holiday break

Sorry, folks.   I had intended to write a holiday message before signing off for the rest of the year.    But preparations for the family trip caught up with me before I got it done;  and I have subsequently been out of town for a few days.

Back now, but I will take the rest of the year off.   So Happy New Year.    Fortify yourself for what will probably be a bruising 2019 in the world of politics and government.

Ralph

Trump's decades-long ties to Russian mafia

The following is from a conversation between reporter Sean Illing of Vox.com and journalist-author Craig Unger, whose recent book House of Trump, House of Putin explores the Trump-Russia connection going back decades.

Illing begins his article by calling Unger's new book "an impressive attempt to gather up all the evidence we have of Trump's numerous connections to the Russian mafia and government and lay it all out in a clear, comprehensive narrative. . . .   One of hardest things to accept about the Trump-Russia saga is how transparent it is.   So much of the evidence is hiding in plain sight, and somehow that has made it harder to accept.

"But make no mistake.   Trump's ties to shady Russian figures stretch back decades, and Unger diligently pieces them together in one place.   Although Unger doesn't provide any evidence that Trump gave the Russians anything concrete in return for their help, the case he makes for how much potential leverage the Russians had over Trump is pretty damning.

"I spoke to Unger about what he learned, how he learned it, and why he thinks Russia's use of Trump constitutes 'one of the greatest intelligence operations in history,' as he puts it in the book."

What follows is a lightly edited transcript of the conversation.  It is very long and not full of smoking guns.   But, if you want to understand how the Russians work to infiltrate our business-government system, it's worth reading.

=====================

Sean Illinga:  "I'll ask you straightforwardly:  Do you believe the Russian government successfully targeted and compromised Trump?"

Craig Unger:   "Yes, absolutely.   But let's go back in time, because I think all of this began as a money-laundering operation with the Russian mafia.   It's well know that Trump likes doing business with gangsters, in part because they pay top dollar and loan money when traditional banks won't, so it was a win-win for both sides.

"The key point I want to get across in the book is that the Russian mafia is different than the American mafia, and I think a lot of Americans don't understand this.  In Russia, the mafia is essentially a state actor.   When I interviewed Gen. Oleg Kalugin, who is a former head of counterintelligence in the KGB and had been Vladimir Putin's boss at one point, I asked him about the mafia.  He said, 'Oh, it's part of the KGB.  It's part of the Russian government.'

"And that's essential to the whole premise of the book.   Trump was working with the Russian mafia for more than 30 years.  He was profiting from them.   They rescued him.   They bailed him out.   The took him from being $4 billion in debt to becoming a multibillionaire again, and they fueled his political ambitions, starting more than 30 years ago.   This means Trump was in bed with the Kremlin as well, whether he knew it or not."

Illing:  "Let's dig into this a bit.   You claimed . . . that the Russian mafia has been using Trump-branded real estate to launder money for over three decades.   What evidence do you have to back this up?"

Unger:  "You really have to go back 20 or 30 years to understand who the key Russians were, what role they played in the Russian mafia, and how they related to Trump.

"The very first episode that's been documented, to my knowledge, was in 1984 when David Bogatin -- who is a Russian mobster, convicted gasoline bootlegger, and close ally of Semion Mogilevich, a major Russian mob boss -- met with Trump in Trump Tower right after it opened.  Bogatin came to that meeting prepared to spend $5 million, which is equivalent to about $15 million today.

"Bogatin bought five condos from Trump at that meeting.  Those condos were later seized by the government, which claimed they were used to launder money for the Russian mob."

Illing:  "Okay, to play devil's advocate, can we say definitively that Trump knew who he was dealing with or what he was getting into?   Or did he just naively have his hands out?"

Unger: " Look, I can't prove what was in Trump's head, or what he knew or when he knew it.  But I documented something like 1,300 transactions of this kind with Russian mobsters.   By that, I mean real estate transactions that were all cash purchases made by anonymous shell companies that were quite obviously fronts for criminal money-laundering operations.  And this represents a huge chunk of Trump's real estate activity in the United States, so it's quite hard to argue that he had no idea what was going on."

Illing:  "How did Trump first become a 'person of interest' to the Russians?   Why would they target this fringe celebrity character 30 years ago, long before his ascent to the presidency was even fathomable?"

Unger:  "First of all, the Russians have always wanted to align with certain powerful businessmen, and they have a history of going back to the American businessman Armand Hammer in the 1970s and '80s, whom the Russians allegedly turned into an asset.  But it's not as though they zeroed in on Trump 30 years ago, and only Trump.

"Russia had hundreds of agents and assets in the US, and Gen. Kalugin, the former head of the KGB operations in Russia, told me that America was a paradise for Russian spies and that they had recruited roughly 300 assets and agents in the United States, and Trump was one of them.

"But it's not just the money laundering.   There was a parallel effort to seduce Trump.   Sometime in 1986, Russia's ambassador to the US, Yuri Dubinin, visited Trump in Trump Tower and told him that his building was 'fabulous' and that he should build one in Moscow, and they arranged for a trip to Moscow.

"According to Gen. Kalugin, that was likely the first step in the process to recruit and compromise Trump.  Kalugin told me he would not be surprised in the least if the Russians have compromising materials on Trump's activities in Moscow, something they were quite good at acquiring."

Illing  "But we still don't have any evidence that such compromising material exists, right?  Did you talk to anyone who has seen it or is sure of its existence.?

Unger:  "No, and I won't say that I'm 100 percent certain that it exists.   I spoke to several people who assured me that it exists, but I could not corroborate those accounts.  I have no idea if they're right or if any tapes will ever emerge.   But in a way, all of that is beside the point.   The real evidence of compromise is already out there, and we're talking about it now."

Illing:  "Speaking of which, tell me about Bayrock Group, a real estate company tht operated in Trump Tower."

Unger:  "Bayrock was a real estate development company located on the 24th floor of Trump Tower.  The founder was a guy named Tevfik Arif and the managing director was Felix Sater, a man with numerous ties to Russian oligarchs and Russian intelligence.  Bayrock proceeded to partner with Trump in 2005 and helped him develop a new business model, which he desperately needed.

"Recall that Trump was $4 billion in debt after his Atlanta City casinos went bankrupt.   He couldn't get a bank loan from anywhere in the West, and Bayrock comes in and Trump partners with other people as well, but Bayrock essentially has a new model that says, 'You don't have to raise any money.  You don't have to do any of the real estate development.  We just want to franchise your name, we'll give you 18 to 25 percent royalties, and we'll effectively do all the work.  And if the Trump Organization gets involved in the management of these buildings, they'll get extra fees for that.

"It was a fabulously lucrative deal for Trump, and the Bayrock associates -- Sater in particular -- were operating out of Trump Tower and constantly flying back and forth to Russia.   And in the book, I detail several channels through which various people at Bayrock have close ties to the Kremlin, and I talk about Sater flying back and forth to Moscow even as late as 2016, hoping to build the Trump Tower there.''

Illing:  "I don't think you say this explicitly in the book, so I'll ask you now:   Is there ny evidence at all that Trump actively sought out Russian money by making clear that his businesses could be used to hide ill-gotten gains?"

Unger:  "That's a difficult question;  I'm not sure he made this crystal clear, and I don't know that he had to.   I mean, just look at how these transactions take place.   Trump doesn't have to say anything.   Trump's organization was desperate for money, they knew the caliber of people they were dealing with, and they were either okay with this or deliberately chose not to do their due diligence.

"You might say this is something other real estate developers do as well, and maybe that's true, but those developers don't become president of the United States."

Illing:  "A few minutes ago you referred to Trump as a Russian 'asset,' and this circles back to the question of whether Trump was actively working with the Russians or whether he may have just been a useful idiot who didn't know he's been potentially compromised.

Unger:  "In the book, I use this term 'asset,' and the difference between an 'asset' and an 'agent' to me is whether or not the person is knowledgeable.  And from my point oif view, it's impossible to prove what was in Trump's mind.  I can't prove that he was actually knowledgeable.  At the same time, if he did this kind of money laundering 1,300 times, it's reasonable to surmise that he was aware of what was happening."

Illing:   "Part of what's so puzzling to me is trying to figure out how money and ideology intersect in all this, if they intersect at all.   In other words, Trump seems much more motivated by money than political ideology, but I keep wondering if his drift into politics was in any way influenced by his financial entanglements."

Unger:  "It's an important question, and it's not clear what the answer is."

     [There is then some back and forth on this question that is inconclusive.  ThenUnger continues:]

"What we do know is that Trump returns from that first trip to Moscow and he takes out full-page ads in the Washington Post, New York Times, and Boston Globe -- and it's fascinating because the ads essentially pushed the same foreign policies that he's pushing today.   They were anti-European, anti-NATO -- basically they were aligned with the Soviet plan to destroy the Western alliance.   And Trump takes out full-page ads in major American newspapers affirming this view.  Maybe that's just what he always believed.   In any case, it's worth noting."

Illing:  "I'm curious about how you collected all of this evidence.  did you go to Russia?   Did you interview most -- or any -- of the people directly involved in these transactions?  Did you compile this information yourself or rely on other sources.?"

Unger:  "It's stunning what you can find out through public sources.   I did not go to Russia.  I had a source who tipped me off to the name Demion Mogilevich, one of the highest-ranking bosses in the Russian mob, whom I had never heard of before, and that led me to a database online that revealed ownership of homes in the state of New York -- purchases and sales.

"And so I went to Trump properties, and every time I found a Russian name, I would research it, and it was stunning.   I'd often take their name, put in Moghilevich in Google, and it was like hitting the jackpot on a slot machine, time after time after time.

"There were countless people who were indicted for money laundering, or they were gunned down on Sixth Avenue, and there was just a huge percentage who seemed to have criminal histories, and that sort of got me started.   I also had a wonderful research assistant who speaks Russian and she grew up in Brooklyn, and she was a terrific asset and helped break the language barrier for me."

Illing:  "The subtitle of your book is "The Untold Story of Donald Trump and the Russian Mafia," but it's not clear to me which part of the story is new.   What did you uncover here that wasn't previously known?"

Unger:   "The insights I gained from Gen. Kalugin are completely new, but honestly, a lot of what I did was simply compile all this disparate stuff that was out there but had never been pieced together neatly in one place.

"For example, a lot of the Russian-connected stories were published in the crime pages of the New York Post or the New York Daily News, but they were always just straight-ahead crime stories you could see in a tabloid.   There was no sense that this had any geopolitical implications or forces behind it.

"So part of what I tried to do was assemble all of this in a coherent narrative that laid it all out in a comprehensive way.   We have all these seemingly random crime episodes that appeared in tabloids again and again, but it turns out that much of it was connected to a much larger operation, one that ended up ensnaring Trump and the people around him."

Illing:  "Trump is obviously the focus here, but as you mentioned earlier, he's not the only asset targeted by the Russians.   What do we know about Russian efforts to compromise other prominent American figures?"

Unger:   "One of the things I hope this book shows is that there's a new kind of war going on.   It's a global war without bombs or bullets or boots on the ground, and the weapons are information and data and social media and financial transactions.  The Russian mafia is one weapon in this global conflict, and they've been fighting it smartly since the fall of the Soviet Union.

"The Russians start businesses and front companies and commodities firms that appear legitimate but essentially work to advance the interests of the Russian state.   They're very good at getting people entangled financially and then using that leverage to get what they want.   This appears to be what they've done with Trump, and now he's president of the United States."

Illing:  "Maybe the most troubling part of all this is that the Russians simply exploited our own corrupt system.  They studied America's pay-for-play culture, found its weak spots, and very carefully manipulated it.   As long as our system remains unchanged, we should expect this kind of exploitation."

Unger:   "Absolutely.  There's an old saying that sometimes the worst part of the scandal is what's legal, and the Russians, to their credit, studied our system and campaign finance laws, and they exploited it masterfully.   They've used pharmaceutical companies and energy companies and financial institutions to pour money into our politics, and we really have no idea the extent of their influence.

"One thing Vladimir Putin got right was his insistence that American democracy is also corrupt, and I think he's showing us exactly how corrupt it is.   Trump is just the most glaring example, but surely there are others, most of which we know nothing about."

Illing:  "The case you lay out is pretty damning, but I'm left wondering if any of it really matters.   As you said, most of this stuff is hiding in plain sight, and although the special counsel investigation is underway, there's a subset of the country for whom no amount of evidence is enough to persuade them that something wrong has occurred, and Congress has demonstrated its uselessness pretty clearly.   So how do you see all this playing out?"

Unger:  "It's hard to say.   I think we're on a collision course that will either end in impeachment or with Trump reverting to unconstitutional measures to stay in office.  That is simply my opinion.   However this plays out, it's clear that we're in uncharted territory here, and it's hard to see how this ends well for anyone."

-===============-

. . . and then there were no more generals.

President Trump used to brag about "my generals."    That always raised a huff in me, because it conjured in my mind a little boy playing with his toy soldiers and having fantasies of commandeering armies to act on his whims.

Unfortunately, the 72 years old Donald, who actually commands the combined military forces of the United States, is actuating that fantasy refusing to take the advice of his last remaining general about pulling our troops out of Syria, which has led to the resignation letter from Gen. Marris as Secretary of Defense.

First, there were four:   Gen. Michael Flynn as first National Security Adviser, whom President Obama had warned Trump not to hire.  Flynn proved Obama right and actually had to leave because of lying to the FBI.  We subsequently learned that this was not Flynn's only criminal activity. 

So Flynn did not quite fit the bill of what we, the public, imagined was the stability and honor that four generals brought to the White House and to Trump's administration.

Then there was Gen. H.R. McMaster, who replaced Flynn as NSA.   But he and Trump were so far apart in every way that he didn't last long.    They were on totally different wave lengths intellectually, morally, even as two men relating in a work place.  So Trump replaced him with John Bolton -- someone about as different from the brainy McMaster as imaginable.

That left Gen. Michael Kelly who moved over from his first administration job as Secretary of Homeland Security into the White House as Trump's Chief of Staff.    We all thought that, if anyone could impose some discipline on the White House Staff and guide President Trump toward listening to experts' advice, it just might be Kelly.

Didn't work.   Reports of shouting matches in the Oval Office, then reports in recent weeks that Trump and Kelly were barely speaking to each other.   Kelly announced that he would be leaving at the end of the year.    But, guess what?    Trump hasn't found anyone who wants to take the job.    So Kelly is still there with no definite departure date.

Then yesterday, after failing to be able to stop Trump from abruptly announcing the immediate departure of all our troops out of Syria, Sec. of Defense Gen. James Mattis handed in his letter of resignation.   Vox,com refers to Mattis as "the last adult in the room" -- a reference to the reassurance we gave ourselves that Trump did have some "adults" in his administration that we hoped would keep things from going off the rails.

Mattis' letter has also been made public.   Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, reads some excerpts and recommended that everyone read it.

Mattis is respectful but also firm and moderately candid about the differences in policy between him and Mr. Trump.   But he is also candid about some of the things he has disagreed with Trump on.    Much of it has to do with relations with our allied nations and Mattis' stressing how important maintaining these alliances is.   We can imagine how much he and Trump must have clashed on this subject.

In the Q and A part of the press conference, Pelosi -- in her blunt but gentle way -- got off the best line of the day.    Referring to the people who have left the Trump administration, said that those who were great leaders "left in despair;  others left in disgrace."

Ralph

Follow-up on Mulvaney as Chief of Staff

An article by Nancy Cook in Politico says that Mick Mulvaney will be a very different type Chief of Staff than Gen. John Kelly.    Much less the disciplinarian bringing order and decorum, Mulvaney intends to "let Trump be Trump."

That doesn't mean that he will never try to steer him away from bad decisions;  but he won't try to control, say, the people who have access to him and won't be strict about which staff attend which meetings.  In other words, it seems, he won't be fighting with Jared and Ivanka.

Why Mulvaney is bad choice as Chief of Staff

President Trump has finally settled on Mick Mulvaney as his replacement for John Kelly as White House Chief of Staff.    It's a bad choice.

On paper, if you are a conservative Republican, you might think Mulvaney would be a good choice.    He served six years in the House of Representatives from  South Carolina.   Trump picked him to head up the White House Office of Management and Budget.     He then added on a second job, running -- with intent to dismantle -- the Elizabeth Warren-created Consumer  Financial Protection Bureau.

Now Trump, having been scorned by his first choice for Chief of Staff (CoS) by golden boy Nick Ayers, and having been told by several others, including Steve Mnuchin and Chris Christie that they weren't interested -- he turned to Mulvaney, who has accepted the job as Acting Chief of Staff.    "Acting" was Mulvaney's condition, a sort of conditional condition, it seems.   That presumably means that, if things work out, he'll stay;  but that the path is cleared for him to leave if they can find someone else.

According to inside reports, that is more or less the same condition that Ayers asked for, and it was the reason given for his appointment not being made.   So, on the surface, it would appear that something has changed -- like, perhaps, not being able to find anyone acceptable who would accept the job unconditionally.

Aside from the bad idea of having an Acting Chief of Staff, when the place needs stabilizing, here's why Mulvaney is a bad choice anyway.    According to Chris Whipple, author of a book about White House Chiefs of Staff and the presidents they worked for, the CoS needs, among other multiple talents and skills, to be able to guide the president and to stand up to him to prevent him from making bad decisions.   He (or she) needs to be able to say No to the president in a way that he or she will accept.

As Whipple points out, Mulvaney has already proved he can't or won't do that.    He is an ultra-conservative, having come to Congress as a part of the Tea Party crowd, then became part of what formed as the Freedom Caucus.    That would indicate that he is pro-small government and definitely anti-deficit spending.   As a member of congress, he would have voted against the tax cut for the wealthy that created such a huge deficit in the budget and increased the national debt so hugely.   But, as Trump's budget director, Mulvaney supported the tax cut.

So, it appears that Mulvaney has certain principles -- but, once in Trump's orbit (as his budget director) he turned sycophant and went along with a direct violation of his anti-deficit principle.

That is what makes him not a good choice for Chief of Staff.    Did he even try to talk the president out of such a big deficit hole?    Did he buy the myth Republicans have been peddling for decades, that tax cuts pay for themselves?    Will he even try to tell the president he's being played a fool by Kim Jong Un?    That everyone knows that he (Trump) is Putin's asset?     That Mueller's investigation is not a hoax but rather a mortal danger to his presidency?

I think not.    The only other possibility is that he tried very hard to talk Trump out of the tax cut . . . but failed . . . and neither is good news.

Ralph

Trump at the center of multiple criminal investigations; guilty of some himself.

Remember when President Richard Nixon's White House Counsel, John Dean, told him that there was a cancer growing on his presidency.   Experts agree that the "cancer" Dean was referring to is small compared to what is being revealed of the crimes that Donald Trump is at the center of.

Look at the list of six Trump entities that are currently under federal criminal investigation:

   1.  The Trump Presidential Campaign.   Its one-time chief strategist has been convicted and awaits sentencing.
   2.  The Trump Transition Team.  Its deputy chair pled guilty.
   3.  The Trump Inauguration Committee for possible illegal sources of donations and lack of accountability of spending.   Probable scandal has already caused the chair to resign his position with the RNC.
   4.  The Trump Administration.   Multiple resignations under taint of scandal.
   5.  The Trump Organization.     Lots of questions lurking there about illegal financial matters.
   6.  The Trump Foundation.   Charges pending against Eric and Ivanka on this.

In addition, Trump University was sued by students for fraud, paid a $25 million fine, and shut down.    Trump has also been sued numerous times in connection with his various businesses.    And he is highly suspect now of having engaged in money laundering, bank fraud, and wire fraud involving foreign individuals and, maybe, foreign governments.

His former lawyer (Michael Cohen) has been sentenced to three years in prison.   One campaign strategist (Paul Manafort) has been convicted of crimes and awaits sentencing, as does his first National Security Adviser (Flynn).   The deputy chair of his Transition Team (Gates) pled guilty and made a cooperation plea bargain.  Two of his minor campaign advisers have already served short prison terms.   There have been dozens of staffers and associates that have been interviewed by the FBI or the Mueller team.  Others are probable targets of parts of the investigation (Roger Stone, maybe Jared Kushner, Don Jr., and others).   More indictments undoubtedly will be forthcoming.

And Trump himself, arguably, has committed a crime in ordering his lawyer to make hush money payments to women and covering it up -- felonies as campaign finance violations.    Trump and his lawyer Giuliani have argued at various times:   (1)  that he knew nothing about the payments;   (2)  that he did know, but he did not direct Cohen to make the payments;  (3)  that they were perfectly legal because they had nothing to do with the campaign (not true);  (4)  that even if they were illegal, they were not major crimes that justify impeachment.

But the fact is that Michael Cohen has a tape recording of their discussing one of the payments and how to conceal it;  and he has told prosecutors that Trump directed him to make the payments.   And the fact is that the head of the parent organization of the National Enquirer is cooperating with the investigators about payment to kill the story of another Trump affair -- and there is evidence of Trump being in the room when the details were being discussed.

So there is good evidence to charge Trump with two felonies, just on the campaign finance violations alone.   But that will be small potatoes when Mueller reveals evidence he has of money laundering and financial fraud involving foreign individuals, if not also foreign governments.

So how do we get rid of such a crime-infested president and the corruption he has brought and fostered in his administration?    In addition to his own crimes, three cabinet members have had to resign for abuse of power and financial scandals;  another (Wilbur Ross) is said to be deeply into international money laundering schemes.

Just be patient.   It's all coming out . . . and at an accelerating speed.    I now seriously doubt that Trump will finish his first term.

My hope is for a plea deal, in which they offer him immunity from prosecution in exchange for his resignation.   Yes, part of me wants to see him do some jail time.   But, like President Gerald Ford's reasoning in pardoning Nixon, this country needs to begin to heal right now.    An impeachment fight and subsequent legal battles taking up years would keep us divided and breaking apart for years to come.

The immunity agreement could require that Trump admit to crimes and not just sweep it under the rug.   But it's urgent that we get rid of this cancer -- quickly and thoroughly.

Ralph

Federal District judge declares Obamacare unconstitutional. Decision to be appealed.

This just came in as i was about to close up for the night, so I will simply copy the article rather than trying to digest it for readers.   It's pretty clear and straight-forward.   It appeared on line from "Politico," and was written by Adam Cancryn and Paul Demko.

==========

"A federal judge in Texas late Friday threw the health coverage of some 20 million Americans in limbo by ruling Obamacare must be scrapped because Congress struck the penalty for failing to obtain insurance coverage.

"The invalidation of the landmark 2010 law is certain to send shock waves through the U.S. health system and Washington after a midterm election seen in part as a rebuke to Republican efforts to tear down Obamacare.

"The decision will be immediately appealed, said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of blue states in intervening to defend the law. It could ultimately become the third major Obamacare case to be taken up by the Supreme Court, which has twice voted to uphold the law.

"U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee in Fort Worth, Texas, issued the decision gutting the law in response to a lawsuit from 20 conservative-led states that sought to have the Affordable Care Act tossed out. They successfully argued that the mandate penalty was a critical linchpin of the law and that without it, the entire frameworks is rendered unconstitutional.

“In sum, the Individual Mandate ‘is so interwoven with [the ACA’s] regulations that they cannot be separated. None of them can stand,’” O’Connor wrote in his decision.
The decision came a little more than 24 hours before the sign-up period for 2019 Obamacare coverage is set to close.

"Republicans zeroed out the mandate penalty as part of their 2017 overhaul of the tax code. It’s slated to disappear next year.

"The Justice Department took the unusual stance of partially siding with the conservative states seeking to strike down the law. As a result, 16 mostly Democratic-led states intervened in the case to try and save Obamacare. But O’Connor didn’t agree with their argument that by striking the tax penalty but leaving the rest of the federal health care law in place, Congress had clearly indicated its belief that they weren’t inseparable.

"Many legal experts are skeptical that the lawsuit will ultimately succeed. But the victory at the lower court level means that there will be a cloud hanging over the future of the law for months, if not years, to come.

"House Democrats, who won back the chamber after campaigning heavily on defending protections for pre-existing conditions, have been weighing different options for saving Obamacare when their new majority is seated early next month. One possibility is passing a resolution authorizing the House general counsel to defend the health care law on the chamber's behalf.

"The ruling puts the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers in a bind. They've promised to save pre-existing condition protections if the court threw them out, but for years been unable to agree on an Obamacare alternative that would maintain the law's stringent safeguards.

"Seema Verma, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who oversees Obamacare's insurance marketplaces, told reporters late last month the administration had a back-up plan if the court overturned the law. She declined to provide specifics at the time.

"Neither the White House nor HHS immediately responded to requests for comment."

===============

This is bad news, but do not be too discouraged.   I'm sure the courts will not allow this to go into effect immediately, because it would create chaos in the health care system.   And remember that Chief Justice Paul Roberts has already been the swing voter to save Obamacare when another decision came to SCOTUS that would have killed it.

Ralph

Jail time for Trump . . . a possible scenario

Michael Cohen was Donald Trump's long-time personal lawyer;  but, in truth, he was more "fixer" than lawyer.   Today, Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison, plus a hefty fine and restitution for failure to pay taxes.

Of interest here is this fact we should keep in mind:    a good part of what Cohen is going to do time for is illegal work he did for Donald Trump, as well as helping cover it up.

What does that say about Trump?    Already, the indictment of Cohen states clearly that Trump "directed" the illegal campaign finance violation that Cohen carried out, which arguably makes Trump also guilty of a crime.

Let's stipulate for the moment that, although his lawyer will go to jail, Trump himself will not be indicted as long as he is serving as president.    Legal scholars disagree about this;  but the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion that upholds the indictment prohibition.   But, even so, he could be indicted the day he left office.

Michelle Goldberg, in her New York Times opinion column, has another scenario in mind, however.    The statute of limitations for campaign finance violations is five years, so if Trump runs and is re-elected in 2020, it would have run out by the time he is out of office.

But if he loses -- or does not run -- then on the day his term is up in January 2021, he could be indicted.   This sets up not just an election but the prospect that Trump could be literally running for his freedom, not just running for another four years in the Oval Office.

To be a bit cute about it:   regardless of who is the Democratic candidate in 2020, for Trump it will literally be a contest between the White House and the Big House.

We need to go beyond cute, however.    Trump is a dirty fighter;  and this will be a desperate Trump, fighting dirty.   Like trying to destroy his opponent, like having a compliant Justice Department prosecuting them for a trumped-up crime.  In addition, Trump, as president, has a great deal of power to do unspeakable damage to our nation, our standing in the world, and to our democracy.

Representative Eric Swalwell  (D-CA), who is himself considering a presidential run, foresees "a dangerous situation," in which Trump could become ever more erratic in making decisions to save himself that involve "our troops or internal domestic security."

The Democrat Jerry Nadler, who will become chair of the House Judiciary Committee in January, plans to introduce legislation that would freeze the statute of limitations for crimes committed by presidents, so that they could not avoid charges simply by being re-elected.

Goldberg ends her column with the hope for "the emergence of irrefutable evidence of further presidential crimes, enough to finally test the tolerance of at least some fraction of Republicans," so that impeachment by the House, with conviction in the Senate, becomes the solution.

I think that's what will happen.   But, if it doesn't, then Plan B would also be satisfying:  Let him run for re-election in 2020 -- and be rejected by voters in the BIGGEST LANDSLIDE EVER SEEN IN OUR HISTORY.

Then, finally, Trump would get his wish to have had something that was genuinely, honestly the BIGGEST EVER.

Ralph

Trump is in a big heap of trouble

I had not fully understood or appreciated the gravity of what the Southern District of New York's (SDNY) federal prosecutors are looking at in implications for Trump in Michael Cohen's revelations.

The focus on the hush money payments to women, while legally a campaign finance violation -- and therefore a felony -- still seemed a relatively minor part of the crimes of Donald Trump.   Surely it wouldn't be that, that brought down a presidency.   Evidence of obstruction of justice and violation of the emoluments clause seemed more serious to me.

But insiders say that it is the revelations from Michael Cohen that have Republicans most worried.   And, after all, Bill Clinton's impeachment charges were not for sex with a White House intern -- but for lying to Congress.

On Nicole Wallace's "Deadline: White House" news show on MSNBC Monday afternoon, former Assistant FBI Director Frank Figliuzzi put it this way, clarifying two points:   first, it's because these charges are the easiest to prove;  and, second, it's not just hush money payments to women.    Here is Figliuzzi speaking:

"With regard to the Southern District of New York filing, let's understand something:   If Donald Trump was not currently the President of the United States, he'd be looking at an indictment in a matter of weeks, not months.  In fact, he might already have been indicted, if he were not the President.

"The New York charges are the simplest set of facts to get your hands around legally.  He was directing this activity, allegedly.   And the activity is far more, Nicole, than simply trying to keep women quiet that you've had an affair with.

"W're talking about directing things like bank fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, federal campaign election violations;  and then, perhaps, using you own company, your own organization, as a slush fund for your campaign.

"All this is deeply problematic. . . . "

We've heard so much detail about the hush money payments -- and almost none about the financial crimes;   so we political observers have more or less equated "Michael Cohen" with the one issue we've heard about.    But Cohen was a Trump insider and fixer for decades, and he's undoubtedly revealed much more than has been publicly revealed.

Figliuzzi and Wallace went on to discuss the fact that prosecutors at the Southern District of New York are already talking about when to send their report to Congress.   They do not have to go through and get approval from the Justice Department, as Special Counsel Mueller does.   They can send a report directly to Congress, which could then begin impeachment proceedings . . . or not.

The question of indicting a sitting president remains the same as it does for Mueller.   But impeachment, of course, is another matter and could proceed.

In my opinion, they should not use the big stick of impeachment if all they have is paying hush money to women.   But apparently they have much much more than we yet know about.  If there is evidence of money laundering, bank fraud, etc. . .  . then it may not be premature.

Ralph
Fiogliuzzi also told Wallace that he continues to be concerned about Trump's being influenced by whatever compromising control the Russians had over him.  Even if they no longer have that control, because so much has been exposed and is therefore useless as blackmail, Figliuzzi points out that Trump might be inclined to over-react to "prove" to us that he is not under their control.   For example, he might order an over-reaching response to some Russian aggression that would be better handled another way -- in order to "prove" that he's not controlled by Putin.    So Figliuzzi says that it still makes Trump incapable of making good decisions.

In other words, the effects of blackmail do not all end when the blackmail is exposed and rendered useless itself.

Mueller's sentencing memos put Trump in more legal jeopardy.

Mueller filed the sentencing memos on Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort on Friday.   The Manafort document was filed under seal, so we don't know a lot about what's in it.  And there are a lot of redactions in the Cohen memo;   but enough of it is readable that Ari Melber had six guests, including lawyers, prosecutors, and a judge, who were able to discuss some quite significant findings on Ari's MSNBC TV show.

The one that best sums it all up was that Ari asked all six of them, at the end, for a quick either/or answer to this question:    Do these documents pose a greater legal threat to Donald Trump than he faced before these filings?

It was unanimous -- and definitive.   All six said, without a hint of doubt, that he was in more legal jeopardy than before.   These were no weak, I-think-so, answers.   Several answered, simply:   "absolutely."    One said:   "Yes, 100%."

One fact is that the Federal Court in the Southern District of New York (the one that handles most of the big financial crimes cases in New York) is saying that Donald Trump directed his attorney Michael Cohen to commit a felony.   This involves the hush money payment to women -- a campaign finance violation and a felony.

But there are also a lot more problems for Trump, much having to do with illegal financial ties with Russians.   It's looking like the conspiracy with Russia may be a viable charge, as well as the obstruction of justice.

Ralph

Two big Mueller sentencing memos expected today: on Cohen and Manafort

Republicans leaders in Congress still refuse to advance a bill that would protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.    However, Mueller is finding creative ways to get more and more of his findings into the judicial records in the form of sentencing memos and on indictment charges.

Sentencing memos on Michael Flynn, released last week, gave some valuable information, not only about Flynn's own illegal activities, but also of others as well -- including most significantly "Individual 1," who is clearly president Trump.
"
For example:   a reporter who had seen the report wrote that:   "Flynn admitted in his plea that he spoke to the Russians at the direction of Trump transition team officials."   Now, if there is evidence of what they spoke about, and if they spoke about the Russians helping Trump's campaign, especially if there was a quid pro quo about sanctions being lifted --- then that seems enough for conspiracy charges violating the federal election laws.

Much of the 13 page memo was redacted, presumably because it involves investigations that are still ongoing;   but the judge got the unredacted version, and this puts the information into the justice system and protects it from attempts by Trump and his sycophntic Acting Attorney General to suppress the information.

Two more important sentencing memos are to be released today:   one on Michael Cohen and one on Paul Manafort.     These are being eagerly anticipated for what they may contain, as well as indications of the direction the investigation is going.    However, depending on how much redacting is done, they may not actually give us much new information.

Mueller will presumably have to explain why he revoked Manafort's plea deal, which should reveal a lot about Manafort's double-dealing, appearing to be working with the investigators, while feeding information to Trump's lawyers.

Despite Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani's unreliable prattles to the press and TV, Mueller is not in fact winding this up.    There is still a great deal to be done, and I'm more persuaded by those analysts who say it may be in the beginning of the end stages.

But it is heartening to see that Mueller seems to be following the strategy that I first picked up from former Assistant FBI Director Frank Figliuzzi on MSNBC -- that of putting as much as he can into court filings and grand jury testimonies so that he gets it into possession of the court system, so it will be preserved even if Trump does try to fire Mueller.

So today's releases will be combed over in minute detail -- and we may know a lot more tomorrow than we do today.

Ralph

CIA Director convinces senators MbS responsible for having Khashoggi killed

The Hill is reporting on the reactions of a group of Senate leaders from national security-related committees who had a special closed-door briefing about the Jamal Khashoggi killing from CIA Director Gina Haspel.   She had not participated in the briefing last week from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Several influential senators in the group spoke with reporters Rebecca Kheel and Jordain Carney from The Hill, saying that they were now more certain than ever that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) was responsible for the killing.    Sen. Lindsey Graham said:   "You have to be willfully blind not to come to the conclusion that this was orchestrated and organized by people under the command of MbS and that he was intricately involved."

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker said:  "I have zero question in my mind that the crown prince directed the murder and was kept apprised of the situation all the way through."   Corker added that, "If MbS was in front of a jury, he would have a unanimous verdict in about 30 minutes. . . .  a guilty verdict."

So what happens now?    This puts Republican senate leaders at odds with President Trump, who has refused to acknowledge the crown prince's role, saying that "we may never know all the facts. . . .  maybe he did and maybe he didn't."  Instead, he has focused more or the Saudi kingdom as a good customer for our military hardware that we don't want to alienate or lose.

Trump sees this only in his usual transactional terms, essentially saying that 'one murder is not worth the loss of all those business deals.'    He has no concept of values as part of the equation.

Last week, the Senate voted for a resolution requiring the president to remove any U.S. troops involved in the Saudi war in Yemen, unless they are fighting al Qaeda.   The sponsors are now considering whether any changes need to be made to this, while Sen. Graham plans to introduce a separate resolution that would put the Senate on record as blaming the crown prince for the murder -- a major rebuke to a U.S. ally.

In short, a battle is looming between Senate leaders of both parties and the president.   It's unlikely that the lame-duck House Republicans will allow this to pass . . .  but it's only a few weeks until Democrats will take control of the House.

Ralph

President George H. W. Bush, 1924 - 2018.

"George H.W. Bush, who died Friday at age 94, served one term as president and was defeated for re-election in 1993 by Bill Clinton.  Derided by critics at the time as a well-meaning but ineffectual leader, he is now regarded with affection and respect as a dedicated public servant and a man of character and decency.

Leaving aside for now some of the controversial positions he took, while also acknowledging some successes as well -- overseeing the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet empire, for example -- I would add to the comparison Bush's experience, his preparation for the job, and his good advisers to whom he listened.

George H.W. Bush had more government experience to prepare him for the office than any other person who has run for president.   Following service in the U.S. Navy during World War II, he became a success in the oil business of Texas.   His subsequent career in public service included the following:    U.S. House of Representatives, Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, the equivalent to Ambassador to China (before we had formal diplomatic relations with China).   He was then appointed Director of the CIA, served eight years as Vice President to Ronald Reagan's administration, and then was elected president to succeed Reagan.

Every word of praise for George H.W. Bush -- in our present context -- seems like an unspoken criticism of Donald J. Trump, . .  . because Trump is none of those things that we praise the elder Bush for.

I watched the televised moment Monday night when President and Mrs. Trump came into the Capitol rotunda to pay their respects to Bush lying in state.    The other VIP guests had mostly left and the pomp and circumstance and the brief commentaries had all been completed.

The two, Donald and Melania, walked in together holding hands.    She look inscrutable but appropriate.    At least he kept a somber expression, but it was more of an angry scowl than a reverent silence.    They stood there for an awkward moment, unmoving and unmoved, then she place a hand on her heart and he gave a quick salute to the casket.   They turned and walked out.   The whole thing took perhaps 60 seconds.

Now I acknowledge that there is probably nothing Donald Trump could have done in this moment that would have seemed right.   After all the criticism and insult he has thrown at the Bush family -- and all that they represent that he lacks -- it could only be an awkward moment.   

How does a vulgar grifter like Trump pay respect to a man of such decency, kindness, civility, and yes class (in the best sense of the word)?    The contrast was stark.

Ralph

AJC reader suggests compromise on the "religious freedom bill" (updated)

Georgia has been struggling over how to balance people's right to religious freedom and their right to equal protection under the law.   The "religious freedom" side objects to being required to provide their commercial services for situations that they feel violate their religious beliefs.    This usually comes up around same-sex weddings or hotel room rentals.

On the other side, the denial of such services to people because of sexual orientation does constitute denial of equal treatment and therefore is unacceptable discrimination.

Obviously a proprietor does have some right to refuse services to people who disrupt or destroy the place of business or people who are grossly offensive to other patrons.   They may, for example, require that shirts and shoes be worn inside the place of business, that smoking is not allowed, etc.   So where is the line?

It's OK to deny services to someone because of their behavior there in the place of business.   But how is it OK to deny services because of behavior in the privacy of their bedroom at home?   That doesn't make much sense.

Tim Fuller of Atlanta wrote a letter to the editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution offering a simple solution.  Give it a little thought.   Maybe Mr. Fuller's plan could work.   It avoids having to define that elusive line.   Here's his letter.   See what you think.

*   *   *

"There is a workaround for the religious freedom bill quandary.  Let the Georgia Legislature pass the religious freedom bill, but include the following requirement:

   Any business that would seek its protection must include the following prominent notice on their premises and in all advertising:   'The products and services offered by this company are not available to all citizens of Georgia.   The policy of this company is to discriminate against citizens of Georgia based on the sincerely held religious beliefs of the owners of the company, in furtherance of which the owners of the company invoke the First Amendment and the Georgia religious freedom statute.'    The purpose of this notice is to warn potential customers so they can decide if they wish to patronize said company.   Anyone in favor of religious freedom must also be in favor of truth in advertising."
   Tim Fuller, Atlanta

*   *   *

On the other hand, despite the creative and honest attempt by Mr. Fuller, the only real difference from the days-of-old signs -- "Colored Not Allowed," "White Only," signs -- is that it forces the proprietors to take ownership of the fact that they are discriminating, with the hope that public shame will decrease the numbers who actually discriminate.   

The other difference is in the shifting of public sentiment.  Back then, white people held all the cards:    the sole ownership of shops, etc.;   the lack of any power among those discriminated against;  and there has been a major change in what is socially acceptable, so that it is possible that shame might affect behavior of the group in power.