Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

Texas73

Texas73 422

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Swam@Texas said:

And did exactly what the Barack Hussein Obama, II campaign was hailed as being a technological visionary for doing in 2012. (But they pinky-swore to not do it again and nobody raised an eyebrow because, well, the results justified the behavior.)

No comparison between what Obama did and what Cambridge Analytica . Are you dense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted

^ article

By 
Byron Tau and
 
Erica Orden
March 26, 2018 5:58 p.m. ET
 

WASHINGTON—White House attorneys are examining whether two loans totaling more than $500 million to Jared Kushner’s family business may have violated any criminal laws or federal ethics regulations, according to a letter from a federal ethics agency made public Monday.

The Office of Government Ethics told a Democratic lawmaker in the letter that the White House is probing whether a $184 million loan from the real-estate arm of Apollo Global Management LLC and a $325 million loan from Citigroup Inc. may have run afoul of the rules and laws governing the conduct of federal employees.

Both loans went to the Kushner Cos., the private real-estate company founded by Mr. Kushner’s father and run by members of his family. Mr. Kushner, who is President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and serves in a senior position in the White House, met with top executives of both Citi and Apollo before each loan was disbursed, the New York Times reported last month.

 

“I have discussed this matter with the White House Counsel’s Office in order to ensure that they have begun the process of ascertaining the facts necessary to determine whether any law or regulation has been violated,” wrote David Apol, the acting director of the Office of Government Ethics. “During that discussion, the White House informed me that they had already begun this process.”

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos. said the company hasn’t received an inquiry from the White House Counsel’s Office.

The letter, dated March 22 and released Monday, was addressed to Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who sits on the House Oversight Committee.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi earlier this month asked the Office of Government Ethics for an advisory opinion about ethical questions he said were raised by Mr. Kushner meeting with executives while their institutions provided financial backing to his family company.

The transactions “raise serious ethical questions that need to be investigated,” Mr. Krishnamoorthi said in his letter to OGE, asking: “Do the above actions by Mr. Kushner constitute a breach of his ethical obligations to the American people?”

Citigroup said last week in a letter to lawmakers that the loan was “completely appropriate,” adding that Citi began exploring the loan in late 2016, before CEO Michael Corbat and Mr. Kushner met at the White House on March 3, 2017. On March 31, Kushner Cos. and two partner firms closed on a $325 million mortgage for a Brooklyn property with Citigroup, the bank said. “Nothing related to the [Brooklyn] loan or any other personal business with Mr. Kushner or the Kushner Companies was discussed at that meeting,” Citigroup said.

Citigroup’s letter, which came in response to a request for information from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and other lawmakers, said “the Kushner family has been a client of Citi for decades.”

Also last week, Kushner Cos. disclosed that it had recently received another loan from Citigroup, this one for $200 million for a Jersey City, N.J. property known as Trump Bay Street.

A spokesman for Apollo Global Management declined to comment.

Mr. Kushner had been running the Kushner business before the election. After Mr. Trump won, Mr. Kushner resigned from the company and sold his personal stake in some projects and assets to family members and others, but he retains a stake in multiple Kushner Cos. properties, including those that received the Apollo and Citigroup loans.

The White House’s examination of the loans to Kushner Cos. comes as the company is being investigated by the Brooklyn U.S. attorney’s office and the Securities and Exchange Commission over its use of a federal investment-for-visa program known as EB-5. The company said recently that it has stopped using EB-5 financing for its projects.

 

OGE, an independent agency, is charged with helping executive-branch officials avoid conflicts of interest. Its role is advisory and educational in nature, rather than enforcement. Investigations and prosecutions related to potential violations are handled by the Justice Department.

—Rebecca Ballhaus contributed to this article.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7622

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/top-republican-lawyer-no-ones-asking-to-be-on-trumps-legal-team/

Top Republican Lawyer: No One’s Asking to Be on Trump’s Legal Team

Ted Olson turned down a chance to represent the president. He says none of his colleagues have asked for a referral. 

 

Top Republican Lawyer: No One’s Asking to Be on Trump’s Legal Team

Ted Olson turned down a chance to represent the president. He says none of his colleagues have asked for a referral. 

DAVID CORNMAR. 26, 2018 1:34 PM

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
ted-olson-03262018.jpg?w=990

Brian Cahn/Zuma

Looking for news you can trust?
Subscribe to our free newsletters.
 

On Sunday, President Donald Trump reacted to news reports that he was having trouble recruiting lawyers for his legal team. “Many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the Russia case…don’t believe the Fake News narrative that it is hard to find a lawyer who wants to take this on. Fame & fortune will NEVER be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted,” he tweeted. “Problem is that a new….lawyer or law firm will take months to get up to speed (if for no other reason than they can bill more), which is unfair to our great country – and I am very happy with my existing team.”

But it might be true that there is little demand for Trump as a legal client.

On Monday, I bumped into GOP super-lawyer Ted Olson. Last week, the Washington Post reported that Trump’s legal crew had asked Olson if he would join its ranks. His law firm quickly shot down the possibility of Olson riding to Trump’s rescue, noting that there were too many potential conflicts of interest. Then attention turned toward Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, lawyers and conservative Fox-favorite conspiracy theorists who are former Justice Department officials. It was announced that they would be joining Team Trump. Two days later they were un-announced. 

 

I asked Olson about being recruited for Trump’s squad. He rolled his eyes, suggesting that this was never going to happen and that it was not just a matter of conflicts. (Though a conservative stalwart, Olson has in recent years enhanced his reputation by becoming a forceful advocate for gay marriage. Associating with Trump could well tarnish that shine.)

So this didn’t get too far? I queried. Olson shrugged in an I’m-not-getting-into-details way. “Who knows how these trial balloons happen?” he said, in a manner that definitely suggested he knows how they happen. He then joked, “Joe [diGenova] lasted longer. At least two days.” 

So is Trump going to have trouble finding attorneys? Olson shrugged again. “Let me ask this a different way,” I said. “In the last few days has any lawyer come up to you and said, ‘I’m willing to work for Trump?'”

Without hesitation, Olson said, “No.” Not at all? “Not at all.”

Washington, I noted, is full of Republican lawyers who generally do not mind being in the middle of headline-generating scandals and earning a bit of notice. Olson laughed: “That’s right.” And not one of them had contacted him to say he or she was willing to sign up? “No,” he repeated.

 

Trump seems to believe he’s a hot ticket for DC’s top legal talent. The word on the street is different. 

Edited by Pods
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

The President of the United States is embroiled in the most significant National Security CRIMINAL investigation in US history and his attorney is Jay Sukulow of Fox News.

It’s laughably absurd and almost sad.

Literally everyone around Trump has better lawyers.  Even his own attorney, Michael Cohen, has better legal representation than Trump.

 

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clearlakehorn

Clearlakehorn 8

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The President of the United States is embroiled in the most significant National Security CRIMINAL investigation in US history and his attorney is Jay Sukulow of Fox News.

It’s laughably absurd and almost sad.

Literally everyone around Trump has better lawyers.  Even his own attorney, Michael Cohen, has better legal representation than Trump.

 

 

Stop spreading lies, Hugo. Trump can have the pick of any of the top lawyers on the planet... He said so himself. He's just having trouble finding a lawyer who's legal expertise rivals his own vast legal knowledge so the best avenue may just be to hire the best he possibly can... himself. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grandioso

Grandioso 2592

Posted
Posted

Facts and circumstances be damned, I can't believe a top lawyer won't represent Trump just for the money. 

I think the Trump lawyers that bailed did so knowing that they're going to be disqualified if/when Trump is charged with a crime. Now, a lot of what they might have to say would be confidential, but the prosecutors can still explore dry facts relevant to time, place, date, etc.

Quote

Rule 3.7 Lawyer As Witness

(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness....

But here is the Rule/Comment that I think make Trump un-representable:

Quote

Client-Lawyer Relationship
Rule 1.2 Scope Of Representation And Allocation Of Authority Between Client And Lawyer

- Comment

Criminal, Fraudulent and Prohibited Transactions

.....

[10] When the client's course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer's responsibility is especially delicate. The lawyer is required to avoid assisting the client, for example, by drafting or delivering documents that the lawyer knows are fraudulent or by suggesting how the wrongdoing might be concealed. A lawyer may not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally supposed was legally proper but then discovers is criminal or fraudulent. The lawyer must, therefore, withdraw from the representation of the client in the matter. See Rule 1.16(a). In some cases, withdrawal alone might be insufficient. It may be necessary for the lawyer to give notice of the fact of withdrawal and to disaffirm any opinion, document, affirmation or the like. See Rule 4.1.

If Trump is plowing ahead with obstruction of justice, he's going to be telling you to do stuff that will make you lose your law license (and maybe land you in jail). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shnsajax

shnsajax 3605

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I imagine attorneys don't want to represent Trump because they could easily get themselves entangled in some legal jeopardy like obstruction of justice or crime fraud. 

John Dowd out front should have told ya. 

They also don't want to potentially lose real clients by being a part of this shitshow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90548

Posted
Posted

Trump lied to the Canadian leader for absolutely no reason other than Trump didn’t know the answer, and Trump boasted of it at a fundraiser  

No reason to think he won’t lie if his ass is in legal jeopardy.  What lawyer wants to deal with that shit?  Especially when it’s not some settlement they’ll get a part of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Judge Roybeanbag

Judge Roybeanbag 11856

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Trump lied to the Canadian leader for absolutely no reason other than Trump didn’t know the answer, and Trump boasted of it at a fundraiser  

No reason to think he won’t lie if his ass is in legal jeopardy.  What lawyer wants to deal with that shit?  Especially when it’s not some settlement they’ll get a part of. 

Yeah no shit.  He can't help himself, he's just a compulsive liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yeah, as mentioned at the other place, you don't even have to get into personal distaste for The Donald or what he represents, a lot of big-firm lawyers are going to have actual conflicts of interest (represented a party adverse to Trump) or potential conflicts that are going to say no to one of their lawyers representing the dotard.  He's probably going to have to find someone in a small firm setting.

Plus, this isn't a straight-up criminal case.  There will be no trial as such, but he does need someone who is intimately familiar with investigations.  It's a fairly rarefied area.

And, of course, you have the prospect of the client not following your advice, which, as a lawyer sucks, but makes you a ton of money most of the time.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HornOnTheBayou

HornOnTheBayou 9056

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, of course, you have the prospect of the client not following your advice, which, as a lawyer sucks, but makes you a ton of money most of the time.

It will make you a ton of money if your client pays you. That's not guaranteed (or  likely) with DOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32543

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Grandioso said:

Facts and circumstances be damned, I can't believe a top lawyer won't represent Trump just for the money. 

I think the Trump lawyers that bailed did so knowing that they're going to be disqualified if/when Trump is charged with a crime. Now, a lot of what they might have to say would be confidential, but the prosecutors can still explore dry facts relevant to time, place, date, etc.

But here is the Rule/Comment that I think make Trump un-representable:

If Trump is plowing ahead with obstruction of justice, he's going to be telling you to do stuff that will make you lose your law license (and maybe land you in jail). 

Two theories from elsewhere on why he can't get top representation now:

 

Quote

No big law firm can rep Trump because of powerful partners (especially female) redlining it and the associate recruiting pr disaster it would trigger (especially with young women). Repping Trump is a political statement no large law firm can afford to make. Big city lawyers are disproportionately Dems.

Most firms now have at least a few powerful female partners and they ALL have 50 percent young women as associates. Of course many of the men despise Trump too, but it is the women who are saying you represent this fucking pig and I will quit tomorrow and everyone knows they mean it. And any firm that represented Trump may as well just give up on attracting female associates. It would become their entire brand overnight, and it is a terrible black mark. The top firms are interchangeable, so it doesn’t take much to drop to the bottom of young associates’ list. Yes, the fact that he won’t pay, will fucking lose spectacularly and along the way will inevitably force his lawyer to choose between suborning perjury and quitting (if he can), but the truth is it’s the Trump brand they just can’t afford. He’s a Swastika.

Quote

All prominent firms now have in-house general counsel to whom firm lawyers go for ethical advice. There is little doubt that an inquiry to represent Trump would be vetted by the firm’s managing partner and its general counsel. Trump as a client is a flashing ethical red light. He is a pathological liar. He is probably engaged in obstructing justice on an ongoing basis. He will certainly continue to tell lies and place his lawyers in the position of having to repeat them or disavow them. Distilled to their essence, the rules of professional conduct prohibit a lawyer from lying, using evidence he or she knows to be false (including a client’s lie), helping a client commit a crime or fraud, or letting a client use the lawyer to commit a crime or fraud. Representing Trump places any lawyer squarely in that ethical buzzsaw. It is like being asked to be a lawyer for the mob, assuming, as I think he is, Trump is an ongoing criminal enterprise.

The ethical issue is different for a lawyer representing a client solely regarding past crimes. The lawyer must still steer clear of lying and using a client’s lies, but his or her representation is not facilitating ongoing criminal conduct, and there are special rules for a criminal defense lawyer whose client wants to take the stand and lie in his defense at trial. But the investigation is not solely about the past. Trump is still in office and still highly motivated and capable of obstructing justice. What reputable lawyer would want any part of that, even if he or she thought they’d get paid?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28904

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

talkingpointsmemo.com

Okay, I only fact checked the first of those two quotes. You found it at TalkingPointsMemo, but they cited it as being "From TPM Reader JB." That's an anonymous internet poster afaic and warrants the according level of respect, which is none. I assume the second quote is similarly sourced. 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/why-the-president-has-no-personal-attorney

Even the worst criminals deserve representation. Trump defender Alan Dershowitz represented OJ Simpson and he's on Fox News defending Trump. I'm not buying that any law firm would use Trump's sexual infidelity and/or harassment issues as a reason not to represent him because the women in the firm might be offended. I'm sure there are a lot of female lawyers who have represented clients accused of rape, clients who were guilty, clients who they knew were guilty.

Those quotes just don't ring true, imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...