Jane Coaston of Vox.com pointed out a single paragraph in a New York Times story by Matt Apuzzo that -- thoughtfully read -- is a shockingly revealing distillation of the breadth and depth of trouble the Trump World is in.
Here's that paragraph, which is from an article about the news of the FBI raid into the offices and home of Trump's personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen.
"The searches open a new front for the Justice Department in its scrutiny of Mr. Trump and his associates. His longtime lawyer is being investigated in Manhattan; his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is facing scrutiny by prosecutors in Brooklyn; his campaign chairman is under indictment; his former national security adviser has pleaded guilty to lying; and a pair of former campaign aides are cooperating with Mr. Mueller. Mr. Mueller, meanwhile, wants to interview Mr. Trump about possible obstruction of justice."
Wow.
Ralph
Thursday, April 12, 2018
News stomping out news
We had Scott Pruitt right in the crosshairs, where public opinion was beginning to shift from not caring to insisting that he must be fired. And then . . .
We had the FBI raid of Michael Cohen's office and home.
We had the Trump meltdown over that and his increased threat to fire Mueller or Rosenstein . . . or maybe Sessions . . . or maybe all three.
We had the Syria crisis and the crisis in our confidence in the commander-in-chief.
We had the Mark Zuckerberg testimony before congressional committees.
And, finally, on Wednesday, we had the announcement from Paul Ryan that he will not seek re-election -- which has prompted tons of news time assessing his accomplishments and lack thereof.
Meanwhile, where is Scott Pruitt?
We MUST NOT LET HIM SLIP AWAY under the cover of this avalanche of new news. Trump doesn't care about the corruption, unless it makes headlines that either embarrass him or overshadow him. Neither of which is happening right now with all this other news. We can't let it end there. Let's make Pruitt the poster boy for corruption.
Ralph
We had the FBI raid of Michael Cohen's office and home.
We had the Trump meltdown over that and his increased threat to fire Mueller or Rosenstein . . . or maybe Sessions . . . or maybe all three.
We had the Syria crisis and the crisis in our confidence in the commander-in-chief.
We had the Mark Zuckerberg testimony before congressional committees.
And, finally, on Wednesday, we had the announcement from Paul Ryan that he will not seek re-election -- which has prompted tons of news time assessing his accomplishments and lack thereof.
Meanwhile, where is Scott Pruitt?
We MUST NOT LET HIM SLIP AWAY under the cover of this avalanche of new news. Trump doesn't care about the corruption, unless it makes headlines that either embarrass him or overshadow him. Neither of which is happening right now with all this other news. We can't let it end there. Let's make Pruitt the poster boy for corruption.
Ralph
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
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
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
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
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.
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.'
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.'
Monday, April 9, 2018
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
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
Sunday, April 8, 2018
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
