Note: the above of a contradictory message delivered by Fox News, usually a firm pro-choice for strongly worded Trump rhetoric, appears above beyond the call for impartiality.
Maybe , this is meant to allay charges which imply Fox News being the President’s private media outlet, with the timing coinciding with the approach of the Congressional Elections.
On another front, is Trump being honest in his divestiture of business interests colliding with political motives:
Read more news from CNN
VIEW IN APP
Live TV
Trump more involved in stopping FBI HQ move than previously known, emails show
By Lauren Fox, CNN
Updated 1:33 PM EDT, Thu October 18, 2018
Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump was more instrumental than previously known in scrapping plans to move the FBI headquarters out of Washington to the DC suburbs, according to newly released internal government emails.
President Donald J. Trump meets with White House Legislative Affairs staffers, Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2018, at the White House in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Bogthosian)
President Donald J. Trump meets with White House Legislative Affairs staffers, Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2018, at the White House in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Bogthosian)
The decision could have financial benefits for the President, whose own hotel is located a block away, critics say.
The documents were released Thursday by House Democrats in a letter to General Services Administrator Emily Murphy that suggests she misled Congress about the President’s involvement.
Read the Democrats’ letter and emails about President Trump and the FBI building
“New documents provided to the Oversight Committee indicate that President Trump met personally with you, the FBI, and White House officials on January 24, 2018, where he was directly involved with the decision to abandon the long-term relocation plan and instead move ahead with the more expensive proposal to construct a new building on the same site, and thereby prevent Trump Hotel competitors from acquiring the land,” states the letter by Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and other senior Democrats.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said that the “House Democrats have it all wrong.”
“The President wanted to save the government money and also the FBI leadership did not want to move its headquarters,” she told CNN in a statement.
A financial analysis conducted by the GSA’s inspector general, however, concluded that constructing a new FBI building in downtown DC “would actually be more costly” than relocating the bureau.
The GSA did not respond to a request for comment.
The days following the White House meeting included efforts to make the decision to keep the FBI in Washington official, specifically referencing Trump’s wishes.
Just one day after the meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, GSA’s acting chief of staff, Brennan Hart, sent an email to Joseph Lai, a special assistant to the President, to emphasize the decision had been made not to relocate the FBI headquarters.
Days later, GSA’s acting general counsel, Jack St. John, suggested the need to get “something in writing” from the FBI and Justice Department that solidified what had been agreed upon in the meeting with Trump.
What Democrats in Congress will do if they’re in power after midterms
Hart responded in an email, “Ideally, I think it would first recap the oval meeting with what POTUS directed everyone to do then ask Emily [Murphy] to execute POTUS’s orders.”
On January 28, Hart also sent an email to officials in the Office of Legislative Affairs discussing Trump’s role that said, “GSA is going to hold our ground on funding source and that it is a demolition/new construction per the President’s instructions.”
Questions about Murphy’s testimony
The documents obtained by House Democrats are a preview of the kinds of oversight Democrats might escalate if they win the House majority in November.
Democrats have “serious concerns” about the move on the FBI plan to “replace it with a more costly plan to keep the current location, demolish the existing building, and construct a new facility on the same site,” the letter states.
The have also raised questions about why the GSA chief was not more forthcoming with Congress about the White House’s role. In April, Murphy did not disclose she’d met with the President about the project when asked by Rep. Mike Quigley, an Illinois Democrat, during a congressional hearing if the President or anyone at the White House was involved in the discussions about the future of the FBI building.
GSA head silent on Trump’s role in FBI building decision, watchdog says
The General Services Administration’s inspector general later said Murphy’s testimony had been “incomplete.”
“We found that Administrator Murphy’s testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on April 17, 2018, was incomplete and may have left the misleading impression that she had no discussions with the President or senior White House officials in the decision-making process about the project,” the IG said in a report in August.
Democrats accuse Murphy in their letter of concealing valuable information from Congress.
“Your meetings with the White House came to light only after direct evidence emerged, including a photograph of you meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office, along with other White House, Justice Department, and FBI officials,” the Democrats wrote in the letter Thursday.
President Donald J. Trump meets with White House Legislative Affairs staffers, Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2018, at the White House in Washington, D.C.
Democrats on the committee argue that Trump had a clear interest in the FBI property being developed before he was President, but after he became President and was not allowed to invest in the project, his interest became ensuring no other developer could buy the property, convert it and compete with the Trump hotel.
“Many years before becoming President, Donald Trump expressed interest in the FBI headquarters moving out of Washington, D.C. so he could acquire the land on Pennsylvania Avenue and redevelop the property, which is directly across the street from the Trump International Hotel. However, after he was sworn in as President—and became ineligible as a federal employee to obtain the property—he reportedly became ‘dead opposed’ to the government selling the property, which would have allowed commercial developers to compete directly with the Trump Hotel,” Cummings and his colleagues wrote.
CNN’s Greg Wallace contributed to this report.
Now this new development signals flurries of activity heating up on both sides of the isle, as the Congressional Elections approach.
Here is an example of an attempt by the Republicans to wrench the Mueller investigation from its DOJ:
“The chairman of the House Freedom Caucus is calling on Rod Rosenstein to step down as deputy attorney general, as lawmakers probe reports the Justice Department official once suggested wearing a “wire” to record President Trump.”
It is so clearly transparent, that it makes one laugh until it hurts
Now this, just as predicted, the whole mess will be whitewashed, at least that is the opinion of Politico, :
MUELLER INVESTIGATION
Mueller report PSA: Prepare for disappointment
And be forewarned that the special counsel’s findings may never be made public.
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN 10/19/2018 05:20 AM EDT
President Donald Trump’s critics have spent the past 17 months anticipating what some expect will be among the most thrilling events of their lives: special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on Russian 2016 election interference.
They may be in for a disappointment.
That’s the word POLITICO got from defense lawyers working on the Russia probe and more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning Watergate to the 2016 election case. The public, they say, shouldn’t expect a comprehensive and presidency-wrecking account of Kremlin meddling and alleged obstruction of justice by Trump — not to mention an explanation of the myriad subplots that have bedeviled lawmakers, journalists and amateur Mueller sleuths.
Perhaps most unsatisfying: Mueller’s findings may never even see the light of day.
“That’s just the way this works,” said John Q. Barrett, a former associate counsel who worked under independent counsel Lawrence Walsh during the Reagan-era investigation into secret U.S. arms sales to Iran. “Mueller is a criminal investigator. He’s not government oversight, and he’s not a historian.”
All of this may sound like a buzzkill after two years of intense news coverage depicting a potential conspiracy between the Kremlin and Trump’s campaign, plus the scores of tweets from the White House condemning the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt.”
The most reliable politics newsletter.
But government investigation experts are waving a giant yellow caution flag now to warn that Mueller’s no-comment mantra is unlikely to give way to a tell-all final report and an accompanying blitz of media interviews and public testimony on Capitol Hill.
“He won’t be a good witness,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth Starr now working as a senior fellow at the nonprofit R Street Institute. “His answers will be, ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘maybe.’”
For starters, Mueller isn’t operating under the same ground rules as past high-profile government probes, including the Reagan-era investigation into Iranian arms sale and whether President Bill Clinton lied during a deposition about his extramarital affair with a White House intern. Those examinations worked under the guidelines of a post-Watergate law that expired in 1999 that required investigators to submit findings to Congress if they found impeachable offenses, a mandate that led to Starr’s salacious report that upended Clinton’s second term.
Mueller’s reporting mandate is much different. He must notify his Justice Department supervisor — currently Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — on his budgeting needs and all “significant events” made by his office, including indictments, guilty pleas and subpoenas.
When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” — essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others. His reasoning, according to veterans of such investigations, could be as simple as “there wasn’t enough evidence” to support a winning court case.
Then, it will be up to DOJ leaders to make the politically turbo-charged decision of whether to make Mueller’s report public.
Government officials will first get a chance to scrub the special counsel’s findings for classified details, though, involving everything from foreign intelligence sources to information gleaned during grand jury testimony that the law forbids the government from disclosing.
They’ll also have to weigh the input from a number of powerful outside forces.
The White House, for one, has indicated it might try to butt into the proceedings. Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani said earlier this summer that the White House had reserved the right to block the release of information in Mueller’s final report that might be covered through executive privilege. It’s unclear how salient that legal argument may be, but the president’s attorneys have been saying for months that a White House signoff will be needed because the Justice Department also falls inside the executive branch.
Congress is also primed to have a say. While Democratic leaders are hoping a return to power in the upcoming November midterms could grant them subpoena power to pry as much information as possible from the special counsel’s office, Republicans might try to restrict the release of certain details that might embarrass the president.
As for the crafting of the report itself, Mueller has significant leeway. He can theoretically be as expansive as he wants. But sources who have worked closely with Mueller during his lengthy career at the Justice Department say his by-the-books, conservative style is likely to win out, suggesting he might lean more toward saying less than more.
“It’s such a unique situation. He knows there are a lot of questions he needs to address for the sake of trying to satisfy a wide variety of interests and expectations,” said Paul McNulty, a former deputy attorney general from the George W. Bush administration who worked closely with Mueller at the Justice Department.
Mueller’s report will be landing in the shadow of former FBI Director James Comey’s controversial decision to publicly explain his reasons for not prosecuting then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. The move was widely panned as a breach of DOJ protocol.
“That’s not Bob Mueller’s approach,” McNulty explained. “I’d be surprised if he did that in written form. I think he’s about, ‘Where are the facts before us?’”
The timing on the Mueller investigation final report — the special counsel’s office declined comment for this report — remains unclear. While he’s under no deadline to complete his work, several sources tracking the investigation say the special counsel and his team appear eager to wrap up. “I’m sure he’s determined to get back to the rest of his life,” said Barrett, the Iran-Contra investigator who is now a law professor at St. John’s University.
But several factors may still slow things down, including a potential protracted legal showdown over whether to force the president into a sit-down interview and what to do with leads that stem from the ongoing cooperation of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen. Both men pleaded guilty this summer.
Longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone has also said he’s prepared for an indictment in the Mueller probe, which would kick-start an entirely new trial process.
“When your investigation is ongoing, it’s hard to write a final report,” said Michael Zeldin, a former Mueller aide who served as a deputy independent counsel in the investigation into George H.W. Bush administration officials fingered for accessing Clinton’s passport files during the 1992 presidential campaign.
Indeed, history offers a mixed bag on what to expect from Mueller’s end game. Several independent counsel investigations have concluded their work without any report at all, including the George W. Bush-era probe into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
And the two biggest cases since Watergate have been broken up into bite-sized pieces, with interim reports dribbled out while the wider probes continued. The Iran-Contra investigation published intermittent findings on procedural issues, such as how Congress granting immunity for testimony would impair criminal prosecution. The entire probe, however, lasted more than seven years, with a final report issued in August 1993, long after Reagan was out of the White House.
Clinton’s White House dealt with a series of independent counsel investigations, but none as troublesome as the one that started in January 1994 into the first family’s decades-old Whitewater land deals in Arkansas. The probe took multiple twists and expanded to cover several other topics. In 1997, Starr issued a report, affirming Clinton White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster had committed suicide. A year later, he published a report detailing allegations of illegal behavior tied to Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky, which prompted the House to open impeachment proceedings.
A final report on Whitewater didn’t arrive until March 2002, more than eight years after the probe started and more than a year after the Democrat’s second term ended.
All of that history isn’t lost on Mueller
How Republicans could (barely) hang on to the House
By RACHAEL BADE
“He knows how these Office of Special Counsel investigations can drag on,” said McNulty, now president of Grove City College in western Pennsylvania. “He’s seen all that over the course of his career. I just know he’s the kind of person who’s decisive and if he thought that there was a way to not drag something out because it could be addressed appropriately, he’d have the determination to do that. He’s also not going to cut some corner just to be done.”
Past investigators have also struggled with how to handle the public release of their independent counsel reports.
In 2000, a nearly two-year investigation into Clinton Labor Secretary Alexis Herman ended with a one-sentence statement clearing her of influence peddling charges. Independent counsel Ralph Lancaster’s final report was placed under a federal court seal and he opted not to ask for permission to publicize it.
“I had decided not to exercise my prosecutorial discretion to indict her and I didn’t see any sense in making it worse,” Lancaster said in a 2005 interview with lawinterview.com. “The press has never picked up on it. Nobody has asked to see it … which is fine by me.”
Patrick Fitzgerald, the independent counsel in the Plame investigation, was under no obligation to write a report because of the specific guidelines behind his appointment. Testifying before Congress as his probe was ending, Fitzgerald defended the approach by noting that grand jury witnesses expect secrecy when they testify. He also noted that a 2007 public trial involving I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney convicted for perjury, had revealed much of the investigation’s details.
“I think people learned a fair amount about what we did,” Fitzgerald said. “They didn’t learn everything. But if you’re talking about a public report, that was not provided for, and I actually believe and I’ve said it before, I think that’s appropriate.”
S
Mary McCord, a Georgetown University law professor and former DOJ official who helped oversee the FBI’s Russian meddling investigation before Mueller’s appointment, cautioned against heightened expectations around the special counsel’s final report.
“Don’t overread any of these facts that are in the world to suggest a quick wrap-up and everyone is going to get a chance to read it the next day,” she said. “It will probably be detailed because this material is detailed, but I don’t know that it will all be made public.”
Some of the central players in the Russia saga say they, too, have become resigned to not getting a complete set of answers out of Mueller’s work. “I assume there are going to be lots of details we’ll never learn, and lots of things that will never come to light,” said Robbie Mook, Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager.
But Mook added that Mueller’s efforts can be deemed a “success” if he answers just a few questions. For example, Mook wants to know whether and how the Russian government infiltrated the Trump campaign to influence the election outcome. He wants to know whether there was an effort in the White House or in the president’s orbit to cover up what happened.
“This is about big problems, not about small details,” he said. “I think we all need to step back and look at this less as a dramatic bit of intrigue and more as a real fundamental question of our national security.”
Its very likely , that the whitewash report will be similar to the.
Special Comission , which came out with the Warren opinion on the John Kennedy assasination, where again a supposed covert National Security Agency was involved.