US Politics

[RabzonKhan]

Oh, my goodness, as usual, Trump lied again, he is again blaming Sen Bob Corker for the Iran deal. The fact is, the Senator not only voted against the deal, but was one of the strongest opponent of the deal. Link

https://twitter.com/x/status/922798321739161600

https://twitter.com/x/status/922807083526914049

 

[VCheng]

Democratic candidates are reporting historic early fundraising totals, alarming GOP strategists and raising the prospect that 2018 could feature the most expansive House battlefield in years.

The coming midterms are going to be crucial.

 

[RabzonKhan]

The coming midterms are going to be crucial.

No doubt, and I am hoping the Democrats can retake the House.

 

[VCheng]

No doubt, and I am hoping the Democrats can retake the House.

That is why the gerrymandering case before the SC is going to be very important, since it will determine whether popular support for the Democrats can be translated into actual seats. Or not.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Jeff Flake announces he will not seek re election in 2018

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Paul Ryan issues statement on Iraq

https://www.speaker.gov/press-release/statement-iraq

 

[RabzonKhan]

Jeff Flake announces he will not seek re election in 2018

Thanks for posting.

Wow, Sen Jeff Flake delivered an absolutely stunning take down of Trump on the Senate floor.

The following is the text of Sen. Jeff Flake's remarks from the floor of the U.S. Senate on Oct. 24, 2017:

Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter that has been much on my mind, at a moment when it seems that our democracy is more defined by our discord and our dysfunction than it is by our values and our principles. Let me begin by noting a somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours to hold indefinitely. We are not here simply to mark time. Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office. And there are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles.

Now is such a time.

It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret, because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics, regret because of the indecency of our discourse, regret because of the coarseness of our leadership, regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our — all of our — complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.

In this century, a new phrase has entered the language to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order — that phrase being “the new normal.” But we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue — with the tone set at the top.

We must never regard as “normal” the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country — the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions; the flagrant disregard for truth or decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have all been elected to serve.

None of these appalling features of our current politics should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that this is just the way things are now. If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that this is just politics as usual, then heaven help us. Without fear of the consequences, and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal.

Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as “telling it like it is,” when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified.

And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else: It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength — because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit, and weakness.

It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us, Why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you speak up? — what are we going to say?

Mr. President, I rise today to say: Enough. We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it. We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that.

Here, today, I stand to say that we would better serve the country and better fulfill our obligations under the constitution by adhering to our Article 1 “old normal” — Mr. Madison’s doctrine of the separation of powers. This genius innovation which affirms Madison’s status as a true visionary and for which Madison argued in Federalist 51 — held that the equal branches of our government would balance and counteract each other when necessary. “Ambition counteracts ambition,” he wrote.

But what happens if ambition fails to counteract ambition? What happens if stability fails to assert itself in the face of chaos and instability? If decency fails to call out indecency? Were the shoe on the other foot, would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course not, and we would be wrong if we did.

When we remain silent and fail to act when we know that that silence and inaction is the wrong thing to do — because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseum — when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of the institutions of our liberty, then we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics.

Now, I am aware that more politically savvy people than I caution against such talk. I am aware that a segment of my party believes that anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to a president who belongs to my party is unacceptable and suspect.

If I have been critical, it is not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the president of the United States. If I have been critical, it is because I believe that it is my obligation to do so, as a matter of duty and conscience. The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters — the notion that one should say and do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided.

A Republican president named Roosevelt had this to say about the president and a citizen’s relationship to the office:

“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants.He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.” President Roosevelt continued: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party. We can all be forgiven for failing in that measure from time to time. I certainly put myself at the top of the list of those who fall short in that regard. I am holier-than-none. But too often, we rush not to salvage principle but to forgive and excuse our failures so that we might accommodate them and go right on failing — until the accommodation itself becomes our principle.

In that way and over time, we can justify almost any behavior and sacrifice almost any principle. I’m afraid that is where we now find ourselves.

When a leader correctly identifies real hurt and insecurity in our country and instead of addressing it goes looking for somebody to blame, there is perhaps nothing more devastating to a pluralistic society. Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to first look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops. Humility helps. Character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly and debased appetites in us.

Leadership lives by the American creed: E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. American leadership looks to the world, and just as Lincoln did, sees the family of man. Humanity is not a zero-sum game. When we have been at our most prosperous, we have also been at our most principled. And when we do well, the rest of the world also does well.

These articles of civic faith have been central to the American identity for as long as we have all been alive. They are our birthright and our obligation. We must guard them jealously, and pass them on for as long as the calendar has days. To betray them or to be unserious in their defense is a betrayal of the fundamental obligations of American leadership. And to behave as if they don’t matter is simply not who we are.

Now, the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question. When the United States emerged from World War II we contributed about half of the world’s economic activity. It would have been easy to secure our dominance, keeping the countries that had been defeated or greatly weakened during the war in their place. We didn’t do that. It would have been easy to focus inward. We resisted those impulses. Instead, we financed reconstruction of shattered countries and created international organizations and institutions that have helped provide security and foster prosperity around the world for more than 70 years.

Now, it seems that we, the architects of this visionary rules-based world order that has brought so much freedom and prosperity, are the ones most eager to abandon it.

The implications of this abandonment are profound. And the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values. Despotism loves a vacuum. And our allies are now looking elsewhere for leadership. Why are they doing this? None of this is normal. And what do we as United States Senators have to say about it?

The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics. Because politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity.

I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit.

I have decided that I will be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself from the political considerations that consume far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles.

To that end, I am announcing today that my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019.

It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, and who is pro-immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican party — the party that for so long has defined itself by belief in those things. It is also clear to me for the moment we have given in or given up on those core principles in favor of the more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment. To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess we have created are justified. But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.

There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal — but mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people. In the case of the Republican party, those things also threaten to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking minority party.

We were not made great as a country by indulging or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorying in the things which divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake. And we did not become the beacon of freedom in the darkest corners of the world by flouting our institutions and failing to understand just how hard-won and vulnerable they are.

This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say the sooner the better. Because to have a healthy government we must have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently, and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man, and always look for the good. Until that days comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it. Because it does.

I plan to spend the remaining fourteen months of my senate term doing just that.

Mr. President, the graveyard is full of indispensable men and women — none of us here is indispensable. Nor were even the great figures from history who toiled at these very desks in this very chamber to shape this country that we have inherited. What is indispensable are the values that they consecrated in Philadelphia and in this place, values which have endured and will endure for so long as men and women wish to remain free. What is indispensable is what we do here in defense of those values. A political career doesn’t mean much if we are complicit in undermining those values.

I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today, and will close by borrowing the words of President Lincoln, who knew more about healing enmity and preserving our founding values than any other American who has ever lived. His words from his first inaugural were a prayer in his time, and are no less so in ours:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Link

That is why the gerrymandering case before the SC is going to be very important, since it will determine whether popular support for the Democrats can be translated into actual seats. Or not.

Exactly, time and again the Democrats have won more votes and still the Republicans ended up with more seats.

Unfortunately, it looks like it all depends on Justice Anthony Kennedy and one can hope this time it will be different than 2004. The minimum the court can do is set some clear standards and at least put an end to the extreme gerrymandering. I believe gerrymandering is a bigger threat to our democracy then Donald Trump, Trump will be gone in a few years, but the curse of gerrymandering is becoming more extreme.

 

[Nilgiri]

Ben Shapiro posted a good rebuke on Jeff "Snow" Flake from even a conservative largely anti-Trump perspective:

 

[RabzonKhan]

Since Trump Took Office, State Democrats' Chances Have Improved for 2018

The GOP holds the majority of governorships, but the number of those vulnerable next year has doubled.

BY LOUIS JACOBSON | OCTOBER 27, 2017


With the Democrats out of power in Washington, D.C., next year’s governors’ races have become crucial for salvaging the party’s political future. The good news for the party is that there will be a bounty of pickup opportunities.

Today, the GOP holds a 34-15 edge in gubernatorial offices, with one -- Alaska’s Bill Walker -- an independent. Of course, that balance could slightly change next month when voters in New Jersey and Virginia elect their next governors. But looking ahead to the 36 races next year, Republicans will have more governorships to defend: 26 to the Democrats’ nine.

Another bit of good news for Democrats is that for the first time since 2006, Republicans will control the White House and Congress during a midterm election. Historically, voters have chosen to use midterms to register their frustration with the incumbent party at the federal level. If that pattern holds, it could affect the governors' races.

But the best news for Democrats is that the number of competitive races is growing, at least compared to the last time we handicapped them in January.

Back then, we rated 10 of the 36 seats up for grabs in 2018 as vulnerable for the incumbent party. Of those, six are held by Republicans and four by Democrats. By contrast, we now find that 17 seats are vulnerable for the party in power -- 12 held by the GOP and five by the Democrats. That’s a more than 50 percent increase in vulnerable seats.

Drilling down further, the Republicans have seven vulnerable open seats and five vulnerable incumbents.

Three Republican-held governorships are so vulnerable that we’ve rated them lean Democratic. Those are the open seats being vacated by Paul LePage of Maine and Susana Martinez of New Mexico, as well as the seat held by incumbent Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, who announced his run for re-election earlier this week.

We’ve rated another three Republican-held governorships as tossups, each of them open seats: Florida, Michigan and Nevada.

The rest of the competitive Republican-held seats fall in the lean Republican category. They include the race in Ohio, where John Kasich is term-limited; in Iowa, where the governor has only been in office since Terry Branstad, the longest-serving governor, took a job with the Trump administration earlier this year; in Kansas, where a new governor is expected to take office once Sam Brownback gets confirmed as the nation's religious ambassador; and in Maryland, New Hampshire and Wisconsin, where incumbents are all running for re-election.

The Democrats, meanwhile, have three vulnerable open seats and two vulnerable incumbents. Three of those are in the tossup category -- the open seats in Colorado, Connecticut and Minnesota – and the remaining two, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, are in the lean Democratic category.

In Alaska, we’re predicting that the race is leaning independent -- or, in other words, toward Walker. The Republican-turned-independent’s polling shows his approval ratings in the high 30s, which is why Republicans are lining up to challenge him. The candidates include state Sen. Mike Dunleavy, former state Sen. Charlie Huggins, former Lt. Gov. Loren Lehman, businessman and former state Sen. John Binkley, activist Scott Hawkins and former state Sen. Ben Stevens, the son of the late U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens. Walker’s chances of getting another term may hinge on the results of the 2018 legislative session, which will dwell on the state’s fiscal difficulties.

All told, in a neutral political environment, Democrats could gain up to three governorships nationally. If political winds are working in their favor, though, their net gain could be as high as five to seven seats.

The Trump administration's historically low approval ratings could hurt Republican gubernatorial candidates next year in purple and blue states if they express too much support for the president. Such pro-Trump rhetoric -- even if made during primaries when a candidate is appealing to his or her base -- could dampen enthusiasm among independents and Republicans in the general election.

Still, it’s worth remembering that the national political environment doesn’t always impact gubernatorial candidates, since many voters distinguish between political factors that affect federal races and state races.

The gubernatorial battleground in 2018 will be especially important because it offers Democrats the biggest potential haul of governorships in advance of the once-every-decade legislative and congressional redistricting process that will begin after the 2020 Census. In most states, governors play a role in redistricting, and with the Republicans currently controlling the majority of legislatures, Democrats will need a seat at the table to avoid being drawn out of most of the maps.

Before we delve in to the state-by-state breakdown of each 2018 race, a few notes: Vulnerability, in our ratings, does not mean an incumbent governor is at risk of losing a primary contest -- only a general election. As usual, our handicapping is based on consultations with multiple experts in the states as well as national party strategists. And within all categories the seats are listed from most to least vulnerable. The categories are safe Republican, likely Republican, lean Republican, tossup, lean Democratic, likely Democratic and safe Democratic.

Safe Republican

Idaho: Open seat; held by Gov. Butch Otter (R)

Otter has finally confirmed that he is not running again. While he was making his decision, though, the GOP field got pretty crowded. His lieutenant governor, Brad Little, has already been actively running for months. So has U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador and Boise developer Tommy Ahlquist, who’s less well-known around the state but has been throwing money into early ads.

For now, the Democrats don’t have a candidate, although the 2014 Democratic nominee, A.J. Balukoff might run again.

Barring something unexpected, the seat looks as safely Republican as any in the nation.

South Dakota: Open seat; held by Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R)

The race to replace term-limited Daugaard is wide open, although GOP Attorney General Marty Jackley may have a modest early edge. If U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem decides to jump in, she would be tough for Jackley to beat in the Republican primary.

The Democrats are expected to nominate state Sen. Billie Sutton, a former rodeo star who was injured in the ring and is now in a wheelchair. In this heavily red state, though, Sutton would be an enormous underdog.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R)

Hutchinson remains highly likely to win a second term, though there have been rumors that gun activist and Fox News personality Jan Morgan might challenge him from the right in the GOP primary. While Democrats have shown a few signs of life in Arkansas after several rough campaign cycles, any candidate would still face long odds.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R)

Abbott is a virtual lock to be re-elected. He is the most popular politician in the state and has more than $50 million in his campaign war chest, along with a strong team of advisers. Unlike in the Texas U.S. Senate race -- in which Democrats have recruited U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke to run against Republican incumbent Ted Cruz -- no credible Democrat has volunteered for a kamikaze mission against Abbott. One late-breaking possibility would be a run by outgoing state House Speaker Joe Straus, a Republican considered more moderate than Abbott and many others in the Texas GOP.

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R)

Ricketts remains heavily favored to win a second term. An independent bid by moderate state Sen. Bob Krist could pose Ricketts his biggest challenge, more than any Democrat.

Wyoming: Open seat; held by Gov. Matt Mead (R)

The two leading candidates in the Republican field are state Treasurer Mark Gordon and Secretary of State Ed Murray. On the Democratic side, former state House Minority Leader Mary Throne is running. She’s moderate enough to be a credible candidate, but any Democrat faces long odds in Wyoming these days.

Likely Republican

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R)

Ivey ascended to the governor’s office when fellow Republican Robert Bentley resigned amid a sex scandal. But Ivey won’t have a free ride to a full term. Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle may be her strongest challenger, but other candidates in the race include Jefferson County Commissioner David Carrington, preacher Scott Dawson, state Sen. Bill Hightower, businessman Joshua Jones and Agriculture Commissioner John McMillan.

The Democrats are pinning their hopes on one of two credible candidates: Tuscaloosa Mayor Walt Maddox and former Alabama Chief Justice Sue Bell. To have any hope, the Democrats would need to bank on widespread voter disgust with Alabama Republicans’ scandals in recent years.

Oklahoma: Open seat; held by Gov. Mary Fallin (R)

Even though term-limited Fallin has experienced a rough stretch due to falling oil prices, the state’s heavy Republican lean gives the GOP the edge. The two Republican frontrunners are Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett and Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb. Other contenders include Tulsa businessman Kevin Stitt, who has promised to spend several million dollars on his campaign, and Tulsa attorney Gary Richardson.

Democrats, for their part, hope that residual concerns about the economy and divisions on the GOP side will give them a boost. Democrats in the legislature are also doing their best to send the message that Republicans’ lack of unity means they can’t govern. The Democratic frontrunner is former Attorney General Drew Edmondson.

If Cornett is the GOP nominee, however, Democratic chances for an upset grow long.

Tennessee: Open seat; held by Gov. Bill Haslam (R)

There are several well-known, potentially well-funded Republicans who are looking to succeed Haslam, and that gives Republicans a big leg up. The GOP field includes U.S. Rep. Diane Black, former state economic development chief Randy Boyd, House Speaker Beth Harwell, businessman Bill Lee and longtime state Rep. Mae Beavers. Black and Boyd are probably the early favorites, although with a large field any of them could win.

The Democrats have two candidates: former Nashville Mayor Karl Dean and House Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh. Dean is a modest favorite for the nomination. While Tennessee has been solidly red in recent years, it’s not inconceivable that a Democrat could defeat a weakened GOP nominee.

That said, the likeliest outcome is still a Republican victory.

Georgia: Open seat; held by Gov. Nathan Deal (R)

Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and Secretary of State Brian Kemp are the most likely Republican candidates to succeed Deal, though they have plenty of competition from state senators Hunter Hill and Michael Williams, as well as Clay Tippins, an ex-Navy SEAL and tech executive.

The Democrats find themselves, somewhat uncomfortably, with a race of the Staceys: House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams and state Rep. Stacey Evans. Abrams is African-American and more liberal, and Evans is white and more moderate. The contest has been riven by black-white and progressive-centrist friction, as evidenced by the recent Netroots conference in Atlanta at which Evans was booed by Abrams supporters. Observers say Evans could pose a stronger general election challenge to whoever wins the GOP primary, but emerging from the Democratic primary will not be easy. While the Democrats gained ground in suburban Atlanta in 2016, they may not have enough juice yet to pull off a gubernatorial win.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R)

Despite Vermont’s record as one of the nation’s bluest states, Scott won office in 2016 on a formula that has worked in the past -- running as a moderate Republican. It’s likely to work again, too. Scott hasn’t made any major errors yet, and Vermont voters tend not to throw out governors after one two-year term.

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R)

McMaster, who moved up from lieutenant governor after Nikki Haley resigned to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, won’t have a free ride to the GOP nomination. While he’s the favorite, he still faces a primary field that includes Kevin Bryant, the new lieutenant governor, and Catherine Templeton, who ran two agencies under Haley and who has posted strong fundraising numbers.

On the Democratic side, state Rep. James Smith is the front runner. Observers consider him a strong contender because of his Vietnam War background. Another expected Democratic hopeful is consultant Phil Noble. Democrats are strengthening their organization in the state, and some demographic trends point in their direction.

Nevertheless, South Carolina is still a red state, and the GOP nominee starts with the edge.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R)

Baker is just about the nation’s most popular governor, with a moderate Republican approach that has historically been popular in this otherwise heavily blue state. Massachusetts voters also haven’t denied an incumbent governor re-election in a general election since 1974, although governors lost primaries in 1978 and 1982.

The long odds of success are likely why no top-tier Democrat has entered the race yet. The Democratic field is led by Newton Mayor Setti Warren and former state finance secretary Jay Gonzalez. Unless something dramatic happens, Baker should survive even a challenging national midterm environment for the GOP.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R)

Ducey has had a relatively quiet first term, which may make him a tricky target for Democrats. The Democratic field features state Sen. Steve Farley and Arizona State University professor David Garcia. In 2016, Democrats were able to energize Latino voters with both Donald Trump and then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the ballot. Neither will be on the ballot again in 2018, but if fallout from the Trump presidency can continue energizing Latinos, Democrats will have a shot at winning. Read more

 

[RabzonKhan]

Breaking News: CNN and Reuters are reporting that Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference/obstruction of justice, has brought the first charges in a sealed indictment. Someone is going to be arrested on Monday.

Yes, locked them up! locked them up! locked them up!

I’m just loving it!




First on CNN: First charges filed in Mueller investigation
By Pamela Brown, Evan Perez and Shimon Prokupecz, 10/28/2017

Washington (CNN)A federal grand jury in Washington on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.

The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are.
A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment. The White House also had no comment, a senior administration official said Saturday morning.
Mueller was appointed in May to lead the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has oversight over the Russia investigation, would have been made aware of any charges before they were taken before the grand jury for approval, according to people familiar with the matter.

On Friday, top lawyers who are helping to lead the Mueller probe, including veteran prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, were seen entering the court room at the DC federal court where the grand jury meets to hear testimony in the Russia investigation.
Reporters present saw a flurry of activity at the grand jury room, but officials made no announcements.

Shortly after President Donald Trump abruptly fired then-FBI Director James Comey, Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Mueller took the reins of a federal investigation that Comey first opened in July 2016 in the middle of the presidential campaign.
Mueller is authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," according to Rosenstein's order.

The special counsel's investigation has focused on potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, as well as obstruction of justice by the President, who might have tried to impede the investigation. CNN reported that investigators are scrutinizing Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia. Read more

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Breaking News: CNN and Reuters are reporting that Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference/obstruction of justice, has brought the first charges in a sealed indictment. Someone is going to be arrested on Monday.

Yes, locked them up! locked them up! locked them up!

I’m just loving it!




First on CNN: First charges filed in Mueller investigation
By Pamela Brown, Evan Perez and Shimon Prokupecz, 10/28/2017

Washington (CNN)A federal grand jury in Washington on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.

The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are.
A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment. The White House also had no comment, a senior administration official said Saturday morning.
Mueller was appointed in May to lead the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has oversight over the Russia investigation, would have been made aware of any charges before they were taken before the grand jury for approval, according to people familiar with the matter.

On Friday, top lawyers who are helping to lead the Mueller probe, including veteran prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, were seen entering the court room at the DC federal court where the grand jury meets to hear testimony in the Russia investigation.
Reporters present saw a flurry of activity at the grand jury room, but officials made no announcements.

Shortly after President Donald Trump abruptly fired then-FBI Director James Comey, Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Mueller took the reins of a federal investigation that Comey first opened in July 2016 in the middle of the presidential campaign.
Mueller is authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," according to Rosenstein's order.

The special counsel's investigation has focused on potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, as well as obstruction of justice by the President, who might have tried to impede the investigation. CNN reported that investigators are scrutinizing Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia. Read more

No one is getting arrested and it's just going to be someone no one even heard of.

 

[Gomig-21]

No one is getting arrested and it's just going to be someone no one even heard of.

I wouldn't be so sure, the FBI did raid Manafort's house and seized a lot of files they thought he might destroy. There's a couple of key figures that might be the culprits in this indictment. Tomorrow will be huge, if someone does in fact get arrested since that's the only way we'll find out who the indictment was issued against.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

No one is getting arrested. He'll probably indict someone so irrelevant no one's even heard of.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html

 

[RabzonKhan]

Breaking News: CNN and Reuters are reporting that Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian interference/obstruction of justice, has brought the first charges in a sealed indictment. Someone is going to be arrested on Monday.

Yes, locked them up! locked them up! locked them up!

I’m just loving it!

I told ya, as expected, the first Trump crony surrenders. The game is on! I’m loving it!


Paul Manafort Has Surrendered To Federal Agents

October 30, 2017

Paul Manafort, President Trump's former campaign chairman, surrendered himself to federal law enforcement authorities on Monday morning, a Justice Department source tells NPR's Ryan Lucas, representing a new phase of the investigations into figures from Trump's inner circle.

Both Manafort and Rick Gates, his former deputy, were told to surrender, The New York Times reports. Over the summer, the pair registered with the U.S. government as foreign agents.

Manafort was taken into federal custody days after news emerged that a federal grand jury assembled by Department of Justice special counsel Robert Mueller had voted to indict a figure in Mueller's investigation into possible coordination between Russia and people close to the Trump campaign in last year's presidential election.

Manafort is perp walked through the front door of the FBI field office pic.twitter.com/LQdppFwTeW

— Tom Namako (@TomNamako) October 30, 2017
The grand jury's indictment may be unsealed on Monday; in addition to the main focus on Russia's efforts to tamper with the U.S. democratic process, Mueller's mandate also allows his team to probe any other criminal matters that arise during the course of its investigation.

FBI agents raided Manafort's home in Alexandria, Va., over the summer. Link