Fact-checking Trump's fog of scandal, including "Spygate".

President Trump is in high dudgeon over his conspiracy-paranoid belief that the Obama administration "embedded" a spy in his campaign back in 2016.    Now it's unclear whether Trump really believes this or whether its just another distraction from the serious corruption scandals that are erupting almost daily about his own administration.

Nevertheless, with the power of the presidency, Trump is forcing a showdown with the FBI and the Justice Department, demanding that they brief congressional leaders on this "spygate" material, which means revealing documents and findings in an ongoing investigation to the subject of that investigation (meaning Trump himself, because we know that Rep. Devin Nunes is a direct conduit to Trump.)

It's also forcing difficult decisions on Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, since AG Jess Sessions has recused himself from anything to do with the Russian collusion case.    Many people feel that this was where Rosenstein should have drawn a line and said NO;  others realize that he's buying time to hold on to his job, knowing that anyone Trump put in his place would likely be more pliable to Trump's demands.

I have a slightly different theory, one perhaps more favorable to Rosenstein.    He knows that there is nothing there.    They did not spy on the Trump campaign.  Thus, revealing the demanded information knowing that it will only show that they were not in fact spying on the Trump campaign but were simply trying to find out what the Russians were up to.

And that, in the end, it would expose Team Trump even more as betraying their guilt to have made such a fuss over protecting the secrecy of their "wrong-doing" and, hence, their guilt. 

In fact, following the Gang of Eight hearing, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), told reporters that they saw no evidence whatsoever that Trump's charges of a spy, embedded by our own intelligence services, had any truth to them.   Schiff confirmed that it was just as Former DNI Clapper had said:   the purpose of the contact by the informant was to find out what the Russians were up to.

The fact that Rep. Devin Nunes, Trump's water-carry-boy in Congress, did not beat Schiff to the bank of microphones to grab first dibs on the media tells me that he couldn't quickly and easily come up with a good story to repair the damage done by the Truth.    Perhaps Rosenstein was right to let them have this meeting, knowing it would end the speculation and conspiracy-making vacuum.

On the other hand, Trump's operating modus is to keep demanding more and more until he gets a firm and final NO;   so don't be lulled into thinking you can appease him with a bone or two.   At some point, you will have to stand up to him.,

Now we await the Trump response.    Will he be glad that his own government didn't spy on him?   Or will he insist that our intel services still can't be trusted and that they must be lying and covering up even now?   Or will he simply drop this -- without a whiff of apology or retraction -- and go on to some other false story to create more distraction?

Ralph

Some news briefs

1.  Former, long-term Director of National Security, James Clapper, has a new book and is giving interviews (see yesterday's post).   One topic is news that the FBI used an informant who spoke to three of Trump's campaign aides -- Carter Page, George Papadoupolis, and Sam Clovis -- because they were known as targets of Russian spies who had made overtures to try to turn them into assets.
     Of course, Trump has picked up the Fox and Friends version of this and is now in high dudgeon about Obama "implanting a spy in my campaign."   He has "demanded" that the FBI investigate this "illegal" activity, calling it "Spygate."
   FACT:   What the FBI did, during the campaign, was to warn the Trump campaign, twice, that Russians were trying to make contact with them, warning them to be careful.   Eventually, the FBI had one of their informants contact the three men individually to try to find out if they had been compromised.   The FBI informant was trying to determine what the Russians were doing, not spy on the Trump people.
     No, this is not at all the same as "embedding a spy."    Get your facts straight, Mr. President.   You're getting your base all riled up, which of course is exactly what you intend.   It's actually your desperate strategy to distract from the countless other problems emerging daily.

2.  Judy Woodruff, host of "60 Minutes," is shown in a video clip interviewing tv reporter Leslie Stahl about a meeting she once had with Donald Trump.   It was only Stahl and her boss at the network, and Trump;   so Stahl spoke informally to Trump and asked him why he continues to berate the media so harshly.
     His candid answer was (paraphrased):   I do it to demean you all so, when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you."
     Perhaps, for once, Donald Trump told the truth.    But think about what that says.   We have a president who cannot risk just letting reporters write what they observe;  he has to try to manipulate it to his advantage.

3.  Every day, new information about rampant corruption in the Trump administration becomes news.   Trump and his "tv lawyer" Giuliani have settled into this defense:    Giuliani spends his time on friendly TV news sites spreading utter confusion, incoherence, and distractions to keep from letting people hear or think about the corruption.
     Here's the latest example of the "selling of our foreign policy:"    The Ukraine government had been cooperating with the Mueller investigation and supplying important information about Paul Manafort.    That is, until Michael Cohen solicited and received a payment of $400,000 from Ukraine.    The next day, the Ukraine president had an unannounced meeting in the Oval Office with President Trump.   Shortly after, the Ukraine president cut off any further cooperation with the Mueller investigation.

4.  Michael Cohen's partner in the taxi medallion business, also under investigation, pleaded guilty and will become a cooperating witness in the Mueller investigation.    This puts even more pressure on Michael Cohen to also flip and give information about Donald Trump.

5.  In Tuesday's Democratic primary, Yale Law School graduate and former minority leader in the Georgia legislature, Stacey Abrams, won the Democratic party's nomination for the Georgia governor's race.    She is the first African-American woman ever to win a major party nomination for governor of any state.   So, if she wins the election, she will then have the distinction of being the first-ever African-American woman governor.

6.   Who knows if the Kim-Trump summit meeting would have ever taken place?   But now Trump has called it off, citing the angry tone that Kim has adopted lately -- which followed John Bolton and Mike Pence making references to Libya as the model for denuclearization.
     Libya is the worst possible model to suggest, unless you want to kill the deal, which Bolton obviously does.  Libya's Gaddafi gave up all his nuclear arms, shipped them out of the country -- and then he was deposed and ultimately hunted down and killed ignominiously.   No wonder he was angry at the reference.
     What Kim most wants is recognition and respect as a nation.   Having nuclear weapons was what he thought would gain him that, so he put everything into that goal.   Then he would be willing to accept controls, as other nuclear nations do.
     But he was not going to unilaterally give them up.   When we demanded "completely denuclearization," we meant one thing and Kim meant another -- probably something like "make no more" and accept certain amounts of inspection and control.   But never give them up.
     Now that our hawks have said that's unacceptable -- and after he had made many concessions, including releasing American prisoners -- he let his anger show.   Trump wrote Kim and cancelled the summit meeting, blaming Kim's recent angry tone.
    Former Assistant Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, characterized Trump's letter, which he reportedly dictated himself, as sounding "like a 13 year old's break-up letter after a brief romance at summer camp."    After seeing the letter, I have to agree with her.   If you know anything at all about the careful language of diplomacy, the letter is pathetic in its juvenile tone and diction.   My only disagreement with Wendy Sherman is that she might have been over-generous to Trump's level of sophistication.
     Several analysts with experience in geopolitical diplomacy are saying that Kim Jong Un baited Trump into cancelling the summit.   Kim had made concessions, and nothing was coming back in return from Trump, whose advisers were still talking about Kim giving up all his nuclear weapons, as Libya did.   So, with no diplomatic experience himself, and with few experienced advisers Trump has blundered the whole thing.

Ralph

PS:  Here's additional proof of how reckless and dangerous Trump is.   When he cancelled the summit with Kim, dozens of western journalists -- including Americans -- were deep inside North Korea at Kim's invitation to witness the destruction of his nuclear test site.    They were completely vulnerable to any charges Kim might decide to trump up to throw them in prison.
     In addition, Trump gave no warning to either of our allies, South Korea and Japan.   South Korea's president Moon had the most to lose;  he had put his entire election and presidency into making this work.   Trump did not ever show him the courtesy of an hour's advance notice that he was going to cancel it -- despite the fact that Moon had been in the White House just two days ago for meetings with Trump.

Intelligence chief Clapper now says that Russia did throw the election to Trump.

James Clapper, retired after serving for forty years in various U.S. intelligence services, concluding his career with being Director of National Intelligence from 2010-2017.  He gave an extended interview to Rachel Maddow Tuesday night about his new book, Facts and Fears:   Hard Truths From a Life in Intelligence.

Although he was one of the group of intelligence chiefs who told congressional committees that. while they were sure that Russia tried to influence our democratic process and 2016 election, their analysis did not attempt to determine whether it actually changed the outcome.    They simply did not set up their data collection to answer that question.

Now, however, Clapper readily does answer the question:
     "As I left government service, I had my own decision to make. . . . [A]fter experiencing the election, the unprecedented Russian interference in our political process, and the behavior and impact of the Trump administration, I changed my mind.  I think the catalyst was the stark, visceral realization of seeing the fundamental pillars of our country being undermined both by the Russians and by the president.   This shook me . . . "

Rachel interjects here that what Clapper has concluded is all the more remarkable because of what he is in a position to know, what he has seen, what he has been through.    Here's Clapper, from his book:

     "By May 2017, when Jim Comey was fired . . . we'd learned that the Russian operation had been even more expansive than the IC [Intelligence Community] had assessed in January.   We knew now that the Russians had thousands of Twitter accounts and tens of thousands of bots that posted more than a million tweets.  They posted more than a thousand videos on YouTube with days of streaming content.  Facebook has said Russian content reached 126 million of its American users -- an astonishing number, considering that only 139 million Americans voted.
     "As the leader of the Intelligence Community, I testified that the IC did not attempt to assess whether the Russian influence campaign impacted the results of the election.   As a private citizen, I had no doubt they influenced at least some voters.
     "Looking at the savvy ways the Russians targeted specific voter groups -- for instance, buying advertisements on Facebook promoting Clinton's support of the Black Lives Matter movement and ensuring those ads ran only on the pages of white conservative voters in swing states . . . looking at how they created lies that helped Trump and hurt Clinton and promoted these falsehoods through social media and state-sponsored channels to the point that the traditional US media were unwittingly spreading Russian propaganda . . . and looking at how they ran a multifaceted campaign and sustained it at a high level from early 2015 until Election Day in 2016 . . . of course the Russian effort affected the outcome.  Surprising even themselves, they swung the election to a Trump win."

Any other conclusion stretches logic, common sense, and credulity to the breaking point, according to Clapper.   With less than eighty thousand, targeted votes in three key states, they swung the election.   As to whether this was all just dumb luck or whether the Trump campaign had a hand in it, Clapper says that, when he left office on January 20, 2017 (Trump's inauguration day), he had seen "no smoking-gun evidence that the Russian government and the Trump campaign were in substantive coordination of their efforts."

Only later did he learn of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.   But, in retrospect, what he had seen as DNI was that "the Russians and the campaign seemed to employ strikingly parallel messaging in social media posts and public statements, effectively complementing each other to great effect, with no attempt to hide it."

For example, "whenever the campaign published an allegation that hurt Clinton, the Russians would repeat, amplify, and embellish that claim;  and when the Russians put out a conspiracy theory about Clinton, "Trump would repeat it as campaign rallies and on Twitter.   Whether . . . there was actual collusion or not, this parallelism constituted a putative team effort by the Russian government and the Trump campaign."

Clapper also has some stinging words for Trump himself.   Recalling his experience having served in intelligence under every president from Kennedy through Obama, Clapper says he has "an instilled ethos of profound respect for the president as commander in chief."   So it's difficult for him to speak critically of our current president -- but he also feels it his duty to warn, to give us his perspective that:

"We have elected someone as President of the United States whose first instincts are to twist and distort truth to his advantage, to generate financial benefit to himself and his family, and, in so doing, to demean the values this country has traditionally stood for. . . .   He has set a new low bar for ethics and morality.  He has caused damage to our societal and political fabric that will be difficult and will require time to repair."

And James Clapper adds:    "And close to my heart, he has besmirched the Intelligence Community and the FBI -- pillars of our country -- and deliberately incited many Americans to lose faith and confidence in them."

*     *     *

It was a powerful message from a man who has few peers in terms of devotion and service to our country and to the institutions that uphold our values and the rule of law.

Ralph

"The Constitutional Crisis Is Here" -- Pulitzer Prize journalist Eugene Robinson

Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize winning editorial columnist, Eugene Robinson, is always worth listening to.    Hence I'm going to reprint his very timely editorial from Monday.

*     *     *     *     *

"Stop waiting for the constitutional crisis that President Trump is sure to provoke.  It’s here.

"On Sunday, via Twitter, Trump demanded that the Justice Department concoct a transparently political investigation, with the aim of smearing veteran professionals at Justice and the FBI and also throwing mud at the previous administration. Trump’s only rational goal is casting doubt on the probe by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which appears to be closing in.

"Trump’s power play is a gross misuse of his presidential authority and a dangerous departure from long-standing norms. Strongmen such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin use their justice systems to punish enemies and deflect attention from their own crimes. Presidents of the United States do not — or did not, until Sunday’s tweet:

“'I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes — and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”

"Rather than push back and defend the rule of law, Justice tried to mollify the president by at least appearing to give him what he wants. The Republican leadership in Congress has been silent as a mouse. This is how uncrossable lines are crossed.

"The pretext Trump seized on is the revelation that a longtime FBI and CIA informant, described as a retired college professor , made contact with three Trump campaign associates before the election as part of the FBI’s initial investigation into Russian meddling.

"With the full-throated backing of right-wing media, Trump has described this person as a 'spy' who was 'implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president.'  This claim is completely unsupported by the facts as we know them. Trump wants you to believe a lie.

"The informant was not embedded or implanted or otherwise inserted into the campaign. He was asked to contact several campaign figures whose names had already surfaced in the FBI’s counterintelligence probe. It would have been an appalling dereliction of duty not to take a look at Trump advisers with Russia ties, such as Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, when the outlines of a Russian campaign to influence the election were emerging.

"Trump claims this is the nation’s 'all time biggest political scandal' because, he alleges, Justice Department officials and the FBI used a 'spy' to try to 'frame' him and his campaign, in an effort to boost his opponent Hillary Clinton’s chance of winning the election. This conspiracy theory has so many holes in it that it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start with the glaringly obvious: If the aim was to make Trump lose, why wasn’t all the known information about the Trump campaign’s Russia connections leaked before the election, when it might have had some impact?

"The truth appears to be precisely the opposite of what Trump says, which is not uncommon. The record suggests that Justice and the FBI were so uncomfortable investigating a presidential campaign in the weeks and months before an election that they tiptoed around promising lines of inquiry rather than appear to be taking a side. The FBI director at the time was James B. Comey, and while we heard plenty about Clinton’s emails before the vote, we had no idea that such a mature investigation of the Trump campaign was underway.

"Now that the Mueller probe has bored into Trump’s inner circle — and federal authorities have raided the homes and office of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen — the president appears to be in a panic. The question is whether he sees this 'spy' nonsense as a way to discredit Mueller’s eventual findings, or as a pretext for trying to end the investigation with a bloody purge akin to Richard Nixon’s 'Saturday Night Massacre.'

"The Justice Department answered Trump’s tweeted demand by announcing that an existing investigation by its inspector general will now 'include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation' by the FBI. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein may hope that is enough to avoid a showdown. I fear he is wrong.

"Trump is determined to use the Justice Department and the FBI to punish those he sees as political enemies. This is a crisis, and it will get worse."

*     *     *     *     *

To me, the most chilling lines in this whole piece are:  "The Republican leadership in Congress has been silent as a mouse.   This is how uncrossable lines are crossed."    Do you see how essential it is that the Democratic Party wins control of the House and Senate in November?

Ralph

Bringing changes: Pope Francis in Rome; Harry and Meghan in England

Pope Francis delivered the homily for the mass commemorating the Feast of Mary, the Mother of the Church.   In it, he said:  "The church is a mother, not a bachelor."   Declaring that the Church must "have this attitude of a wife and mother" who nurtures her children.   "When we forget this, it becomes a masculine Church . . . of old bachelors, who live in this isolation, incapable of love, incapable of fruitfulness."

The Pope continued, saying that, like a mother, the Church also goes "along the path of tenderness," knowing how to convey wisdom through the language of "caresses, of silence, of the gaze that knows compassion."   He encourages all to "go along the same path, as "gentle, tender, smiling, full of love."

This homily was for a special occasion when the mother of Jesus is being honored, so perhaps we shouldn't read radical change into it;  but it does also reflect the general tone Francis has set for the Church from the beginning of his years as pope.

He's probably not saying this as a prelude to replacing celibacy with marriage for priests.   I think he's saying that men can have these qualities -- and should certainly strive for them in their pastoral role, as Francis himself generally does.

*     *     *

Meanwhile, over at the Royal Wedding in Windsor.   When William and Kate married a few years ago, I thought they were the breath of fresh air sweeping through the stuffy old traditions -- especially in their family life, taking care of their kids themselves, etc.    They now seem to have been an important prelude to the more radical changes that Harry and Megham will bring, not primarily to the church itself, but to the traditions of the royal family and its institutions and the culture.

The wedding itself exemplified what will become social and perhaps even protocol changes.   First, the bride herself.   Harry has chosen to marry an American, an actress of television fame, a divorcee, and a biracial woman whose mother is black and whose father is white.

Rather than try to hide any of this as scandal (which the royals are fully capable of providing on their own), the family and the establishment -- and especially the people of the commonwealth -- have embraced Meghan the woman, recognizing that she brings a past life that does not measure up to the chaste days of yore.

Harry had a little more freedom within the tradition, being sixth in line to the throne, instead of second, as is William.   However, being sixth still put him within the orbit that need the queen's permission to marry.   And she gave it.   So Harry and Meghan may be expanding the limits of tolerance, but they are doing it with permission and overall approval from the queen.

Feminine independence and black culture were everywhere in the wedding.   Meghan's gorgeous, elegantly tasteful gown was designed by Claire Waight Keller, the first woman to be the Artistic Director at the historic House of Givenchy fashion designer.

Meghan's father was unable to come to the wedding, having just had heart surgery.    So she arrived at the church in a carriage alone, walked up the steps and half-way down the aisle without an escort -- whereupon, by plan, Prince Charles joined her and she walked the rest of the way to the altar on his arm.   I suspect this was a compromise and it carries its own symbolism -- asserting her independence but also accepting tradition as she came closer into its domain.

Perhaps the most stark contrast visually was the image of Queen Elizabeth, the monarch and grandmother of the groom -- and seated directly opposite to her, the equally dignified mother of the bride, who is  descended from slaves going back to when the American Colonies were ruled by Great Britain.    It becomes even more poignant when we know that the Queen had Ms. Doria Ragland (Meghan's mother) over for tea several days before the wedding -- and that Meghan seems to be fondly welcomed into the royal family.

But there's more evidence of the way the new Duchess of Sussex is going to be bringing more openness and inclusivity to royal traditions.   First, some of her chosen friends to attend the wedding:    Oprah Winfrey, actor Idris Elba, tennis star Serena Williams -- all black celebrities.    During the service, a sermon preached by the African-American Episcopal Bishop jolted the staid Brits with its stirring emotionalism, both in delivery and in message.    This was followed by a gospel choir rendition of "Stand By Me."  It was a totally involved musical performance, with just a shade of restraint that kept it from being shocking in the Anglican cathedral setting.   And the choice of a classical musician to play during the interlude was a 19 year old black cellist who had just won a prestigeous contest in the U.K.

The point:   There was no attempt to hide, or even to subtly downplay, Meghan's mixed race heritage.  It was embraced by multiple examples of inclusiveness.

Harry is already known for his looser life style -- but increasingly for his charitable work and for his organizing the Invictus Games for wounded, injured, or sick service men and women, patterned on the U.S. Warrior Games.    Both William and Harry seems to have been imbued by their mother's compassion for the underprivileged and disadvantaged in societies.

While William as the second in line to become king has more official duties to perform, Harry is likely to devote more of his time to such pursuits.   Meghan seems an ideal mate to join him in this and to bring her own openness and her life experiences to enhance Harry's inclinations toward service.

These two young couples -- William and Kate, Harry and Meghan -- might just save the institution of the British royalty.   Just as Pope Francis, with his emphasis on love, compassion, and the servant-priest identity, may save the arthritic old institution he inherited, the Roman Catholic Church.

Ralph

Did the U.S. extort a bribe from Qatar to help Jared Kushner's family business?

This is the second part of the blog that began on Friday, May 19th about possible bribery and extortion being carried out by the Trump administration.   Today, the focus is on a business deal with the Jaren Kushner family real estate business and Jared's position as senior adviser to President Trump.    I'm basing my narrative on reporting by Rachel Maddow from her Thursday, May 18th MSNBC show and on a Vanity Fair article by Bess Levine on March 2, 2018.

Background:  Despite his position as senior adviser to the president, Jared Kushner has been unable to obtain a top level security clearance, due at least in part to his habit -- in meetings with foreign government officials -- of mixing discussions of government policy with discussions of his family's businesses and their financial needs.   He's apparently done this with more than one country, including China, possibly Qatar, and others.

Background:  The Kushner family owns a skyscraper building at 666 Fifth Avenue, which they paid too much for and now are having trouble making loan repayments.    So they are desperately seeking new co-investors.  Jared was involved in the purchase, but he divested himself of controlling interest in it when he joined the White House staff.   At least this is what he says.  Nevertheless, other members of his family have not shied away from using the WH connection in  soliciting co-investors for their businesses.  Jared's sister did this blatantly on a recent trip to Asia seeking investors.

Background:   The small, but immensely oil-rich, Middle Eastern nation of Qatar is the site of the largest U.S. air base in the Middle East, with some 10,000 U.S. military personnel stationed there.   The headquarters of the U.S. military Central Command is located there.   For decades, the U.S. has considered Qatar a close and vitally important ally, and there have been friendly relations between the two countries.

Timeline:

April 2017:   Jared Kushner's father, Charles, met with Qatari Finance Minister seeking an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in 666 Fifth Avenue.   He was turned down.

May 24, 2017:   The Qatar News Agency was hacked and a fabricated news statement, attributed to the Emir, was posted.   The United Arab Emirates government was later determined to be behind the hack, and the damaging false statement was used as a pretext for the ensuing hostile reaction from Qatar's neighbors.

June 5, 2017:  Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt severed diplomatic ties with Qatar and instituted an air, land and sea blockade of the peninsula country, which has a common land border only with Saudi Arabia.   Their rationale was stated to be alleged connections of Qatar with terrorism and suspect relations with Iran.   Jared Kushner had by this time become close friends with the young crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson denounced the blockade, but President Trump contradicted him in a statement later that same day, in which he supported the blockade and accused Qatar of fostering terrorism.    This came as a complete surprise not only to Tillerson but to other White House aides, who had apparently not been consulted by Trump.   However, it was no surprise to Jared, because it was the same as he was saying in undermining Tillerson.

This was a sudden, unexplained reversal in the relationship with a close ally and host of our command military base.

Qatari officials told reporters that they believed the White House position may have been retaliation driven by Jared Kushner in response to the failed real estate deal that Charles Kushner had sought from them.   They pointed out that it was only a few weeks after they denied the Kushner request and the onset of the blockade.

The blockade has continued and the diplomatic relations with Qatar strained -- until a few weeks ago.

April 2018:   President Trump's tone over recent months softened toward Qatar.  He began referring again to Qatar as an ally, and he stopped accusing them of terrorism.   He hosted the Emir of Qatar in the Oval Office, saying that it was a "great honor" to have him there and that he is "a friend of mine" and that they were working closely together.   Also Secretary of State Mike Pompao was dispatched to tell the Saudis and the Emiratis to back off on the blockade.

May 17, 2018:   The New York Times reported that the Kushners were close to finalizing a deal with the Qatar-linked Brookfield Properties, an investment group in which the official Qatari Investment Authority owns the largest financial share.

Conclusions:   No, there is no actual smoking gun here.   But follow the timeline closely.    Qatar turns down the Kushner loan request.   A few weeks later, Qatar is attacked and blockaded by its neighbors who are friendly to the U.S.   Jared and Trump turn hostile toward our ally Qatar and support the blockade.

Now this seems to be reversing -- and we learn that the Qatari financial authority is making the loan.   Trump suddenly becomes friendly with Qatar again.

It's going to be hard to convince me, for one, that this is not a case of abuse of U.S. government power to punish an ally for refusing a personal load for the business of the president's family -- and then, when the former ally gives in and agrees to the loan, all is friendly again.

Extortion and bribery, not just in the White House, but in the Oval Office itself.  The thing is that I'm not sure that Donald Trump sees anything wrong with this.  It's the way he has operated as a business man.   And he is incapable of seeing his current job as any different.   He has no moral compass to tell him that this is wrong, and he is too self-centered and stubborn to hear anyone else try to tell him.

Rachel Maddow's conclusion:   "Even if this isn't the selling of U.S. foreign policy;  even if this isn't the blatant shakedown and extortion of a U.S. ally, shaking down for payments to the family of a government official under the threat of that country losing its favored status of the U.S. government;  even if it's just coincidence -- it sure looks like it is [extortion] and makes the Qatari government think that, to regain favored status, you have to submit to extortion, to pay the bribe."

And that is no way to run a democracy.

Ralph

Trump Jr. open to campaign help from other countries besides Russia

Today's blog was to be about possible bribery/extortion between the Trump organization and the government of Qatar -- the other half of the story that began yesterday about similar possibility with China.

However, a new, somewhat related story has just emerged -- so I'll put Qatar aside and come back to it later.  The new story is not about using the executive power of the presidency to rake in money for personal use but rather about the mutual eagerness of the Trump campaign and foreign governments to help Trump get elected.   This article suggests it wasn't just Russia.

The investigative reporting is from the New York Times, which has been condensed and summarized by Emily Stewart at Vox.com, on which I base this.   Quotes are from the Vox article.

*     *     *     *     *

Donald Trump, Jr. not only met with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton and offers to help get Trump elected.   He and other aides "met with an emissary for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia who said the countries' leaders wanted to help Donald Trump win."

Note that this was in August 2016, three months before the election -- and long before that first overseas trip Trump took as president, where his first destination was that lavish, celebratory entertainment by the government of Saudi Arabia.

"On August 3, 2016, Trump Jr. took part in a meeting with Erik Prince, a Trump booster, founder of the private security firm Blackwater and brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.    George Nader, a business executive and emissary for the princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and Joel Zamel, an Israeli expert in social media manipulation.

"The men met at Trump Tower in New York . . .  Nader told Trump Jr. that the princes of Saudi Arabia and UAE were 'eager' to help Trump win the White House, saying they believed he was a strong leader who would 'fill the power vacuum' they thought President Barack Obama had left in the Middle East.   Zamel's company, Psy-Group, had put together a proposal for an online manipulation program to help elect Trump using thousands of fake accounts to promote him on Facebook.

"According to the Times, it's not clear whether the proposal was executed, and it's not clear who commissioned it in the first place.   But Trump Jr. 'responded approvingly' and Nader joined the Trump-world fold, meeting often with Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his former strategist, Steve Bannon.

"After the election, Nader paid Zamel as much as $2 million, and what the money was for isn't clear.   White Night, a Philippines-based company linked to Zamel, reportedly provided Nader with an elaborate presentation about the importance of social media campaigning in Trump's win.

"There are multiple reasons the report matters.  It indicates that it wasn't just Russia that was offering to help the Trump campaign ahead of the 2016 election.  It also raises questions about what sort of repayment the Middle East countries in question might have received for their help.  And it demonstrates the Trump campaign's reckless -- if not nefarious -- attitude toward campaign laws in the United States."

The Vox article then quotes from the New York Times:

It is illegal for foreign governments or individuals to be involved in American elections, and it is unclear what -- if any -- direct assistance Saudi Arabia and the Emirates may have provided.   But two people familiar with the meetings said that Trump campaign officials did not appear bothered by the idea of cooperation with foreigners.

"Alan Futerfas, a lawyer for Trump Jr., told the Times that the younger Trump 'recalls' a meeting with Prince, Nader, and someone who 'may be' Zamel.  'They pitched Mr. Trump Jr. on a social media platform or marketing strategy.  He was not interested and that was the end of it,' Futerfas said."

*     *     *     *     *

Putting this in the context of everything else we know about the Trump campaign and what the investigation has revealed (leaked) so far, I'd be inclined to believe the allegations in the Times article.   For one thing, we know that Michael Flynn is cooperating with Mueller's investigation.   He is listed as one of the people in the meeting with Nader, so this could have come directly from him.

Trump Jr.'s lawyer's statement is exactly what you say when you don't want to admit something but don't want to deny it either, in case there is corroborating evidence against you.  In addition, what the Times said is certainly true:   Trump campaign officials did not appear bothered by the idea of cooperation with foreigners.

Remember when Trump Jr. got the initial email-pitch from the Russians, his response was:   "If it's what you say, I love it"  [i.e. "dirt on Clinton."]    One more fact:   Trump's "TV lawyer" Rudy Giuliani said on Fox News just days ago that it's not illegal.   But it definitely is.

As always, "follow the money" seems good advice.   If someone can trace that supposed payment from Nader to Zamel, that might help.    Maybe we need to stop calling this an investigation into "collusion with Russia" and call it "conspiracy with foreign governments."

Ralph