Trump’s Lawyers Want Him to Refuse an Interview in Russia Inquiry - New York Times

Trump’s Lawyers Want Him to Refuse an Interview in Russia Inquiry

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MAGGIE HABERMANFEB. 5, 2018

John Dowd, the longtime Washington lawyer hired last summer to represent President Trump in the Russia investigation, wants Mr. Trump to rebuff an interview request from the special counsel. Credit Brendan Mcdermid/Reuters

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for President Trump have advised him against sitting down for a wide-ranging interview with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to four people briefed on the matter, raising the specter of a monthslong court battle over whether the president must answer questions under oath.

His lawyers are concerned that the president, who has a history of making false statements and contradicting himself, could be charged with lying to investigators. Their stance puts them at odds with Mr. Trump, who has said publicly and privately that he is eager to speak with Mr. Mueller as part of the investigation into possible ties between his associates and Russia’s election interference, and whether he obstructed justice.

Mr. Trump’s decision about whether to speak to prosecutors, expected in the coming weeks, will shape one of the most consequential moments of the investigation. Refusing to sit for an interview opens the possibility that Mr. Mueller will subpoena the president to testify before a grand jury, setting up a court fight that would drastically escalate the investigation and could be decided by the Supreme Court.

Rejecting an interview with Mr. Mueller also carries political consequences. It would be certain to prompt accusations that the president is hiding something, and a court fight could prolong the special counsel inquiry, casting a shadow over Republicans as November’s midterm elections approach or beyond into the president’s re-election campaign.

But John Dowd, the longtime Washington defense lawyer hired last summer to represent Mr. Trump in the investigation, wants to rebuff an interview request, as do Mr. Dowd’s deputy, Jay Sekulow, and many West Wing advisers, according to the four people. The lawyers and aides believe the special counsel might be unwilling to subpoena the president and set off a showdown with the White House that Mr. Mueller could lose in court.

Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit JAN. 25, 2018

They are convinced that Mr. Mueller lacks the legal standing to question Mr. Trump about some of the matters he is investigating, like the president’s role in providing a misleading response last summer to a New York Times article about a meeting Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. had with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. The advisers have also argued that on other matters — like the allegations that the president asked James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to end the investigation into the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn — the president acted within his constitutional authority and cannot be questioned about acts that were legal.

One of the few voices arguing for cooperating with Mr. Mueller is Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer whom Mr. Trump also brought on to deal with Mr. Mueller’s investigation. Since Mr. Cobb was hired in July, he has argued that the White House should do everything possible to cooperate with Mr. Mueller’s investigation.

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story

Get the Morning Briefing by Email

What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.

But Mr. Dowd has taken the lead on dealing with the special counsel about an interview and has been discussing the matter with Mr. Mueller’s office since December.

Others close to Mr. Trump have also cautioned him against a freewheeling interview. Marc E. Kasowitz, the president’s longtime personal lawyer from New York who initially dealt with the special counsel after Mr. Mueller took over the Russia investigation last May, has also consistently said that the president should not agree to the interview.

Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey who led the presidential transition team until just after the election, bluntly said last week that Mr. Trump should reject a request to be questioned.

“I don’t think the president of the United States, unless there are credible allegations — which I don’t believe there are — should be sitting across from a special counsel,” he said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and an informal adviser to Mr. Trump, echoed that advice.

“The idea of putting Trump in a room with five or six hardened, very clever lawyers, all of whom are trying to trick him and trap him, would be a very, very bad idea,” Mr. Gingrich said last month on “Fox and Friends.”

Presidents have often agreed to speak with federal prosecutors who are investigating their actions or those close to them. But President Richard M. Nixon refused to turn over to the special prosecutor investigating him tapes of incriminating conversations with aides. The matter eventually went before the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1974 that the president, like every American, was not above the law and had to comply with the special prosecutor’s request.

“The upshot of the Nixon tapes case was that any president is going to have an extremely hard time resisting a request from a law enforcement officer,” said Neal K. Katyal, an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration and a partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells.

“In general,” he added, “presidents do sit for interviews or respond to requests from prosecutors because they take their constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws seriously, and running away from a prosecutor isn’t consistent with faithfully executing the laws.”

Since Ty Cobb was hired as a White House lawyer in July, he has argued that the White House should cooperate with the special counsel investigation. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

Mr. Trump’s penchant for bravado has been a factor that his lawyers must contend with. The president has bragged to some aides that he would be able to clear himself if he talked to Mr. Mueller’s team.

“I’m looking forward to it, actually,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House last month, though he added, almost as an afterthought, that an interview would be “subject to my lawyers, and all of that.”

When pressed, he also said he would be willing to be questioned under oath. Questioning by Mr. Mueller would not be under oath, though lying to federal investigators is a crime.

Despite his penchant for exaggerations and falsehoods in public remarks, Mr. Trump has appeared far more aware of the legal risk of making false statements when he has been deposed in civil cases related to his businesses.

In one deposition related to a libel case that Mr. Trump brought against the journalist Tim O’Brien, Mr. Trump admitted more than two dozen times under oath that he had lied in the past about a range of subjects. Mr. Trump ultimately lost the case.

Since last summer, the White House has been in what Mr. Cobb has called “total cooperation mode.” He has issued few, if any, objections as Mr. Mueller’s team interviewed senior White House officials and reviewed reams of emails and other internal documents. The White House was operating on a strategy that, since Mr. Trump had nothing to hide, full cooperation was the best chance to bring the investigation to a quick, decisive end.

Mr. Cobb had told the president and the public that the Mueller inquiry would be over by the end of 2017, or soon after. But a month into 2018, it remains unclear when Mr. Mueller will wrap up the bulk of his work.

Privately, people close to the president have conceded that assuring Mr. Trump that the investigation would end by a certain date was primarily aimed at keeping him from antagonizing Mr. Mueller on his Twitter feed or in interviews.

Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Matt Apuzzo contributed reporting from Washington.

European markets have followed Asian markets lower on Tuesday as investors continued to dump shares. - BBC News

6/2/2018

European shares tumble in new sell off

European markets have followed Asian markets lower on Tuesday as investors continued to dump shares.

London, Frankfurt and Paris all fell sharply at the open with losses of up to 3%, before recovering some ground. In the US overnight the Dow lost 4.6%.

Japan's Nikkei 225 closed down 4.7%.

The sell-off began last week after data in the US showed stronger wage growth, which raised expectations that US interest rates might start to rise more quickly to tackle inflation.

London's FTSE 100 was down 126 points or almost 2% at 7,207 after the first few hours of trading, while Frankfurt's Dax and Paris's CAC were down 2% and 1.6% respectively.

On Monday the FTSE 100 closed at its lowest level since April of last year.

The falls follow some good years for investors.

In 2017 the Dow in the US was up 25% and London's FTSE 100 rose 7.6%.

Ftse

Live: Global stock markets slump

Asia markets are following Wall Street's lead - but why?

The 2018 economy: What to watch

Presentational grey line

Will falls turn into rout? Analysis, Kamal Ahmed, economics editor

The softness of markets over the last few days is down to one thing.

As monetary policy begins its long journey away from the trillions of pounds of stimulus pumped into the system to keep the economic ship from the rocks, shareholders are beginning to wonder how much of their investments are in companies with strong fundamentals.

And how much is simply holding up an asset bubble - frothy prices led ever higher in an era of ultra low interest rates and cheap money.

Fingers are hovering over the "sell" button.

And once investors start looking at their portfolio and selling out of the froth, automatic algorithmic trading tends to "chase the dip".

What happened in Asian markets?

Hong Kong's Hang Seng ended closed 5% lower and South Korea's Kospi index gave up 2.6%. Australia's benchmark S&P/ASX 200 lost 3.2%.

Japan's share index saw steeper falls overnight, with a loss of some 7% at one point.

Unlike elsewhere in the world, where interest rates are beginning to or are expected to start rising, Japan's immediate economic outlook remains stagnant. The authorities there said there was little chance of interest rates being increased.

What happened in the US?

Traders returned to their desk in the aftermath of Friday's rout to another bout of selling.

That left the Dow Jones Industrial Average index down 1,175 points, or 4.6% at the end of Monday's session to 24,345.75.

The decline was the largest in percentage terms for the Dow since August 2011, when markets dropped in the aftermath of "Black Monday" - the day Standard & Poor's downgraded its credit rating of the US.

A chart showing a 12-month price history of DJI closing prices. The sudden dip from early February can be clearly seen

The drop on the Dow was closely followed by the wider S&P 500 stock index, down 4.1% and the technology-heavy Nasdaq, which lost 3.7%.

The White House moved to reassure investors saying it was focused on "long-term economic fundamentals, which remain exceptionally strong".

What has driven the Dow's surge?

US jobs and wages rise in January

The US economy in six charts

How does it affect me?

Even if you don't own shares directly, the chances are that you will be paying into a pension which is invested in shares and bonds.

More than nine million people have auto enrolment pensions, and 12 million are active members of defined contribution schemes.

That means the value of the pension is dependent on the value of the investments in it.

Similarly, anyone who owns shares or funds in an ISA or a SIPP will have seen the value of their savings fall.

But experts point out that investments rise and fall over time, and over the longer term, it should make little difference.

"It is effectively no change for normal investors, in that you have ridden a wave on the way up, so now is not the time to cash in," said Rebecca O'Keefe, head of investment at Interactive Investor.

"This is unwelcome news, but it is fundamentally a not unexpected reaction to the euphoria that saw markets rise so fast."

Will this have long term impact?

Analysts say that in the short term, investors should be prepared for choppier stock markets, but doubt whether there will be a prolonged period of selling.

Jane Sydenham, investment director at the stockbrokers Rathbones, said the recent moves were a "correction" rather than a crash.

"What we have to remember is stock markets have had a very smooth ride upwards and we've not had a fall of more than 3% for 15 months. There's been a real lack of volatility, which is very unusual."

She added that bear markets tend to happen ahead of a recession and at the moment growth forecasts were being upgraded.

Erin Gibbs, portfolio manager for S&P Global Market Intelligence, said: "This isn't a collapse of the economy.

"This is concern that the economy is actually doing much better than expected and so we need to re-evaluate."

Hong Kong umbrella activist Joshua Wong walks free - BBC News

6/2/2018

Hong Kong umbrella activist Joshua Wong walks free

Joshua Wong, Alex Chow and Nathan Law (left-right) were key figures in the Umbrella protests

Hong Kong's top court has thrown out jail terms against three leaders of the 2014 pro-democracy "Umbrella" protests.

It reverses an earlier court appeal that saw Joshua Wong, 21, Nathan Law, 24, and Alex Chow, 27, being handed jail terms for unlawful assembly.

Their jail sentences attracted international attention, with rights groups accusing the government of cracking down on political protesters.

The 2014 protests paralysed parts of central Hong Kong for several weeks.

Wong, Law and Chow became the public face of the protests, which called for fully democratic elections for Hong Kong's leadership.

The sit-in became known as the "Umbrella movement" after protesters used umbrellas to shield themselves from tear gas fired by police.

Beijing's struggle to win Hong Kong's young hearts

HK protesters proposed for peace prize

Young and unhappy in Hong Kong

The trio were convicted of unlawful assembly over an incident that helped trigger the mass protests.

Wong and Law were initially handed community service terms, while Chow was given a suspended jail term, in 2016.

However, in an unusual move, the Hong Kong government appealed the sentences, arguing that it was too lenient.

The trio were then convicted of between six and eight months in jail by Hong Kong's Court of Appeal.

A protester (C) raises his umbrellas in front of tear gas which was fired by riot police to disperse protesters blocking the main street to the financial Central district outside the government headquarters in Hong Kong, September 28, 2014.Image copyrightREUTERS

Image caption

The 2014 umbrella protests paralysed central Hong Kong for almost three months

Rights groups criticised the government, saying the appeals were political decisions intended to deter future protests. However, the government denied this, saying there was "absolutely no basis" to claims of political motives.

On Tuesday, Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal said it had unanimously "quashed the sentences of imprisonment", adding that the jail terms given to the three had been "significantly more severe" than those given for previous cases of unlawful assembly.

This outcome will be seen as a victory for the rule of law in Hong Kong, which many believe China is trying to undermine, BBC East Asia editor Michael Bristow reports.

Wong is currently appealing a separate prison sentence for contempt of court, which is also related to the 2014 protests.

Last week, a group of US lawmakers nominated Wong, Law and Chow for the Nobel Peace Prize, sparking criticism from the Hong Kong and Chinese governments.

Keith Koffler Why Democrats may disappoint in the 2018 midterms, despite Trump's unpopularity - NBC News

Keith Koffler Why Democrats may disappoint in the 2018 midterms, despite Trump's unpopularity

For one thing, most of the public now considers the economy to be in great shape.

Feb.05.2018 / 8:22 PM ET

Republicans who today don’t want Trump within a thousand miles of their campaign rallies may suddenly beg for an appearance.J. Scott Applewhite / AP

For weeks, even months, Democrats have been salivating — and Republicans getting dyspeptic — over the prospect of a “wave” mid-term election that will sweep them into power in both the House and Senate. But there’s ample reason to believe that this wave will never materialize and that Republicans may be safer on the beach than most believe.

President Donald Trump’s approval ratings hover around 40 percent, and conventional wisdom has it that his unpopularity will rub off on other Republicans. This is certainly true — but its effect is limited by the fact that Trump is a singular figure.

Even Washington Republicans — some in his own administration — have been overheard by reporters muttering that the president is out of his mind, or words to that effect. Members of Congress didn’t elect Trump, though they can be blamed for supporting most of his policies. Many of those policies, however, could well be perceived by voters as bearing fruit — even if some see Trump as a little nutty.

Those anticipating a Democratic wave must understand, first, that most of the public now considers the economy to be in great shape. That is a critical issue when it comes to getting elected. Remember the presidential campaign of the Democrats’ own Bill Clinton coined the phrase, “The economy, stupid.”

A January Quinnipiac poll found that 66 percent of U.S. voters believe the economy is "excellent" or "good," up from 63 percent in December. This is the highest positive rating of the economy since the poll first asked the question in 2001.

Those anticipating a Democratic wave must understand, first, that most of the public now considers the economy to be in great shape.

Trump, however, is not given particular credit. Only 37 percent of respondents say his policies are helping the economy. In fact, 49 percent say former President Barack Obama is more responsible for the strength of the economy, while 40 percent say Trump is more responsible than Obama. Either way, the economy is good, and people are feeling it.

And the economy looks unlikely to change for the worse anytime soon. Many forecasters predict growth at close to 3 percent for the rest of the year. Jobs are abundant and unemployment is shrinking. In mid-January, jobless claims were at a 45-year low.

What’s more, the benefits of the tax cut passed in December are going to be pressing directly on the pleasure-sensation zone of workers’ brains all year. The new money is due to start showing up in paychecks by mid-February.

If voters start to forget about or overlook this benefit, Trump is certain to keep blasting all the good economic news on his Twitter feed right up through Election Day. He won’t make the same mistake as Obama, who failed to successfully publicize middle-class tax cuts that were included in the 2009 stimulus bill. Most people didn’t even know they had gotten a tax cut.

Another problem is that Democrats do not appear to have much of an agenda beyond helping illegal immigrants — over which they nearly shut down the government before backing off. Democratic leadership backed off for good reason: Relatively speaking, no one cares.

Only 5 percent of Americans listed “Immigration/illegal immigrants” as their top concern in a December 2017 Gallup poll. The other big Democratic focus, the Russian investigation, is even less of a priority. Fewer than 0.5 percent cited the “Situation with Russia” as their biggest issue, despite constant efforts by Democrats and the press to highlight it.

A December 2017 AP poll showed that health care and the economy matter far more to Americans, all things considered. Only 38 percent said “the Russia investigation” was very or extremely important. Compare that to the 85 percent who said the same about health care, 83 percent who gave that rating to the economy and 78 percent who felt that way about taxes.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe could even provide Trump grounds for a series of triumphant I-told-you-so tweets — should Mueller exonerate him. On the other hand, a finding of wrongdoing, though possibly harmful to Republicans, could stir the GOP base to turn out for the midterm election and vote to protect Trump against impeachment by a Democratic House. This could mitigate the expected large turnout of the Democratic base, which is already highly motivated.

One potential bright spot for Democrats is that Gallup found Americans’ top concern to be “dissatisfaction with government/poor leadership.” The bad news? Dissatisfaction with government is nothing new — running at about the same level it has for a decade, with around two-thirds of Americans saying they don’t like the way the nation’s affairs are being handled. Creating divided government, by giving the Democrats control of the House or the Senate, is hardly the ideal way to make government more effective.

Besides, Democrats are unlikely to rally on Election Day to put House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (California) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (New York) in charge of Congress. Neither polls above 50 percent — among Democrats.

It is true, though, that Democrats are ahead on the average of “generic” ballots — poll respondents say by an average of about 7 points that they would back a Democrat over a Republican in Congressional races. But the gap declined steeply during January, from a high of about 13 points.

One potential bright spot for Democrats is that Gallup found Americans’ top concern to be “dissatisfaction with government/poor leadership.”

In any case, early generic ballots are not reliable indicators of a wave — as the last three non-presidential year wave elections show. In the 2010 election, the midterm when Obama said the Democrats got a “shellacking,” the generic ballot had Republicans only barely ahead until late July, when the gap began to broaden. That November, Republicans picked up 63 House seats and six Senate seats.

In 1994, some generic ballots put Democrats ahead — including ABC News, which had Democrats leading right up until Election Day. Then Republicans stole Congress from the Democrats for the first time in 40 years. The GOP won 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. On the other hand, the 2006 generic ballot consistently showed Democrats well ahead, and they took over the House and Senate, winning 31 seats in the former and six in the latter.

There is one other issue that could send the president’s approval rating soaring. It’s rarely mentioned in terms of its political effect, though. Perhaps because people are hoping, as they have for more than two decades, that the problem will somehow go away. This is the year something must be done, or not, to stop North Korea from developing a nuclear weapons arsenal that can attack the United States.

The signs are that Trump is inclined to face this existential menace. Eradicating the threat might take removing Korean strongman Kim Jong-Un from power, whether through economic or military pressure. Such a confrontation — even if difficult and costly — would likely result in a rallying around the flag and the president that would not dissipate before Election Day.

If this happens, Republicans who today don’t want Trump within a thousand miles of their campaign rallies might suddenly beg for an appearance. And Democrats will find their hopes of taking Congress are history, just like as Kim.

Keith Koffler is the editor of White House Dossier and the author of “Bannon: Always the Rebel."

China: Cheap American grain is hurting our farmers- CNN Money

China: Cheap American grain is hurting our farmers

by Daniel Shane @CNNMoney

February 5, 2018: 4:51 AM ET

China is reminding the U.S. that it can play tough on trade, too.

Less than two weeks after President Trump slapped new tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines, China has launched an investigation into a key U.S. agricultural export.

Chinese authorities said Sunday they would examine whether the U.S. is unfairly subsidizing exports of sorghum, a crop that is used to feed livestock and make a liquor that's very popular with Chinese drinkers.

Preliminary information showed "extensive dumping" of U.S. sorghum at lower than normal prices, China's Commerce Ministry said in a statement. That has caused "material injury" to Chinese farmers, it added.

China is the largest buyer of American sorghum products. It imported about $960 million worth last year, according to Chinese customs data.

"Sorghum is a good target for a trade dispute since it would have a major financial impact on the U.S.," said Loren Puette, director at ChinaAg, an agricultural research firm.

Squeezing the sorghum trade would hurt the U.S. rural economy, where Trump has a lot of support, he said. But other more significant exports grown by U.S. farmers are likely to escape action for now, Puette added.

China is the biggest buyer of American agricultural products, and a large part of that is soybeans. China bought $14 billion worth of them in 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"This is likely just a warning to the U.S. that it should compromise on other trade issues," he said. "If China significantly restricted the import of U.S. soybeans, it would signal the beginning of a trade war."

That's something experts have been warning is an increasing risk. Trade tensions that simmered after Trump took office have started to intensify recently.

The Trump administration's decision to hike tariffs on solar components and washing machines last month had prompted fears that China could respond with tit-for-tat measures of its own.

Trump will decide on other potential trade sanctions against China in the coming months based on the results of U.S. investigations into steel, aluminum and intellectual property infringement.

China has taken measures against specific products like sorghum before. Last year, it imposed tariffs on U.S. exports of distiller dried grains, another livestock feed.

-- Nanlin Fang and Serenitie Wang contributed to this report.