HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Wednesday, May 02, 2018

 
About those questions ...

by digby



I wrote about the big 49 question story for Salon today:

It's rare, during this tumultuous era, that a single political story stays relevant for more than a few hours before something else even more important or scandalous drops. But 24 hours after it broke, The New York Times' list of 49 questions Robert Mueller reportedly has for President Trump is still being discussed and analyzed. And that's in spite of a very juicy story about Trump's former doctor's office supposedly being raided by Trump's bodyguards, who demanded all his medical records -- and the doctor's admission that Trump had dictated his own suspiciously glowing medical report during the campaign.

It's interesting that this particular Mueller story has such legs, because when you look at the questions, they almost all derive from public records and media reports. The legal beagles on cable news insist that prosecutors never ask a question to which they don't know the answer, which strikes me as completely improbable unless they are questioning someone on the witness stand. But Mueller's team probably does have the answers to these particular questions, because Trump has either tweeted out plenty of clues or blurted out some revelation during one of his blabby "press avails." Perhaps the special counsel thinks that since most of these questions are already in the public domain and do not touch Trump's personal finances, the president would feel confident enough to present himself.

It doesn't seem to have worked out that way. These questions enraged Trump — and we know this not by his hysterical tweets on Tuesday morning but by his tweets after those questions were first presented to him back in March. That was the weekend after Andrew McCabe was fired, when Trump's attorney John Dowd screwed the pooch by giving this statement:
I pray that acting Attorney General Rosenstein will follow the brilliant and courageous example of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility and Attorney General Jeff Sessions and bring an end to alleged Russia Collusion investigation manufactured by McCabe's boss James Comey based upon a fraudulent and corrupt Dossier.
That was originally provided as an official statement on the president's behalf and then rapidly walked back, with Dowd claiming he was just speaking for himself. (Everything about it, from the bombastic tone to the strange word choices to the erratic capitalization, sounds dictated from on high.) In any case, it was a sign temperatures were rising at the White House that weekend. As you may remember, Trump tweeted madly about McCabe and Comey:





This went on with more tweeting about McCabe and Comey through the weekend. Then he mentioned Mueller's name for the first time:



At the time, the combination of Dowd's bizarre statement and Trump's unprecedented attacks on the Mueller team were interpreted as a new, more aggressive posture by Team Trump. But at this point, it seems obvious now that this epic meltdown was Trump's response to this long list of questions.

It's not clear exactly how this list was compiled, and that's an important part of the story. Was it given, as is, by Mueller's office, as the New York Times indicated?

[I]nvestigators for Mr. Mueller agreed days later to share during a meeting with Mr. Dowd the questions they wanted to ask Mr. Trump. 
When Mr. Mueller’s team relayed the questions, their tone and detailed nature cemented Mr. Dowd’s view that the president should not sit for an interview. Despite Mr. Dowd’s misgivings, Mr. Trump remained firm in his insistence that he meet with Mr. Mueller. About a week and a half after receiving the questions, Mr. Dowd resigned, concluding that his client was ignoring his advice.
That report doesn't specifically say that the questions were written by the special prosecutor's office, but numerous commentators have been frantically parsing them for what the wording may suggest about the direction of the case and what evidence Mueller already has. Not so fast. According to the Washington Post, the questions weren't presented in those words at all:
Mueller’s team agreed to provide the president’s lawyers with more specific information about the subjects that prosecutors wished to discuss with the president. With those details in hand, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow compiled a list of 49 questions that the team believed the president would be asked, according to three of the four people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly . . . 
After investigators laid out 16 specific subjects they wanted to review with the president and added a few topics within each one, Sekulow broke the queries down into 49 separate questions, according to people familiar with the process.
If this is true, then these questions really reflect the defense team preparing its client for what he's likely to face. It's a customary legal strategy that may provide very little specific information about the state of Mueller's investigation.

Nonetheless, parsing the wording of these questions is a useful exercise. If they were put together by Trump's legal team in hopes of dissuading him from an interview, their choice of language could easily point to the areas in which Sekulow and others believed Trump was vulnerable.

You also have to have to consider that Trump's lawyers were probably also trying to keep him from getting so angry that he fired Rosenstein and/or Jeff Sessions and triggered a constitutional crisis. Mueller had threatened them with a subpoena. They were walking a fine line.

Dowd resigned or was fired just a few days after that wild weekend. It has been assumed that was over his inability to persuade Trump not to consent to an interview. But maybe it was just that Trump felt the need to punish someone for showing him those questions and letting him know what kind of trouble he was in. So as despots and tyrants are wont to do, he killed the messenger.

As for the big parlor-game question of who leaked the list of questions to the Times: Who knows? Dowd swears he didn't, the White House says it didn't and even if Mueller's office ever leaked things to the media, which it doesn't seem to, these questions weren't written by his team so that leaves him out. On Tuesday, Fox News correspondent Ed Henry reported that sources "in the Trump orbit" speculated that the president had leaked the list himself so all the possible witnesses would be on the same page and Trump's supporters would see evidence that (in their view) Mueller is overreaching. That sounds as reasonable as anything else I've heard. Donald Trump is simply incapable of stopping himself from obstructing justice.

.