RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Living in Cars, Working for Amazon: Meet America's New Nomads Print
Sunday, 03 December 2017 14:07

Bruder writes: "In the widening gap between credits and debits hangs a question: which bits of this life are you willing to give up, so you can keep on living?"

'The cause of the unmanageable household math that drives some people to become nomads is no secret.' (photo: Alamy)
'The cause of the unmanageable household math that drives some people to become nomads is no secret.' (photo: Alamy)


Living in Cars, Working for Amazon: Meet America's New Nomads

By Jessica Bruder, Guardian UK

03 December 17


Rising rents are leading Americans to live in cars and other vehicles, writes Jessica Bruder, the author of Nomadland

illions of Americans are wrestling with the impossibility of a traditional middle-class existence. In homes across the country, kitchen tables are strewn with unpaid bills. Lights burn late into the night. The same calculations get performed again and again, through exhaustion and sometimes tears.

Wages minus grocery receipts. Minus medical bills. Minus credit card debt. Minus utility fees. Minus student loan and car payments. Minus the biggest expense of all: rent.

In the widening gap between credits and debits hangs a question: which bits of this life are you willing to give up, so you can keep on living?

During three years of research for my book, Nomadland: Surviving America in The Twenty-First Century, I spent time with hundreds of people who had arrived at the same answer. They gave up traditional housing and moved into “wheel estate”: RVs, travel trailers, vans, pickup campers, even a salvaged Prius and other sedans. For many, sacrificing some material comforts had allowed them to survive, while reclaiming a small measure of freedom and autonomy. But that didn’t mean life on the road was easy.

My first encounter with one group of the new nomads came in 2013, at the Desert Rose RV park in Fernley, Nevada. It was populated by members of the “precariat”: temporary laborers doing short-term jobs in exchange for low wages. Its citizens were full-time wanderers who dwelled in RVs and other vehicles, though at least one guy had only a tent to live in. Many were in their 60s and 70s, approaching or well into traditional retirement age. Most could not afford to stop working – or pay the rent.

Since 2009, the year after the housing crash, groups of such workers had migrated each fall to the mobile home parks surrounding Fernley. Most had traveled hundreds of miles – and undergone the routine indignities of criminal background checks and pee-in-a-cup drug tests – for the chance to earn $11.50 an hour plus overtime at temporary warehouse jobs. They planned to stay through early winter, despite the fact that most of their homes on wheels weren’t designed to support life in subzero temperatures.

Their employer was Amazon.

Amazon recruited these workers as part of a program it calls CamperForce: a labor unit made up of nomads who work as seasonal employees at several of its warehouses, which the company calls “fulfillment centers”.

Along with thousands of traditional temps, they’re hired to meet the heavy shipping demands of “peak season” – the consumer bonanza that spans the three to four months before Christmas.

While other employers also seek out this nomadic workforce – the available jobs range from campground maintenance to selling Christmas trees and running amusement park rides – Amazon has been the most aggressive recruiter. “Jeff Bezos has predicted that, by the year 2020, one out of every four work-campers – the RV- and vehicle-dwellers who travel the country for temporary work – in the United States will have worked for Amazon,” read one slide in a presentation for new hires.

Amazon doesn’t disclose precise staffing numbers to the press, but when I casually asked a CamperForce manager at an Amazon recruiting booth in Arizona about the size of the program, her estimate was some 1,400 workers.

The workers’ shifts last 10 hours or longer, during which some walk more than 15 miles on concrete floors, stooping, squatting, reaching, and climbing stairs as they scan, sort, and box merchandise. When the holiday rush ends, Amazon no longer needs CamperForce and terminates the program’s workers. They drive away in what managers cheerfully call a “taillight parade”.

The first member of CamperForce I corresponded with at great length, over a period of months, was a man I’ll call Don Wheeler. Don had spent the last two years of his main career as a software executive, traveling to Hong Kong, Paris, Sydney and Tel Aviv.

Retiring in 2002 meant he could finally stay in one place: the 1930s’ Spanish colonial revival house he shared with his wife in Berkeley, California. It also gave him time to indulge a lifelong obsession with fast cars. He bought a red-and-white Mini Cooper S and souped it up to 210 horsepower, practicing until he was named third overall in the US Touring Car Championship pro series.

The fast times didn’t last.

When I started exchanging emails with Don, he was 69, divorced, and staying at the Desert Rose RV park near the warehouse in Fernley. His wife had gotten to keep the house. The 2008 market crash had vaporized his savings. He had been forced to sell the Mini Cooper. In his old life, he’d spent about $100,000 a year. In his new one, he learned to get by on as little as $75 a week.

By the end of the 2013 holiday season, Don anticipated he’d be working at the Amazon warehouse five nights a week until just before dawn, on overtime shifts lasting 12 hours, with 30 minutes off for lunch and two 15-minute breaks. He’d spend most of the time on his feet, receiving and scanning inbound freight. “It’s hard work, but the money’s good,” he explained.

Don told me that he was part of a growing phenomenon. He and most of the CamperForce – along with a broader spectrum of itinerant laborers – called themselves “workampers”. Though I’d already stumbled across that word, I’d never heard anyone define it with as much flair as Don. He wrote in a Facebook direct message to me:

Workampers are modern mobile travelers who take temporary jobs around the US in exchange for a free campsite – usually including power, water and sewer connections – and perhaps a stipend. You may think that workamping is a modern phenomenon, but we come from a long, long tradition.
We followed the Roman legions, sharpening swords and repairing armor. We roamed the new cities of America, fixing clocks and machines, repairing cookware, building stone walls for a penny a foot and all the hard cider we could drink.
We followed the emigration west in our wagons with our tools and skills, sharpening knives, fixing anything that was broken, helping clear the land, roof the cabin, plow the fields and bring in the harvest for a meal and pocket money, then moving on to the next job.
Our forebears are the tinkers. We have upgraded the tinker’s wagon to a comfortable motor coach or fifth-wheel trailer.
Mostly retired now, we have added to our repertoire the skills of a lifetime in business. We can help run your shop, handle the front or back of the house, drive your trucks and forklifts, pick and pack your goods for shipment, fix your machines, coddle your computers and networks, work your beet harvest, landscape your grounds or clean your bathrooms.
We are the techno-tinkers.

Other workampers I spoke with had their own ways of describing themselves. Many said they were “retired”, even if they anticipated working well into their 70s or 80s. Others called themselves “travelers”, “nomads”, “rubber tramps”, or, wryly, “gypsies”.

Outside observers gave them other nicknames, from “the Okies of the Great Recession” to “American refugees”, “the affluent homeless”, even “modern-day fruit tramps”.

There’s no clear count of how many people live nomadically in America. Full-time travelers are a demographer’s nightmare. Statistically they blend in with the rest of the population, since the law requires them to maintain fixed – in other words, fake – addresses.

Despite a lack of hard numbers, anecdotal evidence suggests the ranks of American itinerants started to boom after the housing collapse and have kept growing.

The cause of the unmanageable household math that drives some people to become nomads is no secret.

Federal minimum wage is stalled at $7.25 an hour. The cost of shelter continues to climb. There are now only a dozen counties and one metro area where a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a one-bedroom apartment at fair market rent.

At the same time, the top 1% now makes 81 times more than those in the bottom half do, when you compare average earnings. For American adults on the lower half of the income ladder – some 117 million of them – earnings haven’t changed since the 1970s.

This is not a wage gap – it’s a chasm.

The most widely accepted measure for calculating income inequality is a century-old formula called the Gini coefficient. What it reveals is startling. Today the United States has the most unequal society of all developed nations. America’s level of inequality is comparable to that of Russia, China, Argentina and the war-torn Democratic Republic of the Congo.

And a bad as that economic situation is now, it’s likely to get worse. That makes me wonder: what further contortions of the social order will appear in years to come? How many people will get crushed by the system? How many will find a way to escape it?

Despite mounting pressures – including a nationwide crackdown on vehicle-dwelling – America’s modern-day nomads show great resilience. But how much of that toughness should our culture require for basic membership? And when do all the impossible choices start to tear people – a society – apart? The growing ranks of folks living on the road suggest the answer might be: much sooner than we think.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Protect Internet Freedom Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40905"><span class="small">George Lakoff, George Lakoff's Website</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 December 2017 13:12

Lakoff writes: "Donald Trump and the Republicans are trying to restrict American freedom and destroy the Internet as we know it."

George Lakoff, 2012. (photo: Wikimedia Commons)
George Lakoff, 2012. (photo: Wikimedia Commons)


Protect Internet Freedom

By George Lakoff, George Lakoff's Website

03 December 17

 

onald Trump and the Republicans are trying to restrict American freedom and destroy the Internet as we know it.

They want to hand control of a crucial public resource – the Internet – over to corporations. These corporations will then be able to restrict the flow of information, effectively censor voices of dissent, and charge outrageous prices for access to online services.

This is an attack on American freedom, and it should alarm every citizen who cherishes the free flow of information in the digital age. We can’t allow corporations take control of our Internet. But stopping this nefarious scheme requires urgent action on this issue, most commonly known as Net Neutrality.

I don’t like the term Net Neutrality because it obscures what’s really at stake: FREEDOM. Our freedom to access the information and resources we need to keep our democracy healthy is under threat. Yet, Republicans on the Federal Communications Commission – led by former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai – seek to hand our Internet over to private corporations.

But the Internet is a public resource that belongs to the People. That’s because the Internet was developed by our federal government in the 1960s and 1970s. The idea was to “build robust, fault-tolerant communication via computer networks.” The result was the Internet, which allows me to type these words on my laptop and share them with all of you immediately.

The US government funded the research and technology to create the Internet. This means American taxpayers paid for it. So, if the Internet belongs to anyone, it should belong to Citizens, not corporate fat cats.

According to Scientific American: “In truth, no private company would have been capable of developing a project like the Internet, which required years of R&D efforts spread out over scores of far-flung agencies, and which began to take off only after decades of investment. Visionary infrastructure projects such as this are part of what has allowed our economy to grow so much in the past century.”

The Internet belongs to us. But we have to fight for it right now, or we may lose it. There’s ample evidence that fake bots have flooded the Federal Communications Commission’s inbox with over a million fake comments supporting corporate control of the Internet. The corporations are working hard to take away your Internet freedom. It’s time to make sure the real voices of American citizens are heard on this matter!

Internet freedom is especially important because our entire economy now depends on the Web. Online sales on shopping holidays like Black Friday are overtaking in-store sales. This means the private profit of corporations in this digital age now depend on the use of a public resource we created through our government decades ago. The Internet – like roads, bridges, ports, and telecommunication systems – is a publicly funded resource that makes all private profit possible. The private depends on the public! We must never forget this, and we must make a point of saying it – especially at a time when Republicans are trying to sign away our property to corporations.

It’s time for us to make our voices heard. Please join me in standing up for American freedom and the public’s right to maintain fair control of a crucial public resource, the Internet.

Please click on the link below to make your voice heard – and share this with your friend and family.

  • Republicans are attacking our freedom and trying to destroy the Internet as we know it. We must stop them from giving control of our public Internet to corporations.
  • The Internet was developed by the US government and paid for by American taxpayers. This publicly funded resource must remain fair, open and neutral to benefit the American people.
  • All private profit depends on public resources – roads, bridges, ports, telecommunications, and the Internet. We must never hand public resources over to private corporations.
  •  The Internet is a public resource. Say it!

Please make your voice heard!

http://battleforthenet.com

#NetNeutrality

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: What Leeann Tweeden Did Not Say Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 December 2017 11:49

Ash writes: "Consent is the key. Consent is the cornerstone, the foundation of all sexual assault statutes in the U.S. and likely all nations."

Stephanie Kemplin takes a photograph with Senator Al Franken.  According to CNN this photo was taken at the time Kemplin says Franken was groping her right breast. (photo: CNN)
Stephanie Kemplin takes a photograph with Senator Al Franken. According to CNN this photo was taken at the time Kemplin says Franken was groping her right breast. (photo: CNN)


What Leeann Tweeden Did Not Say

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

03 December 17

 

This article was written while Leeann Tweeden was the only accuser against Al Franken. On the day it was scheduled to run, a second accuser came forward and I made the decision to forgo publication at that time. It is now two weeks later and there appear at this point to be perhaps six accusers, three of whom remain anonymous. The allegations, however, seem to not necessarily paint a conclusive portrait of events. The matter appears still somewhat unsettled. Accordingly and belatedly, this is the piece I held back on November 20, 2016.


onsent is the key. Consent is the cornerstone, the foundation of all sexual assault statutes in the U.S. and likely all nations. Although certainly not interpreted or applied uniformly across the wide spectrum of jurisdictions in equal measure.

What Leeann Tweeden did say was that the photograph Senator Al Franken staged twelve years earlier with him pretending to, or lightly touching her breasts as she slept and a kiss during a rehearsal of a scene, in the same time frame, in which a kiss was part of the script, were non-consensual.

What Al Franken said in part in a handwritten letter to Leeann Tweeden was, “Dear Leeann, I want to apologize to you personally. I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture. But that doesn't matter. There’s no excuse. I understand why you can feel violated by that photo.” Franken expresses culpability and regret. That in effect settles the matter of consent as it relates to the Tweeden allegations.

There are however two questions that these statements do not address. Why Al Franken, and why now?

On its website, Playboy magazine presents a brief bio sketch for Leeann Tweeden, who has appeared on its pages. Presumably the characterizations are Playboy’s rhetorical enhancements and do not necessarily, or even accurately, represent Leeann Tweeden’s true character.

Nonetheless, the Playboy bio presents as resume points associations with rather noteworthy entities that have clearly defined track records. They include Playboy itself, Hooters Restaurants, Frederick's of Hollywood, and Fox Broadcasting. Yes, there is a common thread. These organizations are all patently, demonstrably exploitive of women and women’s sexuality. Fox Broadcasting has arguably the worst reputation of all, with scores of accusations of workplace sexual harassment it has had to negotiate in recent years.

Given that list of employment and professional associations, Leeann Tweeden would necessarily, without any doubt, have been subject to routine exploitation and on many occasions to varying degrees likely significant personal harassment. None of which abridges her right to withhold consent — in any way — or justifies Al Franken’s conduct. It does not. But it does make her decision to go public with an eleven-year-old grievance against a sitting U.S. senator stand out somewhat.

In a statement responding to Al Franken’s apology letter, Leeann Tweeden spoke of a desire to “stand on the shoulders of these other women” in coming forward with her story. The other women she referred to were those who had shown the courage to speak out against sexual assaults committed against them and, we are left to read, which inspired her.

One such woman upon whose shoulder Leeann Tweeden’s foot might rest could well be that of former Fox News anchorwoman Megyn Kelly. Kelly chronicled and helped expose not just the sexual harassment she endured at Fox but a pervasive, systemic, organization-wide pattern affecting a mind-boggling number of female colleagues. Leeann Tweeden was at Fox during the height of it, yet she utters not a word about the conditions and abuses there, and not a word in support of Kelly's assertions or those of the other women who showed the courage to come forward at Fox, and on whose shoulders she now purports to stand.

Beverly Young Nelson is yet another woman on whose shoulders Leeann Tweeden’s weight might now be said to rest. Nelson accused Alabama senatorial candidate Roy Moore of having sexually assaulted her as a sixteen-year-old. Nelson felt it was necessary to dispel any implication of political motive. She was clear, asserting that both she and her husband were Republicans and Trump supporters. Leeann Tweeden, on the other hand, left those boxes blank on the form.

Leeann Tweeden is a woman who could have reasonably and legitimately named a long list of abusers. Why Al Franken, why now?



Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
NBC Still Has a Lot to Answer For Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 December 2017 09:45

Rich writes: "We should not let Trump's tweets distract us - either from his own history as a sexual predator or NBC News' own dubious history in dealing with alleged sexual predators, including both Trump and Lauer."

Matt Lauer. (photo: Al Pereira/WireImage)
Matt Lauer. (photo: Al Pereira/WireImage)


NBC Still Has a Lot to Answer For

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

03 December 17


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today: Donald Trump and the Matt Lauer scandal, James O’Keefe’s shoddy brand of journalism, and the prospect of a federal government shutdown next month.

n the wake of Matt Lauer’s sudden firing from NBC after a colleague’s complaint of “inappropriate sexual behavior,” President Trump took to Twitter to accuse the network of “fake news” and lobbed nasty (or already disproven) allegations against morning MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and NBC News chairman Andy Lack. What could he hope to gain with that kind of response?

More than a dozen women have accused Trump of sexual harassment or assault with, as yet, no legal consequences — even though he was caught admitting guilt (gleefully) to Billy Bush on the Access Hollywood tape. As our mad president’s delusional thinking has it, accusing others of his own crimes is always the best defense; it’s the same impulse that has led him to repeatedly claim that it was Hillary Clinton who colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. That said, we should not let Trump’s tweets distract us — either from his own history as a sexual predator or NBC News’ own dubious history in dealing with alleged sexual predators, including both Trump and Lauer. NBC and NBC News should not be allowed to play the victim here just because Trump smeared Scarborough and Lack. This network and its news division have a lot to answer for.

As the Lauer story broke yesterday, some (including talking heads on MSNBC) applauded the network for being proactive and firing Lauer on its own volition rather than waiting to respond until journalists elsewhere reported his transgressions (as Fox News waited with Bill O’Reilly, and CBS, PBS, and Bloomberg did with Charlie Rose). That praise is unwarranted. When NBC News fired Lauer, it knew that both Variety and the New York Times were preparing to publish investigative accounts about his serial abuse of women. Indeed, the imminent unmasking of Lauer’s offenses was widely known among journalists; I first heard that Lauer stories were in the offing more than three weeks ago. So all the shock and tearful emotional consternation that made for such great drama on the Today show yesterday (as well as at Morning Joe on MSNBC) involved a certain amount of playacting. There was no way the Today “family” could have been surprised by the revelations of Lauer’s sexual abuses; the only surprise was that NBC had so suddenly fired him.

Prior to this, it’s impossible to forget, NBC News had dropped the ball on two major stories of sexual assault. It had passed on airing the Access Hollywood video of Trump, even though NBC owned the show, ceding that scoop to the Washington Post. And it had retreated from airing the reports of its own correspondent, Ronan Farrow, on Harvey Weinstein, ceding that investigation to The New Yorker. NBC News has never credibly explained either of these punts.

I suspect we are soon to learn much more about who at NBC knew about Lauer’s behavior and enabled it or chose to look the other way — just as we will surely learn more about what those managing House of Cards knew about Kevin Spacey’s sexual predation when the show was in production in Baltimore. We will also learn more about those who either enabled Weinstein at Miramax or (like the disgraced lawyer David Boies) sicced attack dogs on his victims. If NBC wants to start making amends, it could finally make public any Apprentice archival video that sheds further light on its star’s behavior. As the Associated Press reported last year, more than 20 former crew members, editors, and contestants affirmed that Trump repeatedly demeaned women on the show. Bill Pruitt, a former Apprentice producer, said there are “far worse” tapes than the Access Hollywood video that surfaced. NBC must stop sitting on any additional evidence of potentially criminal Trump behavior.

NBC News might also bring back Lauer’s former co-star Billy Bush for on-camera testimony. Ann Curry could conduct the interview.

The failed attempt to plant a fake story in the Washington Post by James O’Keefe of Project Veritas seems like the biggest of his long list of backfires, but previous botches don’t seem to have hurt his esteem in the eyes of his conservative donors. Will the conservative money move on?

Let’s take a moment to acknowledge the moral atrocity of what O’Keefe did: He created a fake sexual-assault crime by Roy Moore in a failed attempt to discredit the real Moore predation that the Post uncovered. What could be more depraved than that?

But even though this stunt blew up, possibly blowing up the punk O’Keefe with it, this incident is only a tiny cog in a much larger right-wing effort, led by Trump, to discredit the news media and to destroy the whole idea of fact-based news as we know it. As the Times has reported, Trump is now revving up to peddle a fiction that the incriminating Access Hollywood video is a hoax — and perhaps to revive his birther calumnies against Obama. Last week he went on yet another tirade attacking CNN, and particularly the brave war-zone journalists of CNN International, for perpetrating “fake news.” Yesterday, he posted on Twitter bogus videos earlier tweeted by the fringe ultra-right group Britain First purporting to depict Muslims engaging in vicious violence. (The videos are about as true-to-life as a Monty Python sketch if you watch them.) Not for nothing had the Trump Foundation (surely “Foundation” should be in quotes) given at least $20,000 — its rare “charitable” contribution — to O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.

Whatever the fate of Project Veritas, Breitbart and its like aren’t going anywhere. Trump and right-wing money will continue to support the blitzkrieg to undermine actual news and install fake news in its place. Count me among the skeptics who do not believe that the Koch Brothers invested in the Meredith Corporation’s purchase of the Time Inc. magazine empire to make money. You don’t invest in print to make money. You invest to make Betsy DeVos Person of the Year.

An attempt at bipartisan budget negotiations this week regressed into Trump airing complaints to television cameras while sitting between two empty chairs. Is the country headed for a government shutdown?

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were right to pull out of a supposedly bipartisan White House summit after Trump (again on Twitter) accused them of deluging America with floods of illegal immigrants and condoning crime. How could they have done otherwise?

Meanwhile, I’m all for the Democrats having the spine to shut the government down. Dick Armey, the Texas congressman in Newt Gingrich’s leadership who argued against Newt’s shutdown gambit in the Clinton years, had it right when he said that Republicans would always “get blamed for shutdowns.” It is “counterintuitive to the average American” that Democrats want to shut down the government, he said, because “they’re the advocates of the government.” Meanwhile “it is perfectly logical to them that Republicans would shut it down because we’re seen as antithetical to government.” Go for it!

Another wild card that could shut the government down, at least figuratively, has nothing to do with the Democrats’ debatable spine. If Roy Moore, now ahead in three recent Alabama polls, wins on December 12, the Senate will be thrown into turmoil as it weighs the question of whether to admit him to its ranks. Or will it? Now that even John McCain has surrendered to an outrageous tax bill that violates his own stated principles about fiscal probity and congressional process, perhaps he and his colleagues, for all their bluster, will surrender to Trump’s inevitable demand that they let a sexual predator join the Senate too.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Did Trump Just Incriminate Himself by Saying He Knew Flynn Lied to the FBI? Maybe. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37309"><span class="small">Chas Danner, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Sunday, 03 December 2017 09:41

Danner writes: "The Washington Post reported on Saturday that Trump' personal lawyer, John Dowd, was responsible for crafting the Flynn tweet. Assuming that's true - and it's not at all clear why any lawyer would put those words in Trump's mouth - the president could conceivably pass the blame."

Donald Trump. (photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)


Did Trump Just Incriminate Himself by Saying He Knew Flynn Lied to the FBI? Maybe.

By Chas Danner, New York Magazine

03 December 17

 

ne day after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, President Trump seemed to confess that he already knew about that when he fired Flynn back on February 13 — and may have now incriminated himself by doing so.

Trump had originally said that he forced his former national security adviser to resign because Flynn had lied to Vice-President Mike Pence about a December conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. On Saturday, Trump explained that he also did so because Flynn lied to the FBI:

Lying to Mike Pence or the FBI is undoubtedly a fireable offense, but only one of them is a crime, and that’s a crucial distinction when considering what Trump did the day after Flynn’s ouster. Former FBI director James Comey testified before Congress that on February 14, President Trump took him aside and told him that Flynn had done nothing wrong in speaking with the Russians and that he had fired him for misleading Pence. The FBI was already investigating Flynn at that point, and Trump told Comey that, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Comey didn’t let it go, and though he didn’t testify as to whether or not he believed Trump was trying to obstruct justice, he did make it clear that he thought the president was trying to tell him what to do. Trump eventually fired Comey, of course, and cited his disapproval with the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s election-meddling as part of his rationale.

According to Comey’s testimony, Trump told him he believed Flynn had done nothing illegal. According to Trump’s tweet on Saturday, that might not have been true, and thus Trump might have been trying to get the director of the FBI to look the other way regarding a crime by a top White House official.

Now, Trump says — and especially tweets — a lot of stupid and/or demonstrably wrong things, so it’s possible that Trump’s Flynn tweet was just some misguided attempt to retroactively update his good judgment to fire Flynn. On the other hand, Trump’s tweets are now regularly treated as official statements by both the White House and the judicial system — so Trump might have some trouble walking this statement back, should Mueller and his investigators choose to focus on it.

Legal experts who spoke with the Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale were already flagging the tweet on Saturday:

“The question of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice when he asked Comey to drop the investigation on Valentine’s Day will largely turn on Trump’s intent: was he just trying to put in a good word for Flynn, or was he in fact trying to end a criminal investigation?” [Harvard Law professor and former federal prosecutor Alex] Whiting said in an email. “If he genuinely believed that Flynn did nothing wrong, that tends to support the former interpretation. But if, as he now admits, he knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI, a federal crime, then he knew that by asking Comey to drop the investigation, he was seeking to end a meritorious criminal investigation.”

Others said that the tweet itself wasn’t enough to prove obstruction, but might have laid the breadcrumbs to more evidence that could.

Adding to the guesswork that is sometimes required when interpreting Trump’s remarks, the Washington Post subsequently reported on Saturday that Trump’s personal lawyer, John Dowd, was responsible for crafting the Flynn tweet. Assuming that’s true — and it’s not at all clear why any lawyer would put those words in Trump’s mouth — the president could conceivably pass the blame.

In the meantime, the White House hasn’t retracted Trump’s statement, but tried to soften it by saying that the president was just acknowledging Flynn’s plea, not admitting prior knowledge. Along those lines, Dowd unconvincingly told the Post that the tweet was paraphrasing a statement from another White House lawyer, Ty Cobb, who said on Friday that Flynn’s false statements to the FBI “mirror the false statements to White House officials which resulted in his resignation.”

According to the Post, “two people close to the administration described the tweet simply as sloppy and unfortunate.” Here’s some word-choice sleuthing, too:

Looking back at the timeline of Flynn’s FBI interview and firing, it’s still not clear if the White House knew, as of the Comey meeting on February 14, that Flynn had lied to the FBI during his January 24 interview, since that information didn’t make it into the media until February 16. It’s certainly not impossible, however.

Two days after Flynn was interviewed by the FBI, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was alarmed enough by what she’d learned to warn White House counsel Don McGahn that Flynn might have compromised himself by misleading Pence. McGahn then followed up with Yates a day later to inquire as to what criminal statutes might apply to Flynn. According to two sources who spoke with the New York Times, McGahn apparently briefed the president on the matter, telling Trump “that it was his impression from Ms. Yates that the federal authorities were not pursuing a case against Mr. Flynn for lying to the F.B.I.,” but it was not clear if Trump understood that to mean that Flynn had been cleared. (McGahn, who has since tried to blame Yates for his ignorance, was reportedly interviewed by Mueller’s investigators on Thursday.)

Either way, since Trump tried to pressure Comey to drop the investigation, the president surely understood that the FBI believed Flynn may have committed a crime, even if he didn’t explicitly understand at the time what that crime was.

What, if anything, Mueller decides to do with Trump’s Flynn tweet remains to be seen, but considering Trump’s propensity to spout off against the wishes of his advisers and lawyers — and the White House’s propensity to obfuscate in the aftermath — it’s difficult to believe the tweet was anything better than an incompetent mistake. At worst, Trump just acknowledged he knew Flynn committed a crime and inadvertently admitted he tried to cover it up.

We don’t even know what Flynn will reveal now that he is cooperating with Mueller, but Trump and the White House already appear to be making unforced errors as a result.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 Next > End >>

Page 1421 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN