|
FOCUS | Mueller Is Telling Us: He's Got Trump on Collusion |
 |
|
Saturday, 08 December 2018 12:31 |
|
Excerpt: "For nearly two years, since the U.S. intelligence community released its report on the Russian campaign to assist Donald Trump in the 2016 election, the American people have been seeking an answer as to whether the Trump campaign colluded with its Russian counterpart."
Robert Mueller. (photo: NBC)
Mueller Is Telling Us: He's Got Trump on Collusion
By Max Bergmann and Sam Berger, The Daily Beast
08 December 18
The special counsel is connecting the dots and it doesn’t paint a pretty picture for the president.
 or nearly two years, since the U.S. intelligence community released its report on the Russian campaign to assist Donald Trump in the 2016 election, the American people have been seeking an answer as to whether the Trump campaign colluded with its Russian counterpart. In the endless speculation about the direction of the investigation, a common view was that maybe the investigation would never implicate President Trump or find any collusion.
But a flurry of recent activity this past week all points in the same direction: Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation will likely implicate the president, his campaign, and his close associates in aiding and abetting a Russian conspiracy against the United States to undermine the 2016 election.
First, Mueller has clearly identified collusion in the efforts of Trump aides and associates to contact WikiLeaks. In a draft plea agreement provided to conservative operative Jerome Corsi, Mueller details how Roger Stone, who the special counsel notes was in frequent contact with Donald Trump and senior campaign officials, directed Corsi to connect with WikiLeaks about the trove of stolen materials it received from Russia. Corsi subsequently communicated WikiLeaks’ release plan back to Stone, and the Trump campaign built its final message around the email release. That is collusion.
Second, we now know that Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn have provided evidence to Mueller related to collusion. In Cohen’s sentencing memo, Mueller said that Cohen provided his office with “useful information” on “Russia-related matters core to its investigation.” One of those central elements, according to the Justice Department: “any links and/or coordination” between the Kremlin and Trump campaign figures. Collusion, in other words.
In Flynn’s sentencing memo Mueller said that Flynn’s false statements to the FBI about his calls with the Russian ambassador during the transition were “material” to the investigation into “links or coordination between Russia and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”
Third, Mueller has found evidence that Trump was compromised by a hostile foreign power during the election. In his plea deal, Cohen revealed that Trump had repeatedly lied to voters about the then-candidate’s financial ties Russia. While Trump claimed during the campaign to have no business dealings with Russia, he was negotiating a wildly lucrative business deal not simply with Russian businessmen, but also involving with the Kremlin itself. Trump’s team even reportedly tried to bribe Russian President Vladimir Putin by offering him a $50 million penthouse.
Worse, Russia not only knew that Trump was lying, but when investigators first started looking into this deal, the Kremlin helped Trump cover up what really happened. That made Trump doubly compromised: first, because he was eager to get the financial payout and second because Russia had evidence he was lying to the American people—evidence they could have held over Trump by threatening to reveal at any time.
Since the president’s embarrassing performance at the Helsinki summit with Vladimir Putin—when he kowtowed to a foreign adversary rather than stand up for American interests—there has been open speculation about what leverage the Kremlin has over him. Now we know at least part of the picture, raising the specter of what other information Putin has, and how he is using it to influence Trump’s policy decisions.
Fourth, we know that Trump has engaged in an increasingly brazen attempt to cover up his actions: installing a political crony to head the Department of Justice by potentially illegal means in an effort to shut down the investigation; using his former campaign chairman and convicted criminal Paul Manafort to find out information about Mueller’s investigation; and even appearing to offer Manafort a pardon if he helps him obstruct the Russia probe. These may be components of an obstruction of justice case, but they also provide strongly circumstantial data points as to how serious Trump himself views the allegations of collusion being levelled against him.
Lastly, federal prosecutors have told us Trump broke the law to influence the 2016 election by hiding evidence of his affairs. Trump clearly had no qualms about breaking the law to win an election.
In the face of what Mueller has revealed, there is little question where this is going. Mueller may still be only showing us part of his hand, but it’s a damn good hand. He has signalled to us he’s found collusion. He has shown us that the president is compromised. He has told us that he has gathered information important to his investigation about contacts with people in the Trump Organization, the campaign, the transition, and even the White House. That’s everyone Trump has been connected with since he started running. And given all the redacted information in his filings and all that he’s been told by cooperating witnesses, we can be confident that Mueller will show us even more.
Mueller is coming. And he is clearly coming for Trump. Not simply for obstructing justice but for conspiring with a hostile foreign power to win an election. This is a scandal unlike any America has ever seen.
 |
|
FOCUS: Trump's New Attorney General, William Barr, Is a Big Fan of Executive Privilege |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48249"><span class="small">Ryan Bort, Rolling Stone</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 08 December 2018 11:48 |
|
Bort writes: "A month to the day after firing Jeff Sessions, President Trump has announced his pick for U.S. attorney general. 'I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating The Honorable William P. Barr for the position of Attorney General of the United States,' he tweeted Friday morning."
William Barr. (photo: Chris Kleponis/Bloomberg)
Trump's New Attorney General, William Barr, Is a Big Fan of Executive Privilege
By Ryan Bort, Rolling Stone
08 December 18
William Barr, who already served as attorney general under George H.W. Bush, has argued that the president should be able to fire at will
 month to the day after firing Jeff Sessions, President Trump has announced his pick for U.S. attorney general. “I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating The Honorable William P. Barr for the position of Attorney General of the United States,” he tweeted Friday morning. “As the former AG for George H.W. Bush and one of the most highly respected lawyers and legal minds in the Country, he will be a great addition to our team. I look forward to having him join our very successful Administration!”
If Barr is confirmed by the Senate, it will be his second turn atop the Justice Department. As Trump noted, Barr previously served as attorney general under George H.W. Bush, from 1991 to 1993. Before that, he was Bush’s deputy attorney general. Unlike with interim attorney general Andrew Whitaker, it’s hard to argue that Barr isn’t qualified for the role. Very much like with Whitaker, Barr has a specific history that may play into Trump’s desire to insulate himself from legal jeopardy.
For one, Barr is a pretty big fan of executive privilege. In 1989, while serving as the assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel, he wrote a memo outlining his aversion to “encroachments” from Congress on the the president’s power. “[O]nly by consistently and forcefully resisting such congressional incursions can executive branch prerogatives be preserved,” he wrote, as pointed out by Law & Crime. Barr went on to argue that the president’s “power to remove subordinates is essential to carrying out” his responsibilities. In other words, Barr believes the president should be able to fire anyone he wants at will. He also doesn’t seem to have much of an issue with dismissing special counsels.
Recent history also suggests Barr will be plenty amenable to Trump’s agenda. He hasn’t exactly been an ardent defender of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia, telling the New York Times in November 2017 that the Justice Department would be better served looking into Hillary Clinton’s sale of Uranium One, a well-trod fever dream of the “Lock Her Up” crowd. Barr even went so far as to say the DOJ is “abdicating its responsibility” by not pursuing such an investigation.
His belief in the absolute power of the president was on display a few months earlier, when in an op-ed for the Washington Post he wrote that Trump “made the right call” in firing FBI Director James Comey. Barr didn’t seem very interested in the idea that Trump may have fired Comey because he was investigating the president’s ties to Russia, which would have constituted obstruction of justice. “It is telling that none of the president’s critics are challenging the decision on the merits,” Barr wrote. “None argue that Comey’s performance warranted keeping him on as director. Instead, they are attacking the president’s motives, claiming the president acted to neuter the investigation into Russia’s role in the election.”
Shortly after firing Comey, and a day before the Post published Barr’s op-ed, Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt the move was made because the “Russia thing.”
The Republican majority in the Senate means Barr will likely be confirmed, especially considering his decorated resumé and pedigree in Republican politics. Democrats aren’t going to make it easy, though. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) told CNN that she “would have a hard time” supporting Barr because he “auditioned for the job by catching President Trump’s attention by talking about how Hillary Clinton should continue to be investigated.” On Friday, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told the Post that Barr’s assertion that the conspiracy theory surrounding Uranium One is more worthy of investigating than potential collusion with Russia “is pretty troubling.” If that is the case, said Blumenthal, “how are you going to protect the integrity of the special counsel?” Minority Leader Schumer (D-NY) is also skeptical. “Given President Trump’s demonstrated lack of regard for the rule of law and the independence of the American justice system, his nominee for attorney general will have a steep hill to climb in order to be confirmed by the Senate,” he said.
Republicans aren’t so wary. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wrote on Friday that Barr is an “outstanding” choice who will “provide a strong and steady hand” to the Justice Department.
“I will do everything in my power to push him through the Senate Judiciary Committee and onto the floor of the Senate for eventual confirmation as soon as possible,” added Graham, whose Twitter profile picture now features a smiling Brett Kavanaugh. “Well done Mr. President.”
|
|
|
There's Nothing on Heaven and Earth These People Wouldn't Ratf*ck |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 08 December 2018 09:21 |
|
Pierce writes: "We've spent most of the weeks talking about the ways, big and small, that Republicans in the various states have determined that their control over political institutions should not be inconvenienced by such trivial matters as losing elections."
Mark Harris addresses a crowd in Charlotte on October 26 with President* Trump. (photo: Getty Images)
There's Nothing on Heaven and Earth These People Wouldn't Ratf*ck
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
08 December 18
This week in the laboratories of democracy.
Being our semi-regular weekly survey of what's goin' down in the several states where, as we know, the real work of governmentin' gets done and where nobody's seen Claudette since January.
 e've spent most of the weeks talking about the ways, big and small, that Republicans in the various states have determined that their control over political institutions should not be inconvenienced by such trivial matters as losing elections. It's happening in Pennsylvania, too. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
In the weeks before the November election, Republicans backed an unsuccessful legal effort to get her kicked off the ballot on the grounds that she did not meet the residency requirements outlined in the state constitution, which says that lawmakers must live in the state four years. Ms. Williams, who has repeatedly said she does meet the requirements, prevailed and won election in the 38th Senatorial District, which includes parts of Pittsburgh and its northern suburbs.
In a letter dated Thursday, Mr. Scarnati said he questions “your qualification to be sworn in to serve in accordance with the Constitutional requirements.” He gave her seven days to provide copies of her driver’s licenses, employment history, tax withholdings, home purchase or rental agreements and any other information she deems relevant. He said she may request a hearing before a panel of senators. He said she may receive pay, hire employees and do other administrative duties during the month of December, but if the Senate decides not to seat her in January, she will need to repay her salary.
She wins in court, and that's not enough. She wins at the polls, and that's not enough. An angel could descend on her from a winged chariot and these guys would ask for the angel's papers and write him up for parking in a loading zone. There is nothing on heaven and earth they wouldn't ratfck.
Meanwhile, in our continuing series, what's the latest from that capital of American democracy, Bladen County, North Carolina? It's got worse since last we checked. But the local Republicans seem to be feeling things hotting up around them. From NBC News:
North Carolina GOP executive director Dallas Woodhouse said Thursday that the party supports the state investigation. "If they can show with certainty that the outcome could not have been changed, they need to certify Mr. Harris and continue to support all state and federal criminal investigations," he said. "If they can show a substantial likelihood it could have changed the race, then we fully would support a new election" Woodhouse added.
Meanwhile, some voters in the district are now speaking out, with personal accounts about how their absentee ballots were unlawfully collected. Datesha Montgomery told NBC News that a blonde woman came to her door on Oct. 12 and asked if she could collect her absentee ballot. "I told her, ‘Sure.’ I had broke the seal in front of her to show it was never opened," Montgomery said. "I’m telling her who I was voting for, and she was like — she didn’t wanna hear it, so I just like, didn’t say nothing else. I just filled out two blocks, and I gave it to her." Montgomery, 27, lives with her 4-year old daughter in a neatly manicured public housing complex named Twisted Hickory just outside of Elizabethtown in Bladen County. She said she gave her unsealed absentee ballot to the woman, believing her to be an election official who would turn the ballot in.
But she said two investigators later showed up at her house and told her it had never been submitted. So she went to a polling place on Election Day to cast her vote in person. Emma Shipman, 87, of Tar Heel, had a similar story. A blonde woman showed up at her door to encourage her to turn in her absentee ballot, she told NBC News. But Shipman said she wouldn’t give it to the woman, even after the woman said she would provide a stamp to mail the ballot for her. “I have plenty of stamps,” Shipman said she responded.
Again, angel. Winged chariot. It lands in Bladen County and somebody walks up and offers to collect the angel's absentee ballot. Angel declines. Six weeks later, the angel discovers he voted for the Republican.
Moving on to Colorado, we find a Democratic legislator caught up in one of the worst #MeToo scandals of the era. From the Denver Post:
“It’s been a great honor to serve the people of Colorado for just short of a decade,” Kagan said in a statement. “An important obligation of leaders, I believe, is to be open to acknowledging that it’s time to pass the torch to new leadership and, for me, that time is now.” He had served most of four terms in the House before he won election to the Senate District 26 seat in 2016. Kagan was one of a handful of lawmakers to be accused of misconduct this year.
A 21-page report made public by his accuser, Republican state Sen. Beth Martinez Humenik, said Kagan had been seen in the women’s restroom by multiple women on three occasions since January 2017. But he contended that he’d entered the restroom — which was unlabeled at the time — just once, and by mistake. A sign was added this year designating the restroom as being for women, which had been the custom. On Wednesday, Martinez Humenik said through a Senate Republicans spokesman: “I asked for a public apology to all involved, not a resignation. We are all still waiting on his apology.” Colorado GOP spokesman Daniel Cole echoed her call for a public apology, adding: “Kagan wronged her and others, and he should acknowledge their experience instead of just resigning to avoid having to look at them.”
There's something weirdly intense about this reaction, not least because the Republicans seem to want to back the bus up over Kagan and run him over again. This ferocity is not evident in similar situations involving Republican politicians.
And we conclude, as is our custom, in the great state of Oklahoma, where Blog Official Jaybird couturier Friedman Of The Plains brings us the tale of people who are still suffering from the arms race. From the Enid News and Eagle:
Simpson is one of 195,000 to 300,000 U.S. troops who were subjected to atomic testing between 1945 and 1962, according to the National Association of Atomic Veterans (NAAV). Since participating in an atomic bomb test in 1953, Simpson has had more than 30 cancerous lesions removed from his body. For more on Simpson, read the accompanying story “Decades later, Atomic Veterans still fighting for recognition.” Simpson now has access to VA benefits and a small monthly pension. But, it took more than six decades to get there, and he worries many other atomic veterans aren’t receiving the help they need. When Simpson was discharged from the Marines in 1954, he said the Navy doctor who out-processed him “said the VA would take care of us.”
And, lo and behold, and only thanks to the determination of a woman in the local VA office, six decades later, the federal government finally got around to it. Sort of.
In 1979, 25 years after Simpson was discharged, he said the VA called him to come in for an evaluation. But, that visit yielded only a familiar response: “They said they would call me.” It was 2016 — another 37 years — before the VA followed up on his request for medical help. “I called them back and asked them why it took them 63 years to follow up on my request,” Simpson said. Simpson said his luck with the VA changed when he enlisted the help of Linda Turner, a veteran herself and veterans service representative with the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs. Turner helps local veterans navigate the paperwork of disability claims and appeals.
With her help, Simpson was scheduled a new review with a VA-contracted doctor in Oklahoma City. “He looked at my head, arms and face,” Simpson said. “He didn’t want to look at my groin or back where cancers had been cut out.” Simpson said he’s grateful for Turner’s help, the medical coverage and small pension that comes with it. But, that doesn’t undo having to wait almost 65 years for answers, he said. “If I’ve been that way for 65 years, why did it take them that long to figure it out,” he said, “and why should I not get back-paid until 1953 when it happened?”
Why not, indeed. These are the people who need the angel.
This is your democracy, America. Cherish it.
|
|
The Art of the Imaginary Deal |
|
|
Friday, 07 December 2018 14:27 |
|
Krugman writes: "Are we going to have a full-blown trade war with China, and maybe the rest of the world? Nobody knows - because it all depends on the whims of one man. And Tariff Man is ignorant, volatile and delusional."
U.S. and Chinese flags. (photo: Reuters)
The Art of the Imaginary Deal
By Paul Krugman, The New York Times
07 December 18
On trade, Trump is a rebel without a clue
re we going to have a full-blown trade war with China, and maybe the rest of the world? Nobody knows — because it all depends on the whims of one man. And Tariff Man is ignorant, volatile and delusional.
Why do I say that it’s all about one man? After all, after the 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit vote in Britain, there was a lot of talk about a broad popular backlash against globalization. Over the past two years, however, it has become clear that this backlash was both smaller and shallower than advertised.
Where, after all, is the major constituency supporting Donald Trump’s tariffs and threats to exit international agreements? Big business hates the prospect of a trade war, and stocks plunge whenever that prospect becomes more likely. Labor hasn’t rallied behind Trumpist protectionism either.
READ MORE
|
|
