My Heart Bleeds for Breonna

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedRace Relations

My heart bleeds for Breonna, and every Black woman in this country. A country where Black women are betrayed at every turn. 

No justice (no peace)? 

How do you explain Breonna’s murder and a 6-month investigation that renders no charges or indictments directly related to her murder? 

A Black AG, who just spoke at the Republican Convention last month, who’s also on Trump’s shortlist to replace RBG on the Supreme Court, wants us to believe he’s sincere in his attempt to bring justice? He wants us to believe that it actually wasn’t a no-knock warrant, they just decided to do it at 12:30 am in the middle of the night? That every one of Breonna’s neighbors except 1 failed to hear them announce themselves prior to entering? Despite the officers being in plainclothes when they entered the apartment and Breonna’s boyfriend assuming it was a home invasion, he shouldn’t have acted in self-defense and opened fire with his legal firearm… and because he did, the officers were justified in returning fire? 

That’s that. “We sympathize with the family… so much that we’re going to give you $12 million dollars of your fellow neighbors hard-earned tax money.”

To make this horror story even worse, no drugs were found in the apartment, and the actual (no knock) warrant in question targeted another individual who was in police custody prior to the raid. 

Case closed. A young Black woman with dreams and aspirations… murdered by the state. No justice. 

Breonna deserved better. Black women deserve better. And until this country, specifically law enforcement and our criminal justice system, start treating Black women with basic humanity, respect, and dignity, these systems and institutions deserve hell, their budgets need to be re-examined, and distrust will only grow as more people witness the bold and corrupt state that literally gets away with cold-blooded murder. 

BLACK LIVES MATTER.

Similar Read: Breonna

Don’t Steal My Dreams

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

A few nights ago I had a conversation with a family whose history is as complex and colorful as many of ours. Their parents came to this country with nothing to their names and built a life that allowed their children to achieve more than their parents could ever imagine. So as I sat in their lovely living room drinking a glass of wine discussing my own history and learning about theirs, the topic of DACA came up, most specifically, the decision that was made by the Supreme court on June 18th, 2020.

Before diving into the decision that was made on June 18th, let us understand how did this program become a focal point of divide between the Democrats and Republicans, and what exactly is DACA and who are the Dreamers.

When did this battle for the dreamers take place

On September 5, 2017, President Trump ordered an end to the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This program protected a percentage of young undocumented immigrants —who usually arrived at a very young age in situations and circumstances beyond their control—from deportation. Going back even further, In 2012, President Obama issued the DACA executive order after the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act failed to pass in Congress continually. The young people impacted by DACA and the DREAM Act are often referred to as “Dreamers.”

In making the announcement, the then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions proclaimed that the Trump administration was ending the DACA program. This decision meant that over a period of time, 800,000 young adults brought to the U.S. as children who qualified for the program, would become eligible for deportation and lose access to education and work visas. 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions argued that “the executive branch, through DACA, deliberately pursued to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. His logic stated that such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.”

After the Trump administration ordered an end to DACA in 2017, a large number of lawsuits were filed against the termination of DACA. At this time, two federal appellate courts ruled against the administration, allowing previous DACA recipients to renew their deferred action, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the legal challenges.

What is DACA and who are the Dreamers?

DACA or Deferred Action on Child Arrivals is a program that allows young people who may have been born here by illegal parents or came here to the United States under illegal means to remain here and grow up as Americans without the fear of being sent back to a country they hold no allegiance to. These are individuals who have grown up American, speak English, and have no memory of any other place besides the United States. 

Many of these individuals do not even know they were unauthorized immigrants until they were teenagers… Usually when they cannot get a driver’s license or receive financial aid because they do not have Social Security numbers. The dream act is meant to provide these individuals with a pathway to U.S. citizenship who are or wish to go to college or the military and have a clean record. 

Just to be clear, the program is by no stretch of the imagination easy to get into or to be accepted. DACA enables certain people who came to the U.S. as children and are successful in meeting several key guidelines to request consideration for deferred action. It allows non-U.S. citizens who qualify to remain in the country for two years, which is then subject to renewal. When accepted, recipients are eligible for work authorization and other benefits and are shielded from deportation. The fee to request DACA is $495 every two years.

What happened on June 18th, 2020?

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court blocked Trump’s administration’s attempt to end DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) in a 5-4 ruling. The ruling stabilizes the program and allows DACA recipients to renew membership, which offers them work authorization and temporary protection from deportation. Unfortunately, the ruling creates the possibility that the Administration could still remove DACA in the future if they provide a more comprehensive justification.

Statistics on DACA as it stands

  • Since its inception, DACA has approved 787,580 individuals for its program
  • 91% of DACA recipients are employed
  • The average hourly wage for a DACA recipient is $17.46
  • 45% of DACA recipients are currently enrolled in school
  • 72% of those recipients who are enrolled in school are currently pursuing a bachelor’s degree. 
  • The average age of a DACA recipient is 24 years old

In conclusion

For a recipient who is a dreamer, all they have ever known is what surrounds them in this country. They are American through and through, and their allegiance lies in the very environment that has raised them and cultivated their mindsets and characteristics. 

Isn’t that what this nation was founded on? A place where you can leave the old paradigms behind and reinvent yourself? To follow what gives you purpose, what makes you successful, safe, and happy? At the end of it all, isn’t that exactly what we all are trying to pursue? Purpose and contentment? Why can’t we provide those liberties to all and not just a select group of the privileged? 

The moment we start to believe that our freedom and right to pursue our dreams is unique to only a select few is the day we stop being American.

Similar Read: [2017 In Review] Reactionary Policy Kills Dreams (DACA)

Important Takeaways From Mueller Testimony

by with 2 Comments FeaturedPolitics

“Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29th (2019), this deserves the attention of every American.” – Robert Mueller’s opening statement, Congressional Hearing 

Nadler: “Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Mueller: “No.”

Besides not exonerating the president and his initial statement about the importance of Russian interference, another important takeaway from Mueller’s testimony, and probably the most damming… Trump can be prosecuted after he leaves office (which we’ll come back to later). 

High-level assessment… Mueller didn’t want to be there. Nearly 75 years old and defenseless, he seemed flustered and confused at times. It was hard watching him ask Congressmen to repeat their questions over and over as he squinted and leaned in for what seemed like an eternity.

With the exception of Nadler’s opening questioning, Democrats seemed to mostly ask obvious questions followed by, “Is that correct Mr. Mueller?” Perhaps a good strategy considering the majority of America hasn’t read the report and they’re hoping to educate the masses.

Republican’s did the opposite and repeatedly badgered him on his handpicked team of lawyers and the fact that he decided not to prosecute the president, despite knowing the president was immune from prosecution. Yes, that little known fact, which according to OLC opinion states that a sitting president cannot be charged with a federal crime.

What is the OLC?

The OLC, or Office of Legal Counsel, is an office in the US DOJ delegated by the Attorney General that renders legal advice and opinions to the president and executive branches, often dealing with complex and extremely important matters. So if you’re Mueller, a guy who follows the rule of law and doesn’t deviate, then charging the president with a crime was never an option or even the intent.

Well, what was the point of the two-year investigation? What was the point of Democrats essentially forcing Mueller to testify publicly?

Nancy Pelosi clearly doesn’t want to impeach or even attempt to impeach the president, but… she has stated that she wants to see him in jail. And despite Mueller not being able to charge the president with a crime, he can make a case for the most important and damming takeaway from his testimony, which is Trump can be prosecuted after he leaves office. He makes a good case in his report by citing more than 10 instances where Trump may have obstructed justice, but that case was unfortunately not reinforced with his testimony.

If anything, it was diminished.

Similar Read: Reframing the Mueller Investigation

shutterstock_1124433791

Kamala or Bust?

by with 5 Comments CultureFeaturedPolitics

California U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D) is running for President of the United States. So are three other women.  She is joining a field of candidates who will be nothing short of amazing. Women and men of color are declaring their candidacies and that in itself is historic.  What’s also historic is 2020 will have more women candidates run than ever before.  There are so many positives to celebrate, but Democrats are too busy tearing down their own candidates before any debates even start.

Specifically, there’s lots of debate around Kamala. She’s a historically black college or university (HBCU) graduate, born to immigrant parents, pledged a Panhellenic sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Inc. and most notably the former top cop of California, having served as the State’s Attorney General.

We can now dismiss with the pleasantries because the not-Kamala-choir is ready to sing. Since she made her presidential announcement, which was literally 2 days ago on the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday, several articles have come out about her. Some are in support, but many are critical of her record as San Francisco Attorney General and her state role as Attorney General.  Even more, there has been a ton of social media traffic about her race. And even more than the social media traffic is the HBCU stans and notably Howard University graduates and students who are vehemently defending her existence.

As a graduate of an HBCU, I understand the pride that comes with seeing one of our own run for any elected office, let alone running for president. And as a graduate of Howard University I also understand how my fellow alumnae might walk around with our heads held high and our egos on 10000. However, one thing the HBCU and Howard experience has taught me is to trust but verify. Measure twice and cut once.

As an ardent supporter of women running for office I am elated to see a woman of color run for president after the historic run of Shirley Chisholm. After Hillary Clinton’s historic run in 2016, I think there is an urgent need to have a woman president. Heck we need more women in elected office everywhere. And we definitely need more women of color. But again, it is important that we give Kamala the same critical assessment that we are giving all other candidates, Democrat, Independent and Republican. The blind loyalty and undying support of her candidacy can be exciting if you are going to support her without any consideration of another candidate. But to do so because she went to your school or pledged your sorority is questionable.

Over the last few weeks, several articles have come out about her time as a prosecutor. Some of her actions have been questioned in pieces like The New York Times opinion piece and the article written in The Intercept about her survival as a candidate in the age of the Black Lives Matter movement. These articles point out her stances on controversial cases that some would deem “on the wrong side” of convictions or her silence on stances she might have taken on issues related to criminal justice.  But there are also pieces written that highlight many of her reforms and why she is favorited to get an endorsement by former President Barack Obama.  Notwithstanding her professional experience, which she will have to explain, it would be prudent for all to carefully consider why you support her candidacy over collegiate and social group affiliations.  Afterall, attending a ‘proclaimed’ elite university and joining a sorority has yet to prove anyone is ready to become the next president.

This article was originally published on 1 January 2019.

I Read The Mueller Report… Here is My Summary

by with 2 Comments FeaturedPolitics

I Read The Mueller Report, and Here is My Summary. 

You can read it too if you have the time:

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

These are my summations and conclusions:

VOLUME 1 – Russian Meddling in the U.S. Election and Collusion with the Trump Campaign

p. 9 Mueller gave the report straight to the Attorney-General because he was ordered to do so by the original mandate. Even if, as evidenced in this memo: https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/12/20/read-bill-barrs-19-page-memo-ripping-mueller-probe/?slreturn=20190318182817, William Barr is politically compromised in favor of President Trump (a la Roy Cohn), Mueller did his job and followed the letter of the law rather than go rogue and release the unredacted report to Congress or the public. Because of decisions like this, and because Mueller did not make any brash decisions to prosecute Trump even with overwhelming evidence of obstruction (as I will summarize later), Mueller’s credibility is without blemish. This report is to be believed whether you love or hate Trump and his associates.

p. 9 The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump get elected. This is not a conspiracy, this is a fact.

p. 9 The Special Counsel’s appointment was predicated on Intelligence gathered BEFORE the Steele Dossier. So there can no longer be discussion about this investigation being illicit on the grounds of wrongly obtained FISA warrants or anything else related to the Steele Dossier.

p. 9 The Special Counsel found that Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadapoulos had met in May of 2016 with a Russian Government Agent to obtain disparaging information on Hillary Clinton and consequently started its investigation into Russian Involvement in the election in July of 2016.

p. 9 The Russian Government perceived that it could benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome.

p. 10 Collusion is not a crime and the Special Counsel focused on “coordination” or “conspiracy” which would require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. It was established that the Russian Government helped Trump and that Trump enjoyed this help, but no evidence could be found to conclude that this was planned prior to the election.

p. 12 The Russians targeted Clinton, her campaign staff, and all her major supporters spreading false information about them as well as accurate information that was damning. These operations were carried out by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) which was funded by Russian Oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin (who is heavily tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin).

p. 12 The IRA started in 2014 with the goal of simply disrupting the American Electoral process and sow discord amongst the United States (the U.S. being Russia’s greatest obstacle to economic and political power). As Trump became a viable candidate in 2016, the IRA switched its objectives to helping him win after identifying him as incredibly favorable to Russian national interests.

p. 13 There were numerous communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government (which were lied about, consequently resulting in criminal indictments for many in the Trump Campaign), but the Special Counsel could not establish that there was a prior conspiracy to coordinate the many damaging releases of information by Wikileaks (via the IRA) to hurt Clinton and help Trump.

Again, The Russian Government identified Trump as the best candidate for their future success and worked to help him get elected. It could simply not be proven that Trump conspired with them towards their goal.

p. 13 Trump was trying to build Trump Tower Moscow in 2015 and lied about this during the campaign saying, “We have no business with Russia.” The deal would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump.

p. 14 On August 2nd, 2016, Paul Manafort met with a Russian Agent to establish a plan for Russia to control Eastern Ukraine after Trump’s election (while the U.S. would essentially look the other way).

p. 14 Wikileaks (via IRA) released the Podesta emails hours after Trump’s damning “grab ‘em by the pussy” video to help the Trump Campaign change the national discourse from his behavior on that bus to the DNC’s unethical behavior during the primary (which ultimately hurt Bernie Sanders’ chances of winning). This was action taken by a foreign government to interfere in the U.S. election to help Trump win.

p. 15 After Trump was elected, dozens of Russian businessmen started reaching out to the Trump campaign to set up phone calls and meetings.

p. 15 Obama sanctioned Russia for interfering in the U.S. election and Michael Flynn personally requested to his Russian contacts not to escalate the situation because Trump would likely not continue these penalties against Russia.

p. 17 The Special Counsel found a great deal of evidence for contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russia, but not enough evidence to file criminal charges. So, there is evidence of collusion, just not enough to prosecute.

p. 17 Many members of the Trump campaign lied about their Russian contacts and this is why there are so many indictments and Trump campaign members currently serving jail time.

p. 18 The Republican Party changed its stance on Russia (from hostile to friendly) in the summer of 2016, but the Special Counsel could not conclude that this was related to a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

p. 18 MANY INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED PLEADED THE 5th, LIED IN THEIR TESTIMONY, OR WERE FOUND TO HAVE DELETED INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION. In other words, the Special Counsel is making decisions based on evidence it could find, but states in this report that a TON of information has been illegally discarded, including via the methods that many Republicans accuse the Clinton campaign of utilizing (acid washing email servers, destroying computers, etc.).

The Special Counsel therefore states that there could be more evidence that DOES prove conspiracy between Trump and the Russian Government.

p. 19-33 information on how the Special Counsel was formed, its jurisdiction, and information about the Russian hacking agency IRA. Most of this is redacted.

p. 33 The IRA spent $100,000 to purchase over 3,500 advertisements on Facebook that promoted groups supporting Trump and spreading false information about Clinton.

p. 34 IRA fake accounts reached tens of millions of people and attracted hundreds of thousands of followers.

p. 34 Before their deactivation in 2017, fake Russian accounts spreading propaganda in favor of Trump and false information about Hillary Clinton had reached an estimated 126 million people.

p. 35 U.S. Media regularly quoted the false information from these fake accounts as factual news, notably Sean Hannity, Michael McFaul, Roger Stone, and Michale Flynn Jr. who retweeted or cited these fake sources on network Television.

p. 37 The IRA organized hundreds of rallies via Facebook across the U.S. by having a Page administrator host the rally and then claim they could not personally attend, leaving the ground organization to the enthusiastic members of the group. The earliest evidence of this technique was a “confederate rally” in November 2015.

SIDE NOTE: Russia’s goal is to destabilize America (because America’s military presence prevents Russia from controlling major resources, trade routes, and strategic lands like the port of Crimea and Georgia which Russia annexed over the course of the Obama administration). But to accomplish this, Russia has studied the issues that sow the most division in America and have sought to fan the flames which already exist here – like racism, Confederate sympathizers, Nazi Sympathizers, the Ku Klux Klan, gun rights, Police protection vs. minority targeting, the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice battle, anti-Immigrant sentiment, religious division, etc.

Trump’s voting base is almost entirely made up of single “wedge” issue voters who only need to hear one sentence: “I support your position” to gain their votes. This is an obviously successful political strategy that plays perfectly into the goals of the Russian Government: sowing divisiveness. It may be the case that Trump is not a witting agent of Russia (although the Mueller report does not rule that out), but he is at least an unwitting agent of their agenda to get America to fight amongst itself while Russia promotes its interests globally.

p. 39 The IRA recruited individuals it believed could help further its agenda of helping Trump and hurting Clinton. It focused on individuals who could “amplify” its content.

p. 41 The Special Counsel found two definite links between the IRA and the Trump Campaign, but none between IRA and Clinton.

p. 42-65 All the hacking techniques used by IRA including how they got the data and disseminated it via Guccifer 2.0, Wikileaks, and DC Leaks.

Also outlines what actions many Trump campaign officials undertook to defraud the United States and essentially commit treason by assisting Russia/IRA.

MANY REDACTIONS here.

p. 68 Trump Jr. was communicating directly with Wikileaks about damaging information.

p. 69 The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign actually did the hacking or released the damning information, but that they simply welcomed its effect on the election. The famous Don Jr. “I love it,” email when he heard about dirt on Hillary is not evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

p. 70-73 Because Clinton did use a private email server (which was reckless, but not criminal according to the FBI), her communications that she destroyed were vulnerable and in fact had been obtained by many foreign agencies. The Trump campaign was trying to find these emails (to use against her), but this is still part of “politics as usual,” and they did not specifically coordinate with a foreign government in this regard.

p. 74-120 Outlines all the links between Russia and the Trump campaign (there are many).

p. 74 Trump Tower Moscow details (it was a very real project for years).
TRUMP WAS WORKING ON GETTING THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT DONE WELL INTO HIS CAMPAIGN WHEN HE LIED ABOUT “NO BUSINESS WITH RUSSIA.”

Was this because he was conspiring with Russian Oligarchs to win the election and then help Russian National interests? Or just because he knew it would look extremely bad if the President of the United States was doing business with a hostile nation?

Either way, the President lied repeatedly to the American people for reasons that are extremely impeachable (attempting to use the Office of the President for personal enrichment which violates the Emoluments Clause), or treasonous (conspiring with a hostile foreign power to defraud the United States).

p. 118 At the Trump Tower Meeting, Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner met with Russian Agents to discuss “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. later lied about this meeting after Trump instructed him to (this is public knowledge now after Trump’s lawyer released a letter stating that Trump helped to craft the letter pretending that the meeting was to discuss adoption).

p. 131 Russians at the Republican National Convention (notably Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak) got the Republican platformed changed from “lethal assistance to Ukraine in response to Russian aggression” to “appropriate assistance.”

p. 133 A Trump representative stopped the Republican National Convention Committee from drafting a platform amendment that was tougher on Russian aggression towards Ukraine. Support for NATO was also discouraged with Trump’s representative J.D. Gordon stating that “We don’t want to start World War III over that region.”

In other words, Trump’s position on Europe and Russia is to be hands off and let them figure it out. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it goes against the US (and Republican Party) policy since probably World War II.

p. 137-152 Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, his assistant Rick Gates, and their criminal connections to Ukraine and Russia.

p. 153-181 After the election, multiple Russian Oligarchs, Businessmen, and Politicians began reaching out to the Trump Campaign through channels that had been pre-established (including the Russian embassy).

p. 182 The decisions to prosecute (or not prosecute).

p. 183 Trump Campaign did have contact with IRA, but did not do so with criminal intent.

p. 183 Many Russian hackers were charged with Computer-Intrusion Conspiracy.

p. 184-188 Almost all redacted.

p. 188 The Trump Tower meeting was not a conspiracy or a violation of campaign finance law because no evidence of any criminal intent was established. However, this meeting was lied about multiple times and has consequently yielded several obstruction of justice charges already against U.S. citizens.

p. 189 The report defines “conspiracy” (“collusion”) and says that Trump and his associates did many suspicious things, but they could not find evidence of a criminal coordination to defraud the United States. This does not mean there was NO evidence, just not enough to prosecute.

p. 190 Manafort and Gates illegally engaged in acts on behalf of a foreign principal (hence their prosecution and jail time).

p. 191 Michael Flynn also violated the same act. These men were essentially trying to sell out their country in the interest of helping other countries (for lots of money).

p. 192 There was no campaign finance law violations because the Trump Campaign never paid money for the “dirt” on Clinton and thus never unlawfully spent campaign finance money to help win the election.

p. 192-195 Essentially the June 9th 2016 Trump Tower Meeting was incredibly close to violating a Federal Law banning foreign assistance during campaigns, but the Special Counsel could not prosecute on the grounds that “recounting damning information that is historically accurate” does not constitute a “thing of value” (they then go on to define “thing of value” to prove their point).

SIDE NOTE: So there WAS a type of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russian Agents, but just not technically according to legal definitions. 

p. 196-199 Redacted (this is suspicious).

p. 199-206 All the indictments because of lying to the FBI

VOLUME 2 – Obstruction of Justice Investigation of the President

p. 213 MUELLER STATES THAT HE CANNOT PROSECUTE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THAT ACTION IS UP TO CONGRESS. So he is only providing evidence here and it clearly points to the fact that Donald Trump obstructed justice.

p.213 MUELLERS STATES THAT A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED (ONLY IMPEACHED), WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE. This leaves the door open for prosecution once Trump leaves office.

There is a good reason for this precedent. A President could be implicated in a dozen crimes of which he is innocent and standing trial for those crimes would take all of his or her time away from the all important office and duties he or she is meant to uphold. A President’s crimes must be so egregious and obvious that Impeachment becomes necessary and this requires an enormous majority of Congress to accomplish (which also makes it a Political trial more than an evidence-based trial).

p. 214 IF TRUMP WAS INNOCENT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT WOULD HAVE STATED IT. HE IS NOT.

The report on Obstruction all but states that Trump committed Obstruction on the first page, but leaves the conclusion (and trial) up to the Congress.

p. 215 Mueller outlines the main evidence for Obstruction of Justice in the first chunk of this Volume. Here are the main points:

  1. During the 2016 campaign, Trump lied publicly that he did not believe Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC when privately he was seeking even more information from Wikileaks which he knew was connected to Russia.
  2. Trump also lied about having business connections in Russia during his campaign while he was, in fact, negotiating with Russian Oligarchs to build Trump Tower Moscow.
  3. After being elected, Trump expressed private concerns that the Russia Investigation might delegitimize his Presidency.
  4. On January 27th, 2017, the day after the President was informed that Michael Flynn lied to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to dinner at the White House and demanded loyalty.
  5. On February 14th, 2017, the day after the President asked for Flynn’s resignation, the President told an advisor, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” The advisor disagreed and said the investigation would continue. Hearing this, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey (to the dismay of all of Trump’s advisors), and asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn.
  6. Trump sought to have Deputy National Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak (this is actually more proof of Russian Collusion). McFarland declined because she did not know if that was true and this letter would look like a quid-pro-quo for the ambassadorship she had just been offered.
  7. In February of 2017, Trump told Don McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself on the Russia Investigation. When Sessions recused himself, Trump expressed outrage and told advisors he should have an Attorney General that would protect him. Trump took Sessions aside that weekend and told him to “un-recuse.”
  8. Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed to Congress that the FBI was investigating “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election,” including any links to the Trump campaign. Trump reached out to DNI and CIA to get them to publicly dispel any suggestion the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also called Comey twice directly, against his own lawyer’s (Don McGahn’s) advice. He wanted Comey to publicly state that Trump was innocent.
  9. May 3rd, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey.
  10. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, falsely state that Comey had informed the President he was not under investigation.
  11. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation, but the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice so this was a lie.
  12. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off” by Comey’s firing.
  13. The next day, the President acknowledged in a TV interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the DOJ’s recommendation and that when he “decided to just do it,” he was thinking that “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.
  14. On May 17th, when Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to investigate the Russian Election Interference and possible ties to Trump, the President reacted to this news saying: “this is the end of my presidency” and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions resigned, but Trump did not accept it.
  15. The President tried to tell aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and could not continue. His advisors told him those alleged conflicts had no merit and were already considered by the Department of Justice.
  16. On June 14th, 2017, when Trump found out he was certainly under investigation, Trump fired off a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s investigation.
  17. On June 17th, 2017 the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had “conflicts of interest” and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out this decision deciding he would rather resign than carry out what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre (a reference to Watergate).
  18. Two days after directing McGahn to fire Mueller, the President made another attempt to affect the investigation. On June 19th, 2017, the President met one-on-one with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. He told Sessions to say that the investigation was “very unfair” to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and “let him move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.” Lewandowski never delivered this message, feeling uncomfortable with the request. He asked White House Official Rick Dearborn to do it, but he did not follow through either.
  19. Trump then began blasting Sessions on Twitter mocking him and letting him know his job was in jeopardy (clearly) because he was not fighting Mueller publicly in regards to this investigation.
  20. Trump edited a press statement about the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump tower deleting a sentence that stated the Russians had “information helpful to the campaign” and stating the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. The President’s personal lawyer said the President had no role in drafting this statement, but this was later proven to be a lie. Trump helped to draft this lie to the Public about a very important component of the Russia Investigation (by itself this is obstruction).
  21. In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal.
  22. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to “take a look at investigating Clinton.”
  23. In December of 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty, Trump told Sessions that if he “un-recused himself and took back supervision of the Russia Investigation, he would be a hero.”
  24. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel in 2017 and that McGahn threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. Trump ordered McGahn to refute this claim publicly and make a record that this was never the case. McGahn told Trump officials (who were asking him to do this) that the reports were accurate and he would not lie. Trump later asked McGahn why he had told the truth to Mueller about Trump trying to get McGahn to fire him, and why McGahn took notes during their meetings.
  25. After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, Trump’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn’s attorneys reminding them of Trump’s “warm feelings for him” which “still remain” and for a “heads up” if Flynn knew “information that implicates the President.”
  26. When Flynn’s counsel informed Trump that Flynn could no longer share information, the President’s counsel said he would make sure Flynn knew his actions reflected “hostility” towards the President.
  27. The President praised Manafort in public, calling him a “brave man” for refusing to “break” and said that “flipping” almost ought to be outlawed.
  28. Trump’s conduct towards Michael Cohen changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President’s involvement in Trump Tower Moscow, to the castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness.
  29. When Cohen started cooperating with Special Counsel, Trump publicly called him a “rat,” and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.
  30. Trump threatened witnesses in public and dangled pardons and this is still an obstruction of justice even though it was done in plain view.
  31. Trump acted in two phases: prior to being told he was under investigation and afterwards. The second phase also occurred after firing James Comey. His actions, both publicly and privately, after finding out he was being investigated demonstrate a clear motive to obstruct.

p. 220 The President’s counsel tried to stop the investigation into obstruction, but their defenses failed to provide a basis for declining to investigate the facts.

p. 220 The President is not immune from being prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice, but it is the Congress’ job to investigate and prosecute (impeachment).

The next 200 pages substantiate the above conclusions in great details.

In conclusion:

The President of the United States certainly obstructed justice and is also an unwitting (or possibly witting if more evidence presents itself) aid to Russia which is why they helped him win the 2016 election.

Trump or Comey, Who’s More Credible?

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

Comey’s testimony a few weeks ago didn’t necessarily open any new lines of questions or give any new answers that were all that different than what I think most people knew or assumed before- that James Comey was fired as FBI director for some combination of lack of loyalty to the President, or because the President simply wanted to devote less time to the Russia investigation (which then could be because it could lead to him, or because for this President, he feels a duty to defend his team members loyally even if they are wrong).

 The immediate conversation is about whether the President did or did not lie, whether Comey did or did not lie, multiple layers of unprovable statements and their intents, and some statements and questions about tapes (which both parties refer to but act as though they don’t have).  There’s no apparent smoking gun- at least not one that rises to a level of taking legal action against the President that wasn’t there before.  My immediate reflection is taking two individuals and contrasting their service and what that means for the direction of the country.

 Comey has been repeatedly described as a “showboater” and “grandstander”, and there may have been some cause for that.  A cynic’s view could be that he has a high opinion of himself.  Another could be that he has a high opinion of his ideals- or rather that he is uncompromising.   If that makes him a “nut job” that he has ideals that he values more than himself, that probably isn’t that much different than many of the best career civil servants.  His testimony struck the tone of someone who feels as though his credibility has been called into question, and wished to come off first and foremost as honest and doing his best in a bad situation.  There are plenty of people on both sides of the aisles who question his judgments and who’ve said that he had no business making his statements publicly in many of his most famous exchanges- each of which would more traditionally have been made by the Attorney General (a role that he also has a clear concept of having served as Deputy and Acting Attorney General), but in both cases where both a Democratic and Republican Attorney General had decided to recuse themselves.  One could argue that his job was made much harder by two Attorney Generals who had become part of the investigations they were put in place to prosecute.

 I am struck by the President’s complete inability to understand or manage such people in public service.  In his past career, being the leader meant he was the guy writing the checks, and people listened or he stopped writing the checks.  People wanted the checks, because that’s why they were there- for the paycheck, and if there was a bigger one out there, they might go for that instead.  The President puts a premium on loyalty.  Perhaps that’s because in business, it’s his against others’ business, or market forces or other constituents- and within the spectrum of his business, it is fine to have common ground and focus first on your own team (within the limits of the law).

But being President is different.  Of the next 50 job opportunities Director Comey will have, it’s quite possible that FBI director pays the least, and that’s probably true of 95% of all Senate-confirmed appointees.  They serve at the pleasure of the President, but most are there not out of a sense of personal loyalty to him, but because they believe his administration has values similar enough to their own that within it they can provide a level of service that they value more than the other job opportunities they forgo.  And when put to the test and forced to pick between any one man and their ideals, they very often pick their ideals.  So what I was most struck by during this testimony is how odd it was that the President thought firing Director Comey (or mentioning to him that he would like those investigations to away) would have any positive impact on helping the President’s agenda.  It showed me a fundamental lack of understanding as to why all public servants seek and keep their offices in the first place- and that made me wonder (as I have in the past) why he is also serving.  Why does personal loyalty matter if all are working in selfless service to the nation?  The media will spend the next few weeks on “gotchas” that aren’t “gotchas”.  What I would rather focus on are how the President and members of all sides of Congress choose with their words and actions where they place their own loyalty- to Americans, to their parties, or to their own factions?  What I saw from Director Comey was a guy that doesn’t always get it right, and he’s struggling with that.  I also saw a number of Senators looking for self-interested quote opportunities, and a President who still doesn’t even seem to understand what motivates the leaders of his own organization.