Nunes memo: Is that all there is?

[This is long, but I think worth reading it all.]

President Trump has approved the release of the controversial Nunes memo by the House Intelligence Committee -- meaning that Trump declassified the material contained in it.    So now you can read on the internet what everyone's been talking about.

In truth, after all the hype -- Sean Hannity calling it the most scandalous government malfeasance in history -- it really under whelms.    Let's try to get a little perspective.

We have laws that prevent our government from spying on its citizens.   There are two exceptions.  (1)  If a citizen is inadvertently heard talking to a foreign national, who is legitimately under surveillance.   In so, the American's name is "masked" and can only be revealed if the need meets requirements of necessity.   Or (2) if the FBI has gotten a warrant to spy on an individual citizen from a special FISA Court judge.  The application for this is rigorous, and the judges are specially trained to use the warrant process only for very legitimate and proven national security interests.

The Nunes memo concerns the application process for a FISA warrant obtained for American citizen Carter Page, who was listed by Trump himself during the transition as one of his foreign policy advisers.   The first warrant was obtained in late October 2016, just before the election.   It has been renewed three times, the latest by request of Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.

The truth is that Carter Page first came to the attention of the FBI in 2013 when he became a "target" of Russian spies working in New York.    It's unclear whether Page was aware he was being used by the Russians, but apparently they were attempting to bring him into their network as an agent working for the Kremlin.   This is usually done over time, beginning with what appear to be innocent contacts -- meeting a businessman with interest in Russia, or oil production, etc.  In this case, they asked him to supply information about the oil industry, which Page gladly gave them.   Mostly it's initially about establishing a relationship, and then they draw you in, with the eventual goal of having something incriminating on you that they can use to manipulate you into ever-increasing leverage.

That's the case with Carter Page.   He has background as a business consultant in oil production, as well as an academic background that made him an ideal target -- invitations to speak at Russian universities were excuses to travel to Moscow, for example.   And Page has admitted that he met a number of high officials in the Russian government.

At one point even after he was listed as a member of the Trump Advisory Board on Foreign Affairs, he made a speech in Moscow in which he reportedly made some anti-US comments.   What the Russians were getting from him, apparently, was information, specifically about US sanctions against Russia, as well as favorable comments about Putin and the Russian government.

Now, to back up a moment:    The FBI had an interest in following Carter Page all the way back to that 2013 connection with the Russian spies -- when he was under FBI surveillance for about 2 years.   That spy ring was eventually broken up and Pages' two contacts in New York were arrested.    Apparently the FBI had no evidence that Page knew he was a target or that he had done anything illegal.

Nevertheless, from 2013 on, he was already a person of interest to the FBI in relation to Russia.   So it did raise concerns when he was named as a member of the Trump transition advisory board in 2016.   This background, his frequent trips to Russia and contacts with high Russian officials, plus perhaps other information we don't know, was all part of the application for a FISA warrant in October 2016 to renew surveillance on Carter Page.

The Nunes memo -- and the hype in the media, with some evidence that the Russians are doing their amplification of it on social media with thousands of fake accounts pumping out bot messages of "release the memo" -- are putting all the focus on the fact that, along with many other justifications -- the FISA application also listed the Steele dossier, which contained some information on Page.

The "big scandal" they're pushing is that the FISA warrant that "violated an innocent citizen's civil rights" was based on an unproved claim (Steele dossier) which was paid for by Democratic sources.   Thus it's all a political witchhunt and proves that the whole Russia collusion story is false.

There's a small problem with that, as pointed out by Rachel Maddow:   In the last paragraph of the memo is this sentence:   "The [George] Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok."   Now the context shows that they included this to discredit the whole thing because of their belief in the anti-Trump bias of FBI agent Strzok.   In fact, however, what this shows is that it was not the Steele dossier that triggered the investigation.  It was the much earlier information obtained about Papadopoulos --  fully three months earlier than the October 2016 FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.

So, as Rachel says:   The memo itself disproves the main thrust of the memo -- that of the corruption of the application for a FISA warrant on Page.

Rep. Adam Schiff, lead Democrat on the House Intel Committee, plus the FBI and Justice Department, in opposing the release, have said that there is other material evidence from the FISA application that justifies the warrant, even without the Steele dossier material.  But the Nunes memo leaves that out.   In addition, Nunes has essentially admitted that he did not read the underlying documents that were listed in the application.

As Chris Hayes put it:   "The memo is not evidence;  it's a book report written by someone who has not read the book."

As to the memo's accusations of Steele's anti-Trump bias, quoting him as expressing his strong feelings, even passion about Trump not getting elected president -- the memo leaves out the context of that statement from Steele.   But it is contained (again as pointed out by Rachel Maddow) in the transcripts of his testimony before congressional committees by the head of Fusion GPS, which commissioned Steele's work.   It quotes Steele having said that his strong opposition to a Trump presidency stemmed from evidence he was finding that Trump could be vulnerable to being influenced by a hostile foreign power. even including possible blackmail.

Schiff has also sounded the alarm that the version of the memo that Nunes sent to the White House is not the same as the memo that the Intel Committee voted to release -- and it's not just cosmetic editing, he says, but material differences.   Thus, according to Schiff, that negates the vote to release it.    But that fell on willfully deaf ears.

Speaker Paul Ryan fully supports the release as a matter of the possible violation of civil liberties of a citizen.   But he did also caution not to conflate this with the FBI's function in general or the Mueller investigation in particular.   They are entirely separate, Ryan says.   That also has fallen on deaf ears -- as has the FBI's impassioned and unprecedented pleas not to release what could be giving damaging information to enemies about our intelligence methods and sources.

The blind partisan position of the Republicans is simply astounding.  Just three weeks ago they voted to renew the FISA warrant process.   Now they're not willing to trust the process they just voted to renew.   If Carter Page has a complaint, the FISA court has an appeal process.   That has not been pursued, as far as we know.

This is total politics cooked up by Nunes -- and most likely the White House itself -- trying to save Trump by obfuscation and false sideshow narratives.  Trump wants it as ammunition to get rid of Rod Rosenstein and possibly Mueller -- and to damage the reputation of both the FBI and Justice, and to discredit whatever damaging report Mueller  eventually files.

The indictment of Rosenstein is that he signed off on the renewal application for the Page FISA warrant, which was the third renewal, required every 90 days.   It's not something he originated, but he did have to certify and back up that findings warranted continued surveillance.   That's it.   That's the whole "case" against Rosenstein.

This is the big crime that has Sean Hannity foaming at the mouth?    That the man who certified a third renewal of surveillance of a man who was originally caught up in attempts to recruit him by Russian spies at least five years ago, who has since then made numerous trips to Moscow, met with high officials in the Kremlin, and given speeches that were at times anti-US in tone and praising Putin -- plus whatever secret information we have no knowledge about.

I am totally underwhelmed -- except by the perfidy and shamelessness of the Republicans -- starting with Donald Trump and going down the list from there.  Trump told the press, "This completely vindicates me."   But, for a man suddenly vincidated, his affect did not match.   Instead of smiles and jubilation -- he looked downright grim and enraged, like a man betrayed by his chief adviser, Sean Hannity.

Ralph

PS:  Meanwhile, when former FBI Director James Comey finally saw the Nunes memo, his reaction was an incredulous, "That's it? . . .  Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House Intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen.   For what?"

Senator John McCain, writing from home in Arizona as he deals with brain cancer treatment, said:   "The latest attacks against the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests -- no party's, no President's, only Putin's. . . .  If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin's job for him."

Another Trump appointee had to resign

Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, who just a few months ago President Trump appointed to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has resigned over the revelation of a conflict of interest.

It seems that Dr. Fitzgeral has a history of investing in tobacco companies.   Politico reported Tuesday evening that she had purchased shares in a tobacco company since taking her position as head of the CDC.

Why is this a conflict of interest?   The CDC is the federal agency most focused on driving down rates of smoking, which is the #1 preventable cause of disease and death in the United States.   By Wednesday afternoon, the HHS Secretary had accepted Dr. Fitzgerald's resignation.

Damn.   Team Trump just doesn't seem to get this vetting thing.

Rachel Maddow is keeping a running tally of all the senior and second tier officials that have had to resign from the Trump administration.   I think it's now up to about 30.   And now we hear that a big scandal is brewing involving Ben Carson's authorizing (despite warnings not to) hundreds of thousands of dollars on an event that benefited his son's business.    Even honest Ben, huh?   Trump contaminates everyone who works for him.

Joy Reed skewers Trump's SOTU speech -- and Don Jr.'s defense of his dad.

HuffPost's Doug Moye supplies us with this twitter exchange between MSNBC news commentator Joy Reed and Donald Trump, Jr.    First, Joy's comment on the president's State of the Union speech:

JOY:   "Church . . . family . . . police . . . military . . . the national anthem . . .  Trump trying to call on all the tropes of 1950s-era nationalism.  The goal of this speech appears to be to force the normalization of Trump on the terms of the bygone era his supporters are nostalgic for."

DON, JR:  "Apparently Church, Family, Police, Military, and The National Anthem are things the left hates.  I think we would all be a lot better off if we embraced those values that allowed us to become the greatest nation in the world."

JOY:  "The fun part is, Trump doesn't actually embody any of the values he's hearkening back to.  Faith?   He panders to the religious far right but claims he's never even asked God for forgiveness.  Family?  He has flouted his marriage vows with porn stars and is accused by multiple women of sexual harassment and worse.   Law enforcement?   Sure, he is leading the culture war against NFL players who kneel to oppose police killing black civilians, but he and House Republicans are also waging war on federal law enforcement.  And as for the military, Trump's seeming eagerness to flirt with war with North Korea can't be heartening.   

"Trump is putting on a show;  allowing his base to reminisce about an Ozzie and Harriet past they don't even really value anymore based on their support for his 'values.'  He offers a promise to bring back the past, but no vision for the future.   And strangely, his version of 'family values' excludes the families of immigrants.

"Bottom line:  the first half of Trump's SOTU speech was pure pablum;  GOP family values boilerplate that the party traded in for demographic rage and reality show vulgarity by backing him.  The second half was the dark matter Trumpism actually represents.   Anti-immigrant, backward-looking, anti-innovation, and anti-progress.  And of course his base loved every minute of it."

==========

That's the Joy Reed--Don Trump, Jr. exchange about the speech.   Here's what the Guardian online news had to say:

"For over an hour, Trump read off a script and recited mostly rote, unmemorable lines. . . .  He sounded far more like a typical politician than he has in the past but, in doing so, made himself as forgettable as a typical politician."

Trump read a teleprompter for 90 long minutes. It was the State of the Union.

Yes, Donald J. Trump can stick to a teleprompter speech someone else wrote for him, throwing in only a few ad libs and generally behaving within the norms of this most scripted moment in the nation's seat of government.

But, in doing so, according to an assessment in The Atlantic, Trump managed to be boring.   Beginning on a high note of optimism about the economy, and bolstered by a long list of aspirational one-liners (each applauded and cheered at length by the Republican partisans in attendance) -- Trump, in effect, served up the dessert first.

He then turned midway in the very long speech into a dark and ugly place -- as the main course of raw meat was served up for his base.   He chose to begin the much-anticipated focus on immigration by citing the violence of the M-13 gangs.   He introduced, sitting in the gallery, the two sets of parents whose two daughters were killed by M-13 gang violence.   With all due respect to those grieving parents, this is the face of immigration Trump chose to present to a nation of immigrants?

Hardly anything he said about immigration after that came even close to balancing the narrative or the mood.  He spoke again, and by implication again and again, of the need to protect our borders and our neighborhoods, to build the Wall and increase the number of ICE agents -- all to combat the violence that, in his mind, immigrants bring to our countrty.

No where in the speech was there even a hint of the truth -- that immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes than are our native born citizens.

I felt enraged at Trump myself;  imagine how the second-generation immigrants sitting there in Congress must have felt.   The camera focused briefly on Joaquin Castro and on Marco Rubio -- they both looked grim.    Then he threw out what is supposed to make his whole package OK -- that the people brought here as children will be able to stay and will have a path to citizenship that will take 12 years.   But along with that:   his plan ends the diversity lottery program, requires lots of money for border security, and limits the family sponsorship only to spouses and non-adult children of someone here with a green card.   Currently it also allows parents and adult siblings.

The truth is that there was a lot of truth lacking in this speech.   Fact-checkers are hard at work today.   But it was also the things he left out.   No mention of the Mueller investigation or what it's about.   No mention that Russia hacked our 2016 election, that they continue today amping up negative messages on our social media -- including the frenzied bot campaign to "release the memo," (see yesterday's  ShrinkRap about Nune's controversial memo).

No mention of what he has ordered be done to prevent our 2018 election from being hacked (absolutely nothing, apparently).  He talked about the threat posed by North Korea, with no mention of the encouraging signs coming from even our meager diplomatic efforts there.   After a year, he finally nominated an ambassador for South Korea -- who made news just before the speech by posting an op-ed withdrawing from the nomination because of Trump's policies toward North Korea.

And then there was the surprise announcement -- for no good discernible reason -- that he will keep Guantanamo prison open indefinitely to house all the terrorists he expects to capture, apparently.   No, actually, that was probably just an expensive sop to the base.

Just as one example of how the words don't match the actions:   Trump said one of the things he's committed to is bringing down the costs of prescription drugs.   But he did not also say that he recently appointed a new head of Health and Human Services (to replace Tom Price);  and this person is none other than the former CEO of Eli Lily Pharmaceutical Co., which has been criticized for pricing in his own company.  HHS is the agency most concerned with drug costs because of Medicare and Medicaid. 

And then there were outright lies of fact;  claiming credit for things he had nothing to do with;  ignoring the inconvenient bad news, much of which he created himself.

It lasted an agonizing hour and a half.    But I couldn't not watch.

Ralph

Nunes' memo and the firestorm

A firestorm erupted in our government on Monday.   It had been immediately preceded by revelation that, back last June, President Trump had ordered the White House Attorney, Don McGahn to have Robert Mueller fired.   And, along with that, was revealed that when Trump had interviewed veteran FBI officer Andrew McCabe for the position of Acting FBI Director, Trump had asked him who he voted for in 2016.

Then on Monday, the events occurred as described below in this article by a group of Washington Post reporters:

+     +     +     +     +

"Early this month, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein trekked to Capitol Hill in a last-ditch effort to avoid giving Republican lawmakers access to intelligence they considered so sensitive that it could not leave their control.

"House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) had been agitating for information — which included investigative documents, interviews with top FBI officials and texts between FBI employees — for months as part of his investigation into the Justice Department's handling of the Russia investigation. Now, he was threatening to hold Justice officials in contempt. The two law enforcement leaders hoped House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) might be more sympathetic to their concerns.

"Rosenstein did most of the talking as the two men pressed their case in a closed-door meeting, urging the speaker to let the Justice Department withhold at least some documents, according to people familiar with the exchange. Ryan, however, was unmoved. Nunes's committee, he argued, routinely deals in sensitive, raw intelligence, and this case was no different, the people said.

"The episode would prove a revealing skirmish between the Hill and the Justice Department in an increasingly acrimonious war over the Russia investigation. Current and former law enforcement officials say the feuding — which they say seems driven in some measure by a GOP effort to discredit the Russian investigation — threatens to expose sensitive sources and methods that could be exploited by foreign adversaries, and curtail intelligence-sharing with some of our closest allies, including Britain.

"Nunes ultimately used the information he obtained to create a four-page memo critical of the Justice Department and FBI. And to the dismay of Democrats and various intelligence and law enforcement officials, he and his Republican colleagues are taking steps to release it.

"On Monday, Nunes's committee voted on party lines to authorize its release, which gives the White House up to five days to intervene before it becomes public.  What exactly the memo says — and how significant it is in showing any alleged wrongdoing at the Justice Department and FBI — is a matter of intense debate. . .

[The Republican case is that the FISA surveillance warrant was obtained from the FISA court based on the Steele dossier, much of which has been corroborated but it is not a finished report.   However, the FBI has said some time back that the Steele dossier was not the basis for the FISA application;  it merely confirmed some intelligence the FBI already had obtained in other ways.   My hunch is that the FBI does not want to reveal the true source of their surveillance data that justified the FISA warrant -- because, in effect, they would be giving it to a Trump surrogate, and it may still be a source in an ongoing investigation of Trump and his team.  But the Republicans think they have proof that the FBI was biased toward Clinton because at some point, a PAC supporting her had paid for some of the work done to compile the Steele dossier. - RR]

"The FISA court was apparently not told of the dossier's Democratic Party funding, according to a person familiar with the memo.

"That assertion could provide conservatives ammunition to criticize the Russia investigation and lay the groundwork to possibly discredit whatever conclusions those working on it reach. . . .

"Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) [a member of the committee]  suggested the memo would be explosive: 'We get this memo out there, and people will see, the fix was in.'  Another Republican who has seen it said it might not be the smoking gun conservatives have described. Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said that . . . he largely attributed that uproar to cable news coverage of it. . . .

[Another report has it that Russian bots are amping up the digital demand to "release the memo," adding to the political firestorm this is becoming - RR]

Adding to the push to release the memo are members of the House Freedom Caucus, who met with the president and convinced him that it would help him by discrediting the FBI and the Mueller investigation.   So now Trump is said to be pushing to have it released.

The perfidy and political motivation of Nunes and his Republican members are added to by these facts:
   (1)   The Justice Department wrote a strongly worded letter to the Committee saying that it would be "extremely reckless" to release this memo containing classified information and urging them not to do so.
   (2)   When that did not dissuade Nunes, the FBI and DoJ both asked to be able to come meet with and brief the committee on why they are so concerned with the release.    The committee refused even to do that.
   (3)   The Democrats on the committee have written their own counter-memo, explaining what is factually incorrect, misleading and lacking context that puts it all in a different light.   They requested to at least have their memo released at the same time.    The committee voted, along party lines, not to allow the Democrats to release their memo, until perhaps some time later.
   (4)   Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee has said publicly that the release of the Nunes' memo could "compromise sources and methods" of the intelligence community and damage U.S. relations with its intelligence partners around the world.

+     +     +     +     +

That's where we are.   Devin Nunes, chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence was a member of the Trump Transition Team, and he is obviously doing the Trump administration's cover work.    Soon after the investigation began, he had to recuse himself from the committee's Russia influence investigation because of the midnight stunt he pulled with the White House -- where he snuck over at midnight to pick up some documents, only to parade over to the White House the next day to publicly "deliver" these documents he had acquired that purportedly showed some nefarious misconduct by the DoJ during the Obama administration that resulted in surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser.

Now, this is just a continuation of all that -- but at a later and much more dangerous stage.   We have a war between Republican members of the House and their own Justice Department and FBI, headed by appointees of Trump.    It's not just Republicans and Democrats fighting.   Republicans are fighting Republicans -- but especially they are fighting the rule of law -- and putting their party ahead of their country.

Ralph

PS:  Just saw a report that leaves me more confused about this Nunes' memo.  HuffPost political writers quote Paul Ryan as saying that the Nunes memo is completely unrelated to the Mueller investigation and that he hopes the one is not used to undermine the other.    Ryan further said:   (1)  that he wants the memo released because of the questions about violating an American's civil liberties;  (2) because this was separate from the Mueller investigation;  (3) because there may have been 'malfeasance' at the FBI;   and (4) because it's important to the public to be able to trust the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Now is that all clear?   Maybe . . . but then, what is it about?

Trump is winning

"Trump Is Winning:    Trump is making us a little more like him, and politics a little more like the tribal clash he says it is."   That's the headline for a compelling essay by Ezra Klein on Vox.com.

+     +     +     +     +

Ezra Klein writes that there are two Trump presidencies.  "One of them is the official presidency of Donald Trump, leader of the Republican Party, driver of the legislative agenda, head of the executive branch.   A year in, that presidency looks surprisingly normal."   After some elaboration on that, including the lack of much accomplishment, Klein writes:

"But there is another Trump presidency -- that of Donald J. Trump, reality television star and international brand.  This is the presidency that I suspect matters more to Trump himself . . .  for which the measures of achievement aren't bills passed or jobs created but headlines grabbed and mindshare held.

"This is the presidency that, for all its collateral damage, is succeeding beyond Trump's wildest dreams.   This is the presidency that few have figured out how to resist."

Klein then explains "the law by which Trump lives his life.   Attention creates value, at least for him.   Before Trump, every politician hewed to the same basic rule:   You want as much positive coverage, and as little negative coverage, as possible.   Trump upended that.

"His rule, his realization, is that you want as much coverage as possible, full stop.  If it's positive coverage, great.   If it's negative coverage, so be it.   That point is that it's coverage -- that you're the story, that you're squeezing out your competitors, that you're on people's minds."

Klein shows how the media plays into this.  "It's easier to get bad press than good press."   Remember the old line that they don't cover the planes that land safely.

"Trump dominates news cycle after news cycle by crashing planes into Twitter.  He is everywhere, seemingly all the time.  He says things no national politician in history would have dared say, things that the press covers because they are outrageous . . .   Trump is demanding and receiving our attention, crowding out everything else, accepting that it's better to be hated than to be ignored."

In response to the occasional proposal that the media should just ignore him, Klein counters:   "But Trump controls the nuclear arsenal.  His tweets are considered official statements by the president of the United States. . . .  These are words that start wars, that drive deportations, that set policy, . . . that represent our country. . . .  As much as Trump might treat his presidency like a reality show, it remains a presidency, and lives are in the balance.

"Yet in owning our attention . . . and in doing so by generating constant negative attention, cultural conflict, and emotional alarm, Trump makes us a little more like him, and politics a little more like the tribal clash he says it is. . . .

"Trump drives his opponents to respond in kind, to adopt just a little more of his tone and language and pitch. . . .  America ends up having fights Trump wants us to have. . . .

"As this analysis from Echelon Insights shows, Trump dominated the national conversation on almost every day of 2017, and that was true no matter whether you looked at liberals or conservatives or political elites or everyone.  The mindshare he occupies, the energy he consumes, is vast. . ."

Klein continues:   "I say none of this from atop a soapbox.  I am as guilty of it as anyone . . . .  I find it hard to tear myself away from his daily outrages, even when I know they're less important than other things I could cover.   I find it hard not to respond to him in kind, not to let his language, his energy, his approach, infect mine.

"But there is a cost to this. . . . [and here Klein discusses at length the political costs in zero-sum tribal warfare;  the social and psychological costs in keeping our public discourse at such a fever pitch for four years;  and the opportunity costs -- all the other conversations we could be having about building a better future for our country.]

Then Klein concludes:  "This is, I think, Trump's true purpose in public life:  to have everyone talking about him, looking at him, reacting to him.   He cares more about his coverage than his impact;  he is much more committed to what's said about him on Fox and Friends than what's written about him in history books.   Trump's Reality Show White House has been an unstoppable force, dominating our attention, coarsening our politics, making us angrier and more afraid and more distant from each other.   In this, he's succeeding -- winning, even."

+     +     +     +     +

Klein's comments about finding it difficult to resist being drawn to respond to Trump is exactly my dilemma is writing ShrinkRap.   From time to time, I make an effort to NOT write about Trump for a few days.   But it's hard to sustain.

With him, I'm constantly feeling outrage fatigue -- I'm just tired of having a president to be embarrassed by, appalled at, and in such opposition to.   One small consolation:   Ezra Klein and Vox.com are pretty good company to be in misery with.   And the Trump presidency will end, sooner or later, one way or another.   Just think:   it could be sooner and more judicial than electoral.

Ralph

"Trump digs his own legal grave"

Some excerpts from an article by Jennifer Rubin, conservative columnist for the Washington Post, where this article appeared.

++++++++++

"President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation . . . but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive. . . .  The report is noteworthy on many counts.

"First, Trump’s failed attempt to fire Mueller was apparently known to many individuals, indicating both a lack of discipline on Trump’s part (what else did he say to these people?) and possible waiver of any privilege. If McGahn can be compelled to discuss such interactions with Trump with the special counsel, he may be able to testify as to the president’s motive both in firing FBI Director James B. Comey and attempting to fire Mueller. . . .

"Second, 'Attempted obstruction is obstruction even when the perpetrator backs down after failing to get his consigliere to do the deed for him,” constitutional lawyer Larry Tribe emails me.  'In addition, it’s part of a persistent pattern of obstruction. And it’s also strong evidence of consciousness of guilt.' . . . 

"If one is constructing a case evidencing a deliberate, ongoing plan to disrupt and stop the Russia investigation so as to protect Trump and his family, this is certainly one nugget of damaging information. . . . Like the loyalty demand; telling Comey to let [the probe of Michael] Flynn go; or firing Comey, it evinces corrupt intent. What is Trump trying to hide? . . . 

"Third, the president does back down when confronted. On one hand, McGahn should be commended for standing up to Trump and should set an example for others who may be pressured to carry out illegal or problematic actions. . . .

"Fourth, the attempt to fire Mueller suggests Trump’s childlike belief that the investigation would not proceed, or would not proceed as effectively, without Mueller.  To the contrary, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein would have appointed a replacement, and the same FBI investigators would have continued their digging. The files would all be preserved. Trump personalizes everything, apparently ignorant of the institutional procedures built into the system to ensure that no one person’s removal can keep the wheels of justice from turning. That inability to recognize organization rules and norms may be his downfall.

"Fifth, this underscores how irresponsible Republicans have been in failing to shore up protections for the special counsel. Next time, McGahn may not be there or be able to head off an order to fire Mueller when Trump loses his cool. Republicans — for the president’s own protection — need to bring up legislation allowing notice of a decision to fire Mueller and/or some procedural recourse if Trump does pull the trigger.

"'While credit goes to Don McGahn, this is a blaring alarm: if there was ever any doubt in any Republican leader’s mind that Trump is willing to subvert the rule of law, that is now gone,' says Ian Bassin, who heads the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy.  'The question now for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and their caucuses is whether they truly believe we are a nation of laws and not of men and what they’re willing to do to assure that.'

"Unfortunately, from indulging the antics of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) to refusing to set up a select committee, GOP congressional leaders seem to have already answered the question."

++++++++++

This credible report of Trump ordering McGahn to have Mueller fired last June was deeply sourced (four for the original New York Times report, by four more in subsequent reports by the Washington Post, CNN and others).   So we can take it as truth, despite Trump's denial.   It is one more piece of a mosaic that is showing undeniable obstruction of justice by the president.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) told ABC's Martha Radditz on Sunday that, if Trump fires Mueller it will be the end of the Trump presidency.   And, he added, "everybody in the White House knows it."    I wish I could believe with Graham's certainty of how Congress would react.    

Let's say now that Trump is convinced and won't fire Mueller.  The question is, once Mueller's work is complete and reported to them, whether the Republicans in Congress will do anything about it.   Actually, unless there are such damning charges of other "crimes and misdemeanors" (like money laundering), it might be better to wait on impeachment until January 2019 when, hopefully, Democrats will be in the majority.

It would be better to have that further delay rather than have articles of impeachment introduced and voted down.   Let's wait and see whether the case is strong enough to compel Republicans to act.   No doubt, however, impeachable offenses -- that we know about -- already exist that are sufficient, if only the Congress has the will to act.

Ralph

Trump immigration plan -- not so good

When I wrote yesterday's post, the part about the proposed Trump immigration plan, I thought the brief summary I included just sounded too rosy.   I mean, it sounded like it would be worth giving him money for the wall just to get the other parts.

It was too rosy.   Somehow the down side wasn't really spelled out enough.   So here's what else is involved.

By eliminating the diversity lottery, and the family-sponsored immigration -- and somewhere in the shift to merit-based selection -- the number of immigrants permitted drops to about half.

It  puts sharp restrictions and limits on the so-called "chain migration," meaning the advantage that family members of legal immigrants have.  That is, it has been that a person who is admitted legally then is sometimes able to help close relatives (parents, siblings, grandparents) also immigrate.   It's a big no-no for his base, and Trump's plan puts strong limits on it.

So the Trump plan essentially is rather callous about breaking up families.  Or it puts people in the position of choosing between America and their family.

Another thing I don't get about this merit-based plan (which emphasizes high level of education and technical expertise) is this:    a large number of immigrants work in farm labor and hotel service and landscaping jobs, all of which we need.  None of those require much education.    Do they mean to curtail immigrants who will take those jobs in a merit-based system?

As I wrote yesterday, shifting from a "their needs" immigration system to an "our needs" system -- from a humanitarian motive to a greedy America-first motive -- is abandoning one of our core American values.

Ralph

PS:   Just ran across an opinion piece by Juan Escalante on HuffPost.   Here's a sample:

"As the White House's senior advisor for policy, Stephen Miller seems to have one goal:  to take a wreaking ball to the Statue of Liberty and shove the remains into the Upper New York Bay. . . . 

[In an earlier press conference, when asked about our commitment to 'the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free,' Miller hardly concealed his sneer as he pointed out that that Emma Lazarus poem on a plaque was attached to the Statue of Liberty years later;  it's not part of the original concept.]

"Which brings us to this moment, when the White House is preparing to erode America's reputation as a nation of immigrants and replace it with toxic immigration policy, which it has disguised as a way to save young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children known as 'Dreamers.' . . . 

"On Monday, you will hear White House officials present their outline as nothing short of a heroic attempt to reform our nation's broken immigration system.   Do not be fooled.   What the White House is selling the American people is nothing but a nativist wish list that would reduce the number of immigrants, especially people of color born in countries that Trump considers 'shitholes.'"