The FBI raid on Trump lawyer's office; Trump's misconceptions corrected.

In a press opportunity during Trump's meeting with his top military advisers to discuss the Syrian crisis, Trump went on a prolonged rant about the FBI's raid on the office of his long-time personal lawyer and chief "fixer."    He blamed Mueller, Rosenstein, and Sessions, called it a constant witch hunt that he's had to endure since his nomination, and calling the raid "a disgrace," and "an attack on our country."

In doing so, Trump seemed not to grasp the facts of how this came about or who authorized and who actually conducted the raid -- and how the materials were handled.   Claiming that "lawyer-client privilege is dead," Trump's rambling rant had so many falsehoods and misconceptions that it's important to clarify.

1.  How it came about:   In the course of his investigation of Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, Mueller apparently came upon some indications of possible illegal activities involving bank fraud, wire fraud, and campaign finance violations -- which he took to Rod Rosenstein.   The decision was that the nature of these charges did not come within the purview of the Mueller mandate, so it was referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York.

It was this US Attorney's office that took up the case, presented sufficient evidence to a magistrate judge to convince the judge to issue a subpoena and to authorize a raid on the offices and home of Michael Cohen.   Cohen's lawyer says this was unnecessary, because Cohen has been cooperating and supplying all the documents that Mueller has requested.

2.  Trump claims the FBI "broke into"Cohen's office:  This is misleading, at best.  "Breaking in" suggests an illegal activity.   They had a subpoena obtained legally after presenting evidence to convince a magistrate judge of the necessity.

Legal analysts suggest that the seriousness of such an action by FBI protocols -- not just raiding a lawyer's office when you're investigating his client, but the client being the president of the United States -- suggests that they had very credible evidence of crime and that it was serious enough, and that perhaps they had some indication that Cohen had not in fact been turning over all his records but holding some things back.

The important thing here is that the FBI and the U.S. Attorneys are serious, non-partisan in their execution of duties -- and that no judge is going to rubber-stamp such a request without very solid reasons.

3.  Trump's claim of a partisan witch hunt:  In his rant, Trump accused them of partisan bias, claiming that "all . .  . or most" of Mueller's team are Democrats.  Yes, in Trump's world, that would probably make a difference.   But not here.  Besides:   Mueller, Rosenstein, and Sessions are all Republicans.   Further, the  U.S. Attorney in the New York office that the case was turned over to was appointed by Trump's Attorney General . . . after an interview with Trump himself (highly unusual) in the Oval Office.

4.  Trump's claim that lawyer-client privilege is dead:   First, there is no lawyer-client privilege when current or future criminal activity is being discussed.   Second, the FBI is scrupulous is such cases to keep non-germane, lawyer-client communications separate and unread by the investigators.    Otherwise, they lose their case in court.

How they handle this is to have two teams in the raid.   One team is the "taint team," which looks at each document to determine whether it pertains to what the warrant authorizes them to take.   Documents are separated into two piles.  Those that have lawyer-client privilege and are not related to the subpoened charges are not seen by the other team or the investigators.  The taint team then has nothing further to do with the case.

5.  Trump's assumption he can end the investigation by firing Mueller:   Naturally, Trump is feeling like a trapped animal at this point.   Michael Cohen has been his fixer who took care of all the messes for him, both personal and in business.   All of this seems threatened to exposure -- and to a lot of legal liability that Trump hoped he had dodged.   He hasn't.   Firing the investigators won't end this.  The evidence doesn't go away.   It would only add to the obstruction of justice charges -- and severe political damage in congress.

Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley said that "It would be suicide" for Trump to fire Mueller.  He advised that "the less the President says about the whole thing, the better off he will be."

6.  Trump is probably right about one thing:   It seems likely to me and to some legal commenters on TV that this is bigger than it might first appear.    I doubt that this is only about the payment to Stormy Daniels.   It seems a good bit of overkill for that.

Michael Cohen was involved in attempts to arrange business deals for Trump in Russia.    The first listed charge category is "bank fraud," which could include money laundering.  It's been long suspected that Trump's real estate empire -- with all his properties for sale, like expensive condos in New York -- is a good place for money launderers to park their money.   To what extent was Trump himself involved in  shady financial dealings?   We don't know.   But Michael Cohen likely knew.

7.  Firing Mueller or Rosenstein won't stop this:   Trump seemed to take this as a new justification for firing Mueller and Rosenstein.    That's the beauty of fielding it out to the U.S,. Attorney's office in New York.   Firing Mueller and Rosenstein would have no effect on this part of their investigation.   It's in other hands -- in fact, as noted above -- in the hands of a Trump-approved appointee.

8.  Michael Cohen's response:  In contrast to President Trump's angry tirade of misinformation and blame, Michael Cohen responded by telling the media that the FBI agents who carried out the raid "were extremely professional, courteous and respectful.  And I thanked them at the conclusion."   He added that the raid "was upsetting to say the least," but he did not fault the agents.  He made no comments about those who ordered it or approved it.

We live in interesting, often exhausting, times.

Ralph

Eclipsed by another breaking news story

And, of course, as is now commonplace in the era of Trump, the story that I worked on to be the blog for today (below) got eclipsed by breaking news of the FBI raid of the home and offices of Donald Trump's personal lawyer/fixer, Michael Cohen.

Undoubtedly, a lot of the records they took will involve Donald Trump -- the business deals Cohen has worked on for him, maybe money laundering, paying women for their silence, etc.  To get warrants to do this, the FBI had to have very strong evidence of criminal activity to convince a judge to issue a subpoena to raid the lawyer for the president of the United States.   Stay tuned.

EPA Inspector General has multiple investigations into Scott Pruitt's activities

The corruption in Scott Pruitt's short term as head of the Environmental Protection Agency sort of boggles my mind.   After President Trump's praise for the man and the "job he's doing," I was relieved to learn that the Inspector General of the EPA has at least five investigations ongoing into its chief.

According to an Associated Press report, IG Arthur Elkins "is now conducting at least five investigative audits related to Pruitt, including a previously undisclosed probe into outsized spending and alleged timesheet abuse by his swollen security detail."

Far more than other cabinet secretaries, and with no greater security reason than what appears to be a paranoid character, Pruitt has a full-time, 20 member security force to provide day and night protection.   The tab to the taxpayers for this alone in his first year amounted to close to $3 million.  A separate report said his predecessor had four or five, part-time security people.

Elkins has also opened an audit into whether Pruitt improperly used authority to grant massive pay raises to two of his closest staff aides.   There are also ongoing investigations into his infamous $43,000 soundproof phone booth, installed in his own office.   (Paranoia doesn't come cheap, when it's somebody else's money, like taxpayers.)

All of this is plenty to get him fired, but what I'm more interested in having examined are his multiple corrupt uses of his office to do business favors for the lobbyist who rented him that single room for $50/night.

The townhome that is the subject of this little scandal is owned by the wife of a lobbyist who represents major natural gas interests.   Two examples of returned favors:

1.  Pruitt approved the extension of a natural gas pipeline (I suppose the EPA had to approve it from the environmental impact standpoint), the owner of which is represented by the lobbyist whose wife owns the famous $50/night condo room.

2.  Somewhat later on, Pruitt took a lavish trip to Morocco with a staff of seven (and an unspecified number of security detail) -- all travelling first class.   They had a layover in Paris and spent a great night on the town.   Then missed their flight to Morocco the next morning and, darn it, had to spend another night in Paris.    What was supposed to have been a four day stay in Morocco got shortened to two;  but the business got done, even though it doesn't sound like government business that taxpayers should have funded.

What was the business?   A major lobbying effort with the head of the Moroccan government to strike a business deal for natural gas with a United States private company.  Now why was the EPA head doing international lobbying to promote natural gas sales?   That is not in his job description, for sure.   He's supposed to be more concerned with how we get it out of the ground and what we do with it then -- and how that affects the environment.   Not selling it to foreign investors to benefit private corporations.

Well, it turns out that there were two connections for Pruitt.   First, Carl Icahn, the iconic hedge fund manager, whom Trump idealizes and who, briefly, was a member of the Trump White House as some sort of regulatory consultant, got the final approval say-so in Trump's hiring of Pruitt for the EPA job.   In other words, as it has been reliably reported, Trump was ready to hire Pruitt but told him he needed to have one more meeting.  And it was with Icahn, who gave his approval, and then Pruitt was hired.  So Pruitt owes his hiring to Icahn.

Second, who owned what was at the time the only company that had the ability to convert natural gas to the form it could be shipped overseas?    Carl Icahn is the major stockholder in the only such company.

Third,  who  was the lobbyist who represented this same natural gas company?   You guessed it.    The husband of the owner of the condo where Pruitt got his sweetheart pad.

I suspect a deep discount on a bedroom was not the only perk that Pruitt got out of this deal.  More likely to be revealed later.

Is this not a corrupt individual who should have no place in our government?   And this doesn't even begin to address what Pruitt is doing to kill every environmental protection regulation he can.   Pruitt's got to go.

Ralph

PS:  Late yesterday, the New York Times learned that the Acting Head of the Office of Government Ethics, David Apol, has called on the EPA's top ethics official to investigate Pruitt's activities.   His letter states:  "The success of our government depends on maintaining the trust of the people we serve. . . .  The American public needs to have confidence that ethics violations, as well as the appearance of ethics violations, are investigated and appropriately addressed.'

Cambridge Analytica whistleblower to cooperate with investigation. Is it the hub linking the Trump campaign and Russia?

The pink-haired computer expert, who has been appearing all over TV in the past few weeks, spilling the beans about Cambridge Analytica, has told the Associated Press that he will cooperate with a Justice Department investigation.

What he can attest to is the plan and circumstances under which the data mining and manipulating company swiped the individual data from 50 million Facebook users -- and then how they used this data in selective ads to influence the 2016 election.

Christopher Wylie is the whistleblower and a former employee of Cambridge Analytica.   Robert Mueller, as well as the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, are very interested in anything that might help them determine whether there was any link, through them, between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The billionaire father-daughter Mercers have been major stockholders in Cambridge Analytica, and Steve Bannon was at one time a member of the board.   The Mercers were the chief financiers of Bannon and Breitbart News -- until they cut Bannon loose, when he turned on Trump after his firing from the White House position.

What a tangled mess.   There's got to be a hub in there somewhere -- and once that hub is teased out, then we should find the thread that links the Trump campaign and Russia.   So is there a connection between Cambridge Analytica and all those Russian bots that "bought" those Facebook ads?    Let's hope Christopher Wylie can back up what he's been hinting at on TV.

A note of caution;   The TV appearances I have seen present Wylie as someone who was well-positioned to have behind-the-scenes knowledge of what went on.  However, HuffPost's article on it referred to him as having "helped found" the Cambridge Analytica company and "worked for them until 2014."

That suggests he was not on the inside during the run-up to the 2016 election.  I'd like to get some clarification on this point before we get too excited about this.  None of what I've found thus far mentions when or why he left Cambridge Analytica, where he had been Director of Research.

On the other hand, Wylie has already testified before the British Parliament, which felt he had useful information to share about influence on the Brexit vote.  And he is now scheduled to meet with the US House Intelligence Committee.   He apparently has some documentary evidence, not just his word, about all of this.

So, stay tuned.

Ralph

Trans bathroom choice upheld in Alaska

German Lopez of Vox.com reports that "voters in Anchorage, Alaska, have defeated an anti-transgender bathroom measure.

"Proposition 1 would have required everyone in Anchorage public spaces to use the locker room and bathroom that aligns with the gender they were assigned at birth -- effectively barring trans people from using the facility that matches their gender identity."

Voters defeated the measure 53%-47% according to the Anchorage Daily News -- which leaves in place existing protections that were approved by the Anchorage Assembly in 2015.

Brava/Bravo to Alaska . . .  well, to the city of Anchorage, Alaska anyway.

"Will We Stop Trump Before It's Too Late?"

Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001 in the Clinton administration.   These excerpts are from her OpEd in today's New York Times.

*     *     *     *     *

"On April 28, 1945 -- 73 years ago -- Italians hung the corpse of their former dictator Benito Mussolini upside down next to a gas station in Milan   Two days later, Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his bunker beneath the streets of war-ravaged Berlin.   Fascism, it appeared, was dead.

"To guard against a recurrence, the survivors of war and the Holocaust joined forces to create the United Nations, forge global financial institutions and -- through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- strengthen the rule of law.  In 1989, the Berlin Wall came down and the honor roll of elected governments swelled not only in Central Europe, but also in Latin America, Africa and Asia.  Almost everywhere, it seemed dictators were out and democrats were in.  Freedom was ascendant.

"Today, we are in a new era, testing whether the democratic banner can remain aloft amid terrorism, sectarian conflicts, vulnerable borders, rogue social media and the cynical schemes of ambitious men.  The answer is not self-evident.  We may be encouraged that most people in most countries still want to live freely and in peace, but there is no ignoring the storm clouds that have gathered.  In fact, fascism -- and the tendencies that lead toward fascism -- pose a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II..

"Warning signs include the relentless grab for more authority by governing parties in Hungary, the Philippines, Poland and Turkey -- all United States allies.  The raw anger that feeds fascism is evident across the Atlantic in the growth of nativist movements opposed to the idea of a united Europe . . . The danger of despotism is on display in the Russia of Vladimir Putin -- invader of Ukraine, meddler in foreign democracies, accused political assassin, brazen liar and proud son of the K.G.B.  . . . [I]n Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, a ruthless ideologue, is poised to triumph in sham balloting next month.   In China, Xi Jinping has persuaded a docile National People's Congress to life the constitutional limit on his tenure in power.

"Around the Mediterranean, the once bright promise of the Arab Spring has been betrayed by autocratic leaders, such as Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt . . . .  Bashir al-Assad in  Syria.   In Africa, the presidents who serve longest are often the most corrupt . . .  Meanwhile, the possibility that fascism will be accorded a fresh chance to strut around the world stage is enhanced by the volatile presidency of Donald Trump.

"If freedom is to prevail over the many challenges to it, American leadership is urgently required.   This was among the indelible lessons of the 20th century.  But by what he has said, done and failed to do, Mr. Trump has steadily diminished America's positive clout in global councils.

"Instead of mobilizing international coalitions to take on world problems, he touts the doctrine of "every nation for itself" and has led America into isolated positions on trade, climate change and Middle East peace.   Instead of engaging in creative diplomacy, he has insulted United States neighbors and allies, walked away from key international agreements, mocked multilateral organizations and stripped the State Department of its resources and role.

"Instead of standing up for the values of a free society, his oft-vented scorn for democracy's building blocks has strengthened the hands of dictators.   No longer need they fear United States criticism regarding human rights or civil liberties.  On the contrary, they can and do point to Trump's own words to justify their repressive actions.

"At one time or another, Trump has attacked the judiciary, ridiculed the media, defended torture, condoned police brutality, urged supporters to rough up hecklers and -- jokingly or not -- equated mere policy disagreements with treason.  He tried to undermine faith in America's electoral process through a bogus advisory commission on voter integrity.  He routinely vilifies federal law enforcement institutions.  He libels immigrants and the countries from which they come.  His words are so often at odds with the truth that they can appear ignorant, yet are in fact calculated to exacerbate religious, social and racial divisions.  Overseas, rather than stand up to bullies, Mr. Trump appears to like bullies, and they are delighted to have him represent the American brand.  If one were to draft a script chronicling fascism's resurrection, the abdication of America's moral leadership would make a credible first scene.

"Equally alarming is the chance that Mr. Trump will set in motion events that neither he nor anyone else can control.   His policy toward North Korea changes by the day . . . . His threat to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement could unravel a pact that has made the world safer and could undermine America's reputation for trustworthiness at a critical moment. . . .  The recent purge of his national security team raises new questions about the quality of advice he will receive.  John Bolton starts work in the White House on Monday.

 "What is to be done?   First, defend the truth.  A free press, for example, is not the enemy of the American people;  it is the protector of the American people.  Second, we must reinforce the principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law.  Third, we should each do our part to energize the democratic process by registering new others, listening respectfully to those with whom we disagree, knocking on doors for favored candidates, and ignoring the cynical counsel [that]:  'There's nothing to be done.'

"I'm 80 years old, but I can still be inspired when I see young people coming together to demand the right to study without having to wear a flak jacket.

"We should also reflect on the definition of greatness.  Can a nation merit that label by aligning itself with dictators and autocrats, ignoring human rights, declaring open season on the environment, and disdaining the use of diplomacy at a time when virtually every serious problem requires international cooperation?

"To me, greatness goes a little deeper than how much marble we put in our hotel lobbies and whether we have a Soviet-style military parade.  America at its best is a place where people from a multitude of backgrounds work together to safeguard the rights and enrich the lives of all.  That's the example we have always aspired to set and the model people around the world hunger to see.   And no politician, not even one in the Oval Office, should be allowed to tarnish that dream."

*     *     *     *     *

Read between the lines of the diplomatic language:   this is a very hard-hitting judgment of Donald Trump's failures as a leader of a democracy.   I would like to require every member of Congress to really read this, spend an hour taking in all its implications, and asking themselves:    Am I part of the problem that enables such a leader?    Republicans, I mean you.

I do not have a good feeling about the answer to the question posed in Ambassador Albright's provocative title:   "Will We Stop Trump Before It's Too Late?"

Let's also think seriously about another of her cogent points:   "Fascism -- and the tendencies that lead toward fascism -- pose a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II."

Ralph

Some news briefs

1.  President Trump may have made the biggest news blunder of the year when he answered a reporter's question on Air Force One yesterday.   He was asked "Did you know about the payment to Stormy Daniels?"    He said, "No, I didn't know anything about it"    According some some legal experts on MSNBC, by saying this Trump was nullifying the so-called non-disclosure agreement with Daniels;  i.e. if he didn't know about it then there was no contract.    Her lawyer declared himself "ecstatic," because in his view this releases her from any constraint or penalty in the NDA.   It also opens the question:   If Trump knew nothing about it, it means he didn't pay the $130,000 himself.   If someone else paid it, then it becomes an illegal campaign contribution and violates FEC rules.   They'll be arguing about this one for months to come.

2.  Rachel Maddow just got better ratings than Sean Hannity as a cable news host for last month.   He has had a solid lock on ratings for cable news host;  but good ole Rachel bested him this month.

3.  Scott Pruitt, whom Trump was about use as his replacement for Jeff Sessions as Attorney General is in a heap of trouble over excessive expenses, conflicts of interest, ethical issues, abuse of power, retaliation against whistle blowers, and taking a sweetheart housing arrangement from a lobbyist who had business with his department.    Trump loves Pruitt, because he is dismantling all the policies of the EPA.   But he may have to go -- many people are already demanding it -- for petty graft and corruption, and multiple types of abuse of power.   Besides that, he seems paranoid -- he demands a 30 person, round-the-clock security detail, where most cabinet secretaries have four or five.    He had a sound-proof phone booth installed in his own office (for $43,000), and has all kinds of special locks installed, plus a bullet-proof desk.

4.  The number of women running for seats in the U. S. House of Representatives has hit a record already at 309, with deadlines for qualifying still weeks away in half of the states.   In addition, there are 40 women running for governors in their states.

5.  Despite all the efforts of Trump and Republicans to kill Obamacare, more people than were expected signed up for health care policies in the open enrollment period this year.   It was down a bit from last year, but not nearly as much as anticipated.

Ralph