Pdf - Oath Of Candidacy & Nomination Petition: Fill & Download for Free

Like most everyone else, I can’t help but wonder what good the Republicans think those witnesses would do for the president and themselves. The same four individuals are suggested over and over again, for the same purposes every time. They are:A. Hunter Biden.B. Joe Biden.C. Adam Schiff.D. The whistleblower.From the context in which Republicans have mentioned them in the public hearings, we have a pretty good idea of what questions they want to ask. But we also have a pretty good idea how the witnesses are likely to answer, and all but the whistleblower should be positively eager to testify, even if it means the Republicans end up airing their grievances, to their faces, at length. Which is to say: I will be speculating about what the witnesses would say if they were summoned, and this is going to get long. If you want a direct answer to the question, you may skip to part D.A. Hunter Biden. One handy, if not completely objective, source of publicly available facts about him is Jim Geraghty, Hunter Biden: The Most Comprehensive Timeline, National Review, 30 Sept. 2019.Q Please explain your relationship with the Ukraine-based natural gas production company called Burisma.A I was a member of the board of directors.Q When were you a member of the board?A From April 2014 until earlier this year.Q Was this not during the time your father was vice president?A The early part of it was, yesQ You are aware that this presents at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.A We know this now, yes.Q You should have realized it earlier. Your hiring was criticized in the press at the time for this very reason. With unanimous consent, I would enter into the record an example of this commentary: Adam Taylor, Hunter Biden’s new job at a Ukrainian gas company is a problem for U. S. soft power, Washington Post, 14 May 2014.I actually don’t know exactly how the exhibition of evidence would work in the Senate with Chief Justice Roberts presiding, but I don’t imagine that he would object. But this is not a question, and Biden and his counsel need only say so, and that would probably end this line of questioning.Q What was your compensation?I cannot anticipate this answer, because it’s likely to be complicated. It may begin with a base figure around $50,000 per month, as National Review reports, but perhaps with allowances that bring the total closer to $83,000 per month, as Republicans have been claiming recently.Either way, it’s more for one month than many Americans make in a year, and Republicans have been milking it for maximum populist resentment. But their games with the exact number make it hard to compare with figures that are typical for a corporate board director anywhere.Q What was your prior experience in the industry?A I had experience as a lawyer and executive, but nothing specific to the oil and gas industry.Q Is it typical for members to be appointed to a corporate board without experience in the industry?A I don’t know.Q Why do you think you were recruited to work there?A I can’t speak to their reasons. You should ask them.Q Was it not because they expected access to the sitting vice president of the United States?A I cannot speak to that.There is no disputing the facts here. Biden has little choice but to say “true” or “I don’t know” to every question and get it over with. The Republicans can claim impropriety all they want, and everyone realizes how it looks now; but this is not the time or place to adjudicate the claim. As much as Republicans would love it to be so, their political opponents are not on trial.B. Joe Biden. With him, the nub of the matter is his effort to persuade then Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to remove top prosecutor Viktor Shokin in 2015, and his use of financial pressure to achieve it. Biden’s extemporaneous account before the Council on Foreign Relations was dramatic but confusing, and the financial pressure didn’t work alone or as fast as Biden represented. (For what it’s worth, this tendency to muddle himself on the fly is one reason I don’t support his candidacy for president.) For the facts, Glenn Kessler, Correcting a media error: Biden’s Ukraine showdown was in December 2015, Washington Post, 2 Oct. 2019, is essential.Q Your last official position was vice president of the United States.A Correct.Q When did you leave this office?A January 20, 2017.Q Were you involved in the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts with Ukraine?A Yes, as were lots of others within the White House and the State Department.Q How many conversations did you have with Ukrainian administration officials during the term?A Oh, there must have been at least a few dozen.Q Your son is Hunter Biden.A Yes.Q He was a member of the board of directors of Burisma at the time?A Yes.Q When did your son begin working for Burisma?A April 2014.Q Did you ever discuss executive decisions with him?A No.Q Why not?A He’s an adult. He makes his own decisions about his career. I don’t get involved. I told him I wouldn’t get involved when he took the position. And I never did.Q Do you know that having your son on the board of directors in a company based in a notoriously corrupt foreign country, while you were heavily involved in diplomatic relations with the same country, presents the appearance of a conflict of interest?A It could.Q We heard in the House Intelligence Committee that George Kent was concerned enough about such an appearance to cancel the embassy’s cosponsorship with Burisma in a youth contest in Ukraine [Diplomats Bill Taylor and George Kent Impeachment Inquiry Testimony, C-SPAN, 13 Nov. 2019, at 3:04:44–3:05:45].A I wasn’t involved in that decision, and I can’t speak to it.Q Did the company come under investigation for corrupt practices while your son was working there?A Well, I’ve heard reporting that there was, and I believe it’s correct.Q Do you know when it began?A No, but it was reported in the American press starting at least in December 2015.Q Near the time of your visit to Ukraine?A Yes.Q Who was in charge of the investigation?A Viktor Shokin, the Prosecutor General.Q Did you not ask the president of Ukraine to remove him, and threaten to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if he didn’t?A Yes.Q Does this not rise to quid pro quo?A Possibly.The logical follow-up to this last line of questioning is to ask why Biden did something that arguably rises to quid pro quo. The answer, of course, is that he did so in the pursuit of a legitimate anti-corruption interest. Shokin was known for dragging his feet on corruption investigations. Furthermore, he was even more notorious among our European Union allies, and they had been pushing for his removal, too. A better investigator on Burisma might have exposed Hunter Biden to more scrutiny, not less. The implication that Joe Biden’s move against Shokin was motivated by an attempt to protect his son is completely backward.Democrats have to admit that some proposed exchanges between foreign countries are legitimate. But the comparison is hazardous for the Republicans, because Trump’s effort hardly qualifies as a legitimate anti-corruption interest. Not if it dwells on Joe Biden’s eligibility as a presidential candidate in 2020, nor on relitigating the 2016 election via the CrowdStrike investigation of the DNC server. CrowdStrike’s involvement itself began with Trump’s own encouragement of Russian interference. The Russians immediately hacked the server, and CrowdStrike ultimately was commissioned by the FBI to perform technical analysis on the server.The major concerns that come through on Trump’s end of that conversation all relate to domestic U. S. politics, not clean Ukrainian government. By contrast, Biden’s record is distinguished by an absence of confounding personal motives. He comes out cleaner than Trump, as experienced, serious-minded politicians tend to do, and you can’t take that away.C. Adam Schiff. As chair of the House Intelligence Committee, he has generated unexpected controversy. We may expect three related issues to preoccupy the Republicans.Q Have you read the official transcript of the conversation between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine?A Yes.Q When did you first read the transcript?A Immediately after it was released to the public, on September 25, 2019.Q We would like you to read a statement you made in a public hearing of your committee on the following day, September 26. Would you please read what you said?A “We’ve been very good to your country, very good, no other country has done as much as we have, but you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though, and I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I’m going to put you in touch with the Attorney General of the United States, my Attorney General, Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him, trust me. You know what I’m asking, and so I’m only going to say this a few more times in a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.” [Acting Director of National Intelligence Maguire Testifies on Whistleblower Complaint, C-SPAN, 26 Sept. 2019, at 07:38–08:49]Q Was this an exact quote from the transcript?A No, but it wasn’t meant to be. It conveyed my interpretation of what Trump had told Zelensky. And I was very clear about that before the part we’ve just quoted, and in statements to the press after the hearing,Q Don’t you think it was wrong to misstate the president’s words in a public hearing?A I did not misstate the president’s words.Q But you did mischaracterize the president’s intent. This was not a pressure campaign.A The president’s intent is not for me to judge for the purpose of convicting and removing him from office, and I am entitled to use my own words in official proceedings of the House.Schiff’s constitutional warrant for saying something like this last would be in Article I, Section 6: “The Senators and Representatives … shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place” (The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription, National Archives, last updated 19 Nov. 2019).Q Did you have any knowledge of the transcript’s contents before then?A My knowledge was very limited.Q How so?A I had only heard that a whistleblower had reported concerns to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. I couldn’t connect it to the July 25 phone call until the complaint was made public.Q How did you first learn of the complaint?A The whistleblower met with the staff of the House Intelligence Committee sometime in August or September, 2019.Q Can you tell us what the whistleblower stated at this time?A I can only tell you what the staff reported to me, which they considered within the limits prescribed by the Whistleblower Protection Act. I was told that it would be a privileged complaint, likely to involve personal acts of the president relating to foreign policy. I was also told that he planned to report it anonymously to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.Q Why do you think he went to your committee staff?A I can only answer based on what I’ve heard from media reports. He had filed an anonymous complaint with counsel in his own agency, but based on internal discussions of the matter, he thought it unlikely to result in meaningful oversight. So he decided to report to the next higher oversight body, and that was the ICIG. He approached the Intelligence Committee staff because he wanted guidance, and he thought that Congressional oversight was likely to begin in that committee.Q Did you receive any other information on the substance of the expected complaint?A Not until the complaint was first publicly reported, in mid-September.Q Have you or your representative’s office staff had personal contact with the whistleblower at any time?A No.Q Would you turn over your office’s and the committee’s records relating to the complaint?A No.Q Why not?A That would risk revealing the whistleblower’s identity. He reported through an anonymous process, in order to protect his livelihood and his family. He did so out of concern for the country, and we owe him that privilege.Q This concern with anonymity is rather novel. You appeared on Morning Joe on September 17. Would you repeat what you said on that occasion?A “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to. But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the Inspector General or the Director of National Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.” [Also reported by Glenn Kessler, Schiff’s false claim that his committee had not spoken to the whistleblower, Washington Post, 4 Oct. 2019, from which this text is adapted.]From here, the discussion is likely to proceed along two tracks. One concerns whether the whistleblower is entitled to anonymity as a matter of law. This is likely to provoke disagreement, with Schiff saying yes and Republican senators saying no. The other discussion is likely to concern why Schiff had proposed that the whistleblower make some statement of the facts on September 17. Recently, leading Democrats’ answer to questions like this has been that the facts are much better attested by other witness testimony, and the whistleblower’s testimony is both derivative and redundant. Schiff likely would repeat that argument before the Senate, but the most widely reported version of it may be George Conway’s.Someone calls 911 because they hear shots down the street at the bank. The cops show up at the bank, and, sure enough, it’s been robbed, and there are numerous witnesses there who saw the crime. The suspects confess. Normally, at this point, no one cares about who called 911. https://t.co/n9DrXiB9Qm— George Conway (@gtconway3d) October 15, 2019D. The whistleblower. This is the only witness I would expect to challenge a subpoena. The publicly known information about him (yes, him) is reported mainly in Julian E. Barnes, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman, and Katie Benner, White House Knew of Whistle-Blower’s Soon After Trump’s Call With Ukraine Leader, New York Times, 26 Sept.–26 Nov. 2019. He reportedly is a CIA officer, although his lawyers refused to confirm even that detail. This is the source from which I would expect Schiff to learn almost everything about the timing of the complaint—all, that is, which was not communicated by the committee staff. My speculative characterization of Schiff’s testimony is largely drawn from that story.In fact, the same story quotes another private attorney with relevant experience, Dan Meyer, to suggest that the whistleblower made a mistake by alerting the agency lawyer first. “I always advise whistle-blowers against going to general counsels because the general counsels have to report the matter,” Meyer said. “They are like tuna in a shark tank.” The whistleblower’s first choice of reporting channel probably compromised his anonymity and linked him with the CIA from the beginning.Some reporters took this detail from the Times story, and others from Michael K. Atkinson, Intelligence Community OIG Letter to DNI on Whistleblower Complaint, 26 Aug. 2019 (PDF, via C-SPAN)—especially where Atkinson said that the complaint contained “some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate”—and suggested they fit the profile of one particular CIA analyst. The first to do this was Paul Sperry, The Beltway’s ‘Whistleblower’ Furor Obsesses Over One Name, Real Clear Investigations, 30 Oct. 2019, but it became a pro-Trump staple after Breitbart picked it up and then Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out the Breitbart piece.I won’t repeat the alleged whistleblower’s name here because his involvement has never actually been confirmed. But Republicans have been pleased to take Sperry’s details (omitting the alleged name only as a further token of their scorn for the Democrats’ regard for the whistleblower’s anonymity) and apply them to the whistleblower as if it were confirmed. This is not just a misuse of journalism; it makes a mockery of the whistleblower’s legitimate interest in his anonymity.If the whistleblower refuses to answer a subpoena from the Senate, there are two options. It can either take the subpoenas to court and try to get an order for the whistleblower to comply, or complain about obstruction and leave it at that. This second option is the one that Schiff took with uncooperative fact witnesses. He seems to have been driven to it by the risk in going to court: that the motion might either fail or take more time than the business of impeachment could possibly spare. Some say that Schiff is taking that risk too seriously. I have quoted Kim Wehle in a recent answer (Austin Spencer’s answer to Why don’t Democrats subpoena the people with first hand evidence of his quid pro quo? 4 Dec. 2019). “Even if some House subpoenas end up stuck in litigation for months,” Wehle writes, “the chamber can move forward with impeachment anyway. The result, in short, will be no worse than the status quo” (The House Is Making This Fight Too Easy for Trump, The Atlantic, 2 Dec. 2019). Based on his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last week, Jonathan Turley might be another.By opting not to press such witnesses as Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Ulrich Brechbuhl, Schiff forfeited the chance of asking them questions on penalty of perjury. Senate Republicans have to ask themselves if they are prepared to make a similar sacrifice of credibility on the whistleblower. But even if not, it could take until after January 2021 to get the answer. And if Senate Republicans are anxious enough to stage a vote on the president’s acquittal, they might well decide it’s not worth waiting for answers to their questions for him. Especially if, as I suspect, they are likely to find the answers unsatisfactory.Q Were you in fact biased against President Trump, as the ICIG suggested was possible?A It’s not relevant. According to my oath of office, my duty is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the president has committed acts that weaken our constitutional order, he must not be exempt from scrutiny or sanction.Q Is it true that you worked for the CIA and had working relationships with Joe Biden while he was engaged in leading our diplomatic efforts with Ukraine, as has been reported?A I cannot answer this question, on the basis of maintaining my anonymity for the purposes of the complaint.Q Where did you get the information that you reported to the ICIG?A I cannot extend beyond what I reported in the complaint. My complaint states what I learned in the course of my official duties from multiple official sources. I also may not divulge my sources, at the risk that they, too, might suffer retaliation.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election ended without finding evidence that President Donald Trump or the Trump campaign knowingly participated in the scheme.Mueller's 22-month investigation, however, netted indictments against 34 people and three entities on nearly 200 separate criminal charges. Five associates of Trump have been convicted, and another, Roger Stone, is awaiting trial.Here’s a look at all of the charges stemming from Mueller’s investigation**Paul Manafort:** Prosecutors accused Manafort (Redacted Indictment (02:26:2018)), former Trump campaign chairman, of laundering over $30 million in overseas income, using a network of companies to mask millions he earned as a political consultant and lobbyist for Ukrainian politicians. The charges were not connected to Manafort’s work for Trump. Manafort pleaded guilty and a jury convicted him on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. In March 2019, a federal judge sentenced Manafort to four years in prison (Comparing Manafort's sentence to life sentence for pot sale) and then a separate federal judge sentenced Manafort to 3 1/2 years related to secret foreign lobbying and witness tampering (Manafort faces state charges after drawing more federal time).Manafort also is facing a 16-count indictment (https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/aaaad562-f00d-4b86-b2bc-8633bd68c80e/note/e562fab2-51b6-4bfd-adde-e9792e2bf91f.pdf)in New York. The indictment alleges Manafort lied on mortgage loan applications. That indictment, too, is unrelated to Manafort’s specific dealings with Trump and the Trump campaign.**Rick Gates:** A top deputy to Manafort, Gates pleaded guilty in February 2018 to lying to investigators and financial fraud related to hiding money he earned lobbying for politicians in the Ukraine along with Manafort. Gates agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s office. In January, Mueller asked a federal judge to delay his sentencing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/sentencing-again-delayed-for-trump-campaign-aide-rick-gates-who-continues-to-cooperate-in-mueller-probe/2019/01/15/162bdab4-184f-11e9-9ebf-c5fed1b7a081_story.html?utm_term=.81cc7e1c81f8). Like Manafort, Gates’ guilty plea does not have direct ties to Trump or the Trump campaign.**Retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn:** Flynn was a campaign adviser (Michael Flynn timeline: Trump aide to Mueller witness) to Trump and then briefly his national security adviser. In November 2017 Flynn pleaded guilty (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4318003/Gov-Uscourts-Dcd-191592-1-0-2-1.pdf) to lying to the FBI about his discussions with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition. Flynn and Kislyak had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia for election meddling.On the same day Flynn was sworn in, news reports said he was under investigation by agencies looking into Russian officials’ contact with close Trump associates. Flynn denied to the FBI that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Sally Yates, then-acting attorney general, told White House counsel Don McGahn that intercepts contradicted Flynn’s account of his Dec. 29, 2016, conversation with Kislyak.Flynn resigned after 24 days in his role. He later entered a plea agreement with Mueller. A federal judge in December 2018 delayed Flynn’s sentencing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/michael-flynn-trumps-former-national-security-adviser-scheduled-to-be-sentenced/2018/12/17/19ce1bb4-0247-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html?utm_term=.2d15b7e5da45).**George Papadopoulos:** A campaign adviser (What you need to know about Manafort indictment) on foreign policy, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty (George Papadopoulos Stipulation and Plea Agreement) in October 2017 to lying to the FBI about his efforts to put the Trump campaign in contact with Moscow. In March 2016, Papadopoulos met in London with a professor who introduced him to a Russian woman, who Papadopoulos believed (https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download) to be a relative of Putin with links to senior Russian officials. Papadopoulos told (https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download) Trump, Jeff Sessions and other campaign officials that he could use his Russian connections to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin.In September 2018, Papadopoulos was sentenced (Ex-Trump Campaign Adviser George Papadopoulos Sentenced to 14 Days In Prison) to 14 days in jail and a year of supervised release after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI.According to Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee, it was information from Papadopoulos that triggered the FBI’s original investigation into the Trump campaign and the Russian government. That investigation landed in Mueller’s hands in May 2017, when Trump fired FBI director James Comey.**Michael Cohen:** A longtime Trump lawyer and adviser, Cohen pleaded guilty (What Michael Cohen's guilty plea means for Donald Trump) in August 2018 in federal court to a series of criminal charges, including a campaign finance law violation that implicated the president but was unrelated to the Russia interference investigation. Cohen said that Trump directed him to pay hush money (Donald Trump and hush money: On par with jaywalking?) to two women to stay silent about their alleged affairs with Trump. Cohen also was convicted of charges surrounding bank and tax fraud. The case was handled by prosecutors for the Southern District of New York.In November 2018, Cohen additionally pleaded guilty (http://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5331441/Cohen-False-Statements-Criminal-Information.pdf) to lying to Congress about the Russian-based development proposal Trump Tower Moscow. Cohen admitted he lied when he told lawmakers he had only briefed Trump on the project three times, and that negotiations broke down in January 2016. In fact, talks continued as late as June 2016, after Trump became the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee. Cohen also concealed his communications with Kremlin officials, as well as the fact he asked Trump to travel to Moscow to further the deal. He said his lies were intended to harmonize with the Trump campaign’s "political messaging."In December, Cohen was sentenced (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/michael-cohen-scheduled-to-be-sentenced-for-crimes-committed-while-working-for-trump/2018/12/11/57226ff2-fcbf-11e8-83c0-b06139e540e5_story.html?utm_term=.3954e5b718f0) to three years in prison for financial crimes as well as for lying to Congress. He was also ordered to pay $2 million in penalties.Although Cohen was prosecuted by the Southern District of New York, Mueller referred certain aspects of the Cohen case (Mueller referred Cohen to SDNY in February 2018. The raid happened 2 months later.) to the New York prosecutors in February 2018.**Roger Stone:** In January 2019, the FBI arrested (https://www.justice.gov/file/1124706/download) Stone, Trump's longtime friend and associate, at his Fort Lauderdale home. Stone was charged with seven felonies, including lying to Congress under oath, witness tampering and obstruction. The indictment (stone_indictment_012419.pdf | Department of Justice out a pattern of behavior that gives the strong impression Stone tried to conceal his contacts with WikiLeaks, which possessed stolen documents from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. Stone pleaded not guilty and has vowed to fight the charges (Defiant Trump ally Roger Stone: 'I will plead not guilty').Russian or related individuals and entities chargedIn February 2018, the special counsel charged (internet_research_agency_indictment.pdf | Department of Justice Russians and three Russian entities with conspiring to defraud the United States and interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller targeted the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked company that engages in influence operations and aimed to spread distrust toward candidates and the American political system. By mid 2016, the Internet Research Agency had established (https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download) a strategy of supporting Trump’s candidacy and disparaging Clinton.In July 2018, the special counsel indicted (https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download) an additional 12 Russian intelligence officers for their role in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Clinton campaign, and leaking of emails and documents.The special counsel also charged Richard Pinedo (Russians Bought Bank Accounts From California Man, Mueller Says), a California resident, with identity fraud. Pinedo sold bank account numbers over the internet to the Russians. His lawyer said he had no connection to Trump and was unaware that customers were involved in the Russia influence operation. Pinedo pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in prison (California fake ID salesman who helped Mueller investigate Russians gets six months in jail) in October 2018.Maria Butina, a Russian living in the United States, pleaded guilty (Alleged Russian spy Maria Butina pleads guilty to engaging in conspiracy against US) to conspiring to act as an illegal foreign agent in December 2018. Butina has been accused of trying to infiltrate Republican power circles by reaching out through conservative groups such as the National Rifle Association. The indictment doesn’t mention Trump, although the New York Times (Maria Butina, Russian Accused of Spying, Enters Plea Deal; Court Papers Backpedal on Sex Claims) reported that she tried to help broker a secret meeting with Trump and Putin during the 2016 campaign. Butina was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. and not Mueller; however, she is cooperating with the Mueller investigation and in February federal prosecutors sought to delay her sentencing (Russian agent Butina still helping feds, has sentencing delayed).**Other charges**Dutch attorney Alex Van Der Zwaan was indicted (https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/special-counsels-indictment-of-alex-van-der-zwaan/2778/) for lying to the FBI about interactions with Gates and another associate of Manafort in February 2018. He pleaded guilty (Only person to serve time in Mueller investigation deported) and served a 30-day sentence before being deported to the Netherlands.