IssuesConnect

Pop-up Window

Michael Cohen and the Dems "Won"; Donald Trump and Reps "Lost"

2/28/2019

Chair, Elijah Cummings Feb 27, 2019

Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee was spellbinding. It cast a light on Cohen, Trump, and their business operation; laid a trail of breadcrumbs for investigators to follow; and provided insight into the thinking of the Democrats and Republicans who questioned him.

Cohen was a credible witness, because of what he said as well as what he did not say. At one point Cohen reminded the Republicans who attacked him that for 10 years he had done what they were doing: protecting Trump even if it meant attacking others. Cohen reminded the Republicans that it had not worked out well for him.

Given several opportunities to allege that Trump had committed crimes or lousy behavior, Cohen demurred or denied that he had any evidence against Trump. Cohen did say enough to point investigators toward tax, insurance, banking, and campaign finance crimes in which Trump may be involved. Cohen is a convicted perjurer, and his testimony will not be enough for either impeachment or indictment. But Cohen pointed to the witnesses and documents who could confirm what he said.

While the Republicans on the committee attacked Cohen, they did not defend Trump. Their strategy may indicate that the support of the Republicans on the committee may waver. On the other hand, it is also possible that they lack the skills to effectively question Cohen. Their ineptitude may be why many of the Republicans used their own experiences before entering Congress to frame their questions. The Democrats used their positions as members of Congress with oversight responsibilities to frame their issues. Many of the Democrats asked questions that were designed to elicit information to carry out their duty.

Cohen and Democrats won; Trump and the Republicans lost. And, given what Cohen said, the prosecutors who have been looking at Trump surely have a massive load of evidence against Trump.

Lawfare - Fogel, Jurecic, Kahn, Taylor, Wittes: The Cohen of Silence Breaks: What to Make of Wednesday's Testimony

https://www.lawfareblog.com/cohen-silence-breaks-what-make-wednesdays-testimony

Michael Cohen Presented Proof of Donald Trump's Criminal Behavior

2/27/2019

Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for President Donald Trump, testifies before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill February 27, 2019 in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The concern expressed by some members of the media and Donald Trump’s Republicans on about whether someone who has lied can ever be believed is bogus. Their fretfulness arises from whether or not they can accept Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee. Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, is a convicted perjurer whose credibility can indeed be questioned.

But Cohen’s testimony does not directly pit Cohen against Trump in he said/she said contest. We do not have to weigh Cohen’s credibility against Trump’s, although Cohen convicted of five felonies including one lie might do well against Trump’s documented 8,000 lies.

Cohen’s testimony, even if not credible on its own, provides a roadmap for investigators to follow. In his statement to the committee, Cohen says that in July 2016, he was in Trump’s office when his secretary announced a call from Roger Stone. On speakerphone, Cohen heard Stone say that he had just spoken to WikiLeaks head, Julian Assange. Stone said Assange told him to expect a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Stone’s cell phone records can be examined for calls from Assange and to Trump. Trump’s secretary can be questioned; she may have overheard the call. And because Assange has been confined to the Ecuadoran embassy in London, there may be recordings of his phone calls.

Some of what Cohen has to say about Trump has been either documented or proven by Trump’s own behavior. Cohen has provided checks that show Trump’s involvement in financial fraud. Cohen has also said that Trump is a racist who called countries governed by blacks “shithole countries.” In a meeting of the cabinet about immigration, it was reported that Trump called countries with non-white majorities and from which he did not want more immigrants, “shithole countries.”

Cohen presented proof of Trump’s criminal behavior to the committee. Questions about Cohen’s credibility should not be allowed to distract from proven crimes. Cohen’s testimony is essential despite his illegal behavior because it reveals some of Trump’s crimes, points out investigatory paths and provides a narrative for the public.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-2d31-dc75-affd-bfb99a790001

What We're Reading February 2018

2/26/2019

Progressives Need to Ask- War; What Is It Good For?

2/26/2019

Leaders from NATO member and partner states view a military flyover.- July 2018. Sean Gallup/Getty Images

No one wants to go to war, especially the kind of long and brutal wars like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Trump used concerns about these “forever wars” to claim that, unlike Hillary Clinton, he would keep the U.S. out of wars. While Trump has taken some steps that he seems to believe will maintain peace, many foreign policy and national security experts think he has made peace less likely.

Trump, for example, has ended treaties with Iran and Russia that limited the development or expansion of nuclear weapons because the treaties were flawed. Trump has not established either better treaties or other mechanisms to replace those treaties. In addition, he has severely weakened and undermined our alliances with NATO, Japan, and South Korea.

Trump has also imperiled the U.S. by refusing to recognize or acknowledge the dangers the country faces from North Korea’s nuclear program. Instead, Trump has replaced a program designed to disarm North Korea by building a personal relationship with North Korea’s leader. Obviously, turmoil among North Korea’s leadership could override the best of buds!

The U.S. faces an array of threats that will require a robust foreign policy and military if the conflict is to be avoided. Russia has launched a cyber attack on our elections system; it has also probed weaknesses in our infrastructure, a possible preamble to severely disrupting the U.S. As a significant part of the global economy, our economy depends on international supply lines. Hindering those supply lines could undermine our economy and well-being.

Above all, as Progressives, we have values that make us hate the genocide, massacres, and human rights violations we have seen in the last several decades. Acting with our allies and partners in the regions where these atrocities occur, we do have the ability to make life better for some people. To turn our back on people in need, undercuts who we are.

So far, only two Democratic candidates—Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren--have expressed a foreign policy that includes Progressive values. Look for other Democratic candidates to address the direction our foreign policy should take.

The New York Times - Sanger and Sang-Hun; Seeking North Korea Deal ,Trump Seems Willing to Ease U.S. Demands

https://nyti.ms/2VoW4Kq

The New York Times - Bouie: Sanders Has An Advantage, and It's Not About Economics

https://nyti.ms/2NirL5h

Trump's Campaign Did Collude With Russia - Did DJT? That's a Separate Question

2/25/2019

Donald Trump during 2016 Presidential Campaign GABE SOUZA/PORTLAND PRESS HERALD/GETTY

Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign organization is a different entity than Donald Trump, the man, although Trump the man established the campaign organization. Trump, for example, lent his campaign about $6 million less than Mitt Romney lent his campaign. The Main Stream Media’s failure to differentiate the campaign from the man has made it difficult for them to clearly describe the evidence that Special Counsel, Robert Mueller laid out in charging and sentencing documents.

Mueller, so far, has shown that the Russian military unit that hacked the Democratic National Committee transmitted those documents to WikiLeaks. Further, a senior campaign official “was directed” to get in touch Roger Stone to learn more about WikiLeaks plans for releasing data. And, Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign manager for about five months, passed polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a former Russian military intelligence officer, who maintained ties to Russian intelligence services.

Mueller has clearly shown that the Trump campaign conspired with or colluded with Russian state actors. To date, he has not demonstrated that Trump, a notorious control freak, directed or knew about his campaign’s collusion with the Russians. But it is clear, yes collusion!

The Washington Post - Phiilp Bump: The Slowly Written Mueller Report That's Sitting in Plain Site

https://wapo.st/2BQH4gS

Vox - Andrew Prokop: Robert Mueller's "Collusion" Case So Far, Explained

https://bit.ly/2GKRl2o

Mueller's Report Due Soon, But It Ain't Over Til Lady Justice Sings

2/22/2019

Southern District of New York Court

According to reports coming from the Department of Justice sources, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report imminent, but neither the contents nor the recipients of those contents are known. Under the Special Counsel Law, Mueller must transmit a copy of his report to the Attorney General, William Barr, who must then provide a statement to the Congress, based on Mueller’s report. Presumably, Barr’s statement to Congress will be made public.

At his confirmation hearing, Barr said he would make as much of the contents of Mueller’s report public as Department of Justice and other regulations permit. Barr seemed to be referring to testimony developed in the grand jury, classified information, and any information about individuals that may be negative but not criminally chargeable. Barr, however, did not express any willingness to have a judge release grand jury testimony, have the relevant government agency de-classify information, or consider the public interest in knowing about our President, even if Barr will not indict him.

Under these procedures, and despite the efforts of House Democrats to subpoena Mueller’s report, it is entirely possible that we will never know what is in Mueller’s report. Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who drafted the Special Counsel Law, argues that unless Mueller’s investigation absolves Trump, the House would be constitutionally obligated to follow up on impeachable issues he identified. And Mueller is unlikely to entirely absolve Trump because he and his surrogates have demeaned Mueller and his staff, their work product will be degraded.

In any event, the Mueller report is unlikely to end the Russian inquiry. Because the preservation of the Russia investigations of the evidence related to them was a primary consideration when they began, their protection helped to shape them. The FBI, for example, rolled their investigation of Trump into on-going counter-intelligence investigations. And Mueller farmed out different parts of his investigation to U.S. Attorney’s Offices in different judicial districts, like the Southern District of New York. As a result, the end of the Mueller investigation will not be the end of the many investigations that are on-going.

Above all, however, the House of Representatives will continue to investigate various pieces of Trump’s campaign, administration, and business ventures. These separate investigations and hearings can, of course, be combined and provide the grist for an impeachment hearing.

The New York Times- Neal Katyal - The Mueller Report Is Coming. Here's What to Expect

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/opinion/mueller-report-trump-democrats-barr.html

McCabe's THREAT to Trump

2/21/2019

Andrew McCabe rankled Donald Trump before he was elected President of the U.S. Before 2016 election, Trump erroneously claimed that McCabe, then an Assistant Director in the FBI oversaw the investigation into Hillary’s email server as his wife received $675,000 in campaign funds from Clinton political allies. McCabe had nothing to do with the email investigation until three months after his wife’s campaign had ended. Further, once McCabe had been promoted and thus had some supervisory responsibility for the Hillary investigation, he did not make any significant investigatory decisions.

McCabe began his service as an FBI agent in New York City investigating the Russian mafia. One of McCabe’s cases (described in McCabe’s book, The Threat), involved a Russian mob boss, Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, who was indicted for money laundering related to a gambling ring being run out of Trump Tower. Numerous books about Donald Trump note his involvement in money laundering with the Russian mob. Is it possible that Trump’s disdain for McCabe, and the final push to have him removed, was due to what McCabe probably knew about Trump’s dealings with the Russian mob?

Trump’s possible ties to the Russian mob, which is inextricably tied to the Russian security services, may also help explain why McCabe opened a counter-intelligence investigation into Trump. Unlike most criminal investigations, counter-intelligence investigations explore every aspect of the subject. Besides helping to ensure that the inquiry into Trump would be difficult to sweep under the rug, a counter-intelligence investigation broadened what could be covered.

Politifact- C Eugene Emery: Facts Dispute Donald Trump's Claim That Donation to FBI Spouse Linked to Clinton Email Decision

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/26/donald-trump/facts-dispute-donald-trumps-claim-donation-fbi-spo/

Andrew McCabe - May Be A Hero in the Trump Story

2/20/2019

Andrew McCabe

The real hero of the effort to make Donald Trump accountable for “colluding” with Russians may be former Acting FBI Director, Andrew McCabe. After Trump fired FBI Director James Comey for failing to pledge loyalty to him, McCabe was elevated to the position of Acting Director.

Before Trump was elected, the FBI was investigating Russian contacts with the Trump campaign. McCabe viewed Comey’s firing as another instance of Trump taking suspicious pro-Russian actions. Trump seemed to believe that removing Comey would end the FBI investigation into his campaign and Russian influences. McCabe, having served in the FBI’s New York field office, had spent years investigating the Russian organized crime and would recognize mob influences in Trump world.

To ensure that the evidence from the investigation of Russian contacts with the Trump campaign was preserved, McCabe rolled it into the on-going counter-intelligence investigations of known or suspected Russian agents. The effect of this action was to ensure that the Trump investigation could not be dumped without a paper trail. It also helped to make sure that a Special Counsel would be appointed.

The State - Eric Tucker: AP Source: FBI Had a Backup Plan to Save Russia Probe Evidence

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article226462885.html

Instead of Afraid of Putin; Manafort May Depend on Putin Who He May Trust More than Trump

2/19/2019

Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, leaves the federal courthouse after his arraignment hearing in Alexandria, Va., March 8, 2018. Manafort is facing charges for tax evasion and bank fraud. (Al Drago/Copyright 2018 The New York Times)

Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, resisted becoming a cooperating witness until after being found guilty. Manafort agreed finally to cooperate with Robert Mueller’s investigation to avoid receiving a sentence that would keep him behind bars for the remainder of his life. But Manafort broke the agreement by lying to Mueller about the extent of his contact with Russians.

Speculations abound about why Manafort, who is 69 years old, would risk spending 25 years in jail when he could substantially lessen his sentence. One prediction is that Manafort has information that is so damning, Manafort is reluctant to reveal it. If Manafort has information that is harmful to Trump, then Mueller, presumably, is willing to make a deal with Manafort, regardless of how damaging it might also be to Manafort.

Another guess is that Manafort is afraid of being forthcoming to Mueller because the Russian mafia, to whom he owes millions of dollars, would retaliate. This explanation fails to explain why Manafort was willing to scam Mueller to get a lesser sentence: he would still have to face the Russia mafia. Manafort might find the federal witness protection program a better bet than the next 25 years in prison.

Another guess is that Manafort is refusing to tell all on Trump to obtain a Presidential pardon. Although a federal pardon would not deliver Manafort from state charges, it could offer some relief. And Mueller and his prosecutors have claimed that Manafort is trying to obtain a Presidential pardon. Manafort, however, would have to be incredibly naïve to trust Trump to deliver on a pardon. Trump could not risk the negative political backlash of a Manafort pardon until after the 2020 election. If Trump lost in 2020, he might be facing his own legal problems; if he won, he might be concerned about his legacy. If Manafort actually got out of jail, he would still be facing the Russian mafia.

One reason Manafort might not come clean with Mueller is if he an agent of Putin and the Russian government. It is in Putin’s interest to work for the release of any of his agents who are caught, to keep the loyalty of his other agents. Manafort knows this, and thus, would trust Putin. And because Putin undoubtedly has compromising material on Trump, he could force Trump to pardon Manafort. Also, Putin might be able to arrange a swap of some American agent for Manafort at some time in the future. Manafort may not be afraid of the Russians; he may be tied to them more closely than we know.

Vox - Andrew Prokop. Muelller Recommends a Very Lengthy Sentence for Paul Manafort

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/15/18226407/mueller-manafort-sentencing-memo

"The Only National Emergency is That Our President is an Idiot"

2/15/2019

Having failed to get Congress to fund his border wall, Trump declared a national emergency. A national emergency declaration could allow Trump to use money appropriated for military construction, counter-narcotics programs, and asset forfeiture to build the border wall. Also, in a national emergency, the President could seize private property. Because most of the land on which a wall would be built in Texas is private property, this could negate the need for eminent domain and thus simplify construction.

Democrats are poised to counter this declaration. Congress can terminate the announcement of a national emergency by a joint resolution of both the House and Senate. Democrats may be able to garner enough votes in the Senate to terminate the national emergency, although they would probably lack the votes needed to override a Presidential veto. And Democrats in the House, as well as landowners in Texas and other civil rights groups, can file a suit to stop the President from encroaching on their Constitutional power to appropriate money.

This declaration shows a number of facts about Trump. First, it shows his incompetence in working with and negotiating with Congress. Trump had the opportunity to get over $20 billion for a border wall a year ago, but could not take the deal. Second, it shows the extent to which Trump is entirely reckless and lacks regard for the country and the Republican Party. Using the pretense of a declaration of a national emergency to avoid the Constitutional requirement of a Congressional requirement is dangerous for the country. Third, if this declaration stands, then this country as a democratic republic will cease to exist; it will become an authoritarian regime.

The New York Times - Peter Baker: Trump Declares a National Emergency and Provokes a Constitutional Clash

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/politics/national-emergency-trump.html

New York Times - Carl Hulse: In Wielding Emergency Powers, Trump Paves a Dangerous Path Forward

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/politics/trump-national-emergency-congress.html

Pop-up Window