Bannon asking Trump to go full Stalin on Mueller investigation

[Cuddles]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4efec6389f0_story.html?utm_term=.bad5f84d84db

The first step, these people say, would be for Trump to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who oversees the work of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and in recent days signed off on a search warrant of Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen.

Bannon is also recommending the White House cease its cooperation with Mueller, reversing the policy of Trump’s legal team to provide information to the special counsel’s team and to allow staff members to sit for interviews.

And he is telling associates inside and outside the administration that the president should create a new legal battleground to protect himself from the investigation by asserting executive privilege — and arguing that Mueller’s interviews with White House officials over the past year should now be null and void.

“The president wasn’t fully briefed by his lawyers on the implications” of not invoking executive privilege, Bannon told The Washington Post in an interview Wednesday. “It was a strategic mistake to turn over everything without due process, and executive privilege should be exerted immediately and retroactively.”

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

......leftards are complaining because, as we know, it is Mueller's job to go full Stalin- not Bannon.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I was watching the death of Stalin, the new comedy recently. A good film, I can imagine the WH staff tip-toeing through the Trumps the past year in terror.

 

[piezoe]

Bannon is obviously not a lawyer. What Bannon is advising Trump to do is to forget law and go with civil insurrection, i.e., rally the "Freedom Caucus" and the "uneducated" in the hinterlands that [they] "love" so much. Then sandbag 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and lock the gates. I'm a little surprised Bannon's "brilliant plan" does not mention elevating Nunes to the Attorney General's slot. Probably Bannon wanted that position reserved for himself.

This is going to be even better material for a Broadway Musical than I originally envisioned when there was only Hillary, Hollywood Confidential, Epstein, Comey, Mueller, The Dossier, Putin, Kislyak, Stormy, and a chorus line of 50 Russian Mafioso to provide inspiration.

https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/...trump...epstein.../YijRjaz87dDMiV18TGeDAN/

In the sequel Hollywood Screen Version I can imagine Silvio Berlusconi in a cameo role, a'la Hitchcock, as a tux clad waiter at Mar-a-Lago. Berlusconi loves the limelight. I'm sure he'd do it.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Bannon is obviously not a lawyer. What Bannon is advising Trump to do is to forget law .

Not exactly.

As with Comey, it may or may not be politically ill-advised to fire either Mueller or Rosenstein but it is not illegal or unlawful. Ditto for firing Sessions. Some of the bad actors further down the food chain may have civil service protections- as McCabe did- but that doesnt mean that it can not still be done with cause. Cause is not required with Mueller, Rosenstein or Sessions.

Keep in mind that i am not advising that he do any of that- nor am I discouraging it- I am just rejecting assertions that it would be like Stalin or that he would be "forgetting the law."

 

[piezoe]

Not exactly.

As with Comey, it may or may not be politically ill-advised to fire either Mueller or Rosenstein but it is not illegal or unlawful. Ditto for firing Sessions. Some of the bad actors further down the food chain may have civil service protections- as McCabe did- but that doesnt mean that it can not still be done with cause. Cause is not required with Mueller, Rosenstein or Sessions.

Keep in mind that i am not advising that he do any of that- nor am I discouraging it- I am just rejecting assertions that it would be like Stalin or that he would be "forgetting the law."

Your knowledge of the law impresses, but that's not what I meant when I said forget "law" see my remarks re sandbagging and locking the gates. I.e., ignoring subpoenas or hiding out so you you can't be served.

I am for the most part writing for the educated, so inadvertently some Trump supporters will not be reached by my comments. I'm willing to live with that. Bannon is very clearly suggesting that Trump should galvanize his supporters behind him and against the forces of law. He is hoping public opinion, though it be that of a small minority, will take a hand in matters. Were he on the majority side, I'd give him favorable odds of wining out. Under the circumstances, I can't do that. The walls are quite obviously closing in on Trump. He'd best be advised to seek the most competent legal advice he can find. His situation just got all the more grave because he is very likely to be in Trouble with the U.S. Attorney in Southern District of New York as soon as they get through going over Cohen's files and payment records. And then there is the New York State Attorney General in line behind the Federal boys. Yikes, I'd be scared shitless if this were happening to me! But Narcissists don't scare easily. He'll get mad as hell, and that's only going to get him in more hot water. Good by and good riddance Mr. Trump.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Your knowledge of the law impresses, but that's not what I meant when I said forget "law" see my remarks re sandbagging and locking the gates. I.e., ignoring subpoenas or hiding out so you you can't be served.

Bannon is a rough animal but some of his "legal" advice to Trump has merit. Example, when Bannon was called before the congressional committee, he did not go through a big gyration about whether he should or should not testify or whether to just go and plead the fifth or whatever. He just went and answered what he wanted and invoked preservation of Executive Privilege as his legal basis, and then just let them deal with it. Brilliant.

And his advice, and from some others now too, is for Trump to just invoke Executive Privilege rather than the fifth. Talk with Mueller but just dont anwer anything that you dont want to anwer and dont plead the fifth either. That way he gets his interview out of the way but does not let anyone corner him into acting like he is a criminal defendant. If you are President and someone wants to ask you about your private conversations with your cabinet or senior officials, just tell them to buzz off.

 

[piezoe]

That was Nunes's committee right. Ha ha ha. Big brave Steve. Ha ha ha. And now, sadly for our beleaguered, orange President, there is no such thing as executive privilege when it come to trying to protect yourself from prosecution, and of course the concept doesn't even exist in the context of impeachment! ha ha ha! (See Richard Milhous Nixon: "It's not illegal when the President does it." Ha ha ha. )

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

That was Nunes's committee right. Ha ha ha. Big brave Steve. Ha ha ha. And now, sadly for our beleaguered, orange President, there is no such thing as executive privilege when it come to trying to protect yourself from prosecution, and of course the concept doesn't even exist in the context of impeachment! ha ha ha! (See Richard Milhous Nixon: "It's not illegal when the President does it." Ha ha ha. )

Hopefully we will not be caused to endure any more legal opinions on your part. The most recent ones have been atrocious.

First of all the question of whether executive privilege is being used to protect against prosecution is a related but separate issue from whether it can be used to protect against compelling disclosure of privileged discussions to generate evidence for such prosecution. That is way too nuanced and complicated for your googled-up understanding so I am not going to try to educate you here.

Second, you missed the point. I said that I think Trump should just do the interview and assert Executive Privilege and have the interview over with and tell Mueller that he is done with that. The next move would be Mueller's- which would cause the whole scenario to spin off into the courts for years. Go for it. But it puts the whole issue of interviewing trump and the kabuki dance behind him and forces Mueller to go for an indictment if he wants to go further. Fine. Giddy-up. Let's go. If he goes full legal then Trump will go full Fifth and- as we all know- Mueller needs to have Trump walk into a perjury trap in order to have any crime against him- and that aint how to get there.

 

[piezoe]

Mueller needs to have Trump walk into a perjury trap in order to have any crime against him

Last I "googled up" on money laundering and tax evasion they were both considered to be crimes. And i'm just guessing here because I haven't "googled up" on it, but I think Bank Fraud is also a crime. Kissing up to a criminal is not a crime as long as you don't shelter, aid or abet, so I think you should be safe.