Hard To Imagine Trump Resigning... But The Mooch Knows Him Better Than I Do

The Mooch says Republican senators will pressure Trump enough over the next 3 months that he'll resign by March. Yesterday he told Yahoo Finance that "When you talk to elected Republicans privately, they can’t stand the president. They know the president is a lawless person and basically a criminal."

Scaramucci said Republicans can’t ignore the new polls from Fox News and NBC/Wall Street Journal which show a growing number of Americans, 49%, want Trump removed from office. “I predict that’s now going to have to go to 60 and when it’s 60, Republicans are going to have to cut and run.”

Scaramucci recently filed paperwork to create a political action committee (PAC) which will use its funds to defeat Trump if he fails to leave office before the 2020 presidential election.

“I am in the process of raising the assets and I will make an announcement in early January the number of assets we’ve raised and where we are going to target the thing,” he said.

Scaramucci’s PAC will focus on 11 swing states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida targeting suburban voters, “to explain what the president is doing actually to their children,” he said. “You can’t have somebody that is lawless at the top of the food chain, who is supposed to be the number one law enforcement official in the United States.”

Scaramucci suspects voters are turned off by the presidents “repetitive lying” and “bullying.” Among Republican voters, Trump’s approval rating has fallen eight points since September to 74%, according to a recent ABC News Washington Post poll. But 61% strongly approve of Trump’s performance as president which is essentially unchanged. It’s one reason Scaramucci says Republican leaders still defend Trump publicly but trash him privately.

“The president tries to shame people. He'll bully people,” said Scaramucci. “Remember, we have to be 100% loyal to him like he's David Koresh, or Jim Jones from the Jonestown Kool-Aid punch. If you're not 100% loyal to him he flips out.”

Scaramucci said Republicans should have acted sooner despite what he calls their fear to act.

“The stink of the president would have lasted a little while, but not that long. I mean, they're overestimating his power of intimidation,” he said. “And they're underestimating how good they could be post his departure.”

Sherrod Brown was on with Colbert yesterday and the Ohio senator told him that "Most Republican senators, when you talk to them individually, quietly, will acknowledge that Trump is a racist. They’ll acknowledge that Trump is a misogynist, they’ll acknowledge he has trouble telling the truth... It’s pretty clear that Republican senators, I mean they’re not going to go down as profiles in courage. It’s pretty clear that they like the tax cuts that Trump gave them. They like the attacks on the environment and on labor rights, and they like the young right-wing judges. And they’re all scared of their base. They’re all scared of a Republican primary from a Trump supporter that could take them out." Moscow Mitch wasn't on with Colbert, but he said that "I’m pretty sure how it’s likely to end. If it were today I don’t think there’s any question-- it would not lead to a removal. So the question is how long does the Senate want to take? How long do the presidential candidates want to be here on the floor of the Senate instead of in Iowa and New Hampshire?"

As much as I'd love to believe it, I think The Mooch is dead wrong on this and that McConnell has it about right. The Mooch may know Trump better than I do, but me and Moscow Mitch know Capitol Hill better than he does and there just aren't enough Republican senators with big enough cajones and enough integrity to go to Trump and tell him to retire. It's easier for them to make a bad bet that he'll come through this whole mess fine and they'll all live happily ever after.

Does Trump Think He Can Make The FBI Investigation Into A Whitewash And Get Away With It?

Early this morning, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece by columnist Greg Sargent, Another Trump coverup? Former FBI agents question limits on probe of Kavanaugh that didn't dilly-dally around. "The White House," wrote Sargent, "appears to be playing all kinds of crafty rhetorical games to obscure the answer to a simple question: Has it deliberately placed limits on the scope of the FBI’s renewed background check into allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, or not?" It's the question everyone in the country following this story is asking. "You’ll be startled to hear that instead of providing clarity," Sargent's tongue stuck in his cheek, "White House officials have sown further confusion... Kellyanne Conway told CNN that, while the investigation will be 'limited in scope,' the White House is not setting those limits, which will be 'up to the FBI' to set. Conway pointed to President Trump’s weekend tweet saying the FBI should 'interview whoever they deem appropriate,' and insisted (somehow without dissolving into giggles at her own disingenuousness) that Trump respects the FBI’s 'independence.'"

Then they claimed the Senate-- or at least Republican senators-- suddenly have some kind of power to tell the FBI what to do, which is patently absurd. The White House and some GOP senators appear to have worked out a directive to make the scope of the investigation "as narrow as possible," although there is no paperwork on this. Apparently Kavanaugh's penchant for lying is off limits for the investigation, especially now that Flake indicated he would vote against confirmation if he's convinced the nominee lied to the Seante. Sargent questioned former FBI agents on the limits.

“It’s not an investigation if the FBI is going to accept the dictates of the White House in terms of who you can interview and who you can’t,” John Mindermann, a former FBI special agent who investigated the Watergate break-in, told me. Mindermann added that the idea of such a limited investigation is “ridiculous” and that if this holds, “it would be unprofessional, it would be grossly incomplete, and it would be unfair to the American public.”

...NBC News reports that limits imposed by the White House counsel on the FBI’s investigation preclude questioning former classmates who have contradicted Kavanaugh’s accounts of his drinking. Indeed, other former classmates who have tried to offer the FBI information about him tell the Times and the New Yorker that they haven’t been interviewed. Democrats have pointed out that Kavanaugh’s drinking should be examined because his minimizing of it goes to the core of his credibility, and at any rate, it appears central to the sexual assault allegations themselves.

Indeed, Mindermann told me that a “complete investigation” would include talking to more people “in all of the venues in which Kavanaugh interacted-- private school, parties, law school.” Mindermann added that if the FBI “did the job they should and can do, I would be very surprised if they did not find relevant, very significant additional information about Kavanaugh.”

“A complete background check investigation will not be possible without the ability to interview classmates and associates and anybody with knowledge of the circumstances in the time frame in question,” Dennis Franks, a former FBI agent with two decades of experience, added in an interview with me. “The circumstances in this matter deal with allegations of extensive drinking and behavior while intoxicated. This would normally be an issue that is addressed.”

...You’d think that for lawmakers making this enormously consequential decision about a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court, it would be better to have more information at their disposal rather than less. But it does not appear that the White House and Republican senators agree.

A Sunday Reuters poll by Ipsos showed 42% of Americans, primarily Democrats, believe sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, while 27%, primarily Republicans, don't.

Of course Sargent isn't the only one trying to get to the bottom of the confusion surrounding the parameters of the FBI investigation. The New Yorker sent their own FBI-- Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow-- to find out. Is it true that the White House told the FBI they could only question 4 witnesses. Is this thing really just going to be a "whitewash?" Mayer and Farrow wrote that "The White House spokesman Raj Shah defended the process, and released a statement that placed responsibility for any limitations on the Senate. 'The scope and duration has been set by the Senate. The White House is letting the FBI agents do what they are trained to do,' his statement said. Shah accused Senate Democrats of merely wanting to 'further delay and politicize' the investigation rather than being genuinely concerned about its integrity." This is absurd. The Senate can't tell the FBI what to do; the White shouldn't... but could if Trump wants to.

One of Kavanaugh's Yale classmates offering evidence that wasn't even looked into said "I thought it was going to be an investigation but instead it seems it’s just an alibi for Republicans to vote for Kavanaugh."

On Sunday, a second Yale classmate, Charles Ludington, released a statement accusing Kavanaugh of blatantly mischaracterizing his college drinking during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Ludington said that Kavanaugh often grew “belligerent and aggressive” when drunk, and that he had planned to share his information with the F.B.I. “I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth,” Ludington wrote. “I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will however, take my information to the F.B.I.” The Times reported that Ludington, a professor at North Carolina State University, said that the F.B.I.’s D.C. field office had told him to go to the Bureau’s Raleigh, North Carolina, field office on Monday if he wished to speak with agents. Ludington said that he intended to do so and “tell the full details of my story.” A lawyer representing Kavanaugh did not respond to a request for comment about Ludington’s statement.

According to the Times, the four witnesses approved by the White House for interviews by the F.B.I. are Judge; P. J. Smyth, another high-school friend of Kavanaugh’s; Leland Keyser, a high-school friend of Ford’s; and Ramirez. (Lawyers for Smyth and Keyser have issued statements saying that their clients will coöoperate with the investigation, though Keyser’s told CBS that she will tell the F.B.I. that she does not know Kavanaugh or remember the party where Ford’s alleged assault took place. Keyser has also stressed, however, that she believes Ford and does not refute her testimony.)

Leah Litman, an assistant professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, said the severe restrictions on the scope of the investigation made it “a joke.” She asked, “What kind of an investigation into an assault that happened under the influence of alcohol doesn’t include investigating the accused’s use of alcohol?” She said, “Usually, the F.B.I. investigators aren’t told who to call and who not to.” She said that Rasor should be interviewed, given her past relationship with Judge. “If Mark Judge is on the ‘approved’ list of witnesses, and they are interviewing him, there is no reason not to interview Rasor, who has testimony that is very relevant to his credibility, and the testimony that he would offer,” she said.

...Democratic officials with experience overseeing F.B.I. background investigations disputed that there was anything procedurally routine thus far in the F.B.I.’s renewed investigation into Kavanaugh. Robert Bauer, who served as the White House counsel to President Obama, said that he had overseen numerous F.B.I. background investigations and never seen one so circumscribed. “The F.B.I. should have the latitude to determine what is necessary in a credible, professional inquiry,” he said. “The issue on the table is, Did he or didn’t he engage in the conduct that Dr. Ford alleged?” To reach the answer, he said, “The F.B.I. needs to utilize its expertise to investigate. But instead the White House has dictated a restricted investigative plan. So it’s contaminated at the core.”

From the Trump Code

UPDATE: Trump Yields... Maybe

The White House now claims they've authorized the FBI to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week... The new directive came in the past 24 hours after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau’s investigation into President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. The FBI has already completed interviews with the four witnesses its agents were originally asked to talk to." A thorough investigate might take 8 days, not seven. Or it might take 2 weeks instead of one-- or a month. The FBI should determine that, not someone determined to burn-rush a drunken asshole onto the Court.

FBI Investigating Mercer's Cambridge Analytica

Cambridge Analytica was created around 2013, initially with a focus on U.S. elections, with $15 million in backing from Long Island neo-Nazi billionaire Robert Mercer. Steve Bannon came up with the name, which was focussed on stealing U.S. elections.

I've been told that no law enforcement agencies have questioned Mercer or his vicious crackpot daughter Rebekah, the owners of the company, and the fascists behind the direction it has taken. But there have been reports all week that the FBI and Justice Department are investigating the company. Instead, prosecutors seem to be trying to "question former Cambridge Analytica employees and banks that handled its business." The New York Times refers to the company as "a now-defunct political data firm embroiled in a scandal over its handling of Facebook user information." But are they really defunct-- or just gearing up to help the GOP steal the midterms or help Trump in 2020?

Cambridge Analytica said earlier this month it was shutting down after losing clients and facing mounting legal fees resulting from reports the company harvested personal data about millions of Facebook users beginning in 2014.

Allegations of the improper use of data for 87 million Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica, which was hired by President Donald Trump's 2016 U.S. election campaign, have prompted multiple investigations in the United States and Europe.

The investigation by the Justice Department and FBI appears to focus on the company's financial dealings and how it acquired and used personal data pulled from Facebook and other sources, the Times said.

Investigators have contacted Facebook, according to the newspaper.

The Guardian published a real time account of today's Senate Judiciary Committee questioning of Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie.


UPDATE: Oh, And By The Way, Did Ronan Farrow Find The Smoking Gun Tonight?

Take it away, Ronan. He starts by reminding everyone that Cohen, Trumpanzee's third rate, shyster personal lawyer "had used a shell company to receive payments from various firms with business before the Trump Administration" and that, since then, there's been lots of speculation about who leaked the confidential Cohen financial records. That source, a law-enforcement official, explained his motivation to Farrow in an interview. Basically he had "grown alarmed after being unable to find two important reports on Cohen’s financial activity in a government database. The official, worried that the information was being withheld from law enforcement, released the remaining documents."

The payments to Cohen that have emerged in the past week come primarily from a single document, a “suspicious-activity report” filed by First Republic Bank, where Cohen’s shell company, Essential Consultants, L.L.C., maintained an account. The document detailed sums in the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Cohen by the pharmaceutical company Novartis, the telecommunications giant A.T. & T., and an investment firm with ties to the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg.

The report also refers to two previous suspicious-activity reports, or sars, that the bank had filed, which documented even larger flows of questionable money into Cohen’s account. Those two reports detail more than three million dollars in additional transactions—triple the amount in the report released last week. Which individuals or corporations were involved remains a mystery. But, according to the official who leaked the report, these sars were absent from the database maintained by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or fincen. The official, who has spent a career in law enforcement, told me, “I have never seen something pulled off the system. . . . That system is a safeguard for the bank. It’s a stockpile of information. When something’s not there that should be, I immediately became concerned.” The official added, “That’s why I came forward.”

Seven former government officials and other experts familiar with the Treasury Department’s fincen database expressed varying levels of concern about the missing reports. Some speculated that fincen may have restricted access to the reports due to the sensitivity of their content, which they said would be nearly unprecedented. One called the possibility “explosive.” A record-retention policy on fincen’s Web site notes that false documents or those “deemed highly sensitive” and “requiring strict limitations on access” may be transferred out of its master file. Nevertheless, a former prosecutor who spent years working with the fincen database said that she knew of no mechanism for restricting access to sars. She speculated that fincen may have taken the extraordinary step of restricting access “because of the highly sensitive nature of a potential investigation. It may be that someone reached out to fincen to ask to limit disclosure of certain sars related to an investigation, whether it was the special counsel or the Southern District of New York.” (The special counsel, Robert Mueller, is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The Southern District is investigating Cohen, and the F.B.I. raided his office and hotel room last month.)

Whatever the explanation for the missing reports, the appearance that some, but not all, had been removed or restricted troubled the official who released the report last week. “Why just those two missing?” the official, who feared that the contents of those two reports might be permanently withheld, said. “That’s what alarms me the most.”

Fincen said in a statement that it protects the confidentiality of sars “in order to protect both filers and potentially named individuals.” The statement added, “FinCEN neither confirms nor denies the existence of purported SARs.” Spokespeople for the special counsel’s office and the Southern District of New York declined to comment. Michael Cohen and his lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.

Banks are legally mandated to file suspicious-activity reports with the government in order to call attention to activity that resembles money laundering, fraud, and other criminal conduct. These reports are routed to a permanent database maintained by fincen, which can be searched by tens of thousands of law-enforcement and other federal government personnel. The reports are a routine response to any financial activity that appears suspicious. They are not proof of criminal activity, and often do not result in criminal charges, though the information in them can be used in law-enforcement proceedings. “This is a permanent record. They should be there,” the official, who described an exhaustive search for the reports, said. “And there is nothing there.”