MUELLER REPORT - Stating the Case by Former Federal Prosecutors

Supporting the truth about Trump.

"Why hundreds of former federal prosecutors disagree with Barr over Mueller report" PBS NewsHour 5/7/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Mueller report continues to generate legal debate.  Several hundred former federal prosecutors published a statement this week asserting that President Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice, were he not the sitting President.  William Brangham talks to Paul Rosenzweig, who worked with independent counsel Kenneth Starr on the Whitewater investigation of President Bill Clinton.

TRUMP AGENDA - Chief Justice Roberts Fires Back on Rule of Law

"Why Chief Justice Roberts’ response to Trump matters" PBS NewsHour 11/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In a rare move, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts responded to President Trump’s recent criticism of a judge who ruled against his new asylum rules.  Roberts countered that “the U.S. does not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”  Judy Woodruff speaks with the National Law Journal’s Marcia Coyle for insight into this “very unusual” development.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 7/27/2018

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s role in the economy, Michael Cohen, and the Russia probe" PBS NewsHour 7/27/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including a blockbuster new report on U.S. economic growth, the fallout from President Trump’s trade wars, plus the latest developments in the Russia investigation, including whether the President knew about a 2016 Trump Tower meeting ahead of time.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  So, from the Russia investigation to the economy, and other things, it’s been a busy week for this President.

We turn now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

It is so good to see both of you together.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Thank you.

Judy Woodruff:  Sometimes, in the summer…

Mark Shields:  I have been here, Judy.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  I haven’t been missing.

Judy Woodruff:  So, let’s start — David, we’re going to start with you, because you have been away — with the economy, our lead story tonight.

Blockbuster numbers for the past second quarter of the year, growth off the charts.  The President said today several times that he deserves the credit for this, his policies have led to a turnaround in the American economy.

Does he deserve the credit?  What’s the significance for him?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Totally.  We would be back in medieval economy if not for Donald Trump. [sarcasm]

No, it’s just a truism that Presidents get the blame when it’s going down and they get the credit when it’s going up.  But their effect on the economy is generally over the long term.  It’s not a short-term thing and not a quarter-by-quarter thing.

I think, if you look at the economic data, there is a lot of consumer spending.  And that probably, as David Wessel said earlier in the program, because of the tax cuts.

I think the business investment is not as high as you would think it would be.  The whole idea of corporate rate cuts is, you’re handing a lot of money back to corporations, and they’re going to blow out the ceiling.

And it’s fine, but it’s not what you would expect.  And, earlier, I thought the tax cut really was having an effect in inducing corporations to invest.  That seems not to be the case.  It’s not bad, but it’s not fantastic.

And so I would say the tax cut gets some credit, but not a lot.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, how do you look at these numbers and the President’s role in all this?

Mark Shields:  I look at it, Judy, that Donald Trump is capable of convincing people of just about anything.

I mean, recall, if you will, November 2016, when he got elected, he convinced enough voters that the country was at the brink of desolation and destruction.  We, at that point, had — were in a point of 89 consecutive months of economic growth, of 80 months (an historic high in the country) of job growth, consecutively.

Judy Woodruff:  When he was elected.

Mark Shields:  When he was elected in November 2016.

He somehow was able, at a time when longevity was an all-time high, graduation rates were at an all-time high, pollution, other than greenhouse gases, were at an all-time low — I mean, it was — it was really a good era.  And yet he was able to say, this is the worst time in America, it’s the darkest moment.

Now, David’s right.  He does — the President does either get credit or blame.  And I would just point out to him, as a cautionary note, the last time the economy grew at a faster rate was third quarter of 2014, when it grew — Barack Obama was President.  It grew at 5.2 percent, David Wessel mentioned.

And that election of 2014, the Democrats’ numbers in the House of Representatives lost to the point where they had their lowest number since 1928, they held fewer state legislatures than they had at any time prior to the Civil War.

And so, when the economy is bad, the economy is the only issue.  When the economy is good, the elections are oftentimes about other issues.

TRUMP - King of Liers

"What’s happened to the truth under President Trump?" PBS NewsHour 7/25/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In just the last few weeks, President Trump has made a number of misleading or inaccurate statements on subjects ranging from Russian interference, to farmers and trade, to NATO defense.  Judy Woodruff takes a closer look with Peter Wehner who served in the last three Republican administrations, Lara Brown of George Washington University, and Domenico Montanaro of NPR.

President Donald Trump:  Just remember, what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.

SO:  Don't believe your own eyes?!  Really?

TRUMP - On Tape

"What does Trump on tape reveal about the plan to pay off a former Playboy model?" PBS NewsHour 7/25/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The President’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen released a recording of then-candidate Trump in which they seem to discuss a possible payment to the chief of a media company that reportedly agreed to pay a former Playboy model for her story alleging an affair with Trump.  Yamiche Alcindor reports, then Judy Woodruff gets analysis from former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

TRUMP - Act Of a Dictator, His Enemies List

aka "Abuse of Presidential power."

"Trump’s threat to revoke security clearances could create an ‘atmosphere of fear’" PBS NewsHour 7/24/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The threat from the White House to possibly revoke security clearances of six former national security and intelligence officials -- all of whom have been critical of President Trump -- has set off bipartisan criticism.  Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith tells Nick Schifrin that the element of fear could cause current national security officials to hesitate to tell the truth.

TRUMP - The Investigations

"Schiff: ‘Disturbing number’ of Trump campaign members met with Russians and lied about it" PBS NewsHour 7/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The release of previously classified FISA warrants by the Justice Department set off a new round of political fighting over the FBI's monitoring of the Trump campaign's former adviser Carter Page.  Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) says President Trump is counting on people not to read the documents.  Schiff joins Judy Woodruff to discuss Page, a White House threat over security clearances, and more.

AMERICAN POLITICS - The Republican 'Maverick'

"Sen. John McCain wants us to see we are more alike than different" PBS NewsHour 5/22/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  While Republican Sen. John McCain has lately undergone treatment for brain cancer, he still speaks his mind.  Judy Woodruff talks with Mark Salter, co-author of a new McCain memoir, "The Restless Wave," about his Senate service, Russian election interference, American society, and politics in the age of President Trump and much more.

"The Restless Wave" John McCain (excerpt):

"Before I leave, I would like to see our politics begin to return to the purposes and practices that distinguish our history from the history of other nations.

I would like to see us recover our sense that we are more alike than different. We’re citizens of a republic made of shared ideals, forged in a new world to replace the tribal enmities that tormented the old one.

Even in times of political turmoil such as these, we share that awesome heritage and the responsibility to embrace it. Whether we think each other right or wrong in our views on the issues of the day, we owe each other our respect, so long as our character merits respect.

And as long as we share, for all our differences, for all the rancorous debates that enliven and sometimes demean our politics, a mutual devotion to the ideals our nation was conceived of hold, that all are created equal, and liberty and equal justice are the natural rights of all."

From the Navy hymn “Eternal Father”:

Eternal father,

Strong to save,

Whose arm hath bound the restless wave.

John McCain - For Whom the Bell Tolls (HBO)

COMMENT - What is 'Collusion' Politically

According to legal dictionaries I consulted:

Collusion:

Where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating.  Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends.  It can range from small-town shopkeepers or heirs to a grandma's estate, to gigantic electronics companies or big league baseball team owners.

In politics, specifically the Russia Investigation, are the 'two persons' in this context Russia and Trump Campaign?

Does 'deceitful agreement' include a Trump campaign official/representative meeting with Russians?

In my book, if ANY U.S. political campaign official is meeting with a foreign government representative on American political campaign issues, that is Collusion.

THE WIRE - Another Trump Spin, 'No Collusion'

"Trump: ‘No Collusion!’" by Robert Farley, FactCheck.org 2/16/2018

A tweet from President Trump, and a White House statement, claims the indictment handed down against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for illegally interfering in the 2016 election indicates there was “no collusion” between Russians and the Trump campaign, and that “the results of the election were not impacted."  But the indictment did not go that far on either count.

The indictment alleges the defendants used the names of U.S. citizens and companies to illegally buy political ads on social media and stage political rallies.

Although some of the activity dated back to 2014, the indictment states that by early to mid-2016, the defendants’ operation included supporting Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton.

According to the indictment, “Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.”

In a Feb 16 press conference announcing the indictment, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reiterated that the communications established by the defendants were made with “unwitting Americans.”

“Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity,” Rosenstein said.  “There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.

In the hours after Rosenstein’s press conference, Trump tweeted:

A press release issued by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders echoed those points.

Statement from the press secretary regarding the Russia Indictments, Feb 16: President Donald J. Trump has been fully briefed on this matter and is glad to see the Special Counsel’s investigation further indicates — that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia and that the outcome of the election was not changed or affected.

But that’s not what Rosenstein, or the indictment presented by the U.S. special counsel’s office, stated.

Rosenstein merely stated that there was no allegation in “this indictment” that any Americans — including those in the Trump campaign — wittingly participated in “this illegal activity."  (Emphasis is ours.)

According to Rosenstein, the Russians “recruited and paid real Americans to engage in political activities, promote political campaigns and stage political rallies.  The defendants and their co-conspirators pretended to be grassroots activists.  According to the indictment, the Americans did not know that they were communicating with Russians.”

Later, Rosenstein noted that, “the nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they were ordinary American political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on a virtual private network here in the United States so, if anybody traced it back to that first jump, they appeared to be Americans.”

In other words, those who may have been paid by the Russians for social media ads, or to stage rallies, did not knowingly collude with the Russians.

Trump’s tweet goes beyond what Rosenstein and the indictment stated.  His tweet assumes there is no investigation beyond what was revealed in the Feb 16 indictment.  And we just don’t know one way or the other what other things Mueller may be investigating.

Bloomberg reported after the indictment was announced that, “Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors haven’t concluded their investigation into whether President Donald Trump or any of his associates helped Russia interfere in the 2016 election, according to a person with knowledge of the probe.”

As for Trump’s claim that the indictment indicates that “the results of the election were not impacted,” that also goes beyond what Rosenstein said.

Again, Rosenstein said, “There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."  That’s consistent with a declassified intelligence report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that was released on Jan 6, 2017.  That report accused Russia of meddling in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf, but it “did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcomes of the 2016 election.”

According to that DNI report, “The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.”

As we wrote when Vice President Mike Pence recently repeated the false talking point that U.S. intelligence agencies came to the “universal conclusion” that Russia’s meddling had no impact on the election results, the intelligence community has not concluded one way or the other if Russia’s influence campaign affected the election outcome.

In this case, Rosenstein acknowledged there was “no allegation” in the indictment that the Russians’ social media campaign or rallies swayed votes.  The impact of these activities is possibly unknowable.

TRUMP - Wish: Time Magazine Cover

Says it all......

ONE YEAR IN - Voters Reflect

"One year in, voters reflect on life in the Trump era" PBS NewsHour 1/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A year into the Trump Presidency, Judy Woodruff checks back in with a group of voters from the swing state of Virginia to get their reactions on a range of issues, from the economy and democracy to immigration and tolerance.

NUCLEAR OPTION - Trump Danger?

"Congress questions commander-in-chief’s sole nuclear authority" PBS NewsHour 11/14/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Senators raised concerns about President Trump's power to launch a nuclear war in a hearing on Tuesday.  U.S. law has long dictated that only a President should carry the responsibility, but that singular authority is now being questioned.  Nick Schifrin takes a look at Congress’ worries and the history of the nuclear command structure.

Nick Schifrin (NewsHour):  The President has the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons.  But that doesn’t mean he can launch a weapon for no reason, whenever he wants, said Duke Professor Peter Feaver, who studied nuclear command for 30 years.

Peter Feaver, Duke Professor:  Where the military wakes up the President and warns him that there is about to be an attack, or that we’re experiencing an attack, he alone would have the authority to make the decision.

But in the other context, where the President is waking up the military, maybe in an extreme funk, saying, I’m angry and I want something done, in that setting, he requires the cooperation of a lot of people.

Nick Schifrin:  That cooperation wouldn’t be forthcoming if his order were illegal, said retired General Robert Kehler, the former head of U.S. Strategic Command.

Gen. Robert Kehler:  The United States military doesn’t blindly follow orders.  A presidential order to employ U.S. nuclear weapons must be legal.  The basic legal principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality apply to nuclear weapons, just as they do to every other weapon.

Nick Schifrin:  Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin-

Sen. Ben Cardin:  Do you believe that under — because of legalities, you retain that decision to disobey the commander in chief?

Gen. Robert Kehler:  Yes.  If there is an illegal order presented to the military, the military is obligated to refuse to follow it.

This is something that civilians fail to understand.  Being retired military myself, I know that military personal are obligated to follow all "legal" orders from superiors, BUT are just as obligated to refuse to execute illegal orders (even with the consequences that may come).

U.S. military personal are not robots where anyone can just 'press a button' and say 'kill.'

UCMJ Article 892 - Failure to obey order or regulation

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 68.)

SATIRE - The Trump Presidency

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)