Mediaboss Marketing

EDITORS NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldbergs weekly newsletter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays.

Dear Reader (and high-quality persons everywhere),

Well, I jinxed it.

On Tuesday morning, I posted this mini-screed about how nobody knows anything about the Russia-collusion story, so the best course of action is to just wait for the facts to come in.

Trust Nothing, Defend Nothing was my advice.

(I wanted to turn this into a Latin slogan, but when I typed Trust Nothing, Defend Nothing into Googles Latin translation thingamabob I got Nihil confido, nihil pupillo defendite viduam. This looked fishy to me so I translated that back into English and got: I trust there is nothing, there is nothing, for the fatherless, plead for the widow. This seems either like World War II code for Were invading Belgium on Wednesday or the sign-language subtitles from Charlie Roses interview of Paco, the chain-smoking existentialist gorilla).

Anyway, where was I? Right: Trust Nothing, Defend Nothing.

This was bipartisan advice. On the one hand, the media get lots of stuff wrong and get way ahead of the facts. So, we should give Donald Trump some benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, the Trump White House lies like a randy sailor with eight hours of shore leave and not enough money for a professional date.

But the lying really isnt the problem. Sometimes the Trump team tells the truth. Sometimes it buries the kernels of truth in the larger nougat of B.S. The problem is that Trump and his people cant stay on message, whether its true or false. President Trump just doesnt care if he makes his surrogates, including members of his cabinet and family, look like chumps. Allow myself to repeat myself:

If there is one thing weve learned from this president, its that going too far out on a limb brings out the saw. Poor Steve Mnuchin. He went out on Sunday and heaped praise on this joint US-Russia Cyber Fox Force Five idea that the president blurted out on Twitter. Within a few hours, Trump left Mnuchin out to dry. It happens again and again.

And again, and again, and again.

Shortly after I said, wait and see because we dont know anything yet, we suddenly got some new information. Donald Trump Jr. released his e-mail chain about a meeting with a Russian lawyer. In this exchange, Rob Goldstone, who looks like he could land a great role in a Guy Ritchie remake of Boogie Nights, says:

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its governments support for Mr. Trump helped along by Aras and Emin.

I know everyone knows this stuff already. But I really want to make a few interrelated points.

Coerced Transparency

First, according to Team Trump, this was a bold and laudable act of transparency.

Um. No. This transparency argument is like a dye-marker to see who is intellectually serious and who is part of the great Trump Aqueduct, carrying water for the president wherever and whenever he needs it. Junior released his e-mail chain minutes before the New York Times could publish it. This is like bravely admitting to your wife that you cheated on her seconds before she opens the blackmailers envelope containing the 810 glossies of you at the Motel 6 with a troupe of dwarf acrobats using you like a pommel horse.

Heading off the Times was smarter than the alternative, just as telling your wife about your time with the cast of Le Petite Cirque du Soleil before the blackmailers get to her is better than the alternative. But after spending the better part of a year denying any contact whatsoever with the Russians and lying so baldly about this meeting, it takes a Costco pallet full of chutzpah to claim the mantle of transparency.

This, of course, is all the more true now that its being reported that Junior wasnt being transparent while he was bragging about his transparency. This morning, news came out that some sketchy former Soviet counter-intelligence officer was also in the room. (What are the odds he recorded the conversation, by the way? Id say theyre pretty high.)

The Room Where It Happened

Second, this underscores a point Ive been shouting at the TV all week: Why the Hell are people taking the word of anyone in that meeting as proof of anything? Before this mornings revelation, even members of the Trump-hostile press repeated that nothing came of the meeting or that no information was given. On the Trump Aqueduct, this was translated into the whole story being a nothingburger.

Where did the proof of this come from? From the people in the room! Jiminy Cricket, thats stupid.

It may be true that nothing came of the meeting. Heck, I think it probably is true (more on that in a moment). Junior seems plausible when he says as much. But every single person who was in that room has a very strong incentive to say nothing nefarious happened in the room. Well, when the Soprano crew is jointing a corpse in the backroom of Satriales, everyone there has a vested interest in sticking to the story that they were just playing cards.

Who in that room do you think is above lying about what transpired there? Paul Manafort? Forget his deep Russian connections. The guy was a lobbyist for Mobutu Seske Seko. When he worked for the Pakistani intelligence service, he pretended to be a CNN reporter for a propaganda documentary he was making for them. The only way you could say that mans word is oak is if Jell-O came out with a new oak-flavored pudding. (Now with real bark!)

Jared? The guy who initially forgot that meeting happened at all?

Don Jr.? We already know hes capable of lying about the meeting because hes already lied about the meeting.

Oh, maybe youre taking the word of the sketchy Russian lawyer. Thats a great idea. Its also kind of hilarious. Many of the people pushing back on this story are doing so by questioning Natalia Veselnitskayas credibility. But we should take her word that nothing happened? Cults of personality are a helluva drug.

[While I was editing the galley of this newsletter, the Associated Press reported that the sketchy former Soviet counter-intelligence guy, Rinat Akhmetshin, who was in the room claims that Veselnitskaya did indeed hand over a file of incriminating info. I guess this is just a smudge on the window of Juniors transparency.]

Admission as Exoneration

Which brings me to point No. 3. It doesnt frickn matter if note the if nothing came of the meeting. Junior cant claim he, Manafort, and Kushner never sought to collude with the Russian government when he admits that he, Manafort, and Kushner eagerly took a meeting for the express purpose of colluding with Russia. This is like one of those episodes of Datelines To Catch a Predator where some sleazebag is catfished into having a date with a 13-year-old girl only to show up and find Chris Hansen waiting in the kitchen with a transcript of their conversations. At least those scumbags had the integrity to lie and say it was all a misunderstanding and that they were just there because they really like hanging out and watching MTV and eating ice cream. We had a lot in common! I thought we could be friends!

I dont recall any of them saying, Hey, I didnt do anything wrong because I didnt actually get a chance to rape her.

If you break into a bank, you cant claim you did nothing wrong if the safe turns out to be empty any more than a terrorist can plead innocence if his bomb didnt go off.

The Corruption of Whataboutism

Which brings me back to my first point of the week. Why on Gods good Earth would you defend any of this? Since Ive been having this ridiculous argument all week, let me skip ahead. Yes, Crooked Hillary, Ted Kennedy, and a host of other liberals did bad things. Whether those bad things were analogous to this is highly debatable. But lets just concede the point for arguments sake. Lets also accept the presidents grotesquely cynical and false claim that pretty much anyone in politics would have done the same thing and taken the meeting. (I for one am perfectly happy to concede that Sidney Blumenthal would happily have done equally sleazy things for his Queen-master. But I have every confidence that if some shady Russian cutouts approached, say, James Baker with a similar scheme to incriminate Michael Dukakis, he would become a helicopter of fists.)

But heres the thing: Who gives a dirty rats ass? If you spent years like I did, by the way insisting that the Clintons were a corrupt affront to political decency, invoking their venal actions as a moral justification for Team Trumps actions is the rhetorical equivalent of a remake of Waterworld set entirely in the main vat of a sewage-treatment plant, i.e., the intellectual Mother of Sh*t Shows. This is a point Ben Shapiro made well earlier this week (and which Ive been writing about for two years now). If you want to make the case that Democrats or the media are hypocrites, whataboutism is perfectly valid (and quite fun). But if you want to say that its fine for Trump to do things you considered legally and morally outrageous when Hillary Clinton did them, you should either concede that you believe two wrongs make a right or you should apologize for being angry about what Clinton did. And you should be prepared to have no right to complain when the next Democrat gets into power and does the same thing.

What Next?

All of this said, I dont think we are anywhere near impeachment. The cries of treason are ridiculous. But I for one no longer believe that the collusion thing is mostly hype. We already know that Trump openly implored the Russians to dig up Clintons e-mails. We now know that Junior, Kushner, and thencampaign manager Manafort had no problem meeting with a person they believed to be an emissary of the Russian government. Moreover, not only am I unconvinced nothing damning happened in that room, I think theres merit to Chris Hayess analysis that there was an important phone call before the meeting.

I also think there are many shoes to drop with regard to Cambridge Analytica and the Mercers.

Erick Erickson may be right that this meeting was a setup. Trumps more-credible defenders certainly may be right that this is all the result of ineptitude and amateurishness. These guys are like a mix between Ron Jeremy and a yoga master in their ability to step on their own johnsons.

But my wait-and-see approach was grounded in the fact that other than Trumps public obsession with the Russia story including his firing of James Comey there was no concrete evidence that the Trump campaign had any dealings with the Russians. That benefit of the doubt is gone.

Various & Sundry

Canine Update: Despite all the promises that the swamp would be drained, D.C. is swampier than ever. Of course, I mean that meteorologically. D.C. is a miserable place right now. Its like a giant overheated St. Bernard has sauntered to the nations capital and is panting on it. The air is akin to what it would be like if the University of Alabama football team finished a double practice in the hot sun and then put their wet socks and jock straps in a pizza oven.

The dogs do not like it and neither do I. Thats why weve been going out earlier than usual, when the air is only as sticky as the joystick on a Ms. Pacman machine at Chuck E. Cheeses. But just as firemen still must do their heroic duty regardless of the weather, the Dingo is still determined to punish the rabbits for their maddening hoppiness. The Spaniel remains undaunted in her dedication to her beloved tennis balls. Although she did have a very scary run-in with a turtle of undetermined Ninjaness.

ICYMI...

Last weeks G-File: a defense of Western Civilization and Donald Trump (sort of)!

Re: Donald Trump Jr. and Russiagate, lets wait and see.

The state shouldnt decide Charlie Gards fate.

The latest Ricochet GLoP Culture podcast, with a special focus on New York movies.

Climate-change hysteria hurts its cause.

I was on NPRs Morning Edition on Friday.

And now, the weird stuff.

Debbys Friday links

The stones that move but whose movement no one has ever seen

Electrical fire or the gates to another dimension?

A brief history of people running across America

Kenyan runner outruns bears in Maine

Toby Maguires Spider-Man screen test

What could go wrong? Scientists recreate extinct virus

Arachnophobes should not click this link

Is this summer your best bet to see a solar eclipse?

Saucy Aussie checks a single beer as luggage when airline doesnt let it on the plane

Former NASA engineer creates worlds largest super soaker

Before Las Vegas, there was Newport, Kentucky

Behold: the firenado

World War II posters warning against venereal disease

McDonalds to drench French fries in cheese and bacon

Skull forms in smoke rising from Mount Vesuvius?

Couple tries lift from Dirty Dancing, knock each other out

See more here:
Donald Trump & Russia -- Benefit of the Doubt Now Gone ...

Donald Trump introduced his presidential campaign to the world with a slur against Mexican immigrants, accusing them of being rapists and bringing crime into the country.

I mean somebodys doing it! Whos doing the raping? Donald Trump said, when asked to defend his characterization.

It was an unfortunate turn of phrase for Trumpin more ways than one. Not only does the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination have a history of controversial remarks about sexual assault, but as it turns out, his ex-wife Ivana Trump once used rape to describe an incident between them in 1989. She later said she felt violated by the experience.

Michael Cohen, special counsel at The Trump Organization, defended his boss, saying, Youre talking about the frontrunner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as a private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you cant rape your spouse.

It is true, Cohen added. You cannot rape your spouse. And theres very clear case law.

Ivana Trumps assertion of rape came in a depositionpart of the early 90s divorce case between the Trumps, and revealed in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.

The book, by former Texas Monthly and Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III, described a harrowing scene. After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.

Your fucking doctor has ruined me! Trump cried.

What followed was a violent assault, according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivanas arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.

Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified It is a violent assault, Hurt writes. According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, he raped me.

Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there crying for the rest of night. When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.

As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: Does it hurt? Hurt writes.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

Donald Trump has previously denied the allegation. In the book, he denies having had the scalp reduction surgery.

Its obviously false, Donald Trump said of the accusation in 1993, according to Newsday. Its incorrect and done by a guy without much talent He is a guy that is an unattractive guy who is a vindictive and jealous person.

Cohen acknowledged Monday that he has not read the entire deposition but said he had read the two relevant pages of it, including the rape accusation.

Its not the word that youre trying to make it into, Cohen told The Daily Beast, saying Ivana Trump was talking about how she felt raped emotionally She was not referring to it [as] a criminal matter, and not in its literal sense, though theres many literal senses to the word.

Cohen added that there is no such thing, legally, as a man raping his wife. You cannot rape your spouse, he said. Theres very clear case law.

That is not true. In New York, there used to be a so-called marital rape exemption to the law. It was struck down in 1984.

Trumps lawyer then changed tactics, lobbing insults and threatening a lawsuit if a story was published.

I will make sure that you and I meet one day while were in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still dont have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know, Cohen said. So Im warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what Im going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?

You write a story that has Mr. Trumps name in it, with the word rape, and Im going to mess your life up for as long as youre on this frickin planet youre going to have judgments against you, so much money, youll never know how to get out from underneath it, he added.

When Lost Tycoon was about to be printed, Donald Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ivana, which was posted on the first page of the book. In it, Ivana confirms that she had felt violated and that she had stated that her husband had raped her during a divorce deposition. But Ivana sought to soften her earlier statement.

During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me, the Ivana Trump statement said. [O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a rape, but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.

The statement, according to a Notice to the Reader in the book, does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book.

Nevertheless, Cohen, Trumps attorney, said that there is nothing reasonable about you wanting to write a story about somebodys usage of the word rape, when shes talking [about how] she didnt feel emotionally satisfied.

Though theres many literal senses to the word, if you distort it, and you put Mr. Trumps name there onto it, rest assured, you will suffer the consequences. So you do whatever you want. You want to ruin your life at the age of 20? You do that, and Ill be happy to serve it right up to you, he added.

I think you should go ahead and you should write the story that you plan on writing. I think you should do it. Because I think youre an idiot. And I think your papers a joke, and its going to be my absolute pleasure to serve you with a $500 million lawsuit, like I told [you] I did it to Univision, Cohen continued.

The 1990 divorce case between the two Trumps was granted on the grounds of Donalds cruel and inhuman treatment of Ivana. The settlement, under which the Trumps agreed on the division of assets, was finalized in 1991. Her divorce involved a gag order that keeps her from talking about her marriage to Donald Trump without his permission.

Divorce records in New York state are not open to public inspection. But some of the legal documents surrounding the contract dispute over the Trumps prenuptial agreement are still available and were reviewed by The Daily Beast.

In one such document, Ivana Trumps lawyers claim that in the three years preceding their divorce Donald Trump, has increasingly verbally abused and demeaned [her] so as to obtain her submission to his wishes and desires as well as humiliated and verbally assaulted her. The New York County Clerks records office couldnt locate at least one box of documents relating to the contract dispute. (Its not uncommon for court files to go missing.)

Ivana Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

Donald Trump has a history of grandstanding on rape. His controversial campaign-trail comments this year about Mexicans were hardly the first time he has waded into the hot-button issue of sexual assault.

Two years ago, Trump weighed in on the alarming rate of sexual assault and rape in the militaryand in doing so, pinned the blame on the presence of women.

26,000 unreported sexual [assaults] in the militaryonly 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together? he tweeted in 2013. The Generals and top military brass never wanted a mixer but were forced to do it by very dumb politicians who wanted to be politically [correct]! he continued.

In 1989, the real estate mogul placed a full-page ad in four New York City newspapers calling for the execution of the five alleged rapists of Trisha Meili, the Central Park jogger who was put in a coma by her assailants. The defendants received different sentences and served between six and 13 years behind bars before new evidence of coerced confessions emerged that led to their convictions being vacated in 2002.

Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS! Trumps 1989 ad blared. BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!

Trumps other public statements on rape cases range from tone-deaf to offensive. In 1992, he floated the idea that convicted rapist and boxer Mike Tyson should be allowed to pay millions and millions of dollars to rape victims instead of serving jail time. Trumps modest proposal did not go over well.

How offensive, shot back Dollyne Pettingill, spokeswoman for the mayor of Indianapolis, where Tyson committed the assault. We have a judicial process for these matters and its not for sale.

Whether Trumps comments about rapeor the accusation of assault from his ex-wifewill hurt his burgeoning political career is an open question. So far, Trump has been able to shake off the sorts of scandals that would destroy any other campaign for president. Dissing Mexican immigrants and prisoners of war has not cost him his campaign, nor has his history of giving to Democratic campaigns. In the latest CNN poll, Trump leads all other candidates in the Republican presidential field, with 18 percent support.

with additional reporting by Nina Strochlic and Asawin Suebsaeng

Update 7/28/15 9:50 AM: Ivana Trump released a statement Tuesday morning to CNN.

I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.

Ironically, Ivana says a story based on her own words in a divorce deposition are totally without merit.

In further irony, Trump is distancing himself from his lawyer.

Mr. Trump speaks for Mr. Trump and nobody but Mr. Trump speaks for him, a campaign source told CNN.

See the original post:
Ex-Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel Violated During Sex

On behalf of the American people, I would like to wish all Muslims a joyful Ramadan. During this month of fasting from dawn to dusk, many Muslims in America and around the world will find meaning and inspiration in acts of charity and meditation that strengthen our communities. At its core, the spirit of Ramadan strengthens awareness of our shared obligation to reject violence, to pursue peace, and to give to those in need who are suffering from poverty or conflict. This year, the holiday begins as the world mourns the innocent victims of barbaric terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom and Egypt, acts of depravity that are directly contrary to the spirit of Ramadan. Such acts only steel our resolve to defeat the terrorists and their perverted ideology. On my recent visit to Saudi Arabia, I had the honor of meeting with the leaders of more than 50 Muslim nations. There, in the land of the two holiest sites in the Muslim world, we gathered to deliver together an emphatic message of partnership for the sake of peace, security, and prosperity for our countries and for the world. I reiterate my message delivered in Riyadh: America will always stand with our partners against terrorism and the ideology that fuels it. During this month of Ramadan, let us be resolved to spare no measure so that we may ensure that future generations will be free of this scourge and able to worship and commune in peace. I extend my best wishes to Muslims everywhere for a blessed month as you observe the Ramadan traditions of charity, fasting, and prayer. May God bless you and your families.

Go here to read the rest:
Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Ramadan ...

By Washington bureau chief Zoe Daniel, Roscoe Whalan and staff

Updated August 03, 2017 14:41:38

The White House has unveiled a new immigration plan based in part on the Australian model, but the press conference descended into acrimony as senior White House adviser Stephen Miller traded barbs with a CNN reporter.

The bill, called the Raise Act, would overhaul the rules for legal immigration, focusing on skilled immigrants and cutting overall numbers by 50 per cent over the next 10 years.

President Donald Trump introduced the plan alongside two Republican senators in the White House, with officials saying the plan was based in part on the Australian and Canadian immigration models.

"The competitive application process will favour applicants who can speak English, financially support themselves and their families, and demonstrate skills that will contribute to our economy," Mr Trump said.

"The Raise Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare, and protects US workers from being displaced".

The bill faces a difficult passage through Congress, with Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying the proposal "doesn't make much sense".

When the ABC asked Mr Miller which parts of the Australian policy were being adopted, Mr Miller replied: "We looked at the Australian system, the Canadian system, we took things we liked, we added things that made sense for America where we are as a country right now".

"One of the things that I think is most compelling about the Australian system is the efforts to make sure that immigrants are self-sufficient, and make sure they're able to pay for their own health care and things of that nature, and that's certainly one of the things we took from that.

"Obviously the points-based system that Canada has, has a lot to recommend it and actually we took that and we added things that were all new to it and were released today and that make sure we have a highly competitive application process."

While taking questions from the press about the new bill, Mr Miller found himself in a verbal battle with CNN reporter Jim Acosta, who said restricting immigration to people who could already speak English was an unfair requirement.

Mr Miller took particular umbrage to Acosta's suggestion that the bill may effectively restrict access to "people from Great Britain and Australia".

"Jim, I am shocked at your statement," Mr Miller said.

"That you think that only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English, it reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree.

Acosta then told Mr Miller the plan "sounds like you're trying to engineer a racial and ethnic flow of people into this country", which provoked an equally passionate response.

"Jim, that is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant and foolish things you've ever said," Mr Miller said. "The notion that you think this is a racist bill is so wrong and so insulting."

Topics: donald-trump, person, government-and-politics, world-politics, united-states

First posted August 03, 2017 07:20:15

See the rest here:
Donald Trump's new Australia-inspired US immigration plan ...

Donald Trump would resign before Congress is able impeach him, a senior US representative has said, as pressure mounts over his team's alleged links to Russia.

Jackie Speier, who sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said attempts by the President to pardon members of his family or fire the man appointed to investigate Russian meddling in last years presidential election could trigger an impeachment vote.

I have always thought that he was never going to fulfil his full term, she said.

I am more convinced that he will leave before any impeachment would take place.

On Friday it emerged that the special counsel appointed to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 vote, Robert Mueller, was using a grand jury suggesting his probe was entering a new, more serious, phase.

The move piled further pressure on the President, whose seven months in office have been dogged by accusations that his team worked with Russia to swing the vote.

Speaking on Radio 4s Today programme, Ms Speier said: I do think the potential for the House to start to think in terms of impeachment is not outside the realm of possibility.

It is not something that would be happening any time soon but if the President were to act precipitously at any of these situations, pardoning his family members, taking actions to try and get rid of Mr Mueller, I think those would be tipping points and could end up in the House calling forimpeachment.

Democrat files first articles of impeachment against Donald Trump

In order for Mr Trump to be impeached, a simple majority (50 per cent plus one representative) is needed in the House.

A trial would then take place in the Senate, where a two-thirds vote is needed to remove him from office.

Ms Speier said the current makeup of the House of Representatives meant only 24 Republicans were needed to join with Democrats in order to pass an impeachment vote.

Describing the similarities between the Mr Trump and Richard Nixon, who resigned following attempts to impeach him, as stark, she said the investigation into the incumbent president could get very muddy very quickly, adding: You cant make this up, that is what is so mind boggling.

MrMuellerwas appointed special counsel in May by the justice department following the firing by Mr Trump of FBI director James Comey.

He has since assembled a team of more than a dozen investigators, including current and former justice department prosecutors with experience in international bribery, organised crime and financial fraud.

News of the grand jury came as senators introduced two bills aimed at protecting MrMuellerfrom being fired by Mr Trump, with both parties signalling resistance to any White House effort to derail the investigation into Russian meddling in last year's election.

Mr Trump's defence team has been looking into potential conflicts of interest among members of Mr Mueller's team, such as past political contributions to Democrats including Hillary Clinton.

Mr Trump has warned that any effort by Mr Mueller to look into his finances would fall outside the scope of Mr Mueller's appointment.

Continue reading here:
Donald Trump likely to resign before Congress can impeach him ...