Trump

Trump’s legal woes: The scheduling is clarified, sort of

by Dave

The art of a deal, is in true form. It is the art of delaying the start of four criminal trials until after the elections in November. If this were a game of bowling, four cases delayed to after the election would count as a strike.

The Jan 6 federal case start date of March 4 has been postponed indefinitely. The immunity case is in the Appellate court and Fischer is in the Supreme Court. The Fischer case is not directly tied to Trump’s court case, but the application of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, is the basis of two of the four counts against Trump. I expect these impediments will be gone before the end of the Supreme Court term in July.  

This clears the schedule for the Hush Money case to begin on March 20, 2024, so that pretty much fills up April. I don’t think Trump’s team can delay this one. So, one of the four pins are still standing.

So, all eyes turn to the Classified Documents case, to be held in Ft. Pierce, FL as the logical successor, with a start date of May 20, 2024. The charges are 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information. 

On February 2, 2024, the DOJ filed a 67-page brief stating that they had fully complied with discovery in the documents case. The first reporting of the DOJ filing is on Feb 2 at 10:30 pm by NBC news. The brief begins:

“The defendants have received substantial, timely, and thorough discovery in this case. By early September 2023, the Government had provided the defendants with over 1.28 million pages of unclassified discovery and all of the CCTV footage obtained in the investigation; since then, the Government has supplemented its production as necessary. This production not only complies with the Government’s constitutional and rule-based discovery obligations; it goes far beyond. The Government recognizes its discovery obligations, has complied with them, and will continue to do so. The defendants have nevertheless filed a lengthy motion to compel in which they seek abstract rulings on the scope of the prosecution team and various directives that the Government provide them with a range of additional material.”

Obvious, Trump’s team wants this case to start after the election. Can Trump’s team finagle delays in this case? Yes, if Judge Cannon makes a ruling in favor of Trump on discovery issues, then DOJ will appeal to the 11th Circuit. But it is abundantly clear from the brief, that Trump’s team has really opened the barn door on what could be relevant in this trial, including “selective prosecution.”  Discussion begins on page 37 of brief. 

“Defendants might suggest to the jury that they should be acquitted based on a theory of selective prosecution, that would plainly be inappropriate.”

Can Trump’s team finagle delays in this case? Yes, if Judge Cannon makes a ruling in favor of Trump on discovery issues, then DOJ appeals to the 11th Circuit. 

See link: Prosecutors hit back at Trump’s accusations of political bias in classified documents case

Judge Aileen Cannon has scheduled a hearing date of March 1, 2024 to review the start date of May 20, 2024. The Republican Party Convention would be July 15 -18, 2024. I am certain she doesn’t look forward in scheduling a trial as Trump is completing the primary campaign. 

Selective prosecution is not a defense in the courtroom, but is one to add to House Republican’s attack on Biden with impeachment, Rep. Jim Jordan’s committee investigating the weaponization of government, and the radical MAGA Republicans. Any trial, in any courtroom from now until election day, will be blamed on President Biden.

If Trump is elected, there will be no Special Counsel, and no prosecution of Trump for the January 6 attack or the Classified Document’s case. He can avoid the Georgia conspiracy trial, because he is the sitting president. So, now as an ex-president, he likely will lose the claim of immunity, but once president, he will not stand trial in Georgia. 

I said the scheduling has been clarified, as it looks like the Hush Money goes first. What should follow is any one of the remaining 3 cases. 

The Special Counsel’s brief asking Judge Cannon to reject the need for additional documents sought by Trump’s legal team is given below. I believe Trump lawyers may file a reply brief. I fear Trump’s lawyers are winning at the delay game.

Stay tuned,

Dave

aa-trumps-document-case-discovery-filingDownload

Nine Top Officials who will never work for Trump again.

by Dave

The top positions in any administration are carefully selected. These key positions include Vice President, National Security Adviser, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, White House Chief of Staff and others. In crisis and strategy sessions, these are people “in the room.” Very few of his close associates would work with him again.

John Bolton, Trump’s National Security Adviser 2018- 2019, who worked in the White House, coordinating with the intelligence agency in formulating policy during crises.

Trump has this impression that foreign leaders, especially adversaries, hold him in high regard, that he’s got a good relationship with Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jung Un. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I have been in those rooms with him when he’s met with those leaders, I believe they think he is a laughing fool.” (quoted in Atlantic Journal, Jan/Feb 2024)

“In a second Trump term, we’d almost certainly withdraw from NATO.” (The Hill)

Mike Pence, Trump’s Vice President

Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States … President Trump demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution. 

General James Mattis, Secretary of Defense

He is more dangerous than anyone could ever imagine.

John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security and White House Chief of Staff

The depths of his dishonesty is just astonishing to me… He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life.

H.R. McMasters, National Security Advisor

President Trump and other officials repeatedly compromised our principles in pursuit of partisan advantage and personal gain.

Bill Barr, Attorney General

He will always put his own interests and gratifying his own ego, ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest.

Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State

His understanding of global events, his understanding of global history, his understanding of U.S. history was really very limited.

Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense

He puts himself before country. His actions are all about him and not about the country.

Richard Spencer, Secretary of the Navy

The President has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.

The above quotes are from The Atlantic Journal Jan/Feb 2024, except for the Bolton comment based on an interview on the Hill. Bill Barr told Trump flat out Trump’s claims that he won the election where bullshit, and made a public announcement in December 2020, before leaving office.

Just as I was getting set to hit the publish button, when Donald Trump said this about his opponent on Truth Social:

“Nikki “Birdbrain” Haley is very bad for the Republican Party and, indeed, our Country. Her False Statements, Derogatory Comments, and Humiliating Public Loss, is demeaning to True American Patriots. Her anger should be aimed at her Third Rate Political Consultants and, more importantly, Crooked Joe Biden and those that are destroying our Country – NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL SAVE IT,”

Remember that Nikki Haley was appointed by Trump as the US Ambassador to the United Nations, and left on good terms with Trump. ”Trump heaped praise on Haley, declaring she was ‘special to me’ at the Oval Office meeting where her resignation was announced, emphasizing that she was not leaving on bad terms.” (Wikipedia, summarizing a news article)

And then Trump was in again in true form, in testifying in court on Thursday, where the jury had already concluded that sexually assault did take place (but not rape), in the E. Jean Carroll case. He could not limit himself to restrictions imposed by the judge.

“Unhinged” seems a very apt description. Self centered and dishonest also come to mind. Finally, Trump is trying to disrupt the ongoing discussion of how to get both Ukraine funding and tougher policies on illegal immigration, which also includes more funding. 

So Trump chaos is now in Washington, as he is in Manhattan. 

Stay tuned,

Dave

2024 The year of historical trials and court decisions

by Dave

Some people try to associate court trials with other things they are familiar with and it is usually a disaster. Court cases are not like the movies. They can go on for months. It is also not a ballgame. It doesn’t end in nine innings.. Decisions are appealed.

The public knows who they like and dislike, and believes the accused should either be set free or in jail for the rest of their lives. The Republican politicians went years claiming Hillary Clinton had committed all sorts of crimes. But, finally, one Democrat has been charged with profiting from his high position, Senator Bob Menendez. His wife has also been charged. 

Hunter Biden and Steve Bannon will go on trial unless either can cut a plea agreement. These trials will be headline news, because of their close association with President Biden and Donald Trump. In both cases, there has been zero evidence these actions involved either Biden or Trump. Both will have the best lawyers money can buy, but the evidence against them will make or break their cases.

And then of course there is Trump and his two civil cases and four criminal ones. I have written extensively about this and there are many Trump legal problems trackers out there. The final conclusion of the civil case against Trump and his organization for the overvaluation of properties will end quietly, as the judge will simply file the judgment in late January and Trump will appeal. 

The disqualification issue must be decided by the Supreme Court. This case and the immunity case will be historical landmark cases. I think only 3 of the 4 criminal cases will likely be tried in 2024, with the Georgia conspiracy case, starting either late 2024 or early 2025. The Supreme Court has a number of highly contentious cases, of which I’ve commented on the abortion pill.

An independent judicial system is one. of the cherished rights of all Americans. If someone has been unjustly accused, the appropriate place to seek justice is the courtroom, not on social media or cable news stations.

So in sum, the system is working as it is intended. The appeal process is an additional check that ensures convictions are in accordance with the law and the rights of individuals are protected.  

Republican members of Congress should not be involved in any of these cases. They should not attempt to tilt the balance of justice against Hunter Biden or in favor of Donald Trump. By their meddling in trials, through their power to subpoena, they are hindering our system of justice.

I fear a re-election of Donald Trump and his disrespect for the judiciary will severely damage our judiciary system. His use of pardons for political purposes would be an attack on the sacred right of justice for all, that comes from  a conscientious and independent judiciary system. Might makes right approach whether by Congress or the President brings us one step closer to tyranny.

What will work, is an informed public who understands the judiciary has a very independent role vital to our system of government. 

Wishing the best of all in 2024,

Dave,

Presidential Immunity Case and Upcoming Trials

by Dave

My prediction : Donald Trump will lose the immunity case now in the Appellate Court. I also believe his lawyers know this. It is a delaying tactic, as Trump will appeal the case to the Supreme Court. And the Jan 6 Election Interference case may be pushed back to past the November elections. It is a real possibility.

So, does anything the Appellate Court matter if it will end up in the Supreme Court eventually? Perhaps not as I believe the Appellate Court will likely just repeat what the trial court Judge Chutkan already said in her opinion.

The Supreme Court could hand Trump a major blow, by refusing to hear the case. They could do major damage to Trump by simply not putting the trial on hold while they are considering the case.  This would allow trial to go forward on March 4, and would push back the start of the Hush Money case. 

The conspiracy case looks like it will begin after the elections. If Trump is elected, he can’t stop either the hush money trial or the Jan 6 conspiracy case because these are municipal and state criminal cases. 

He will be doing everything he can to get rid of Attorney General Fani Willis in Georgia, and District Attorney Alvin Bragg in Manhattan in these cases.r

The wheels of justice turn slowly but in the right direction at least for now. It is important that Donald Trump not be re-elected, so the process can be completed. No one gets a free “Get out of jail card.” in this country. Let the courts hear the evidence and decide based on the law and facts of each case.

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

Immigration Removals

by Dave

I know this is a hot issue.  This blog is narrowly focused on historical and recent removal statistics.  Here’s my conclusion – Trump in 2017 will likely deport the same or slightly fewer immigrants than Obama did in his last year.   I know this seems contrary to the general impression that Trump is far more aggressive against illegal immigrants  than Obama.  I will explain why.

President Obama record of deportations is shown below based on the ICE website.  There is an upward trend in deportations, peaking at 409,000 in 2012, then declining to 235,000 by 2015.  I’ve rounded the numbers for convenience.    The deportations in fiscal year (FY) 2016 are basically the same as 2015, at 240,000 removals,  or an average  20,000 deportations per month.

immigration trends

The blue bars are the non-criminal removals.   The priority shifted during Obama’s administration to target removals of illegal immigrants with a criminal convictions, as the blue bars become smaller percentages of the entire bar over time.

The decline in removals from 2012 to 2016 is likely attributable to a reduction of immigrants coming through from Mexico.   Security barriers including extension of the security fence and electronic surveillance likely discouraged immigrants or at least made the crossings much more expensive.   There is a network of “coyotes” operating in many countries, such as Brazil, Guatemala and Nicaragua which organize illegal entries into the US, and my extremely limited polling indicates the cost is rising, costing as much as $10,000.   News of increased border enforcement  can  discourage illegal entry.    Therefore, it should  not be interpreted that a decline in removals means that enforcement is lacking.

The Obama administration, through Executive Orders,  aggressively targeted illegal immigrants with criminal records, as shown by the graph below:

ice removals

 

The blue line is for “interior removals” (away from the border or near border towns) and is represents the Obama’s efforts to target immigrants with criminal conviction records.   I don’t have a breakdown of these offenses,  but they likely include fairly minor offenses.

ICE attributes the increase in removals in 2016 due to: (1) increase state and local cooperation through the priority enforcement program (PEP) and (2) increased border security.    They state that 99.3% of the illegal aliens by ICE in 2016 met the enforcement priorities.     The statistics for 2016 are provided below:

2016 Statistics
Number %
At border removals 174923 72.8
Interior removals 65332 27.2
Total 240255
At border convicted of a crime 78351 44.8
At border, not convicted of a crime 96572 55.2
total 174923
Int. removals convicted of crime 60318 92.3
Int. removals not convicted of a crime 5014 7.7
Total 65332
All removals convicted of crime 138669 57.7
All removals not convisted of crime 101586 42.3
Total 240255
At border, non-criminals 96572 95.1
Int. removals, non-criminals 5014 4.9
Total 101586
Suspect of confirmed gang members 2057 0.9
Not suspected or confirmed gang members 238198 99.1
Total 240255

Probably, if Trump’s policies are working as he claims,  the interior removals of immigrants convicted of crimes would rise above 60,318 in 2017.    The best estimate I have at present is 202,000 removals for 2017, which will be about 14% below 2016.   This would not be any fault of enforcement, but rather a decline in border crossings.  Separating fact from fiction will be challenging.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Trump’s Problems

by Dave

It isn’t the media.  Every president has to deal with unfavorable commentary.  Obama had Fox News and a massive conservative radio and print media which hated him.

It isn’t leakers.    If the story inside the White House is very different from the public statements, this news gets out. People talk.

It isn’t the Democrats, now officially labeled the “obstructionists.”   They have the right to give an alternative viewpoint.   The give and take between Republicans and Democrats was necessary to pass many important laws.  This helps out government from being too liberal or conservative.

Trump’s scandals at the core are basically poor decisions.  Too much done spontaneously, because he believes he doesn’t need others.  And his ego is frightening.  It started with embarrassing comments made at the CIA Headquarters  on how big the crowd was at the inauguration,  then the disastrous travel ban leading to the firing of the Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, then to the firing of Comey,  sharing to top secrets with the Russians and the General Flynn scandal.

Trump campaigned non-stop, smearing Hillary Clinton as a crook, for her mishandling of emails and the attack of the embassy in Benghazi.   Plus, everything one could find in the tabloid press.

And we are only about a third of the way of the first of four years. Kind of scary.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Thank you horrible, horrible people

by Dave

All governments and businesses are inherently closed and dishonest organizations. This is not being negative, because  I’m not saying they are closed and dishonest all the time, in every aspect.  Just occasionally when something goes very wrong.   The public wants to know why VW manipulated their emission tests and how stupid the EPA could have been to accept these tests. Or how could  Wells Fargo opened up millions of fake accounts.   We want to know  the details of how VA  military  hospitals were able to cheated the system in reporting the time veterans had to wait for their urgent medical needs.  Or the IRS scandal where non=profit organizations  were systematically targeted if their  applications contained certain keywords, almost always related to conservative causes.  We want to know what was hit when the bombs dropped in Yemen missed their target under Trump.  Or when a Children’s hospital was bombed under Obama.    And we want to know how many times, Obama took vacations to go golfing.  Same with Trump.   And the same with the next president.

Another words, we want dirt.  It is our right.   Freedom of the press is how we keep our government and businesses honest.

Trump has been blasting  unfavorable media commentary to a new level.    Much of his problems stem from the way he portrays events.   The dishonesty of reasons behind Comey’s firing is a case in point, which I and others have covered enough. Commentary which blends the news with insight  is  either incredible, amazing, terrific or despicable, horrible, dishonest  or totally fake.   When the mother of all bombs was dropped on Afghanistan, CNN brought in a group of  military experts and  all were in full support of Trump’s action.  No problem with CNN.  But after Trump  said more had been done to defeat ISIS in Afghanistan in 8 weeks of his administration  than 8 years under Obama, one former military expert described that as a highly derogatory statement  to those serving in  armed forces.

He can’t be satisfied with his own accomplishments; he has to show he is better than Obama and Democrats.    His wild exaggerations are quickly picked up by dedicated  reporters.    Case in point, the Obama administration wiretapped the Trump towers.  Director Comey replied there is no evidence of this.   Should Comey have said, “No comment, it is under investigation” ? Would he have score some loyalty points?

Trump  stated in his latest interview with Judge Jeanine Pirro, that she is a fair and balanced reporter as she tossed a number of  softball questions at Trump.    I turned the channel at this point.  She is known for her non-stop rants against Hillary Clinton:

 Hillary, snap out of it,” Pirro said. “I’m tired of going through this with you. You’re a two-time loser who lost because you were a lousy candidate, you didn’t have a message, you lied every time you opened your mouth; you didn’t know what states to campaign in, you put our national security at risk with your amateur email setup, you were in a foundation that was nothing more than an organized criminal enterprise parading as a charity, four men died under your watch as you lied about a video, and there [were] a billion dollars missing from the State Department when you left. And I could go on and on, but I just don’t have the time. So, stop with the poor me nonsense. We’ve had it with you Clintons always claiming victimhood. The two of you haven’t followed the rules since the day you both showed up in your bell bottoms in Arkansas.”

Imagine if she said the same words to Trump, “You lied every time you opened your mouth,” Wow, end of interview, I sure. I watch Fox News for the news segments, not the commentary. I would not watch her show as too much tabloid gossip (Hillary steals a billion from the State Department).   Gee,  wouldn’t you think there would be an investigation?

Reporters are not going to get the straight story from government and inside information is fundamental to full reporting.    Piecing together the truth requires getting facts from people on the inside.   Leaking was given high praise by candidate Trump, and now widely condemned by President Trump.  Every person he fires from government can talk freely about their experiences.

Keep up the good work you horrible, horrible reporters from the mainstream media.    America needs you, for this president and all future presidents.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Day 3 after Comey’s Firing

by Dave

Trump’s very short notice on the firing, left many thinking the Sessions/ Rosenstein letters from the Dept of Justice was the pretense, rather than the reason for Comey’s firing.

The leaks from the White House are taken far more seriously than Trump’s notice, because they make sense.  Comey wasn’t political.  He was excessively truthful, experienced  and articulate.  These were not redeeming qualities in the mind of the President.

Why are the two letters from the Department of Justice considerable laughable?   Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s letter states two reasons for firing Comey all stemming from his July 5, 2016 press conference.  First was that he usurped his authority by the public announcement clearing Clinton of criminal wrongdoing.   Didn’t stop Trump,  fellow Republicans in Congress, and a half dozen commentators on Fox News from slamming Clinton and calling her a crook for the next 5 months.  In fact, Trump was attacking AG Loretta Lynch for her meeting with Bill Clinton on her plane.  Trump  wanted   to show the American people, that both the FBI and  DOJ could not be trusted for a fair evaluation of the Clinton investigation.

Rosenstein did not say that Comey broke any rule or law, only a tradition not to comment on cases until there is a review by the Justice Department.  Comey told the Senate Committee that he decided to come public after there were very unique circumstances. His decision was  related to  concern for the public’s perception of the DOJ’s impartiality.

That public perception of FBI/DOJ  cover up  was created and promoted by  Trump, and many Republicans in Congress.   Many in Congress were calling for an independent Special Investigator which would delay the conclusions of the investigation for months.  FBI/DOJ cover up  went in high gear on June 30, 2016  with the chance meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton, on a Lynch’s private plane.  Trump accused AG Loretta Lynch of lying when she said they just talked about golf, grandchildren and other pleasantries.  He said it was BS and it was really about the email investigation.

Clinton/ Lynch Chance Meeting /  CNN  Comments

 

Now,  the second of Rosenstein’s reasons is really an over the top, piece of absurdity, only a lawyer could make.   He attacks  Comey’s derogatory comments about Hillary Clinton.  Under a normal environment, the FBI must be very careful of what is said.    However, this was hardly a normal environment, as the public was being informed every time they turned on television, that Hillary was either completely innocent or totally guilty of criminal activity.

It was great to have the FBI Director Comey at the end of his investigation to publically state to the public what exactly the FBI had discovered and had not discovered.   To do less, would have been concealment of facts to the public.  Either Clinton or Trump was going to be President, and had Comey delayed what had been finally concluded, even for one day,  would have given the public the impression of a cover up.

Of course, the real benefactor of Attorney’s derogatory  comment, was candidate Trump, who for the next six months would lamblast Clinton for her extremely reckless handling of the emails.  It is laughable that Trump would fire an FBI Directory, who at least in this aspect, helped him immensely become elected.

Comey had two messages for the American public in July 5, 2016.  The first was that Clinton was wrong in setting up an independent server for her email, and second, this activity was not at the level  of wrong doing that would be considered criminal.   The Department of Justice could have overruled Comey’s conclusion.  In fact, the DOJ has the FBI file, and they could always press charges.

So, forget this Sessions/ Rosenstein letter.    Trump never made much of it.    Comey was too straight forward, too honest, too articulate and too accurate.  No marketing skills whatsoever.  That’s what I liked about Comey.

Now,  Trump is searching for that one individual with less integrity, and more loyalty, and will still be approved by the Senate as Director of the FBI.  Good luck!

The firing  was, and still is about the Russian investigation.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

 

 

Trump’s Executive Order on Religious Freedom

by Dave

An Executive Order can be a temporary fix of a problem.  But in Trump’s latest order, it was all for show.  And all pretty dumb.

It was a quick fix for a problem that did not exist. Make up a problem, then offer a solution.  Likely the fix will work.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/04/trump-s-religious-liberty-executive-order-is-a-triumph-of-fake-news

Stay tuned,

Dave

North Korea: Running on Themes

by Dave

 

Yes. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions are scary.   This has been a problem passed from Clinton to Bush to Obama and now to Trump.   Problem is any easy solution, like direct military action, is only likely to make things a lot worse.    Imagine a solution that everyone  in the area, South Korea, Japan and China, to name a few, are  strongly opposed to, and that South Korea is the likely target of retaliatory strikes.  Trump ran a campaign of full of themes.  Now the reality sets in.   North Korea is not solved by tweets.

Kim Jong Un’s regime takes paranoia to extreme levels, maybe because their leader believes in an eventual war with the US or because it works.  I believe it is the latter,  because it distracts from the collapsing economy.   Trump, much more than other presidents are playing right into the regime’s game of paranoia and nationalism.

Diplomacy has to be a back door, quiet process of compromise, to lift sanctions.

Washington Post contributer, Fareed Zakaria got it right:

Trump’s bluster and bravado on North Korea will only make the U.S. look weak

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Going forward with President Trump

by Dave

Is  President Trump going to make America great again?  I have strong doubts.

It is clear that the stock market wanted Clinton to win.  The Dow futures dropped nearly 5% when it became clear around 11:00 pm that Trump had a high probability of winning.

If what kills our economy are unfair trade deals, currency manipulation and  competition from China,  then one would think the policies of Trump would be embraced by the stock market. But, this morning’s future trading  and overseas markets say otherwise.   The world markets are in shock.

World economics  is complicated. What looks to be in the US advantage short term, can end up a total disaster later.   The markets are concerned about  the potential for destabilization of our relations with other countries, and disruptive actions on trade agreements. Some economists predicted Trump would lead us back into recession, through tax cuts for the wealthy and increase government spending, particularly on the military.

I prepare a list of hot issues for 2017,  but I’m holding off posting  them,  given how wrong I was about the elections.  We now are in the transition period.  Trump takes office January 20, 2017.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

Trump – a nightmare for foreign policy

by Dave

Republicans who served under George W. Bush recognized that the US had to play a leadership role in the world.  I like to say, “what goes around, comes around.”

Stronger together- really does work.  Make American Great through insults to our fiends (Mexico) doesn’t work.

Enough.  Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw.  As a Republican I hope to support someone who has the dignity and stature to run to the highest office in the greatest democracy on earth.

Condoleezza Rice,  Former Secretary of State under George W. Bush.

Nicholas Burns was undersecretary of state for political affairs under Bush.  Here is what he said today on CNN:

I hope she’s  [Clinton] going to be the president.  If it’s Donald Trump, I think all bets are off given his unorthodox and I think, very weak and very dangerous views about Russia.  I think we can say with some certainty that Vladamir Putin and the Russian government would like Donald Trump to be elected president because Trump has been denegrating NATo; he’ll make NATPO weaker. He won’t be the strong American leader in Europe that Europeans are accustomed to.  It is clear by their actions and words that the Russians support a Donald Trump candidacy.  Every other European government, and I’ve talked to a lot of them, desperately want Hillary Clinton to be elected because they want stability and a traditional American leader and a leader who is sophisticated enough to know how the US can be effective in that region.

 I think for most Europeans and East Europeans,  Trump is a real danger to them.

Republicans working for President Bush have either remained quiet or turned their back on Trump.  Here’s a sampling:

“If Donald Trump wins, he will, by definition, have created a new template of success for Republicans,” said Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush’s first White House press secretary. “But if he loses, and particularly if he is crushed, it will reset the party back more in the direction of President Bush.”

Because Mr. Trump represents something far greater in the eyes of the Bush veterans than just an unfortunate party nominee, their determination to defeat him has become more intense.

The vast majority of the approximately three dozen veterans of Mr. Bush’s administration contacted for this article indicated that they would not cast a ballot for Mr. Trump.

“I can count on one hand the number of people I worked with who are supporting Trump,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former Bush State Department official who has been calling his onetime colleagues to solicit support for the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

R. Nicholas Burns :

Nicholas Burns (born January 28, 1956) is a university professor, columnist, lecturer and former American diplomat. He is currently Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a member of the Board of Directors of the school’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. At the Harvard Kennedy School, he is Director of The Future of Diplomacy Project and Faculty Chair for the programs on the Middle East and India and South Asia. He is Director of the Aspen Strategy Group, Senior Counselor at the Cohen Group and serves on the Board of Directors of Entegris, Inc. He writes a biweekly column on foreign affairs for the Boston Globe and is a senior foreign affairs columnist for GlobalPost.

This I promise you will be my very last post until after the election.   I also will post all comments on these issues.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Trump Lies on the Benghazi

by Dave

Republicans prepared a report  in June 2016 which none of the Democrats supported.  They issued their separate report.   But both Democratic and Republican reports and prior investigations state that the embassy in Benghazi was inadequately protected.  Hillary Clinton agrees with this assessment and as Secretary of State accepted all recommendations made at the time to improve security.  Of course, you are not going to hear this from Trump.

The big lie is that Secretary Clinton did nothing while 4 Americans were killed in Benghazi. Not even the Republican version of the Benghazi has any conclusion remotely similar to this.  The Republican report states it was impossible to save the two lives in the embassy.  The discussion is on the two lives while guarding the CIA annex.    This is all about an attack that lasted a total of 11 minutes.

Here’s the reporting from the New York Times, June 28, 2016:

“The Republican-led committee found no evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton, then the secretary of state.”

What the Republican version did, was to suggest, just possibly, more could have been done militarily to save the two lives and  suggest Leon Panetta and the Department of Defense.   acted too slow.  NYT reports:

 Senior Pentagon officials have consistently said that they were constrained by the “tyranny of time and distance” — that is, that the military could not have sent troops or planes in time to have made a difference.

NYT reports:

Even the report acknowledges the challenges facing the so-called FAST teams: These troops did not have their own planes, which meant delays waiting for flights; did not travel with their own vehicles (they would need to find some in Benghazi when they landed); and were designed to deploy before a crisis hit, not during hostilities.

Essentially, the hypothetical rescue mission would have been sent to save the lives of two servicemen guarding the CIA Annex.  More lives could have been lost in this mission.  And then the Pentagon, Obama, or even Secretary Clinton would have come under serious attack.

Full NYT article

The best summary I’ve seen on Benghazi is from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

Stay tuned,

Dave