Saudi crown prince allegedly stripped of some authority

Series of Mohammed bin Salman no-shows at high-profile meetings fed claims of rift with king
Mohammed bin Salman and his father, King Salman attend a ceremony in Riyadh. Some Middle East writers say suggestions of a rift have been overblown. Photograph: Faisal Al Nasser/Reuters

Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Nick Hopkins -Mon 18 Mar 2019

The heir to the Saudi throne has not attended a series of high-profile ministerial and diplomatic meetings in Saudi Arabia over the last fortnight and is alleged to have been stripped of some of his financial and economic authority, the Guardian has been told.

The move to restrict, if only temporarily, the responsibilities of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is understood to have been revealed to a group of senior ministers earlier last week by his father, King Salman.

The king is said to have asked Bin Salman to be at this cabinet meeting, but he failed to attend.
While the move has not been declared publicly, the Guardian has been told that one of the king’s trusted advisers, Musaed al-Aiban, who was educated at Harvard and recently named as national security adviser, will informally oversee investment decisions on the king’s behalf.

The Saudi embassy in Washington has declined multiple requests for comment since the Guardian approached it on Tuesday.

he relationship between the king and his son has been under scrutiny since the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which was alleged to have been ordered by Prince Mohammed and provoked international condemnation of the crown prince. This has been denied by the Saudi government.

Experts on the Middle East are divided over whether the murder, and concern over the kingdom’s role in the conflict in Yemen, have led to tension at the heart of the notoriously secretive royal court.

But while most observers expect Prince Mohammed to accede to the throne, there are some signs that the king is seeking to rein in his controversial son at a time when Saudi Arabia is under the spotlight.
The Guardian has been told Prince Mohammed did not attend two of the most recent weekly meetings of cabinet ministers, which are headed by the king.

The crown prince has also not attended other high-profile talks with visiting dignitaries, including one last week with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov.

Prince Mohammed also wasn’t present at a meeting with senior economic and finance officials earlier this week, a meeting between theking and the grand mufti, a meeting with the head of the World Health Organisation, and meetings with the prime minister of Lebanon, and ambassadors from India and China.

A spokesman for the Saudi government in Washington declined to comment on the absences or provide information on the crown prince’s whereabouts.

The spokesman also did not comment on the alleged decision to remove from Prince Mohammed some of his financial responsibilities, or the decision to informally appoint al-Aiban to oversee financial matters.

It is unclear from recent official press statements about the king and the prince’s activities whether Prince Mohammed has been absent from all of the high-profile events, but the prince has not appeared in any recent photographs or press statements, apart from a report that he spoke to Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe over the phone last week.

A spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry confirmed Prince Mohammed had not met foreign minister Lavrov last week. She also said no such meeting had been planned in advance.

Though Prince Mohammed has missed meetings before, a source familiar with the workings of the royal court said there was genuine surprise at some of the ‘no-shows’ in the last fortnight.

The king is understood to have been particularly displeased with his son’s absence from the cabinet meeting on Tuesday, during which the king discussed the many challenges facing the kingdom.
In a two-hour address, the king is understood to have raised concerns over alleged lost investments into Saudi Arabia.

It led to a demand that all major future financial decisions would, for the time being, need the king’s personal approval, according to the account given to the Guardian. The decision was considered effective immediately and concerned major investments by the kingdom and other contracts.

The New York Times also reported this week that Saudi Arabia’s government investment fund has gone through a “messy break-up” with a Hollywood investor after the investor decided to stop doing business with the fund and return a $400m Saudi investment in the wake of Khashoggi’s murder.

Saudi Arabia has adamantly denied that Prince Mohammed played a role in the killing, but the CIA is widely reported to have concluded with a medium to high degree of confidence that the crown prince ordered the murder of Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Saudi Arabia is also facing international scrutiny on other alleged human rights abuses of political detainees, including one dual American-Saudi citizen, Walid Fitaihi, who is being held without charges.

The Guardian reported last week that there appeared to be subtle signs of a rift emerging between the elderly king and his son. Tensions are said to have flared up after Prince Mohammed announced two important personnel decisions hours after the king left Saudi Arabia for an official visit to Egypt.

The promotion of Princess Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan to serve as Saudi ambassador to the US, and the promotion of Prince Mohammed’s brother, Khalid bin Salman, to the ministry of defence, were allegedly announced without the king’s approval or knowledge.

The decrees to make the changes were signed by the crown prince in his role as “deputy king”, which some experts said was exceedingly rare.

Prince Mohammed did not personally welcome his father home at the airport upon his return to Saudi Arabia from Egypt, which would have been customary.

A spokesman for the Saudi embassy said: “It is customary for the King of Saudi Arabia to issue a royal order delegating the power to administer the affairs of the state to his deputy, the crown prince, whenever he travels abroad. That was the case during King Salman’s recent visit to Egypt.”

He said the announcements were made by Prince Mohammed in his capacity as deputy king and on behalf of the king. “Any insinuation to the contrary is simply baseless.”

Some Middle East writers say the suggestions of a rift have been overblown and that the crown prince was already serving as a “king in everything but name”.

Madawi al-Rasheed, a professor at the London School of Economics, has argued that King Salman has staunchly supported his son even in the wake of the Khashoggi murder, opting to tour the kingdom “with his son by his side, sending a strong message that he retains the full support of the royal court”.

Others have said that the crown prince could be absent from public events for any number of reasons, that the king has been a staunch supporter of his son despite previous controversies and that his stance is unlikely to change.

Additional reporting by Kareem Shaheen and Andrew Roth

Time to speak up about the South China Sea

14 March 2019

Author: Lyle J Morris, RAND Corporation

There appears to be a collective aversion among government officials and heads-of-state in Southeast Asia to speak up in public about Chinese transgressions and coercion in the South China Sea. Such reticence is based on misplaced fear of Chinese repercussions and does a disservice to regional interests, undermines deterrence and needlessly concedes leverage in negotiations with China on territorial disputes or a South China Sea Code of Conduct.

This sentiment was on display in a recent interview with Singapore’s Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen, who downplayed concerns over Chinese activities in the disputed waters. Ng said calling China a regional hegemon was a matter of ‘opinion’, gave credence to China’s ‘peaceful rise’ narrative and highlighted China’s positive role in economics and trade. All were unprompted comments made in the context of discussing the South China Sea disputes.

Other leaders in Southeast Asia, such as Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, have also made accommodating statements that seem to downplay China’s actions in the South China Sea. ASEAN chairman statements are noteworthy for their relatively benign rhetoric and failure to include terms such as ‘erosion of trust’ or ‘militarisation’ of the South China Sea due to Chinese actions. In some cases, China has successfully lobbied the bloc to remove such language.

Directly opposing Chinese coercion in the South China Sea is antithetical to some leaders in Southeast Asia who may fear that new or enhanced postures could antagonise China, the region’s largest trading partner. But directly calling out China’s breaks from the status quo or intimidation tactics may not necessarily put these countries at risk of Chinese countermeasures. Words, and their cognitive effect in the region and in Beijing, could be used to greater effect as an important tool to push back against Chinese coercion.

To be clear, words alone will not solve the territorial disputes with China. But they could signal the principles that countries stand for and the concerns that they hold. They could set the tone for negotiations, enhance morale and communicate resolve. Words also matter a great deal to China. One needn’t look further than the sensitivity with which China regards ASEAN chairman statements on the South China Sea as an example.

There is only one country undermining stability in the South China Sea: China. It has reclaimed over 3000 acres of land — far more than any other claimant — on its occupied features in the Paracel and Spratly islands. It has built military facilities on its claimed islands that support the forward deployment of air, naval and land-based assets, and deployed missiles on them.

China increasingly uses both government and non-government assets to deny other nations’ legitimate use of resources in their exclusive economic zones in the South China Sea. It called an international legal ruling on its maritime claims illegitimate and a piece of ‘waste paper’. And it engages in unsafe and unprofessional behaviour when coming into contact with aircraft and naval vessels of the United States and other nations.

Most of these activities constitute clear breaks of international law and violations of the consensus in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea between ASEAN and China.

China’s actions in the South China Sea are not disputed by officials and academics in the region. Highlighting these facts should not be controversial. Yet leaders in almost every country in Southeast Asia seem to be meeting China’s strategy of changing the status quo through coercion with quiet accommodation. While this may be because leaders fear potential consequences from China, such fears are overblown.

What is needed is a cognitive shift in how officials in Southeast Asia approach the public signalling of the China problem in the South China Sea. Southeast Asian leaders should consider dropping the notion that speaking up publicly about Chinese activities that threaten and undermine basic norms of peace and stability will harm their relations in the region or with China.

Countries in the region should cease viewing the South China Sea disputes as a binary choice between war with China and accommodating Chinese activities, as Ng and others have suggested. Calling out Chinese transgressions is unlikely to lead to war. To the contrary, it could incrementally bolster morale and possibly prompt other leaders to feel less insecure about speaking up themselves.

Lyle J Morris is a senior policy analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

Has The Sun Finally Set On The British Empire?

Some reflections on ICJ advisory opinion on Chagos Islands

by Punsara Amarasinghe and Anastasia Glazova-17 Mar 2019

The fame of British Empire was once embellished around the corners of the world as the empire where sun never sets and its imperial majesty ruled the millions of lives regardless how they were brought under the colonial yoke. The end of two great wars saw eventually paved the path to dismantle British Empire yet the problems created by the colonial rule were unsolved and continued to undermine the decolonized states. The recent advisory opinion given by International Court of Justice over the status of Chagos islands in Indian Ocean generates number of questions in the realm of international law regarding the drawbacks created in decolonization process and the duplicity of the concept if self-determination in international law.

In the historic context Chagos islands always have been an integral part of Mauritius but however three years prior to granting independence to Mauritius Britain detached Chagos islands from Mauritius and created it a part of the territory known as British Indian Ocean Territory. Between 1967 and 1973 the inhabitants lived in Chagos islands were forcibly removed and thus far they have been impeded by British law to enter the territory. The issue on the sovereignty of Chagos islands has lasted for decades as an unsolved riddle of colonialism whereas Mauritius always insisted the Chagos islands a part of their sovereignty despite British were reluctant to relinquish it, even the initial efforts made by Mauritius to bring the case before ICJ was not successful in the 80 decade. Nevertheless after envisaging a serious of attempts along with the assistance of African Union, 2017 United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution referring the issue to the advisory opinion of ICJ. The two fundamental questions General Assembly put forward before were that whether the decolonization process of Mauritius was completed when it was granted independence in 1968 and secondly what are the consequences emerging from modern international law before the continues presence of Britain in Chagos islands.

The issue of decolonization seems to be the most interesting legal issue arising from the advisory opinion of ICJ due to the fact that court has viewed the decolonization of Mauritius was not complete as it was not in accordance of the right to self-determination of the Mauritius people. Bringing the idea of self-determination into further evaluation becomes a pertinent issues as the very idea of self-determination always been a double edged sword. Especially in the post-colonial context dialog between West and newly independent states in Global South regarding understanding self-determination always have been different and the notion of self-determination appreciated by Third World was based on preserving their external integrity without getting subjected to any foreign force. As a matter of fact it was a quite understandable position as many of Third World countries had emerged from years of colonial domination and it paved the way for them to concern about external self-determination as their prime concern. However in examining court’s approach to assess the scope of right to self-determination in its advisory opinion was akin to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples adopted by the UNGA Resolution 1514(XV) in 1960 (Resolution 1514).

The Resolution 1514 declares that the ‘subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights…’, and all such peoples ‘have the right to self-determination’ whereby ‘they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’. The trivial question encountered in discussing the self-determination was whether it was a part of customary international law when the UK granted independence to Mauritius in 1968. However it is rather ironic that UK being the forefront colonizer in early 20th century had appeared for the right of self-determination of Sudanese people as their legal entitlement, in its effort to counter Egyptian claims on the Sudan in 1947. In its advisory opinion court seemed to have generally relied on the number of general assembly resolutions in deciding the scope of self-determination in international law. In fact the lethargic position adopted by Court without tracing the historical development of right to self-determination in opino juris and state practice has diminished the magisterial jurisprudential value that many international law scholars expected to hear from this advisory opinion. However court confined its opinion regarding right to self-determination of Mauritius people to UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, on Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the UN Charter and court confirmed its status in customary international law.

The court’s opinion on the incompletion of Mauritius decolonization should be taken into account as a monumental position shared by ICJ on the grim realities of colonialism which keeps haunting in 21st century. ICJ came to a conclusion that separation of Chagos Islands from Mauritius before the independence was an act done by British colonial rule without the genuine consent of Mauritius people. It seems to indicate that Court may have implicitly hinted that it would have been lawful if the separation was conducted after assessing the consent of people through something like a referendum. Court’s opinion was concluded by stating “the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act entailing the international responsibility of that State”. This was the culmination of ICJ advisory opinion which brought a great triumph for Mauritius and a great blow upon the United Kingdom. In its concluding remarks Court invoked all UN member states have a responsibility to finalize the decolonization of Mauritius as right to self-determination stands as erga omnes obligation.

All in all the advisory opinion on Chagos islands brought some solace to the states eager to confront the colonial legacies and post-colonial burdens. As an example in its court proceedings Mauritius was heavily backed by African Union and India. One counsel appeared on behalf of African Union stated that “It is unthinkable that today, in the 21st century, there is a part of Africa that still remains subject to European colonial rule.” On the other hand the UK has been still adamant about their presence in Chagos island as they claimed that matter was resolved in 1982 in an agreement on compensation and also the UK has pointed out that right to self-determination was not applicable in international law till 1970’s , whereas the separation of Chagos island took place in 1968.

The UK defense was rejected by majority of judges in ICJ and the only dissenting opinion was given by American judge Joan Donoghue and her contention was based on that this matter should not have been taken before ICJ as it stands as a bilateral dispute between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. It is evident that this advisory opinion has brought a severe pressure on the UK in the backdrop of ongoing Brexit hullaballoo. Even though the advisory opinions are not binding that it is hardly to assume the UK would completely disdain the opinion as it has already acknowledged that the manner of removing the inhabitants of Chagos islands was shameful. In that case the entire advisory opinion should be regarded as a significant victory for Chagossians and hall mark legacy in the international jurisprudence relating to concept of self-determination.

Punsara Amarasinghe is a PhD candidate in public international law at institute of law and politics at Scuola Superiore Sant Anna in Pisa Italy. He held a research fellowship at faculty of law Higher School of Economics in Moscow and served as a visiting lecturer in University of Colombo, Sri Lanka. He holds LL.M in public international law from South Asian University, New Delhi. He can be reached at punsaraprint10@gmial.com.

Anasatasia Glazova is a PhD candidate in at Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Russia. She worked as state legal officer in Vologda prior joining HSE and her research areas include International Human Rights Law, Law of the Sea and International Maritime Law. She can be reached at angla.1892@mail.ru.

The new faces of Jewish-American resistance to Israel

Criticism of Israel was once confined to the margins of the Jewish-American community. But now activists say dissent is 'bigger and louder' than ever before

18 March 2019

Sophie Edelhart says that for the longest time, she didn’t want to go anywhere near the topic of Israel and Palestine.

As a young Jewish woman growing up in San Francisco, her education was a curious mix of religious Jewish education and the liberal politics of California. 

Much of the discussion about Israel as a consequence focused on “diplomacy”, careful talk of “both sides”, and the idea that a “two-state solution” would bring peace to Palestine-Israel. The conflict, she says, was always described to her as “complicated” and never by the naked truth: Israel was an occupying state.

The new faces of Jewish-Ame... by on Scribd

Conservative MP Rachel Maclean: ‘Speaker has increased risk of very long extension or no deal’

Jon Snow-18 Mar 2019Presenter

Conservative MP Rachel Maclean voted for Theresa May’s deal last week.

Conservative MP Rachel Maclean voted for Theresa May’s deal last week.

Federal Authorities Raided Trump Fundraiser’s Office in Money Laundering Probe

A sealed search warrant obtained by ProPublica shows federal agents scoured Elliott Broidy’s office for documents related to China, Saudi Arabia and a Miami Beach club promoter.

Sign up for our Big Story newsletter to stay informed about ProPublica’s reporting.

by Robert Faturechi and Justin Elliott-

March 18, 5 a.m. EDT

Federal authorities raided the office of Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy last summer, seeking records related to his dealings with foreign officials and Trump administration associates, according to a sealed search warrant obtained by ProPublica.

Agents were authorized to use the megadonor’s hands and face to unlock any phones that required fingerprint or facial scans.

The Washington Post reported in August that the Justice Department was investigating Broidy. The sealed warrant offers new details of federal authorities’ investigation of allegations that Broidy had attempted to cash in on his Trump White House connections in dealings with foreign officials. It also shows that the government took a more aggressive approach with the Trump ally than was previously known, entering his office and removing records — just as it did with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

Broidy served as a major Trump campaign fundraiser and was the national deputy finance chair of the Republican National Committee until he resigned in April 2018, when it was revealed he had agreed to secretly pay off a former Playboy model in exchange for her silence about their affair.

The search warrant cites three potential crimes that authorities are investigating: conspiracy, money laundering and violations of the law barring covert lobbying on behalf of foreign officials. To obtain a search warrant, authorities have to convince a judge that there’s a probable cause they will find evidence of those specific crimes.

The search warrant also for the first time links Broidy to a globe-trotting Miami Beach party promoter.

The warrant, filed in July 2018, targeted Broidy’s office in Los Angeles. The scope of what authorities were seeking was broad. They planned to seize any evidence related to a list of dozens of people, countries and corporate entities, according to the warrant. Among the names on the list are Rick Gates, the former Trump campaign official who has pleaded guilty in the Mueller probe; Colfax Law Office, the firm founded by Robin Rosenzweig, Broidy’s wife; and several foreign countries.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the FBI declined to comment for this story.

Broidy’s attorney as well as a spokesman did not answer a list of detailed questions sent by ProPublica.

Broidy, an investor based in Los Angeles, pleaded guilty in 2009 to charges connected to his role in a major New York state public corruption and bribery case. But after backing Trump for president, he saw his star rise again. After the inauguration, he played a central role in filling administration vacancies, according to reports by ProPublica and others.

However, he once again quickly became mired in controversy, amid allegations of influence peddling and his dealings with the former Playboy model.

The search warrant shows that federal authorities are interested in Broidy’s alleged work for the Malaysian financier Jho Low, who is at the center of a sprawling international scandal known as 1MDB. In November, the Justice Department unveiled a bribery and money laundering case against Low.

In a separate filing in November, the Justice Department alleged that Broidy was paid by Low to lobby Trump administration officials to ease off on U.S. investigations into Low. Broidy is not identified by name in the filings, but he is widely reported to be the person referred to as “Individual No. 1.” Broidy has not been charged with a crime, and it’s unclear what the status of the investigation is.

Pras Michel, a member of the hip-hop group The Fugees and an associate of Low’s, funnelled the money to pay Broidy into the United States, the Justice Department alleged. Asked about the Broidy search warrant, a lawyer for Michel, Barry Pollack, said: “There has been news of this Broidy investigation for many months. Mr. Michel has not been charged with any wrongdoing whatsoever related to Mr. Broidy or anyone else.”

Federal authorities were also seeking records in Broidy’s office related to the United Arab Emirates, UAE adviser George Nader, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and any travel to the Middle East.

The New York Times reported last year that Broidy worked with Nader to steer the White House toward decisions benefiting the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Documents reviewed by the Times showed that Nader tempted Broidy with the prospect of more than $1 billion in contracts for Broidy’s private security company. Hacked communications showed Nader praised Broidy for “how well you handle Chairman” — a reference to Trump.

Nader became a cooperating witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to multiple news reports.

Broidy’s attorney has in the past responded to the allegations with a statement saying Broidy “has never agreed to work for, been retained by nor been compensated by any foreign government for any interaction with the United States Government, ever. Any implication to the contrary is a lie.”

According to the warrant, federal authorities also sought to seize any records related to China and Guo Wengui, a Chinese businessman and dissident who fled to New York, where he publicly accused the Chinese government of corruption.

The Times reported that Broidy explored plans to use his influence with the White House to force Guo out of the United States, apparently as part of an effort to curry favor with the Chinese and other foreign officials, and ultimately earn a payoff.

The search warrant for Broidy’s office also lists a name and corporation not previously linked to Broidy: “Joel Rouseau” and “Intelligent Resources.” There is a company by that name incorporated in Miami Beach by a Joel Rousseau, who is a friend of Michel’s. The search warrant does not describe Rousseau or Intelligent Resources’ role in the case.

Rousseau’s Instagram account shows him bouncing from Rio to Paris to Ibiza, frequently surrounded by models. “If you want to be successful, you need the beautiful people,” he told Crain’s New York in 2007, which described him as a specialist “in bringing agency models to clubs.” In another series of pictures, he is at an oil site in Haiti with workers he describes as his drilling crew. Rousseau made a foray into politics in 2012 when he donated tens of thousands of dollars to several Democratic Party groups.

Filings in a court case over unpaid taxes describe Rousseau as an “entrepreneur” with income swinging from under $1,000 for 2009 to over $2 million in 2013. He paid a long-standing bill for back taxes and penalties of more than $700,000 in late 2017, the filings show.

The address for Intelligent Resources is a house on Miami Beach’s exclusive Hibiscus Island. The person answering the door at the house last week told a reporter he had rented the house on Airbnb. Rousseau didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Reporting was contributed by Deirdra Funcheon.

Do you have information about Elliott Broidy or anyone else in the Trump orbit? Email Robert Faturechi at robert.faturechi@propublica.org or via Signal at 213-271-7217 and Justin Elliott at justin@propublica.org or via Signal at 774-826-6240.

Filed under:

• The Trump Administration

Poll: Half of Americans say Trump is victim of a 'witch hunt' as trust in Mueller erodes

After almost two years, Mueller's Russia investigation status can be confusing. Here's an overview of the central question, and what we know. Hannah Gaber Saletan, USA TODAY

March 18, 2019

WASHINGTON – Amid signs that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference may be near its conclusion, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds that trust in Mueller has eroded and half of Americans agree with President Donald Trump's contention that he has been the victim of a "witch hunt."

Support for the House of Representatives to seriously consider impeaching the president has dropped since last October by 10 percentage points, to 28 percent.

Despite that, the survey shows a nation that remains skeptical of Trump's honesty and deeply divided by his leadership. A 52 percent majority say they have little or no trust in the president's denials that his 2016 campaign colluded with Moscow in the election that put him in the Oval Office.

That number does reflect an improvement from previous polls. One year ago, 57 percent had little or no trust in his denials; in December, 59 percent did.

 Twenty-eight percent say they have a lot of trust in former FBI director Mueller's investigation to be fair and accurate. That's the lowest level to date and down 5 points since December.

In comparison, 30 percent express a lot of trust in Trump's denials, the highest to date.

President Donald Trump has been relentless in attacking Robert Mueller's investigation. (Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Mueller indicted 34 people, including Russian intelligence operatives and some of Trump's closest aides and advisers. The indictments detailed the eagerness of the Trump campaign to benefit from a sophisticated Russian effort to influence the 2016 election but have not accused the president’s aides of participating in that operation. Last week, Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was sentenced to a total of 7.5 years in federal prison for financial crimes.

The poll's findings set the stage for a ferocious partisan battle when Mueller submits his report to Attorney General William Barr. The president's cascade of criticism of those pursuing him has fortified his support and raised questions about his investigators.

More: Did Trump keep promises to insulate himself from his business? Only he knows

Trump tweets about Mueller

That campaign continued this weekend. 

"What the Democrats have done in trying to steal a Presidential Election, first at the 'ballot box' and then, after that failed, with the 'Insurance Policy,' is the biggest Scandal in the history of our Country!" Trump declared in a tweet Sunday night.

Friday, Trump tweeted that "there should be no" report from Mueller, who was appointed in May 2017 to investigate how Moscow tried to influence the presidential election and whether Team Trump cooperated.  

"This was an illegal & conflicted investigation in search of a crime," Trump wrote Sunday, adding in a follow-up tweet, "THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO A PRESIDENT AGAIN!"

Fifty percent say they agree with Trump's assertion that the special counsel's investigation is a "witch hunt" and that he has been subjected to more investigations than previous presidents because of politics; 47 percent disagree. Just 3 percent don't have an opinion.

There is, unsurprisingly, a stark partisan divide on that question: 86 percent of Republicans but just 14 percent of Democrats say Trump is the victim of a "witch hunt." Among independents, 54 percent say he is; 42 percent say he isn't. 

The president's success in persuading half of the electorate that he’s been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny is notable, says David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk Political Research Center.

"Even among people who said they had ‘some’ trust in the Mueller investigation, half agreed with President Trump's witch hunt allegation,” he says.

More: What happens when special counsel Robert Mueller delivers his report?

"Trump, he gets badgered every single day," says Robert Lynch, 62, of Selden, New York, a Republican who describes himself as a "100 percent" supporter of the president. Mueller's report is "going to say no collusion, absolutely none," he predicts.

Annette Lantos Tillemann-Dick, 66, an innkeeper from Denver and a Democrat, disagrees, saying evidence of collusion by Trump's campaign is obvious: "You don't need a report to see it. It's in our face."

Lynch and Tillemann-Dick were among those surveyed. The poll of 1,000 registered voters, taken by landline and cellphone Wednesday through Sunday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

"I hope that illegal collusion makes it very difficult for the Republicans to continue to defend undefendable behavior on the part of the person who is sitting in the chief executive's office," 

Tillemann-Dick says. "And I hope that it would lead to him being removed from office." (Tillemann-Dick, who was called randomly in the survey, happens to be the daughter of the late congressman Tom Lantos, D-Calif.)

A shift on impeachment 

Support for impeaching Trump has cooled, the poll shows, in the wake of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's declaration that she opposed the idea unless there was bipartisan support for it. Among Democrats, 41 percent say Pelosi's comments had some or a lot of impact on their opinion about impeachment, about equal to the 42 percent who say they had no impact.

Pelosi's argument that trying to remove Trump from office would divide the nation apparently flipped the public's expectations of what Congress will do. Last fall, the poll found that a 54 percent-32 percent majority said a new Democratic majority in the House was likely to seriously consider impeachment.

Now, by 46 percent-41 percent, those surveyed predict that the House won't.

"If he doesn't get impeached, it's not like it's going to be the end of the world because 2020 is not super-far away," says Calvin Crawford, 18, a political independent and a senior at University High School in Spokane, Washington, who was polled. "I think Trump is probably going to lose if a candidate comes out and starts to propose things that people actually want."

Overall, Americans by 62 percent-28 percent say the House shouldn't seriously consider impeaching Trump, compared with 54 percent-39 percent last October. While a 53 percent majority of Democrats support impeachment, just 6 percent of Republicans do. 

Gloria Davy, 65, a Democrat from Tucson, says it would bring her "great joy" for Democrats to push for impeachment, but she worries about the upheaval that could follow.

"I can't imagine what would happen to the stock market," the Arizona retiree says. "So it's probably best not to impeach him and to just have him run for his second term and lose. That would be the safest thing for our economy."

She is eager to see Mueller's report. "I'll read it cover to cover," she says.

Release the report?  

As Mueller's inquiry winds down, the debate over what to do about the confidential report he is required to submit to the Justice Department is heating up. Last Thursday, the House unanimously passed a resolution calling for public release of the report, but Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., blocked passage of the nonbinding measure in the Senate.

The poll found overwhelming and bipartisan support for releasing the report, whatever it finds. In all, 82 percent say it is important to them that the report be made public; 62 percent call that "very important." 

Assessments of Mueller have become less positive and more partisan during his investigation. In June 2017, before he had brought any indictments or won any convictions, 30 percent viewed him favorably and 16 percent unfavorably, a net positive rating of 14 points. Twenty percent had never heard of him, and 33 percent weren't sure what they thought.

In the new poll, 33 percent view him favorably and 31 percent unfavorably. That net positive rating of 2 points is his narrowest to date. As recently as last October, he had a net positive rating of 17 points, 42 percent-25 percent. 

Few Americans expect the conclusion of the special counsel's investigation is going to settle the controversies surrounding the president.

House committees controlled by Democrats launched a series of inquiries into Trump, his administration, his business practices and his family.  Views of those investigations are narrowly divided: 49 percent say Democrats are doing the right thing by pursuing the investigations aggressively; 46 percent say they are going too far.

"Now we're going after Ivanka, so there will be more and more and more," said Davy, the Democrat from Arizona, "and he can't veto it."

Lynch, the avid Trump supporter from Long Island, says Mueller's report will clear Trump and should recommend another investigation to follow into his 2016 opponent. "It should say, 'OK, now we're going after Hillary.' "