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.