Category: Uncategorized

Dirty Money

President Trump is constantly calling the Mueller Investigation a “Witch Hunt,” repeating over and over that there was “no collusion” and that it’s a waste of his time.  The Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, led by Chairman Mark Meadows and founding member Jim Jordan are demanding that the Mueller Investigation end, and that a Special Counsel be appointed to go back through the Hillary Clinton emails once again.  House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, with the “blessing” of retiring Speaker Paul Ryan; are demanding the scope and sequence documentation for the Investigation to make sure it has not gone “out of bounds.”  From past actions, Nunes will read the classified information, then run (not walk) to the White House to tell them what’s going on.

Yesterday, the normally reticent Vice President Pence called for an end to the Investigation. Articles of Impeachment have been drawn up for Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein, then leaked to the public. And of course, the Trump (FOX) Cable channels are echoing every cry to end the Investigation, castigating the Mueller team, and discounting any news that might indicate the Investigation has merit.

For the majority of Americans who want to see the Mueller team complete their work (Boston Globe) the right-wing political and media blitz calling for an end is like a constant dull throbbing.  Many despair that the results will ever be known, fearing that the growing swamp of Trumpism will somehow swallow the probe and its results.

But, over the last couple of weeks, the “Investigation” has fought back.  It might be a series of happy coincidences, it might be parallel strategies, or it might be a “conspiracy.”  Whatever the plan, there is some hope.

It started last week with two public appearances by Rod Rosenstein.  In one, a question and answer session, Rosenstein stated, “…the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.”  He also called out those that wrote and leaked the Articles of Impeachment, saying they “…didn’t have the courage to associate themselves with the effort.”

In the second appearance, a law day speech to Maryland’s Montgomery County Bar Association, he laid out the case of a career Department of Justice employee, who would not be deterred or deflected from his search for the truth.  He made it clear that he would allow the Mueller Investigation to follow through, as long as he remained in charge.

Then the attorney for Porn Actress Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, came from a completely different direction.  Avenatti, who has become a regular on MSNBC and CNN, managed to connect the Daniels lawsuit to the Mueller Investigation.  He reported that Trump attorney Michael Cohen received payments of millions of dollars from multiple sources, including ATT and Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and most importantly, a US company that is ultimately owned by Russian oligarch Victor Vekselberg.

With millions funneled to Cohen, including the Russian money, it comes closer to answering the question that Mueller critics keep raising:  after a year of investigation, is there a “there – there.”  Avenatti’s information, however he was able to get it, shows that there was a direct financial transfer from Russia to a Trump employee, in fact, his personal attorney.  It leads of course, to the obvious question, where did that money go?

Cohen  claims that he had to borrow money with a second mortgage on his home to pay off the $130000 owed Stormy Daniels.  He also has taken out a loan on his condo in Trump tower for $9 million.  He’s borrowing a lot of money for someone who has been paid multiple millions in the past twelve months for “influencing” the President.  If he doesn’t have that money, then who does?

Retired US Prosecutors have opined that the Avenatti information could hinder the Mueller probe, by warning possible witnesses that they may be questioned.  However, Mueller has already questioned ATT and Novartis (in November and December) and stopped Vekselberg for search and questioning at a New York airport in March.  In short, Mueller is months ahead of the public release of information.

Rosenstein has made it clear that he will fight to continue the Mueller investigation.  Avenatti has presented information that shows that there is a financial connection from Russia to the Trump organization.  He is willing to use his position to publicly “out” Trump finances.  While the “stop the investigation” drumbeat may continue, it’s clear that the “no collusion” claim is untrue.  As it grows nearer to the “top,” the cries to end the Investigation will grow more shrill.  But now there is a public “there-there,” and it will be that much harder to stop.   How far and high it will reach, we don’t know yet – but Mueller does.

What WE’ve Done

In the days after 9/11, as the rubble in Manhattan smoked and the nation was in shock, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on “Meet the Press.”  Cheney was grim, and when moderator Tim Russert asked about the role of US intelligence in battling terrorism, he said the following:

 You need to have on the payroll some very unsavory characters if, in fact, you’re going to be able to learn all that needs to be learned in order to forestall these kinds of activities. It is a mean, nasty, dangerous dirty business out there, and we have to operate in that arena. I’m convinced we can do it; we can do it successfully. But we need to make certain that we have not tied the hands, if you will, of our intelligence communities in terms of accomplishing their mission.

It was the first notice that the policy of the United States was changing.  Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, led an effort for a “no holds barred” approach to terrorists.  “Black sites” were established by the CIA to hold and interrogate captured terrorists, kept outside of the United States for the specific purpose of avoiding the jurisdiction of US Courts.  Guantanamo Naval Base was chosen as the “prison camp” for the same reason: avoiding US Court jurisdiction, and therefore the rights and protections of the Constitution.

In August of 2002 the “dirty business” was codified by a Justice Department finding on torture. The finding, authored by John Loo (now a law professor at University of California, Berkley) drew a distinction between “enhanced interrogation techniques” and torture as defined by the Geneva Convention.  Loo argued that there was a difference between the “feeling” of extreme suffering and fear of death, and “actual” extreme suffering and fear of death.  The finding was signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee (now a Federal Appeals Court Judge.)

This then made waterboarding, feeding by “rectal infusion,” solitary confinement and long term forced nudity “legal.”  In a specific case where a terrorist was known to have a fear of insects, the Justice Department:

 “…advised the CIA that they could place the detainee in a box with an insect but that the CIA must ‘inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain.’”

The CIA conducted these “sessions” at the black sites.  They also brought “contractors” in who had fewer restrictions, leading to the abuses at the Iraqi prison Abu Gharib where “enhanced interrogation” led to rape, sodomy and murder.  Eleven soldiers were court martialed and sent to military prison and the commander demoted from general to colonel.  No other senior officers or civilians in the Defense Department were held accountable, though it certainly played a part in Rumsfeld’s ultimate resignation.

Gina Haspel, a career clandestine CIA operative has been nominated to lead the agency.  She has almost unanimous support of former CIA employees, and has had a distinguished career, rising through the ranks from a reports officer to station chief, clandestine site supervisor, Director of Clandestine Services, and Deputy Director of the CIA.  She is widely regarded as incredibly competent.

It was during her oversight of the clandestine site in Thailand that she supervised the “enhanced interrogation” of terrorists.  It was as Deputy Director of Clandestine Services that she signed an order authorizing the destruction of videotapes of those interrogations, tapes already subpoenaed by Congress and that showed hundreds of hours of torture.  She did both of these actions on the orders of her superior officers at the CIA.

Haspel’s nomination is controversial.  While she followed the orders of her superiors, Senators now are asking why she didn’t speak out against the torture that was going on under her command.  They also are demanding why she was complicit in the destruction of the evidence of that torture.  It’s appropriate for the Senators to ask these questions, but they are avoiding the bigger issue.

While Haspel’s nomination is in front of us, it isn’t fair to use her as the vehicle to confront this national shame.  The “Nuremberg Defense,” (only following orders) is not acceptable, but it also is not acceptable to attack the “little fish” while letting the leaders go free.  Torture is wrong now, it was wrong then, and it doesn’t work (ask John McCain.)

WE, the United States, have never held the “leaders” of the enhanced interrogation plan accountable.  WE have convicted soldiers, and demoted officers; but Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, then CIA Director George Tenet and President George W Bush have avoided responsibility.  And WE, Americans, are of mixed view as well.  WE have not really confronted that in our moment of peril, WE were willing to allow these actions.  Cheney made it clear from the week of the attack that WE would do anything.  WE did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bomb Iran

Three years ago, John Bolton, now President Trump’s National Security Advisor, authored a New York Times Op-Ed with the title: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”  In it he made a case for using military force against an Iranian nuclear program.  He stated:

An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

Yesterday, Ambassador Bolton got his first big success in the Trump Administration as the President withdrew the United States from the “Iran Nuclear Deal.” {While the deal is not a treaty, it is a technical agreement that the United States would remove sanctions on Iran in return for Iran stopping nuclear weapons development and allowing inspections. Rather than Bolton’s three to five-year set-back, it froze nuclear development with a ten year window.  The US withdrawal reneges on the agreement, and re-imposes sanctions.}

The Iran deal was the signature foreign policy success for the Obama Administration (and therefore a key target for Trump) and was negotiated with multi-lateral cooperation by many nations; the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China among them. Critically, it did NOT address Iranian support of terrorism in the Middle East, nor did it deal with Iranian territorial aspirations in Iraq.  It fixed on what was considered the most important issue:  preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  It provided a ten-year window for further negotiations, and continual inspections even after the agreement expired.

But President Trump changed that yesterday.  And while the other nations who were part of the deal vow to continue, the United States sanctions will make it near impossible for them to afford the economic cost.  So the Iran nuclear deal is probably over, and we are looking at a different Middle East today than we did yesterday.

The US resumption of sanctions will certainly have widespread consequences.  Internally, US businesses with open contracts in Iran (notably Boeing) will be cut off.  Internationally, sanctions will force our allies to choose between dealing with Iran or dealing with us.  Perhaps they will succumb to US pressure, or, just as the Chinese responded to new tariffs, they will simply choose to find other supplies.  China is buying Mexican soybeans, leaving US farmers out.

It is likely that Iran will begin to work on nuclear weapons, and will achieve nuclear “breakout” within a couple of years.  John Bolton and friends will then say, “I told you so” to their critics, though their actions opened the door to Iran’s effort.   Israel, and other Middle East powers, notably Saudi Arabia, will feel the military necessity to try to stop the Iranians, and we will see Bolton’s bombs falling soon.  The Middle East will be drawn to an all-consuming conflict, one that will inexorably draw United States to war.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only supports Trump’s decision, but was complicit in releasing “new information” (though it was known for years) to back Trump’s claim that the Iranians were cheating.  US officials, including Mattis at Defense and Pompeo at State, said that Iran was not.  Netanyahu sees Iran as the ultimate threat to Israel’s existence, and is more than willing to take military action to stop Iran’s nuclear progress.  While Israel can bomb alone, to get more comprehensive change they would require US assistance. Netanyahu would, along with Bolton, like to see regime change in Iran, in order to protect Israel’s long-term interests. However, the US has had little luck with regime change:  the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples of good intentions gone wrong.

Should this happen, a regional war might not be the only consequence.  War in the Middle East would inevitably cause an energy crisis in the rest of the world, with petroleum supplies threatened and prices skyrocketing. And the other “major powers” of the world would maneuver to isolate the United States.  This might well put Russia and China on the Iranian side (Russia is cooperating with Iran now in Syria and China has helped Iranian missile technology in the past) creating a threat of escalation to a world war.

But the United States, who yesterday had the choice of using the next few years to negotiate a more comprehensive deal with Iran, now is left out.  President Trump, whose reputation is based on being the “great negotiator,” is gambling that the world will be forced to accept US sanctions, and will be able to drive Iran back to the table for a “better” deal.  The US, who two years ago was the world leader in striving for peace, has now lit the fuse to war, and is daring the world to respond.

 

 

 

 

The “Wiseguys” of Trump Tower

In the lingo of the “mafia,” a “wiseguy” is a member of a mafia crime family

James Comey in his recent book describes what President Trump reminds him:

“…flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the Mob. The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and above the truth.”

Comey critics condemned the statement as hyperbole and exaggeration.  But in the past few weeks, evidence has emerged of actions by the Trump “team” that is more like the Mario Puzo’s “Godfather” than the business or political operation they claimed to be.

The first piece of evidence is part of the Stormy Daniels’ story.  Daniel’s, an adult film star, claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump in the 2006.  In 2011 a man approached Daniels in a parking lot.  Daniels states:

“(he told me) ‘Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.’ And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.’ And then he was gone.”

Daniels’ infant daughter was in the back seat of the car.  Later, Michael Cohen, acting on behalf of then candidate Trump, offered Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about the affair.  Daniels, on advice from her then-counsel (who may have been in league with Cohen) accepted the deal.

The second piece of evidence deals with the bizarre doctor that served as Trump’s physician for the past thirty years.  Dr. Harold Bornstein, known for writing the “note” for Trump saying he would be the healthiest President to take office (Bornstein later admitted that Trump himself dictated what to write) claims that his office was “raided” by Trump operatives.

The raid was led by then Trump bodyguard (and at the time Director of Oval Office Operations, whatever that meant) Keith Schiller. Joining him was a Trump Organization lawyer and a third unknown individual, who came into Bornstein’s offices, demanding and seizing all of the Trump files.  In addition, they demanded that all Trump memorabilia, including pictures, be removed from the office.

The third piece of evidence is more insidious and concerning.  “Black Cube” is a private intelligence firm in Tel Aviv made up of former Israeli intelligence agents.  It gained unwanted recognition when it was publicized that film producer Harvey Weinstein hired them to get information to discredit the women accusing him of sexual assault and abuse.

According to multiple sources, Black Cube was hired to investigate two former Obama aides who were involved in the Iran Treaty negotiations.  The idea was to find ways to discredit the aides, in order to make it easier for Trump to discredit and withdraw from the Iran nuclear treaty. In both cases, Black Cube attempted to gain inside information by sophisticated “phishing” email attacks, as well as direct contacts where they pretended to be journalists.

Michael Cohen has stated that, “…he’d take a bullet for him (Trump).”  Trump himself has made it clear that the first priority is loyalty to himself.  The Trump organization has acted more like a criminal family than a corporation, threatening, refusing to pay bills, and ultimately using their size to bully competitors and contractors.

Robert Mueller continues his investigation of the Trump group and the Russian connections. Russia too is run like a gangster family, with Putin acting as the “Godfather” of the national regime. Perhaps this is the way to view both that makes the most sense.  Instead of thinking politics, think criminal.

Cohen, Stone, Don Junior, Eric and the rest:  they are the “wiseguys” of Trump Tower.

 

The Impeachment Machine

Let’s warmup the impeachment machinery.  There’s going to be plenty of use for it, and even the Radical Republicans of the Freedom Caucus are getting ready.  So let’s warmup on an easy case, one that everyone agrees makes sense.  In fact, this case makes so much sense that it’s hard to understand why the President hasn’t exercised his “executive authority” to fire the guy.  But the President has his own reasons for keeping him, so Congress should fire things up!

It starts with the House Judiciary Committee.  Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia is the leader, and several of the Freedom Caucus members are on the majority side, including Louie Gohmert of Texas, Steve King of Iowa, and Ohio’s own Jim Jordan.  They have continually argued against corruption in government, and they were some of the first in line to “drain the swamp.”  Here’s their chance!

No, it’s not President Trump.  Maybe later, if Democrats gain control of the House and the Mueller investigation shows direct conspiracy between Trump and the Russians. But it’s not time, not yet. And it’s not Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General either, though he seems to be the current target of the Freedom Caucus, and their compromised friend, Devin Nunes,  disreputable Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

There is a consensus candidate for impeachment, that almost everyone can get behind.  Since Trump won’t fire him – let’s impeach and remove Scott Pruitt, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Talk about draining a polluted swamp.  Pruitt has been the subject of weekly stories about his own personal corruption and aggrandizement.  Here are just some of the charges floating around.

• Even before he was confirmed as EPA Director, Pruitt was accused of taking direct funds from the Petroleum industry as Attorney General of Oklahoma. Not only did he accept political funding, but he directly used their language for proposed laws, and got a sweetheart deal for an expensive home.
• Once he arrived in Washington, Pruitt “rented” a trendy Capitol Hill townhouse from a lobbyist for the natural gas industry. His cost, $50/night, and only for the nights he stayed there.  Since Pruitt was often travelling (see below) he had the perfect hotel room.  By the way, getting a hotel room in DC for $50/night would mean staying in a place that the EPA would deem a Superfund Cleanup site.
• On assuming the Directorship, Pruitt demanded 24/7 security. This was a big change from the past – past Directors got protection from their residence to the EPA and back.  Pruitt wanted full time, full location security protection, causing a huge increase in personnel and obviously raising the cost.  He also wanted a bulletproof desk, and car, and lights and sirens (he tried to use them to get to a dinner reservation on time.)
• Pruitt had installed in his office a $43000 soundproof phone booth (not a secure communications site – or SCIF – which was upstairs) in order to have “private” conversations.
• Pruitt flew first class (against government regulations) and used charter and military aircraft. In the first four months his travel cost over $100,000.  His security detail cost even more, as he had full security protection for visits to Disneyland and a football bowl game.
• Pruitt gave subordinates huge raises, after the White House denied permission to give them. He redirected money from the Clean Water Act.
• Pruitt exiled or fired EPA administrators who criticized his actions.
• Pruitt travelled to Algeria to lobby for Natural Gas, an odd position for the EPA Director. The natural gas lobbyist was the owner of his townhouse.

With all of this, why doesn’t the President just fire him?  After all, he’s seems to be able to fire others at a “tweet,” just ask the huge list of former administration officials.  But, there are a couple of compelling reasons for Trump to keep him.

Pruitt is the “man off the bench” to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions if Trump decides to fire Sessions.  Pruitt, a former state Attorney General, could step in and as a loyal Trumpster; fire Rosenstein, Mueller or whoever else is in the way. In addition, Pruitt’s EPA is deregulating the energy industry, making things good for the petroleum industry (which means the Koch brothers and their huge political fund) as well as encouraging “clean” coal, whatever that means.

So Trump will keep Pruitt. But, if Republicans in Congress, and particularly the “holier than thou” Freedom Caucus, wanted to show that they could “drain the swamp” as promised; Pruitt is the obvious choice.  So crank up the machine:  Impeach Pruitt.

 

 

 

 

Pathways of Resistance

Donald Trump has been President for 1 year, 105 days, 22 hours, 55 minutes and 33 seconds at the moment I’m writing (there’s a webpage for that, surprise!)  From that moment of his inauguration, folks who couldn’t believe he was elected President have been saying:  what can I do to resist the changes he is making to our country?  How can I help to protect:

• the environment
• healthcare
• voting rights
• Dreamers
• Women’s Rights (including reproductive rights)
• Middle Class incomes
• Education
• Gun control
• Our children from going to war.

America has always had a tradition of loyal opposition.  In the past few years, as our politics have grown more divisive, it has become more difficult to see the “loyalty” in the actions of the opponents.  Everyone claims to be fighting for the “America” they believe in, but we seem to have an increasingly different view of what that nation looks and acts like.  Historically we’ve been here before, most notably in in 1850’s prior to the Civil War, but also in 1800, the mid-1820’s, the late 1880’s, early 1920’s, and the 1960’s – opposition and resistance are not new nor uncommon and it doesn’t always end in war.  Sometimes, it has brought wars to an end.

So in our current climate, what can be done to “Resist?”

First of all, the primary duty of all Americans, vote.  Past elections show that the more negative a campaign gets, the fewer people come to the polls.  Negative campaigns are designed to drive down the opponents’ votes, and clearly the 2016 election was impacted by the negative ads on both sides.  If this year’s primary is any indication, the general election of 2018 (at least here in Ohio) will be one of the “dirtiest” in history.  Low voter turnout inevitably favors Republicans, don’t let the trickery of campaign advertising keep you from voting.

Keep in mind it’s not just advertising on television, radio, or newspapers (for those who still read them.) It’s ads in social media, it’s biased or faked news articles, it’s the re-tweeted or shared post that makes outlandish claims.  All of these become a part of the decision making process, but, more importantly they create a climate where voters choose not to cast a vote for the “lesser of two evils,” but to sit out the whole process.  Don’t be “conned” that it doesn’t matter who you vote for:  if the election of 2016 taught us anything, it’s that every vote counts, even if it’s a “lesser evil” choice.

In keeping with advertising and social media, the second duty is to ascertain what is fact and what is propaganda.  In our ‘post-truth” society, reaching some common truths about issues is becoming more difficult.  Actual research may be required.  As part of finding the truth, resistance means bringing that truth to the public, to your friends and family, even to those who you know disagree with you politically.  It doesn’t have to be in an obnoxious way, but ultimately “fake news” continues because we passively accept it.  If every fake item is called out, then it will be more difficult for it to become “real.”

For example, currently Facebook is trending with the claims by opponents of the Iran Nuclear Treaty that Iran lied during the negotiations, and that the American diplomats, notably John Kerry, were fooled.  The primary source for this information is a speech by Benjiman Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel.  Netanyahu dredged up old intelligence from several years ago about the Iranian nuclear program, information that was well known to the negotiators at the time.  It has been presented as a treaty violation, but in reality, it outlined actions that Iran gave up as part of the treaty.

So resist by knowing what is true and what is “fake,” then refuse to accept the premise of the fake. Speak truth, even when it has to be whispered softly to friends who believe the falsity.  Give them doubts;  then let those doubts increase as they see a President who willingly lies to America.

Third: participate in the most American of activities, protest.  It can change things, from civil rights to Vietnam, from the labor movement to abolitionism to women’s suffrage to the most recent marches of the Parkland kids. Step out into the world, make a sign, walk and chant and don’t be afraid to change the world.  There will be political campaigns in the fall to help, and there are continual actions going on (particularly in Columbus  – here’s a web calendar of events, Resistance Calendar.)  If marching isn’t for you, then make your voice heard by writing about what issue concerns you most and putting it out on social media, or as a letter to Congress, or to the news media.  Or, write a blog (here’s mine – Trump World). Find a way to publicly express your view:  here’s what my artist sister and her friends did (Outrage – Artists Respond to Trump  and Impeach.)

Fourth:  the Mueller investigation is critical.  Should the President take the ultimate action of trying to obstruct it by firing Robert Mueller, Congress must be pressured into reacting.  The “plan” is already in place – find a march and join in if things get that far (Find a March.)

You may worry that you will lose your “friends” who disagree with you politically.  While this has happened to me, I’ve found that most of my friends respect my views, even if we don’t agree.  As polarized as our politics have become, most Americans are willing to accept that others may have differing beliefs, and still be “good” people. And, most Americans recognize that legitimate protest is our tradition, one that should be cherished even if we disagree.  This time it’s “our side,” who knows what the next time will be.  Find a way – and resist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rosenstein’s Dilemma

Rod Rosenstein is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, second in command in the Justice Department.  Born in Philadelphia, Summa Cum Laude at Wharton School of Economics and Cum Laude at Harvard Law; he has spent his entire career in service of his country with the Justice Department.  His previous job was as US Attorney for Maryland, where he was chosen by Republican George W Bush, and continued under Democrat Barack Obama.

Rosenstein became Deputy Attorney General by appointment from President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Due to his involvement in the Trump Campaign, Sessions recused himself from the Russia Investigation, leaving Rosenstein as the supervisor.  Rosenstein appointed his old boss, former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct the probe.

Rosenstein has the obligation to serve three masters in his current assignment.  The first, as a member of the executive branch of the government, is the President of the United States.  While the Department of Justice has a long tradition of maintaining independence, ultimately they are a part of the Executive.  The President hired Rosenstein, he can fire him as well.

The second is his Constitutional duty to accept oversight from the legislative branch, the Congress. Congress has the authority to oversee the actions of executive agencies, and also has the power to control funding for those agencies.  Congress can, and should, know what actions are being taken, and have the obligation to ask questions and get answers.

The third is to the Constitution and law itself.  Rosenstein, as a career Department of Justice employee, has spent his whole career following the law.  He sees as his duty to prosecute those who break the law, and to make sure that no one is above the law.  As part of that duty, he cannot allow obstruction of an ongoing criminal investigation.

His dilemma:  the Mueller investigation is clearly centering on the actions of his ultimate boss, the President of the United States, Donald Trump.  Trump has to ability to fire Rosenstein (and appoint someone who would subsequently stop or fire Mueller) so Rosenstein’s job and career are in peril.  In addition, some Republican Congressmen, notably members of the “Freedom Caucus,” led by Chairmen Gowdy, Goodlatte and Nunes; are demanding un-redacted versions of the “scope and sequence” documents for the Mueller probe.  These documents are the roadmap for the investigation, and should they leak to possible subjects/targets, would make investigating much more difficult.

While the three Chairmen claim they are acting in their oversight role, it has already been demonstrated that classified information given to them has been used for political gain (see the House Intelligence Committee FISA report) rather than oversight of the Department.

In essence, the Chairmen are acting as “investigators” for the Trump defense team, trying to glean details so that the President can defend himself as the named “subject” of the Russia Investigation.

So Rosenstein faces the supreme dilemma:  which of the three masters has the highest call?  In statements made this past week, he made it clear where he stands.

On Monday, President Trump issued a Law Day Proclamation. The President said, “Law Day recognizes that we govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather [than] … the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will. Through law, we have ensured liberty.” The point is that we do not achieve justice by polling the opinion of any person or group. We achieve justice through a process that seeks objective truth based upon credible and admissible evidence.

Rosenstein’s remarks (definitely worth reading in full) make it clear.  He said, “…when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation.”  The privilege of spending a career in the Justice Department obliges him to follow his highest loyalty, to the Law and the Constitution. This requires him to perform the “unpleasant duty” of refusing the requests of the Congressmen.

The Freedom Caucus may try to impeach Rosenstein for this refusal.  While one would hope Speaker Ryan would step into such a situation, his pending retirement may have emasculated him (or he retired because he already was.)  Clearly there is no majority in the House, far less a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict.  Rosenstein won’t lose his job by Congressional action.  And should President Trump use that as his excuse to remove Rosenstein, it will ignite a Constitutional crisis.

If we are a nation of laws, then obstruction of those laws is in itself a crime.  Rosenstein will not be a participant in obstruction, and Congress should not become a tool of obstruction either.

 

 

The Post Truth Era

James Comey was fired for his handling of the Hillary Clinton emails; or he was fired for failing to end the Russia investigation; or for not publicly stating the President was not a target; or failing to pledge loyalty to the President. Donald Trump didn’t know Stormy Daniels; didn’t pay Stormy Daniels; didn’t know Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels; paid Cohen back for paying Stormy Daniels.  The United States is going to build a wall on the Mexican border, we are building a wall on the Mexican border, we are repairing existing walls on the Mexican border.

We have entered a new era, when the “truth” ain’t true.  This isn’t only a Donald Trump phenomenon, this is a widespread occurrence, almost normal in daily life.  There is little that is universally accepted as true; every political, religious, and cultural faction has their own version of the truth.

We stop listening to those things we don’t believe are true.  We tune (or are tuned by our media) to see and hear our OWN TRUTH.  When an “opposing” truth slips in, we immediately see it as an outlier, not real, or in the President’s term, FAKE NEWS.   Our media sources will do this for you, selecting stories that you agree with and weeding out those that you don’t. It’s in the “algorithm.”

As someone with a political cross-section of friends, I still get to see some of the “other sides” truths.  One of my “annoying traits” (I suspect) is that when I see a clearly outlandish claim, I go to work to check it against fact (even if it’s not their truth.)  I never get thanks for that, more often, my sources of “truth” are attacked.  For example, George Washington NEVER SAID the following about the Second Amendment:

A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

It’s out there on the internet, you can see it with a nice portrait of the first President on Facebook. But he never said it.  Several fact checking groups including Snopes agree, as well as the Mt. Vernon Historical Society.  But beware of questioning someone else’s truth.

Speaking of George Washington, he didn’t say, “I cannot tell a lie,” either.  A later biographer, Parson Weems, made that up along with the cherry tree.  But it doesn’t seem quite so long ago that there was a price to pay for telling a lie. Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”  He said that to the public, and then again under deposition. He later said he believed oral sex wasn’t sexual relations, but the House of Representatives voted to impeach him for perjury, and he stood trial in the Senate (where he was NOT removed from office.)

Full disclosure:  THEN and now, I believe Clinton should not have been impeached.  I did and do believe he should have resigned for disgracing the office of the President, by taking advantage of an intern. If he had, Al Gore might have been President instead of George W Bush and the world would be a very different place. 

Agree or not with the actions taken, “back then” even the ultimate politician, Bill Clinton was held to some standard.

Today, it’s not so much. Today there is a media network devoted to one truth, Fox News, and there are other networks closer to what may be REAL truth, including my addiction, MSNBC.  But there is no common denominator, no common set of facts that can serve as a bridge from one view to another.  We are in a “post-truth era.”

So what happens in our new era?  When I was in high school, I read  George Orwell’s  “1984.”  In that book, the enemies of yesterday (Russia?) become the friends of tomorrow, and the Ministries of Truth, Love, Peace and Plenty told lies, hate, fought wars, and rationed goods.  Today we have an Environmental Protection Agency that has stopped protecting, a Justice Department that is struggling to be just, a Homeland Security Department that rounds up people, and a State Department that gave up diplomacy.  Words no longer have the same meaning.

Our view of politicians is so low that we no longer hold them to any standards.  If it was known that President Kennedy was having affairs in the White House, or that Woodrow Wilson’s stroke was so severe, would they have remained in office?  In 1988, Colorado Senator Gary Hart was running for President.  He challenged rumors that he was having an affair, almost saying “…catch me if you can.”  The press did, and Hart was done.  Today, he could have simply called them all liars, purveyors of Fake News, or paid Donna Rice off with a “do not disclose agreement.”

In a recent Ohio political campaign, a candidate wanted to make a point about his opponent.  In a commercial, he took a picture of the opponent shaking hands with President Trump and “Photoshopped” it so that the opponent was shaking hands with Hillary Clinton.  When he was called out for it, it was simply “creative campaigning,” another version of Fake News.  There was no apology, no retraction, no withdrawal from the campaign.

We get what we accept. While there are a lot of reasons that “good” people avoid politics (raising money for campaigns is one huge factor) another is that they are afraid to sully themselves in the field.  We get what we deserve if we don’t hold politicians, and certainly, the current President, to a higher standard.  The standard set by Speaker Ryan, “…don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does,” is unacceptable if we want something different and better than what we are getting now.

The real danger is the one prophesied in 1949 by Orwell in “1984.”  When we no longer value truth, when we no longer share a common knowledge of fact, then our government can do what it wants, whether it’s in our interest or not.  We will lose our democracy if we don’t find a common truth.  Big Brother will do more than watch.

 

 

 

The Button Strategy

The chants in Michigan went on for a while – “NOBEL, NOBEL, NOBEL!”  President Trump’s modest answer, “I’m just doing my job.”

Will Donald Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his actions in North Korea?  Probably not, but it’s hard not to give him some credit for the changes in Kim Jong-Un’s behavior.  Did Trump’s strategy, including the “Rocket Man” and “Bigger Button” tweets, push Kim to the negotiating table?

It might have.

When a madman tries to burn your neighborhood, with all of the homes threatened; the fact you don’t like you neighbor won’t stop you from working together to stop the madman.  South Korean President Moon Jae-in was well aware of the ultimate truth about the next Korean war.  The battles would be fought in the most highly populated parts of his country, millions of people would be killed, and the nation that has been an economic and political success story since 1953 would be utterly devastated.

Kim Jong-Un of North Korea is also aware of what a war with the United States would cause.  While there is much less economic infrastructure in North Korea to destroy and Kim is less concerned about civilian casualties, if the US waged war one of the primary goals would be the end of the Kim regime.  Look at Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Gaddafi in Libya to see Kim’s prospective fate.

So while Moon and Kim are neighbors who don’t like each other, Trump served as the raging madman threatening them both.  Perhaps this pushed them both to the negotiating table.  But there are alternative reasons the two might have reached across the border.

Kim and North Korea represent the ultimate threat to South Korea.  President Moon has followed a well thought out strategy, first engaging Kim in participating in the Olympic Winter Games, then pursuing greater contacts culminating in their meeting at the “Peace House” on the demilitarized zone. If South and North Korea can develop economic commitments, they are less likely to try to destroy each other.

Kim has also followed a strategy, working to build a nuclear arsenal, now complete; and developing missile delivery systems that can threaten beyond the region to the world. He worked to make himself, “a member of the nuclear club” (US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan.) Now he (and therefore his country) is recognized as a major world player, and gets to meet man-to-man with the President of the United States.

It was easy for Kim to “give up” nuclear and missile testing:  the program is ready to go, “operational,” and there is no longer a need. He got what he wanted, now he wants to negotiate for economic benefits as an “equal.”  President Trump has accepted that equal standing, and is expected to agree to meet with Kim on Kim’s “turf,” back at the Demilitarized Zone.

Negotiation is better than war.  So whatever the mechanisms that brought North Korea to the table, it beats dropping missiles on Seoul, Tokyo, San Francisco, or Pyongyang.  Whether this was some well thought out strategy by Trump or simply the innate knowledge of one bully for another, the “madman US President” plan deserves credit for getting there.

What happens next is questionable.  The United States has negotiated with North Korea several times, each time the North has promised to stop nuclear progress.  They simply lied, and continued to build and develop their program.  Now that Kim has the “bomb” and a delivery system, it’s unlikely he’ll give them up for anything.  The United States is trying to negotiate for a “denuclearized” Korean peninsula.  It’s difficult to see a “carrot” that they can offer North Korea to give up their bombs. And of course, “the stick” would mean nuclear war.

And South Korea (not given a seat at the table with Kim and Trump yet) has the world’s fourteenth strongest economy. Much as West German success contrasted with East German privation, South Korea is thriving as North Koreans continue to literally starve. The South has a lot to offer the North.

There is a possibility for progress, though it may only come at the cost of accepting a nuclear North Korea.  South Korea may be willing to take that chance, but it’s unlikely the Trump Administration will accept any outcome short of nuclear neutering.

So we are a long way from the Nobel Peace Prize.  Likely, we are closer to nuclear war.

 

 

 

 

 

Three Dimensional Chess

(I took a little break last week, heading to North Carolina for Merlefest – a Bluegrass Festival – with three of my favorite people.  Back home now and a lot’s gone on – time to get back to work!)

This week the President’s team leaked a summary of notes taken in a meeting with the Mueller team. The topic:  will the President answer questions from Special Counsel Mueller. Further leaks reveal that when negotiations over the “interview” (shades of a movie about North Korea – maybe there are more similarities than we think) got tough, the Mueller team suggested they would subpoena the President.  This would be unprecedented.

John Dowd, then the lead counsel for the President and since resigned, stated: “This isn’t some game – you are screwing with the work of the President of the United States.”

 But in a sense, it is a game:  a game with the most serious consequences.  The subject of the investigation is ultimately the President of the United States, Donald Trump, who in reality, is accused of conspiring with the Russian Government to change the results of the 2016 election.  While the legal niceties suggest that the President is a “subject” not a “target” of this investigation, that distinction has more to do with the consequences of a criminal indictment of a sitting President than the actual evidentiary outcomes.

The opposition: currently Robert Mueller, Special Counsel of the Department of Justice, who has been charged with determining what happened between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government during the 2016 election.  Mueller is supervised by the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; put in that role by the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions who was involved in the Trump campaign.

What could be the outcome of this game?  The Mueller team could issue a report, essentially an indictment, to the House of Representatives, stating that the actions of the President should result in criminal charges, and only the Constitution prevents him from being dragged “before the bar.”  Since the judicial system isn’t available, the Constitution calls on Congress to deal with a President who committed “…high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Mueller could call for the impeachment and removal of the President.

This is the ultimate consequence.

The leak of the possible questions originally looked like it came from the Mueller team.  As such it would be a first, as Mueller has been completely tight lipped about the progress of the work, communicating only in court through filings.  The only reason it seemed like a Mueller leak, is the questions were limited to directly Russia and election related issues.  There were no questions about Trump’s taxes, previous investments, or business affairs. The topics all were “within the lane” of the Russia investigation, and didn’t cross the “red lines” that Trump himself had stated might serve as grounds for firing Mueller.

But it was leaked by the President’s side.  While we don’t know the direct source, it has been established that these were questions developed by the President’s attorney Jay Sekulow from the topics of the Mueller meeting.  And while the leak didn’t seem to serve the President’s cause, it did provide two new items of information about the investigation.

First, the topics and questions implied that there was evidence that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was in direct contact with the Russian Government looking for aid to the Trump campaign.  This would be a direct sign of conspiracy (collusion is the President’s term, but it has no legal consequence.)

And second, the Mueller team was looking at the use of possible Presidential pardons to obstruct the investigation, particularly with General Mike Flynn.  This “dangling” of pardon in order to keep Flynn from cooperating with the Mueller team, was supposedly done by lead Presidential counsel John Dowd, who resigned from the White House team shortly after the March meeting with Mueller.

So if Mueller didn’t leak this information, and it seems to benefit the Mueller case, then what was the “President’s team” thinking by putting it out there?

President Trump, using his preferred means of mass communication, has called the investigation a “witch hunt” or stated that there was “no collusion” six times in the past day. The Presidential team, stating that Trump is a “subject” not a “target” of the investigation, asks why there are questions about Trump’s direct actions involving the campaign and Russia.  If he’s not a target, then why are they asking these questions?

It’s a call to their base, who already have concluded that the investigation is a “witch hunt” and that there was “no collusion.”  Fox News has made it very clear, and the set of “facts” the Trump base uses supports that claim.  So when the President refuses to be questioned, or perhaps even invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, his base will accept his actions as necessary and proper for a man being hounded by the “deep state” and “Clinton/Obama Democrats.”

In the meantime, the leaked topics will lend further fire to the radical Republican Freedom Caucus members, who already have drafted articles of impeachment – for Rod Rosenstein. If they can involve him in a hearing defending himself, they can then call for his removal from supervision of the Russia investigation.  The President doesn’t have to fire Rosenstein, an impeachment hearing will force his recusal.

Rosenstein himself has responded, calling out the Freedom Caucus for leaking the impeachment articles anonymously.  He has made it clear that as the Deputy Attorney General he will continue to “…protect and defend the Constitution” and follow the facts to their conclusion.

Paul Ryan, the lame-duck Speaker of the House, could put an end to the Freedom Caucus foolishness. But he probably won’t, as it might trigger an inside battle for the Speakership, a job Ryan wants to “gracefully leave” next January.  It’s about Ryan staying under the radar, and not taking a stand.

So what’s the next move in this game.

New Presidential attorney Rudy Guiliani, far more politician than legal scholar at this point, will try to manipulate the public perception of the investigation.  While for everyone else there are serious legal consequences to federal charges, to Guiliani’s client, the President, there are only political ones.  Impeachment is a political process in the Congress, and subject to the “whims” of the voters as much as the facts of the case.  Keeping the Trump base activated and voting keeps the pressure on Republican Congressmen, and ultimately Senators, to avoid impeachment and trial.

The leak also puts emphasis on impeachment, a goal for Republican campaign strategists.  They believe that if Democrats can be forced to run on the question of impeachment, it will energize the Trumpian base to come out and vote to defend their man.  Since he isn’t on the ballot, voting for the Republican candidate for the House or Senate is the next best thing, and keeps Trump from facing Congressional consequences.

Democrats recognize this strategy as well, and are trying to keep the investigation at arms length while they campaign on the impact of the tax cuts and other cultural issues.  They aren’t much help to Mueller, but would be should they gain control of one or both houses of Congress.

And the Mueller team: they will continue to do what they’ve always done, keep their heads down and proceed with the investigation.  Regardless of the political consequences, they will conclusively let the nation know what happened between Trump and the Russians, particularly in the 2016 election. And ultimately, it will be up to the people of the United States to provide the political will to go from there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trashing the White House

Andrew Jackson became the President of the United States in the election of 1828.  Jackson saw his election as a victory for the common man. In the 1824 election, Jackson received the most popular votes but failed to gain electoral victory.  The election went to the House of Representatives, where John Quincy Adams gained the Presidency through a series of political deals. Jackson held a grudge against the “powers that be” from that time on.

At Jackson’s inauguration, the White House was thrown open to the “common man.”  Kegs of beer were brought in, free food was available; men were crawling through the windows to celebrate their conquest of the establishment. They trashed the place.

Jackson used his philosophy of the common man to hire Federal employees. Jackson believed that any good citizen could do the job, therefore, the most important criteria for employment was their support for Jackson.  He cleared the Federal payroll for his supporters, and this became American tradition for the next fifty years. “The spoils system” began with his administration.

In the late nineteenth century, President’s recognized that there was a need for a professional class of government employees, and civil service was instituted in the US.  While there remains thousands of political appointments for each new administration, there is the constant of the civil service employees that serves as the backbone of the government.

Enter Donald Trump, choosing Andrew Jackson as his Presidential role model.

Like Jackson, Trump’s ultimate job qualification is loyalty to Trump.  While there are a myriad of examples of this, three recent incidents stand out. James Comey, who was specifically asked to pledge loyalty to Donald Trump, in a dinner which Comey took as an “interview” to keep the FBI directorship. Comey declined, and ultimately lost his position.

Vice President Pence needed a new National Security Advisor.  He asked that Jon Lerner, a top advisor to United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, be split between the UN and his office.  Trump blocked the move; Lerner worked for a pro-Rubio organization during the election, proving his “disloyalty” to Trump.  Pence was forced to choose someone else.

And this past week, Trump picked Admiral Ronny Jackson, White House physician, to head the Veterans Administration.  Jackson, a surgeon with battlefield experience, was the leader of the seventy-member White House medical team.  He was picked to lead the 400,000 employee VA, based on what ultimately seems to be his personal relationship with the President.  Now, as allegations fly about his past bad acts, Jackson has withdrawn from the nominating process, his reputation in tatters.

The allegations against Dr. Jackson were easily found, and a critical Navy Inspector General report was on file.  But Trump never had these things checked out, and literally threw “his friend” Jackson to the wolves.  To Trump, he was a doctor, he was a friend, and he looked good on TV.  That was all the qualifications that Jackson needed to gain the nomination.

The historic view of Andrew Jackson’s Presidency has changed in the past twenty years.  When I was in school in the 1960’s, Jackson was seen as a powerful President who led “the people” to the fore.  Today, Jackson is seen through his actions, including defying the Supreme Court and forcing the euphemistic “Indian Removal,” better known as the Trail of Tears, where hundreds of thousands of Native Americans were forced out of their homes and marched out of the way of American expansion. Thousands died in the process.

Trump has chosen that as his role model, and he probably is getting what he deserved.  Andrew Jackson opened the White House, and it got trashed. So did Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

The Curious Case of Rand Paul

Like a little kid constantly demanding attention, Senator Rand Paul whined and squirmed this week, stating he wasn’t going to vote for Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  His reasoning was that as a “Republican/Libertarian” he was against American interventionism, and Pompeo might be too willing to enter into the world’s problems.

And, like a little kid bribed with the right amount of attention, he got several calls from the President and lots of media speculation about whether he would be the decisive vote. Paul switched and voted for Pompeo.

It’s not that there aren’t lots of questions about Pompeo’s fitness to do the job.   He has impressive academic credentials, finishing first at West Point and earning Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law.  But, he has taken concerning stands: coming out against LGBTQ rights and blaming all of Islam for terrorism.   These are views that shouldn’t be represented as “American” to the rest of the world.

But those views aren’t Senator Paul’s issue.  And clearly Senator Paul’s “Republican/Libertarian” foundation is flexible.  He abandoned it in this case.  This year, time and time again, Paul has grandstanded on his principles, garnered the publicity, and then knuckled under.

In the continuing budget resolution debate in February, Paul exercised his prerogative as a Senator to “filibuster,” forcing the government to shutdown temporarily.  As the Senate was ultimately able to end debate, the government reopened in the middle of the night, but Paul got the “stage” for his period of time.  In the $1.6 trillion budget debate of March, Paul again threatened to hold up the voting, but on the last day merely scolded the Senate for the “…monstrosity of bloated government spending.”

In the Affordable Care Act debate, Paul actually stuck to his views, voting against the repeal (the vote when John McCain put his “thumb down.”)  In keeping with his philosophy, his negative vote wasn’t in favor of the Affordable Care Act’s survival, but because the repeal that was offered was not complete enough.

So the question is: is Rand Paul a principled Libertarian, or is he a grandstanding Senator, looking to get fifteen minutes of fame.  Or, is there a more nuanced way to analyze Paul’s behavior.  He wants to get along, especially with President Trump (his fellow Senators have definitely had their fill of him.)  It’s not so much out of affection for the President, but out of affection for the “Trump Base.”

Paul’s vision of the future may be a collapsing Trump administration, with an open lane for a race to the Presidency in 2020.  Whoever can claim “the base” has a strong starting point for the Republican nomination. And if Trump runs again (oh boy!) in 2020, well, Paul is relatively young at fifty-five, he can wait.

There are several “principled” Senators, who follow their established beliefs, on both sides of the aisle.  Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jeff Flake of Arizona both have taken different but clearly defined paths about what’s good for America.  And there are Senators who, due to politics or their ideological beliefs, stand in the middle.  Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Susan Collins of Maine are good examples of that.

But Paul’s stands are curious, as he follows his own Libertarian bent.  It’s not that following a philosophy is wrong whether you agree with it or not, it’s that his views seem to conveniently bend to the needs of his political life.

Maybe that’s why the neighbor next door decided he’d had enough and attacked Paul in a backyard brawl. I’m sure Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump have all wanted to do the same.

 

 

 

A Passing Era

Barbara Pierce Bush, First Lady of the United States with President George H.W. Bush and mother of President George W. Bush was buried yesterday.  She was ninety-two and, in keeping with her lifetime of strong decision making,  chose palliative care in the last few days of her life.   She was the backbone of the Bush family of six children, fourteen grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.

She was the last of the “Greatest Generation” to serve as First Lady.  Her death marked the passing of an era.  The funeral echoed an earlier time, when our nation could check partisanship at the Capitol or White House door.   While the Bush family has produced many Republican officeholders, former Presidents Obama and Clinton and other Democrats and Independents were invited to the ceremony.  The current First Lady, Melania Trump was present as well.

George H.W. Bush served only one term as President. He was defeated in a hotly contested 1992 election by Bill Clinton.  The on-again, off-again candidacy of Ross Perot as a third choice impacted the outcome.  Yet when Clinton’s term was over, it was Bush and Clinton who came together for disaster relief, starting with the Tsunami in Indonesia.  Clinton became a “surrogate son” to the Bush’s, not only in public settings, but also with the family at their Maine vacation home in Kennebunkport.  Despite the electoral contest, two former Presidents were able to work together, improve the world, and build a friendship.  Barbara Bush was a huge part of the success in that relationship.

Comity: defined as, “courtesy and considerate behavior towards others.”  The funeral, filled with laughter and tears  and memories of a life well lived, echoed the comity of a previous era, when there were clear lines of behavior that weren’t crossed.  Granddaughter Jenna Bush quoted from Romeo and Juliet:

“When she shall die take her and cut her out into stars and she shall make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.”

Some will reach a conclusion that Jenna meant the “garish sun” to be someone specific (just as many accused Robert Kennedy of attacking President Lyndon Johnson with the same quote in 1964.)  But in the Bush spirit of comity, I think she was speaking more of her “Ganny’s” plain speaking style,  as a woman of grace and strength.

We are not in a time of comity – and certainly the fact that Jenna works for NBC will be the subject of Tweets and columns, as will the smile that Barack Obama elicited from Melania Trump.  But for those of us who had the opportunity to watch or listen to the celebration of Barbara Bush, it brought back a more settled world, where every statement and decision didn’t feel like life and death.

Robert Kennedy also had a quote that fits our current situation:

“There is a Chinese curse which says ‘May he live in interesting times.’ Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind.”

Interesting times is what we have.  What we make of it, is up to us.

 

 

Partisan Hacks

Yesterday, the Department of Justice fulfilled the demands of House Committee Chairmen Bob Goodlatte, Trey Gowdy and Devin Nunes to send the “Comey Notes” to the Congress. Taken by former FBI Director James Comey after his conversations with President Trump; they are potential evidence of Presidential obstruction of justice.

The notes were sent in two forms: the originals and a redacted form that the Department of Justice felt protected the evidence.  Literally within minutes of Congress receiving the notes, Fox News had the redacted version. Last night the whole world was reading them (OK, that might be a little hyperbole, just MY whole world.)

These notes seem to completely confirm what their author, James Comey said, both in Congressional testimony and in his recent book.  Why the Republicans defending President Trump wanted them out, I can’t figure out. They show nothing that seems to help the President’s cause.  It does set a precedent that the Justice Department will accede to Congressional requests for evidence, even if it’s evidence in an ongoing investigation. While this particular one doesn’t reveal much new, the next time it might alter or destroy a case.

I have read some of the notes, and listened to Comey get drilled on their contents by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC (no friend of Comey.)  I don’t find them revealing.  Comey was looking for protection from the President, his superiors weren’t interested in giving it to him.  Comey was “trapped”:  follow the President’s clear wishes and drop the Flynn and Russia investigations, or be “disloyal” and face the consequences.  While I keep waiting for the “Clear and Present Danger” scene when Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan stands up to the President (check out the “junk yard dog” moment) it doesn’t happen.  Comey never stands up to the President in person, he simply does not do Trump’s bidding.

Comey was fired.

What are Goodlatte, Gowdy, Jordan, Nunes and other “Radical” Republican Congressmen trying to do?  They are claiming there was an FBI conspiracy to get Hillary Clinton elected and stop the Trump campaign.  If that’s true, the FBI is the most incompetent law enforcement agency ever created.

The chronology of the summer and fall of 2016 should lead to some common sense conclusions. Throughout the early summer, it was well known that the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. During that time, Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix airport, and afterwards Lynch said she would accept Comey’s recommendations for action (though she did not recuse herself.)

Comey gave his famous July speech, clearing Hillary Clinton of charges, but criticizing her actions as reckless.  Trump supporters were incensed, and castigated Comey as a Democratic lackey. Democrats weren’t happy either.  Comey never mentioned that the  Trump Campaign was under investigation as well.

During the fall, it was leaked that there was an investigation of the Clinton Foundation (Andrew McCabe was later found to be the leaker.)  And then, Comey made the famous October 28^th announcement, reopening the Clinton email investigation.  Oddly, Rudy Guiliani seemed to know what was going to happen two days in advance.

(Side Bar:  if Guiliani knew about the investigation being reopened before the Comey announcement, doesn’t that mean that the FBI was leaking to the Trump campaign, and doesn’t it make Guiliani a witness in the overall investigation?  Will that mean that ultimately Guiliani will need to withdraw as Trump’s attorney due to his conflicted position?)

While Comey came back two days before the election and said that no new information was found, the damage was done.  Clinton went from an eight to ten percent lead in the polls to a dead even race.

McCabe leaks that the Clinton Foundation is under investigation.  Guiliani seems to have inside information from the FBI.  Comey drops an “October Surprise” that wipes out Clinton’s lead in the polls.  If this was an FBI conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton, someone, please take their badges and guns away.  They blew it.

And to claim, as the White House has continually done, that they were “partisan hacks” of the Democrats, is ludicrous.  It can be argued that Lynch, Comey, McCabe, and the rest made questionable decisions, but they couldn’t have been so clumsy as to try to elect Clinton, and by their actions, elect Trump. They couldn’t be that incompetent. It makes no sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Real Conspiracy

As Democrats, Liberals, and “Resistance” members watch the drama unfold in the Trump investigation, there is an entire other “universe of conspiracy” developing.  And while it might seem like “fake news” easily ignored, this universe has the potential for having a real impact on events as they play out with the Mueller investigation.

This alternate universe proffers that the leadership of the FBI, along with President Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch, rigged the investigation into the Clinton emails in order to protect her run for the Presidency.  It also theorizes that the same plotters were working to discredit the Trump candidacy, by beginning an investigation into the possibility of conspiring with Russians, and eavesdropping on at least one Trump advisor, Carter Page.

The evidence is based on the texts of two senior members of the Clinton investigation.  FBI agent Peter Strozk and Department of Justice Attorney Lisa Page engaged in a months long elicit affair, and during that time sent thousands of texts via their Department issued cell phones.  The transcript of those texts became part of an internal investigation and was then “leaked” to Republican Congressmen, who have made portions available to the public.

Based on these texts, some Republicans argue that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was predisposed to find no criminal intent.  It furthers argues that the lead investigator, Strozk, was in league with the Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, as well as Page and others (perhaps FBI Director James Comey) to protect Clinton from criminal indictment. They align these “facts” with the meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport, where they believe a “deal” was made to protect Hillary.

In addition, some of these same investigators were involved in eavesdropping on Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page using a FISA warrant.  The officials who signed off on that warrant, including McCabe, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and later Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; all were participating in “creating” a Russia crisis, with the intent of delegitimizing the Trump campaign and later administration.

Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has been at the forefront of the FISA investigation.  He has received support from many of the members of the “Freedom Caucus;” the far right group of Republican Congressmen led by Mark Meadows of North Carolina. Nunes has demanded that the full documentation for the Carter Page FISA warrant be given to his committee.  That committee, by the way, has concluded its brief investigation into the Russia conspiracy, determining that there was no “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russians, despite not hearing testimony from dozens of critical witnesses.

Meadows, joined by Freedom caucus member Jim Jordan of Ohio, is demanding an investigation into the Clinton email investigation.   They argue that the Clinton email investigation results were a “sham”, and that the probable cause to open the Trump investigation was a “sham” as well. They claim that the basis of the Trump investigation was the Steele Dossier, and since that Dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign, it was tainted and unacceptable as any form of evidence.  The Justice Department and FBI deny that the Steele Dossier was the basis for the investigation.

All of this ignores the real fact that the action of the FBI Director, in re-opening the Hillary Clinton email investigation ten days before the election, was the proximate cause of Clinton’s loss to Trump.  It us hard to see that as an FBI rigged towards Clinton.

Nunes, Meadows, Jordan, and retiring Congressman Trey Gowdy are all continuing to pursue their “alternative” theory.  These are powerful men, and their actions cannot be pushed aside as “wack theories” or “fake news.”  Even if they are unable to make much headway in their pursuit of “facts,” they are continuing the process of delegitimizing the Department of Justice and the FBI.

This has a political effect, in what will ultimately be a political process.  While criminal indictments may be issued against members of the Trump campaign, the President of the United States will likely not be charged.  The only action that can be taken against him is a vote of impeachment by the House of Representatives, and a trial for removal by the Senate.  This is a political process (shrouded in judicial language) with political influences.

If the Freedom Caucus and other Republicans can get a substantial number of Americans to believe that the entire Department of Justice is “rotten,” then the Mueller investigation will be tarred as well.  If the FBI was plotting against Trump, then certainly the Mueller team is doing the same, and it will be up to the Republicans in the House to stand up against that corruption.

And while a change in party control of the House this fall is likely, it may not change the outcome. Once the “facts” proffered by Nunes, Meadows and the rest are established, they will be difficult to overcome.  And those “facts” will lend strength to the Republican Senators should a Democratic House send an impeachment resolution to them. While it only takes a majority of the House to impeach, it takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict. Even if Democrats win a majority, some Republicans would have to cross over to remove Donald Trump.

The real conspiracy may not be the FBI trying to overthrow Trump, but the “Radical” Republicans trying to denigrate the FBI and the Mueller investigation.  Their success will be measured in votes, both in elections and on the floor of the Congress.  And they may already be winning that contest.

 

 

 

Stature of the President

On Friday night the United States went to war.  US military forces attacked targets in Syria.  Lives were at risk, and the full force and might of the strongest nation in world history was on display.

Following tradition dating back to the founding of the Republic, President Trump spoke to the nation. He outlined his reasons for the attack, and he explained what choices Syria could make to alter their future. He ended his speech with the phrase, “God Bless our military, and God bless the United States of America.”  It was, as another President stated, “…all together fitting and proper…”

It was quite a turnabout for President Trump.  Just a few weeks ago, he was making fun of “being Presidential,” and even made fun of the phrase “God bless you, and God bless the United States of America” as pompous and outdated.  He is the President who talks “real.”  But when the US forces were at risk, when missiles were striking, Trump wanted to be traditional, and Presidential.  He knew that the situation required the stature of the President.

The stature of the President:  it is more than just a performance.  When President Trump agreed to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, he “equalized” Kim in the eyes of the world.  The North Koreans are desperate to be seen as a legitimate, in fact, so desperate that they starved their own people in order to pay the cost of developing the missile and nuclear technology that is their pride.  Now Trump is meeting head-to-head with Kim, two heads of state sitting together, equally.

The stature of the President:  the White House invited Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to visit.  He is a man who likely had a reporter thrown to his death from a fifth floor window last week; who master-minded the 2016 attack on our elections; who sheltered Syrian weapons and troops from the US attack last weekend. He is to be “wined and dined” with full honors in view of the eyes of Americans, Russians and the rest of the world.  His actions and his country equalized by the stature of the President.

The stature of the President: Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, obviously knew that the Administration was agreed in placing additional sanctions on Russia. Trump clearly changed his mind Sunday afternoon, then let his advisors try to make the mixup about Haley’s confusion.  Her response: “with all due respect – I don’t get confused.”  Her stature remains clear, while the President’s looks indecisive and confused. Is that the view of the President we want the world to see?

And finally, this morning the President tweeted about a sketch made by a porn star of her possible assailant.  It doesn’t even matter if he’s right or wrong, had sex with her or not; the President personally arguing and “dissing” a porn star?  Is that the stature he wants as President?

Most would say: this IS the President we elected.  He is a “post-stature” President, with tweets and porn stars and screaming fits in the White House.  He was elected “warts and all”:  we knew what we were getting.  And they would be right.

But, after the speech Friday night, it is clear that the President recognizes the power of his stature. He used it in the appropriate way for a most serious situation, I wish he could find it in himself to see that power in every action he takes.  He needs to recognize that his stature impacts the world – from Kim to Putin to Stormy Daniels.

 

 

 

The Backup

Scott Pruitt is the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.  The EPA has been the “bête noire” of the Republican and Conservative movements since the Clean Air Act of 1970.  The Agency has restricted using our air, water, and land as a dumping ground for industry.  Since our society has seen the environment as an “entitlement” since the first settlers arrived in the 1600’s, the laws and the EPA try to regulate and protect that resource from further abuse.

Scott Pruitt was the Attorney General of the state of Oklahoma for six years.  During that time, he dissolved the Environmental Protection Unit in his office, raised a ton of money from the oil and gas industry, and sued the EPA thirteen times.  He entered the EPA Directorship with a clear mandate to restrain the Agency, and under a cloud of questions about emails from the oil and gas industry, including Xeroxing industry language to file official protests against EPA rules.

Since he arrived in Washington in 2017, Pruitt’s cloud has grown darker.  The GAO (General Accounting Office) said he violated the law when he built a $31000 soundproof phone booth in his office and put a $5000 American flag behind his desk.  He has spent millions of dollars in travel, excusing his first class seats by citing “security concerns.”  He has twenty-four hour security coverage, including on trips to Disneyland and the Rose Bowl.  In his first three months in office his travel costs were more the $832,000; not including trips to Italy and Morocco.

He had a “sweetheart deal” for living in Washington, staying in a Capitol Hill area apartment.  The owner, the wife of a natural gas lobbyist, charged Pruitt $50 a night for use, far under the going rate for any accommodations in D.C.  Since Pruitt failed to even pay that amount, she eventually changed the locks to keep him out.

Compared to former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price or Veteran’s Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, both fired for inflated travel expenses, Pruitt has far exceeded their extravagancies.  So what keeps Pruitt in office, while Price and Shulkin are gone?

Pruitt has tremendous support from the conservative community.  Conservative moneybags, the Koch brothers, whose fortune is based in oil and gas, spent $3.1 million to help get the Pruitt nomination through the Senate. Pruitt is “their man” in the EPA, and they want him to stay there.  And, Fox News has made their support apparent. Just last week in an opinion piece, Fox praised Pruitt for de-regulating the environment without Congressional sanction:

“It would, of course, be better if the Senate passed the House bills and sent them to President Trump to sign. But until that can happen, Pruitt has taken the reins and implemented the policies on his own. Bravo.”

Pruitt is doing the bidding of his political masters, and they are willing to swallow his political indiscretions to get the job done.  But there is a more important reason keeping Pruitt in his expensive seat in EPA.

Much bigger than the Pruitt problem, the Trump administration is trying to survive the Mueller investigation.   Pruitt represents a possible move in that crisis, one that the President is unwilling to give up for mere corruption in office.

The scenario would be to remove Jeff Sessions from the Attorney General position.  Sessions, who early in the term recused himself from all Russia related issues, doesn’t control the investigation.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein does.  If Trump fired Sessions, he could move a Senate confirmed, cabinet level appointee in temporarily until a permanent nominee is confirmed.  That Acting Attorney General would not be recused, and could take control of the investigation away from Rosenstein: that control could mean restricting or even removing Muller.

Pruitt, the former Attorney General of Oklahoma and the Senate confirmed EPA Director, is the backup. He is the pawn that could move into the Attorney General “square” long enough to disrupt the Mueller team. With only four lawyers in the Cabinet, Pruitt is the primary choice, whose loyalty to “the cause” is clear. Trump is keeping his options open.

IF Trump can ignore the scandals that Pruitt creates.  However, with all of the other scandals in “Trump World,” Pruitt’s “petty” financial flaws are flying pretty much under the radar.  He continues to dismantle environmental protection in America, but even more importantly he stands ready to jump into Session’s chair and change the Mueller world.

He is the backup.

 

 

 

Known Knowns

Michael Ché on Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update made a telling comment:

 “FBI raids are like your girlfriend going through your phone, she’s only doing it to prove what she already knows.”

The investigators already know.  They already know whether the President of the United States conspired with the Russian government to influence the election of 2016.  While Fox News and the rest claim “…after sixteen months and millions of dollars there is no evidence of collusion,” investigators know the truth. As Don Rumsfeld so eloquently put it, it is a “known known.”

The raid on Michael Cohen’s office and home will prove what they already know.  So will the evidence gained through months of electronic surveillance on Cohen, all approved both by the Justice Department and by Federal Judges. So will the testimony of Popadoupolos, Flynn and Gates.  The investigators already know all of this, they already have conclusions drawn about what occurred in the years leading up to the election.

As James Comey said in his interview with George Stephanopoulos, after a year any good investigators will have conclusions.  If they don’t, they are incompetent.

Reporters are unearthing bits and pieces of what investigators have.  The McClatchy News is reporting that Michael Cohen did travel to Prague in the late summer of 2016, despite his denials. Others have linked Cohen to meetings in Prague with a close advisor to Putin, and to one of the Clinton email hackers. Should this turn out to be accurate, it more than confirms information from the Steele Dossier, lending more credence to the rest of the report.  If true, it also is the “smoking gun” of conspiracy, and probably the end of the Trump Presidency.

The Russiagate world will be focused on the Comey book this week.  While we are still waiting for our copy, I have listened to Comey’s interviews. He strikes me as a moral and honest man, who made difficult decisions.  While I disagree with what he did and believe that he altered the outcome of the election, I don’t think he used “bad judgment.”  I think he used his best judgment, directed by his own moral compass. He tried to make a “black and white” decision in what is ultimately a very gray and political world.

Comey is a prosecutor, a man who spent his career making judgments about whether the actions of people were legal or illegal.  He never stepped away from the high profile defendants from John Gotti to Martha Stewart to Hillary Clinton.  In listening to Comey’s interview, he clearly used those skills to evaluate Donald Trump. His conclusion:  a man morally unfit to be President.

The same applied to his decisions about Hillary Clinton.  Comey judged that she did something wrong in using her personal email. He couldn’t make it a crime, and his statement in the summer of 2016 showed his frustration.

This also applies to the “October Surprise” letter to Congress on reopening the Clinton investigation.  Comey knew that the Weiner Laptop email investigation was going to leak out, whether he announced it or not:

 “I don’t know whether that was part of a leak outta the– FBI office in New York that knew about the search warrant. But that was my concern, that once you start seeking a search warrant, especially in a criminal case– counterintelligence is different.”

In his world view, Comey would defend the integrity of the FBI by writing the letter to Congress, knowing it would be released, rather than have it leak out of the New York FBI office.  He wouldn’t see it as a choice he made, but as an outcome he wanted to control.

While James Comey will be the “show” this week, the legal actions by Michael Cohen (and Stormy Daniels) will be the best sideshow. Cohen has demanded that HE determine what pieces of evidence are covered by attorney-client privilege, rather than the Justice Department “taint team” (the team of lawyers, separate from the investigators, who are going through the evidence now.)  The judge should laugh this one out of court, but if not, it would create a huge shift in the investigation.

But regardless of this decision, in the end Mueller knows, and has the same relentless determination that Jim Comey showed in his career.

He will make sure that, eventually, we will all know too.

 

 

 

 

 

Get It Together

The United States, the United Kingdom and France attacked Syria Friday night.  We launched over one hundred and fifty missiles from ships and planes, attacking Syrian chemical weapons development and storage capacities. Syria claims that half of the missiles were intercepted before they reached their target; they have advanced Russian made air-defense weapons.*

Syria is a disaster. It is in the end stages of a civil war against rebel militias, with the brutal Assad regime regaining power.  Russia and Iran have committed weapons and troops to support Assad in his quest.  Meanwhile, the United States is fighting and supporting the Kurds in the north and east as they complete the defeat of the Islamic State (ISIS).  Turkey has moved into parts of Northern Syria, and has attacked both ISIS remnants and Kurds.  And of course, the Israelis aren’t far away, and have launched recent attacks into Syria as well.

Assad has demonstrated a willingness to go to any length to survive.  This includes using chemical weapons on both rebel militias, and civilians. He has used Sarin nerve gas in the past, but this latest assault was with chlorine gas.  Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, estimates Assad has used chemical weapons at least fifty times in the past six years.

The Assad forces have also used barrel bombs dropped from helicopters on civilians, and have no compunction about shelling and bombing or starving any area where they find resistance, regardless of civilian casualties.

So what is the Allied strategy for Syria?  President Trump stated that this was a concerted effort, one that would be a continuing operation to make sure Assad didn’t use chemicals again.  Later, Secretary of Defense Mattis and General Dunford made it clear that our attack was a “one-off” mission.  If Assad doesn’t resort to chemical weapons, the Allies will leave him alone.

The answer is there is no answer for Syria.  Perhaps in President Obama’s administration there was an opportunity to act (as the Russians ultimately did) and overthrow Assad.  But the lessons of Iraq were clear to that administration:  remove the dictator and beware of the forces that are unleashed.  ISIS is but one example of what could happen.  President Obama chose not to intervene in the region.

So it’s hard to blame the Trump Administration for not having their Syria policy together.  It’s a conundrum, perhaps without solution. But the Administration could have at least coordinated the message between the President and the Generals.  The President intimated a long-term commitment to Syria (odd, as just a couple weeks ago he was talking about removing all US troops) while the Generals made it clear we don’t plan on continued action, as long as Assad doesn’t use his chemicals.

And the President, who made a major part of his Presidential campaign about not telling adversaries what he planned to do, tweeted our missile plans out on Monday.  Not only were the Syrians warned, they took the opportunity to move a significant amount of their weaponry onto Russian bases, where they would be shielded from Allied attacks.

This isn’t a case of “Wag the Dog,” the 1990’s movie where the President created a war to distract from his political woes at home.  Chemical weapons use has been banned since the end of World War One; even in the extremes of World War Two neither side resorted to them.  It is the one limited action the US and Allies can take:  do whatever else you want but don’t use chemicals.

But the current internal US crisis makes our alliance a less formidable force. This Administration has an aura of confusion and incompetence.   Rebel or Assad; Syrian, Iranian, Kurdish, Turkish, Russian, British or French:  it is hard to determine what the United States will do, and how committed it is to any strategy in the Middle East.  It isn’t just that the Administration speaks with multiple voices and messages; there is no clear plan of action, and the positions that should be communicating US views from the State Department have been left vacant.

They need to get it together.

*Note: US military states ALL  MISSILES hit their targets and all planes returned home safely  They also stated that Syrian defenses didn’t respond until after the attack was over

 

 

 

On the Cusp

We are on the cusp of the crisis.  The forces that have been investigating Donald Trump are converging.  Here are the facts.

Monday, the Federal prosecutors in Manhattan executed a search warrant on the homes and office of Michael Cohen, the personal attorney and “fixer” for President Donald Trump.  The President’s response was rage.  Wednesday night it was reported that some of the information seized included recordings of Cohen’s conversations.  These MAY include conversations about paying for silence about Trump’s behavior, and perhaps even conversations with Trump himself.

The searches set off a firestorm of Fox News fueled debate. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, and hired/not hired former US Attorney Joe DiGenova have called for the firing of Special Counsel Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.  Fox personality Sean Hannity compared the Special Counsel’s office to a Mafia family; DiGenova called former FBI Director James Comey a dirty cop.  Gingrich compared Mueller to the Gestopo.

Tuesday, current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan decided not to run for his Congressional seat.  Ryan, whose voice has been continually absent from the Trump debate, is now a lame duck, and the battle begins in the Republican House caucus for the spoils of leadership.  They are focusing on their internal issues, and unlikely to take up the burden of a Constitutional crisis.

Wednesday, former FBI Director James Comey’s book was “leaked” out a week prior to publication. Comey compared the Trump organization to an organized crime family, La Cosa Nostra, and claimed that the President’s biggest concern about Russian involvement in the 2016 election was whether there was any proof of Trump’s actions with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel.

The negotiations between the Special Counsel’s office and President Trump’s attorneys over testimony have fallen apart:  there will be no voluntary questioning.  Mueller will have to decide whether to proceed on with his investigation without Trump’s testimony, or try to force Trump’s answers by issuing a grand jury subpoena.  Should he compel testimony through subpoena a court battle is sure to ensue.  Trump could simply refuse to go:  US Marshals are not likely to fight off the Secret Service to force Trump into court.

If Trump does go to court, he may well invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. What a few months ago seemed unthinkable, a President taking the Fifth, now seems a plausible solution.  Undoubtedly the Fox News propaganda machine would back the move as a reasonable response to an “unfair and Gestopo-like” investigation.

And late Wednesday night, the Trump White House leaked the upcoming Presidential pardon of Scooter Libby. Libby was Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, convicted of obstructing justice and lying to the FBI. It is no coincidence that those charges are similar to ones faced by Mike Flynn and others from the Trump White House.  It is a not so subtle signal:  keep your mouth shut and maybe you too can get a Presidential “get out of jail free card.”

And finally, word has come out that the Mueller Investigation is preparing to release its first (of several) report on the conduct of the President.  This is in lieu of actually indicting a sitting President, an action that may or may not be Constitutional, but would violate current Department of Justice policy.  This first one would highlight the President’s actions in obstructing justice, and could serve as potential impeachment charges.

It’s Thursday morning. Here’s what may happen next.

The next step in the Mueller investigation will be into Trump’s inner circle.  Michael Cohen was the first.  Ivanka, Jared Kushner and Donald Jr are up next.  While Trump already made it clear that he will throw Cohen to the wolves by stating, “I don’t know anything about the Stormy Daniels contract” on Air Force One, his children might, and I do mean might, be a different matter.

How can Trump stop the investigation?  He could try to directly fire Robert Mueller, an action of dubious Constitutionality. This would cause a court battle, culminating in the Supreme Court, and likely would result in Mueller remaining in office.  But it would take time, time to continue to build the Fox News propaganda.

He could fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions and replace him. The replacement would not be recused from the Russia investigation, and could take direct charge of Mueller.  The new Attorney General could then stall, restrict, or fire Mueller.  This is the probable reason why EPA Director Scott Pruitt is allowed to remain in office despite his continual corrupt activity.  Pruitt, former Attorney General of Oklahoma, was Senate confirmed for the EPA, and could be placed in the Attorney General’s job as a temporary appointment without needing additional confirmation.

Trump could order the Department of Justice to rescind the Special Counsel regulations, simply wiping the Mueller investigation from existence.  This could trigger a Congressional action to protect Mueller, though House Republicans are still firmly behind the President.  Mueller could also simply turn the investigation over to others in the Department.

Or, he could fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, ostensibly because he signed off on the Cohen search warrants.  Trump would move to the next in line who could throttle or fire Mueller.  The problem:  this could cause a “Saturday Night Massacre” scenario reminiscent of Nixon, as those in line for the job refuse to act against Mueller and perhaps it could trigger Congressional action to protect Mueller.

Or President Trump could do nothing, allowing the investigation to proceed.  He could allow indictments to be handed down against Cohen, and ultimately his children.  He could “dangle” pardons to keep everyone in line.  And he can depend on the Congress to continue to ignore his behavior.

The Republican National Committee is “all-in” behind President Trump, even publishing a webpage defaming James Comey.  Members of Congress continue to act as Trump’s first line of defense.

So again, we depend on the sense of civic duty of the Republicans in the Congress.  At what point will they realize that the actions of President Trump and those surrounding him have brought the nation into disrepute, and threaten the foundations of our democracy?  They clearly haven’t yet.

We are on the cusp of the crisis.  It may happen today, it may happen in a month.  But it’s happening.