Month: April 2019

Giuliani’s avalanche of bullshit

by digby

Giuliani is a batshit crazy liar and his avalanche of bullshit ends up exhausting Tapper who gamely tries to keep up with it and sadly fails through no fault of his own. Dealing with a lunatic with logic is very difficult.

If you can’t watch the above, here is the transcript. I’m copying it because I think there needs to be a record of this lunacy. For a team that’s been totally exonerated, they sure are trying to discredit it.

TAPPER: Thank you so much for being here. You said on Thursday that the rebuttal to the Mueller report is — quote — “ready to go” and you expect to release it after the weekend. Your colleague Jay Sekulow said he doesn’t expect that you will need to put out a rebuttal at all. Clear this up for us. Are you going to release a rebuttal?

GIULIANI: Well, we were ready — we were ready to go if we thought that a lot of the issues were left open, too open. Right now, they seem to be OK. But we’re ready to put it out when we have to.

TAPPER: But you’re not necessarily going to put it out?

GIULIANI: I think the odds are it’ll get out at some point. For example, you have testimony coming up. I know that the attorney general’s going to testify. I know that Mueller is going to testify. I assume people like McGahn will testify. I’m not sure. But there will be a point at which we will put it out. And then I think…

TAPPER: But not tomorrow?

GIULIANI: Not tomorrow, not the next day. Then we will see. We will see what happens.

TAPPER: I want to start off also by saying, you know, congratulations. The Mueller report concluded that there is insufficient evidence that the president or anybody on his team conspired criminally with the Russians. That’s — that’s good news. But I guess I’m confused as to the president and you both embracing that part of the Mueller report, and then calling, in the president’s words, B.S. the rest of — the rest of the report.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: And I’m — he didn’t actually say B.S. He used the actual word.

GIULIANI: Well, B.S. not quite a legal term, but it’s a term that most people understand.

TAPPER: Right. But how can you criticize and embrace at the same time?

GIULIANI: Well, here’s the difference, because, first of all, overview, this is a prosecutor’s document, 400 pages, a prosecutor’s view, and then a prosecutor which I think people would grant had a lot of people that were somewhat biased against the president.

TAPPER: I don’t know that everybody would grant that, but, OK, that’s your opinion.

GIULIANI: Well, I mean, if you — well, if you have somebody there who’s a key prosecutor who was chief counsel to the Clinton Foundation, my goodness, I mean, that isn’t much of a stretch. But, in any event, a lot of things are left out. A lot of things are false. I shouldn’t say a lot of things. Some things are false. A lot of things are questionable.

TAPPER: What’s false?

GIULIANI: Well, a lot of what Cohen — they recite what Cohen said as if it’s the truth. Cohen is incapable of telling the truth.

TAPPER: But what specifically is in the report…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: … tell you what specifically in the report, that Cohen that — that we dangled a pardon in front of Cohen. We did not dangle a pardon in front of Cohen. And his lawyer, his lawyer is willing to testify that we didn’t. They didn’t bother — they didn’t bother to include that in the report, which is clear refutation of what he said, nor do they list all the things that go to Cohen’s credibility that would cast a doubt on everything he’s saying.

It was not a fair report. It wasn’t like the normal prosecutor. When you find that a person didn’t commit the crime, you then go look at the hypothesis of, how did it come about, how did it start? No examination of, how could the FBI has started an investigation of a presidential candidate based on those 10 words that were said to Papadopoulos? Don’t indicate any involvement by the candidate. Normally, what the FBI would do is warn the candidate, like they did with Feinstein when she had a communist spy on her staff. No — no delving into that.

It’s clear that they tried very, very hard to create a case that the president was involved in Russian whatever. Couldn’t do it. They tried 100 different ways. They put Manafort in jail. They put him in solitary confinement.

TAPPER: Right.

GIULIANI: They questioned him 13 times. He wouldn’t give them the information 13 times. They tried to crack people. There’s no question they prosecuted Flynn, not because Flynn did anything wrong. They created what Flynn did wrong.

TAPPER: So — but this was an investigation…

GIULIANI: And then they prosecuted him to crack him.

TAPPER: This is an investigation into Russian election interference, right, Russian attempted interference in the election.

GIULIANI: Well…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: I have no…

TAPPER: And there are Russians that have been indicted.

GIULIANI: I have no problem with investigating Russian interference in an election.

TAPPER: But there are Russians who were indicted.

GIULIANI: But that’s not the reason this was a big story. This was a big story because they said that the man who got elected president of the United States was conspiring with the Russians in that interference, which is close to treason. Man, that’s what made it a national, international story. You know, Russians have been interfering…

TAPPER: There are people on the campaign who were talking to Russians, right?

GIULIANI: Russians — yes. And there were people on Hillary’s campaign that were talking to Ukrainians. I mean, the reality is, you think this is the first time the Russians have interfered in an American election?

TAPPER: No, it’s definitely not. But let me ask you a question, because Mitt Romney put out a statement saying that he was — quote — “appalled” that, among other things, “fellow citizens working in a campaign for president welcomed help from Russia, including information that had been illegally obtained, that none of them acted to inform American law enforcement.”

Again, it’s — again, it’s good news that there is insufficient evidence, but what about the willingness…

GIULIANI: Man — man, if I could tell you the things he wanted to do.

TAPPER: That Rudy Giuliani — that Mitt Romney wanted to do?

GIULIANI: No, that that guy wanted to do. Come on.

TAPPER: What do you mean the things that Mitt Romney…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: Stop the bull. Stop the bull. Stop this pious act that you weren’t digging up, trying to dig up dirt on people, putting dirt out on people.

TAPPER: Who, Mitt Romney?

GIULIANI: When he was running for president. He — I ran against him.

TAPPER: Right.

GIULIANI: So did John McCain run against him.

TAPPER: But he wasn’t accepting information from foreign…

GIULIANI: I don’t know if he was accepting information from foreign — who says that the president accepted information from foreigners? You mean people on his campaign might have done it? First of all…

TAPPER: But the Trump Tower meeting, I think, is what he was referring to, the willingness to sit down with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. That is what Mitt Romney seems to be talking about.

GIULIANI: What a hypocrite. What a hypocrite.

TAPPER: But why is that hypocritical?

GIULIANI: Any candidate — any candidate in the whole world in America would take information, negative…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: From a foreign source, from a hostile foreign source?

GIULIANI: Who says it’s even illegal? Who says it’s even illegal? And then does the information turn out to be false, by the way?
The information that was gleaned and disseminated, every newspaper printed it. Why did “The Washington Post” print the information that came from a foreign source, when they knew it was hacked? Aren’t they just as wrong for doing that as the campaign wanting to use it? The information…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: But why do think Mitt Romney is a hypocrite if he is saying…

GIULIANI: Because Mitt Romney did things very similar to that.

TAPPER: Taking information from Russians?

GIULIANI: No, no. There’s nothing — there’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.

TAPPER: There’s nothing wrong with taking information…

GIULIANI: It depends on where it came from. It depends on where it came from. You’re assuming that the giving of information is a campaign contribution. Read the report carefully.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

GIULIANI: The report says, we can’t conclude that, because the law is pretty much against that.

Do you think — people get information from this person, that person, this person.

TAPPER: So you would — you would have accepted information from Russians against a client — against a candidate if you were running in the presidential election?

GIULIANI: I probably — I probably wouldn’t. I wasn’t asked. I would advised, just out of excess of caution, don’t do it.

I will give you another thing, though.

TAPPER: But you’re saying — but you’re saying there is nothing wrong with doing that. You — I mean, that…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: There’s no — there’s no crime.

TAPPER: I’m not talking about crime. I’m talking about ethics…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: We’re going to get into morality?

TAPPER: Yes.

GIULIANI: That isn’t what prosecutors look at, morality.

TAPPER: No, but that’s what Mitt Romney — but that’s what Mitt Romney is referring to.

GIULIANI: But this didn’t become an international scandal because of immorality. It became an international scandal because the president was accused of violating the law, falsely, and now nobody wants to try to figure out who did it, because that’s the real wrongdoing here. And the reality is…

TAPPER: But you don’t think this is immoral or unethical to take…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: Well, suppose I do.

TAPPER: Yes.

GIULIANI: I’m going to prosecute people for immoral… (CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: I’m not talking about the prosecution part of this.

GIULIANI: I’m going to go look at every — I’d like to take a good look at Romney’s campaign and see if there were any immoral or unethical things done by the people working for him that he didn’t know about. If there weren’t, then it was the only campaign in history, because he’s maybe is holier than the holiest one. There’s no campaign in history that hasn’t done that.

TAPPER: But do you think — you think that there shouldn’t be a high standard for the president of the United States, that he not…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: You are mixing up two things.

TAPPER: Ethics and law is what I’m…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: Number one.

TAPPER: Yes.

GIULIANI: Number one. Number two, you’re mixing up what happened at this level of campaign and what the candidate knows about.

Donald Trump…

TAPPER: Well, I mean, this level was the campaign chairman, the president’s son and the president’s son-in-law.

GIULIANI: But it wasn’t the president. It was not the president.

TAPPER: But that’s not a low level. That’s a high level, a campaign chairman and his son and son-in-law.

GIULIANI: But the — well, OK, people other than the candidate.

TAPPER: Right.

GIULIANI: People other than the candidate. The question is, did Donald Trump — let’s call that collude — colluded with the Russians? The answer is, he didn’t collude with them, he didn’t conspire with them, he didn’t coordinate with them.

And all of that that was run against him — wait now..

TAPPER: Yes.

GIULIANI: All of that that was run against him, two FBI investigations, has found out to be false. And now that it’s over…

TAPPER: Well, insufficient evidence.

GIULIANI: And now…

TAPPER: Insufficient evidence.

GIULIANI: Well, no, not on collusion.

TAPPER: Right, they said they could not find criminal — they could not find sufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy.

GIULIANI: They couldn’t find a single piece evidence for anything, hacking, dissemination.

TAPPER: There’s an entire volume of evidence.

GIULIANI: Yes.

TAPPER: It just doesn’t rise to criminality.

GIULIANI: There is an entire volume of stuff, of stuff, not of evidence.

TAPPER: Well, you can call it stuff, but Mitt Romney obviously find it offensive…

GIULIANI: Well…

TAPPER: … that fellow citizens working on a campaign welcomed help from Russia.

GIULIANI: But you’re quoting Mitt Romney like he’s an unbiased source. This man has a whole history of awful things said about Donald Trump, including he’s morally unfit to be president, before he ever knew anything about…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: But you — you just said you wouldn’t accept help from the Russians if you were a candidate.

GIULIANI: I don’t know if I would or I wouldn’t. I — the legal advice I would give is, out of an excess of caution, don’t do it. But maybe that’s informed somewhat by what is going on right now and what we have learned since then. The reality is, you’re picking on a minor point, when the major point is, he was pursued for years for a false charge, two FBI investigations, one with four affidavits for electronic surveillance that turn out to be fraudulent. That’s a big crime.

Now…

TAPPER: Yes. GIULIANI: … it turns out he didn’t do it. Isn’t anybody in the media interested in, how did this happen? Is this just an accident?

TAPPER: Well, the investigation into the president, how did it happen?

GIULIANI: Yes. Yes. You tell me how.

TAPPER: We know.

GIULIANI: No, you don’t know.

TAPPER: The volume that is out…

GIULIANI: You never investigated.

TAPPER: … is the detail of how and why it’s — but let me — I want to…

GIULIANI: No, no, no, they didn’t.

TAPPER: It started with George Papadopoulos and somebody approaching him.

GIULIANI: You would never — you never would have started an investigation of a major party candidate, of the candidate, based on the…

TAPPER: But the…

GIULIANI: Wait.

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: Based on one…

TAPPER: But the DNC was hacked. And John Podesta was spear-phished, and all these e-mails were illegally…

GIULIANI: But those two things are disconnected.

TAPPER: They’re not disconnected.

GIULIANI: Trump had nothing to do with that. No. It said…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: They’re not disconnected. They were — that’s what they were investigating, Russian election…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: Yes, you’re fighting it. You’re fighting it so hard.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: No, I’m just pointing out the facts in the report.

GIULIANI: But there’s a prejudice, I got to tell you. It’s just assumed that anything about him, we’re going to magnify it, and anything about the other side, we don’t look at. The whole situation with Papadopoulos, to a trained investigator, is extremely, unbelievably suspicious. The man is given one little piece of information. The Russians…

TAPPER: The Russians have Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.

GIULIANI: … by a Maltese counterintelligence guy.

TAPPER: OK, by Mifsud, yes.

GIULIANI: Mifsud. And then he repeats it a month later to an Australian guy with a very shady background, big contributor to Hillary Clinton, even though he’s an Australian.

TAPPER: He isn’t a contributor to Hillary Clinton. He’s an Australian. You can’t contribute….

GIULIANI: No, no, he’s a — I think he’s a citizen now. Not illegal. He raised money for him, helped to get money — oh, for the foundation. I’m sorry.

TAPPER: To the Clinton Foundation.

GIULIANI: To the foundation.

TAPPER: Can I ask you a question about Don McGahn?

GIULIANI: But wait. Wait. No, I want to finish the thought. It’s a really important thought.

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: That man is told the same information that Mifsud gave him. And all it says is, the Russians have…

TAPPER: The Russians have information, these e-mails from Hillary Clinton.

GIULIANI: That does not justify…

TAPPER: But it was true. And it was an attack on the United States.

GIULIANI: But it doesn’t justify an investigation of Donald Trump as candidate for president of the United States. There is right now as much evidence that Obama may have known about the Steele dossier and affidavits as Trump might have known about that, in fact, more, because there’s a text between Strzok and Page.

TAPPER: I don’t know any….

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: Oh, yes, you do.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Barack Obama — that President Obama knew?

GIULIANI: They said the Obama administration is on top of this.

TAPPER: I want to go…

GIULIANI: I didn’t say he knew.

TAPPER: Yes.

GIULIANI: I said there’s evidence that would suggest. You should follow it up and find out.

TAPPER: OK. I will — I will…

GIULIANI: You shouldn’t investigate him.

TAPPER: I want to ask you because you have been talking about Don…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: If we did that, this place would go crazy.

TAPPER: I want to — I want to talk about Don McGahn, because the question of obstruction of justice is one — is the second volume of this report.

GIULIANI: Correct.

TAPPER: In — one of the examples of potential — it doesn’t reach a conclusion of — kicks it to Congress — obstruction of justice has to do with President Trump directing White House counsel at the time Don McGahn to have Rod Rosenstein fire the special counsel.
You said that account from McGahn was — quote — “inaccurate.” Now, McGahn’s attorney responded, saying — quote — “It’s a mystery why Rudy Giuliani feels the need to relitigate incidents that the attorney general and deputy attorney general have concluded were not obstruction, but they are accurately described in the report.”

So, McGahn is standing by his account…

GIULIANI: Which…

TAPPER: … as Mueller — the account that President Trump told him, get rid of Bob Mueller. (CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: I would ask his lawyer, I would ask his — have you read, page 117, 118 of the report? I would ask, which of three versions is McGahn standing by? There are three versions he gives of that account. Version number one, which was put in “The New York Times,” which may be…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: No, let’s just stick to what is in the Mueller report.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: No. It’s all in the report.

GIULIANI: I will get out 117, if you want. They do recite it, but then they select the version most harmful to the president. Version number one…

TAPPER: But which part do you dispute? Which one do you…

GIULIANI: Well, I have to explain it. The first version that he — that he says is, the president told me to fire him because he was upset about conflict of interest, and I told him I resign, version number one.

TAPPER: Right.

GIULIANI: He then corrects it and says, oh, mistake, he never told — he never — he never — he never said fire, and I never told him I would resign.

TAPPER: He said, get rid of him.

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: No, no, there’s an intermediate step.

TAPPER: He can’t be special counsel.

GIULIANI: He said, he has conflicts and he shouldn’t be special counsel.

TAPPER: He shouldn’t be special counsel. Well, what does that convey to you? What does that suggest to you?

GIULIANI: Oh, it’s far different than fire. Fire is nice and clear. Fire is, get rid of him.

TAPPER: He shouldn’t be special counsel.

GIULIANI: He shouldn’t be special counsel means, it’s wrong that he’s special counsel. It doesn’t say any specific action. Well, then he changes it again and says, well, I thought that meant get rid of him.

TAPPER: That’s what he thought it meant.

GIULIANI: Well, OK, but that isn’t — that isn’t what he said.

TAPPER: So you’re not denying that he said he shouldn’t be special counsel; you’re denying that he meant fire him?

GIULIANI: The point I was making is, he has three different versions. Now, you tell me, as a trial lawyer, what would I do with that in front of a jury?

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

GIULIANI: Guy’s got three different versions of something as important as this? You know what you do? You say, I can’t rely on him.

TAPPER: He said, “Mueller has to go,” I think is the exact quote, “Mueller has to go.”

GIULIANI: No, no. One version of it is — one version of it is, he has conflicts and he shouldn’t be special counsel. Quote. Those were in quotes, right in the report, middle of the page, page 117. Very sloppy. And then, as a prosecutor, you can’t select the version that’s the most harmful. You got to go with the version that’s the most helpful in order to determine if there ever…

TAPPER: So, are you suggesting that McGahn is lying?

GIULIANI: No. I’m telling you, he’s confused.

TAPPER: So, he’s confused.

GIULIANI: He gave three different versions.

TAPPER: So, let me ask you a question. McGahn…

GIULIANI: But the special counsel comes to the conclusion he is definitively telling the truth. And his lawyer is saying that — his lawyer should tell us which of those three versions is true. And how does he know which one is true now, when he couldn’t figure it out then?

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Here’s what we have. McGahn, who is well-regarded in Washington, D.C., saying that he thought President Trump was telling him to fire the special counsel.

GIULIANI: But what he thinks is not…

TAPPER: But that’s what he thought. He took contemporaneous notes.

GIULIANI: Good.

TAPPER: He told his attorney at the time. And he testified…

GIULIANI: Would you like to know what the president thought?

TAPPER: And he testified under oath. President Trump is denying it. He refused to testify under oath. And he does have a history of lying. Why should people…

GIULIANI: Well, that’s your — that’s your — that’s your…

TAPPER: Was Barack Obama born in the United States? I mean, like, there’s a long history of President Trump saying things that aren’t true.

GIULIANI: Was — was — OK. Let’s not go into…

TAPPER: Right.

GIULIANI: … a man’s total — did Barack Obama lie about, you can keep your doctor and you can keep your insurance? Did he lie when…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: We’re not talking about Barack Obama. We’re talking about President Trump’s credibility…

GIULIANI: OK. But…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: President Trump’s credibility vs. Don McGahn’s.

GIULIANI: So, we’re going to start taking disputed arguments about politics, and we’re going to use it in a criminal case? That’s — that’s — then that’s really crazy.

TAPPER: If he had told him fire — fire him, would it have been obstruction of justice?

GIULIANI: No. It would not have been. But he didn’t.

TAPPER: But he didn’t — but he didn’t do it?

GIULIANI: The version — the second version is about as close to the truth as you’re going to get, I think. But the reality is that there are independent witnesses they didn’t bother to interview who would say, at that time, the president was not taking the position that Mueller should be fired. In fact, Mueller was reassured that he wouldn’t be fired.

TAPPER: Right.

GIULIANI: Those witnesses were not interviewed. Second, there are witnesses that dispute that McGahn’s version is correct — or a witness that disputes whether that’s correct, not false. We don’t have to jump to the conclusion false.

How about when a guy…

TAPPER: McGahn is standing by it. And he told people…

GIULIANI: Which one is he standing by?

TAPPER: He’s standing by the version in the report.

GIULIANI: No, he isn’t. I didn’t hear that from this lawyer.

TAPPER: He said he — he said the report — they’re accurately described in the report.

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: There are three versions. Which one? The first one, the fire version, the second one, or the third one? There are three.
We don’t know which one McGahn is sticking by. And I don’t really care which one McGahn is sticking by, because it’s so hopelessly confused. It’s unfair to use that.

TAPPER: McGahn thought that the president was telling him to fire special counsel Mueller.

GIULIANI: Well, he’s wrong.

TAPPER: That’s what he — that is the bottom line.

GIULIANI: He’s wrong. And here’s the way…

TAPPER: And he’s — but why should…

GIULIANI: Here’s the way…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: My question is, why should — if McGahn has a history of telling the truth — he was under oath. He took contemporaneous notes, and he told somebody contemporaneously.

GIULIANI: I didn’t say… TAPPER: Why should anybody believe the president’s version?

GIULIANI: Maybe they’re too defensive. I didn’t say McGahn was lying. I just, in great detail, explained to you testimony…

TAPPER: You think he’s confused, you say.

GIULIANI: … that is hopefully confused. It cannot be relied on. If I were a prosecutor evaluating that, I got three different statements from one guy, I got a clear statement from the other guy, and the guy was never fired, I would come to the conclusion that either this version is correct, because it’s clear, or…

TAPPER: McGahn said he refused to fire him.

GIULIANI: Or how about I can’t — well, I know he said that.

TAPPER: Right.

GIULIANI: But if, in fact, he wasn’t told to fire him, that’s like a tree falling in the forest.

TAPPER: No, he said that he was — he took that as an order to fire him. And he refused to do it. He would have resigned.

GIULIANI: But he took as a — it wasn’t an order to fire him.

TAPPER: Let me ask you, because we’re running out of time. There are 12 other investigations that have been kicked to other prosecutors. And we don’t know what they are. There 14 total, but we know what two of them are.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: One is Cohen. And one is Greg Craig, Obama’s former chief White House counsel. Then there are 12 others we don’t know.
And the Mueller report also makes a point that presidents can be prosecuted once they leave office.

GIULIANI: Boy, they — those — those angry Democrats would love to see that.

TAPPER: Well, my question for you is, are you concerned, as President Trump’s lawyer…

GIULIANI: No, I’m not concerned.

TAPPER: … about further legal jeopardy?

GIULIANI: They took their best shot. That report is a one-sided document, which you’re treating as gospel.

TAPPER: I’m treating it as a prosecutorial document, as you — as you noted.

GIULIANI: Well, any prosecutorial document is a one-sided document, even if the prosecutor is fair. And when you have got one who isn’t, who’s got a bias against…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: You don’t think Robert Mueller is fair?

GIULIANI: I don’t think his people were fair.

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: I don’t think that report is fair.

TAPPER: But he signed his name to it, whatever you think is fair.

GIULIANI: But he should never have signed his name to a document that says on page two that he has to be convinced that the president didn’t do it. When did a prosecutor ever have to be convinced he didn’t do it? That is taking the burden of proof in America, flipping it around, only on Donald Trump.

TAPPER: So, we…

GIULIANI: He has to be able to prove that the person did it. You read that first two paragraphs, and you understand anything about the law or the ethics of a prosecutor, that’s a horrendous statement. It says, he can’t be — even the statement that…

TAPPER: So we shouldn’t take this as exoneration of the president because the document is not credible?

GIULIANI: We shouldn’t take it as exoneration of the president…

TAPPER: You’re saying that this document is not credible.

GIULIANI: No. No. You’re — how about looking at it this way? People who were unfair to him, people who wrote an unfair report, people who came close to torturing people to get information and break them…

TAPPER: Came close to torturing people?

GIULIANI: Yes. How about — how about having…

TAPPER: Wait. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: How about having Manafort…

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Came close to torturing people?

GIULIANI: Yes, how about having Manafort in solitary confinement and questioning him 13 times?

Maybe torture is too much.

TAPPER: You were a prosecutor. Did you put people in solitary confinement?

GIULIANI: To question them? Absolutely not. I put them in solitary confinement — I put one in solitary confinement because he threatened to kill, Carmine Persico, who just died a while ago. Did I put him in solitary confinement and bring him back 13 times to question him, telling they’re lying, telling them that they really knew that the president was involved in the collusion, when they didn’t? No, I never did that. And I would fire anybody who did it. And Andrew Weissmann never should have been working for him, because Andrew Weissmann is a hit man dead, demonstrated…

TAPPER: Andrew Weissmann a hit man?

GIULIANI: A hit man in terms of the way in which he operates as a…

TAPPER: He’s an aggressive prosecutor.

GIULIANI: Yes, read Sidney Powell’s book about how he prosecuted the people from Arthur Andersen. The case went out 9-0 the Supreme Court, no crime committed, Arthur Andersen destroyed. Look at Merrill Lynch people, kept in jail for seven months, found innocent, and he wouldn’t let them out on bail pending appeal in a white-collar case. Look at the situations in which he withheld exculpatory evidence. This guy shouldn’t have been working.

TAPPER: Right.

GIULIANI: And I will amend hit man, if anybody is too sensitive to that.

TAPPER: Well, I’m not sensitive about it. I just mean…

GIULIANI: What I mean is unethical — unethical prosecutor. But you guys didn’t care that he put together a staff of Hillary- loving, Trump-hating people, led by an investigator who, luckily, we have his texts, wanted to prevent Donald Trump from being president and wanted to remove him afterwards.

TAPPER: Robert Mueller, very well-regarded, Republican, former head of the FBI.

GIULIANI: Maybe he wasn’t paying attention.

TAPPER: When he was appointed, Republicans, including President Trump supporters…

GIULIANI: Me too.

TAPPER: … like Newt Gingrich and yourself, praised him.

GIULIANI: And when he — you got it.

TAPPER: Then he put forward a report that ultimately cleared President Trump of conspiracy.

GIULIANI: And that takes every cheap shot imaginable, because he couldn’t prove it.

TAPPER: You call them cheap shots. Other people call it evidence,.

GIULIANI: But you don’t — you don’t just spew out all this stuff, and not criticize it. Why don’t we hear in there how often Cohen perjured himself under oath, as a way of evaluating the truthfulness of what Cohen is saying today?

TAPPER: Unfortunately, I have to cut you off because we’re out of time.

GIULIANI: If you think that’s a one — if you think that’s a fair document, when it’s using a standard of proof that you have to absolutely prove your innocence, then we’re living in a different country other than America.

TAPPER: I think of…

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: And if Bob — maybe Bob didn’t read that carefully. But that infects the entire document.

TAPPER: Well…

GIULIANI: I mean, when people have to prove their innocence, we’re in a different country. And that’s the standard.
And, by the way…

TAPPER: Yes.

GIULIANI: … the president is innocent. He is definitely innocent of both.

TAPPER: Yes.

GIULIANI: And why aren’t people now equally interested in, how about all the connections that the Hillary campaign had with Ukraine? And did that have something to do with the genesis of the information on him and Manafort?

TAPPER: Mr. Mayor, that’s all the time we have. Thank you so much for being here. Happy Easter.

GIULIANI: The Ukraine is investigating the Clinton campaign…

TAPPER: Happy — Happy Easter to you and your family..

GIULIANI: … for being involved with Ukraine.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

GIULIANI: And that hasn’t been covered by a single American newspaper, except…

TAPPER: Russia attacked the United States. The report makes that clear. You agree with that and…

GIULIANI: And the president of the United States is — and the president of the United States…

TAPPER: OK.

GIULIANI: … was falsely accused of being involved in a crime tantamount to treason. That’s a disgrace. And somebody has now have to have — has to have an equal enthusiasm about finding the truth of that.

Otherwise, you are prejudiced.

TAPPER: OK.

Mr. Mayor, thank you so much. Happy Easter.

GIULIANI: Thank you.

TAPPER: Thanks for being here. Appreciate it.

I don’t know about you, but I need a drink after that.

Basically, the report was a sloppy document of an unfair investigation done by hitmen who tortured people. The public has a right to know what’s in a rival political campaign chairman’s private emails also Hillary and Obama are the real guilty ones who did all the things that they said Trump did and it was totally wrong when they did it. And anyway everybody lies and cheats and they would all take information from Russians because it’s not illegal.

The president is a totally innocent man who was falsely accused even though people high in the campaign and even his own son were doing something that anyone would think was unethical except nobody cares about that anyway.

The president is totally vindicated and it’s time to move on.

Giuliani on Fox:

cray-cray.

It looks like the Democrats did a gut check

by digby

I don’t know if the Democrats will hold impeachment hearings but taking them off the table was a big mistake and I’m happy to see them walking that back at least. But I think it’s still incumbent on grassroots Democrats to keep the heat on about this. It’s possible that the various investigations alone will do the job and seriously degrade Trump’s already weak support. Who knows? Maybe he’ll even decide to pardon himself and all his cronies and then resign. (Or have Mike Pence do it — it wouldn’t be the first time.) But unless the Democratic base makes the party keep the pressure on Trump by keeping impeachment out there as a threat there is every chance they will end up being feckless and weak and Trump will be emboldened and strengthened. That’s not good.

Here’s where they stand today. And it’s better than what we were hearing on Friday:

Schiff:

Rep. Adam Schiff said Sunday congressional Democrats may take up impeachment in the wake of the release of the special counsel report, but will consider the political environment when determining any action.

Schiff told “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz the decision whether to begin proceedings to impeach President Donald Trump will be made based on the “best interests of the country.”

Raddatz asked the congressman, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, about calls by 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for the House to open impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

On Friday, Warren tweeted that the “severity of [the president’s] misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States.”

Asked at a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Saturday if she believed the president should not only face impeachment proceedings but be impeached, Warren said “yes” in response.

Schiff, D-California, said Warren “makes an important point,” but added that Democrats will have to take the “political environment” into consideration when deciding whether to undertake impeachment.

Nadler:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler on Sunday did not rule out the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump over allegations detailed in the Mueller report, arguing Congress has to see the full unredacted report.

Nadler, D-N.Y., said in an interview on Sunday’s “Meet The Press” that Congress will “have to hear from” both Attorney General William Barr and special counsel Robert Mueller, as well as obtain the unredacted report before coming to a conclusion on impeachment.

Nadler oversees the committee with jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings.

“Some of this would be impeachable,” Nadler said of the accusations detailed in the report, which was released Friday. “Obstruction of justice, if proven, would be impeachable.”

Mueller’s report analyzed both the Russian government’s attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election, as well as the question of whether Trump or his top allies tried to obstruct the investigation.

While Mueller wrote that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,” he did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice.

“The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” Mueller wrote.

Among those efforts were attempts to fire the special counsel and the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

In one instance, Mueller’s report says that White House counsel Don McGahn refused to fire Mueller despite an order from Trump. And when that encounter was eventually reported publicly, McGahn refused Trump’s request to deny the story.

Nadler on Sunday added that on top of hearing from Mueller and Barr, Congress will call McGahn to testify.

He also questioned why Mueller didn’t charge Donald Trump Jr. “and others” who met with Russians during an infamous meeting at Trump Tower that they believed to be about obtaining dirt on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“He said that he didn’t charge them because you couldn’t prove that they willfully intended to commit a crime,” Nadler said of Mueller.

“All you have to prove for conspiracy is that they entered into a meeting of the minds to do something wrong and had one overt act. They entered into a meeting of the minds to attend a meeting to get stolen material on Hillary. They went to the meeting, that’s conspiracy.”

In a statement released Thursday, Donald Trump Jr.’s attorney, Alan Futerfas, argued that the report exonerated his client.

“The Report confirms that the June 9, 2016 meeting was just what Don said it was, and nothing more, and that there was nothing improper about potentially listening to information,” he said.

While Mueller declined to file a charge on obstruction against President Trump, he wrote that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The report also notes that a “criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”

Based on that comment, some Democrats, including presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have already begun to call for impeachment proceedings based on the report. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote Thursday night in a letter to members that they will discuss the next step forward but promised that “Congress will not be silent.”

I think it’s obvious that they should either open a select committee on The Russia Investigation or start impeachment hearings in order to focus the nation on exactly what happened and Trump and his cronies reaction to it. It’s appalling and frankly, frightening. The public needs to see this narrative laid out in public hearings. I still think it’s possible that it will have an effect on enough people to break the Trump fever among Republicans although I’m not holding my breath. But at least there will be a comprehensible storyline to bring show the public exactly what it is the GOP officials are defending.

I am not cynical enough yet to believe that a fairly large majority of this country doesn’t understand that the country is in danger if this corruption, incompetence and betrayal is now business as usual by our political leaders and worse, that nobody in power has the stomach or the will to do anything about it. It’s a recipe for despair.

.

For a guy who’s been vindicated, he sure is mad

by digby

I wonder what he would have said if he hadn’t been “exonerated”:

President Trump on Sunday continued to wage an attack against special counsel Robert Mueller, calling his investigation’s report a “hit job” and claiming it was written by “The Trump Haters and Angry Democrats.”

“The Trump Haters and Angry Democrats who wrote the Mueller Report were devastated by the No Collusion finding,” Trump tweeted Sunday morning. “Nothing but a total ‘hit job’ which should never have been allowed to start in the first place!”

Trump added in a separate tweet that Democrats’ investigations into him and his administration would cost them in the 2020 election.

“Despite No Collusion, No Obstruction, The Radical Left Democrats do not want to go on to Legislate for the good of the people, but only to Investigate and waste time,” he said. “This is costing our Country greatly, and will cost the Dems big time in 2020!”

The tweets come as Trump continues to denounce the findings presented in Mueller’s report on his investigation into Russian election interference and possible obstruction of justice by the president.

Mueller did not uncover evidence to conclude that the Trump campaign conspired with Moscow to influence the 2016 election. However, he concluded in his report that the Trump campaign knew that it would benefit from Russia’s illegal efforts to interfere in the election.

The more than 400-page report also notes that Mueller was unable to “conclusively determine” that no criminal conduct occurred in regards to obstruction of justice.

Trump said Friday that some statements in Mueller’s report were “total bullshit.”

“Watch out for people that take so-called ‘notes,’ when the notes never existed until needed,” Trump tweeted. “Because I never agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the ‘Report’ about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad).”

“This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened,” Trump added.

He stepped up his attacks against Mueller early Saturday in a string of tweets, calling him “highly conflicted” and once again declaring the special counsel’s investigation “the greatest Witch Hunt in U.S. political history.”

“Despite the fact that the Mueller Report should not have been authorized in the first place & was written as nastily as possible by 13 (18) Angry Democrats who were true Trump Haters, including highly conflicted Bob Mueller himself, the end result is No Collusion, No Obstruction!” Trump tweeted.

He’s very upset. I wonder why?

.

Resurrection Sunday: Can the republic be resurrected?
by Tom Sullivan

The title above sounds hyperbolic. But it may be where we are.

I argued yesterday for why a third impeachment in less than 50 years is a new norm the United States of America does not want set. A democratic republic that impeaches every third president is not a healthy republic. But in language less eloquent than Shakespeare’s Brutus, we are where we are.

The portrait of Donald Trump the Mueller Impeachment Referral paints makes Richard Nixon look like a piker. Lawlessness is Trump’s first reflex. Taking care that the laws be faithfully executed is not in him. The only thing holding him back from completely obliterating the Constitution and the laws of the land are those few around him who, occasionally, hold true to a government of laws, not men.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller leaves a detailed accounting of ten cases where Trump committed obstruction of justice. It is not that the president did not endeavor to thwart the Russia investigation, Lawrence Tribe explains, “but rather that Trump’s subordinates refused to comply.” Some of the time, anyway.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment,” Mueller wrote. Given the strictures of Department of Justice policy on indicting sitting presidents, he did not issue an indictment for this one.

What’s more is Mueller only looked at what he was scoped to look at, Mark Sumner observes at Daily Kos. Serious allegations of bank fraud and money laundering by Trump lay outside Mueller’s remit.

The Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum offers unanswered questions. Why was Trump “repeating and using slogans … conceived on Russian state media?” Why were “online tactics used by the Russian military intelligence agency and the Trump campaign” so similar? Why did he seek “secret talks with Putin”?

But Mueller’s evidence is sufficient without answers to those questions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren now believes pursuing impeachment is a matter of “constitutional duty.”

But as Hamlet said, there’s the rub.

I began above by considering how unwell a constitutional republic is that impeaches every third president. Pretty unwell, New York magazine’s Eric Levitz believes.

“Impeachment is therefore required not merely to punish the president for his past indiscretions — or to deter a future president from emulating them — but to halt the rampage of a serial offender,” he writes. The rub is our system of laws and government seems so corrupted it can no longer function as one. Warren aside, if Democrats as a party have decided “it isn’t even worth trying to uphold their constitutional responsibility,” we are in a bad way:

If there is no bipartisan consensus on upholding the rule of law, then bipartisan consensus is not an end worth pursuing. If the Republican Party can’t be trusted to even consider putting its allegiance to lawfulness above its fealty to Donald Trump, then the GOP is a cancer on the body politic. And if our Constitution has brought us to the point where a non-democratically elected president can promise “Get Out of Jail Free” cards to anyone who violates laws he does not like — without facing any serious threat of removal from office — then our Constitution is obsolete and there is no cause for treating that document, or the established norms of our institutions, with reflexive reverence.

Democrats’ “reverence for institutional norms and the ideal of bipartisanship” are irreconcilable when one of the two parties has forsaken commitment to the rule of law. They will have proven themselves “just another one of our republic’s failing institutions” if they cannot find a way to beat the cancer.

If Trump can be compelled to resign as Nixon did before trial in the Senate, or even before formal impeachment in the House, all the better, norm-wise. Stanching the bleeding is more important to me than punishing the blood. If the current flows favorably or unfavorably toward impeachment, so be it. As Tribe quotes Brutus, “We must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.”

So, one other item to mention on Resurrection Sunday. Mueller may have left evidence aplenty for federal prosecutors, but don’t count on that being brought to bear in court against Donald Trump. Online discussions about impeachment and accountability tend to blurr the distinction between impeachment and bringing Trump to justice. Impeachment carries no punishment for federal crimes and, even if successful, would not likely expose Trump to any:

1. No GOP AG will rescind the OLC policy to allow charges.
2. If impeachment is successful, VP Mike Pence takes over and pardons him.
3. If impeachment is unsuccessful, he remains in office, without charges, until at least January 2021.
4. If he resigns before the 2020 election, Pence takes over and pardons him.
5. If he loses the 2020 election, he resigns before January 20, 2021 and, in Pence’s few days as president, Pence pardons him.
6. If he wins the 2020 election, the statute of limitations runs out and, even if he commits new crimes, #5 is still open to him in January 2025.

That’s why charges brought by the state of New York state may be where Trump faces any kind of judgment. He may never see the inside of a jail cell, but for him seeing his empire dismantled might be almost as bad.

Memories. Like the cobwebs in the corners of his mind


by digby

Here are a few of the 30 times said he couldn’t recall in answers to Mueller’s written questions and ask yourself if it’s likely that any functioning adult, much less one who says he has the best memory in the world, would likely not remember if he had these conversations.

And then ask yourself why Trump would not have simply said it didn’t happen. He lies easily about everything else. He must have had some concern that there was evidence that he had done these things.

Was a pardon for Julian Assange discussed prior to Jan. 20, 2017? 

Trump: “I do not recall having had any discussion during the campaign regarding a pardon or action to benefit Julian Assange.“

Was Trump aware of foreign efforts to help his campaign via social media, or at rallies? 

Trump: “I do not recall being aware during the campaign of specific efforts by foreign individuals or companies to assist my campaign through the use of social media postings or the organization of rallies.“ 

On the Trump Organization project in Moscow 

Trump: “Sometime in 2015, Michael Cohen suggested to me the possibility of a Trump Organization project in Moscow. As I recall, Mr. Cohen described this as a proposed project of a general type we have done in the past in a variety of locations. I signed the non-binding Letter of Intent attached to your questions as Exhibit B which required no equity or expenditure on our end and was consistent with our ongoing efforts to expand into significant markets around the world.

I had few conversations with Mr. Cohen on this subject. As I recall, they were brief, and they were not memorable. I was not enthused about the proposal,[obviously a total lie] and I do not recall any discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. 

I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump Organization, although it is possible. I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr. Cohen or Felix Sater and any Russian government official regarding the Letter of Intent. In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that Mr. Cohen sent an email regarding the Letter of Intent to “Mr. Peskov” at a general, public email account, which should show there was no meaningful relationship with people in power in Russia. I understand those documents already have been provided to you.“ 

Contacts with Russia 

Trump: “Mr. Manafort was hired primarily because of his delegate work for prior presidential candidates, including Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole. I knew that Mr. Manafort had done international consulting work and, at some time before Mr. Manafort left the campaign, I learned that he was somehow involved with individuals concerning Ukraine, but I do not remember the specifics of what I knew at the time. 

I had no knowledge of Mr. Manafort offering briefings on the progress of my campaign to an individual named Oleg Deripaska, nor do I remember being aware of Mr. Manafort or anyone else associated with my campaign sending or directing others to send internal Trump Campaign information to anyone I knew to be in Ukraine or Russia at the time or to anyone I understood to be a Ukrainian or Russian government employee or official. I do not remember Mr. Manafort communicating to me any particular positions Ukraine or Russia would want the United States to support.“ 

Did Trump know Russian officials wanted to talk to him during the campaign? 

Trump: “I do not recall being told during the campaign of efforts by Russian officials to meet with me or with senior members of my campaign. In the process of preparing to respond to these questions, I became aware that on March 17, 2016, my assistant at the Trump Organization, Rhona Graff, received an email from a Sergei Prikhodko, who identified himself as Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Foundation Roscongress, inviting me to participate in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to be held in June 2016. The documents show that Ms. Graff prepared for my signature a brief response declining the invitation. I understand these documents already have been produced to you. “ 

Did Trump know that Manafort had ties to Ukraine (and when)? 

Trump: “I have no recollection of the details of what, when, or from what source I first learned about the change to the platform amendment regarding arming Ukraine, but I generally recall learning of the issue as part of media reporting. I do not recall being involved in changing the language to the amendment.“

Sharp as a tack.

I’d guess that these answers told Mueller that Trump would have amnesia about everything if he interviewed him personally.

.

This is what running the country like a business looks like

by digby

This piece in the New York Times is just mind-boggling. Even more mind-boggling that anyone thinks these people should be allowed to get away with it because everything will be just hunky dory if the Democrats manage to eke out a win in 2020.

Prodded by Putin, Russians Sought Back Channels to Trump Through the Business World
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, left, with Kirill Dmitriev, his informal envoy and the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, in May.

At 9:34 on the November morning after Donald J. Trump was elected president in 2016, Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and an informal envoy for President Vladimir V. Putin, sent a text message to a Lebanese-American friend with ties to the Trump campaign.

Mr. Dmitriev wanted to connect quickly with someone in Mr. Trump’s inner circle, preferably Donald Trump Jr. or Jared Kushner. By the end of the month, he was in touch with Rick Gerson, a friend of Mr. Kushner who manages a New York hedge fund.

The two discussed a potential joint investment venture. But the special counsel’s report released Thursday suggested that Mr. Dmitriev’s real interest lay elsewhere: He had been instructed by Mr. Putin, he told Mr. Gerson, to come up with a plan for “reconciliation” between the United States and Russia.

Mr. Dmitriev and Mr. Gerson worked together on a two-page proposal for how the nations could cooperate on a variety of fronts. That document, the report said, later made its way to Mr. Kushner, Rex W. Tillerson, the incoming secretary of state, and Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist. Nothing came of the idea that the Russian sovereign fund would invest with Mr. Gerson.

The outreach by Mr. Dmitriev, according to the special counsel’s report, was part of a broad, makeshift effort by the Kremlin to establish ties to Mr. Trump that began early in the campaign and shifted into high gear after Mr. Trump’s victory. Those efforts were channeled largely through people in the business world in both countries. Especially after the election, they led to a conflation of diplomatic and financial interests that was a stark departure from the carefully calibrated contacts typically managed by an incoming administration in the United States.

Mr. Trump’s on-the-fly campaign, lack of preparation for victory and disorganized transition created a vacuum that, as Russia sought out avenues of access and influence, was quickly filled by a number of people from outside established foreign policy circles, many of whom appeared eager to portray themselves as access brokers or to generate business opportunities.

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, did not find a criminal conspiracy by Mr. Trump or his campaign to influence the outcome of the election. But his report made clear how vigorously Mr. Putin sought to find points of contact and influence with Mr. Trump’s team — and how many people on the American side were willing to participate to one degree or another in discussions that touched on topics as varied as Mr. Trump’s desire to build a Moscow hotel to United States policy toward Ukraine.

It is not clear that the Russians had much, if any, success in influencing American policy through the back channels they established, although Mr. Trump’s comments often strike foreign policy experts as remarkably sympathetic to Mr. Putin. But the would-be influence peddlers in the United States and in Russia generally proceeded without much regard for the growing recognition that Moscow had just interfered in multiple ways with the American election and that any contacts outside established channels — especially those that mixed business and diplomacy — carried substantial political risks.

Angela E. Stent, a Georgetown University professor who recently wrote a book on Mr. Putin’s reign, said Mr. Trump’s willingness to tolerate informal interlocutors in the foreign policy field was “unlike any administration I have ever seen” but not unlike Mr. Putin’s own style.

The Trump White House, she said, is comfortable with “all these informal ways of doing business,” including giving a heightened role to family members and friends who are not required to disclose potential conflicts of interest or abide by government ethics rules. “That’s how the Russians like to operate,” she said.

According to the Mueller report, Mr. Putin wasted no time enlisting Russian oligarchs to carry the Kremlin’s message after Mr. Trump’s election. He convened an “all-hands” meeting of the country’s top oligarchs in December to discuss the risk of the United States imposing further sanctions in retaliation for Moscow’s interference in the election.

One of those oligarchs, Petr Aven, who leads Alfa-Bank, Russia’s largest commercial bank, also met privately with Mr. Putin shortly after Mr. Trump’s election. He told the special counsel that the Russian president expected him to build inroads with the incoming administration, then repeatedly queried him on his progress in the coming months.

On the American side, a varied cast of characters was fielding overtures and proposals from Russians or pro-Russian Ukrainians during the campaign and transition, including: Mr. Gerson; George Nader, the Lebanese-American with Trump campaign connections; Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman; Michael D. Cohen, the president’s longtime fixer and lawyer; and Erik Prince, the Blackwater founder and brother of Betsy DeVos, Mr. Trump’s pick for education secretary.

Asked about his interactions with the executive at the Russian sovereign wealth fund, a spokesman for Mr. Gerson said in a statement that he engaged in no business with the fund and merely “presented personal ideas on humanitarian issues.”

Only rarely did anyone throw up a red flag, according to the report. In May 2016, after a campaign official reported that Alexander Torshin, an officer of a Russian state-owned bank, wanted to discuss an invitation from Mr. Putin to meet with Mr. Trump, Mr. Kushner, a top adviser to Mr. Trump, responded: “Pass on this. A lot of people come claiming to carry messages.” He added: “Be careful.”

But Mr. Kushner did not always heed his own advice. In mid-December 2016, he agreed to a one-on-one meeting with a Russian official he had been told had a direct line to Mr. Putin: Sergey Gorkov, head of the state-owned bank Vnesheconombank, which was under United States sanctions for Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

An American investment banker with many contacts in Russia, Robert Foresman, said that Mr. Gorkov told him before the meeting that Mr. Putin had approved his trip and that he would report back to Mr. Putin afterward, the special counsel’s report states.

Mr. Kushner told the prosecutors that he did not prepare for the encounter. No one on the transition team even bothered to search Google for Mr. Gorkov’s name. Prosecutors were unable to resolve what was discussed. Mr. Gorkov publicly suggested it was business, while Mr. Kushner said it was diplomatic issues.

Mr. Trump’s revolving cast of aides included several who had contacts with Russians like Oleg V. Deripaska, a billionaire close to the Kremlin.

At the time, Mr. Kushner’s family business was hunting for investors so it could hold onto its flagship property, a Manhattan office building. As the special counsel’s report noted in recounting the meeting between Mr. Kushner and Mr. Gorkov, there “had been public reporting both about efforts to secure lending on the property and possible conflicts of interest for Kushner arising out of his company’s borrowing from foreign lenders.”

The template of Russia trying to advance its policy goals through the business interests of people in Mr. Trump’s orbit was set in mid-2015, almost as soon as Mr. Trump announced his candidacy. One of the earliest examples was the Russian response to Mr. Cohen’s pursuit of a Trump Tower in Moscow, a hotel construction project that Mr. Trump had chased for decades.

Mr. Cohen and another Trump associate, Felix Sater, were communicating with various Russians or their intermediaries about issues like site plans, the need for a Russian developer and financing. But the answers often concerned whether Mr. Trump was willing to meet with Mr. Putin. The possibility that Mr. Trump would travel to Russia for that purpose lingered until he clinched the Republican nomination in mid-2016.

Mr. Trump’s revolving cast of aides and advisers included several who had contacts with Russians or were being aggressively wooed by them, like Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

One of the better-connected was Mr. Manafort, who spent five months as a top strategist and chairman for the Trump campaign. He had worked for Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian billionaire close to the Kremlin, had spent the past decade carrying out the political agenda of Ukrainian oligarchs aligned with Moscow and was in regular contact with Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a Russian associate whom prosecutors have linked to Russian intelligence.

For months during the campaign, Mr. Manafort was feeding internal polling data to Mr. Kilimnik, expecting it to be transferred to Mr. Deripaska and the Ukrainian oligarchs, the report states. In 2016 and early 2017, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik also repeatedly discussed a proposal that would effectively have put part of eastern Ukraine under Russia’s control.

Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, was among those fielding overtures and proposals from Russians or pro-Russian Ukrainians during the campaign and transition.

Despite many months of outreach before the election, the initial interactions between Mr. Trump’s team and the Kremlin were almost comical. Hope Hicks, Mr. Trump’s campaign secretary, received a 3 a.m. phone call on election night from a foreigner she could not understand, followed by an email the next morning conveying Mr. Putin’s congratulations. She forwarded it to Mr. Kushner, writing: “Don’t want to get duped but don’t want to blow off Putin!”

But Mr. Putin quickly dispatched his big players, like Mr. Dmitriev, the chief executive of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund.

On Nov. 9, 2016, Mr. Dmitriev contacted Mr. Nader, an adviser to the royal court of United Arab Emirates whom he knew through joint Russian and Emirati investment projects and who professed to have Trump campaign contacts.

Mr. Dmitriev suggested he could meet Mr. Kushner at a coming World Chess Federation tournament in New York. He later said Mr. Putin himself would be extremely grateful if Mr. Nader could introduce Mr. Dmitriev to either Mr. Kushner or Donald Trump Jr.

Instead, Mr. Nader connected the Russian official to Mr. Gerson, Mr. Kushner’s hedge fund friend, and to Mr. Prince, Ms. DeVos’s brother, who had no formal role in the transition.

On Jan. 11, 2017, Mr. Dmitriev and Mr. Prince met at Mr. Nader’s villa at the Four Seasons Resort in the Seychelles. Mr. Prince told the Russian official that he provided “policy papers” to Mr. Bannon, a top Trump adviser, and that he would brief Mr. Bannon on their meeting. But Mr. Prince’s style seemed strikingly ad hoc.

Returning to his room after professing his hopes for a new era of cooperation, Mr. Prince learned that a Russian aircraft carrier had sailed to Libya. At a hastily organized second meeting, he told Mr. Dmitriev that Russian involvement in Libya was “off the table.” He told prosecutors that he conveyed that message “based on his experience as a former naval officer,” the report said.

Mr. Dmitriev found the trip disappointing, the report said. He told Mr. Nader he wanted to talk to someone with more authority in the Trump administration about a strategic road map for Russia and the United States.

Prosecutors tried in vain to verify what Mr. Prince and Mr. Bannon told them they had discussed about the offshore encounter with Mr. Dmitriev. But although carrier records showed that they had texted each other dozens of times before March 2017, the report stated, their phones contained no messages.

If you can read that and think it’s just fine then I don’t think I need to hear any more from you about “elite impunity” and the influence of big money in politics.

Let’s just say that it opens up a whole new pipeline of big bucks for the powerful. In the hands of someone not quite a clueless as Trump it could be lucrative on an unimaginable level.

This is what global oligarchy looks like.

.

“If somebody is slightly disloyal to me I look upon it as a great act of horror”

by digby

Despite the fact that the Mueller Report should not have been authorized in the first place & was written as nastily as possible by 13 (18) Angry Democrats who were true Trump Haters, including highly conflicted Bob Mueller himself, the end result is No Collusion, No Obstruction!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 20, 2019

The retribution has begun. The only good news for Trump is that he is incapable of reading 400 pages so some of the people who spilled the beans may not be targets of his ire simply because he hasn’t been told about it:

An attorney for former White House counsel Don McGahn is pushing back after President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani went after McGahn’s credibility following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

McGahn’s lawyer responded after Giuliani gave interviews to The New York Times and The Washington Post in which he went after McGahn’s account of various instances of potential obstruction of justice detailed in the special counsel report…

“If McGahn thought any of those things were crimes, why did he stay there?” Giuliani asked Friday during an interview with The Washington Post. “They’re trying to make it out as if there’s something illegal about what happened with McGahn. The guy is a very good lawyer.”

“If he believed that there was something illegal, he wouldn’t have stayed in his job,” he added.

Giuliani also went after McGahn’s account to Mueller in an interview with The New York Times.

“It can’t be taken at face value,” Giuliani told the newspaper. “It could be the product of an inaccurate recollection or could be the product of something else.”

McGahn fights back:

“It’s a mystery why Rudy Giuliani feels the need to re-litigate incidents the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General have concluded were not obstruction. But they are accurately described in the report,” McGahn’s attorney William Burck said in a statement to The Hill.

McGahn went to great lengths to preserve his position in the GOP establishment by sticking it out to get the two Supreme Court justices confirmed and all the lower courts packed with wingnuts. But he also felt it was important to his future to be on the other side of Trump. The question is whether he’s alone in making that calculation or if other members of the establishment might be thinking of threading a similar needle. I think the Conways are doing a good cop bad cop version of the same. So far there isn’t much evidence that they are.

Here’s the president totally happy about his total exoneration:

I suspect some of his former henchmen who cooperated could be among those “sick” people. Remember:

Trump: If given the opportunity, I will get even with some people who were disloyal to me. I mean, I had a group of people that were disloyal …

Rose: How do you define disloyal?

Trump: They didn’t come to my aid and do small things …

Rose: Did they turn their back on you?

Trump: No, but they didn’t do small things that would have helped … you see, I’m so loyal to people, maybe I’m loyal to a fault. But I’m so loyal that if somebody is slightly disloyal to me I look upon it as a great act of horror.

.

Don and Rush observe Good Friday

by digby

You can see why the conservative evangelicals love both of these torture-loving, poor-hating Godly men.

.

It’s not ok

by digby

QOTD:

The criminal act was the theft of the DNC emails by the Russian intelligence that were provided to Wikileaks.  

But looking at the broader picture, this was all a Russian intelligence operation and the president, then-candidate Trump, was a part of it, was receptive to it, that he was trying to enhance the Russian Intelligence operation to interfere in the election.  

It’s not clear you can make a criminal case about that but looking at the whole picture of what was happening in the 2016 election it’s a pretty damning portrait of what the president was doing. — Michael Isikoff

I think a new congress and president, assuming they are sane, will have to look at some way to ensure that traitors and criminals who gleefully accept help and money from a foreign adversary to sabotage their campaign rivals are held accountable. Counting on the fact that no person who could ever be elected would do such a thing — or that the country would stand for it — is not working.

.

The evidence that Barr is a tool and Mueller was signaling to the congress

by digby

The redacted Mueller report released Thursday makes clear that he and his prosecutors viewed the OLC opinion to mean they also could not come to a conclusion about whether the president had committed a crime because it would violate Justice Department standards of fairness to make such an accusation — even secretly — without giving the person a chance to fight the accusation.

The special counsel’s report laid out evidence of potential obstruction of justice for Congress, but the attorney general says there was no crime. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Barr disagreed.

In releasing the report Thursday, the attorney general told reporters that Justice Department officials asked Mueller “about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion.”

“He made it very clear, several times, that he was not taking a position — he was not saying but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime,” Barr said.

Mueller’s approach to the question of whether the president tried to obstruct justice has created tension inside the Justice Department, according to current and former officials. Privately, some senior officials at the Justice Department have been unhappy that Mueller did not reach a conclusion about whether Trump’s conduct rose to the level of a crime, said the officials, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing sensitivity surrounding the probe.

Barr, according to officials, first learned at a meeting with Mueller on March 5 that the special counsel would not make a decision about whether the president had committed a crime. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who tapped Mueller to take the job nearly two years ago and has overseen it since, has told others that he, too, was surprised by Mueller’s comments in early March, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The Mueller report suggests that the OLC opinion weighed heavily on his team’s thinking, and said the special counsel’s office “conducted a thorough investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” suggesting that perhaps another prosecutor could file a charge against Trump after he leaves office.

At other points the report implies — but never says outright — that Congress should assume the role of making prosecutorial decisions when it comes to the president.

“The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law,” Mueller’s team wrote.

[Barr under fire for news conference that was a boon for Trump, and often featured one of his preferred terms]

Legal analysts said they were hopeful Mueller would clarify why he left open the question of whether he believed Trump obstructed justice — perhaps during congressional testimony next month.

Barr was attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration, when Mueller headed the Justice Department’s criminal division, and Barr has said he considers the special counsel a friend. It is unclear to what extent, if any, they have discussed recent events. Barr said at his news conference that he had not spoken with Mueller directly about the decision that Trump did not obstruct justice, but he understood it was his “prerogative” to make the call.

Mueller, Barr said Thursday, “did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress,” and added: “I hope that was not his view, since we don’t convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose.”

Mueller undoubtedly understood what Barr was going to do. After all, all the way back in June of 2017:

Barr also called the obstruction investigation “asinine” and warned that the special counsel risks “taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president.”

I suspect Mueller knew the game was over the minute Barr was named and understood that he’d have to close up shop quickly or would be shut down. It’s not as if Barr tried to hide his intentions.

The weird unwillingness to call the crime a crime was designed to throw it to a co-equal branch to finally decide because it was clear that he would be overruled by Barr anyway.

The House simply must have Mueller up to the hill as soon as possible and not just for an afternoon of showboating by the committees. Nadler and Schiff should assign the questioning to certain members of, better yet, have legal staff do the questioning. This is no time for the usual bullshit.

.