IssuesConnect

Pop-up Window

The Fight Against Trump Is Not Over; We Can't Let Our Guard Down Now

1/17/2019

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (Mother Jones/Tom Williams/ZUMA)

The fight against Trump is not over; he still has some cards to play. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s disinviting Trump from giving the State of the Union address in the House of Representatives was a brilliant act. Although it is a small battle in the war, it does show that Pelosi has the intellectual advantage over Trump.

Trump has managed to get into a battle over a wall that he could have finessed by proposing an experimental or a virtual wall. Similarly, the Mueller investigation has forced Trump through his mouthpiece, Rudy Giuliani, to drop the claim that no one in his campaign colluded with the Russians. Now he is trying out the claim that while everyone around him may have been guilty, he is innocent. (Let’s see how Don Jr. and Jared like that one.)

Still, Trump has the Republicans on Capitol Hill with him. These Dead Ender Republicans gave him a victory in effectively ending the sanctions against Putin’s henchman, Oleg Deripaska. And they will undoubtedly confirm his nominee, William Barr, as Attorney General. This confirmation will probably occur even though Barr testified that the Department of Justice could not indict a sitting President and if DOJ does not seek an indictment, no incriminating evidence can be made public!

We cannot let our guard down. This fight is not over.

The New York Times - Peter Baker: Trump Confronts the Prospect of a 'Nonstop Political War' for Survival

https://nyti.ms/2sqa2zi

The New York Times - Kenneth Vogel: Democrats Fall Short in Russia Sanctions Vote

https://nyti.ms/2W1NQZU

William Barr

New York Magazine - Jonathan Chait: Trump Lawyer No Longer Denying Campaign Colluded with Russia

https://nym.ag/2Rx6kmi

Twitter: The Beat With Ari Melber:
"If you can't indict him" and can't include "negative information" in report to Congress,
"You are essentially foreclosing anything that will hold [Trump] accountable" -
@tribelaw

https://twitter/TheBeatWithAri/status/1085686898700496896

The Shutdown Badly Hurts the Entire US Economy

1/16/2019

Yesterday the White House revised upward their estimate of the shutdown’s negative impact on the economy. This revision is critical because it is probably not the last upward revision. A comprehensive and accurate assessment of effects would have to consider the impact on private sector contractors working for the federal government as well as government employees. The ripple down impact on these workers and those who depend on workers’ salaries would also have to be included. In addition, the cost of late work and delayed repairs caused by the shutdown must be counted. In 2013 a 16 day government shutdown cost $24 billion and caused the GDP to lose .25 percent.

Given Trump’s penchant for making news to distract from his personal legal problems, he may delay resolving the shutdown until February 7. On that date, his long-time former private attorney, Michael Cohen is supposed to be giving dynamite testimony about Trump. And Trump may want to re-open the government to distract from that testimony.

The New York Times - Tankersley: Shutdown's Economic Damage Starts to Pile Up, Threatening an End to Growth

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/us/politics/government-shutdown-economy.html

USA Today - Son: Jamie Dimon Says Shutdown Could Reduce Economic Growth to Zero This Quarter If It Continues

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/15/jamie-dimon-says-shutdown-could-reduce-economic-growth-zero/2578510002/

A Low Barr for Attorney General

1/15/2019

William Barr

Trump would not have nominated William Barr to be Attorney General without some assurance that Barr would protect him. Considering the angst Jefferson Session’s recusal from the Mueller investigation caused Trump, it is far-fetched to believe that someone did not assure Trump that the fix was in with Barr. Barr testified that he did not give Trump any commitments about the Mueller investigation. If Barr is to be believed, then who convinced Trump that Barr would be in his pocket?
Conceivably, someone in Trump’s orbit may have read some of Barr’s articles or other writings, and informed Trump that Barr’s legal philosophy pretty much guaranteed that Barr would protect Trump. Barr wrote a memo in which he argued that Trump, as President, could not be guilty of obstruction by firing the Director of the FBI. In other writings he argued that because the Constitution gives the President executive power, the only limitations to his power are those explicitly stated in the Constitution.
This legal philosophy that Barr and most conservatives subscribe to (like Justice Brett Kavanaugh), the unitary executive, makes it virtually impossible for there to be any limits on what the President can do. The truly frightening thing is not that Barr is in the bag for Trump. It is that the Republican Party, by its philosophical beliefs, hold that Trump is, in effect, above the law while President.
As a result, Barr’s integrity may be beyond reproach. Nonetheless, Trump can be sure that Barr will neither seek his indictment for a crime nor release any part of Mueller’s report alleging that a crime has been committed.

The Washington Post - Zapatoski and Barrett: Barr Vows to Let Special Counsel Investigation Finish and Says It Is "Very Important" Congress and the Public Be Told of the Findings

https://wapo.st/2VX6pOw

Lawfare - Hemel and Posner: Yes, Bill Barr's Memo Really Is Wrong About Obstruction of Justice

https://bit.ly/2rZrLgC

Why Does Trump Work to Benefit Russia? Idiot, Genius, or Agent?

1/14/2019

A Spy by Ellis Nadler

Friday evening N.Y. Times reported that the FBI had opened a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump. Because of Trump’s ties to Russia and his firing of FBI Director, James Comey, counterintelligence investigators became so concerned; they opened an investigation. The next day, the Washington Post reported that Trump had gone to such extreme lengths to keep the content of his meetings with Putin secret, he seized his translator’s notes.

Many of us are reassured that Trump has not wounded the FBI to such an extent that it would ignore his actions benefitting Russia. But we are not really surprised by this investigation. After all, we know how the Norwegian traitor Vidkun Quisling handed his country to Hitler during World War II or more recently how Viktor Yanukovych, although the President of Ukraine, actively worked for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. And from what we know about Donald Trump, there is no sliver of duty or obligation in him that would deter him from satisfying his own needs at the expense of his country.

What is remarkable about this investigation is that it is counterintelligence. Unlike a criminal investigation conducted to find the perpetrator of a past crime, counterintelligence investigations are undertaken to detect, penetrate, and neutralize a foreign threat to the U.S. in the present or future. Counterintelligence investigations do not necessarily lead to prosecutions, may take years to conduct, and may include all the Trump friends, acquaintances, or family members.

We all know Trump has acted in ways to benefit Russia. We still need to know if those actions were done because Trump is a fool (or genius), has allowed Putin to influence him because of his naiveté (an unwitting idiot), or received rewards from Putin for engaging in specific actions (an agent). Presumably, Mueller’s report will answer this question. Maybe Trump should have let Mueller interview him to clarify his motives.

The New York Times - Goldman, Schmidt, and Fandos: F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

The Washington Post - Greg Miller: Trump Has Concealed Details of His Face-to-Face Encounters with Putin From Senior Officials in Administration

https://wapo.st/2STVLGt

Lies about Immigration Told by Trump’s True Believers

1/14/2019

Trump and his true believers believe immigrants harm the U.S. Trumpers deny any evidence presented by economists and other experts that show immigration has a positive effect on the U.S. Specifically, Trump loyalists think immigrants lower the salaries of native workers and displace them from their jobs; increase the tax burden of public services and assistance; pose a threat to public health; and overwhelm the ability of the U.S. absorb so many “strangers.” They want to drastically reduce the absolute number of legal immigrants and refugees admitted to this country, eliminate family-based immigrants, and increase educational requirements for immigrants. And they want to build a wall, strengthen security measures, and stop undocumented immigrants from entering the country.

While anti-immigrant sentiments are present in many countries, it is less understandable in the U.S. The popular creed of the U.S. is that immigration is the foundation on which the country was built. Trump and his true believers acknowledge that the contributions of former immigrants, but believe that current immigrants take more from the U.S. and its citizens than they contribute. What caused this extreme reaction against immigration at this time? Have the conditions in the U.S. changed and is immigration thus more costly to the nation? Or, are the immigrants who are arriving in the U.S. different now than earlier?

History of Immigration in the United States

Construction of the Main Immigration Building on Ellis Island, ca. 1900. Statue of Liberty NM, National Park Service.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to establish the conditions for naturalization. The Naturalization Act of 1790 gave whites of “good moral character”’ who had resided in the country for two years the right to apply for citizenship. A subsequent act increased the residency requirement to five years. The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798, restricted voting to immigrants who had resided in the U.S. for fourteen years. The Sedition Act also made it easier to deport immigrants over 14 years of age who were from a country with which the U.S. was at war and to imprison or deport any immigrant whom the President considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.”

Despite Congress’s power to set naturalization criteria, immigration policy, generally, was left to the states. It would take some time for antipathy felt by the native-born toward immigrants to guide federal immigration policy. Early federal laws were primarily concerned with ensuring that immigrants were healthy and able to support themselves. Until the mid-1800s most of the immigrants admitted on the East Coast were Irish or German. Anti-immigrant nativists viewed these immigrants with hostility and formed a political party, the “Know-Nothings” to combat immigrants. Hostility to these new arrivals was assuaged as many of these immigrants participated in the Civil War.

Chinese immigrants began to arrive on the West Coast in the mid-1800s and increased their numbers through the 1860s. By the end of the Civil War, Blacks gained Constitutional protections that were not afforded explicitly afforded to immigrants. Although these protections of Blacks were haphazardly enforced, some immigrants presented an easier target for attack than Blacks. But both immigrants and Blacks faced the same hostility and hatred whether called racism or xenophobia.

Most of these Chinese were males coming to earn money so that they could return to China with enough money to live well. These immigrants worked in mines and helped to build the Union Pacific railroad. Initially, Chinese immigrants were welcomed because they did the hard and dangerous work native workers were reluctant to do. But as the number of Chinese immigrants grew the native antipathy to them also increased. The California legislature taxed immigrant mine workers, and the U.S. Congress passed the Page Act of 1875 to prevent the immigration of Chinese women. In 1882 the U.S. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Act banned all Chinese immigration. Passage of this Act preceded riots and violence against Chinese residents. To meet the labor shortage created by the Chinese Exclusion Act, immigrants from Korea, Japan, and Asian countries were recruited for farm labor. In 1877 the Alien Land Act prohibited Asian immigrants from buying land because they could not become naturalized citizens.

By the 1880s Italians and Russian Jews arrived in large numbers on the East Coast. Many of these immigrants were active in the labor and socialist movements. Between 1890 and 1920 the first sizable number of Middle Eastern immigrants from Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine arrived. Because of their “difference” from earlier immigrants, native-born citizens became alarmed.

The Immigration Act of 1891 was passed to give the federal government control over the admission and naturalization to these immigrants. As a result of the Spanish American War of 1898, the Philippines became a colony of the U.S., and many Filipinos came to the U.S. as farmworkers. When the Philippines became a commonwealth, Filipino immigration was barred under the Oriental Exclusion Act. By 1913 Asian farmworkers supplied enough farm labor to pose a threat to native farmers.

Philippino immigration to US - Timetoast

The First World War renewed anti-immigrant hostility directed mostly against the Germans. Many German immigrants suspected of treasonous tendencies were deported, interned, or surveilled, while other German immigrants were beaten by mobs. These hostile actions dissuaded many in the German-American community from speaking or “acting” German. As with many other immigrant groups, prior to these attacks for being German, German immigrants primarily spoke German.

Although anti-immigrant feeling somewhat dissipated following WWI, anarchist violence and labor strikes stoked a red scare directed primarily Jews and Russians. In part, as a result of this violence and strikes, a quota system was established. It limited new immigration from individual nations to not exceed more than two percent of the immigrants from that nation living in the U.S. in 1890, before a significant migration of Southern and Eastern Europeans. As the number of Jewish refugees increased due to Hitler’s rise in Germany, humanitarians argued for the admission of Jewish refugees exceeding the 2 percent quota imposed by this law. Nativists opposed to the entry of Jewish refugees prevented their entrance.

Although many Mexicans were living in the Southwest territories that Mexico ceded to the U.S. in 1848, many chose to return to Mexico because they “felt like foreigners” in what had once been their land. For example, a “vagrancy” act, taxed Mexican miners who were armed or otherwise not “peaceable and quiet persons.” Over time, Mexican immigration increased. By the early 1900s, a civil war, policies that stripped land ownership, and rampant poverty led many Mexicans to move to the U.S. Between 1900 and 1930 the number of Mexicans in the Southwest increased from just over a quarter of a million to over a million immigrants. The presence of these Mexican immigrants was used, in part, as an explanation for the Great Depression and the unemployment of U.S. citizens.

This Mexican influx led to a number of retaliatory acts against Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants. Patients were removed from hospitals and taken to the border. Public employees were arrested and deported. Latino neighborhoods were raided, and the people found there also expelled. Many of these people were American citizens.

During World War II, the loss of native labor once again renewed the demand for Mexican labor. In 1943 temporary Mexican laborers were admitted to the U.S. under the bracero program to fill agricultural jobs. Undocumented Mexican workers also migrated to the U.S. to work, and some braceros overstayed their temporary permits. Farmers were glad to hire these Mexicans because these undocumented workers could not organize or ask for higher pay. After the war, many nativists resented the program because it lowered wages and brought foreigners to the country. These nativists also protested about crimes that these foreign workers supposedly committed.

In 1954 President Dwight Eisenhower, concerned about illegal immigration, implemented Operation Wetback. Operation Wetback was a program to deport undocumented Mexicans. The Border Patrol, U.S. military, and other law enforcement agencies packed any undocumented workers they found into buses and trains and shipped them into the interior of Mexico so they could not quickly return to the U.S. Eighty-eight workers who had been transported to the Mexican dessert died of heat stroke. One aspect of this program was to strike fear into workers to deter them from returning to the U.S.

Despite practices in the program that allowed workers to be abused, the bracero program continued until 1964 because it provided cheap labor to farmers. Undocumented immigrants continued to come to the U.S. for employment and were welcomed by employers as a source of cheap and pliant labor. Thus, the seeds were sown for cheap labor from Latin America. Political upheaval and the anti-Communist fight in Latin America, especially Cuba, also increased the flow of immigrants.

Immigrant Inspector inspecting Braceros for admission, Hidalgo, Texas, 1957 USCIS.gov

Recoil from Hitler’s racial ideology and the fight against communism encouraged the loosening of immigration. The 1965 Immigration Act ended the quota system for Europeans and repealed the Oriental Exclusion Act. It also gave preference to family members of U.S. citizens, people with needed job skills, and refugees. This change in immigration significantly changed the composition of documented immigrants. Between 1966 and 2004 more than 700,000 Arab immigrants arrived in the U.S., for example. In the 1950s more than half of all documented immigrants were white Europeans. By 1990s the number was only 16 percent.

Immigration in the U.S.

Native citizens and early arriving immigrants have reacted in a remarkably similar way to later arriving immigrants. Initially, the immigrants were welcomed because their labor was needed. As the number of immigrants increased or the immigrants began to organize for higher wages and better jobs, some natives reacted negatively to the immigrants. Often this negative reaction included violence directed at the immigrants. The hostility was accompanied by allegations of crime, the spread of disease, and the “theft” of jobs from natives. In some periods these immigrants were considered national security threats, as were Latinos in California during the Mexican American War, Japanese-Americans during World War II, and Arabs following the 9/11 attack. Nonetheless, the initial welcome afforded to the immigrants set a standard for more immigrants from the same country to come to the U.S. This schizophrenic treatment of recent immigrants by native citizens and early arriving immigrants is not unusual. One observer characterized it as old poison in new bottles.

Crime and National Defense

ULISES RODRIGUEZ / REUTERS

Trump and his followers cling to the harmful myths and fear-inducing anecdotes. They mainly focus on low skill workers and undocumented immigrants to support their beliefs. While it may seem reasonable to assume that as low skill immigrants move into an area, the salaries of American workers will be lowered. But like many other seemingly reasonable beliefs about immigration, economists have proven these assumptions wrong. In truth, low skilled immigrants are most likely to displace prior immigrants—those most like themselves—rather than native workers.

The focus on undocumented and low skill immigrants allows Trump to claim that they are more likely to be drug traffickers and violent criminals like MS-13. In fact, studies have found that the presence of immigrants is either not associated with increased crime rates or is related to a decrease in crime. According to the U.S. Border Patrol, of the annual influx of the 45,400 undocumented and unaccompanied minors entering the U.S., about 56 are suspected or confirmed as MS-13 gang members. In contrast, there are about ten thousand MS-13 gang members in the U.S. spread across 40 states. There is no evidence supporting the claim that undocumented or low skill immigrants increase U.S. crime.

Public Assistance

Trump and his true believers also claim that immigrants rely on social services more than natives. And because they do not contribute their fair share of taxes, they are a net financial drain on the U.S. Stephen Miller, Senior Advisor to President Trump, in a blatantly false statement said, “every year we issue a million green cards to foreign nationals from all countries of the world, but we do so without regard to …whether they can pay their own way or be reliant on welfare.”

However, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s primary consideration in granting legal immigration status is the applicant’s ability to be financially independent of public assistance. Immigrants who receive legal status as part of the family reunification program (what Trump demeaningly calls “chain migration”) must be sponsored by family members who can assure financial independence. Immigrants who are not sponsored by family members must wait at least five years before they are eligible to receive benefits. The only exceptions to the general prohibition on immigrants receiving aid are made for minor children, refugees, and asylum seekers. Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for any assistance, although they are subject to some taxation, such as sales taxes.

In part, because immigrants face stringent eligibility requirements for public assistance they use less than the native-born. Moreover, when immigrants receive benefits, the value of the benefits they receive is usually less than that obtained by the native-born. The combination of less use and lower benefits means the overall cost of public benefits is substantially less for immigrants than for comparable native-born adults and children.

Economic Impacts

All the most strident claims made by Trump and his true believers about the negative economic impacts of immigration are false. In addition, however, economists point to many benefits of immigration that Trump and his true believers fail to consider.

Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.2 billion dollars in state and local taxes. Besides state and local taxes, the bulk of which is made up of sales and property taxes, undocumented immigrants are estimated to have paid $23.6 billion dollars in federal income taxes. About half of all undocumented immigrants pay taxes in the hope that their tax records will, at some point, be used to show how long they have been in the U.S. and to help them obtain legal status. Also, low-skilled immigrants, including the undocumented, help lower the prices paid by consumers for services in large cities with immigrant populations.

Furthermore, immigrants will be needed to make for the loss to the labor market of retiring baby boomers. Immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, are already contributing to the Social Security and Medicare of native workers and will be needed to provide more in the future. According to the Social Security Administration, undocumented workers contributed $13 billion dollars to Social Security, although most will never benefit from their contributions.

Health Issues

Trump and his true believers have raised fears about the health risk immigrants may pose. Some anti-immigration fear mongers claimed that the admission of undocumented immigrants and refugees poses the risk of transmitting smallpox, leprosy, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and Ebola to nonimmigrants. For a number of reasons, these claims are untrue or grossly misleading. Smallpox, for example, has been eradicated from the planet since 1980. The incidence of leprosy, which has not been completely eradicated, but is not very contagious and is treatable, has remained stable in the U.S. at about 100-300 cases per year. This is comparable to the number in Mexico (500) and higher than the number diagnosed in El Salvador (6), Honduras (9), and Nicaragua (21).

While tuberculosis can be transmitted between immigrants who are living or traveling in close contact with each other, this disease is rarely spread by casual contact. The number of tuberculosis cases in the U.S. was about 9500 hundred in 2013 and is declining over time. HIV/AIDS is spread through sexual activity or needle sharing and poses little risk of transmission to U.S. citizens higher than that of transmission between U.S. citizens. The risk posed by Ebola has not been concentrated among immigrants. The only U.S. residents who have contracted Ebola in the continental U.S. were two nurses in 2014.

Other communicable diseases, such as mumps, measles, and whooping cough are vaccine-preventable and present no threat of an epidemic to the U.S. People living in some Latin American countries have vaccination rates comparable or better than people living in the U.S.

None of these concerns about communicable diseases apply to refugees because they are screened before entry to the U.S. Similarly, documented immigrants to the U.S. are also screened for communicable diseases like active tuberculosis. Most diseases imported to the U.S. are by either U.S. citizens returning from trips abroad or from foreign tourists or temporary workers.

Assimilation

Besides people who are opposed to immigration, some people who support it also expressed concerns about the number of immigrants admitted to the country. They believe that if immigrants are too great a percentage of the total population they cannot be assimilated. The number of immigrants as a percentage of the population reached a high point of nearly 15 percent in 1890 before declining to about 5 percent in 1970. Since then the percentage has been increasing and is currently about 14 percent. An essential difference between the immigration stream of 1890 and that in 2016 is its composition. Before 1890 most of the immigrants came from Northern and Western Europe, but by 1910 70 percent of immigrants came from Eastern and Southern Europe. Currently, immigrants from Mexico (28 percent), South or East Asia (26 percent), the Caribbean (10 percent), and Central and South America (17 percent) comprise the immigrant population. Thus, while the immigrant share of the native population has been as large as it is now, it has never been as non-white.

Although the immigrant share of the population has been higher than it is now, immigrants were assimilated. The people who say they are concerned about immigrants’ assimilation to seem to be more concerned about the negative feelings native citizens feel in the presence of immigrants.

Merit-based Immigration

Trump and his true believers want to limit immigrants to this country to what they call high skill workers.

Trump and his true believers expect the merit approach to restricting immigration to workers who will help the economy grow. In addition, Trump and his true believers also seem to assume that merit immigration would reduce the number of immigrants from countries they deem less desirable. Based on the outcomes Canada has experienced from merit-based immigration system, it is unlikely to fulfill Trump’s expectations.

The Canadian merit-based immigration systems select candidates on the basis of their skills, education, adaptability, and family ties or networks. While these qualities permit immigrants to fill labor market needs, they are also highly subjective. Between 2006 and 2015 less than 50 percent of the candidates for immigration were selected for only their economic prospects. The remainder of the immigrants were spouses, partners, children, parents, grandparents, and refugees.

Besides ensuring that high skill immigrants were selected, the Canadian system has not produced the desired economic effects. Immigrant wages and employment, for example, tend to be lower than one would expect based on skill level. Part of the reason for the economic under performance of the system seems to be the failure to adequately take into account different payoffs for educational attainments in various industries. A bachelor’s degree may not yield the same benefits in physics as in business. Moreover, immigrants’ foreign qualifications may not be recognized by Canadian employers. One immigrant engineer reported that he had designed trains for Siemens in India, but had to obtain another degree in engineering from a Canadian school for an entry-level job at Siemens Canada.

The Canadian merit-based system has not advantaged the number of immigrants from the U.S. and Europe. Between 2011 and 2016 there were more than twice as many immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean than from the U.S. and more immigrants from Africa than from Europe and the U.S. combined. Immigrants from these regions of the world are typically highly skilled, even though they may not be able to obtain jobs that are commensurate with their education. Thus, an unanticipated consequence of a merit-based system is that provides workers who compete with lower skilled native workers.

Conclusion

Wave after wave of immigration in America has followed the same unwitting pattern. Immigrants are first encouraged to come to America. Then as their labor becomes superfluous or too costly, their presence raises national security concerns, or their culture becomes an affront to nativists, resentment, and fear of immigrants grow. In response, policies to restrict immigration are enacted until the pattern oscillates.

Limiting immigration to high skill workers is, in part, to pay deference to the value in entrepreneurship and innovation that immigration has brought to this country. This approach to immigration also addresses the mythical problems that are raised as reasons for wanting to limit immigration. Somehow these high skilled workers are expected to avoid the hostility that afflicts low skill workers. Favoring high skilled immigrants, like the merit approach used by Canada, can also create problems that lead to resentment. Welcoming diversity seems to be the only approach that consistently works.

Most importantly, although there may always be different opinions about how to address immigration, agreement is currently impossible because the US President and his followers are basing all of their positions on lies.

Michael Cohen, you're no John Dean

1/11/2019

Michael Cohen was Donald Trump's former personal lawyer. PHOTO: MATTHEW CAVANAUGH/GETTY IMAGES

Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, has agreed to testify publicly before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on February 7. Cohen is set to start a three-year prison term for tax and bank fraud and campaign finance violation about a month after testifying. Cohen committed the campaign violation at the behest of Trump when he paid two women to keep silent about their affairs with Trump.

But Cohen will be able to answer questions about much more than Trump’s role in the campaign violation felony. Cohen was Trump’s lawyer for about 12 years. At the very least, he will be able to answer questions about how many other payoffs Trump made to keep people quiet. But he will not be constrained by courtroom etiquette; no one will stand up and say “I object.” Cohen will answer any questions put to him about Trump, his Russian and mob connections, and crooked business deals. Above all, Cohen may be able to provide an all-encompassing narrative about Trump that the media and public can understand.

John Dean testifying against Richard Nixon with wife Maureen watching

But it is probably too optimistic to believe that Cohen testimony will shatter Trump in the same way that John Dean’s statement broke Nixon. Dean laid out Nixon’s involvement in a series of crimes and actions preceding Nixon’s resignation. After Dean testified Republicans heard tape recordings of Nixon that backed up Dean. Republicans then urged Nixon to resign,. Cohen may have some tapes of Trump, but unless they are as comprehensive and useful as those that implicated Nixon, they will not overcome Cohen’s credibility problem. The last time he testified to Congress, he lied.

The New York Times - Haberman and Fandos: Michael Cohen, Trump's Former Lawyer, Agrees to Testify to Congress

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-testimony.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad&login=email&auth=login-email

The New York Times-Conway and Marshall: The Myth of Watergate Bipartisanship; The Republicans stuck with their president, right up to the end.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/opinion/watergate-republican-party.html

Trump Must Be Held Accountable

1/10/2019

Robert Mueller Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

Trump has spent the last two years attacking the fundamental norms and institutions of this country. He has attacked the norms of truthfulness, honesty, and transparency in government. At the same time, he has attacked the courts, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the military. (The military is for the protection of our nation, not to help win a partisan by deployment on the border to stop an imaginary invasion.) If Trump runs for a second term as President, he will have legitimized his attacks on our norms and institutions. Trump must not be allowed to get away with his attacks on the foundations of this country. He must be held accountable for his actions.

Meanwhile Mueller’s investigation is chugging along. We have recently learned that Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, transmitted polling data to Russian oligarchs and intelligence agents. This information quite probably was used to micro-target messages to voters in key states and persuade them to either vote for Trump or stay home. Evidence of Manafort’s data transmission to the Russians puts the lie to the call of “no collusion.” But will it matter?

There has always been a curious disconnect between the purpose of Mueller’s investigation and the limits that the DOJ imposed on tools he can use. DOJ assigned Mueller the task of investigating the Russian attack on our election to see if U.S. citizens were involved. But if Mueller, the prosecutor, follows DOJ guidance, he cannot prosecute the key conspirator, Trump. The DOJ guidance opines that a sitting President cannot be indicted; he must first be impeached. Mueller has indicted or obtained guilty pleas from at least 30 other individuals involved in the attack. Mueller may not be able to hold Trump, the conspirator-in-chief as criminally liable. The report Mueller will write about the Russian attack may be used by Democrats to help ensure that Trump does not win a second term.

Not being able to win a second term is hardly holding Trump accountable for undermining our democracy. (Jimmy Carter can attest to this.) The best chance at holding Trump accountable may be through impeachment, even if he is not convicted and removed from office by the Senate. Surely, Trump’s attacks on our institutions require some sanction by those institutions.

The New Yorker- Gessen: Searching for a Substantive Response to Trump's Hateful Speech

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/searching-for-a-substantive-response-to-trumps-hateful-speech

The Washington Post : Paul Manafort Shared 2016 Polling Data With Russian Associate, According to Court Filing

https://wapo.st/2TNlikX

Wall of Distortion

1/9/2019

Reuters

Trump’s Wall (a concrete or steel structure to be built alongside most of the border between the U.S. and Mexico) presents an enlightening case study of what is wrong with the Republican base voters. These voters substitute their fantasies, beliefs, and prejudices for objective facts. As a result, unlike most of us, they are unable to adjust their thinking to align with demonstrable facts. Instead, they distort their facts to line up with their fantasies.

Republican base voters assess those who present facts about the ineffectiveness of a Wall or the relative lawfulness of immigrants, compared to the native-born, as liars. These voters do not believe Trump’s fantastical thinking because they love him. Rather, they love Trump because he shares their fantasies. The rest of us need to jolt them into accepting facts. If Nancy and Chuck hold firm and stop the Wall from being built, many of them, will accept that there is no wall. Accepting that there is no wall represents a small step forward, but it is the beginning of a journey that good for our country.

The New York Times: Trump's Speech to the Nation: Fact Checks and Background

The Washington Post- Sacchetti- The U.S. - Mexico Border, Where Trump Wants a Wall: Here's What You Need to Know

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/trump-speech.html

https://wapo.st/2ACSkwE

No Tuition With a Catch

1/8/2019

Venture capitalists have come up with a novel way to make money from students. Their idea is to finance a student’s education on credit and then, once the student has graduated and found a job, take a percentage of his/her income until s/he repays the front money and interest. This so-called new idea, an “Income Share Agreement” is being touted as a way of eliminating student debt, averaging about $22,000 per student. Students are not required to begin paying back their front money until they have a job paying a specified amount. If a student can’t find a job paying the specified amount, then he/she is not required to pay back the front money.

Because an “income share agreement” shifts the risk from the student to the school, schools must screen students carefully for those who are highly motivated to succeed. There is a slippery slope inherent in this approach. The burden of educating students is shifted from government to the private sector, along with all the benefits. To what extent will this model become dominant in education? What will happen to students who are not motivated enough to receive an education? Will the length of time the student is indentured increased to offset the greater risk? Are certain students favored with greater educational benefits than others because of an entrepreneur’s “gut” feeling? There are any number of questions we need to answer.

The biggest question is why this is called a new educational approach. After World War II returning veterans were given tuition and living stipends for any school that admitted them. Congress established G.I. Bill, in part, to mitigate the negative effects on the economy of an influx of returning veterans seeking jobs. Those who received their educations through the Bill were able to pay higher taxes. Many of the veterans moved into the middle class and became community leaders. Society fronted these veterans their education and then received part of the benefits. The only thing new about Income share agreements is that entrepreneurs rather than society receive the benefits.

The New York Times - Andrew Ross Sorkin: No Tuition but You Pay a Percentage of Your Income (if You Find a Job)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/business/dealbook/education-student-loans-lambda-schools.html

Have Young Voters Learned that Elections Matter? Let's Hope So.

1/7/2019

The government shut down, and the hardship facing federal workers and contractors is just one sign of how important the President, and politics generally, is. Our soldiers serving in distant places are another sign. But these signs, while very visible now, are just two of the many reasons why politics are so critical to our lives.

In the run-up to the 2016 election, I spoke with several young people. I was struck by the fact that they did not believe politics was relevant to their lives. While these young people said they intended to vote, they were not fired up the election. And they were unable to explain why the election mattered to their lives.

I hope they voted. More importantly, I hope they know today why politics are so important to us. I have certainly gained a new appreciation for politics and an informed citizenry since seeing the damage Trump is doing.

The New York Times - Leonhardt: The People vs Donald J Trump. He is Demonstrably Unfit for Office. What Are We Waiting For?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/sunday/trump-impeachment.html

Pop-up Window