Mueller Delivers Report on Russia Investigation to Attorney General

[TSA]

She has also been reporting - that they are trying to nail down some reporting that suggests that Mueller might not have ended the investigation on his own terms -

that Barr (or someone - maybe Rosenstein)

had something to do with the investigation ending. She reported that the day after Barr was confirmed - he met with Mueller and Barr made a comment saying "if you are not going to make a prosecutorial call - then you should not continue to investigate"


so...sooner or later...the dam will break.

Maddow’s Russia reporting

Brutal thread by Aaron Mate

[TSA]

you shifted the goalposts and still failed

Wikileaks never secretly informed anyone on Trump's campaign about their upcoming dump. I've posted the Corsi Statement of Offense drafted by Mueller stating Corsi was lying when he told Stone he had a secret back channel to Wikileaks multiple times for you, do you just ignore it? Here it is again. Read the last sentence.

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...-offense/3324/

There was no collusion with Russia. There was no collusion with Wikileaks. Mueller confirmed all of this you stupid .

You are really embarrassing yourself now and should just log off for a few weeks and regroup. You've got the worst case of TDS this board has ever seen. You've completely lost it

Where’d RG go?

[RandomGuy]

you shifted the goalposts and still failed

Wikileaks never secretly informed anyone on Trump's campaign about their upcoming dump. I've posted the Corsi Statement of Offense drafted by Mueller stating Corsi was lying when he told Stone he had a secret back channel to Wikileaks multiple times for you, do you just ignore it? Here it is again. Read the last sentence.

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...-offense/3324/

There was no collusion with Russia. There was no collusion with Wikileaks. Mueller confirmed all of this you stupid .

You are really embarrassing yourself now and should just log off for a few weeks and regroup. You've got the worst case of TDS this board has ever seen. You've completely lost it

You post a lot of things that don't really back up your statements, like Corsi's charging statement. S'all good.

I didn't shift the goal posts. (shrugs) we can go a few rounds where I, once again, nail you with hard to evade yes or no questions while you desperately try to change the subject, obfuscate and deflect, to get to the point where one can rationally reject that. Your track record speaks for itself.

There is a reason I simply asked you for a working definition.

[RandomGuy]

Where’d RG go?

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

[boutons_deux]

Rosy says the Mueller report is only the tip of iceberg of Pootin's attack on America.

[TSA]

Mueller report pretty clearly shows what would commonly be considered to be collusion.

Tell you what, provide a working definition of the word that you accept, and we can walk through the report findings to see what it actually found.

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

I didn't shift the goal posts.

You’re such a disingenuous piece of .

[RandomGuy]

There was no collusion with Russia. There was no collusion with Wikileaks.

Secret or illegal cooperation, especially to cheat or deceive others.

So, the first element of your definition is that of secrecy.

Start with the evidence of contacts that were not public knowledge.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...wikileaks.html

Earliest of which are contacts from various Russians in 2016, primarily with Cohen, including the first offer of assistance to Ivanka.

Each of the hundred or so dots provides intersections of contact between Trumpworld and various Russian functionaries, most of which were not publicly known or announced.

Seems like we have the first leg of collusion in that sense.

[TSA]

Rosy says the Mueller report is only the tip of iceberg of Pootin's attack on America.

You’ve spread more of Putin’s disinformation than the Russian troll farm.

[RandomGuy]

You’re such a disingenuous piece of .

Connect the dots, genyus. Explain exactly how that shifts the goalposts as you seem to think here. Your claim, your burden of proof. It's almost as if you don't understand the term.

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

[TSA]

So, the first element of your definition is that of secrecy.

Start with the evidence of contacts that were not public knowledge.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...wikileaks.html

Earliest of which are contacts from various Russians in 2016, primarily with Cohen, including the first offer of assistance to Ivanka.

Each of the hundred or so dots provides intersections of contact between Trumpworld and various Russian functionaries, most of which were not publicly known or announced.

Seems like we have the first leg of collusion in that sense.

Still waiting for illegal cooperation from Trump campaign that Mueller must have forgotten to indict anyone for.

[TSA]

Connect the dots, genyus. Explain exactly how that shifts the goalposts as you seem to think here. Your claim, your burden of proof. It's almost as if you don't understand the term.

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

It’s your claim dip .

Mueller report pretty clearly shows what would commonly be considered to be collusion.

Tell you what, provide a working definition of the word that you accept, and we can walk through the report findings to see what it actually found.

Walk me through the report findings and point out all of the illegal cooperation you claim Mueller found. I’ve already posted all of the illegal cooperation he didn’t find.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...wikileaks.html

So, the next step after reviewing all of the secret contacts between the various Russian figures, and Trumpworld is determining which of those cons uted cooperation to cheat or deceive.

Hacking a campaigns servers for dirt is generally considered cheating. As is asking for help from foreign governments.

Easiest for the latter is, as I have stated before, Manafort sharing data with Kilimnik.

Kilimnik is a Russian national who has lived in both Russia and Ukraine and was a longtime Manafort employee. Kilimnik had direct and close access to Yanukovych and his senior entourage, and he facilitated communications between Manafort and his clients, including Yanukovych and multiple Ukrainian oligarchs. Kilimnik also maintained a relationship with Deripaska’s deputy, Viktor Boyarkin, a Russian national who previously served in the defense attaché office of the Russian Embassy to the United States.
Manafort told the Office that he did not believe Kilimnik was working as a Russian “spy.” The FBI, however, assesses that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. Several pieces of the Office’s evidence — including witness interviews and emails obtained through court-authorized search warrants — support that assessment: [see vol 1, pg 133]

Manafort had worked with Kilimnik enough for his claim to be unaware of Kilimnik's ties to be less than credible, especially given Manaforts actions, and the nature of his multiple felonies.

. Paul Manafort’s Campaign-Period Contacts
Immediately upon joining the Campaign, Manafort directed Gates to prepare for his review separate memoranda addressed to Deripaska, Akhmetov, Serhiy Lyovochkin, and Boris Kolesnikov, the last three being Ukrainian oligarchs who were senior Opposition Bloc officials. The memoranda described Manafort’s appointment to the Trump Campaign and indicated his willingness to consult on Ukrainian politics in the future. On March 30, 2016, Gates emailed the memoranda and a press release announcing Manafort’s appointment to Kilimnik for translation and dissemination. Manafort later followed up with Kilimnik to ensure his messages had been delivered, emailing on April 11, 2016 to ask whether Kilimnik had shown “our friends” the media coverage of his new role. Kilimnik replied, “Absolutely. Every article.” Manafort further asked: “How do we use to get whole. Has Ovd [Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska] operation seen?” Kilimnik wrote back the same day, “Yes, I have been sending everything to Victor [Boyarkin, Deripaska’s deputy], who has been forwarding the coverage directly to OVD.”

Gates also reported that Manafort instructed him in April 2016 or early May 2016 to send Kilimnik Campaign internal polling data and other updates so that Kilimnik, in turn, could share it with Ukrainian oligarchs. Gates understood that the information would also be shared with Deripaska, ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Gates reported to the Office that he did not know why Manafort wanted him to send polling information, but Gates thought it was a way to showcase Manafort’s work, and Manafort wanted to open doors to jobs after the Trump Campaign ended. Gates said that Manafort’s instruction included sending internal polling data prepared for the Trump Campaign by pollster Tony Fabrizio. Fabrizio had worked with Manafort for years and was brought into the Campaign by Manafort. Gates stated that, in accordance with Manafort’s instruction, he periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis. Gates further told the Office that, after Manafort left the Campaign in mid-August, Gates sent Kilimnik polling data less frequently and that the data he sent was more publicly available information and less internal data.

Polling data was directed to Deripaska.

i. Oleg Deripaska Consulting Work
In approximately 2005, Manafort began working for Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who has a global empire involving aluminum and power companies and who is closely aligned with Vladimir Putin.

Same guy who just coincidentally opened a new aluminium mill in Mitch McConnel's home state.
https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...rs/3470777002/

Gates suspected that Kilimnik was a “spy,” a view that he shared with Manafort, Hawker, and Alexander van der Zwaan, an attorney who had worked with DMI on a report for the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Why would Manafort be so eager to share data with a "spy"?

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials—hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.

In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks’s first release of stolen do ents, a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.

That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government “directed recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and ins utions, including US political organizations,” and, “[t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.” After the election, in late December 2016, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election. By early 2017, several congressional committees were examining Russia’s interference in the election.

Was Manafort cognizant of this effort? Kind of hard not to be.

5. June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower
On June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in Trump Tower with a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia... offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official do ents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you say I love it,” and arranged the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls.

Trump Jr. invited campaign chairman Paul Manafort and senior advisor Jared Kushner to attend the meeting, and both attended. Members of the Campaign discussed the meeting before it occurred, and Michael Cohen recalled that Trump Jr. may have told candidate Trump about an upcoming meeting to receive adverse information about Clinton, without linking the meeting to Russia. According to written answers submitted by President Trump, he has no recollection of learning of the meeting at the time, and the Office found no do entary evidence showing that he was made aware of the meeting — or its Russian connection — before it occurred.

[RandomGuy]

It’s your claim dip .



Walk me through the report findings and point out all of the illegal cooperation you claim Mueller found. I’ve already posted all of the illegal cooperation he didn’t find.

Secret or illegal.

Your definition.

It doesn't have to be explicitly illegal. Further, given the limits on Muellers investigation, we have to allow, if we are seeking a fairly true picture, that Trump is in fact dirty, but Mueller just couldn't get enough evidence of explicitly criminal activity.

Your definition fully has within it, the possibility that Trumpworld colluded, but without violating statute. Further, Mueller not finding enough evidence to bring charges, especially given the limitations of the investigation, such as Trumpworld lying and covering up, does not allow one to conclusively rule out such collusion.

[RandomGuy]

col·lu·sion
/kəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
noun: collusion

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

It’s your claim dip .

Walk me through the report findings and point out all of the illegal cooperation you claim Mueller found. I’ve already posted all of the illegal cooperation he didn’t find.

Nah. Mueller said that he couldn't prove illegality for a lot of it.

The collusion that we can prove happened was simply secret and unethical, I don't think we could prove illegality without having more evidence, such as testimony from Russian intelligence services, which we are almost certain not to get.

Unless you are trying to move the goal posts now and ignore the fact that I can prove collusion without having to prove illegality.

[RandomGuy]

It’s your claim dip .
.

One claim I will make:

Trump committed multiple felony obstruction of justice violations. You want the quotes for that, dip ?

[boutons_deux]

interacting with TSA is about the same level as with ducks. Blindly sucking off Trash and his mafiya.

[koriwhat]

interacting with TSA is about the same level as with ducks. Blindly sucking off Trash and his mafiya.

you're one to talk mr. 10000000000000 articles posted from lib outlets. loon!

[TSA]

Secret or illegal.

Your definition.

It doesn't have to be explicitly illegal. Further, given the limits on Muellers investigation, we have to allow, if we are seeking a fairly true picture, that Trump is in fact dirty, but Mueller just couldn't get enough evidence of explicitly criminal activity.

Your definition fully has within it, the possibility that Trumpworld colluded, but without violating statute. Further, Mueller not finding enough evidence to bring charges, especially given the limitations of the investigation, such as Trumpworld lying and covering up, does not allow one to conclusively rule out such collusion.

the limitations of the investigation

1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."

4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."

5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."

6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or cons uted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."

7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."

[RandomGuy]

the limitations of the investigation

1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."

4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."

5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."

6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or cons uted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."

7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."

The report is very specific about it limitations. They obviate what you are trying to do here.

What are the limitations, TSA? What are you hiding?

[RandomGuy]

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

It’s your claim dip .

The claim that Trump committed multiple felonies, i.e. obstruction of justice, is indeed my claim, as well as Mueller's. That is why Trump is so desperate to keep him from testifying to Congress.

Over 650 former prosecutors say Trump would be indicted if he weren't president

I'm not alone in my assessment.

[TSA]

The claim that Trump committed multiple felonies, i.e. obstruction of justice, is indeed my claim, as well as Mueller's. That is why Trump is so desperate to keep him from testifying to Congress.

Over 650 former prosecutors say Trump would be indicted if he weren't president

I'm not alone in my assessment.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lvG...requested=true

[RandomGuy]

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lvG...requested=true

Can't dispute the facts... go for some sort of source attack. Why do you keep ignoring these facts, TSA?


FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort

Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[RandomGuy]

..

[boutons_deux]

McMaster finally spills the beans: Trump administration infighting reveals some advisors’ blatant disregard for Cons ution

President Donald Trump is employing White House advisors who pose a “danger” to America’s Cons ution

has categories for his former colleagues,

One category, in which McMaster placed himself, focused on giving unvarnished options to the president.

A second group are those who “are not there to give the president options — they’re there to try to manipulate the situation based on their own agenda, not the president’s agenda.”

A third group are those who “cast themselves in the role of saving the country, even the world, from the president.”

“I think those latter two categories of people are actually a danger to the Cons ution of the United States,” McMaster warned.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/mcmaster-finally-spills-the-beans-trump-administration-infighting-reveals-some-advisors-blatant-disregard-for-cons ution/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/08/mcmaster-white-house-danger-to-the-cons ution-1418268

[boutons_deux]

Judge in Trump’s Challenge of Congressional Subpoena Plans to Move Quickly

President Donald Trump‘s attempt to stop finance firm Mazars USA from complying with a congressional subpoena is going to receive extra special attention.

Mehta entered an order Thursday “notifying the parties that the court intends to advance Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction to trial on the merits” and

consolidate issues into a hearing because the court “can discern no benefit from an additional round of legal arguments.”

The House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed Mazars USA for Trump’s financial do ents, including “Statements of Financial Condition.”

During a recent congressional hearing, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen stated that Trump would use these statements to exaggerate the value of his assets.

He would allegedly due so by inflating the number of residential units in properties and the number of floors in towers he owned.

Democrats are looking into this to see if any of these alleged misrepresentations were criminal in nature.

Trump had previously put Mazars USA “on notice,”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/big-judge-in-trumps-challenge-of-subpoena-over-financial-records-plans-to-move-quickly/