Special counsel

Hush Money Trial to begin, other court case issues to be resolved slowly

by Dave

On April 15, the Hush Money case begins. Finally Trump’s delay schemes got him only an extra 20 days. I’m glad. Could end in mid June. The judge will not put up with other ways to delay this case. My prediction – Trump will be sentenced to jail time, but this will be stayed pending his appeal. The other cases have definitely gotten bogged down.

The Supreme Court knows they control the timing of the federal January 6 trial with the presidential immunity case and they don’t seem anxious to fast track this case. The court traditionally releases the most controversial decision at the end of the term, so it could be decided from June to early July. Almost every legal expert expects Trump to lose on this one.

Trump lawyers are filing dozens of pre-trial motions in the Classified Documents case. The Special Counsel suggested a July start date, while Trump’s team hopes to push this off to next year, obviously in hopes that Trump would win the Presidency. The Special Counsel is especially concerned that Judge Cannon will allow the list of witnesses to be made public before trial. Also they object to needless hearings related to dismissal of the case.

They [Trump’s lawyers] want the judge to hold a hearing to force the government to produce evidence of what they say is a “selective and vindictive” prosecution. Prosecutors say no such evidence exists and that it would be unprecedented to grant a hearing in the matter.

See link: Trump’s trial over classified documents in Florida could start as soon as this summer

Many legal experts, are critical of Judge Cannon’s decisions, saying they are not legally sound and result in complicating and delaying the trial. See link below:

Salon: “Very, very troubling”: Ex-judges worry Judge Cannon’s pro-Trump rulings “clearly suggest bias”

The Special Counsel can appeal a wrong decision, but this can take months.

There are both legal and practical aspects in some court decisions. I can understand the practical aspects a lot easier. I stated from a practical perspective, the voters decide elections, not the courts. So, I was glad the Supreme Court decided in Trump’s favor on the disqualification case.

The second one happened yesterday, with the bond in the civil business fraud case being lowered to 175 million from 464 million dollars, and giving Trump an extra 10 days to secure the bond. The appellate court did not explain their reasoning, but since the entire case is under review by the appellate court, it seemed unnecessary to force liquidation of Trump’s assets at this point. I was glad because Trump could not whine about how they [the DA’s office] were stealing his hotels.

So, New York Appellate Court was nice to Trump on the bond issue. Didn’t help, as he made some comments about how terrible NY was treating him, as follows:

Fact check: Trump tells ‘mind-bogglingly nonsensical’ story about the New York Stock Exchange

Now, once the Appellate Court rules, then it is a new ball game. Trump must pay up or his assets can be liquidated. And if it comes to this, it is going to be slow and messy.

The Georgia case is also going slow, as Judge McAfee tossed out 6 charges, as not being fully explained in legal terms. DA Willis can file briefs to get the charges restored. No trial date has been scheduled.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Supreme Court to take up landmark cases

by Dave

These are cases in which whatever the outcome, millions of Americans will be impacted. And millions of Americans will believe that the judges are total idiots, and/or highly partisan. To begin with, they are neither. The buck stops at the Supreme Court. All judges who have been accepted to the Supreme Court are really brilliant.

Unlike the legislature and executive branch, the judicial branch at every level, issues opinions that are available to the public and can be critically reviewed by constitutional scholars, who really understand the issues. 

Two landmark cases are the Trump disqualification case and the Trump presidential immunity case. Neither one has been accepted by the US Supreme Court, but almost everyone believes they will be soon. Lawyers on both sides will be burning the midnight oil, to explain, in a million words or less, to explain why their side is right.  

Trump Disqualification Case

By a 4 to 3 ruling, Colorado Supreme Court ruled on December 20, 2023 that the Secretary of State may not include Donald Trump from the primary ballot. The ruling would also eliminate him from the general election ballot. The Supreme Court will have the final say in these cases. 

State judges can take several “off-ramps” to dismiss disqualification challenges. I call these the “Don’t let this case land in my courtroom defenses” or “Stop them at the courthouse doors.” The judge does not need to hold an evidentiary hearing if the plaintiffs have not demonstrated real injury. Second, judges have ruled in many states that these cases are premature, or as they say, are not ripe for review, because Donald Trump’s name is not on the general election ballot.

Colorado’s case went forward based on both state and federal laws and the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. State law giving the Secretary of State the right to disqualify candidates in the primary election, allowed the case to proceed. The case cleared several major hurdles in the District Court, in particular, that the violence on January 6, 2021, adequately fits the definition of an insurrection and that Trump’s actions constituted “engagement.” So, none of the normal off-ramps were taken.

However, Trump was the victor in this initial court case, because the judge concluded that the 14th Amendment did not specifically state that it applied to presidential elections. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the judgment, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment held for all elected offices of government, which they decided included the president. 

This case must be decided by the Supreme Court. They understand what is at stake. Suppose a similar judgment occurs in Florida, Texas, or Georgia. It has the potential to allow Biden to win, because Trump is not on the ballot. And remember, if one of the four judges disqualifying Trump had dissented, the ruling would have allowed Trump to run. It was summed up by one commentator, that voters not judges decide elections. Well, we shall see.

I particularly like a recent opinion posted on CNN. It is important to note that this opinion is not the views of CNN, and the author is not a lawyer. 

CNN Link: The Fourteenth Amendment gambit is breathtakingly foolish

Jan 6 Presidential immunity case

As part of the pre-trial motions of the January 6 case, with a scheduled start date of March 4, Donald Trump claimed presidential immunity for all actions while he was president. The trial court ruled against him, so he filed an appeal. The Special Counsel, Jack Smith, asked the Appellate Court to expedite the matter and they agreed.

Since the case will inevitably end up in the Supreme Court, Smith asked the Supreme Court to review the case, prior to the Appellate Court decision. As I was completing this post, the Supreme Court, rejected Smith’s petition without comment. This allows the Appellate Court to decide first, which will inevitably delay the start of the trial.

To leapfrog ahead of the Appeals Court or maintain the normal order. That was the question until last Thursday. Trump’s legal team wrote an excellent reply to Smith’s petition. Nothing is stronger than taking someone else’s words and using them against them. Smith argued that jumping ahead of the normal order was needed because this matter was of great public importance. Trump countered that if this is so important, it justified the Appellate Court’s review first to ensure the Supreme Court had all the facts before a landmark decision. It’s the old “haste makes waste” argument. 

The elephant in the room is the elections. Trump wants to push the January 6 criminal case to after the election. The decision by the Supreme Court and Trump’s very busy court date means it might be delayed past November.  If Trump loses again in the Appellate Court, he has 45 days to file an appeal to the full Appellate Court, and if he loses again, 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The January 6 Defendants Case

On Dec 13, 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Fischer case, which if successful, will undermine the legal basis for 2 of the 4 counts against Trump in the January 6 case. The Fischer case is also referred to as the Jan 6 defendants case because it arose from a defendant found guilty of participating in the riot on January 6. 

The case is whether the law that formed the basis of guilty convictions of over 200 defendants for attempting to disrupt an official proceeding on January 6 was really applicable. It was enacted as an anti-corruption corporate statute after the Enron scandal to prevent the destruction of documents.

For a detailed examination of the applicable law 18 USC 1512, see Lawfare post: Trump Jan 6 Indictment: The Statutes.

So, the Supreme Court, through a very narrow interpretation of the applicable law, could effectively dismiss two of the charges against Trump and the conviction of over 200 defendants in the January 6 riots. The Department of Justice has been slowly working their way up to the leadership ranks of the extremist groups, and it would terrible to see the organizers of the January 6 riots go free, based on slight interpretation differences in the words, like “corruptly” or “otherwise.”

Abortion Pill Case

The Supreme Court will decide if states can limit access to the abortion pill, mifepristone. Since overturning Roe vs. Wade, the argument is availability is a state’s issue. However, the drug has been approved for general use by the FDA. This case will have the greatest impact on abortion rights since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It is estimated that approximately half of all abortions in the US are medicated abortions. Plus, any ruling to limit use of a drug that has been deemed safe by the FDA, would allow states to challenge the use of any other drug on the market, making their judgment superior to the FDA.

NYT: Abortion Pill Rullings

The Supreme Court tends to leave the most controversial decisions to the end of its term, which could end in July 2024. My sense is they will act rapidly on the Colorado Disqualification Case, as it directly impacts Trump’s candidacy. A delay in the presidential immunity case would be a big gift to Trump as he would definitely get the case dismissed if he is elected president. The status quo right now on the abortion case, is the ruling on restrictions has been put on hold, so this is one that can be delayed without a major impact.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Was Mueller’s Appointment legal?

by Dave

I heard this accusation before and pretty much just thought it was total nonsense.  The idea was one could ignore everything Mueller investigated, because his appointment was unconstitutional.

I was surprised when I listened to a speaker on a conservative law forum, featured on C-Span, addressing this issue.   He had obviously thoroughly researched this topic.  I did not know the history of this issue.   These arguments have been used twice in District Court and rejected and then again in the Appellate Court,  where the three judge panel rejected all the arguments.  Once it gets rejected on appeal and not reviewed by the Supreme Court, it becomes case law – Mueller’s investigation was legal in the opinion of the court.

In 2018, a series of well written articles were published and posted online, detailing why Mueller’s investigation was illegal, written by Steven Calabresi,  a Professor of Law at Northwestern University.

Of course Donald Trump’s immediately ceased on this with his rapid fire tweeting  machine, to be telling his millions of followers that the investigation which he claims exonerated him (of course, it didn’t clear him of obstruction of justice) was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So, in what’s this all about?  The President nominates and the Senate approves “Principal Officers” such as US Attorneys and heads of Departments may appoint “Inferior Officers” per Article II of our constitution.   Robert Mueller was considered an inferior officer because the Justice Department could supervise his activities and fire him if necessary.   At the core of Professor Calabresi’s arguments, it seems, is the contention that Mueller was given so much authority, he fit better into the definition of a principal officer than an inferior officer.  The Appellate court disagreed and I’ve posted their opinion.

Consider for a moment if the case had succeeded.   It would require the President to nominate and the Senate to approve the Special Prosecutor.   It would be very difficult to imagine this ever happening, so we would have lost an important means of keeping government accountable, particularly at the highest level.  There will officials in high office who will abuse their power.  No one in a democracy is  above the law.

The Miller case is one for the textbook, thanks to the challenge by Trump supporters.  It adds clarity to Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution.  In the future,  any similar challenges on the authority of any Special Counsel appointment will be quickly dismissed in the courts as long as the Justice Department retains the right to dismiss the Counsel and clearly defines the scope of the investigation.    Unfortunately, claims that Mueller’s appointment was unconstitutional will live on, in podcasts, social media,  political conspiracy books, and their ilk.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

The Hill: US Law is not on the side of Mueller

Washington Post: Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment is valid

District Court concludes Mueller’s Appointment is valid

(The above legal opinion is pretty steeped in law and Department rules.  Per the Washington Post, “The separate constitutional challenge to Mueller’s appointment was brought by Stone’s associate Andrew Miller, who has been trying to block a grand jury subpoena from the special counsel’s office. Miller was held in contempt by a lower-court judge for failing to testify before the grand jury as part of Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the last presidential election.”  )

Note on the very nuanced analysis of obiter dictim on page 9 :  Obiter dictim: A judge’s incidental expression of opinion, not essential to the decision and not establishing precedent.

Mueller’s final report

by Dave

Boy, there has been a ton of speculation.  Trump foes would like to see Mueller show how all these indictments and guilty pleas are connected into one grand conspiracy, making impeachment inevitable.   Trump supports are looking for exoneration of Trump.   I have opined that it seems unlikely that the investigation will end anytime soon.   I particularly like the view presented by Renato Mariotti,  a former federal prosecutor and the host of On Topic podcast, as published in Time Magazine this week (Dec 17 issue):

“As America anxiously awaits special counsel Robert Mueller’s so-called final report and proof of “collusion”, it should be very wary of two truths: Mueller may never write a full “final report”, and any bombshells he reveals are unlikely to outline  a grand conspiracy.  This will not be a failure of the investigation but rather of our own expectations.” 

He goes on to state that federal prosecutors aren’t historians or journalists.   He also points out there can not be a charge of “collusion” with Russian agents by the Trump campaign, because the word has no legal meaning.  He also states, “it is hard to imagine any federal prosecutor would ever charge the extensive conspiracy imagined by Trump’s critics.”   Mariotti’s view is Mueller’s team has already been successful, with a careful, targeted approach.  The American electorate has become become either apathetic or numb (neither words used by Mariotti) as he writes:

At any other time in American history, the President’s lawyer telling a federal judge under oath that the President directed him to commit a crime might have ended that presidency.  Yet that detail has been forgotten amid the daily avalanche of Trump-related news. 

The overload of news, mixed with commentary and outright misinformation, principally from Trump and his legal team,  is the way it will be until the end.   It is getting hard to swallow the idea that Cohen, Manafort, Flynn and now Maria Butina are all lying to get lighter sentences.

The more Trump lashes out at the Mueller investigation, the more certain  there were serious crimes committed by Russian agents, campaign officials,  and others, which may include the Trump Foundation and Trump’s Inaugural Committee.  Most knowledgeable attorneys, like Mariotti,  state that under Department of Justice written opinion, a sitting President can not be charged with crimes.   So, any final report would not contain crimes that Trump could be charged with.

The essay by Mariotti ends with a warning similar to his opening statement:  “… if Mueller finds evidence of narrower crimes and is considered a failure, the failure won’t be on him.  It will be on us, for our own outsize expectations, which just might save Trump’s presidency.”

I believe the report will be simply a summary of concluded successful prosecutions.   It is not coming anytime soon.   If it doesn’t make a strong case for obstruction of justice by Trump, then it would be best for Democrats not to waste their time on this.

In this case,  Trump’s way out of the White House would be through the same way he came in, through the election process.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Jeff Sessions and the Resignation Letter

by Dave

Was Sessions fired or did he resign? 

Ok, he’s out.  Some are calling it a firing, others characterize Sessions departure as a resignation.  There is a resignation letter, so it is a resignation.  But, the first line says that he is resigning at the president’s request.    Sessions didn’t want to go.  He was greatly enjoying his final chance to serve the country.    See link below for Sessions’ letter.

The letter has no date on it.    A lot of speculation as to when it was written,  but most likely in September 2018,  when it now appeared Trump was going to fire Rod Rosenstein.

Sessions says in this letter that  the Department  “embraced” Donald Trump’s directive to be a strong law and order department, and then goes into the  many accomplishments of the Department.    It is an incredible defense of the work of the Justice Department.  And it is all about the good work of the Department itself, not himself.  If there is a bit of flattery, it is to Trump.  It is the best justification of why Sessions should not have been fired.

Sessions wasn’t protecting the Mueller investigation from interference by Trump.   After Jeff Session’s recused himself from the investigation,  that job landed to Deputy AG  Rob Rosenstein.  Sessions recused himself because he was part of the Trump campaign and participated in a meeting at the Trump tower in June 2016 where a Russian agent was present.   Sessions has testified over and over again, that he had never participated in any collusion with Russian agents, and nothing has every linked him to the scandal.  So, I believe him.   The recusal  meant  Bob Mueller had the liberty to investigate anyone associated with the Trump campaign, including Sessions.

Now, the Attorney General is Matt Whitaker and regarded generally as a Trump loyalist.   He can do tremendous damage to the Mueller investigation, if he wants   He can also recuse himself from the investigation and put Rosenstein back in charge.  This would immediately take the pressure he’ll be getting from Congress, but Trump could always fire him and Rosenstein.

What happens to Rosenstein, the man that knows too much?   Inside the Justice Department, he will no longer be overseeing the Mueller investigation.   Inside the Department, he would be bound by the Department rules, including not revealing anything he knows.  So, Trump may keep him there.   I don’t see him writing the kind of letter, that Sessions gave the President.

The Russian investigation is the hot potato.     Anyone touching it will inevitably draw the ire of Trump.   The irony is Sessions never touched the Russian investigation.  I don’t believe his recusal was ever the problem.   It was his honesty that got between him and Trump.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Jeff Session’s Resignation Letter

Trump’s “They”

by Dave

 

“I think the whole Manafort trial is very sad, when you look at what’s going on there. I think it’s a very sad day for our country,”  Donald Trump’s statement.   He went on to say, “He happens to be a very good person. And I think it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort.”

Paul Manafort is accused of more than lying.  He is on trial for tax evasion, which is stealing from the federal government.   Millions of Americans each year, obey the law and report their income and assets.   Paul Manafort did not.  He cheated the government for years. He is also charged with bank fraud.  He made fraudulent claims when applying for loans.   A short list of the charges against Manafort is provided at the bottom of the page.

The “they” refers to Special Counsel Mueller’s team.   The “they” works within the US Department of Justice with many FBI agents.  Lady justice wears a blindfold, because justice is applied equally, regardless of other characteristics such as  race, political views, or wealth.  If convicted, this is a clear demonstration that the Mueller team is not conducting a witch hunt.    Manafort may be found innocent on some of the charges because the charges were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s would be a sad day for the country, when people who are ripping off our country are not convicted.  They are ripping off every honest tax payer.     It would be an extremely sad and troubling day, if Trump decides to pardon Manafort.

Catching criminals and convicting them in a fair trial,  makes our country great.   In other countries, you can buy your way our of a conviction.   The “they”  (DOJ and FBI) are doing their jobs.   I would feel just the same, if a Democrat or Republican was on trial.

But, you can bet Trump would be jumping for joy if the person being charged had any connection to Hillary Clinton.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Wikipedia: Paul Manafort

Charges:

The “counts” are usually because Manafort is accused of the same violation over multiple years.

Subscribing to false income tax returns
Number of counts: 5
Maximum prison sentence per count: 3 years

In an indictment unveiled in February against Manafort and his former business partner, Rick Gates, the special counsel laid out what it described as a years-long “tax scheme” intended to lower Manafort’s tax bills by hiding his income from U.S. authorities.

Manafort worked for years in the 2000s as a consultant for former Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych’s pro-Russian Party of Regions. The tens of millions of dollars he earned for this work were put in foreign accounts, and Manafort used that money to fund a lavish lifestyle primarily through international wire transfers, Mueller alleges.

Manafort is accused of failing to report this income on his income tax returns, and falsely claiming he had no authority over those foreign accounts.

Failing to file foreign bank account reports
Number of counts: 4
Maximum prison sentence per count: 5 years

From 2011 to 2014, Manafort allegedly failed to file foreign bank account reports, known as FBARs, with the Treasury Department to disclose his control over his overseas accounts.

Bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy
Number of counts: 4 counts of bank fraud; 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy
Maximum prison sentence per count: 30 years

Peter Strzok – You’re it

by Dave

I notice that when people have some trash to get rid of, they tend to dump it somewhere where there is already a lot of trash.  I think Mr. Jeffries got it right:

“There is a criminal investigation into the Trump campaign and possible crimes related to the 2016 presidential election involving collusion with Russian spies to sell out our democracy and hijack the presidency,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York. “My colleagues in the cover-up caucus don’t like that criminal investigation, and therefore, they need to identify a villain. Mr. Strzok, tag, you’re it.”

There about 1,000 summaries of the hearing on the internet, but I still like Mr. Jeffries the best.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

More Trump’s attacks on the FBI

by Dave

I’m calling them Trump lies.   As President, he can call up the Justice Department, and ask the Attorney General if this allegation is true.   Instead he prefers Fox News.

The New York Times calls this a “distortions of the truth.”    Here is Trump’s tweet on Friday:

“Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president,” he tweeted Friday. “It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a ‘hot’ Fake News story. If true — all time biggest political scandal!”

The big problem are “reports” and  “implanted”     Of course, Trump is saying, “I’m not making this up”  however these are not Justice Department nor FBI reports.  It is just something he heard,  on Fox News.   A commentator is not a news reporter, particularly true on Fox News.  Welcome to the echo chamber, from Hannity’s mouth, to  a flurry of tweets from Trump and then back to Fox News.  Ping pong garbage.

A marketing principle: “You can not turn a lie into the truth by telling it a thousand times.  But the lie will seem credible enough to the public, after they hear it a thousand times to be believed as the truth.”    A second rule is “Never concede you are wrong.”

The New York Times and the Washington Post has been very cautious in their reporting.   This is how the Washington Post presented the story:

In mid-July 2016, a retired American professor approached an adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign at a symposium about the White House race held at a British university.

The professor took the opportunity to strike up a conversation with Carter Page, whom Trump had named a few months earlier as a foreign policy adviser.

But the professor was more than an academic interested in American politics — he was a longtime U.S. intelligence source. And, at some point in 2016, he began working as a secret informant for the FBI as it investigated Russia’s interference in the campaign, according to people familiar with his activities.

There is no evidence that there was a paid FBI spy within the Trump campaign.   This is a lie, and very regrettable that President Trump finds it necessary to attack the FBI in this manner.  When Russia agents are making contacts either abroad or  in the US, with the objective of interfering with the US elections, then this is likely a crime.  The duty of the FBI is to find out who the Russian agents are working for, and their US counterparts.  If this requires striking up a conversation with campaign advisers, this is just good law investigation  tactics.

However, as pointed out on CNN, this reporting was based on leaked information to the New York Times and Washington Post.  They know who this individual is but have refused to disclose it.  I hope it stays this way, at least until Mueller’s investigation is finished.  As reported today in the New York Times,  Trump’s congressional allies are demanding full disclosure of the informant, in an attempt to “investigate the investigation” and disrupt or discredit the investigation.   And as collateral damage, weaken the public’s general confidence in the FBI.

According to the New York Times:

“Law enforcement officials have refused (hand over documents on the informant),   saying it would imperil both the source’s anonymity and safety. “

It would also open the door to more  unprecedented congressional inquiries, and interference of the judicial process  in the name of “oversight.”  The only basis for wrongdoing is Trump’s tweets based on Fox News – that’s how screwy things have become.

Robert Mueller is conducting a serious criminal investigation with the help of the FBI.  He runs a tight ship, with the only information surfacing in the media is from Trump’s personal lawyers or through court filings.

The FBI investigation had its first big break in May 2016 when George Papadopoulos, who  like Carter Page, was a foreign policy adviser,  talked to Australia’s ambassador in London, about obtaining political dirt on Hillary Clinton including Clinton’s hacked emails, to help influence our elections in favor of Trump.    Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with Mueller’s investigation.

The adage “the best defense is an offense” seems to be Trump’s strategy.    Trump and Mike Hannity (Fox News)  are trying their best to create an alternative reality, where conspiracy theories and deep state nonsense can thrive.   This is shameful.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Client-Attorney Privilege/ Alan Dershowitz

by Dave

It is very common knowledge that the FBI raided Michael Cohen’s office to seize information relevant to the Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniel’s cases.   Michael Cohen is Trump’s personal lawyer.

There’s been so much commentary on the raid, that it seems hardly worth adding to it.  However, the one person who doesn’t seem terrible angry is Michael Cohen, as follows:

Two days after FBI agents raided his home and office—reportedly seeking documents related to hush payments made to women with whom President Trump allegedly had an affair, among other information—the president’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen had this to say: “I just want my stuff back.” That comment, made to ABC News, was Cohen’s first remark since telling CNN on Tuesday that the raiding federal agents were “extremely professional, courteous and respectful,” contradicting the president’s claim that agents “broke into” his lawyer’s office.

I stated before that it seemed everything was done by the book.  The Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, signed off on the search warrant.  He is a Trump appointee.  There were multiple checks on this search warrant.   Michael Cohen is under investigation for bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign finance contributions.

The items seized from Michael Cohen are with the “taint team” to determine if what information is relevant under the scope of the search.  It is another safeguard to protect the rights of Michael Cohen, against unreasonable searches.

Alan Dershowitz, the very well known defense attorney and former Harvard professor, doesn’t see it this way.  He obviously doesn’t believe there are enough checks in the system, to allow a search and still protect the legitimate privacy of an attorney’s records outside of what is criminal evidence.  An article appearing in The Hill,  is provided in the links.  He has appeared on Fox News network, with the same opinion.  Others, particularly on CNN and MSNBC,  have voiced far more confidence in the judicial system and believe prosecutors will respect the rights of Mr. Cohen.  I am particularly concerned, when Alan Dershowitz states that FBI raids should be limited to only “major crimes”  which he then states this isn’t one of them.   What will remain in the hands of judges, is the evidence that was used to support the search warrant, so Dershowitz, like the rest of us, is completely in the dark.

We have First Amendment rights of free speech.   This is the protection for individuals, who espouse very unpopular opinions including radicals on the far right and left of the political spectrum.   It  protects  gay rights activist and  atheist organizations.   When high powered attorneys  seek to intimidate people to give up their rights in exchange for money,  I think this is worthy of an investigation.   It is particularly egregious if the Daniel’s contract was invalid and payments were violations of campaign finance laws.   The Supreme Court allows massive donations to be given to political parties, to monopolize the air waves during campaigns.  The courts can not condone campaign violations which also silence dissent during a campaign.

To ignore potential violations of law helps create new rights for the wealthy and powerful class, a form of immunity from the law.  Donald Trump felt that he could have his lawyer fix  his indiscretions through physical harm and hush money to gain the silence of others, leaving him in the clear.    This was done to help his campaign for president, running on a campaign who claimed (until today) that his opponent was crooked.   The First Amendment is needed for small people or people who work for small organizations.

Dershowitz further states that the raid will make people afraid to seek legal advice.  I seriously doubt it.   A good lawyer will be sure to take steps to ensure confidentiality by having a client sign a contract to represent them in a specific matter.   The problem Trump has, is that he wanted Cohen to fix everything, and leave him in the clear.   It likely made Cohen a partner in crime.

Dershowitz goes on, to state this highly intrusive manner of collecting evidence, was done for political reasons.  Again, this seems contrary to facts as there were reviews of this warrant in the Justice Department and the Southern District of New York.  If a similar raid were conducted on Hillary Clinton’s office, it would have to go through the same court system.  I would support this as well.

I believe Michael Cohen subdued reaction is because he knows the FBI has a mountain of incriminating evidence against him.   The role of Trump’s fixer came to an abrupt end, and now the fixer has some real negotiating to do with authorities instead of Trump’s occasional indiscretions.

The late night comedians, such as Stephen Colbert and John Oliver, are having a tremendous amount of fun over the irony in all of this.   Trump appointed an Attorney General, who has been as tough as nails on illegal immigration, drug use and against sentencing reforms.   Yet, Trump is steadfastly trying to make himself an exception to the heightened law and order approach of the Justice Department.

Trump is saying in essence, “Go after criminals, but stay away from my campaign officials and their contacts.”

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/382459-dershowitz-targeting-trumps-lawyer-should-worry-us-all

Wikipedia:  Jeff Sessions

Trump’s Malicious Lies

by Dave

He has attacked FBI Director Comey as a leaker of classified information, the acting Director as  Andrew McCabe as corrupt,  the head of the Justice Department, Jeff Sessions and Rob Rosenstein of using poor judgment in the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.   His latest attacks have been against Robert Mueller,  accusing him of a unwarranted  investigation of the Russian meddling in the 2016 and ignoring the crimes of Hillary Clinton in dealing with the Russians.

Although the harshest attacks come from Trump himself on the actions of the Justice Department,  in other areas, Trump is touting the accomplishments of the Justice Department, particularly the war on drugs, and crack down on human trafficking and illegal immigration, without any mention of Jeff Sessions.

The head of the Justice Department and FBI can be fired at a moments notice without cause.  Director Jim Comey learned he had been fired from CNN news broadcast.  Andrew McCabe is no longer in the direct line of fire.   The new FBI Director, Christopher Wray began his job yesterday.   If he feels that Hillary Clinton broke the law during 2016, he is free to investigate this activity.  Investigations can be closed, then re-opened.

I did not include attacks on the Washington Post and the New York Times from their reporting.  I previously posted my reasons why the New York Times reporting should be trusted, and that the newspaper is thriving, not failing.

The most serious accusations are against Robert Mueller, because Trump will use this as a pretext to remove him.  Jeff Sessions is far from being weak. Here’s the headline from the front page of the New York Times, “Under Attack, Justice Dept. Pushes Ahead, Quietly Carrying Out Trump’s Agenda.”  It goes on how Jeff Sessions is at work by 6:15 am, and starts his day on a treadmill, and a bowl of instant oatmeal in the microwave.  He hand-washes the bowl.

So, what were the malicious lie told by Trump?  It is the uranium story.  All fact checkers I know (Snopes.com, Politifact.com and factcheck.org find the essential details in  Trump’s narrative are false.    Here it is (snopes.com):

Allegations of a “quid pro quo” deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.

No US uranium can be exported to Russia, not before the deal and not afterwards.  Russia may have an interest in US uranium mines, but Russia doesn’t get any uranium from the US.   The “quid pro quo” is simply a polite way of saying that Russia bought Hillary’s support, by slipping 145 million to the Clinton Foundation.    The whole story falls apart because the bulk of the  contributions were made in 2007, long before the buyout of Uranium One.

The whole uranium story should have fallen apart long ago because the timeline is all wrong.  The Snopes article states:

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Nobody is above the law.  Hillary Clinton, her staff and the Clinton Foundation must play by the rules.   I particularly like the way Snopes concluded the piece:

An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a possible future U.S. president, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more.

At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it’s crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it — however little that may be.

This was published in October 2016, as Trump was storming the country with “Crooked Hillary” narratives.  Now the attacks have turned to Robert Mueller, as enemy number one.   He is directed to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, so he really can’t extend his investigation to a contribution received in 2007 by  Guistra  to the Clinton Foundation as payoff for a decision after he no longer had a stake in the company.   Whole narrative is really flaky.

I was very glad that no pardon was given to Hillary Clinton nor anyone in the White House or Clinton’s foundation before Obama’s departure.

Trump is trashing everyone who isn’t in the White House.  At least, isn’t currently in the White House. The heat is definitely on as Robert Mueller has convened a grand jury to examine criminal activities associated with Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

The latest Quinnipiac Polls show that most Americans do not trust Trump.  I wonder why?

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Fact check:  West Virginia Rally  (much more fiction than fact

Snopes.com  Russian to Judgment

(note the Brietbart connection, with Clinton Cash book in 2015)

West Virginia Rally- Trump: Politifact.com West Virginia Rally

The special counsel “should be looking at the … uranium (Hillary Clinton) sold that’s now in the hands of very angry Russians.”

Politifact on Uranium story

New York Times, 2015 article on the buyout transaction. 

 

 

 

Republican Posturing on the Mueller Investigation

by Dave

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA,” Trump tweeted last Thursday.

I don’t subscribe to Twitter.   I hope this is the last time I have to refer to anyone’s tweets.

Republican’s are posturing on questions about  Robert Mueller’s investigation.  Is it going to be impartial?  Is Trump going to be vindicated?

I believe the responses from Republicans follow  these approaches:  (1) Duck the question entirely,  (2) Call it a witch hunt or rigged investigation,  as if Democrats had wormed their way into Jeff Session’s Justice Department  or (3) State that the process must continue, it will be thorough and fair, and will vindicate  Trump.

First, how to duck the question. It is easy to  state,   “I’m not going there”, or “It’s far too early.”  Then add how special counsel in the past, such as Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton, seemed to never end.

A variation on the first approach is to bring in a boat load of accusations made against Hillary Clinton,  and state that if an investigation is needed, it is of all the wrong doing by her.    Of course, Jeff Sessions can investigate Hillary Clinton or anyone he wants to.

The second way, the full frontal assault (Newt Gingrich approach) and  slam Mueller for hiring biased staff.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation is a “rigged game” because most of Mueller’s lawyers have donated to Democrats. On Tuesday, Gingrich criticized Mueller for not having pro-Trump attorneys on his team and addressed reports that three members of Mueller’s team have donated to Democrats. One lawyer even defended the Clinton Foundation. “He apparently couldn’t find a single pro-Trump attorney to hire, and I just think that’s a rigged game, and I think that it’s a mistake to pretend this is going to be some neutral investigation,” Gingrich said on CBS This Morning. “I don’t give the benefit of the doubt to somebody who could only hire Democrats but claims we ought to trust him.”

This claim of bias is obviously weak as observers say that Mueller is staffing up with an all star group of lawyers.     He knows Washington, and this is a super high stakes investigation.

The final approach is championed by Marco Rubio,  who I believe still has presidential aspirations.   Marco stated the following,  just after the Trump Cuban-American love fest for Fidel haters:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Sunday defended special counsel Robert Mueller’s “stellar” reputation and ability to “conduct a full and fair and thorough investigation” on possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

“I believe he is going to conduct a full and fair and thorough investigation that we should have confidence in,” Rubio told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“I’ll continue to believe that based on his reputation and years of service to our country unless there’s any evidence to the contrary,” Rubio said.

Rubio’s comments contradict recent efforts by President Trump’s legal team to attack Mueller’s integrity as special counsel. The team is raising concerns that Mueller’s prior relationship with former FBI Director James Comey is a conflict in his ability to lead the investigation.

Trump’s legal team has left open the possibility Trump will fire Mueller as well.

Rubio also stated that he felt in the end, Trump would be cleared of any wrong doing.

Republicans can decide whether to go with Newt’s attack on Robert Mueller’s staff, or Rubio’s faith in the system.

During all this, the Democrats are probably best to say as little as possible.  They wanted an independent investigation, and they got one.  Beyond this, they should just keep their mouth shut about the ultimate outcome.  They should not respond to Trump’s persistent tweets.   If you are winning, don’t gloat.

It is exactly in line with Rubio, to just let the facts speak for themselves.

Stay tuned,

Dave