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

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.

Reframing the Mueller Investigation

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGen ZPolitics

The Mueller report has been finalized, Barr has released a four-page summary to the American people, and now the fight has been moved to Congress to determine what happens from this point on.  Barr’s summary, though it is notably not a substitute for the entire report, states that “no evidence of collusion” was found on the President himself, and the obstruction of justice case produced results that neither “indict nor exonerate” Trump.  For Democrats, perhaps, and especially those that have been counting on Mueller to save them, the outcome, at least so far, was underwhelming. Now, the focus shifts to Congressional Democrats to decide whether they should fight to have the Mueller report released and move forward with a possible impeachment or simply move on.  But it is important to see the end of the Mueller investigation for what it is: not an unsatisfying end but part of the larger process to remove Trump from office. 

Before we go there, though, it is worth looking back at what reasonable observers should have expected at this point. The Mueller investigation took 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 interviewed witnesses, and almost two years.  Over its course, it charged 34 individuals, including nine connected to the Trump campaign, though it did not ultimately bring about criminal charges for Trump.  In a lot of ways, the Mueller investigation turned up way more information than we should have expected: what was once a question about a few Russian internet trolls and Facebook algorithms now sheds so much light on the wrongdoing inside and around the Trump campaign.  As compared to past scandals, spanning from Iran-Contra to Whitewater and beyond, Russiagate was a very successful investigation: many people very close to Trump are likely to receive justice and Mueller also recommended other findings about unrelated crimes to their respective departments.  For those who want to see Trump out of office and unable to act on his regressive agenda, the Mueller investigation was hardly a failure, even if it was overhyped by some.

Still, something about it feels disappointing, which is likely to do with our own naivety than anything else.  In other words, we should have expected this to be the institutional result of all this Russia-talk. In America, it has long been said that we have two justice systems—one for the poor and powerless and one for the rich and powerful—and that alone should explain the non-result which has come of Mueller’s investigation.  Beyond that, the history we like to remember tells us a much different story than the one which is true. In school, we all learn about Nixon’s impeachment, from break-in to coverup to resignation. We learn that a popular president was eventually forced to resign by an exhaustive investigation and about how the wheels of justice turn against all who are guilty.  But just maybe we forget or are unaware of the important context that goes along with it. A lot has been said recently of the allies Nixon courted precisely because of—and not in spite of—the Watergate investigation, of people like M. Stanton Evans who said, “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate.” Eventually, the public turned against Nixon, despite their unwillingness to do so earlier, and the Republican Party was prompted to abandon him too.  In this way, impeachments are not like trials with Congress members as jurors, but trials in which the American people force their representatives’ hands.

Due to this reality, the lesson that transcends Nixon is that removing Trump from office through electing a Democrat in 2020 and through a successful impeachment are not necessarily two divergent strategies forward.  They are, at best, one strategy, with two divergent ends. In other words, the way to impeach Trump is not to find enough evidence to change the GOP’s view on him to obtain the votes, but to change the people’s minds enough to force the GOP to abandon him to protect themselves.  To do this, the Democrat’s private strategy must be seemingly at odds with their public choices. In effect, the bar for impeachment is much higher than the bar for voting him out in 2020: while no one who supports impeachment supports his eventual re-election, there are many Americans currently who support neither his impeachment nor his re-election.  The path forward, then, is to use the cloud of the Russiagate scandal along with the failings of the Trump presidency to fell the president, killing two birds with one stone towards getting him out of office.

On the former, the Democrats have a lot to work with: the uncertainty of the verdict of the Mueller report, it doesn’t exonerate the president, nor leave him untouched with the indictments of his former staff; its incomplete nature, as the people have not read the report and the investigation did not touch on many of issues raised since by Cohen’s testimony; and the apparent secrecy of the findings, Barr issued a summary letter when an innocence-proving-document would warrant a public release.  All of this makes up the public strategy forward for Democrats, but—though I am rarely one to warn Democrats about going too far—I would say their private agenda should be one of caution. Clearly, the evidence in the case is not overwhelming, or Barr would have had to cede such findings. Therefore, impeaching Trump on the grounds of Mueller’s investigation alone with a Republican majority in the Senate is patently impossible.  With that said, Democrats need to publicly raise the Russia questions while never quite bringing the issue to a breaking point, which would likely go against them. To the plain eye, Trump is a conman, but the burden of proof for people as powerful as he is high, and that must be understood.

The point in all this is that the left would benefit from a reframing of Mueller’s investigation from a verdict of success or failure towards a realization that this is but one step in the ultimate process.  While they should not count on the Russia scandal, the left also must never forget it: when they win, they hold all the cards to enact their agenda and keep their place. It is then up to the opposition—those who support democracy and the rule of law—to take it from them.  While legal justice requires a standard beyond reasonable doubt, electoral justice only requires 270. 

Similar Read: Kamala or Bust? 

Trump’s December, A Week To Remember

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

This has been a rough month for the Trump presidency, especially the week of December 17th, 2018… certainly a week to remember…  

The government shutdown, although a partial shutdown, it’s still significant considering Trump requested $5 billion for border wall funding and failed to get the votes needed from Congress. It’s important to note that Republicans currently control the three branches of government, yet have failed to deliver on the Trump’s campaign promise. The Dems won the House in the November midterms, so expect this fight to continue with Trump and Republicans losing leverage as he prepares for the second half of his first term.

Pulling troops from Syria and Afghanistan, an announcement that came from left field has everyone including our allies shaking their heads and trying to prepare for the aftermath of such a decision. It’s rumored that Turkey President Erdoğan informed Trump of his plan to move in on the Kurds and Trump made the decision to pull our troops shortly thereafter. It’s the ultimate betrayal to our allies and the news certainly shook members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans.

James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, immediately resigned following Trump’s announcement to pull troops. Mattis, a highly respected military official, leaving the White House is a historic resignation. His resignation letter didn’t even include the generic salutation most cabinet resignations mention. Scheduled to officially leave his post in February, Trump has decided to replace him much sooner… on January 1st, former Boeing Executive Patrick Shannahan will assume the position as acting Secretary of Defense. Shannahan’s authority will be extremely limited until he’s confirmed by the Senate. 

The markets are down… a lot. In fact, the markets are having their worst year since the Great Recession. Trump often brags about the markets regarding the success of his Presidency and policy decisions, but he’s avoided the topic as of late. Many fear that the run might be over. On Sunday (12/23/18), Steven Mcuchin, Secretary of Treasury, called the Chief Executives of the United States 6 largest banks (Goldman, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, BOA, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley). He reported that they have “ample liquidity” to continue lending to consumers and businesses, unlike times during the 2008 financial crisis. But why is such a confirmation needed? 

Trump signed First Step into law, aka the Criminal Justice Reform Act. While it only impacts the criminal justice system at the federal level, which is roughly 10% (181,000) of the total US prison population (2.1 million), it’s certainly a historic piece of legislation; yet, failed to get the news coverage it deserved. So what exactly does the bill do…

  • It further reduces the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences at the federal level, which partially addresses the mass incarceration of Black and Brown people in this country.
  • It takes several meaningful steps to ease mandatory minimum sentences under federal law.
  • Inmates can now get “earned time credits” by participating in more vocational and rehabilitative programs. Such credits would grant them early release to halfway houses, which would increase their opportunities to participate in educational programs and likely reduce the recidivism rate.

All of this news is amidst Mueller’s Russia investigation which continues to be a staple in the daily news. Rumors have surfaced that Mueller will release his report as early as February, but who knows. Either way, this has been a rocky December, especially the week of December 17th. And with Dems taking over the House, it won’t get any easier for Trump and top Republicans to govern. 

Mueller’s Russia Investigation: Why this Big NothingBurger will be Trump’s Saving Grace

by with No Comment Gen Z

Let’s face it folks… It’s been over two years since the FBI used real Russian Collusion via Hillary’s Campaign financing, the infamous Trump Dossier through Fusion GPS, and Russian Operatives to start investigating Trump for fake Russian Collusion.  And it’s been a year and a half since Mueller started spending millions of dollars trying to prove Russian Collusion… and NOTHING.  They used the Hillary-financed fake (or at least unverified) dossier to start surveilling Trump’s associate, Carter Page, and others.  And yes, they did ‘tap’ Trump Tower looking for information. They said they did all this to protect poor vulnerable Mr. Trump from the big bad Russians, yet they did not surveil the Hillary campaign who actually did get hacked by the Russians!  Hmmm? Seems odd… almost like they had other reasons for doing so? 

So after two years and many lives of very decent (Gates, Papadoplous & Flynn) and some not so decent (Manafort & Cohen) people being ruined by this investigation, there have been many indictments.  The charges so far include tax evasion and lying to the FBI, but nothing to tie any of these men to Russia and certainly not collusion. Mueller is ruining lives by trying to force these men and others to take plea deals so he can squeeze them for other information on Trump or bury them with legal fees if they don’t falsely admit to lying.  It’s a sad time for our Constitution when an individual’s rights and freedoms are violated for political reason or any reason for that matter.

So how is Mueller’s Russia Investigation Trump’s Saving Grace?  

It starts with the fact that after 2 years, NO American citizen has been charged with anything even close to collusion with the Russians.  Zero.  And that is very significant.  Trump has tweeted ‘no collusion’ and ‘witch hunt’ with regard to Mueller’s investigation hundreds of times, which in essence established the benchmark Mueller needs to hit to prove that the investigation was worthwhile — proof of Trump working with Russia to influence the election. For many of his supporters, anything short of that mark is indeed a sign that Mueller has come up dry.  And that may prove to be Trump’s saving grace. 

One of the main issues facing the President is campaign financing.  That story alone is exceptional in the history of presidential campaign behavior.  Even the idea that a President would be implicated in an illegal payoff to secure an election would be an unusual occurrence in U.S. history, especially one where he won by less than 100,000 votes in 3 key states. 

Trump set the high standard of misbehavior at ‘direct collusion’ months before any of this other stuff emerged. For every new revelation about criminal activity by people related to the Trump campaign or for every new development in the campaign finance story, the immediate response from Trump and his base is consistent: “Where’s the collusion? Show me the collusion.”

Imagine if this Russia investigation or these campaign finance allegations didn’t exist?  Imagine if Trump’s evolving lies about what happened were the most significant issue the President faced? The direct pressure he faced would probably be more significant.  The Russian Collusion ‘Witch Hunt’ will never implicate Trump in any criminal activity. The fact that it occupies the public’s minds right now instead of the campaign finance issue gives Trump cover.  So, for all of his dislike of the Mueller Russia Investigation, it just might end up being his Saving Grace.

A Tangled Web, Mueller Eyes Cohen

by with No Comment Uncategorized

After a short lull in developments in the Mueller probe, the F.B.I. conducted a raid of Trump’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen’s office and hotel room on Monday. While this is a significant development, it’s probably not as definitive or conclusive as some might wish. However, it is very interesting, and adds another layer to the complex network of connections this investigation is uncovering.

First, Mueller’s team didn’t order the raid, and it doesn’t appear to be directly related to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But Mueller, apparently not willing to investigate all of the evidence his team uncovers, referred the matter to prosecutors unconnected with the investigation. Then the Justice Department gave the green light. This is a big deal. Trump’s own Justice Department authorized the raid.

So, what does this mean?

It doesn’t mean that Cohen had anything directly to do with Russian interference, although that might come up later. The search warrant includes documents from several years back, which might indicate that there’s a long history of shady dealings. One of those was a pitch by close Trump associate Felix Sater about a property deal in Russia. This is not a revelation; emails were uncovered recently between he and Cohen discussing the potentially lucrative deal.

It does mean that something big may be happening. Search warrants authorizing raids like this are used only in situations when it’s strongly believed that the subject will not willingly turn over potential evidence, and in fact may attempt to destroy it. While the raid isn’t because of suspicion of interference in the election, it could dredge up evidence that happens to have that connection. And this evidence will be shared with Mueller’s team. So, it would seem that Mr. Cohen has a lot to worry about, one way or another.

Cohen has been one of Trump’s closest confidantes for more than a decade. He’s been privy to many of the inner workings of the Trump Organization, and no doubt has many sensitive documents full of privileged information. Any evidence uncovered could have far-reaching consequences.

Trump can scream to the rafters that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt, but the search is an indication that there is a rumbling of a volcano that will surely erupt into real charges. When is anyone’s guess, but Mueller better have something solid to show pretty soon.

His job is more at risk now than ever before.

Despite Crazy News Cycle… We Should Remain Focused On Mueller

by with 2 Comments FeaturedPolitics

The media buzz around Meuller…

Two weeks ago as the President began to ratchet up his rhetoric against the Russia investigation, the press spent four days trying to drum up a narrative that Mueller was about to be fired, setting off a constitutional crisis. The basis was that the President was frustrated, attacking Mueller directly (which hadn’t happened before) and his past firing of Comey made it at least plausible that he might do something irrational. In supporting the narrative, CNN spent the weekend asking every GOP senator they could find whether they would support firing Mueller. As anyone could imagine, they were not supportive, and their solicited statements served to further whip up urgency that Mueller’s days were numbered. I truly don’t believe that anyone in the media thought that was really on the table; instead, a narrative to fill a slow news cycle on a Sunday.

Far more plausible is that the President ratcheted up his rhetoric because he had been promised by his lawyers the probe was going to wrap up soon. Against the President’s instincts, John Dowd had been promising him that compliance (not bravado) would carry the day. That’s not the President’s natural way, but he relented. The result was a probe that continued, and when his lawyers brought him the news that he was about to be asked to testify, he blew up at both his counsel (who he promptly dismissed), and without trust in their guidance, lashed out again in frustration. While that is petulant, childish and wholly unpresidential, that’s been no different from most of his tweets over the past year. It’s equally likely that a president who never seemed to collude with his Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, OMB chief or House and Senate leaders, also never took the time to collude with anyone on his staff talking to Russia (albeit more out of ADD than any principled stand), and is frustrated that his job is to put out a message, and yet Russia (and Stormy Daniels) have been the message over and over.

If the President didn’t understand with Comey, he understands now that the end of Mueller is the end of his administration. I can’t imagine any responsible person on either side of (or even 50 miles from) the aisle that wants any part of a president who actively colluded with an enemy nation to win his election. If that’s proven, all agree that he’s done. Further, if Mueller is fired before completing his work, the best possible outcome for the White House would be a re-start with a far more difficult prosecutor with far more reason to dig. The president firing Mueller is most likely the dream scenario for those starkly opposed to this president. Far more likely is that it drags on for another year, hangs shade over all of Washington for years to come, further pulls all of America toward the far right and far left, and we all spend the next 3 (to 7?) years reading what Jimmy Kimmel used to call “mean tweets.” These days that seemed like an antiquated characterization… These days, they’re just tweets.

The Trump Train Wreck

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

The Trump Administration is on a collision course, hurtling headlong into the relative normality of the GOP. All of the unpalatable, offensive things that many of us saw so plainly long before Donald Trump was elected, are apparently now crystal clear to them for the very first time.

I have always had cause to shake my head at the GOP and the religious right on occasion, but I have never constantly been aghast at the behavior of their leaders as I have been over the last couple of years. And only now – when their “prince who was promised” has, for all intents and purposes, endorsed the politely termed “alt right” (aka racists who call themselves patriots) – are they abandoning the ship in droves.

That was the last straw for them.

Do you know what the last straw wasn’t?

The last straw was not that Trump had dealings with Putin’s shady administration, endangering national security and putting our entire country in jeopardy (don’t tell me it’s not proven; the evidence is simply being ignored by his followers).

It wasn’t the fact that he built his cabinet largely of Wall Street fat cats and coal magnates, who have the sole objective to enrich themselves, damned the poor souls who are crippled with the burden of making them richer.

It’s not the fact that he has, with the stroke of a pen, hobbled our efforts to clean up the environment by crippling the very agencies charged with that task and installing a climate change denier to head the EPA, nor by brazenly walking away from the Paris Accord.

It wasn’t the firing of James Comey, for doing nothing more than his job, nor was it the fact that he threatened to fire Robert Mueller for investigating any collusion with the Russians in his bid for the White House.

It wasn’t for praising Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte for his murderous campaign against suspected drug criminals without evidence or trial.

It wasn’t that he effectively and efficiently disintegrated the United States’ credibility on the world stage, dragging our country from respectable to laughable during his first trips abroad.

It wasn’t the patently dishonest statements he has made on Twitter, in interviews and speeches, and at press conferences – all on camera – and denies having done so even when presented with the evidence.

It wasn’t the on-camera braggadocio in claiming that he can grab a woman’s genitals with impunity, or the number of lawsuits against him for sexual assault.

It was not the literally dozens of lawsuits against him for fraud and failure to pay his contractors.

The GOP and religious leaders drew a line in the sand when Trump became inconvenient and unprofitable for them. Displaying sympathy for racists was that last straw.

All the above mentioned straws before then were okay, I suppose.

Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.

The Trump Effect… This Week’s Recap 8/4/17

by with No Comment Media

Whether you’re on the Left, Center, or Right… listen to their words and draw your own conclusions…

At a Trump rally Thursday night (8/3/17) West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice announced his decision to flip from the Democratic Party to the GOP:

“Today I will tell you with lots of prayers and lots of thinking, I’ll tell you West Virginians, I can’t help you any more being a Democrat governor.” 

At the same rally, Trump responded to the ongoing Russia investigation:

“We didn’t win because of Russia. We won because of you… The Russia story is a total fabrication. It’s just an excuse for the greatest loss in the history of American politics.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued grand jury subpoenas this week as the next step in his investigation. Special counsel to the President Ty Cobb responded:

“The White House favors anything that accelerates the conclusion of his work fairly… The White House is committed to fully cooperating with Mr. Mueller.”

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham on whether or not Trump lied about helping his son write a misleading statement about his meeting with a Russia lawyer in 2016:

“If that’s true then that was a bad decision by the President which will make us ask more questions… When you get caught in a lie about one thing, it makes it hard to just say ‘let the other stuff go.'” 

Recently released transcripts reveal Trump’s comments in his January (2017) conversation with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto:

“We have a massive drug problem where kids are becoming addicted to drugs because the drugs are being sold for less money than candy… I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den.” 

(Trump won the Republican primary in New Hampshire, but he lost the state to Hillary Clinton in last years presidential election by roughly 3,000 votes.)

New Hampshire’s Republican Governor Chris Sununu responded to Trump’s statement:

“It’s disappointing his mischaracterization of this epidemic ignores the great things this state has to offer.”

New Hampshire Democratic Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter also responded:

“No, Mr. President, you’re wrong about New Hampshire – but you have failed to help us fight the opioid crisis… Stop attacking health care, and make the investments you promised.”

The Trump Admistration hopes to cut legal immigration to the United States by nearly half. As critics piled on, Trump responded:

“This legislation will not only restore our competitive edge in the 21st century, but it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between America and its citizens. This legislation demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first and that puts America first.”  

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.