Tierney Sneed

Tierney Sneed is a reporter for Talking Points Memo. She previously worked for U.S. News and World Report. She grew up in Florida and attended Georgetown University.

Articles by

As more details have been revealed about the cushy set-up Paul Manafort has in his current jail, a federal judge doubled down on his order that Manafort be moved to a new detention center — an order Manafort unsuccessfully asked the judge to reverse even though he had complained about the location of the rural Virginia jail currently holding him.

“It is surprising and confusing when counsel identifies a problem and then opposes the most logical solution to that problem,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis said in a footnote in the latest order. “The dissonance between defendant’s motion to continue and motion opposing transfer to Alexandria Detention Center cannot be easily explained or resolved.”

Ellis was first prompted to order Manafort’s transfer from Northern Neck Regional Jail in Warsaw, Virginia, to the detention center in Alexandria after Manafort complained about the location of Northern Neck in a court filing. Manafort last week asked the judge to delay the trial in the Virginia case — set to start in Alexandria later this month — claiming that his detention was impeding his trial prep. Manafort cited the rural jail’s distance from his attorneys’ offices, arguing it took them two-plus hours to drive there for in-person meetings.

Ellis has scheduled a hearing on the delay request, and on another Manafort request that the trial be moved to Roanoke, for next week. But earlier this week, Ellis also issued an order moving Manafort to the Alexandria detention center. Manafort then asked the judge to let him stay at Northern Neck because “issues of distance and inconvenience must yield to concerns about his safety and, more importantly, the challenges he will face in adjusting to a new place of confinement and the changing circumstances of detention two weeks before trial.”

Ellis denied Manafort’s request to reverse the order in a court document posted Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Mueller, in a court filing opposing the request to delay the trial, alleged that the rural jail had gone out of its way to facilitate Manafort’s trial prep, and said that Manafort himself said on a phone call that he was treated as a “VIP” in Northern Neck. Manafort has had his own living unit with a private bathroom and a personal phone, according to Mueller, and was also not required to wear the jail uniform.

Read the judge’s order that Manafort be moved to the new jail below:

Read More →

This story has been updated to include a court filing from Paul Manafort responding to special counsel Robert Mueller.

A court document filed by special counsel Robert Mueller Wednesday provides new details about the relatively cushy conditions Paul Manafort is facing in jail, and includes alleged comments Manafort made on monitored phone calls that undermine his lawyers’ request that his trial in Virginia be delayed. The filing was in response to a Manafort request to delay his trial scheduled this month.

Manafort had discussions on monitored phone calls about the “VIP” treatment he was receiving in jail, about the workaround he figured out to circumvent the jail’s ban on inmates sending emails, and about what’s driving his strategy to try to move the trial, contrary to the arguments put forward by his lawyers, according to Mueller.

The judge on Wednesday also scheduled a hearing for July 17 on Manafort’s request that the trial in Virginia case against be pushed back until after a D.C. trial scheduled in September is finished, as well as his request to move the Virginia trial from Alexandria to Roanoke.

Manafort had argued in filings last week that the move by the judge in the D.C. case to put in him jail while he awaits trial — after allegations he engaged in witness tampering — had severely impeded his preparation for the trial in Virginia, which is slated to begin later this month. His filings included the claim that he was being held in solitary confinement 23 hours a day — prompting his supporters and conservative journalists to suggest he was being treated unfairly.

Mueller, on Tuesday, alleged that last week’s delay request was the first time Manafort raised any concerns but how his detention was affecting his ongoing trial prep. The special counsel pointed to a number of details about his current detention — many of those details mentioned by Manafort himself on monitored phone calls — that suggested that the jail was going out of its away to facilitate his trial prep.

A footnote describes his “private, self-contained living unit,” with Manafort himself describing his treatment as “VIP,” according to prosecutors.

The living unit has a personal telephone that Manafort can “use over twelve hours a day to speak with his attorneys,” according to Mueller, and while each phone call is limited to 15 minutes, he can immediately reconnect with his attorneys once each 15 minute session is over.

“Manafort has had successive phone call sessions with his attorneys that have lasted
over forty minutes,” Mueller said, and over the last three weeks, Manafort has had “100 phone calls with his attorneys, and another 200 calls with other persons.”

While detailing the extensive access to phone calls with his attorneys — which are not monitored — Manafort has had, the special counsel also highlighted that Manafort allegedly explained on a monitored call that he had found a way around the jail’s ban on inmates using email.

The jail also provided Manafort with an extension cord so he can use his laptop in his cell, and not just in the workspace, according to Mueller.

Additionally, on a monitored called, Manafort suggested to the unnamed caller a strategy for moving the trial that was not among the reasons his attorneys floated in their request for the delay, according Mueller.

Mueller also pounced on Manafort’s request Tuesday that the judge reverse an order issued previously that day to move Manafort from his current jail in rural Virginia to one much closer to the Alexandria courthouse. The judge, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis ordered the move after Manafort had complained in his delay request about the distance of the rural jail from his attorneys’ offices.  Manafort in his request to stay in the rural jail said that “after further reflection, issues of distance and inconvenience must yield to concerns about his safety and, more importantly, the challenges he will face in adjusting to a new place of confinement and the changing circumstances of detention two weeks before trial.”

Manafort, in a response filed later Wednesday, accused Mueller of being “self-serving and inaccurate.”

“While the opposition does not generally misrepresent the confinement conditions, its cavalier dismissal of the challenges of preparing for back-to-back complex white collar criminal trials while the defendant is in custody shows a lack of concern with fairness or due process,” Manafort said.

He took issue with Mueller’s description of Manafort’s email use, arguing the communications were being sent by his lawyers “in a manner that is consistent with the rules of the detention facility.”

Referencing the comments Manafort made on phone calls about his conditions in jail, the court filing said that Mueller “not pause to consider the reasons a detained defendant might have to make his situation sound better when speaking with concerned friends and family.”

Read the full Mueller filing and Manafort’s response below:

Read More →

After previously complaining that the rural jail where he is awaiting trial was inconvenient for his trial prep, Paul Manafort asked a federal judge on Tuesday to reverse a previous order moving him to a detention center closer to the courthouse where his case will go to trial later this month.

“In light of Mr. Manafort’s continuing detention and after further reflection, issues of distance and inconvenience must yield to concerns about his safety and, more importantly, the challenges he will face in adjusting to a new place of confinement and the changing circumstances of detention two weeks before trial,” Manafort said in the court filing. “With these considerations in mind, Mr. Manafort respectfully asks the Court to permit him to remain in his current place of detention.”

The order U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis had issued earlier Tuesday moving Manafort came after a Manafort request that the trial in Virginia be delayed until after the trial for separate case Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought against Manafort in D.C. was finished. In the request for the delay, Manafort complained that it took two hours for his lawyers to travel to the rural Virginia jail, and his detention there made meetings with his attorneys “far more infrequent and enormously time-consuming compared to when he remained on house arrest and subject to GPS monitoring in Alexandria, Virginia.”

Manafort was sent to jail while he awaited trial by the judge in the D.C. case due to allegations he engaged in witness tampering.

Ellis ordered that he be moved to a detention center in Alexandria, from the jail 100 miles away in Warsaw, Virginia, “to ensure the defendant has access to his counsel and can adequately prepare his defense.”

Manafort, in his request that he stay in Warsaw after all, said that the issues he raised about the location of the jail were “aimed more at the difficulty of preparing for trial given Mr. Manafort’s detention versus his prior status on pretrial release.”

Read the full request below:

Read More →

A federal judge in Alexandria this week denied a request by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to throw out evidence obtained in a May 2017 search of his storage unit for the Virginia trial.

In a 23-page opinion issued on Monday and posted publicly on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis said there “are no grounds for suppression of the evidence recovered from the May 27, 2017 search of the storage unit, and defendant’s motion to suppress must be denied.”

Manafort made a similar request in the case brought against him by special counsel Robert Mueller in D.C., and the judge there also rejected his arguments.

Manafort had objected to the search, executed just days after Mueller took over the Justice Department’s Russia probe, because he took issue with an FBI agent entering the unit on May 26 without a warrant. The agent was let in by Manafort employee Alex Trusko who had a key and who told the agent he moved boxes for Manafort to the unit. Though Trusko’s name was on unit’s the lease, Manafort argued that Trusko did not have the authority to open the storage unit for the agent, Jeff Pfeiffer.

Manafort also argued that, even if the employee did have the authority, the warrant the FBI then sought after Pfeiffer entered and took photos in the unit was too broad.

Ellis on Tuesday rejected that argument as well.

“Trusko, defendant’s employee, leased the storage unit, regularly accessed the unit to unpack defendant’s business records, and retained a key to the unit. Thus, Trusko had common authority over the storage unit and validly consented to Special Agent Pfeiffer’s May 26, 2017 search of the storage unit,” Ellis wrote. “The May 27, 2017 warrant was also sufficiently particular given the nature of the alleged crimes to satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements. And even assuming Special Agent Pfeiffer’s warrant was overbroad, the executing agents reasonably relied on the magistrate judge’s issuance of the warrant to conduct the search and executed the search in a manner consistent with the terms of the warrant.”

While Ellis has been tough in his questioning of the special counsel’s team, this is the second time he’s ruled against Manafort, having also denied his request that the entire case be dismissed.

Manafort is facing charges that include bank fraud and tax fraud in Virginia. He has pleaded not guilty in that case, as well as in the case Mueller brought against him in D.C. The trial in Virginia is slated to begin at the end of July.

Read the full opinion on the search warrant below:

Read More →

The Senate Republicans and Democrats who are being watched most closely in the fight to confirm President Trump’s newly-minted Supreme Court pick were not eager to show their cards the day after the selection of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy was announced.

“I am going to be able to give you more of a reaction after I have an opportunity for more thorough review,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), whose support for Kavanaugh is crucial given her role in sinking the Senate GOP’s Obamacare repeal efforts and her position in favor of abortion rights, which could be at risk if Kavanaugh is confirmed.

“Look at my statement,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who is facing a costly re-election battle, said repeatedly when asked about his thoughts  on the judge.

Republicans leaders said they were hopeful that they’d be able to secure bipartisan support for Kavanaugh, an extremely conservative judge on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. With the margin tight — a single Republican defection could tank the nominee if Democrats unanimously oppose him — there is already pressure from Kavanaugh’s supporters on red state Democrats to back Kavanaugh. Three Democrats voted in favor of confirming Trump’s first Supreme Court pick, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“We are accumulating all of his decisions right now…the writings that he’s made,” said Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), who is up for re-election in November and voted for Gorsuch. “We look forward to having a meeting with him. I presume he’ll come over. And then I’ll start to make the decision.”

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), another yes vote for Gorsuch who’s up for re-election in 2018, declined to give her thoughts on the nominee, as her aide instructed reporters to refer to her statement from Monday evening,

“I haven’t met with him, so I don’t know,” Heitkamp said.

Even Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who announced his opposition to Gorsuch immediately after his selection was announced, said he was withholding his decision on Kavanaugh until he had the opportunity to meet him.

Brown said he never felt pressure to do things that are “wrong” and that he was “troubled” generally with the direction of the court in decisions siding with corporations over workers. He also alluded to a lawsuit challenging Obamacare’s protections for consumers with pre-existing conditions that’s expected to make it to the Supreme Court.

“I want to look him in the eye and talk to him about pre-existing conditions because there are literally millions of Ohioans who would potentially lose their insurance if these five men on the court would take away their consumer protections,” Brown said.

A key question is whether Democrats who may ultimately support Kavanaugh will wait to announce their vote until after Kavanaugh has secured the support of all 50 GOP senators (not counting Republican Sen. John McCain who is undergoing cancer treatments in Arizona, assuming he is unable to return for a confirmation vote).

Republican leaders indicated they would like to move briskly on the confirmation process, aiming to confirm Kavanaugh in the roughly two-month time frame that Justices Gorsuch and Elena Kagan won confirmation votes after their nominations were announced.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), like Murkowski, has expressed concerned about a Supreme Court reversal on abortion rights — cemented in the landmark decision Roe v. Wade — and has defied GOP leadership in the past, including on repealing the Affordable Care Act.

“I believe the judge has impressive credentials, he clearly has extensive experience having spent more than a decade as a judge on the D.C. circuit,” Collins said. “Never the less, I obviously want the opportunity to sit down with him one on one and to get a better sense of his judicial philosophy.”

She said that Kavananugh should not have to answer direct questions about Roe v. Wade, but that “there are other ways to get at the issue.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is another Republican vote to watch, given his libertarian views on privacy, which are at odds with some of Kavanaugh’s decisions.

Paul at first declined to answer questions about Kavanaugh Tuesday. But when asked specifically about a Kavanaugh opinion upholding the government’s collection of phone metadata without a warrant, Paul said that he was “keeping an open mind” and would “follow the process.”

Murkowski pointed to the “Republicans and Democrats alike” who have already have announced their vote on Kavanaugh.

“In my view, they’re not doing what it is that we need to do, which is to take this role of advice and consent seriously and do our homework,” Murkowksi said. “There’s a lot to look at with Judge Kavanaugh.”

Read More →

As the courtroom proceedings surrounding Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation have inched along, it’s become commonplace to see some protestors, or at least curious observers, show up to watch the high-profile defendants enter and exit the courthouse.

A hearing Tuesday in the case of former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn was no exception — particularly after far-right activists sought to organize a “flash mob” among his supporters.

Some of those demonstrators who showed up carried signs saying that they “support” Flynn. “Clear Flynn Now!” declared one sign. “You are a great American, Gen. Flynn,” said another.

But there were also Flynn critics outside the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol.

“Lock him up,” one of their signs said — a reference to the “lock her up” chants Flynn once led at Trump campaign events to rile up the crowd against Hillary Clinton. “Lock him up” chants also competed with his supporters’ cheers of “we support you” and “we’re with you, General Flynn!” when he entered and exited the courthouse.

At the brief hearing, which lasted barely 15 minutes, the parties reiterated that they were not ready to set a sentencing date yet — a sign that Flynn’s cooperation in the probe will continue — but that once they do, they would like to expedite the process. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he would look into scheduling Flynn’s sentencing hearing 60 days after the legal teams indicate he was ready for sentencing, rather than the typical 90 days.

Read More →

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was in a D.C. federal courthouse Tuesday for the first time since his plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller was announced last December, for a brief hearing ostensibly about a proposal to tweak the logistics around his yet unscheduled sentencing date.

The judge, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, admitted he also called the hearing, in part, because he hadn’t yet had any face-time with Flynn.

“There was a level of discomfort,” Sullivan said, with the idea of interacting with Flynn  for the first time when he appeared in front of the judge in the future for sentencing.

The judge initially assigned to Flynn’s case, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, recused himself soon after Flynn entered his guilty plea, and the case was randomly reassigned to Sullivan.

Flynn, in a red tie and a dark suit, looked upbeat in the courtroom, telling Sullivan he was “doing OK.”

Outside, a spattering of protesters, both supportive and critical of Flynn, had shown up after far-right activists had called for flash mob to support him.

Mueller’s team and Flynn’s attorneys had previously filed court documents requesting that the judge order the pre-sentencing investigation of Flynn begin even while the special counsel was not ready yet to set a sentencing date. In joint court filings, Mueller and Flynn said that “due to the status of the special counsel’s investigation,” they were not ready to schedule his sentencing, but were requesting that work on the probation office’s pre-sentencing report begin so that they could later seek a more “expedited schedule” once Flynn was ready for sentencing.

On Tuesday, Flynn attorney Robert Kelner said that Flynn was eager to bring this “chapter” of his life to a close, and the government had offered this
“appealing” proposal so that he could proceed to sentencing as soon as possible.

Sullivan said that he was concerned that such a request was burden on the probation office, and argued that it would have to do the pre-sentencing investigation all over again once Flynn’s sentencing date was scheduled.

Instead, the judge offered to schedule Flynn’s sentencing date 60 days after the parties announce that they’re ready to proceed to sentencing, instead of the usual 90 days — assuming that doing so wasn’t a burden on the probation officers pulling together the pre-sentencing report.

Both Kelner and Mueller’s team — represented by Brandon Van Grack — said that they would “welcome” that proposal.

Flynn — who, before serving briefly as President Trump’s national security adviser, was a top adviser to Trump’s campaign — pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his contact with a Russian official during the presidential transition. He was fired in February 2017 because, according to the administration, he also misled Vice President Mike Pence about those communications.

Flynn and Mueller are scheduled to file another status report on August 24.

Read More →

Lisa Page — the FBI attorney who exchanged scathing texts critical of then-candidate Donald Trump with another FBI official, Peter Strzok — has been subpoenaed by the House Judiciary committee to appear in front of lawmakers for private questioning on Wednesday, a committee aide confirmed to TPM.

Her scheduled appearance Wednesday was previously reported by Bloomberg and CNN.

In a statement, Page’s lawyer Amy Jeffress said she had been “working with the Committee staff to arrange Lisa’s voluntary appearance” but that the “committees have not followed the normal process.”

Page is set to appear before the lawmakers the day before Strzok will testify publicly in front of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees. Strzok previously sat for an 11-hour session of private questioning by lawmakers. His lawyers have accused lawmakers of “selectively leaking and misrepresenting” his private testimony, and have called upon lawmakers to release the transcript of the questioning.

Read the full Jeffress statement on Page’s cooperation below:

“We have been working with the Committee staff to arrange Lisa’s voluntary appearance.  We asked the Committee staff to explain the scope of the investigation and provide sufficient notice that would allow her to prepare, which are normal conditions for congressional committees, but these committees have not followed the normal process.  The FBI has agreed to provide Lisa with her notes and other documents to allow her to prepare, but they have not provided those documents to date, so we are still waiting to work out a reasonable date for her interview.  Lisa has cooperated voluntarily with another congressional committee that had no objection to explaining the scope of its investigation or providing sufficient notice for her interview.  Lisa also cooperated fully with the OIG investigation and appeared voluntarily for multiple interviews, including after she left the FBI.”

Read More →

The states and localities challenging the Trump administration’s addition of a citizenship question to the Census secured a small victory last week. A New York federal judge ordered the administration to turn over more information about the documents it was withholding related to its decision to add the question. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman also suggested that up to 10 government officials may deposed, according to reports from a hearing Furman held in the New York-led lawsuit on Tuesday.

Opponents of a redistricting reform effort in Michigan were able to persuade the state’s Supreme Court to hold a hearing on the initiative. The hearing will be on July 18; supporters of the reform effort hope to get the initiative on the November ballot. Five of the seven judges on the court are Republican-backed, and two have accepted money from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — one of the chief opponents of the redistricting reform proposal — in their 2018 re-election campaigns.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach — who was penalized by a judge for running afoul of her orders and of trial procedure in his proof-of-citizenship voter-registration case — indicated last week that he will not be representing himself, as he did at the trial court level, when he brings the case for review by an appeals court. Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt will be the lead counsel representing Kobach and the state during the appeal. Meanwhile, Kobach and the challengers of the requirement filed a joint status report with the district court judge outlining the steps the state has taken to be in compliance with her order striking down the proof-of-citizenship requirement. There are a few matters Kobach and the challengers seem to be in disagreement about, including whether Kobach can continue to track voters who show proof-of-citizenship when they register.

Less than a month after the Supreme Court issued its decision upholding Ohio’s system for purging voters from its rolls, Ohio Secretary of State John Husted issued a series of directives restarting the purges. No voters will be removed from the rolls before November’s midterm elections, but election officials can begin identifying voters who have not voted for two years and thus are candidates for being removed from the rolls. Unlike before, if voters renew a driver’s license or another state ID card using an address at which they are also registered to vote, it will confirm a voter’s address and prevent them from being purged. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, some 1.8 million Ohioans are at risk of being removed from the rolls.

Boston is considering a proposal to expand the franchise. At a hearing Tuesday, the City Council will weigh whether to allow non-citizens with legal status in the U.S. to vote in municipal elections.

Meanwhile, in Florida, a political committee has mounted a campaign to create, via an amendment to the state’s constitution, a “top two” primary system, like the one in California. The group behind the effort, Florida Fair and Open Primaries, is seeking to get the initiative on the ballot for the 2020 election and will need at least 766,200 petition signatures to do so.

Read More →

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort filed a series of court motions late Friday seeking to delay and move his trial in Virginia, which is slated to begin in Alexandria later this month. He also reiterated his concern about alleged leaks to the media from the FBI and Justice Department, despite the judge in the Virginia case previously showing skepticism that such allegations would be addressed in the lead-up to the trial.

“Mr. Manafort has been subject to negative press since the leaking of the Special Counsel’s investigation more than a year ago; however, the recent bail revocation and his subsequent detention has exacerbated the situation,” one of Manafort’s court filings said. “Time is needed to allow passions to cool and to permit the seating of an impartial jury.”

Manafort is facing charges that include bank fraud and tax fraud in Virginia, in a case that was brought in addition to the charges of money laundering and failure to disclose foreign lobbying brought against him by special counsel Robert Mueller in Washington, D.C. Manafort has pleaded not guilty in both cases.

Ironically it was Manafort who resisted the special counsel’s offer to consolidate the Virginia charges, brought in February, into the case in D.C., which was initially brought by Mueller last October. There was speculation that Virginia would offer Manafort a more favorable jury pool than D.C., but that keeping the trials separate also came at a risk, given the pro-prosecution bent of the Virginia district.

The D.C. case is scheduled to begin in September.

A Request to Delay the Virginia Case

It was well known, when Manafort first opted to let the case proceed in Virginia, that the Eastern District of Virginia has a reputation of moving quickly in case proceedings, earning it the nickname “rocket docket.”

Now Manafort is claiming he needs more time to prepare, pointing both to the decision by the judge in the D.C. case to put him jail while he awaits trial due to allegations of witness tampering, as well as the special counsel’s discovery production schedule.

According to Manafort, he received 50,000 pages of documents from Mueller only last Friday.

He requested that U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis delay the Virginia case until after his case in D.C. wraps up.

Manafort Offers More Details About Leak Allegations

At a hearing on June 29, Ellis said he wasn’t ready to hold a hearing on Manafort’s allegations of Justice Department leaks to the media, which Manafort requested. The judge also said he would not dismiss the case on the basis of the allegations, but that Manafort could seek a venue change (more on that later).

At that hearing, however, the special counsel turned over to Manafort notes drafted by the FBI on a meeting FBI agents and DOJ officials had with AP reporters in April 2017. The notes were referenced in questioning during the June hearing with an FBI agent who was present in the meeting and was later involved in a search of Manafort’s storage. (The appropriateness of that search was one of the topics of the hearing).

Manafort, on Friday, included those lightly-redacted notes in a court filing requesting that Ellis order the government to “turn over all communications and notes of the meeting as well as any internal complaints filed with respect to the same.”

Manafort Wants to Move The Trial To Roanoke

In addition to his request that his Virginia trial be delayed, Manafort on Friday requested that it be moved to Roanoke, an area of the state with a “more balanced” political split than Alexandria between Trump and Hillary Clinton supporters, Manafort said.

“It is not a stretch to expect that voters who supported Secretary Clinton would be predisposed against Mr. Manafort or that voters who supported President Trump would be less inclined toward the Special Counsel,” the filing said.

Should Mueller Get To Mention Manafort’s Trump Ties?

Manafort had requested last month that mention of Manafort’s work on the Trump campaign — which mostly came after the alleged activity giving rise to the charges — be excluded from the trial. On Friday, Mueller had a chance to respond in court filings.

The special counsel said that he specifically wanted to include in the case allegations that Manafort received $16 million in loans — using “false and fraudulent representations,” according to Mueller — from a bank whose executive was seeking to work for the Trump administration.

The banker, who is referred to as “senior executive at Lender D” in the Mueller filing, is Steve Calk, who served on the Trump’s campaign economic advisory team and reportedly desired to be Trump’s Army Secretary.

Read More →