That was a whole two day ago, and now there is even more.
Now there is reporting that Michael Flynn is being investigated for possibly working with operatives to get Clinton emails from the Russians.
Courtesy of the Business Insider:
Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators are looking into whether former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn took part in efforts to obtain emails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private email server from Russian hackers, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
That 2016 effort was spearheaded by GOP donor and opposition researcher Peter Smith, who told the Journal in May that he lobbied several groups of hackers — two of which that may have included Russian operatives — in search of the roughly 33,000 emails. Smith killed himself days after the interview.
Smith bragged to people that he was communicating with Flynn so this is certainly not a wild goose chase.
Of course with him so conveniently no longer with us, it makes this investigation a little more challenging.
So odd how so many people around this investigation keep dying, don't you think?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is also issuing grand jury subpoenas directed at folks who worked with Paul Manafort.
Courtesy of NBC News:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued grand jury subpoenas in recent days seeking testimony from public relations executives who worked on an international campaign organized by Paul Manafort, people directly familiar with the matter told NBC News.
This is the first public indication that Mueller's investigation is beginning to compel witness testimony before the grand jury — a significant milestone in an inquiry that is examining the conduct of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, among others.
It is also further indication that Manafort, Trump's onetime campaign chairman, could be in serious legal jeopardy.
Speaking of subpoenas there is now talk that Trump's pardon of Joe Apraio was a testing of the waters.
Courtesy of WaPo:
The broader question raised by the pardon, then, is where Trump would draw the line. If he’s willing to pardon Joe Arpaio for ignoring a court order in service of a political goal Trump embraces, why wouldn’t he pardon another individual he respects for similarly ignoring a demand from the court. Say, a former employee or a family member who, say, was issued a subpoena to testify before a special prosecutor?
One message from the Arpaio pardon is precisely that Trump sees his evaluation of the boundaries of legality as superior to the boundaries set by the legal system. The Constitution gives him that power. As we’ve noted before the presidential pardon is absolute. He can pardon anyone for any federal crime at any time — even before the person actually faces any charges and even if no crime actually took place. There’s nothing anyone can do about it, except to impeach Trump and remove him from office to prevent him from doing it again. (The president who replaces him might be able to revoke a recent pardon, one expert told us, but it’s far from certain.)
In other words, if any of Trump’s allies decides to tell special counsel Robert Mueller to stick his subpoena in the south side of the National Mall, Mueller can press a court for contempt charges. The person could be convicted of those charges — and then get a pardon identical to Arpaio’s.
Trump does not have to fire Mueller in order to end the investigation. All he has to do is promise to protect those who refuse to cooperate.
And with this Arpaio pardon he has proved that he has the power to do exactly that.
Source http://ift.tt/2izy1cS
