Special counsel wants documents from Trump, numerous campaign associates

[Doctor Smiles]

[quote]WASHINGTON — The grand jury investigating alleged collusion between Russia and Donald Trump's presidential campaign has issued a subpoena seeking all documents involving the president and a host of his closest advisers, according to a copy of the subpoena reviewed by NBC News.According to the subpoena, which was sent to a witness by special counsel Robert Mueller, investigators want emails, text messages, work papers, telephone logs and other documents going back to Nov. 1, 2015, 4½ months after Trump launched his campaign.

The witness shared details of the subpoena on condition of anonymity. The news site [URL="https://www.axios.com/robert-muller-questions-list-trump-russia-54d00d1c-f008-457c-b304-ee601a98d78c.html"]Axios[/URL] reported Sunday that a subpoena was sent to a witness last month.
NBC News reported last week that Mueller's team is asking pointed questions about whether Trump knew about hacked emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign before the public found out. The subpoena indicates that Mueller may be focused not just on what Trump campaign aides knew and when they knew it, but also on what Trump himself knew.

In addition to the president, the subpoena seeks documents that have anything to do with these current and former Trump associates:
* [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/steve-bannon-out-white-house-chief-strategist-n793921"]Steve Bannon[/URL], who left the White House as chief strategist in August.
* [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hill-committees-focus-russia-tower-deal-cohen-interviews-n815121"]Michael Cohen[/URL], a personal lawyer for Trump who testified before congressional investigators in October.
* [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rick-gates-lawyers-cite-irreconcilable-differences-request-split-n845791"]Rick Gates[/URL], Trump's former deputy campaign manager, who pleaded guilty last month to conspiracy and lying to the FBI.
* [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hope-hicks-resigns-trump-s-white-house-communications-director-n852056"]Hope Hicks[/URL], who resigned last week as Trump's communications director.
* [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaign-manager-corey-lewandowski-ousted-n595581"]Corey Lewandowski[/URL], Trump's campaign manager until June 2016.
* [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/paul-manafort-pleads-not-guilty-charges-filed-after-gates-plea-n851936"]Paul Manafort[/URL], a former Trump campaign manager and Gates' business partner, who pleaded not guilty to money laundering, conspiracy and making false statements last week.
* [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/who-carter-page-what-does-he-have-do-russia-probe-n844821"]Carter Page[/URL], a former Trump campaign aide.
* [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-s-emotional-binky-aide-keith-schiller-leaving-white-house-1040216131954"]Keith Schiller[/URL], a former bodyguard for Trump who left as director of Oval Office operations in September.
* [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-asking-what-trump-knew-about-hacked-emails-n851941"]Roger Stone[/URL], a longtime Republican political operative and Trump campaign adviser who sources have told NBC News is the focus of investigators interested in his contacts with WikiLeaks during the campaign.

Once Hicks' resignation takes effect in the next few weeks, Cohen will be the only person listed in the subpoena who hasn't left the employment of Trump or of the White House.
[/quote]

[URL]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/amp/special-counsel-wants-documents-trump-numerous-campaign-associates-n853386[/URL]

[URL]https://www.axios.com/robert-muller-questions-list-trump-russia-54d00d1c-f008-457c-b304-ee601a98d78c.html[/URL]

[Raidyr]

[QUOTE] Once Hicks' resignation takes effect in the next few weeks, Cohen will be the only person listed in the subpoena who hasn't left the employment of Trump or of the White House.[/QUOTE]
The only one still on board is his personal lawyer :thinking:

[doomkiwi]

It's funny that the special council had just about jack and shit come out to the media about their investigation until it started hitting the trump team directly.

[Bahamut88]

God, I can't wait till this really kicks off, I want to see Trump get shit on so bad right now.

[Fulsy]

Give 'em hell, Mueller.

[Orpheus]

[B][I]Here we fucking go[/I][/B]

[Zero-Point]

Oh boy, shit's heating up. At least I hope this team is doig this because they have a solid reason, because things may go South real quick for Trump and Co. if they do.

[Bradyns]

Ignorant on this matter of law, but if one of the many who have spoken under oath mentioned a specific event, and that event is either not in the notes requested by the subpoena or the event is documented differently, can anything be done?

[Zonesylvania]

[QUOTE=Bradyns;53178164]Ignorant on this matter of law, but if one of the many who have spoken under oath mentioned a specific event, and that event is either not in the notes requested by the subpoena or the event is documented differently, can anything be done?[/QUOTE]
Lying under oath to any appreciable extent is basically perjury, so if it can be quantifiably proven, they're guilty of a serious crime.

[Bradyns]

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53178166]Lying under oath to any appreciable extent is basically perjury, so if it can be quantifiably proven, they're guilty of a serious crime.[/QUOTE]

I am asking the inverse of that.. if what was said under oath can be used to state that the documents are altered/"non-existent"

[elix]

[QUOTE=Bradyns;53178218]I am asking the inverse of that.. if what was said under oath can be used to state that the documents are altered/"non-existent"[/QUOTE]
Credible testimony would probably be enough to open a line of investigation as to if one or more people have been destroying documents and otherwise destroying evidence. If the investigation found that the testimony was based on fact (e.g. there [I]should[/I] be a paper trail for XYZ but there isn't), obstruction of justice charges would be the logical direction that would go in.

For example, [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/16/the-missing-18-12-minutes-presidential-destruction-of-incriminating-evidence/"]Watergate and those 18 minutes of missing audio on the Nixon tapes.[/URL]

[Tyanet]

[QUOTE=Bradyns;53178218]I am asking the inverse of that.. if what was said under oath can be used to state that the documents are altered/"non-existent"[/QUOTE]

If it can be proven that documents have indeed been falsified or destroyed, and that they did it with the intention of impeding an investigation or covering up a crime, than is would most certainly qualify as either obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence, or both.

[Bob The Knob]

I guess this was part one of Nunberg's Wild Ride, huh

[Big Dumb Patriot]

[QUOTE=tyanet;53178284]If it can be proven that documents have indeed been falsified or destroyed, and that they did it with the intention of impeding an investigation or covering up a crime, than is would most certainly qualify as either obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence, or both.[/QUOTE]

Which is punishable by up to twenty years in prison, by the way.

[Bob The Knob]

Oh yeah, they've edited OP's article to confirm that Sam Nunberg was the anonymous source

[Zero-Point]

-snip-