“Just Obstruction” Is the New “Red Line”

In the past, I have complained about how the NYT (including Mike Schmidt) themselves set a “red line” over which Robert Mueller shouldn’t cross, then gleefully focused on that in their reporting.

It further speculates this might cross a “red line” they put there themselves back in July, a red line commentators routinely report incorrectly as pertaining to any business interests of his.

Mr. Mueller could run afoul of a line the president has warned him not to cross. Though it is not clear how much of the subpoena is related to Mr. Trump’s business beyond ties to Russia, Mr. Trump said in an interview with The New York Times in July that the special counsel would be crossing a “red line” if he looked into his family’s finances beyond any relationship with Russia.

BREAKING: Robert Mueller would be fucking stupid if he weren’t subpoenaing this information.


As I said, while the NYT got their own reporting right, most people quoting from it misquote what Trump actually said about any red line. Here’s the exchange.

SCHMIDT: Last thing, if Mueller was looking at your finances and your family finances, unrelated to Russia — is that a red line?

HABERMAN: Would that be a breach of what his actual charge is?

TRUMP: I would say yeah. I would say yes. By the way, I would say, I don’t — I don’t — I mean, it’s possible there’s a condo or something, so, you know, I sell a lot of condo units, and somebody from Russia buys a condo, who knows? I don’t make money from Russia. In fact, I put out a letter saying that I don’t make — from one of the most highly respected law firms, accounting firms. I don’t have buildings in Russia. They said I own buildings in Russia. I don’t. They said I made money from Russia. I don’t. It’s not my thing. I don’t, I don’t do that. Over the years, I’ve looked at maybe doing a deal in Russia, but I never did one. Other than I held the Miss Universe pageant there eight, nine years [crosstalk].

SCHMIDT: But if he was outside that lane, would that mean he’d have to go?


HABERMAN: Would you consider——

TRUMP: No, I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia. So I think if he wants to go, my finances are extremely good, my company is an unbelievably successful company. And actually, when I do my filings, peoples say, “Man.” People have no idea how successful this is. It’s a great company. But I don’t even think about the company anymore. I think about this. ’Cause one thing, when you do this, companies seem very trivial. O.K.? I really mean that. They seem very trivial. But I have no income from Russia. I don’t do business with Russia. The gentleman that you mentioned, with his son, two nice people. But basically, they brought the Miss Universe pageant to Russia to open up, you know, one of their jobs. Perhaps the convention center where it was held. It was a nice evening, and I left. I left, you know, I left Moscow. It wasn’t Moscow, it was outside of Moscow.

Aside from the prompted feel of the question (as if Trump or Chris Ruddy set these reporters up to pose the questions so Trump could “warn” Mueller), it pertains only to business unrelated to Russia. Trump seems to admit that the mobbed up Russians buying his condos would be pertinent, his Miss Universe contest, and his serial efforts to get a Trump Tower in Moscow.

Even the example the NYT points to today — the involvement of UAE in some pre-inauguration meetings — pertains to Russia, as one of the points of the meetings were to set up a back channel with … Russia.

I think Jared Kushner’s business ties … that’s a different issue. But as to the substance of Trump’s purported red line, nothing in today’s report says Mueller has crossed that (even if he cared about such things).

Effectively, the NYT reporters who kept harping on a limit they themselves either set or parroted back on someone’s cue served to justify Trump’s own threats against Mueller and others. They had become the news.

It appears the same is true for the extended reporting — from the NYT, among others (though this NBC report is a rare exception) —  that Mueller is primarily investigating Trump for obstruction. For some time, the press has been reporting that Mueller is honing in on an obstruction case against Trump, seemingly without understanding that some things being labeled obstruction — such as the response to Mike Flynn lying about implementing the policy concessions to Russia Trump made in the transition period — actually went to prove the quo part of a quid pro quo.

And so, when NYT published their list of questions Mueller had given Trump’s lawyers, almost a third of which have nothing to do with obstruction and many others have to with have to do with both the conspiracy case in chief and obstruction, the headline focused exclusively on obstruction.

And while Mike Schmidt’s report on the questions does mention “Russian ties” and include two paragraphs on the questions that address topics besides obstruction, the lead might be read to focus on obstruction itself.

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s election interference, has at least four dozen questions on an exhaustive array of subjects he wants to ask President Trump to learn more about his ties to Russia and determine whether he obstructed the inquiry itself, according to a list of the questions obtained by The New York Times.

This morning, Trump predictably pointed to the list that one of his associates leaked, claiming to be outraged by a new “leak,” and asserted, evidence to the contrary, that the questions did not address “collusion.”

That, in turn, led a bunch of people on Twitter to try to fact check Trump, as if such “facts” would persuade either Trump (who is doing this to manipulate coverage, not to assert facts) or his followers (who wouldn’t believe the fact-checkers over Trump anyway).

Schmidt added this line to his own story, without acknowledging that his own outlet had “incorrectly” used a headline that backed Trump’s claim, even if the details themselves did not.

President Trump said on Twitter on Tuesday that it was “disgraceful” that questions the special counsel would like to ask him were publicly disclosed, and he incorrectly noted that there were no questions about collusion.

I get that Trump’s claims that the questions include none on the underlying conspiracy need to be debunked.

But one reason why he tweeted what he did is because it plays into a narrative that the press has long very credulously helped to create. What is needed now (indeed, what was needed months ago) is loud reporting that the whole obstruction emphasis was a distraction partly seeded by those being investigated for a conspiracy, a distraction in which the press was complicit.

As with the “red line” of Trump’s (non-Russian) business interests, the notion that he is being investigated only for obstruction is a tactic he has used, and used well, to play public opinion. Before trying to get the man to acknowledge public facts his team itself released, however, the press ought to consider how they’ve been doing just what Trump did this morning for months, ignoring the details that implicate him personally in “collusion.”

80 replies
  1. Charles says:

    Every one of those questions looks like an opportunity for Trump to give false statements. The false statements would be enough to establish mens rea.


    It seems likely to me that, as John Dean suggested, the questions were leaked by one of Trump’s lawyers. That could be out of spite (John Dowd), out of attention-seeking (Il Rudy), or as part of a very bad legal strategy. All speculative, but I lean toward the latter. It sounds as if this is a media strategy to tie Mueller to the FBI, “leaks” being Trump code for “Deep State.” And, as you say, feeding the narrative that the investigation is about obstruction and, since (according to Trump) there’s no underlying crime, he’s obviously innocent.

    Not a good legal strategy. Starting a war is probably a better one.

  2. Bay State Librul says:

    Openings and closings

    Here is the Boston Globe’s lead:

    Mueller’s questions for Trump revealed

    Subtext: Counsel seeks answers on Russia, Rationale for Firings.

    Opinion: The best lead will probably come from the Onion.

    Any better than the Times?

  3. Miguel says:

    It has always driven me nuts that journalists are harping on the idea of a “red line” or “will you fire…” in a clear instigation in order to get Trump fired up. The Schmidt “red line” question has always bothered me, it’s like they are daring him to do so.

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      @nycsouthpaw covered this well:

      Some people, inside and outside the news media, have approached this president as a performer for a captive and captivated audience that’s dying to learn just how far he’ll go.

      They’re itching to be in the middle of MegaWatergate and if that means provoking it into happening, they’ll provoke it.

    • Trip says:

      I have to wonder if it is at all connected to Trump’s staunch support of Israel and NuttyYahoo. I recall a editorial on how the the NYT guilt-tripped on not being aggressive enough (too neutral) on reportage during WWII, Hitler and the Holocaust. I think they are trying to make up for it since. Funny thing, they are doing the same with Trump (being too neutral). And NuttyYahoo is now creating his own human rights crimes, but that’s another story.

      • matt says:

        Yes, Trump will get sympathy from the NYT for his Netanyauhu pandering.  And, if he keeps the libertarians and neo-cons happy (nobody cares about the liberals) Trump will not only slip through the Mueller investigation, but… gasp!… may win a second term.

        • Trip says:

          Look on the bright side, we all may not survive the first term.

          *whistles Monty Python’s Always look on the bright side of life*


  4. Trip says:

    As with the “red line” of Trump’s (non-Russian) business interests, the notion that he is being investigated only for obstruction is a tactic he has used, and used well, to play public opinion. Before trying to get the man to acknowledge public facts his team itself released, however, the press ought to consider how they’ve been doing just what Trump did this morning for months, ignoring the details that implicate him personally in “collusion.”

    HA! You think that will come from Maggie-I-feel-so-sowwy-for-Sarah-Haberman? Fat chance. She didn’t even bother to acknowledge her small mistakes (that came with big bluster).

  5. yogarhythms says:

    NYT leaks DOJ SC questions “Mueller questions…” by M. Schmidt. 30APR18. Palace Tweeter tweets response “So disgraceful…”. 1MAY18. EW analysis “Just Obstruction”… of  both NYT and tweeted response 1MAY18. Rubber band elastic truth stretches to wrap around NYT bite of DOJ SC served over drawn McDonald’s ailoi with hot coffee. Breakfast time in Murica

  6. Avattoir says:

    I’ve seen motions like Manafort’s latest draw costs punishments, and threats of worse. It doesn’t go to the false courtesy of even faking a narrative section that recites and cites the source material on supposed “Facts” the applicant intends to rely on.

    The judge there is a Reagan appointee, but no crank: Harvard Law magna sum (Well, so is Ted Cruz.), an actually competent counsel, garden variety R federal judge, as much of a Rule of Law upholder as one can reasonably expect from a Republican these days. So the conclusion has to be that it’s only formally for the court – actually aimed at Trump & his Congressional supporters, i.e. a stunt having nothing proper to do with the trial.
    As to the choice of venue: that, having been an R appointee, the presiding judge is reckoned less likely than a D appointee to rain down hellfire on Manafort’s counsel for this stunt?

    • Trip says:

      How can he continue to afford all of these stunts?  Are his attorneys working pro bono?  It’s not cheap with all of these filings and Manafort doesn’t have any legit holdings, right? Is someone else supplementing his counsel?

        • Trip says:

          How can that even remotely be legal?  It’s a glaring conflict of interest. Oh, that’s right, no one cares anymore.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Which campaign?  I assume the 2016 campaign.  The 2020 campaign seems to be busy paying Cohen’s legal bills.  The justification for that must be nil.

          • Trip says:

            How do we get in on this? I mean bmaz is a lawyer, we could split it, lmao.

            Sorry, the ridiculousness has made me batty today. I’m stepping away from the screen now.

  7. bmaz says:

    TS Ellis is a quite decent judge, and very much not prone to taking bullshit. Not perfect, but very much tries to follow the law, even if he disagrees with the law (see his treatment of state secrets over the years).


      • Avattoir says:

        Ah, you noting his “treatment of state secrets over the years”: either it dovetails with my point about Team Manafort being less tremulous about presenting this B.S. motion to him, or it goes maybe a bit further in suggesting they’re trying to pander to a pet subject.

        • bmaz says:

          I dunno about the latter, we’ll see. The BS, and TS not being a good judge for BS, yes, that is absolutely correct.

    • Trip says:

      I read that as TS Eliot.

      And while I’m on that:

      This is the way the world ends
      Not with a bang but a whimper.

  8. Rapier says:

    I’d written in the ‘open book test’ thread, but didn’t send, a question. Who does this leak serve? First on my list is the Times itself and it’s right there in the headline in bold print, OBSTRUCTION.  Their preferred narrative. The Times doesn’t,  nor does anyone have to publish every damn tip and leak that comes there way.

    Publishing questions that will never be answered is a very peculiar enterprise. Now they will as is their custom, sit high above the fray as Trump assaults his enemies for a leak whose source they know.  Here is the exact current headline.


    Mr. Trump said it was “disgraceful” that the questions were “leaked.”

    The peculiar exercise goes right down the rabbit hole.

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Conspiracy and obstruction, and a potential host of financial crimes.  The MSM never seems to get round to the latter.

    Given that Mueller is aware of the Trump side’s propensity for selective leaking, not to mention routine strategic planning, who says his team gave Trump a complete list of questions?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      If MSNBC thinks these 49 are “softball questions,” that they could be answered without a lot of work and without legal jeopardy, I’ve got a bridge to sell them.

      • SpaceLifeForm says:

        44 or 49?

        Either number, my first thought was that these questions are a test exam, put together by his legal team. For training.

        And the answer to all (44 or 49) is the same.

        “I don’t recall”

        After 40 plus repetitions, that answer, maybe, could be remembered for future use.

  10. Trip says:

    This show really is a tragedy/comedy/farce.

    Trump doc says Trump bodyguard, lawyer ‘raided’ his office, took medical files
    Dr. Harold Bornstein said he felt “raped” after White House aide Keith Schiller and lawyer Alan Garten showed up unannounced and took Trump’s files…

    Asked how he could justify saying Trump would be the healthiest president ever, Bornstein said, “I like that sentence to be quite honest with you and all **the rest of them are either sick or dead.

    ** Hahaha, to that comment.

    It sounds like he broke HIPPA regs first by talking about how bald the bald president is, and that he takes baldness drugs. Also, I’m sure Avanetti will get around to calling him in to check the sketch.

    Is this shit real? What the hell kind of disease is in Trump’s charts that he fears getting out? That Dr Dude is out of central casting for a stoner flick.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Typical absence of process for this president, rather, his typical process.

      If a civilian did that at the Mayo or Cleveland Clinic or Sloan Kettering, how long would be the list of civil and criminal charges?

      • Trip says:

        Yeah, you’re entitled to read and copy medical records, not raid, shake down offices with thugs who take them, without release.

        And they had to reach that extra special little level of petty, by making him take down the photo of himself with Donald.

        Seriously @earl, you couldn’t even pitch a comedy this absurd. No one would believe it. Not even Mel Brooks could have dreamed up the level of characters in this saga.

        • Palli says:

          One exception: if a clinic, doctor or hospital go out of business individuals can retrieve their medical records as their own property. When a clinic closed and became affiliated with a corporate hospital chain, there was a small window of time when people could get their records before they were destroyed! I was out of town & lost 50+ years of my accumulated medical records.

          • Trip says:

            That makes sense since they likely would have been destroyed otherwise.

            BTW, this gets even weirder:

            President ‘dictated’ glowing letter claiming ‘he’d be the healthiest individual ever elected’

            “He dictated that whole letter. I didn’t write that letter,” Bornstein said. “I just made it up as I went along.”
            The letter stated: The letter stated: “His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary. If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”

            I guarantee that Ronny Jackson was a stenographer too; “great genes”.

            They seem to hand out medical licenses like candy.

        • Bob Conyers says:

          The question I have is how careful these guys were. Doc says they were there for half an hour, which could be a long time to grab just Trump’s files. Did they, for instance, haul out a bunch of other records? If so, that’s a pretty big crime, although proving it at this point would be tough. On the other hand, somebody who used to work for Doc Ronnie might have something to say.

          • Trip says:

            But they had the ‘candyman’ right at the White House. (editing: sorry you said records, I thought drug haul). I bet you there are more embarrassing things in his charts besides being bald.

    • Jaag says:

      I figure they went in and asked for every page that said c-o-c-a-i-n-e.  He would be the healthiest and most soberest guy to ever spend a lot of his spare time in notorious clubs full of coke and whatever else.

      We are supposed to believe that this guy was the only person at studio 54 who didn’t buy a single drink and  lean into a single line. There is just no way.

      Remember his nose breathing problems. I’m sleuthing here.

    • brumel says:

      Legal question: Would not any “taking possession” of those medical records, to be lawful, require Dr Bornstein’s signature on some piece of paper?

  11. SteveB says:

    @Avattoir re Manafort motion

    I’m glad you posted this.

    Having ploughed through it I was bemused to say the least.

    Consequently, I have a great deal of sympathy for eg Gerstein trying to report on the matter.

    Anyone with experience of wading through reams of pleadings gererated by overly enthusiastic litigants in person or barrack room lawyers will know the sense of gloom that will overcome a judge facing such arguments, especially the good ones who want to be especially particular that there is not a substantial point lurking within the thicket.

  12. obsessed says:

    >”Effectively, the NYT reporters who kept harping on a limit they themselves either set or parroted back ”

    This has been annoying the living crap out of me ever since that first ridiculous interview. The WHPA debacle has reminded me how pathetic the press has been in the Trump era.

  13. Trip says:

    Rod Rosenstein: “The Department of Justice is not going to be extorted”

    There have been people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time,” Rosenstein said at a “Rule of Law” Day event at the Newseum in Washington, DC. “I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.”

    Yep, everything is normal.

      • Bob Conyers says:

        I’m pretty unhappy that the NY Times didn’t make it clearer that these were notes written down by the Trump camp, and we have no idea if they are telling the truth or omitting key details.

        They should have made it clear that this is only one side of the conversation and not something coming from Mueller. Their poor reporting on this issue has advanced a bad narrative.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Exactly.  Only part of the conversation, no idea how accurate it is or how much spin was added for the public or to massage for Trump’s consumption.  There’s no indication this is a complete list or even a list of things Mueller is most interested in.

    • Mary McCurnin says:

      The leak indicates that the Trump people released the list of questions themselves.

      Based on the Times’s account, we can conclude that the leak did not come from the special counsel’s office — unless Trump’s lawyers shared their document listing Mueller’s questions with Mueller’s investigators, which would make little sense.

      Washington Post

    • Palli says:

      Donald, I don’t easily get everything here on EW, but I think this extended answer as gleaned from EW & comments, would be helpful to others like me.

      These 44 (or variously reported 48 or 49) questions are not directly from Special Counsel. Mueller’s team compiled a list of some subject areas trump would be asked about. Trump’s personal & WH lawyers personalized the topics into “suggested questions” that might be asked. The lawyers probably consider questions 1.) easier [and necessary] prep tools for trump’s “testimony practice” should he disobey lawyer’s advice: and, 2.) more consumer-friendly fuel for ensuing public propaganda. It is these formulated questions that were leaked by someone in the WH or a personal trump lawyer [past, present, or unofficial] and not by Mueller’s team.

      Am I right?

      • SpaceLifeForm says:

        As Marcy alluded to, it was likely leaked by Rudy Giuliani. Now on the trump legal team.

  14. Edward says:

    I was reading some pro-Trump commentary on the Mueller questions — they are indeed echoing the “just obstruction” line noted here.  But I saw someone bring up a defense of an aspect of the collusion charges that I had never seen, which is that the alleged weakening of the GOP platform over the issue of Ukraine is “Fake News.”  Cited as evidence is an opinion piece by Byron York in the Washington Examiner from March of last year that says that the GOP platform, if anything, became more belligerent against Russia over Ukraine when those provisions were debated.  Is that true?   https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-how-pundits-got-key-part-of-trump-russia-story-all-wrong/article/2617802

    • bmaz says:

      Yeah. Hi. I was just “reading” your asinine comment.

      Who are you”Edward” and what is your relation to Byron York and the Washington Examiner to wander in here and post such a comment as this? Do you think no one can tell or notice?

      • Edward says:

        Please, I don’t want to start something — it is an honest question.  I have no illusions about Byron York’s good faith, but there is a specific, text-based claim being made in his column that is exactly the sort of issue Marcy and some of this site’s residents are good at figuring out.  If it is not true, I am trying to understand exactly why.

  15. Mary McCurnin says:

    The leak indicates that the Trump people released the list of questions themselves.

    Based on the Times’s account, we can conclude that the leak did not come from the special counsel’s office — unless Trump’s lawyers shared their document listing Mueller’s questions with Mueller’s investigators, which would make little sense.

    Washington Post

    • harpie says:

      More about the questions here:
      Mueller raised possibility of presidential subpoena in meeting with Trump’s legal team; WaPo; 5/1/18; 8:06pm ET
      They are saying that Jay Sekulow compiled the list from “information [from SCO] about the subjects that prosecutors wished to discuss with the president.”

      The following quote, to me, indicates that Trump wanted the list to “leak”:
      [quote] The president and several advisers now plan to point to the list as evidence that Mueller has strayed beyond his mandate and is overreaching, they said.
      He wants to hammer that,” according to a person who spoke to Trump on Monday.

  16. Avattoir says:

    I wish the msm would stop saying Rudi’s not-a-leak to NYT of Sekulow’s Trump-serving slant on the spin on some of what Dowd heard which Team Trump has decided to market to Trump Heads as what Mueller is ‘really after’, has any useful relationship to what or all that the OSC is pursuing, from which it nether will nor can deviate.

    Like Wolf asked: “You guys are obsessed with Trump. Did you use to date him? Because you pretend like you hate him, but I think you love him“.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      Totally agree. The problem is that ratings (and therefore ad money) override any thoughts inside the msm actually wanting to function properly as the 4th Estate.

      The love of money is the root of all evil.

  17. pseudonymous in nc says:

    Cobb out, Flood in. (Or perhaps maybe in, because it’s not final.)

    Après moi, le déluge.

      • Trip says:

        Yeah, I just read that: he’s retiring. Who wouldn’t with Trump? Cobb didn’t seem like as much of an a-hole as Dowd. I know nothing about his skills though. Now he can spend quiet time with his stache.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            Lawyers “retire”, but not generally in the middle of a big case.  Possibly a convenient excuse for leaving for another reason.

            It is not, as the MSM shouts, necessarily because Trump has decided to get tough with Mueller.  Trump was never going to cooperate with Mueller.  He has never played nice with prosecutors or the other side in litigation before.  He thinks that’s weak and he is deathly afraid of appearing weak.

            The serial replacement of his lawyers, fired, resigned, what have you, suggests he can’t agree on a strategy – or comply with advice given – but he was never going to cooperate.

            Trump knows what Mueller might find.  He has acted guilty since day one.  He is a one-trick pony.  He will fight because he can’t imagine any other course and because no cooperation would benefit him.  He is not going to comply with any adverse decision.  He’ll try and take his marbles and go home, or burn the house down, but he will never cooperate.

  18. Avattoir says:

    Q. When a raven is like a writing-desk?
    A. You’d as well ask when a “stache” is a fig leaf for a stash.

    Cobb: ‘Why am I so white; why, so I’m easy to see! Especially in darkness. Oh dear: I am late! It’s because of my watch: it’s 2 days slow! I must hurry – yet, the hurrier I go, the behinder I get! What do you mean, haven’t I left ALREADY? Do you know that ‘ALREADY’ is just a word, like ‘FOREVER’? How long is forever? Sometimes, just one second! A always, B be, L leaving: ALWAYS Be Leaving!’

    • Trip says:

      HAHAHA! Reminds me of this:

      Animal Crackers (1/9) Movie CLIP
      Hello, I Must Be Going (1930)
      (intentionally broken link / to stop embed):

  19. harpie says:

    Rebecca Ballhaus @rebeccaballhaus SCOOP on WSJ : Cambridge Analytica is shutting down, effective today.
    Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 Cambridge Analytica just shut down all of its U.S. offices, according to documentation reviewed by Gizmodo.
    Cambridge Analytica Is Shutting Down [Updated] ; Gizmodo [about 1 hour ago] 

    The news was announced during a conference call led by Julian Wheatland, the current chairman of the SCL Group who was reportedly tapped to take over as Cambridge Analytica’s next CEO. Both companies will now close their doors. […] Update 2:10pm: Speaking to The Wall Street Journal, SCL Group founder Nigel Oakes confirmed that both Cambridge Analytica and SCL are shutting down.

    Here’s something from Wendy Siegelman on 4/8/18 From the Seychelles to the White House to Cambridge Analytica, Erik Prince and the UAE are key parts of the Trump story  

    […] As the Cambridge Analytica scandal was unfolding, I broke the story about a new company Emerdata Limited, created by Cambridge Analytica executives, that in early 2018 added new board members Rebekah and Jennifer Mercer, Cheng Peng, Chun Shun Ko Johnson, who is a business partner of Erik Prince, and Ahmed Al Khatib, a ‘Citizen of Seychelles’. [..] SCL/Cambridge Analytica founder Nigel Oakes told Channel 4 News it was his understanding that Emerdata was set up a year ago to acquire all of Cambridge Analytica and all of SCL. […] 


    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      So Emerdata gets the software and the data, and this ‘news’ takes some heat off of FaceBook in the media. Cover for Zuck too.

      Nothing will really change. The Spyop known as Facebook will continue to operate.

      Shell companies are just wonderful.

      AIQ and CA UK apparently still alive.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      Looks like CA/SCL (UK) wants to park their butt in bankruptcy proceedings in UK.

      And CA LLC (US) will be going the same route in SDNY.

      Delay, delay, delay. See SCO vs IBM.

      But, AIQ remains hidden.


      Earlier today, SCL Elections Ltd., as well as certain of its and Cambridge Analytica LLC’s U.K. affiliates (collectively, the “Company” or “Cambridge Analytica”) filed applications to commence insolvency proceedings in the U.K. The Company is immediately ceasing all operations and the boards have applied to appoint insolvency practitioners Crowe Clark Whitehill LLP to act as the independent administrator for Cambridge Analytica.
      Additionally, parallel bankruptcy proceedings will soon be commenced on behalf of Cambridge Analytica LLC and the certain of the Company’s U.S. affiliates in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

      [Who are the other US affiliates?]

      [Can you imagine the various players going into the courthouse, and seeing each other?

      Person A to Person B: why are you here?
      Person B: I’m here for case X
      Person A: I’m here for case Y
      Person B: I might see you in a couple of days then, I have to be at Case Y then.
      Person A: Maybe not, I have to be at Case X that day

      Throw in Person C and Person D too. Imagine two or more of the Persons A,B,C, and D are lawyers. Imagine in one case they are plaintiffs, in another as defendant, in another as witness, and in yet another as counsel.

      Mix well, serve shaken in chilled glass. Add popcorn as a side]

  20. Yogarhythms says:

    CA/SCL (RIP) now Emerdata; we hardly knew ya. Gone but not forgotten.
    Money is speech. Citizens….. Bankruptcy’s speech is loudest in ears of victims. Served best with PinkFloyd “Another Brick In The Wall” shaken not stirred.

Comments are closed.