Via Drudge: Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has alerted the White House that his team will probably seek to interview six top current and former advisers to President Trump who were witnesses to several episodes relevant to the investigation of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, according to people familiar with the request.
Mueller’s interest in the aides, including trusted adviser Hope Hicks, former press secretary Sean Spicer and former chief of staff Reince Priebus, reflects how the probe that has dogged Trump’s presidency is starting to penetrate a closer circle of aides around the president.
Each of the six advisers was privy to important internal discussions that have drawn the interest of Mueller’s investigators, according to people familiar with the probe, including his decision in May to fire FBI Director James B. Comey. Also of interest is the White House’s initial inaction after warnings about then-national security adviser Michael Flynn’s December discussions with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.
Mueller’s interest in the aides, including trusted adviser Hope Hicks, former press secretary Sean Spicer and former chief of staff Reince Priebus, reflects how the probe that has dogged Trump’s presidency is starting to penetrate a closer circle of aides around the president.
Each of the six advisers was privy to important internal discussions that have drawn the interest of Mueller’s investigators, according to people familiar with the probe, including his decision in May to fire FBI Director James B. Comey. Also of interest is the White House’s initial inaction after warnings about then-national security adviser Michael Flynn’s December discussions with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.
(Link to more)
3 comments:
He's got to show all those desperate Lefties he's making "progress", even though it's another dry hole.
And like any good author of novel of epic proportions Mueller draws a rope around all the characters and pulls them together into the scene of action.
Ha ha ha, I kill myself. Dude's fishing.
But you know what just now happened? There I was doing a NYT puzzle without a title provided, and there goes a major clue to its theme.
Four main entries. The first clue: Booze, resolved to "Hap_y_ _ _ _ _, so I filled in "happy juice."
The second main entry clue: Comment to a goner, resolved to "youre _ _ _ _ _, so I filled in you're toast.
And now I have the theme. Juice, toast, this sounds like breakfast.
The remaining solutions will be "something eggs" and "something bacon"
I skip all the fill that leads to the main entries and read the clues to the main entries.
The third main entry clue is: Czar's treasure. So without any filling support I wrote in "Faberge egg"
The fourth main entry clue is: Apollo 13 co-star, I haven't any idea. Didn't see the film. Don't know the actors. But I can confidently fill in, "Kevin Bacon" without any supporting fill.
Done.
The puzzle is only 1/3 filled in but all the thematic entries are filled. So I win. La la la. Take all your stinking fill and just shove it. What's the point in continuing? To prove I'm correct? Why? That would be like filling out a hospital form just to prove something silly.
I told you I win, and I did, so good day. Isaidgoodday!
*closes puzzle, drops in trash*
He's got nothin'.
Post a Comment