Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A Real American President: Donald Trump -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mrjns who wrote (88632)	8/20/2018 10:58:50 AM
From: FJB	3 Recommendations Recommended By Honey_Bee locogringo Mrjns Respond to of 456219

Trump: Some journalists 'very angry', called to apologize for 'fake' New York Times story on Don McGahn washingtonexaminer.com President Trump tore into the New York Times in a torrent of angry tweets on Sunday, claiming "some members of the media" had expressed frustration with the newspaper's coverage of White House counsel Don McGahn's cooperation with special counsel Robert Mueller's federal Russia investigation. "Some members of the media are very Angry at the Fake Story in the New York Times. They actually called to complain and apologize - a big step forward," Trump wrote on Twitter. "From the day I announced, the Times has been Fake News, and with their disgusting new Board Member, it will only get worse!" he continued, appearing to refer to the Times' latest editorial board hire, Sarah Jeong, who was a controversial pick due to her history of racially charged tweets. McGahn has met with Mueller's team three times, the New York Times reported Saturday, speaking to federal investigators for about 30 hours during the past nine months on a range of topics, including Trump's dismissal of former FBI director James Comey and his push to install a person loyal to the president to oversee the federal Russia probe. The newspaper noted that it is "unusual" for an attorney to share such intimate details about a client. Trump pushed back on the report later that day, taking to Twitter to assert that he "allowed" McGahn "and all other requested members of the White House Staff" to cooperate with Mueller's outfit. He continued to undercut the New York Times story Sunday in a flurry of tweets, reiterating his comparison of Mueller's investigation to a "witch hunt" and as an example of "McCarthyism." "Study the late Joseph McCarthy, because we are now in period with Mueller and his gang that make Joseph McCarthy look like a baby! Rigged Witch Hunt!" he wrote in reference to the Wisconsin Republican senator's notorious hunt for communist sympathizers in the 1950s. News of McGahn's cooperation with Mueller comes as Trump's personal lawyers remain at loggerheads with the special counsel regarding the prospect of the president voluntarily sitting down to provide testimony on ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia, as well as the possibility that Trump obstructed justice when he fired Comey.

To: Mrjns who wrote (88632)	8/20/2018 11:00:40 AM
From: FJB	3 Recommendations Recommended By Honey_Bee Mrjns Thomas M. Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 456219

Robert Mueller Let A Prolific Child Porn Collector With A Famous Dad Walk Free - DANGEROUS dangerous.com Monday, August 20 2018 According to court documents obtained exclusively by this magazine, in 1998 as U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller let one of the most prolific child porn collectors of all time walk free with a $200 fine. Now, people are asking why, and whether it had anything to do with the offender’s famous father, legendary celebrity science fiction author Isaac Asimov. David Asimov, son of celebrity science fiction author Isaac Asimov, amassed one of the most gigantic child porn libraries in American history, and the largest ever found in California. But Robert Mueller, as the U.S. Attorney responsible for prosecuting the case, let Asimov walk free. Santa Rosa police arrested the younger Asimov in 1998 after discovering the gigantic collection of child pornography. An anonymous pro-Trump lawyer on Twitter acquired and summarized the court documents relating to Asimov’s case last week, and authorized for them to be shared with us via a third party. Though the documents have been quoted and summarized on social media previously, this is the first time they have been provided to a news organization in their original format. Previous reporting on the subject lacked access to this information, which is included in its entirety in this report for DANGEROUS readers. Below, we reproduce the original indictment, plea deals and judgments from the case. Most striking is the sheer volume of underage material. Deputy district attorney Gary Medvigy described the haul to journalists at the time as, “A huge quantity. Believe me, there aren’t enough people or enough man-hours to look at it all. The whole house was full of VCRs, commercial tapes, homemade tapes and sophisticated equipment for taping and duplicating.” Robert Mueller’s name appears on the agreement in his capacity as U.S. Attorney, as well as on the original indictment. He would have been responsible for signing off on the deal, which is remarkably favorable given the quantity of material discovered in the reclusive Asimov’s Sonoma County home. Since summaries of these court documents appeared online, people have been asking just how responsible Mueller was for the terms. Despite possessing thousands of images of underage children, David Asimov pled guilty to just two counts of possessing illegal images and received no jail time. Instead, he was given probation, told not to drink alcohol, and asked to pay a $200 fine. David Asimov’s punishment for amassing a vast child porn library. In addition to videotapes and floppy disks, Asimov was found in possession of a Danish magazine called Lollipops 2, a German magazine called Torrid Teens and a publication by Potomic News Co., Washington, D.C., titled The Boys of Times Square, each of which contained images of child pornography. The unemployed Asimov’s crimes were discovered when a computer repair technician noticed the images on a machine brought in for repair. Asimov’s lawyer Chris Andrian insisted Asimov was “not a predator,” describing him as “an acutely intelligent guy who wouldn’t hurt a flea. . . . He hasn’t got the social grace or skills of one who would try subtly to lure a kid into his house.” Journalists reporting on the case in 1998 describe Asimov as living “deep in the gargantuan shadow of his late father,” in an apparent attempt to excuse or explain the younger Asimov’s behavior. His lawyer argued that Asimov was in a “significantly impaired mental state” at the time of the offenses, asking that a recommended sentence of two and a half years be set aside because Asimov was a suicide risk. While court documents refer to “drugs and other intoxicants,” Asimov was asked to refrain only from alcohol in the terms of his sentence.

To: Mrjns who wrote (88632)	8/20/2018 11:06:45 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By AJ Muckenfus Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 456219

WHAT TO MAKE OF THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S COOPERATION WITH MUELLER POSTED ON AUGUST 19, 2018 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN ROBERT MUELLER, RUSSIA INVESTIGATION The New York Times reports that White House Counsel Don McGahn was interviewed for something like 30 hours total by Robert Mueller’s team. According to the Times, President Trump agreed to have McGahn questioned by Team Mueller without conditions or limitations. I have several observations about the Times’ article. First, the decision not to object to the interview of McGahn, or at least try to negotiate ground rules and limitiations, strikes me as a monumental blunder. The Times says Trump consented because his first team of criminal lawyers wanted to collaborate fully with Mueller. They believed their client had nothing to hide and that they could bring the investigation to an end quickly. This was a serious miscalculation. It doesn’t matter for these purposes whether you believe your client has nothing to hide. What matters is whether the prosecutors believe this. Prosecutors, by their nature, seldom have that belief. In this case, moreover, it should have been obvious that Mueller and his partisan team never believed Trump has nothing to hide. Nor was having McGahn talk for hours and hours reasonably calculated to bring Mueller’s investigation to a quick end. On the contrary, it was always likely to provide the prosecutors with new pieces of information to check out and new angles to pursue. You don’t curtail an investigation by feeding it. It’s not clear that Trump and his lawyers could have prevented Mueller from interviewing McGahn. The White House lawyer is not Trump’s lawyer — whatever Trump might think — so the attorney client privilege doesn’t apply. However, executive privilege might. Trump’s lawyers should have asserted it, and anything else they could assert with a straight face. If nothing else, doing so probably would have limited the scope of Mueller’s inquiry. The Times claims that McGahn, stunned by Trump’s willingness to have the interview take place, suspected that Trump consented in order to make McGahn the fall guy. I don’t whether this is true. But McGahn must have wondered why intelligent lawyers and an intelligent president were acceding to a carte blanche interview. Second, I have no doubt that McGahn answered Team Mueller’s questions fully and honestly. I’m confident he wouldn’t sacrifice his reputation, not to mention risk criminal jeopardy, in order to cover up for Donald Trump. There’s a good chance McGahn didn’t think his answers would place Trump in jeopardy (see below). But either way, McGahn was going to answer honestly and let the chips fall where they may. *Third, it seems unlikely that McGahn’s answers can form a valid* basis for alleging criminality by Trump. The Times reports: Mr. McGahn gave to Mr. Mueller’s investigators, the people said, a sense of the president’s mind-set in the days leading to the firing of Mr. Comey; how the White House handled the firing of the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn; and how Mr. Trump repeatedly berated Mr. Sessions, tried to get him to assert control over the investigation and threatened to fire him. In the absence of truly extraordinary circumstances, asking the Attorney General to assert control over a crucial investigation, and threatening to fire him (but not doing so), is surely not obstruction of justice. Neither is firing Michael Flynn, regardless of how it was handled. Apparently, Team Mueller sees possible obstruction of justice in the firing of Mueller’s former comrade-in-arms, James Comey. I don’t know how this exercise of presidential authority could be obstruction, given that (1) Comey told Trump he had found no evidence of unlawful conduct by the president and (2) the firing of Comey did not shut down the Russia investigation and was never likely to. The Times says Team Mueller asked McGahn about his discussions with Trump regarding firing Mueller himself. No doubt. But Trump hasn’t fired Mueller. Thus, while the conversations about this subject must have been interesting, they are not the stuff of justice obstruction. McGahn himself reportedly doesn’t see criminality in the president’s exercise of his authority to take such action as firing Comey and pressuring Jeff Sessions to engage in the Russia investigation. According to the Times: Mr. McGahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities, though the limits of executive power are murky. I’m not sure whether that last clause is what McGahn told investigators or the Times’ editorializing. But there’s nothing particularly murky about the president’s authority to fire his FBI director and his national security adviser, or to pressure his attorney general to lead a key investigation. Fourth, although it’s unlikely that McGahn’s answers can form the basis for valid allegations of criminality by Trump, Team Mueller may well have obtained information it will use to allege criminality. It’s likely that, during all of those hours spent questioning McGahn, Mueller’s team obtained nuggets with which, creatively, to spin out claims that Trump violated this or that law. I’m pretty sure that, at a minimum, they obtained politically embarrassing nuggets to include in their report. This brings me back to my first point. Trump and his lawyers should never have consented to McGahn’s interview with Mueller’s team.**

To: Mrjns who wrote (88632)	8/20/2018 11:11:51 AM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By Honey_Bee Thehammer Respond to of 456219

SCHWEIZER: CLEARANCES AFFECT BRENNAN, CLAPPER’S ‘BOTTOM LINE IN A BIG WAY’… …PLUS — BIG TECH CRONYISM: MUELLER CONSULTING CLIENT APPLE PROTECTS JIHADIST’S IPHONE, TURNS OVER MANAFORT’S ICLOUD Hannity opened the interview with questions: “How is it all of these politicians have become filthy rich? They’re supposed to be public servants. Where does the money come from? What are the conflicts of interest?”