Democrats to prepare subpoenas for full Mueller report

The House Judiciary Committee will prepare subpoenas this week seeking special counsel Robert Mueller’s full Russia report as the Justice Department appears likely to miss an April 2 deadline set by Democrats for the report’s release.

The Judiciary panel plans to vote on subpoenas Wednesday, a day after the deadline. The chairmen of several House committees asked for the full report last week after Attorney General William Barr released a four-page summary laying out the report’s “principal conclusions.” Barr said in a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on Friday that a redacted version of the full 300 page report would be released by mid-April, “if not sooner.”

The planned committee vote, announced Monday morning, would not automatically issue subpoenas but authorize House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., to send them.

The panel will also vote to authorize subpoenas related to a number of President Donald Trump’s former top advisers, including strategist Steve Bannon, Communications Director Hope Hicks, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, White House Counsel Donald McGahn and counsel Ann Donaldson. Donaldson served as McGahn’s chief of staff before both left the administration.

The five were probably key witnesses in Mueller’s probe of possible obstruction of justice. The meeting notice says they “may have received documents from the White House relevant to the special counsel investigation, or their outside counsel may have, waiving applicable privileges under the law.” The subpoenas would be related to documents where executive privilege was waived “and related matters,” the notice says.

The former White House advisers were included in a massive document request the committee made last month. Nadler sent requests to 81 people connected to Trump’s political and personal dealings as he launched a wide-ranging investigation into possible obstruction of justice, public corruption and abuses of power.

Democrats have said they will not accept a redacted version of the report, which is what Barr is preparing. Barr said in the letter Friday that he is scrubbing the report to avoid disclosing any grand jury information or classified material, in addition to portions of the report that pertain to ongoing investigations or that “would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Democrats want all of that information, even if some of it can’t be disclosed to the public. They are citing precedents from previous investigations involving presidents and also information disclosed about the Russia investigation to Republicans last year when they held the House majority.

Barr wrote in his summary that the special counsel did not find that Trump’s campaign “conspired or coordinated” with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election. He said Mueller reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed the federal investigation, instead setting out “evidence on both sides” of the question.

Barr himself went further than Mueller in his summary letter, declaring that Mueller’s evidence was insufficient to prove in court that Trump had committed obstruction of justice to hamper the probe.

Democrats say they want to know much more about both conclusions and they want to see the evidence unfiltered by Barr.

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.apnews.com/92c7fbd47c88463ba308ecd573de4b55

Advertisements

House Votes, 420-to-0, to Demand Public Release of Mueller Report

House Republicans joined Democrats on Thursday to demand that the Justice Department publicly release the full findings of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and the possible involvement of President Trump’s campaign.

Though the resolution is nonbinding, Democrats who put it on the House floor are trying to build public pressure on Attorney General William P. Barr before the investigation’s anticipated conclusion.

Far from standing in the way, Republicans joined Democrats en masse. On the 420-to-0 vote, four Republicans voted present.

“This report must see the light of day, must be available to the American public for a catharsis that will allow us to start with the facts, understand what happened and begin to rebuild the faith of the American people,” said Representative Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut and a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, which has undertaken its own Russia investigation.

Republicans debating it on the House floor called the resolution a waste of time and said they trusted Mr. Barr. But they were unwilling to stand in its way.

“I am especially concerned about what would happen if the report was not made available to Congress,” Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the second-ranking Republican, said in a statement. “Since the investigation began, Democrats have used it as an excuse to fund-raise, fear-monger and peddle conspiracy theories about collusion with the Russian government. Let’s bring this chapter to a close.”

The four “present” votes came from two libertarians who routinely oppose such resolutions, Representatives Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and two ardent Trump loyalists, Representatives Matt Gaetz of Florida and Paul Gosar of Arizona.Mr. Gaetz said afterward that while he supported making the report public, he objected to other language in the resolution praising the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, whose team he has repeatedly attacked as partisan.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, tried to move the resolution through the Senate later on Thursday by unanimous consent, but he was blocked by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

The four “present” votes came from two libertarians who routinely oppose such resolutions, Representatives Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and two ardent Trump loyalists, Representatives Matt Gaetz of Florida and Paul Gosar of Arizona.Mr. Gaetz said afterward that while he supported making the report public, he objected to other language in the resolution praising the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, whose team he has repeatedly attacked as partisan.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, tried to move the resolution through the Senate later on Thursday by unanimous consent, but he was blocked by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, tried to move the resolution through the Senate later on Thursday by unanimous consent, but he was blocked by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

The four “present” votes came from two libertarians who routinely oppose such resolutions, Representatives Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and two ardent Trump loyalists, Representatives Matt Gaetz of Florida and Paul Gosar of Arizona.Mr. Gaetz said afterward that while he supported making the report public, he objected to other language in the resolution praising the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, whose team he has repeatedly attacked as partisan.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, tried to move the resolution through the Senate later on Thursday by unanimous consent, but he was blocked by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, tried to move the resolution through the Senate later on Thursday by unanimous consent, but he was blocked by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, tried to move the resolution through the Senate later on Thursday by unanimous consent, but he was blocked by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Though Mr. Graham, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said he supported transparency, he asked to amend the resolution to include the appointment of a new special counsel to investigate the F.B.I.’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email case and its surveillance of a former Trump adviser. Mr. Schumer rejected the request as political and beside the point, and the resolution failed.

The Justice Department has given signals in recent weeks that after 22 months, Mr. Mueller is nearing completion of his work. Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, offered what many viewed as fresh evidence of an imminent conclusion on Thursday when he confirmed that one of the special counsel’s top prosecutors, Andrew Weissmann, will be departing the special counsel’s office “in the near future.”

The resolution — sponsored by Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Judiciary Committee chairman, and a handful of other Democratic committee leaders — “calls for the public release of any report Special Counsel Mueller provides to the attorney general, except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law.”

Under the regulation that governs special counsels, Mr. Mueller is expected to produce a confidential report on his prosecution decisions to Mr. Barr, who will then review it and produce his own report to Congress. Thus far, Mr. Barr has demurred on just what he will release to Congress and the public, reserving the right to keep some matters secret.Democrats seized on Mr. Barr’s resistance to making specific promises about the Mueller findings during his confirmation process in the Senate. They have not let the point rest in the weeks since, with prominent Democratic chairmen and other leaders laying out their case for why all of the special counsel’s findings — including underlying evidence — ought to be shared with Congress for review.House Democrats are prepared to use subpoena power and other tools at their disposal to force the Justice Department to turn over anything Mr. Barr chooses to withhold.They argue that the Justice Department set a new precedent in the last two years when it granted Republicans, who then controlled the House, extraordinary access to hundreds of thousands of pages of sensitive investigative material related to the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server and the Russia investigation itself.

Under the regulation that governs special counsels, Mr. Mueller is expected to produce a confidential report on his prosecution decisions to Mr. Barr, who will then review it and produce his own report to Congress. Thus far, Mr. Barr has demurred on just what he will release to Congress and the public, reserving the right to keep some matters secret.Democrats seized on Mr. Barr’s resistance to making specific promises about the Mueller findings during his confirmation process in the Senate. They have not let the point rest in the weeks since, with prominent Democratic chairmen and other leaders laying out their case for why all of the special counsel’s findings — including underlying evidence — ought to be shared with Congress for review.House Democrats are prepared to use subpoena power and other tools at their disposal to force the Justice Department to turn over anything Mr. Barr chooses to withhold.They argue that the Justice Department set a new precedent in the last two years when it granted Republicans, who then controlled the House, extraordinary access to hundreds of thousands of pages of sensitive investigative material related to the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server and the Russia investigation itself.
Under the regulation that governs special counsels, Mr. Mueller is expected to produce a confidential report on his prosecution decisions to Mr. Barr, who will then review it and produce his own report to Congress. Thus far, Mr. Barr has demurred on just what he will release to Congress and the public, reserving the right to keep some matters secret.Democrats seized on Mr. Barr’s resistance to making specific promises about the Mueller findings during his confirmation process in the Senate. They have not let the point rest in the weeks since, with prominent Democratic chairmen and other leaders laying out their case for why all of the special counsel’s findings — including underlying evidence — ought to be shared with Congress for review.House Democrats are prepared to use subpoena power and other tools at their disposal to force the Justice Department to turn over anything Mr. Barr chooses to withhold.They argue that the Justice Department set a new precedent in the last two years when it granted Republicans, who then controlled the House, extraordinary access to hundreds of thousands of pages of sensitive investigative material related to the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server and the Russia investigation itself.

Under the regulation that governs special counsels, Mr. Mueller is expected to produce a confidential report on his prosecution decisions to Mr. Barr, who will then review it and produce his own report to Congress. Thus far, Mr. Barr has demurred on just what he will release to Congress and the public, reserving the right to keep some matters secret.Democrats seized on Mr. Barr’s resistance to making specific promises about the Mueller findings during his confirmation process in the Senate. They have not let the point rest in the weeks since, with prominent Democratic chairmen and other leaders laying out their case for why all of the special counsel’s findings — including underlying evidence — ought to be shared with Congress for review.House Democrats are prepared to use subpoena power and other tools at their disposal to force the Justice Department to turn over anything Mr. Barr chooses to withhold.They argue that the Justice Department set a new precedent in the last two years when it granted Republicans, who then controlled the House, extraordinary access to hundreds of thousands of pages of sensitive investigative material related to the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server and the Russia investigation itself.
Under the regulation that governs special counsels, Mr. Mueller is expected to produce a confidential report on his prosecution decisions to Mr. Barr, who will then review it and produce his own report to Congress. Thus far, Mr. Barr has demurred on just what he will release to Congress and the public, reserving the right to keep some matters secret.Democrats seized on Mr. Barr’s resistance to making specific promises about the Mueller findings during his confirmation process in the Senate. They have not let the point rest in the weeks since, with prominent Democratic chairmen and other leaders laying out their case for why all of the special counsel’s findings — including underlying evidence — ought to be shared with Congress for review.House Democrats are prepared to use subpoena power and other tools at their disposal to force the Justice Department to turn over anything Mr. Barr chooses to withhold.They argue that the Justice Department set a new precedent in the last two years when it granted Republicans, who then controlled the House, extraordinary access to hundreds of thousands of pages of sensitive investigative material related to the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server and the Russia investigation itself.
Under the regulation that governs special counsels, Mr. Mueller is expected to produce a confidential report on his prosecution decisions to Mr. Barr, who will then review it and produce his own report to Congress. Thus far, Mr. Barr has demurred on just what he will release to Congress and the public, reserving the right to keep some matters secret.Democrats seized on Mr. Barr’s resistance to making specific promises about the Mueller findings during his confirmation process in the Senate. They have not let the point rest in the weeks since, with prominent Democratic chairmen and other leaders laying out their case for why all of the special counsel’s findings — including underlying evidence — ought to be shared with Congress for review.House Democrats are prepared to use subpoena power and other tools at their disposal to force the Justice Department to turn over anything Mr. Barr chooses to withhold.They argue that the Justice Department set a new precedent in the last two years when it granted Republicans, who then controlled the House, extraordinary access to hundreds of thousands of pages of sensitive investigative material related to the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server and the Russia investigation itself.
Under the regulation that governs special counsels, Mr. Mueller is expected to produce a confidential report on his prosecution decisions to Mr. Barr, who will then review it and produce his own report to Congress. Thus far, Mr. Barr has demurred on just what he will release to Congress and the public, reserving the right to keep some matters secret.Democrats seized on Mr. Barr’s resistance to making specific promises about the Mueller findings during his confirmation process in the Senate. They have not let the point rest in the weeks since, with prominent Democratic chairmen and other leaders laying out their case for why all of the special counsel’s findings — including underlying evidence — ought to be shared with Congress for review.House Democrats are prepared to use subpoena power and other tools at their disposal to force the Justice Department to turn over anything Mr. Barr chooses to withhold.They argue that the Justice Department set a new precedent in the last two years when it granted Republicans, who then controlled the House, extraordinary access to hundreds of thousands of pages of sensitive investigative material related to the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server and the Russia investigation itself.

“Last year, I directly warned department leadership that in providing these materials to Congress, they were establishing a precedent, and one they would have to live with in the future,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Democrats also fear that the Justice Department could combine its policies against indicting a sitting president and against disclosing negative information on an investigative target who was not indicted to justify keeping secret all the information collected about Mr. Trump.

“To maintain that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and then to withhold evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the president cannot be charged, is to convert D.O.J. policy into the means for a cover-up,” Mr. Nadler said during debate over the resolution on Thursday.

Though they voted for the resolution, many Republicans expressed skepticism about the wisdom and likely success of Democrats’ quest. Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters last week that he anticipated hurdles to public disclosure in the form of classified information, information obtained through a secret grand jury process and the need to insulate continuing prosecutions stemming from the investigation.

“Those are also going to be things that we are going to have to litigate,” Mr. Collins said.

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/politics/mueller-report-public.html

Judge gags Roger Stone from Mueller comments

Roger Stone remains free to talk about Robert Mueller and the Russia investigation, just not in and around the Washington, D.C., courthouse where the longtime Donald Trump associate is fighting the special counsel’s charges he lied to Congress and obstructed its Russia investigation.

That’s the end result from a four-page orderissued Friday from a federal judge who had been considering a complete gag order on Stone in the wake of his full-on media blitz since his arrest last month in south Florida.

Also Friday, Mueller’s team released a filing in the case that included a tantalizing nugget suggesting federal prosecutors might have obtained “Stone’s communications” with WikiLeaks, the website that dumped stolen Democratic emails during the election. While the language was somewhat vague, legal watchers quickly noted that it might represent a jarring new revelation, as previously Stone had only conceded to trying to connect with WikiLeaks via intermediaries.

The double-barrel developments in Stone’s case came amid a flurry of activity late on Friday, marking the busiest day yet in a court battle that still remains in a preliminary stage.

First, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that attorneys for Stone, Mueller and any witnesses in the case “must refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case.”

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/15/judge-hits-roger-stone-with-gag-order-1172114

Trump insists ‘no collusion,’ calls for Mueller investigation to end following filings in Cohen, Manafort cases

President Trump called for an end to the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, a day after a series of court filings connected him with two felonies.

“AFTER TWO YEARS AND MILLIONS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS (and a cost of over $30,000,000), NO COLLUSION!,” Trump said on Twitter.

The Mueller probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election has been estimated by various sources to cost less than $20 million, though no official figures are available.

Trump’s defense Saturday came after court sentencing documents in separate cases against Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen were filed by federal prosecutors in New York and by Mueller. The memo for the New York case, for which Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges related to campaign finance violations and tax fraud, said Cohen made two payments during the 2016 campaign to women who had affairs with Trump “in coordination with and at the direction of” the then-candidate, now president. It called for Cohen to face substantial prison time.

Read more

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.infowars.com/trump-insists-no-collusion-calls-for-mueller-investigation-to-end-following-filings-in-cohen-manafort-cases/

Mueller gives new details on Flynn’s secretive work for Turkey

Special counsel Robert Mueller disclosed more details Tuesday of former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s efforts to cover up the extent of his ties to the government of Turkey while he was a top official on President Donald Trump’s campaign and transition.

The documents specifically state that a key component of Flynn’s work for Turkey involved the government’s efforts to remove from the U.S. a Turkish cleric living in Pennsylvania. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accuses the cleric, Fethullah Gulen, of orchestrating a failed coup against him in July 2016. Flynn began working for Turkey about a month later.

Federal prosecutors said in the court filing, which refers to Gulen, though not by name, that Flynn’s decision not to disclose that he was aiding the Turkish government “impeded the ability of the public to learn about the Republic of Turkey’s efforts to influence public opinion about the failed coup, including its efforts to effectuate the removal of a person legally residing in the United States.”

Flynn’s false statements about his connections to Turkey were included in his plea agreement with Mueller announced in December 2017, but that document described the project simply as focused on U.S. companies’ confidence in doing business in Turkey

Tuesday’s filing, while more detailed, did not touch on some of the other possible ties between Flynn and Turkey that Mueller’s team has looked into, leaving it unclear what, if anything, further may be disclosed at a later time. NBC News reported, for instance, that Mueller’s team was looking into whether Flynn met with senior Turkish officials in December 2016 about a possible deal under which Flynn would be paid to orchestrate the return of Gulen to Turkey once in the White House.

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/mueller-gives-new-details-flynn-s-secretive-work-turkey-n943926

Citing ‘substantial assistance,’ Mueller recommends no prison time for former Trump adviser Michael Flynn

Special counsel Robert Mueller is recommending no prison time for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, citing the former national security adviser’s “substantial assistance” in his ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

“Given the defendant’s substantial assistance and other considerations set forth,” the special counsel wrote, “a sentence at the low end of the guideline range—including a sentence that does not impose a term of incarceration—is appropriate and warranted.”

Flynn, whose sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 18, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period from Election Day 2016 to Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. As part of his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation.

Under federal guidelines, the retired Army lieutenant general’s crime carries a penalty of up to six months in prison. But court observers say if Flynn satisfactorily cooperated with the special counsel, he could avoid prison time.

Upon learning of Mueller’s sentencing suggestion, a source close to Flynn said his family is relieved and happy tonight that the special counsel is recommending no prison time for him.

“Jail time wouldn’t be a good thing for him,” the source told ABC News.

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mueller-files-key-sentencing-recommendation-trump-adviser-michael/story?id=59597161

Meet The Lawyer Who Filed Criminal Charges Against Robert Mueller

Larry Klayman has stepped up to defend Jerome Corsi and has now filed a complaint with the DOJ against Robert Mueller.

Larry joins Alex to discuss the agenda of the globalists to coerce people to lie about President Trump.

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.infowars.com/meet-the-lawyer-who-filed-criminal-charges-against-robert-mueller/

Mueller got some answers, but he’s not done with Trump

President Donald Trump on Tuesday finally submitted a set of written responses to Robert Mueller, signaling that he was done for good with the special counsel’s questions.

But Mueller is far from done with him.

The special counsel still wants to question the president over his actions while in the White House — Tuesday’s answers only covered Russian hacking during the 2016 election. It’s a fight that could result in a historic subpoena and eventual Supreme Court ruling, pulling a defiant Trump into a legal squabble that could set groundbreaking precedent for presidential investigations for years to come. Depending on how the battle plays out, House Democrats may even try to pounce and launch impeachment proceedings.

Things could get explosive fast. Next comes the perilous round of negotiations between Trump’s lawyers and Mueller’s prosecutors covering topics like Trump’s intentions when firing FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. That line of questioning — which Trump says he shouldn’t have to answer — is tied to Mueller’s ongoing obstruction of justice investigation.

“These are very deep waters and complicated questions,” said John Q. Barrett, a St. John’s University law professor and former associate who worked under independent counsel Lawrence Walsh during the Reagan-era investigation into secret U.S. arms sales to Iran.

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/20/mueller-investigation-trump-answers-1009350

Behind the scenes: Trump vs. Mueller

President Trump delivered to Robert Mueller handwritten answers about pre-election dimensions of the Russia probe but did not answer questions about his behavior as president, including allegations of obstruction of justice — and will resist doing so in the future — his lawyer Rudy Giuliani tells Axios.

The big picture: It is possible that Mueller will subpoena Trump regarding his activities as president. But Rudy said he has reason to suspect he won’t: “I think that he would not win a legal battle if he did that, and I think it would consume months.” If Mueller does, the president’s view is clear: He will refuse to cooperate.

Show less

The high-stakes exchange with Mueller included no questions or answers about obstruction of justice. But Giuliani said: “I can’t tell you he’s given up on obstruction.”

  • “I don’t think he has any way to compel testimony on obstruction because the argument of executive privilege would be very, very strong. It all relates to a period of time after he was president.”
  • “[A]ny question he has on obstruction, … [t]he president has given [the answers] in interviews, tweets. Other witnesses have given it to him.”
  • “And the law definitely requires that if you’re going to subpoena a president, you have to show that you can’t get the information any place else.”

Giuliani expressed breezy confidence about Trump’s legal position: “I don’t think they have any evidence of collusion of any kind. I think their obstruction case, as a legal matter, doesn’t exist.”

And Giuliani suggested that he doubts Don Jr. will be indicted in connection with the Trump Tower meeting.

  • “I don’t see what for,” Giuliani said. “The meeting turned out to be a big bust. … It’s a very unattractive crime [for a prosecutor] when somebody meets with you and then you don’t do anything.”

If Donald Trump were an “ordinary client,” it would’ve taken “four, five, six hours” and two meetings to answer Mueller’s questions, Giuliani told me. But the process dragged out for almost a year.

  • The Mueller questionnaire “looked like a law school exam … one big long group of questions, that were multi-part questions,” Giuliani said.
  • Giuliani said that he and fellow Trump lawyers Jay Sekulow and Jane Raskin sat with Trump whenever they could grab him, in the Oval Office and in the president’s private dining room adjoining the Oval.
  • They didn’t tape — the lawyers took handwritten notes of Trump’s answers before having them typed up.

Giuliani wouldn’t tell us what questions Mueller asked. But when pressed, he conceded Mueller asked about two subjects:

  1. Mueller asked whether Trump knew at the time about his son, Don Jr., meeting with Russians in Trump Tower.
  2. Mueller asked about the Russian hacks during the campaign that immediately followed Trump’s July 27, 2016, press conference in Florida, when Trump said: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 [Hillary Clinton] emails that are missing.”

Before submitting their answers, Giuliani and the Trump team met “not much” with Mueller himself. Giuliani said they’ve had “numerous telephone conferences” with the Mueller team.

  • “They’re all very circumspect,”Giuliani said. He said they’ve never given him a timeline or a sense of when the investigation would end.
  • I asked Giuliani whether his personal interactions with the Mueller team ever got awkward given he’s been trashing them, almost daily at times, in the press. Have they ever confronted him about his attacks on their character and motives? “Hasn’t come up,” Giuliani said.
  • FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://www.axios.com/mueller-investigation-trump-questions-rudy-giuliani-a2cd6493-0b2d-4c47-a31f-94471e03e8c8.html

Trump submits written answers to Mueller

President Trump has submitted his written answers to certain questions related to the Russia investigation to special counsel Robert Mueller, the president’s legal team announced Tuesday.

Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow said the answers were submitted on Tuesday and cover “issues regarding the Russia-related topics of the inquiry.”

The submission caps off months of high-stakes wrangling between Mueller’s team and the president’s lawyers about what answers Trump would provide for investigators.

Trump’s attorneys have long maintained they would only answer questions pertaining to allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, and not inquiries about whether Trump obstructed the federal investigation into the interference.

Rudy Giuliani, another Trump lawyer, has repeatedly expressed fear that the president could walk into a perjury trap if he answers Mueller’s questions about the firing of James Comey as FBI director and what he told the ex-lawman about the bureau’s investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

“It has been our position from the outset that much of what has been asked raised serious constitutional issues and was beyond the scope of a legitimate inquiry,” Giuliani said. “This remains our position today.”

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR THE FULL REPORT – JR

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/417732-trump-submits-written-answers-to-mueller