|
FOCUS: Trump's Tweet About Donald Jr. and the Russians Is a Gift to Mueller |
 |
|
Saturday, 11 August 2018 10:49 |
|
Excerpt: "President Donald Trump's weekend tweet regarding the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians may seem like just one more of many he has posted that tend to incriminate himself, but this time it contained an explicit admission about a fact that he has vehemently denied and this time he might also have implicated his son, Donald Trump Jr."
Robert Mueller. (photo: James Berglie/TNS)
Trump's Tweet About Donald Jr. and the Russians Is a Gift to Mueller
By Barbara McQuade and Mimi Rocah, The Daily Beast
11 August 18
The president’s story about the Trump Tower meeting keeps changing. That’s blood in the water for prosecutors.
 resident Donald Trump’s weekend tweet regarding the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians may seem like just one more of many he has posted that tend to incriminate himself, but this time it contained an explicit admission about a fact that he has vehemently denied and this time he might also have implicated his son, Donald Trump Jr.
On Sunday, Trump tweeted about the now well-known meeting that occurred in June 2016 at Trump Tower with Russians. Trump tweeted that it was “Fake News, a complete fabrication” that he was concerned about the meeting that his “wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower.” In doing so, Trump made a somewhat stunning admission: “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent.”
Let that sink in.
After dozens of tweets and statements, many in all caps, that “there was NO COLLUSION!” by anyone in the Trump campaign, Trump has now publicly admitted that, in fact, there was collusion (yes, we are purposefully using the “collusion” word instead of the legal term “conspiracy” here) by his own son, Donald Trump Jr. Of course, Trump followed that admission it with his newest line of defense that it’s “[t]otally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere.” Oh, and “I did not know about it,” he said of the meeting.
So, putting aside the fact that Trump now has admitted he lied repeatedly and publicly about “no collusion” what does the tweet mean for the legal implications and the real “c” word—conspiracy—for Trump and his son? Let’s break it down.
First, the conduct that occurred before and during the meeting was likely not “totally legal.” Campaign finance laws make it illegal to solicit or accept a “thing of value” from a foreign national. The reason for this law is to prevent foreign individuals or governments from having undue influence over candidates for public office. Accepting a donation from a foreign source, let alone a hostile foreign government, could divide the loyalties of successful candidates who go on to become public servants. The law removes this conflict of interest by banning foreign contributions.
Second, Trump included in his tweet the statement that he did not know about the meeting. Why include such a statement if it is totally legal? Michael Cohen has reportedly suggested that Trump was told about and approved the meeting in advance. If so, Trump, along with the others who participated, could possibly be charged with a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws (even if a president cannot be indicted, he could be named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an indictment with Trump Jr.).
If Trump or his son became aware of hacked emails and provided guidance about how or when to disseminate them, they could be guilty of accessory-after-the-fact to a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or conspiracy to defraud the United States by interfering with the administration of elections. Special counsel Robert Mueller would need only to supersede the indictment he has already filed against 12 Russian intelligence agents to add either of these counts. In addition, if it is discovered that the real subject of the meeting was a quid pro quo—such as dropping sanctions on Russia for help with Trump’s campaign—federal bribery laws could also be implicated by the meeting and its aftermath once Trump was the Republican nominee.
Third, this tweet could contribute to the growing pile of evidence of obstruction of justice. This tweet contradicts the press release that Trump reportedly dictated aboard Air Force One, describing the meeting as “primarily about adoptions.” While a press statement or a tweet standing alone is unlikely to constitute an obstruction of justice offense, it can provide evidence of the corrupt intent necessary to prove such a charge.
This tweet could be significant when combined with other evidence, including his demand of former FBI Director James Comey for a loyalty pledge, his request to Comey to let go of the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, the subsequent firing of Comey, his statement to Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of Russia, and his tweet that he had to fire Flynn because Flynn lied to the FBI.
The fact that Trump now contradicts his earlier claim that the meeting was about adoption may tend to show that Trump acted with the “corrupt purpose” required for an obstruction charge. By misleading the public in the press release, Trump was seeking to hide the truth (from the public and even possibly from congressional and FBI investigators) about his campaign’s contacts with Russia. Was he doing the same when he took steps to end the FBI’s Russia investigation?
Finally, Trump’s admission almost certainly answers the question of whether his son lied, and therefore likely committed perjury, when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that was not “aware” of foreign governments other than Russia offering or providing assistance to the Trump campaign and that he had not sought such help.
One response to all of this by Trump and his supporters is the “whataboutism defense.” What about the fact that the Democratic National Committee retained a law firm that hired Fusion GPS, which in turn hired Christopher Steele, a U.K. citizen, to conduct opposition research about Trump and create the so-called Steele dossier? Isn’t that just as bad as taking information, documents or emails from the Russians?
Well, no.
First, Steele was paid, and was not making a contribution, so Hillary Clinton was not in any way indebted to Steele, in compliance with the language and spirit of the law. In fact, by all indications, the Clinton campaign did not know that the law firm it retained had hired Steele. Even if Steele was talking to foreign individuals for his work, no foreigners were donating information directly to her campaign, which was paying a law firm for research. Because the Clinton campaign did not solicit or accept “a thing of value” from foreign nationals, the Steele project did not potentially compromise Clinton the way the Trump Tower meeting could potentially compromise Trump.
Second, there’s just no argument that several of the potential crimes mentioned above—computer hacking, bribery, obstruction of justice, perjury—could be implicated by the DNC or Clinton campaign’s actions.
The bottom line is this: Trump has completely shifted his story about the meeting at Trump Tower from “NO COLLUSION” to “maybe collusion but no conspiracy crime” and has shown evidence of “consciousness of guilt.” That is, people typically don’t need to change their stories unless they have something to hide. Trump’s shifting stories about the purpose of the meeting could indicate that he knows that he and/or his campaign or his son broke the law.
 |
|
Pence Calls Space Force Necessary to Protect US From Gay Aliens |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 10 August 2018 13:01 |
|
Borowitz writes: "Making a major announcement at the Pentagon on Thursday, Vice-President Mike Pence said that the proposed United States Space Force was necessary to defend the U.S. from gay aliens."
Vice President Mike Pence. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty)
Pence Calls Space Force Necessary to Protect US From Gay Aliens
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
10 August 18
 The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report." 
 ASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Making a major announcement at the Pentagon on Thursday, Vice-President Mike Pence said that the proposed United States Space Force was necessary to defend the U.S. from gay aliens.
“I stand before you today to say that this country is under attack from outer-space gays,” Pence told the military gathering. “Only Space Force can protect us from their unimaginable evil.”
Pence detailed a nightmare scenario in which “gay aliens by the thousands” land in the U.S. in “seemingly cute spacecraft” and “subvert life in America as we know it.”
“Let’s say, for example, that these gay aliens can assume human form,” he said. “What’s to stop them from infiltrating normal bakeries and baking cakes for gay weddings?”
“I’ll tell you what’s to stop them,” he said, pausing for dramatic effect. “Space Force.”
At the White House, CNN’s Jim Acosta asked the press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, how, exactly, Pence had developed his theory about the existence of gay aliens.
“No one is more qualified to talk about life on other planets than Mike Pence,” Sanders snapped.
|
|
|
Big Pharma and Insurance Companies Are Preparing to Launch a Major Battle Against Medicare-for-All |
|
|
Friday, 10 August 2018 13:01 |
|
Watson writes: "Single payer advocates need a good response to this threat."
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)
Big Pharma and Insurance Companies Are Preparing to Launch a Major Battle Against Medicare-for-All
By Libby Watson, Splinter
10 August 18
 he Hill reported this morning that many of the biggest healthcare interests in the country, including pharmaceutical companies and health insurers, have formed a coalition to fight single payer. The group, the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, includes major trade groups like “America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the American Medical Association and the Federation of American Hospitals,” according to the Hill.
The article gives us a good sense of what PAHCF (a shit acronym, by the way) will say about single payer and what their strategy is. They are going to argue that single payer will threaten people’s existing coverage:
“Most Americans support commonsense, pragmatic solutions that don’t interrupt the coverage they rely upon for themselves and their families,” said Erik Smith, spokesman for the Partnership. “We agree — and that’s what we’ll be supporting.”
And they are going to go after moderates in the Democratic party, to try and stop single payer from becoming a litmus test for Democrats in the 2020 primaries:
The industry source said insurers are more focused on the 2020 race than the midterms, and hope to use the new group to “splinter off the moderates” to oppose single-payer.
This must inform single payer advocates’ response to attacks by this group. First, they must work to ensure that the consequences of opposing single payer for moderate Democrats are known to those Democrats, and that they are significant. It must be made very difficult for Democrats to oppose federal single payer, to the point where support from PAHCFHCHFHC is no longer enough to counteract it. This means starting right now to solidify support for Medicare for All among Democratic voters in early presidential primary states, make it a major issue for them, and enroll them to pressure candidates on the issue, too.
Second, single payer advocates need a good response to the threat (the lie, really) that Medicare for All would interrupt their coverage. Of course, this is a ridiculous warning given how fragile life on the private insurance market is—oh, sorry you got hit by a bus, but we’re going to need that whole $6,000 deductible now, thanks—but it’s important to work the response to that into their messaging before they get a chance to blast ads with that threat into homes across America.
Single payer has gone from a fringe position to approaching litmus test status for 2020 Democratic candidates in an incredibly short time. That speed has given advocates an advantage: the big healthcare profiteers have so far been caught off guard by this rapidly-emerging consensus. They’re now acknowledging it’s a real threat to their existence, which is extremely encouraging—but it’s also a whole new phase of this fight.
Things are getting real now. It’s not just a matter of proving that single payer isn’t a fringe idea anymore; our enemies are not just shitty columnists or weak-willed Democrats. They’re now an incredibly well-funded coalition of groups with billions and billions on the line, who are therefore able to hire the most experienced and revolting DC types to help it kill single payer. AHIP has already launched a “six-figure advertising campaign defending employer-provided health insurance,” according to the Hill.
It is vital that politicians and the media do not treat this group’s arguments as legitimate concerns offered in good faith. They are making these arguments because, as the Hill said, “Pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and doctors would likely be paid less under a government-run health insurance system.” They are doing this because it would reduce their profits; health insurance companies are fighting for their existence. No amount of money is too much for them to spend on securing the survival of their vile industry, and they’ve got plenty to spend: The five biggest insurers saw profits of $4.5 billion in the first three months of 2017.
Don’t be put off by the inclusion of doctors on that list, too. It feels difficult to argue doctors should be paid less, given the important job they do, but they’re paid far more in the US than in other countries. It’s also important for the media not to misrepresent comments made by doctors who make a lot as representing doctors as a whole: Younger and student doctors, for example, are increasingly supporting single payer, but so are doctors as a whole.
There are many reasons for all kinds of doctors to favor single payer. It would eliminate the time-consuming interactions with insurance companies, and make it easier to treat their patients based on what’s best for their health, rather than what they can afford. Doctors who make $500,000 a year might oppose single payer if it threatens their vast salaries. The question is: do we care what they say? (Doctors in the UK, where healthcare is nationalized, make a pretty tidy salary on average.)
The fight for single payer is vital. It will be a fight that’s unfair and full of lies. It will be David versus dozens of Goliaths, Inc. But there is no alternative but to fight them, because what’s happening right now—because of these people—is unjust, untenable, unacceptable. It must end.
|
|
FOCUS: Free California of Fossil Fuels |
|
|
Friday, 10 August 2018 11:11 |
|
McKibben writes: "For generations - maybe since the gold rush - California has been where our dreams gather, the Elysian coast where palm trees sway in the ocean breeze and entire industries rise to sate our fantasies and our appetites. A bite of an orange is endless summer. Now, in this scariest of seasons, California is also where our nightmares collect."
Oil pump jack. (photo: Reuters)
Free California of Fossil Fuels
By Bill McKibben, The New York Times
10 August 18
Mr. McKibben is a founder of 350.org, a group seeking to build clean solutions for the world’s energy needs.
 or generations — maybe since the gold rush — California has been where our dreams gather, the Elysian coast where palm trees sway in the ocean breeze and entire industries rise to sate our fantasies and our appetites. A bite of an orange is endless summer.
Now, in this scariest of seasons, California is also where our nightmares collect. At the moment, the largest fire in the state’s history burns out of control; Yosemite Valley is closed indefinitely because flames lick at its access roads; and Death Valley has just registered, for the second straight year, the hottest month in American history. Meteorologists are scrambling to make sense of a so-called fire tornado that lifted 39,000 feet from the fire that burned near the edges of the city of Redding, twirling for more than an hour and stripping the bark from trees.
Ever since a record drought began near the start of the decade, a mild dread has hung over the state; now, you can see the smoke from San Diego to Lake Tahoe. Even the Pacific offers less relief — ocean temperatures are at a record high, and in any event, a federal government analysis last year warned that up to two-thirds of the state’s southern beaches may disappear as the sea rises this century.
READ MORE
|
|
