Schiff says House will make a criminal referral of Trump ally Erik Prince for possible perjury

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post



House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that his panel would make a criminal referral to the Justice Department regarding potential false testimony by Erik Prince, the billionaire founder of the private military contractor Blackwater and an ally of President Trump. "The evidence is so weighty that the Justice Department needs to consider this," Schiff said during a Washington Post Live event.

Among other things, Schiff pointed to a meeting that took place nine days before Trump took office between Prince and a Russian financier close to Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Seychelles islands.

Prince later told congressional officials examining Russia's interference in the presidential election that the meeting happened by chance and was not taken at the behest of the incoming administration -- testimony that congressional Democrats now think was false. Prince told special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigators a version of the Seychelles meeting that is at odds in several key respects with his sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017.

"We know from the Mueller report not that that was not a chance meeting," Schiff told Post reporter Robert Costa during an interview at the event.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/schiff-says-house-will-make-a-criminal-referral-of-trump-ally-erik-prince-for-possible-perjury/2019/04/30/fca8a4de-6b49-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html

[watoos]

1. Big deal,

Barr is in charge of justice.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. They are going through the "process"

(as set out in the House rules)

[2naSalit]

3. +1

[BumRushDaShow]

6. It will also help to establish what is needed

if/when they need to go to the courts if suddenly the "executive privilege" thing rears it head with respect to "obstruction" (due to this one's perjury).

Just found this interesting tidbit from what happened back with the Nixon mess with subpoenas and court interventions -

Court Orders Nixon to Yield Tapes; President Promises to Comply Fully
Justices Reject Privilege Claim in 8-to-0 Ruling

By John P. MacKenzie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 25, 1974; Page A01

<...>

Equally impressive was the court's unanimity on every issue in the case -- a tricky question of the court's jurisdiction, the enforcement of the subpoena under conventional criminal law standards and the merits of the executive privilege controversy.

The issue of jurisdiction, considered by some legal scholars to be St. Clair's strongest point, also raised a storm in Congress over whether the administration had reneged on its pledge giving Jaworski independence and the right to take the President to court over disputes on executive privilege.

St. Clair argued that the pledges, contained in published Justice Department regulations, did not and could not guarantee that the courts would have the legal power to decide contests between President Nixon and his executive branch subordinate, Jaworski.

Jaworski replied that this argument would make a "mockery" of his role, which was worked out to prevent a repetition of the "Saturday night massacre" firing last October of his predecessor, Archibald Cox.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/072574-1.htm

[Hortensis]

19. As you say. Thanks for the article.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. You are welcome!

I thought it was interesting to find what was actually published by WaPo back then when the court ruled!

[watoos]

7. The process will take us beyond the election.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. No it won't

They have generally requested expedited court reviews for "high-profile" cases and have gotten it because it is coming from Congress. If they hadn't and it took that long, then we would have still had the original "Muslim Ban" in place as well as many other egregious bullshit stuff that had to be changed to continue or had to be ditched altogether. Doesn't mean that they won't try to find other ways around it but then that delays them.

If Congress skips over their process, the courts will send it right back and tell them to "follow their rules".

People who are at the bottom of the list of federal court cases will always be the losers because these "high profile" types of cases will always take precedent.

[NewJeffCT]

11. Didn't SCOTUS

recently uphold most of the Muslim ban?

[BumRushDaShow]

12. Not the original one.

He had to change it at least 2 or 3 times and it was only made for a 90-day review. It was originally banning across the board and then they started cherry-picking the removal of some countries. It was a ridiculous mess.

[FBaggins]

26. Yes... it probably will

They have generally requested expedited court reviews for "high-profile" cases

Who are "they" in this case?

The DOJ certainly has no incentive to speed things up. The Courts have done so in response to requests from Congress, but Congress isn't involved in this case. They just made a referral to DOJ. Unless/until the DOJ takes someone to court, there is no court to request an expedited process from.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. This process is just getting started

The Courts have done so in response to requests from Congress, but Congress isn't involved in this case.

???

The referral is coming from the House and I expect, again, they will go through the steps as it all plays out. DOJ can do a "yay" or "nay" right off the bat for even handling it like what happened with the ridiculous Dossier "referral" (without a full Committee approval for the request) that was torpedoed.

If the Committee presents clear evidence of perjury, and it's not acted on, then that is a whole other issue leading to "obstruction" (particularly if someone "directed" them to slow-walk).

[FBaggins]

30. The process for Congress is already over

Congress has nothing at all to do with criminal prosecutions. If they think they see one all they can do is refer it to the DOJ. The time it takes DOJ to decide how to handle it is not up to Congress and they have no standing to appeal.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. The process of Congress

also includes impeachment inquiries and hearings, which would use whatever evidence comes from whatever sources they can obtain in order to inform their decisions, including weighing potential perjury from parties involved (conspiracy) with who they would put together "articles of impeachment" against.... IF they go that route. So no, it's not over until it's over.

[FBaggins]

32. What does that have to do with anything?

They can't impeach Prince.

[BumRushDaShow]

33. OFFS. But they CAN impeach Drumpf

and that means going through and gathering/presenting all the evidence from their hearings (where one particular relevant individual is suspected of perjury) and follow a process of dealing with it as it relates to putting together articles of impeachment. I.e., they need to determine what happened and decide on what the "high crimes or misdemeanors" were and document it so that a vote can happen on it.

There are 2 camps of DUers - those who have given up, declared the entire system of government null and void, and basically think they are ready to fight a keyboard junta warfare... and others who demand that "impeachment hearings" start NOW and it's taking too long... and then whine about what it takes to start something like that.

I have had to work with DOJ a number of times during my 30+ year federal career because my agency was not "criminal" and we had criminals among the subjects we were responsible for as an agency. And there is a process. Meanwhile, our own efforts didn't "stop" or "end" waiting for DOJ. We had our own general counsel who worked what they could from other angles.

[FBaggins]

35. Still not relevant to the OP

Sure, there's a process. But once Congress makes a referral to the DOJ, the entire process is DOJ's.

Meanwhile, our own efforts didn't "stop" or "end" waiting for DOJ.

Sure... and impeachment investigations (or investigations that might later lead to an impeachment investigation) don't need to stop either. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not the process of potentially charging Prince with perjury will be over prior to the election (or that DOJ will do anything other than "investigate" the allegation and then decline to prosecute). If Congress thinks that DOJ's failure to prosecute is obstructive, they can add that to impeachment claims, but that would be after a final determination is made (which again... is very likely after the elections).

[BumRushDaShow]

36. This part

If Congress thinks that DOJ's failure to prosecute is obstructive, they can add that to impeachment claims

is my point. I.e., it can be used as a tool to speed up an investigation into Prince. Especially since we are already seeing the shennigans of Barr.

Barr is scheduled to testify this week (tomorrow in the Senate and Thursday in the House). This is where the rubber meets the road for "obstruction" and "obstructive" and they don't have to wait until DOJ prosecutes or not to not include adding the fact that a referral was made, to their pile of other evidence that they have gathered that might support certain articles of impeachment.

I.e., the whole issue of Prince would be irrelevant if not for his direct connection to the subject of "Russian influence" on the U.S. elections that Congress has been investigating, with the info (however redacted it is at the moment) of the Mueller Report being one piece and this (whatever the outcome) being another piece, along with all the other prosecutions that have already occurred previously.

[FBaggins]

37. Again... it just doesn't work that way

If Barr shows up to testify tomorrow and gets asked about the referral, he'll just say "I haven't even read the referral yet... it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment". If they read it to him (or hand it to him), he'll say "We will certainly investigate this and take appropriate action if it's true". If asked how long it will be "I couldn't possibly say. We haven't even opened an investigation yet."

From that day on, the response to any question will be "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation". That investigation could easily last beyond the next election.


I.e., the whole issue of Prince would be irrelevant if not for his direct connection to the subject of "Russian influence" on the U.S. elections that Congress has been investigating,

It's also directly related to Mueller's investigation and he had access to Prince's testimony to Congress. If he didn't prosecute for it, then it's not likely that a partisan DOJ would... but also unlikely that we would get much traction insisting that DOJ prosecute something he declined to.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. The whole point of "hearings"

is to put people "on the record" (whether formally under oath or not). And it adds to the pile of things they use to formulate any articles if they choose to go that route.

And re: this -

It's also directly related to Mueller's investigation and he had access to Prince's testimony to Congress. If he didn't prosecute for it, then it's not likely that a partisan DOJ would... but also unlikely that we would get much traction insisting that DOJ prosecute something he declined to.

Here is an interesting analysis done just today -

Could Erik Prince be in perjury trouble?
Schiff: House panel will seek criminal referral for Erik Prince

By Aaron Blake
April 30 at 12:25 PM


<...>

What it means

It’s worth noting that the bar for perjury is high and that Mueller’s investigation concluded without indicting Prince. But former federal prosecutor Patrick Cotter said that that doesn’t necessarily mean Mueller didn’t think there was a case to be made. He noted that Prince’s alleged perjury came in congressional testimony and not to Mueller’s team. “This may be an example of something Mueller felt others (e.g. Congress) should pursue if they want to, like impeachment,” Cotter said in an email. “My read of the report suggests just that.”

Schiff also acknowledged Tuesday that Prince spoke with Mueller under the terms of an unspecified proffer agreement, which sometimes insulates people from being charged based upon their statements. (This wouldn’t apply to false statements in previous congressional testimony, but it would mean Prince’s statements to Mueller couldn’t be used to make the case.)

But even if there is a case to be made, that doesn’t mean it will be. Attorney General William P. Barr has suggested it’s time to turn the page on the Mueller probe, which bodes well for Prince.

If a case of perjury was brought, it would be one of the highest-profile prosecution cases to come out of the Mueller probe. Prince is the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and a

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/30/could-erik-prince-be-perjury-trouble/?utm_term=.ed3bed41a2e9

I.e., people like Flynn, Papadopoulos, and Manafort, et. al., were charged with directly lying to DOJ (the FBI, pleading guilty as part of plea deals), so in this case with a "lying before Congress", it goes a slightly different direction that he may not have felt was under his scope - just like the "obstruction" piece was not under his scope, nor was Cohen's bagman duties, which is why all those cases were pawned off to DOJ "entities" (SDNY and EDVA). It's a shame that there are so many moving pieces (literally a tangled web) with this mess that I think Mueller decided to stick with the mandate but left enough out there for further work, and there was quite a bit that was redacted with the excuse that it was an "active investigation" so who knows? I know Stone's mess is still out there (I think the trial is scheduled for November).

[McKim]

40. This Truly Evil Man Deserves any Punishment

This truly evil man deserves whatever punishment that congress can dis h out.

[George II]

23. If Barr doesn't proceed he will have to give a valid reason why he doesn't.

[Jumpty]

4. Perfect

Trump is next.

[MFGsunny]

5. YES

Demand justice.

Expose the unjust.

Damn the torpedos ..... all speed ahead.

Fear not those turds-in-the-punch-bowl ......

SOME PEOPLE MAY END UP BEING KNOWN AS DIS-BARR

[turbinetree]

9. Isn't this lying twit living in another country, and wanting to bring mercenaries into Venezuela

to make buck.......................and have more blood on his hands, how does this asshole sleep at night........................no fucking principles, none.....................just like his sister..................with their high and mighty moral values.....................of BS................

[BumRushDaShow]

10. It's all for the

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[turbinetree]

13. Isn't that the truth..........................Thanks for the song you nailed it..................

[BumRushDaShow]

14. It is what it is

We saw what it did to Manafort.

[turbinetree]

15. That still is amazing........................

he gives polling data to a FSB/GRU operative....................in my opinion that is treason

[BumRushDaShow]

16. It's all for the

And this sort of stuff has probably been going on for some time under the radar too because they know the offices investigating such stuff are so understaffed. And I think until 2016 happened, the fact that it had been speculated about extensively left us in a state of hoping for something like this not to be the thing that solely made a difference, notably having someone willing to cross that line.

But we ended up experiencing a multi-pronged attack that was unprecedented, even when you look back at the days of wartime and Cold War "propaganda", where the sort of stuff that we see on social media has now supplemented and amplified the old-school propaganda methods (news articles and radio broadcasts)... Thus it "worked".

[turbinetree]

18. Yes, that is correct................................

[riversedge]

17. Sure with Prince could get napped for something--anything!!

[SHRED]

20. What's the penalty?

[BumRushDaShow]

21. I would suppose it would depend on any plea deals they might work

They got Papadopoulos on perjury but gave him a minimal sentence due to his cooperation with snagging some of the other bigger and more corrupt fish.

Prince is a nasty one like Manafort so it will depend on how many screws are applied.

[lastlib]

22. Annnnd.....do we REALLY expect THIS (in)Justice Dept. to investigate it??!?

Srsly? We're talking about tRump/Barr's DOJ here..........."What? One of our guys met with Russians? and lied about it??--Okay, we'll check it out. *Yawn* OK, nothing to see here. kthanxbai..."

[Botany]

24. Prince, "that the meeting happened by chance." 1,000 miles off the coast of Africa in the middle ..

... of the Indian Ocean and he just happened to run into a Russian agent and some middle eastern
bag men and or fixers .... nice little chance.

[CaptYossarian]

25. Can the bastard go to prison with his twisted sister?

Please, for the sake of our public schools?

[BumRushDaShow]

27. I agree with the two-fer

[calimary]

28. Take 'em DOWN. One by one. I doubt they could do a mass house-cleaning.

But it sure is a nice thought...

Just be quick about it, Dems! The clock is ticking.

[demmiblue]

34. K&R

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

39. Lock him up!!!!

[Mr.Bill]

41. Schiff needs to do this, of course,

but AG Barr will see to it that the DOJ completely ignores it.

[Texin]

42. To whom does Congress make the referral?

Does this get kicked up to the DOJ? If so, Barr will just shine it on.

I'm not familiar with the process in which a congressional committee head does this.

[dlk]

43. Prince Erik Has Been Dirty for Decades - Lock Him Up!

[cp]

45. You mean I might live long enough to see this war criminal meet Mrs Karma?

Sure hope so!

[mr_lebowski]

46. Betting that the Seychelles Meeting won't be all that's in the referral ...

He all but admitted to lying to Congress on live TV in an interview, reported on last month ... about a different meeting he was at.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/erik-prince-is-really-bad-at-lying.html