Remember Robert Mueller?
He’s that guy who has already indicted Paul Manafort. And Rick Gates. And who will almost surely indict Michael Flynn in relatively short order. And who will probably indict Michael Flynn’s son and use him to gain leverage over his father. And who has a cooperating witness in George Papadopoulos whose e-mail chains appear to implicate Carter Page and Sam Clovis. And who will probably end up indicting Jared Kushner before it’s all said and done.
Yeah, that Robert Mueller.
That would be the same Robert Mueller who the Right-wing media is trying to smear because it’s become abundantly clear that the special counsel probe is not only not a “nothing burger” but is in fact just as serious as every former intelligence official said it was to begin with. And the same Robert Mueller who the administration keeps saying is close to winding down his investigation but who seems to only get more aggressive by the week. And the same Robert Mueller who Donald Trump can’t fire because if he does he’ll risk triggering a constitutional crisis.
Yeah, that Robert Mueller.
Well on Thursday evening, the Wall Street Journal is out reporting that Mueller actually subpoenaed the Trump campaign last month for Russia-related documents. That subpoena applied to “more than a dozen” top campaign officials according to the Journal’s sources.
“The subpoena, which requested documents and emails from the listed campaign officials that reference a set of Russia-related keywords, marked Mr. Mueller’s first official order for information from the campaign,” WSJ writes, before noting that the move “caught the campaign by surprise.”
Yes, the Trump campaign was “surprised.” Primarily because they’ve been cooperating voluntarily with Mueller when his team requested information and also sharing any documents provided to Congress with the special counsel.
So why subpoena them? Well, presumably because Mueller doesn’t think they’re turning over everything that needs to be turned over.
“Sending a subpoena to an entity that says it has been cooperating with document requests isn’t unusual in cases in which prosecutors have some concern that their demands aren’t being met promptly or aren’t being entirely fulfilled,” the Journal goes on to write, adding that “a subpoena can serve as a backup, to make sure the recipient is complying as promised, and as a reminder that failure to provide documents as demanded would count as obstructing a grand-jury investigation.”
Note that last bit: Mueller is serving notice (and “serving” can be taken both figuratively and literally in this case), that if Trump’s campaign is deemed to be hiding things, they could be accused of obstructing a grand-jury investigation.
And don’t let it be lost on you that this news comes on the very same day that Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein sent a letter to Jared Kushner’s attorney informing him that lawmakers are in possession of correspondence that Kushner was either copied on or else forwarded himself. Correspondence which includes references to WikiLeaks and a “backdoor overture from Russia.”
The subpoena from Mueller to the Trump campaign did not compel anyone to testify before Mueller’s grand jury, but you can bet that will change in the event he decides those same officials are obstructing that same grand jury investigation.
Now please, Right-wing media and blogosphere, tell us again about how this is going to go away aaaaaany day now.
Or better yet, tell this guy…
yippee ki yay mofo! 🙂
“So why subpoena them?”
Because in a criminal investigation NOT ultimately serving a subpeona on these type of witnesses would, without a doubt and without question, be prosecutorial malpratice. These prosecutors knew when they drawing up the voluntary requests that they would be issuing subpoenas for the same material as well additonal material. Often, sending voluntary requests have several purposes to include directing the witnsesses to preserve all documents, to prompt the witnesses to begin the process of searching for documents, to cause the witnesses to send emails or texts about the documents and to see which witnesseses fail to produce particular documents they ar eknown to possess. Then the grand jury subpoenas are issued for a new set of prosecutorial puposes which are apparent and sometimes not so apparent. If prosecutors know that a witness already produced documents that were altered, fabricated or he/she failed to include a document as part of a series of documents now is a good time to commsnd that the witness produce the same documents. However, prosecutors would not highlight only the witness or witness(es) who have done that, so they subpoena them all. In this case causing a subpoena to issue for all is the prudent path given what we have seen.