The Process of Impeachment is Now Inevitable

Trump's racist and religious extremist base will likely stand by him no matter what the coming impeachment inquiry reveals. The base's hatred of others and desires for special rights to ignore the law take precedence over all else. Likewise, political prostitutes like Lindsey Graham, a/k/a the Palmetto Queen, will continue their political fellatio of Donald Trump as they look over their shoulders worrying about a potential primary challenge.  Honor, decency, the rule of law, and their oaths of office mean nothing to them. Yet this willful blindness to the truth and conscious decision to stand by a lying - and likely criminal - con-artist  will not stop the impeachment process that Trump has unleashed on himself.  Indeed, as a former Republican columnist notes, Trump has basically plead guilty through his release of a redacted transcript of his shake down/bribery call to the president of Ukraine.  One can only imagine what an un-redacted copy will reveal.  Here are highlights from the column that loos at the now unstoppable impeachment process:

For the first time in American history, the president has pleaded guilty to an impeachable offense.

This is effectively what happened when the White House released the readout from President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. There is now no question that Trump asked the leader of a foreign country to investigate Joe Biden and his son — a request that was made in the context of a broader discussion of U.S. aid to Ukraine. This was the use of American power and diplomacy, not to serve the interests of the country, but for personal and selfish gain. It constitutes corruption of the first order.

Impeachment may be inadvisable. It may apply a cheese grater to the nation’s partisan wounds. The process may be conducted foolishly. It may feed a Republican thirst for revenge against a future Democratic president. It may motivate Trump’s base to salivating enthusiasm. The broad, American middle may yawn and switch to ESPN.

All of this matters, especially if it increases the chances of Trump’s reelection. But it matters like a fate, not like a choice. In T.S. Eliot’s “Murder in the Cathedral,” a priest says of unfolding events, “Let the wheel turn.” Archbishop Thomas Becket later comments: “The fool, fixed in his folly, may think/ He can turn the wheel on which he turns.”

Trump’s clearly impeachable offense has given the partisan instincts of elected Democrats the added justification of principle. The whistleblower complaint has affirmed those concerns and expanded their scope. This makes the process of impeachment inevitable. Now, the actors are merely choosing what roles they will play.
Trump’s role is to push and push until he meets firm resistance to his abuse of power — something he has rarely experienced.

Note that Trump’s call with Zelensky came during the denouement of the investigation of Russian influence. . . . . Consider this a moment. Trump gloated about beating the charge that he conspired with a foreign government to win an election, during a call in which he proposed to conspire with a foreign government to win reelection. The man is immune to ethical instruction. And further, Trump thought that releasing the readout of the call would somehow be exculpatory. He has spent so many years in the trash heap of corruption that he can no longer recognize the stench.

Republicans who defend or excuse him are providing permission for his radical redesign of public life. This is perhaps the saddest result of Trump’s corruption: turning good men and women into the bodyguards of a petty, cruel, lawless, would-be autocrat.

Because Trump has chosen to be transparently corrupt, congressional Republicans cannot dispute the facts of the case (as they did during special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation). They may still insist: No quid pro quo . But this is more of a rally chant than an argument. Trump’s request for foreign help to win the 2020 election was not like Belgium asking Uruguay for a favor. It was a global superpower asking a country dependent on U.S. military aid — which had just been withheld in a “review” — for favors. Trump pointedly reminded Zelensky that “the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine.” Trump’s requests were made in an atmosphere of menace.

The American people will ultimately decide whether this disturbs or bores them. Whatever the outcome, the wheel has begun to turn.

.

I disagree with the columnist's statement that Trump turned good men and women into bad individuals.  Trump had no role in that transformation.  Every man and woman who decided to side with and protect and apologize for Trump is responsible for their own conscious decision.  They knew right from wrong yet chose to support what was wrong. They deserve no pity or understanding. They deserve to be treated most harshly by the long lens of history - not unlike those who chose to support Hitler, Nixon and other foul individuals. The GOP hypocritically preaches about personal responsibility.  Now, each of these Trump enablers and sycophants needs to be held accountable. 

For Trump, Obstruction of Justice Is Probably Just the Tip of the Iceberg

As Donald Trump, a/k/a Der Trumpenführer, becomes more hysterical and launches attacks over Robert Mueller's Russiagate investigation - leaving even some Vichy Republicans wondering why Trump is acting guilty when he claims innocence - a piece in New York Magazine looks at where the investigation may be headed and why Trump's hysteria is on the rise.  It bears remembering that (i) Trump has a long history of dealing with American mobsters and unsavory Russian oligarchs, and (ii) Trump knows what was done by his campaign and some of his former minions who have already entered guilty pleas.  One can only hope that ALL of the dirty and conspiracy efforts come to light and that Trump, Pence and any senior Republicans who may have joined in the effort - think Mitch McConnell and his efforts to delay release about Russian activities - are taken down and, with luck, see time in a federal prison.  Here are article highlights:

One takeaway from Donald Trump’s unhinged Twitter meltdown over the Robert Mueller investigation this past weekend — aside from indications that the president is increasingly isolated, under siege, and out of sorts — is that his legal team is in disarray and can’t seem to put him at ease, despite repeated assurances that he will be vindicated in the end.

Trump has been getting more and more aggressive against the special counsel, and according to the New York Times, he may drop his lawyer Ty Cobb, who’s advocated for cooperating with Mueller.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that his lawyers have turned over to Mueller a report that is the equivalent of a connect-the-dots coloring book: a blueprint of key events under investigation. The purpose of these White House “summaries” is to limit the breadth of Mueller’s questioning should Trump sit down for an interview — a major minefield that, as I have written before, no sensible lawyer would allow a client like Trump to step onto.

This is clearly damage control. As the Post indicates, these written materials zero in on the dismissals of FBI Director James Comey and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, which suggests that the special counsel has an interest in the president’s state of mind during these events — the thing that matters to a prosecutor who is looking at the potential obstruction of an ongoing investigation.

Comey, as you may recall, was fired before the true extent of the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference (which Mueller took over) was publicly known. Andrew McCabe’s dismissal last Friday, on the other hand, happened after “this Russia thing,” as Trump once called it, had already yielded several indictments, guilty pleas, and cooperation agreements with a number of the president’s men. That McCabe was caught in the undertow of Trump’s vindictiveness was only a function of his proximity to Comey. . . .

Besmirching McCabe, in Trump’s mind, serves to besmirch the testimony of Mueller’s star witness on obstruction. This may yet be another miscalculation on Trump’s part, as that public trial will almost certainly never happen.

Mueller’s prospective obstruction case, captivating though it may be to political reporters and those who yearn for the president’s downfall, is still only a tiny slice of the special counsel’s mandate. You can count me among the skeptics who doubt that Mueller will ever make such a case in a court of law — even in the face of reports, like one from Axios on Monday, suggesting the opposite. If Mueller’s probe is to retain its legitimacy, which it has in spades, it will be by charging ahead with what it’s already done so well: uncovering the extent to which Russia worked alone or in tandem with Trump campaign operatives to boost Trump’s chances at the presidency.

The word that’s been used and abused to describe this synergy between the Kremlin and the Trump camp is collusion, but Mueller has given us a better, more legally grounded term: conspiracy. Last month, Rick Gates, Trump’s deputy campaign manager and a longtime associate of Paul Manafort, became the first person in Mueller’s crosshairs to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. This curious, catchall offense also appeared in the February indictment of 13 Russian trolls . . . .

Which brings us to this past weekend’s revelations about the role Cambridge Analytica, the data-analytics firm closely associated with Steve Bannon and the Trump campaign, played during the presidential election. Twin reports in the New York Times and The Guardian shed light on a staggering data-mining operation that resulted in the firm improperly obtaining tens of millions of Facebook profiles, which it then exploited for political micro-targeting.

While the substance of Mr. Mueller’s interest is a closely guarded secret, documents viewed by the Times indicate that the firm’s British affiliate claims to have worked in Russia and Ukraine.” Mueller, for his part, has already asked the firm for the emails of any employees who did work on behalf of the Trump campaign.

[B]ased on the precedent Mueller has already set, it wouldn’t be a stretch to expect his office to bring a fresh round of federal conspiracy charges against actors — whether that be Assange, executives at Cambridge Analytica, or other intermediaries — who attempted to impair the lawful functions of the government by concealing activities that they should’ve disclosed to, say, the Federal Election Commission or the Justice Department. “A method that makes uses of innocent individuals or businesses to reach and defraud the United States is not, for that reason, beyond the scope” of the law of conspiracy, the Supreme Court said some 30 years ago.

Unlike collusion, which makes for good sound bites but not real cases, conspiracy has deep roots in American law. As independent journalist Marcy Wheeler has laid out, even Jared Kushner may be on the hook for it. If the last ten months or so of the Mueller investigation have shown us anything, it is the tangled web of lies and cover-ups the Trump campaign weaved to hide its dealings with Russia. Don’t be surprised if Mueller untangles yet more of this mess and presents us with more indictments against conspirators in the U.S. or abroad.

Likewise, don't be surprised if Trump's hysterical and lashing out increases and perhaps pushes America toward a full blown constitutional crisis.  

Third Trump Campaign Adviser Close to Plea Deal with Mueller

Rick Gates, Manafort Putin and Trump

With so much media focused on the entirely preventable tragedy in Florida, it is easy to lose focus on the ongoing Russiagate investigation which, if successful, might purge the nation from the deadly cancer of the Trump/Pence regime.  As CNN is reporting, Trump campaign adviser Robert Gates appears close to striking a guilty plea deal with special investigator Robert Mueller.   Gates will be the third Trump campaign adviser to plead guilty in exchange for spilling his guts against other targets of the investigation, including Der Trumpenführer himself.   Here are article excerpts:

Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case.

Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a "Queen for a Day" interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed.

Gates' cooperation could be another building block for Mueller in a possible case against President Donald Trump or key members of his team. Gates would become the third known cooperator in Mueller's sprawling probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. It would also increase the pressure to cooperate on Gates' co-defendant Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman, who has pleaded not guilty to Mueller's indictment and is preparing for a trial on alleged financial crimes unrelated to the campaign.

It's still unclear what Gates, who outlasted Manafort in the campaign and later worked on the Trump inaugural efforts, could share that would be of value to the Russian collusion investigators, outside the Manafort case. The value of what a defendant says factors into the plea negotiation as both sides finalize the deal.

Gates' plea deal could be announced in the next few days, given that he's asked a judge for an extension until Wednesday to discuss his in-flux legal representation.

At the same time, investigators with the special counsel's office are preparing to file new charges against him, according to people familiar with the probe. The additional charges are tax-related, these people say, which could increase the fines and prison time Gates faces in court. More charges are also being prepared against Manafort   . . . .
 The three trial lawyers who took on Gates' case shortly after his indictment asked to part ways with their client on February 1. The legal team drama culminated in two long sealed hearings in front of the judge last week and on Wednesday. The two-and-a-half hours spent on that topic suggest the lawyers' situation with Gates is more complicated than a typical attorney changeover. Manafort and Gates were at the helm of the campaign during the critical summer 2016 period when senior campaign officials, including Manafort, met a group of Russians at Trump Tower who had promised damaging information on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. They were also in charge during the Republican National Convention when a handful of Trump campaign associates met with the Russian ambassador, and when Trump campaign officials intervened to change language on the platform about the Ukraine crisis.

Rick Gates Lawyers Withdraw from Russiagate Case - Is A Guilty Plea Coming?

Wednesday we learned that Donald Trump and White House Communications Director Hope Hicks discussed hiding emails between Donald Trump, Jr. and Russian operatives from investigators.  The discussion caused one of Trump, Sr.'s attorneys to resign seemingly out of fears of being caught up in obstruction of justice.  Yesterday we learned that three of the attorneys for Robert Gates - one of two individuals indicted to date in the Mueller investigation - resigned, fueling speculation that Gates is seeking a possible guilty plea deal  and cooperation with Mueller efforts to put Trump and his co-conspirators in a bull's eye.   Making the whole situation more bizarre is the fact that the resigning counsel put their reasons for withdrawal in a filing that they asked the court to seal and bar from public view.  In practice, attorneys usually resign for one of three reasons: (i) their client isn't paying their bills, or (ii) the client is refusing to take their advice and recommendations, or (iii) their client is asking them to commit a fraud on the court.  Politico looks at this surprising development. (I suspect Messrs Trump and Manafort will not find this comforting).  Here are story highlights:

Three attorneys representing Rick Gates told a federal court Thursday they are immediately withdrawing as counsel for the former Donald Trump campaign aide, who is fighting special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of him on money laundering and other charges.

Lawyers Shanlon Wu, Walter Mack and Annemarie McAvoy said in a two-page motion that they would explain the reasons for their abrupt move in documents filed under seal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“The document speaks for itself,” McAvoy told POLITICO, declining further comment.
Gates and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort both pleaded not guilty to Mueller’s charges filed in October, the first to be publicly announced in relation to the investigation into whether the Republican presidential campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.

While Gates’ shift in legal strategy was a surprise, speculation had been mounting that the longtime GOP operative might be seeking to cooperate with the Mueller investigation. CNN reported last month that Gates had added Washington defense attorney Tom Green to his team, noting he’d been spotted at Mueller’s downtown office twice.  Green has not filed a formal appearance in the court case . . . .

Gates had also retained former assistant U.S. attorney Michael Dry as his attorney, but that relationship was severed before Mueller filed his October indictment.

“The number of lawyers he’s cycled through in such a short period of time is highly unusual,” said one Washington-based defense attorney familiar with the Russia probe.

A criminal trial won’t start until September at the earliest, according to the federal judge overseeing the case, who last month rejected a request from Mueller’s team to begin the trial in May. Gates has also been working to get permanent release from house arrest by securing a $5 million bail package.

He [Gates] was reprimanded in December by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson for appearing in a brief, videotaped address trying to raise money for his own legal defense fund, a move that she said raised questions about his following a gag order issued for all parties and lawyers involved in the high-profile case.

Let's hope Gates strikes a plea deal and spills his guts. :)

Mueller Zeros in on False Trump Tower Meeting Narrative

Hope Hicks - Trump's accomplice in obstruction of justice?

Barely a day goes by without another revelation that bolster the case of obstruction of justice by Donald Trump, a/k/a Der  Trumpenführer,  and his circle of sycophants who are reminiscent of band of liars and misfits that  Hitler surrounded himself with.  And let's be clear, the constant excuse that some of Trump's minions and henchmen were "naive" or "inexperienced" simply doesn't fly.  First they had legal counsel available who they could have consulted.  Secondly, if one is going to hold important positions, then it behoves what to get their shit together and make one's self competent. Now, the New York Times has broken a story that strongly suggests that Trump and/or White House communications director Hope Hicks sought to obstruct justice and hide information from investigators.  Conduct that is might pass in a privately held real estate company with a long history of shady practices (such as dealings with mobsters) simply doesn't fly once one moves into the White House.  Here are highlights from the Times story:

Aboard Air Force One on a flight home from Europe last July, President Trump and his advisers raced to cobble together a news release about a mysterious meeting at Trump Tower the previous summer between Russians and top Trump campaign officials. Rather than acknowledge the meeting’s intended purpose — to obtain political dirt about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government — the statement instead described the meeting as being about an obscure Russian adoption policy.

The statement, released in response to questions from The New York Times about the meeting, has become a focus of the inquiry by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. Prosecutors working for Mr. Mueller in recent months have questioned numerous White House officials about how the release came together — and about how directly Mr. Trump oversaw the process.

Mr. Mueller’s team recently notified Mr. Trump’s lawyers that the Air Force One statement is one of about a dozen subjects that prosecutors want to discuss in a face-to-face interview of Mr. Trump that is still being negotiated.

The revelation of the meeting was striking: It placed the president’s son and his top campaign officials in direct contact with a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information on Mrs. Clinton, and an email to the president’s son emerged saying that the information was part of Russia’s effort to help the Trump campaign.

What is already clear is that, as Mr. Trump’s aides and family members tried over 48 hours to manage one of the most consequential crises of the young administration, the situation quickly degenerated into something of a circular firing squad. They protected their own interests, shifted blame and potentially left themselves — and the president — legally vulnerable. The latest witness to be called for an interview about the episode was Mark Corallo, who served as a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team before resigning in July. Mr. Corallo received an interview request last week from the special counsel and has agreed to the interview, according to three people with knowledge of the request. Mr. Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting . . . . “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said.

Early on the morning of Friday, July 7, reporters from The Times approached White House officials and lawyers with questions about the Trump Tower meeting a year earlier. The reporters said The Times was preparing a story revealing that the meeting with the Russians had taken place, and asked the White House for more information about its purpose.

The president and senior White House officials were in Germany . . . . citing the time difference and conflicting schedules. They scheduled a conference call with the reporters for early the next morning.   The call never happened, so the Times reporters submitted a list of 14 questions about the meeting to the White House and to the lawyers of the Trump campaign aides who attended the meeting. Among the questions: What was discussed, and what did the attendees think was going to be discussed?

President Trump’s aides received the list midflight on Air Force One on the way back from the summit meeting and began writing a response. In the plane’s front cabin, Mr. Trump huddled with Ms. Hicks. During the meeting, according to people familiar with the episode, Ms. Hicks was sending frequent text messages to Donald Trump Jr., who was in New York. Alan Garten, a lawyer for the younger Mr. Trump who was also in New York, was also messaging with White House advisers aboard the plane.

The president supervised the writing of the statement, according to three people familiar with the episode, with input from other White House aides. A fierce debate erupted over how much information the news release should include. Mr. Trump was insistent about including language that the meeting was about Russian adoptions . . . By early afternoon, The Times received a separate statement, from Jamie S. Gorelick, a lawyer at the time for Jared Kushner . . . It left nearly all of the questions unanswered — and seemed to put the onus on Donald Trump Jr. to answer them. Nearly four hours later, the statement that had been cobbled together aboard Air Force One was sent to The Times. The statement was in Donald Trump Jr.’s name and was issued by Mr. Garten.

Not long after, the news site Circa published a different version, saying that the June 2016 meeting had been set up “to discuss a Russian policy.” Mr. Corallo, the spokesman for the legal team, said in that story that the Russians had “misrepresented who they were and who they worked for.” He, along with the rest of the president’s legal team, was not consulted about Donald Trump Jr.’s statement before it was released.

The dueling statements, both of which withheld the true purpose of the meeting, created tension at the White House.  Accusations began flying that the botched response made an already bad situation worse. Ms. Hicks called Mr. Corallo, according to three people who relayed his version of events to The Times. She accused him of trafficking in conspiracy theories and drawing more attention to the story.

The conference call with the president, Mr. Corallo and Ms. Hicks took place the next morning, and what transpired on the call is a matter of dispute.

In Mr. Corallo’s account . . . he told both Mr. Trump and Ms. Hicks that the statement drafted aboard Air Force One would backfire because documents would eventually surface showing that the meeting had been set up for the Trump campaign to get political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians.

According to his account, Ms. Hicks responded that the emails “will never get out” because only a few people had access to them. Mr. Corallo, who worked as a Justice Department spokesman during the George W. Bush administration, told colleagues he was alarmed not only by what Ms. Hicks had said . . . but also that she had said it in front of the president without a lawyer on the phone and that the conversation could not be protected by attorney-client privilege.

Contacted on Wednesday, Mr. Corallo said he did not dispute any of the account shared by his colleagues but declined to elaborate further. . . . lawyers had already copied and stamped the emails for delivery to Capitol Hill.

Mr. Corallo told colleagues that he immediately notified the legal team of the conversation and jotted down notes to memorialize it. He also shared his concerns with Stephen K. Bannon, then the president’s chief strategist.

Mr. Corallo left the job shortly after the phone call. The recent book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” . . . . linked Mr. Corallo’s resignation to concerns he had about obstruction . . . .

The younger Mr. Trump ultimately released the emails after being told The Times was about to publish them. Within weeks, Mr. Mueller sent out grand jury subpoenas for documents and interviews about the June 2016 meeting.

A couple of take aways: first, Trump's first inclination is always to lie regardless of the topic or issue.  Here, the false statement to the Times may not have been a crime, but lying to investigators about it and how it came into existence, will be crimes.  The second take away?  Ms. Hicks is likely in a shit load of trouble.  She may have already lied to investigators and Corallo may set the stage where she will be seeking her own plea deal before it is all over.   Should that happen, let's hope she throws Trump under the bus.

Quotes of the Day: Legal Experts on Magnitude of Flynn Plea Deal

As the prior post on Michael Flynn's plea deal with Robert Mueller notes that the White House is trying to blow it off as a non-event .  True to form, Fox News, a/k/a Faux News,  has likewise down played it and seemed to focus an almost anything else possible last night (we were in the HYC club bar last evening and could see Fox on one TV and CNN on another and it was a case of conflicting realities). But those legitimate experts familiar with criminal law and the legal process see the matter quite differently. As noted in the past, I have worked as a consultant for the FBI in the past and do have some direct sense of how they operate and what plea deals mean.  Politico has a piece that looks at the reactions of various legal expert.   Here's my favorite one out of almost a dozen, none of which bode well for the White House:

‘As big as a day as this was for Mueller’s investigation, expect more and bigger ones’

Norman Eisen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chief White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011, and ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014

“If you don’t want to do the time, you have to drop a dime” goes the jailhouse saying. How ironic that Michael Flynn, who encouraged the chants of “lock her up” at the Republic National Convention, is now following prison maxims in negotiating a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller. Having worked with and against Mueller, I know he is resolute in his pursuit of justice. The information and statement of the offense makes clear that Flynn has not just “dropped a dime” but a whole roll of them, implicating multiple other Trump transition officials with knowledge of his conversations with Russia and other foreign governments. As big a day as this was for Mueller’s investigation—and it was the biggest yet—expect more and bigger ones.

Trump's Dishonest Efforts to Distance Himself from Papadopoulos

Papadopoulous is center left with Trump, et al

In the wake of the guilty plea taken by former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, Donald Trump has resorted to his usual tactic when the truth becomes inconvenient: he lies.  Thus, in Trump world Papadopoulos has become a nobody and has been labeled as a liar since what he seemingly has to say cuts against the biggest Trump lie, namely that no collusion or efforts to collude with Russia ever occurred. A piece in the Washington Post looks at some of Papadopoulos' activities and who knew about them, especially efforts to collude with Russia so as to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of being elected.  Already, as Politico is reporting, Sam Clovis, a former co-chair and policy adviser to Trump’s campaign, knew that another campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, was talking to Russians, according to documents released Monday as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe and campaign and administration officials. Clovis is reported to be cooperating with the Senate Intelligence Committee and one can imagine that he will be talking to Robert Mueller and his staff.  Others besides Clovis were "in the loop" on Papadopoulous' efforts to collude.  Here are highlights from the Post piece:

President Trump on Tuesday belittled former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty this week to lying to federal agents investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, tweeting that “few people knew the young, low level volunteer named George, who has already proven to be a liar.”

But interviews and documents show that Papadopoulos was in regular contact with the Trump campaign’s most senior officials and held himself out as a Trump surrogate as he traveled the world to meet with foreign officials and reporters.

Papadopoulos sat at the elbow of one of Trump’s top campaign advisers, then-Sen. Jeff Sessions, during a dinner for campaign advisers weeks before the Republican National Convention, according to an individual who attended the meeting.

While some top campaign aides appeared to rebuff Papadopoulos’s persistent offers to broker a meeting with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, there is no sign they told him directly to cease his activities or sought to end his affiliation with the campaign.

Emails included in court documents released Monday show that Papadopoulos repeatedly told Trump campaign officials about his contacts with people he believed were representing the Russian government.

At 29, Papadopoulos had scant experience that qualified him to advise a presidential candidate. He had entered the Trump campaign after a six-week stint working for the campaign of Trump’s rival for the Republican nomination, neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

By March 2016, Trump’s campaign, like Carson’s before it, was eagerly searching for foreign policy expertise. As Trump rose in the polls and won Republican primaries, the former reality TV host was under pressure to announce a group of advisers with whom he was consulting on foreign policy issues.

The scrutiny intensified early that month after 70 conservative national security experts signed an open letter opposing Trump’s candidacy. 

To come up with names, the campaign turned to Sam Clovis, a former Iowa radio host who served as national campaign co-chairman, an attorney for Clovis confirmed Tuesday in a statement.

On March 21, Trump included Papadopoulos among five men he announced were advising him on matters of national security in a meeting with The Washington Post editorial board. “An energy and oil consultant. Excellent guy,” Trump said.

Though Papadopoulos’s exaggerated résumé issues quickly became public, he remained a part of the Trump advisory panel and soon began urging campaign aides to let him set up a meeting between Trump and Russian officials.

Court documents show he raised the idea at a March 31 meeting of the group attended by both Trump and Sessions, who had endorsed Trump’s campaign, telling the group that “he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President [Vladimir] Putin.”

Papadopoulos continued to be invited to campaign events. In late June or early July, he attended a dinner at the Capitol Hill Club along with several other national security advisers for the Trump campaign.  Another person who was at the meeting said Sessions also attended; Papadopoulos was seated to Sessions’s left.  A spokeswoman for Sessions declined to comment.

The Bombshell in Robert Mueller’s Indictments

I suspect that many were NOT surprised that Robert Mueller secured indictments against Paul Manafort given (i) the FBI raid on Manafort's home earlier this year, and (ii) Manafort's personification of sleaze and someone for sale to the highest bidder.  The only surprise is that nothing in the indictments against Manafort and his cohort Rick Gates appeared directly to Trump campaign efforts to collude with Russia.   That cannot be said about the facts behind the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, who had lied to the FBI about his efforts to meet with Russian operatives for the purpose of collusion. Der Trumpenführer, who if he were smart would keep his mouth shut and fingers away from Twitter, has trumpeted that none of the indictments involved collusion, but such is NOT the case with Papadopoulos' guilty plea.  A column in the Washington Post authored by a professor who teaches white-collar criminal law looks at this reality.  Here are highlights:

[S]pecial counsel Robert S. Mueller III unsealed an indictmenton Monday of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his longtime business partner Rick Gates, who also worked for the campaign. But the stealth bombshell of the day may end up being Mueller’s other announcement, that George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, has already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about attempts to broker meetings between Russian officials and the campaign. It appears Papadopoulos is cooperating with investigators. 

These are the first charges brought by Mueller . . . . They represent a major step forward for his probe — and a potentially ominous sign for others who may be in Mueller’s sights.

As the White House already is pointing out, the charges against Manafort and Gates don’t directly relate to the Trump campaign. . . . The bulk of the allegations concern activities that occurred before either man was working for the then-Republican candidate. The word “Trump” doesn’t appear in the indictment.

But this is not particularly surprising. It’s not unusual for prosecutors to build a case against a potential key cooperator involving charges not directly linked to the ultimate matter under investigation. Even unrelated charges give the prosecutor leverage to persuade the defendant to plead guilty, cooperate in the broader investigation, and provide evidence against the “bigger fish” to earn more lenient treatment in his or her own case. And pursuing Manafort makes perfect sense. With his extensive ties to Russia and his key role as chairman of the Trump campaign, Manafort potentially is a linchpin in Mueller’s investigation.

If Manafort were cooperating there typically would not be a grand jury indictment. There would simply be a statement of charges filed by the prosecutor, along with a plea and cooperation agreement.

This is what happened with Papadopoulos, who was not indicted but pleaded guilty under seal pursuant to an agreement with prosecutors. Unlike the charges against Manafort, the charges against Papadopoulos do relate directly to his contacts with Russian officials while working for the campaign. Papadopoulos may already be providing information that goes directly to the heart of Mueller’s investigation.

If those facing potential charges refuse to cooperate, Mueller is not going to dither around for months or simply move on. He will not hesitate to throw the heat where appropriate. By unveiling both of these cases on the same day, prosecutors are making it clear that it’s smarter to be like Papadopoulos: Cut a deal early and cooperate.

For Manafort himself, the indictment dramatically escalates the pressure to cooperate. Previously his own jeopardy may have seemed more theoretical. Now he has been booked on a federal indictment charging him with multiple felonies carrying a maximum potential penalty of 80 years in prison. Of course, he would never actually receive a sentence that severe — but numbers like that tend to focus the mind.

We don’t know yet what other charges (if any) will be coming out of Mueller’s office. But Monday’s news in no way suggests the investigation is drawing to a close. . . .  Future indictments and pleas, if any, likely will come on a rolling basis, as the prosecutors build cases against lower-level players, possibly persuade them to cooperate, and move up the ladder to higher-level targets.

Mueller’s investigation continues to proceed aggressively, methodically and relatively rapidly. These charges likely are simply the first salvo. Their echoes will reverberate loudly through the corridors of Washington in the days ahead.

 My sincere hope is that as things continue to roll out, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pence, and of course Trump, become involved in the collusion efforts and ultimate all are forced out of office.  More on the charges against George Papadopoulos can be found here.