Funny Special counsel wants documents on Trump, numerous campaign associates

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
SlyPokerDog

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
127,017
Likes
147,626
Points
115
WASHINGTON — The grand jury investigating alleged collusion between Russia and Donald Trump's presidential campaign has sent a witness a subpoena seeking all documents involving the president and a host of his closest advisers, according to a copy of the subpoena reviewed by NBC News.

According to the subpoena, which was sent to a witness by special counsel Robert Mueller, investigators want emails, text messages, work papers, telephone logs and other documents going back to Nov. 1, 2015, 4½ months after Trump launched his campaign.

The witness shared details of the subpoena on condition of anonymity. The news site Axios reported Sunday that a subpoena was sent to a witness last month.

NBC News reported last week that Mueller's team is asking pointed questions about whether Trump knew about hacked emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign before the public found out. The subpoena indicates that Mueller may be focused not just on what Trump campaign aides knew and when they knew it, but also on what Trump himself knew.


In addition to the president, the subpoena seeks documents that have anything to do with these current and former Trump associates:

  • Steve Bannon, who left the White House as chief strategist in August.
  • Michael Cohen, a personal lawyer for Trump who testified before congressional investigators in October.
  • Rick Gates, Trump's former deputy campaign manager, who pleaded guilty last month to conspiracy and lying to the FBI.
  • Hope Hicks, who resigned last week as Trump's communications director.
  • Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager until June 2016.
  • Paul Manafort, a former Trump campaign manager and Gates' business partner, who pleaded not guilty to money laundering, conspiracy and making false statements last week.
  • Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.
  • Keith Schiller, a former bodyguard for Trump who left as director of Oval Office operations in September.
  • Roger Stone, a longtime Republican political operative and Trump campaign adviser who sources have told NBC News is the focus of investigators interested in his contacts with WikiLeaks during the campaign.
Once Hicks' resignation takes effect in the next few weeks, Cohen will be the only person listed in the subpoena who hasn't left the employment of Trump or of the White House.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...-associates-n853386?__twitter_impression=true
 
OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT!

Sam Nunberg just had the most rambling interview on MSNBC, said he ain't turning over shit to Mueller. Has ripped up the subpoena. Then said Trump probably did something illegal during the campaign. And followed it up with saying that his attorney have probably fired him.

That was fucking crazy.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT!

Sam Nunberg just had the most rambling interview on MSNBC, said he ain't turning over shit to Mueller. Has ripped up the subpoena. Then said Trump probably did something illegal during the campaign. And followed it up with saying that his attorney have probably fired him.

That was fucking crazy.
Click to expand...

 
SlyPokerDog said:
Click to expand...


What Is Sam Nunberg Doing?
The former Trump aide’s decision to announce that he was defying a subpoena from Robert Mueller is more likely to pique the special counsel’s interest than dispel it.

When former Trump aide Sam Nunberg called into MSNBC on Monday to declare his intention to defy a grand-jury subpoena in the Russia investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team was almost certainly watching with interest.

“I’m not going to cooperate! Why do I have to spend 80 hours going over my emails that I’ve had with Steve Bannon and with Roger Stone?” Nunberg asked NBC News reporter Katy Tur on Monday afternoon. “Why does Bob Mueller need to see my emails when I send Roger and Steve clips and we talk about how much we hate people?”

Nunberg, who was exiled from Trumpland early in the 2016 campaign, has been consistent in defending President Trump from allegations of collusion with what U.S. intelligence agencies have called a Russian campaign to swing the 2016 election in Trump’s favor. On MSNBC on Monday, Nunberg repeatedly called the special counsel’s investigation a “witch hunt” and said that there was “no collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet defying Mueller’s subpoena could lead to conviction on charges of civil contempt, and then imprisonment. Nunberg, an attorney, said he was willing to go to prison if necessary.

Rather than dissuading Mueller, though, Nunberg’s strange appearance on cable television may convince Mueller that Nunberg has a story to tell.

“That’s a pretty amazing interview, I have to say,” John Barrett, a former associate counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation and a law professor at St. Johns University, said of Nunberg’s appearance on MSNBC. “‘It’s hard to cooperate with law enforcement’ is just not a valid reason to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement.” Barrett points out that the the government could argue that, if gathering the relevant emails is too burdensome, prosecutors could take possession of the server and perform the search themselves.

Pressed by Tur about whether he believed Mueller “had something” on Trump, Nunberg said: “I think that he may have done something during the election. But I don’t know that for sure.”

That admission on its own may sabotage whatever chance Nunberg had of fighting the subpoena. “It’s the kind of statement that obviously must pique the interest of Mueller and his office, and it cries out for further questioning,” said Barrett.

Later, speaking to CNN’s Gloria Borger, Nunberg elaborated on the same sentiment—even confirming that the special counsel was now looking into Trump’s business deals. “The way they asked about his business dealings, the way they asked if you had heard anything even while I was fired, it just made me suspect that they suspect something about him,” Nunberg said. “He may very well not have done anything, but the other thing I will tell you, is regardless of whether or not he had money coming to him during the election, okay, during the general, he won that election. And he has to get credit for it.”

Later, Nunberg added, “Trump may have very well done something during the election with the Russians. If he did that, I don’t know. If he did that, it’s inexcusable if he did that.”

“By admitting that Trump ‘may have done something’ and that he may have specific knowledge about that something, Nunberg may have provided a probable cause tipping point that would allow Mueller to obtain a search warrant for all the information—i.e. email content—that Nunberg is presently refusing to provide,” Dave Gomez, a former FBI agent and a fellow at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, told me in an email.

A grand-jury subpoena to turn over information can be fought—either by alleging an excessive burden, or invoking the Fifth Amendment, or seeking to narrow its scope. But a warrant based on probable cause would allow Mueller to seize the emails himself.

“A search warrant is for an involuntary seizure of property. It requires an affidavit presenting probable cause for the search and/or seizure, sworn to by the investigator, and approved by a judge,” said Gomez. “The phone company or email provider maintains copies of content, but requires a search warrant for access. Which is why Nunberg’s public comments are interesting. He clearly did not clear that statement with his attorneys.”

Barrett said that while Nunberg’s statements are certainly unusual, there may be an ulterior motive behind his appearance. Nunberg might be attempting to put his continuing loyalty to Trump on display, or encourage other potential witnesses to defy Mueller. He could be trying to goad the president into firing the special counsel by publicly announcing Mueller’s interest in Trump’s business practices. Or he may be auditioning for immunity, by convincing Mueller that he may possess information that the special counsel would find useful, and that he would cooperate if protected from legal exposure.

“I wouldn’t take his appearance at face value,” Barrett said.

If all Nunberg was trying to do is discredit the Mueller investigation, though, his choices of medium, method, and message seemed ill-advised.

“Mueller thinks that Trump is the Manchurian candidate,” Nunberg told CNN. “And I will tell you, I disagree with that.”

 
SlyPokerDog said:
OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT!

Sam Nunberg just had the most rambling interview on MSNBC, said he ain't turning over shit to Mueller. Has ripped up the subpoena. Then said Trump probably did something illegal during the campaign. And followed it up with saying that his attorney have probably fired him.

That was fucking crazy.
Click to expand...

He better get used to wearing stripes and being some big dude's boyfriend.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT!

Sam Nunberg just had the most rambling interview on MSNBC, said he ain't turning over shit to Mueller. Has ripped up the subpoena. Then said Trump probably did something illegal during the campaign. And followed it up with saying that his attorney have probably fired him.

That was fucking crazy.
Click to expand...

Now he's back on MSNBC doing another interview?!? Holy shit, someone shut him up! Says Trump did something really bad during the campaign. Is he high? Just rambling, freaking out about testifying to the grand jury about Roger Stone.

Now he just said that he knows Carter Page colluded with the Russians for the Trump campaign.
 
I listened to the clip above and all I could think is that he was trying to send a message to Stone and Trump that he's being loyal, and he wants Trump to remember that in case he needs a 'get out of jail free card.' Bizarre.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
What Is Sam Nunberg Doing?
The former Trump aide’s decision to announce that he was defying a subpoena from Robert Mueller is more likely to pique the special counsel’s interest than dispel it.

When former Trump aide Sam Nunberg called into MSNBC on Monday to declare his intention to defy a grand-jury subpoena in the Russia investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team was almost certainly watching with interest.

“I’m not going to cooperate! Why do I have to spend 80 hours going over my emails that I’ve had with Steve Bannon and with Roger Stone?” Nunberg asked NBC News reporter Katy Tur on Monday afternoon. “Why does Bob Mueller need to see my emails when I send Roger and Steve clips and we talk about how much we hate people?”

Nunberg, who was exiled from Trumpland early in the 2016 campaign, has been consistent in defending President Trump from allegations of collusion with what U.S. intelligence agencies have called a Russian campaign to swing the 2016 election in Trump’s favor. On MSNBC on Monday, Nunberg repeatedly called the special counsel’s investigation a “witch hunt” and said that there was “no collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet defying Mueller’s subpoena could lead to conviction on charges of civil contempt, and then imprisonment. Nunberg, an attorney, said he was willing to go to prison if necessary.

Rather than dissuading Mueller, though, Nunberg’s strange appearance on cable television may convince Mueller that Nunberg has a story to tell.

“That’s a pretty amazing interview, I have to say,” John Barrett, a former associate counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation and a law professor at St. Johns University, said of Nunberg’s appearance on MSNBC. “‘It’s hard to cooperate with law enforcement’ is just not a valid reason to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement.” Barrett points out that the the government could argue that, if gathering the relevant emails is too burdensome, prosecutors could take possession of the server and perform the search themselves.

Pressed by Tur about whether he believed Mueller “had something” on Trump, Nunberg said: “I think that he may have done something during the election. But I don’t know that for sure.”

That admission on its own may sabotage whatever chance Nunberg had of fighting the subpoena. “It’s the kind of statement that obviously must pique the interest of Mueller and his office, and it cries out for further questioning,” said Barrett.

Later, speaking to CNN’s Gloria Borger, Nunberg elaborated on the same sentiment—even confirming that the special counsel was now looking into Trump’s business deals. “The way they asked about his business dealings, the way they asked if you had heard anything even while I was fired, it just made me suspect that they suspect something about him,” Nunberg said. “He may very well not have done anything, but the other thing I will tell you, is regardless of whether or not he had money coming to him during the election, okay, during the general, he won that election. And he has to get credit for it.”

Later, Nunberg added, “Trump may have very well done something during the election with the Russians. If he did that, I don’t know. If he did that, it’s inexcusable if he did that.”

“By admitting that Trump ‘may have done something’ and that he may have specific knowledge about that something, Nunberg may have provided a probable cause tipping point that would allow Mueller to obtain a search warrant for all the information—i.e. email content—that Nunberg is presently refusing to provide,” Dave Gomez, a former FBI agent and a fellow at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, told me in an email.

A grand-jury subpoena to turn over information can be fought—either by alleging an excessive burden, or invoking the Fifth Amendment, or seeking to narrow its scope. But a warrant based on probable cause would allow Mueller to seize the emails himself.

“A search warrant is for an involuntary seizure of property. It requires an affidavit presenting probable cause for the search and/or seizure, sworn to by the investigator, and approved by a judge,” said Gomez. “The phone company or email provider maintains copies of content, but requires a search warrant for access. Which is why Nunberg’s public comments are interesting. He clearly did not clear that statement with his attorneys.”

Barrett said that while Nunberg’s statements are certainly unusual, there may be an ulterior motive behind his appearance. Nunberg might be attempting to put his continuing loyalty to Trump on display, or encourage other potential witnesses to defy Mueller. He could be trying to goad the president into firing the special counsel by publicly announcing Mueller’s interest in Trump’s business practices. Or he may be auditioning for immunity, by convincing Mueller that he may possess information that the special counsel would find useful, and that he would cooperate if protected from legal exposure.

“I wouldn’t take his appearance at face value,” Barrett said.

If all Nunberg was trying to do is discredit the Mueller investigation, though, his choices of medium, method, and message seemed ill-advised.

“Mueller thinks that Trump is the Manchurian candidate,” Nunberg told CNN. “And I will tell you, I disagree with that.”

Click to expand...

Trump only hires the best
 
At least we've seen this playbook before:

(Feds): "I need to see all your documents and emails"
(XXXX): "Here they are"
(Feds, after some time): "Wait, it seems like there are a whole bunch missing."
(XXXX): "Are not."
(Feds, after someone tips them off): "Yeah there are. There's, like, I dunno, 30,000 documents missing."
(XXXX): "Oh yeah. Sorry about that. Those got deleted. I wish I could get them back for you, but they're gone. In fact, someone torched the server, bit-erased the hard drive and then did a physical destruction sooooo...yeah, sorry about that."
("Hackers" release a cache of emails copied from the server before it was destroyed): "Here they are! Found them!"
(XXXX): "They are trying to help the other side who hates me! Investigate him!"
 
BrianFromWA said:
At least we've seen this playbook before:

(Feds): "I need to see all your documents and emails"
(XXXX): "Here they are"
(Feds, after some time): "Wait, it seems like there are a whole bunch missing."
(XXXX): "Are not."
(Feds, after someone tips them off): "Yeah there are. There's, like, I dunno, 30,000 documents missing."
(XXXX): "Oh yeah. Sorry about that. Those got deleted. I wish I could get them back for you, but they're gone. In fact, someone torched the server, bit-erased the hard drive and then did a physical destruction sooooo...yeah, sorry about that."
("Hackers" release a cache of emails copied from the server before it was destroyed): "Here they are! Found them!"
(XXXX): "They are trying to help the other side who hates me! Investigate him!"
Click to expand...

Are you trying to predict the future? Because in the current case we are only on step one:

(Feds): "I need to see all your documents and emails"

barfo
 
Nunberg was in front of the grand jury for 6 hours today.

That's amazing for someone who claims to know nothing about anything.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Nunberg was in front of the grand jury for 6 hours today.

That's amazing for someone who claims to know nothing about anything.
Click to expand...
I watched Miss Sloane, I bet it was 6 hours of :
"Upon the advice of counsel, I must respectfully decline to answer your question, based on my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
 
No, I don't think it's a witch hunt,” Sam Nunberg told ABC News. “It's warranted because there's a lot there and that's the sad truth.”
He added, “I don't believe it leads to the president.”
Instead, Nunberg said he believes that many in his inner circle may face legal trouble, including his own mentor and former Trump campaign aide, Roger Stone.
“I'm very worried about him,” Nunberg said. “He's certainly at least the subject of this investigation, in the very least he's a subject.”
Click to expand...

Do you believe him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top