusal from oversight of the Mueller investigation, but refused to commit to following their advice, as previous nominees, including Jeff Sessions, had done. He insisted that he would make his own determination, regardless what ethics officials said. In his written answers, he refused to budge and added that he would not commit to making officials’ advice public. The public, therefore, likely will never know whether ethics officials told him to recuse himself, though the public likely will hear if officials do not urge recusal. In any event, Barr appears firmly committed to supervising Mueller.

Regarding release of any Mueller report, Barr repeated his statement that his “goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law, including the regulations discussed above, and the Department’s longstanding practices and policies.” In context, this reasonable-sounding language provides the rationale for a spare notification to Congress that the special counsel investigation is complete and little more. Continue reading “Barr Thinks DOJ Practice Allows Him to Bury Mueller’s Report: He’s Wrong. January 31, 2019”

Schiff says it’s a ‘mistake’ for Mueller not to interview Trump

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was making a “mistake” by not demanding that President Trump testify as part of his investigation, which by many accounts may soon be nearing its end.

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) acknowledged that it might be expedient for Mueller to avoid subpoenaing Trump’s testimony because the president could fight it and Mueller’s new boss, Attorney General William P. Barr, might oppose such a move.

“But I do think ultimately it’s a mistake because probably the best way to get the truth would be to put the president under oath,” Schiff said. “As he’s made plain in the past, he feels it’s perfectly fine to lie to the public. After all, he has said, ‘It’s not like I’m talking before a magistrate.’ Well, maybe he should talk before a magistrate.”

View the complete March 10 article by Karoun Demirjian on The Washington Post website here.

James Comey: Republicans are wrong. Transparency is possible in the Mueller investigation.

© Getty Images

Attorney General William P. Barr will decide how much of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings and conclusions to share with Congress and the American people. Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee he would try to be as transparent as possible while abiding by the Justice Department’s long-standing tradition of protecting the privacy rights of the innocent. That makes sense, but past departmental practices suggest he can release far more details than many people may now realize.

Providing detailed information about a completed investigation of intense public interest has long been a part of Justice Department practice. It doesn’t happen often, because ordinarily nothing outweighs the privacy interests of the subject of an investigation that ends without public charges. But department tradition recognizes that transparency is especially important where polarized politics and baseless attacks challenge law enforcement’s credibility. In critical matters of national importance, a straightforward report of what facts have been learned and how judgment has been exercised may be the only way to advance the public interest.

The Justice Department shared detailed information with the public after the FBI’s investigation of the 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. His death at the hands of a white police officer touched off unrest around the country. The Justice Department responded to calls for a federal investigation, sending dozens of FBI special agents into Ferguson. After months of careful work, the department declined to bring a federal criminal prosecution. But the Justice Department didn’t just put the boxes in storage. Because there was intense, legitimate public interest — and significant doubt about law enforcement independence — the department publicly released an 86-page report in March 2015 detailing the entire investigation — what was done, what was found and how the evidence compared to governing legal standards, including an evaluation of the conduct and statements of individuals.

View the complete March 4 commentary by James Comey, former Director of the FBI and former Deputy Attorney General on The Washington Post website here.

Robert Mueller just dunked on the chairman of the Federalist Society

The bad news is that the Federalist Society is still picking Trump judges.

A federal appeals court that is widely viewed as the second-most powerful court in the country handed down an opinion on Tuesday holding that Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel is constitutional. This isn’t exactly a surprising decision.

Many of the issues raised in In re Grand Jury Investigation rehash questions that were settled in previous cases involving special or independent counsels. And the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision was joined by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson — an arch-conservative judge who fairly often dissented from Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s right when Kavanaugh served on her court.

Yet, while the arguments in Grand Jury are not especially controversial, they’ve been treated as such by one of the most powerful organizations in the country. Steven Calabresi, a law professor and chairman of the Federalist Society’s board of directors, published a 21-page memo arguing that Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional. The Federalist Society itself touted this argument in a teleconference that many journalists — including this reporter — were invited to attend.

View the complete February 26 article by Ian Hillhiser on the ThinkProgress website here.

It’s Mueller’s Investigation. But Right Behind Him Is Andrew Goldstein.

Andrew D. Goldstein is one of Robert Mueller’s lead prosecutors in the obstruction of justice investigation of the president. Credit: Tom Brenner, The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The routine was always the same. President Trump’s lawyers would drive to heavily secured offices near the National Mall, surrender their cellphones, head into a windowless conference room and resume tense negotiations over whether the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, would interview Mr. Trump.

But Mr. Mueller was not always there. Instead, the lawyers tangled with a team of prosecutors, including a little known but formidable adversary: Andrew D. Goldstein, 44, a former Time magazine reporter who is now a lead prosecutor for Mr. Mueller in the investigation into whether the president obstructed justice.

Mr. Mueller is often portrayed as the omnipotent fact-gatherer, but it is Mr. Goldstein who has a much more involved, day-to-day role in one of the central lines of investigation.

View the complete February 25 article by Noah Weiland and Michael S. Schmidt on The New York Times website here.