One of the recent reports on Bloomberg News raised a big red flag with me. They reported that banks and lenders associated with a 2008 Trump real estate deal in Florida were getting requests for information from the special counsel's office, but the report didn't name a single bank or lender that had received such a request. That's the kind of story that has "fake news based on a source who wants to deliberately mislead the public" written all over it.
Agreed. All inference from the size of Mueller's army and their expertise, I don't see Mueller's army as specializing in election law, and election law would be where election crimes are committed, e.g., "collusion with the Russians" whatever the heck that means. The expertise of Mueller's army is heavy on white collar crime.
I have not seen reports of response to subpoena or similar, other than Deutsche Bank expects subpoenas over Trump-Russia investigation. I don't see that as having any relation to the campaign. None at all.
On Scaramucci's remark, I went looking for the root of the story. This is as close as I got so far.
When asked if it's clear that Trump wants Sessions out of the White House, he told Hewitt "you're probably right," ultimately confirming the tension between the two is not getting any better."I have an enormous amount of respect for the Attorney General, but I do know the president pretty well," Scaramucci said, "and if there's this level of tension in the relationship that, that's public, you're probably right."
Although he added he didn't want to speak for the President on this, his next question to Hewitt was telling: "Are you available to be the Attorney General?"
I guess that's not a leak. He can't very well undercut the gist of Trump's tweets, no matter what. The tweets speak for themselves, etc. is the only stand WH spox ought to be taking.