Abbe Lowell’s Unusual Silence in the Face of Jared Kushner’s Clearance Woes

Abbe Lowell’s a very good defense attorney. He’s also of the ilk that works the press.

As one example, note Lowell’s false bravado quotes from one of the first stories to contemplate how John Kelly’s new rules about long term clearance problems would (not) affect Jared’s work.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney for Kushner, said Kelly’s directive “will not affect Mr. Kushner’s ability to continue to do the very important work he has been assigned by the president.” White House officials declined to comment on how the new policies would specifically affect Kushner.


Lowell, Kushner’s attorney, said Kushner had disclosed more information on his security forms than was required out of an abundance of caution.

“My inquiries to those involved again have confirmed that there are a dozen or more people at Mr. Kushner’s level whose process is delayed, that it is not uncommon for this process to take this long in a new administration, that the current backlogs are being addressed, and no concerns were raised about Mr. Kushner’s application,” he said in a statement.


Lowell said Kushner’s job is “to talk with foreign officials, which he has done and continues to do properly.”

Which is, in my opinion, why the following detail, in three different stories about the “important new information” DOJ obtained that would delay Jared’s clearance, is so significant. Lowell declined to comment to the original story in WaPo.

Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, declined to comment.

Then there was this NYT story which seems to reflect White House officials and Jared’s lawyers realizing (for the first time?!?!?!) that he’s not just a witness in this investigation.

The White House was not told what the issues were involving Mr. Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser. But the notification led White House lawyers and aides to believe that they were more problematic than the complexity of his finances and his initial failure to disclose contacts with foreign leaders.


The interview led Mr. Kushner’s lawyers to believe that he was considered a witness, not a target, in the special counsel investigation.

For that story, too, Lowell went silent.

[A] lawyer for Mr. Kushner, Abbe D. Lowell, declined to comment.

With Axios, Lowell appears to have just blown off the request for comment.

Kushner’s lawer, Abbe Lowell, did not immediately respond to Axios’ request for comment.

I don’t mean to make light of this. It’s no laughing matter. But Lowell’s silence appears to indicate either that he is sussing out second-hand — or he has since the February 16 story learned directly — that his client is in deeper shit than he realized.

68 replies
  1. Rugger9 says:

    I find that conclusion puzzling, since a lawyer best serves the client by being a hard-headed realist about the possibilities, before each decision is made about the case. If the theory is that the lawyers were surprised about the possibility that Jared might be in trouble the lawyers did not do their job in my opinion (though the Earl, bmaz and Avattoir might quibble here) since it is a cinch that the palace is not going to give Jared anything related to reality.

    Thus the article on Raw Story is off the mark in my opinion, since Jared’s access is based completely on the Kaiser’s staying where he is now. I see no way that he bites the hand that gives him the access he desperately needs to solve the money woes. No one else would do it.

  2. cfost says:

    The information Jared gleans from the daily briefings is the only thing of value he has to sell. And he needs to sell a lot in the next few months. So, even if Trump is forced (somehow) to take Jared off the list of those receiving the briefing, what’s to stop Jared from receiving the info from Lowell (under cover of attorney client privilege)? Or from someone else? I’m not a lawyer, so I’m unsure of the legality. But I don’t see Jared giving up his inside info without a huge fight. Also, given his world-class arrogance, it would not surprise me that he and his are surprised that anyone would have the uppity temerity to view him as a suspect. Rules and norms are for commoners!

    • Avattoir says:

      Yeah, I think if McMaster & the NSA briefer come in to brief CRAPOTUS, & spot Lowell kickin’ back with Gone Daddy Don McGahn on one couch, that won’t cause any waves at all.

      All clear on the snark attack: if Kushner isn’t there to hear it, and isn’t passed written material from “Dad”, he’s not getting anything.


      Leave aside the possibility that Lowell’s been put of the scent by being too close too long to all the Kool-Aid, the one thing I think he wouldn’t have foreseen is all the fuss kicked up as a result of the ex-Mrs. Porters turning on their ex-hubby. If dozens and dozens of WH personnel haven’t received security clearance, that’s no problem (or relatively easy to baffle the WH press corpse about), for however so long as the situation doesn’t GO PUBLIC … right?

      But now that it has, even tho “Dad” has tried to pass the buck to Kelly, the indictment activity out of the Grand Juries and OSC over the last several days shows a possible pathway opening up straight at Kushner and Junior.

    • BroD says:

      “If the theory is that the lawyers were surprised about the possibility that Jared might be in trouble the lawyers did not do their job in my opinion.”

      I agree emphatically.  It’s not all that surprising that they might act surprised, though.

  3. pseudonymous in nc says:

    Asked if [Most Favored Daughter] had the appropriate security clearance to brief President Moon on the latest NK sanctions, Mnuchin said, “She has the appropriate access to brief the president.”

    So, that’s a no.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    It’s hard to imagine Trump losing Jared voluntarily.  He would lose his eye candy daughter in the process, not to mention his closest adviser and the guy who reads and summarizes all the crap that Donald can’t be bothered with.  But he is famous for own goals.

    Lowell would seem incompetent if he hadn’t realized from the get go that Jared was a prime potential target, not just a witness, for Mueller’s prosecutors.  He knows much of what Trump knows, is witness to and implicated by it.  He retains and understands more of it than does Trump.  He would be far easier to prosecute than a sitting president, even while his prosecution would set Trump up for his.

    I do agree with the possibility that Lowell might now appreciate that Mueller has more facts in his pocket, that he is beginning to roll up guilty pleas and cooperating witness, and that a propaganda campaign against or outright firing of Mueller might not adequately derail a case against Jared.  His silence does imply that he appreciates his client is in greater jeopardy.  If so, I would expect him to attack more strongly.

    Abe might be becoming convinced, however, that Mueller is building such a strong case against Jared and his glaring conflicts, his total involvement in the campaign, the White Houses and both Kushner and Trump businesses, that his client should think about a plea.  That would give us a Humpty Dumpty moment.

    • Trip says:

      I’ve said this before, but I bet Jared learned the fine art of blackmail from his father. I suspect he holds things over daddy inlaw’s head. Rather than Trump’s strange relationship with his daughter and any loyalty thereof, I think Jared holds some high stakes cards, and collected them intentionally, just in case.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Odds are, if Jared goes down, Trump follows.  They should both be worried because they know what they’ve done.  Mueller is trying to reconstruct it after the fact.

      • eh says:

        This is probably complete fantasy, but my fantasy is that Jared turns against Trump and trades Trump testimony for his dad in some kind of deal that may not be possible in reality.

        • Rugger9 says:

          I can’t see that because I can’t see anyone other than the Kaiser keeping Jared in the loop.  Would Pence or LyinRyan do it? I doubt it, so that means Jared has to keep his F-I-L in office.

      • Domye West says:

        I think about this a lot. CC has a big ole ax to grind, and the S. Is the perfect place to share any stories he may have

        • Rugger9 says:

          Unless Mueller and Big Chicken (h/t Charlie Pierce) has kept it under wraps, I don’t think so.

          Mueller being quiet doesn’t surprise me, his shop has been remarkably leak free for a Beltway-plus operation.  BC would be remarkably idiotic to believe the Kaiser would hire him now, even assuming BC wants a job in the WH.  Christie might be an arrogant arschloch but he isn’t totally stupid.  Silence for him only makes sence IMHO if the Kaiser has something for him to do.

          • Peterr says:

            If Christie *has* turned on Trump because of that axe to grind, the last thing he’s going to do is start to talk about it. He’ll be quite happy to sing in Mueller’s office and keep quiet in public, until the time comes for him to swing that axe.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Basic rule for any hit: never threaten, just do.  Then deny, then counter-attack.  Never admit.  Never, never, never.

            • Rugger9 says:

              But what does Big Chicken get out of it?  He’s hated in Jersey for being a privileged, arrogant jerk (remember the beach trip, for example plus many many more?) so any office he can expect to get will need to be appointed.  The Kaiser is not going anywhere soon enough to help for BC to talk now in hopes that Pence or LyinRyan will make him something official in their prospective WHs.  Remember that Pence replaced BC as the Kaiser’s veep and might not take kindly to having his rival close at hand.

              There aren’t enough NeverTrumpers to counteract the howling flock of “flying monkeys” and bots that will descend upon BC in the event that he is held responsible for turfing out the Kaiser.

              Maybe I’m missing something, but I think Christie’s ship sailed and has been sunk.   His only hope is that Kaiser Disgustus will give him a job, much like Jared (except BC sent Jared’s dad to jail… Oh, well).

              • Peterr says:

                You’re close at the end of your comment. What Christie gets out of it, assuming this plays out, is vengeance.

                Christie thought he *had* a job with Trump, in gratitude for taking on the task of the transition team as the campaign wound down. Instead, Jared torpedoed that, and Christie went into a downward job spiral. His little family vacation on the beach did not go well. He left office with the lowest job approval ratings in the history of polling. He sought and failed at landing a sports radio job. All because Donald listened to Jared’s whispers.

                If Christie rats out Trump, it will be to exact vengeance on Trump and even moreso on Jared. If there’s one thing Christie understands, it’s revenge. We’re talking about a guy who engineered a massive traffic jam and bridge shutdown, just to get revenge on a local mayor of the other party who had the temerity to refuse to endorse him.

                “Jared, I sent your father up the river, and after what you did to me, I’ll be very happy to do the same to you and your father-in-law” has a very Chris Christie ring to it, doesn’t it?

                • bmaz says:

                  Christie is never going to rat out Trump unless his own rather large butt is truly in the lurch. And I do not think it is nor will be. He will just continue to nip around the edges trying to play both sides. That’s all you will get from him.

  5. Avattoir says:

    Ms W, seeing your twitter cw J Dean got me thinking on how I’d be feeling now were I in Lowell’s position.

    There’s a certain ‘type’ of client defending attorneys come to know if they’ve acted for enough business tycoons, corporate CEOs, and, particularly in very large corporate settings (such as one sees in broadly diverse military hardware contractors e.g. Boeing, in mega-media concerns e.g. Time Warner, and in ubiquitous security tech outfits e.g. Cisco Systems), even senior division & department managers.
    Whenever a member of this species speaks to someone who might be characterized as ‘beneath’ them (certainly their own employees, ‘enemies’, including attorneys for ‘enemies’, and, for reasons that I don’t get at all & in IMO is just nuts, their own attorneys), they tend not to look at that someone.
    I’m not just talking about the cliche-ridden ‘look me in the eye’ stuff; they’ll actually HABITUALLY aim their faces away from whoever they’re talking with, like they’re speaking into some imagined point in spacetime.
    The exceptions I’ve witnessed have arisen most often during witness examination in actual trial court settings. ‘Suddenly’ (It’s startling to observe the first few times.), they’ll be seen turning to the judge with something that looks awfully like an actual effort at establishing human contact with the judge (especially with if the judge is male), working too hard to ‘sell’ their own cred on topics such as, What I Then Understood, and What My Thinking Would Have Been At That Point.

    It can take a lot of time, effort and patience on the attorney’s part, to establish some effective level of confidence and trust with such clients; we expect that. But, there’s no guarantee that such investment of time, effort & patience will pay off. Sometimes it doesn’t happen.
    ESPECIALLY with this type of client, it often doesn’t happen.
    Then the day comes where you have to acknowledge to yourelf that it’s likely not going to happen. That’s not a good feeling, and not a good day – especially if the professional relationship has gone on so long it’s no longer easy for the attorney to exit.

    So … besides the problems with the June 9 meeting optics; problems with there being multiple witnesses’ versions of what went on in that; the security clearance problems; and the nepotism (along with the disturbing weirdness than more often than not tends to accompany nepotism) – there’s the fact that, after over a year since “Dad” took the oath of office, not only has Kushner had to repeatedly revise his financial disclosure, but attorney Lowell by now must be tiring of issuing comments to the effect that there’s likely more to come in that vein.

    If it weren’t for Kushner being so bent (and assuming he had a sense of humor it appears he does not), he could form an umbrella holdings company and call it Limited Hangouts LLC.

  6. James Hester says:

    A while back I used to follow discussions on Fireddoglake. Then it disappeared. The follow up site did not have the “same old same old” participants. Remembered ehmonics and likes. I found some familiar names on EW. Refreshing! Saw Marcy on Democracy Now commenting on the paranoia of election meddling. While agreeing mostly, I felt she left out the political aspirations or angles of Mueller Russian indictments. Anyway nice to see some old names on this site.

  7. cfost says:

    Agree with the above. It seems to me that Donald and Jared are sympatico inasmuch as they are both privileged kids. They understand each other. And they are both in financial hot water (along with Manafort).
    From Jared’s point of view, banishment from the intel goodies is a financial death sentence, for him, his parents, and to a degree, Ivanka. I don’t think it matters to him at this point whether it is public or not. He knows how to work “back channels” and he knows how to extract revenge.
    Donald knows this. He has been watching as Jared leaves a trail of corpses behind him in the WH. If the actual order comes from Donald, or if Donald allows Jared’s access to be denied in actual fact, then Donald knows that revenge is coming. What form might that revenge take? Who else goes down besides Donald? Donald, Jared and Paul are the pawns here, not the kings.
    Avattoir’s comments about “that” type of client call to mind Bernie Madoff. Denial. Willfulness. I pity Lowell, but he has a front row seat to the demolition derby: “Oh wait! I know, we’ll send Ivanka instead! Brilliant!”

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      The orange idiot has framed it that Kelly will make the “right” decision on Crown Prince Jared’s access to PDB-level intel. That’s designed (as with so many things) to distance the idiot from the decision, but it doesn’t kick the can very far along. There are three clear paths onwards: Kelly caves and looks weak; Crown Prince Jared loses access and everybody asks why he kept it for so long; Kelly resigns because he doesn’t have the power to enforce his clearance policy.

  8. Rapier says:

    Is there even the slightest possibility that the Justice Department, separate from Muller, are now investigating Jared for financial crimes?  If in the course of his security review  something like money laundering, with Russians even, came up isn’t it natural that they would at least do a preliminary investigation?  I mean you don’t do a security review and discover somebody was  probably involved in a crime and then just refuse to grant the clearance and let it go at that.

    Anything found even if it pertains to Russians likely predates the election and would be outside of Muller’s purview right?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        That arose from the investigation, not the campaign, which is quite a bit broader.

        Defendants will litigate the reach of Mueller’s investigation, it’s part of the drill.  At best, it’s a delaying tactic.  If Mueller can’t deal with a federal crime he uncovers, someone else in the DoJ can.  Pretty soon, all of Don’s day will be spent in bed, watching tv, and eating McDonald’s.  But he might have to trade Melania for Bubba.  Maybe he’ll be able to ask Jared what it’s like.

  9. TheraP says:

    Yes! (Meant as response to cfos’ last sentence above and comments before that. Rapier posted as I was writing.)

    What is Ivanka doing (has done?) in Korea – where so many important world leaders are gathered – and can meet privately with each other? Possibly without that being noticed.

    Astute understanding (above) of sociopathy. I’d add that there seems to be a genetic link also. Nurture and Nature combined. And there also seems to be a link between sociopathy and histrionic personality. (Trump has both. Jarod, I don’t know. Ivanka?)

    I wish this were only a Greek Tragedy we were witnessing. Rather than stark reality. Sometimes I imagine a Greek Chorus in the background, chanting. Warning. Songs of woe and darkness and evil.

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      Possibly without that being noticed.

      Oh, Most Favored Daughter is being noticed, cavorting around like a minor princess or the daughter of a -stan strongman. But “she has the appropriate access to brief the president” (Mnuchin) means she still doesn’t have a proper clearance.

      • TheraP says:

        It would be impossible to discretely schedule a brief private word? Or two?

        I understand she’s basking in the supposed glory. I get what you’re saying. And I’m no expert on subterfuge. But … still. (What a great opportunity to conceal a connection. At this frought moment.)

    • cfost says:

      Shakespeare specialized in this stuff. I find myself wondering what insights he would bring to the table.
      Re private conversation: crime figures know that a wire will take you down, whether it’s a phone wire or a body wire.

        • Avattoir says:

          This subthread got me thinking about the Scottish play: ‘Out, out damned baldspot!’

          FWIW, I think it’s possible CRAPOTUS is frightened of his princeling in law. Given what Jared’s own father did that resulted in him spending time at a Club Fed (as well as causing the imagination to run on a bit over things he would well have done that’ve have never gone public), even a reasonable human would be.

    • Webstir says:

      Trump is a textbook narcissist, which often combines the histrionics (when not getting their way) and the sociopathy (it’s all about me).

  10. MK says:

    Seems clear this will all end up ala Alphonse Capone.

    Tax evasion and money laundering, not Russians will be the outcome for all involved.

    • Rayne says:

      Easier to nail them on tax evasion and money laundering because laws and regulations on these topics have been used a long time. Nailing them on “Russians” is abstruse — conspiracy is the appropriate term, and laws and regulations about conspiracy have had plentiful successful precedent. So be it: use whatever is both obvious and works to remove them from corruptly influencing our government.

      • Avattoir says:

        You two are either overlooking or rejecting one of the major themes – maybe THE major theme – that Marcy detects in how the indictments are being aimed (like artillery): at conspiracy to defraud the U.S.

        The charges that don’t contain that conspiracy all can be argued as ‘means to the end’ charges, the ‘end’ being that conspiracy.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Yep.  A master class in strategery.  We’re still in the set-up stage, preparing the battlefield, positioning the pieces.  The defendants don’t seem to get it, though Lowell’s silence suggests that he does.

        • Rayne says:

          No, I’m not rejecting or ignoring the conspiracy-as-backbone theory (ConFraudUS, isn’t it?). Re-read what I wrote. Nailing the conspirators on “the Russians” is pretty vague, more so than “collusion” which isn’t a legal term.

          Part of prosecuting this massive hairball is like prosecuting Al Capone. Just as then, Americans easily grok the fairness of paying taxes on income. This is the public relations element to prosecuting this conspiracy that working Americans get.

          Tax and bank fraud is pretty obvious based on what Team Mueller has found (earned income? yes; reported it appropriately? no; paid taxes on it? no; lied about it? yes). The GOP will have a tough time trying to explain this away to the public; I don’t recall seeing much effort put into it, unlike Nunes and Page going after the dossier.

          What’s more difficult to prosecute is conspiracy — what did they agree to do to subvert the law? — because there is an element of counterintelligence involved. How much should these conspirators be charged with now while counterintelligence works away in the background, chasing active crimes and targets? This I definitely didn’t forget.

          But these two characters, Manafort and Gates, have committed some conspiracy which is incredibly easy to charge right now — like the agreement they made on how to hide and report income and file taxes. Charging this now doesn’t interfere with the rest of the investigation(s), is readily understood by the public, has ample precedent in bank/tax fraud and money laundering, eventually tying into a grand unified theory of conspiracy to defraud the U.S.

          If anything I think you’ve discounted the political maneuvering necessary to safely arrive at full prosecution of the grand unified theory.

    • Peterr says:

      The tax evasion charges are aimed at US folks, like Manafort. But the money laundering is being done by Russians, through folks like Manafort if not also Jared and the Trump family more generally. Russian oligarchs have large amounts of money in need of a good cleaning, and the time-honored way to make that happen is to find desperate people in need of large sums of money to keep the foreclosure folks pursuing them at bay.

      The oligarchs know this, Trump knows this, and you can be damn sure Mueller knows this. Recall Marcy’s run down of Team Mueller as it stood last November, and her descriptions of the folks working on the Manafort docket:

      Andrew Weismann – mob specialist, fraud specialist, corporate crime specialist (Enron, anyone?)

      Greg Andres – international expert

      Kyle Freeny – corporate crime specialist (again with Enron case) and money laundering expert

      This should scare the pants off of not just Manafort, but also the Russians whose money was being laundered.

  11. pdaly says:

    Is there any reason for States Attorney Generals to hold off indicting certain WH/government officials on say “tax fraud” until after Mueller’s team is done rolling up players?

    Couldn’t state charges force some people currently in WH/government positions to resign immediately while we wait for federal charges to arrive and do so without interfering with the federal counter intelligence and criminal investigation?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      States defer to the Feds when there’s overlapping jurisdiction, an arrangement the Feds encourage.  A state prosecution would also require access to evidence the Feds have, which they won’t give up until their work is done.  Among other things, its early use would jeopardize the Fed’s case, give too early a head’s up to defendants about what they face and from where, and so on.  We’ll have to wait on Mueller.

  12. pdaly says:

    Yes, you both make great points. Best to follow the best practices.
    Just fretting that everything falls on the shoulders of the Mueller team at the moment, the helpful Schiff memo countering Nunes’ partisan memo notwithstanding.

  13. harpie says:

    Ryan J. Reilly:  D.C. power lawyer Abbe Lowell takes on yet another high-profile defendant.

    Shakespeare Theatre Company Mock Trial Series

    The Trial of Hamlet

    FEBRUARY 26, 2018 AT 7:30 P.M.

    In this unique criminal trial, the Prince of Denmark is accused of murdering the king’s attendant, Polonius. Hamlet is pleading insanity — but is he truly insane? Returning to the Shakespeare Theatre Company for the first time in over a decade, the Trial will be argued by defense attorney Abbe David Lowell, with U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, serving as the prosecution. The Trial’s original creator, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States, will serve as the judge. It will also feature two expert witnesses and a jury of special guests, tasked with announcing the verdict.

  14. TheraP says:

    It might be helpful (and fun) to compile a list of Principles/Strategies for analyzing what’s going on here – whether from the side of the criminals or the investigators or the Press or whoever.

    I’m calling what Marcy did in this Post: “The dog that didn’t bark” after Sherlock Holme’s solution in a famous Arthur Conan Doyle story about a stolen horse. Interestingly, when I googled those words, it took me to a short note on a blog about the appellate process:

    (Note the https! I already knew about that. But now will always doublecheck if posting a link.)

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Silver Blaze, one of Doyle’s favorites:

      Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
      Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
      Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
      Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

      The stable dog guarding valuable race horses didn’t bark because it knew the intruder, a trainer who wanted to hobble the favorite, intending to bet against it, make a bundle, and pay for his debts and lavish lifestyle.  Another fruitful analogy when following the Trump administration.

  15. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Politico’s Eliana Johnson is a tad credulous about Trump’s “punting” the decision concerning Jared’s security clearance to his COS, Gen. Kelly.  Trump did not “punt” or delegate the issue to Kelly.  He told him to do what Trump wants – keep Jared – and take the blame if anything the goes wrong.

    He did give Kelly a fig leaf.  He said that he had confidence Kelly would do “what’s right for the country”.  He follow that with a smaller fig leaf, his complaint that the reason for the year-long delay in granting Kushner a permanent clearance was owing to the overly zealous, antiquated [FBI] process.  Trump skips over whether Jared’s problems are because the FBI finding troubling evidence that should preclude anyone from obtaining a top-level clearance.

    Johnson recites the usual excuse for why Trump should be excused from knowing how to be president.  He is, “still a relative newcomer to politics,” and “has not fully understood the scope of his powers.”  She does admit that Trump knows, “he could solve Kushner’s clearance headache with the stroke of a pen,” but is afraid to do so because he might pay a political price for it.  That helps readers understand more of what’s in play.  Its effect is blunted by its being stuck in the middle of Johnson’s article and because ti doesn’t fit with her initial framing.

    Trump is probably leery about granting an explicit waiver to Jared, because then he’d be pressed to do it for Ivanka, and for Don McGahn, and for forty odd other people who report to him directly (and dozens more who do not) and who still lack permanent clearances over a year into his administration (well beyond the norm).  That looks too much like work.

    • TheraP says:

      So the Press MUST – on a daily basis – ask: “Does Jared now have a permanent clearance. If not, why does he still have a job? If so, how does Kelly justify that?”

      This cannot just be ignored. The White House should reminded every single day!

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Especially since Trump’s supporters, like Trump, are attempting to characterize the administration’s systemic clearance problems (see, last para. in Johnson article) this way: “All of this stuff is basically just cosmetic talk.”

        The easy way for the press to do that, while anticipating that the Don will call this a Democratic witch hunt against him and his family, is to also ask about McGahn and the 140 odd other temporary clearances in the White House and West Wing.  It’s not personal, Mr. President.  It’s strictly business.

      • SpaceLifeForm says:

        Disagree on daily reminders. Best not to push.

        Never interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Don’t see how that works when mistakes are not self-evident, nor self-correcting.  It is how to lose one rights by not objecting to their being taken away, which is what happens when the not normal becomes the new norm.

  16. cfost says:

    Here’s a link to part of the Kushner arm of this Octopus we call the Trump-Russia Affair. I think we would do well to be alert to any “curious incident.” That seems to be where the fun is. E.g., the Yohai arm of the Octopus.
    The back story of the relationship between Christie and the Kushners is interesting and important. In addition to following the money, we could also follow the resentments. Paydirt. Of special note, interesting that it was Ivanka who edged out Christie during the transition, not Jared. Led to Flynn.
    They’re going to be making soap operas and mini series about this for decades to come….

  17. harpie says:

    Marcy, you retweeted Zoe Tillman‘s thread about Manafort/Gates arraignment. [She threaded it better later in this tweet.]

    The second tweet in that thread reads: “And there’s more: Per the newly unsealed docket entries in Virginia, we now know that the grand jury first indicted Manafort alone on Feb. 13”, linked to this doc

    Doesn’t the stamp on that doc. read “Filed in open court Feb. 3” ?

  18. harpie says:

    I have a comment in moderation about a tweet from Marcy. It seems like the document Zoe Tillman links to was stamped on Feb. 3, and not on Feb 13….???…or what am I missing?

Comments are closed.