Breaking Fake News Update (v1)

Fake News broke on August 7, 2025!

This news came shortly after Comer subpoenaed Bill and Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Alberto Gonzales in his "investigation" of the Epstein files. 

We will continue to share fake news as it breaks. 

OrangeVerse XLVIII: It's Always Festivus

The impeached president did made what the White House referred to as Remarks by president Trump to the Nation last week.

It was, as you might expect, self-congratulatory, wildly accusatory, unconciliatory, filled with callouts for friends and foe alike, and, as we've become accustomed, weirdly poetic.

And it was an airing of grievances, because it's always Festivus with this president.

Elevate the Grievances (I)

We had the witch hunt.

It started from the day we

came down the elevator, myself

and our future First Lady, who's 

with us right now. 

And it never really stopped. 

We've been going through this

now for over three years. 

It was evil.

It was corrupt

It was dirty cops.

It was leakers and liars. 

I don't know that other Presidents 

would have been able to take it.

Some people said no they wouldn't have.

Thank You for Being a Friend (i)

I want to start by thanking some of - 

and I call them friends

because, you know, 

you develop friendships
 and relationships

when you're in battle
and war, 

much more so than 

"Gee, let's have a normal situation."

Everyone Knows This is Nothing

I want to start by introducing
some of the people that are here. 

I know some are going to be left out.

But they work so hard.

And this is really not
 a news conference.

It's not a speech.

It's not anything.

It's just, we're sort of.

It's a celebration because

we have something that 
just worked out.

I mean, it worked out. 

We went through hell unfairly. 

Did nothing wrong.

Did nothing wrong.

I've done things wrong

in my life, I will admit.

Nor purposely but

I've done things wrong.

But this is what

the end result is. 

Ain't No Thang...

But some of the people here

have been incredible warriors.

They're warriors.

And there's nothing

from a legal standpoint -

this is a political thing. 

And every time, I'd say

"This is unfair. Let's go to court."

They'd say, "Sir you can't 
go to court. This is politics."

And we were treated

unbelievably unfairly.

Russia Russia Russia

And you have to understand

we first went through Russia, Russia, Russia 
it was all bullshit.

We then went through the Mueller report. 

And they should have come back 
one day later. They didn't. 
They came back two years later

after lives were ruined

after people went bankrupt

after people lost all their money.

People came to Washington to help

other people. "Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed"

I say. They came - one or two or three people in

particular, but many people. 

Nasty, Nasty Boy

We had a rough campaign.

it was nasty.

It was one of the nastiest, they say.

They say Andrew Jackson was always

the nastiest campaign. 
They actually said we topped it. 

It was nasty - it was nasty -
 both in the primaries

and in the - in the election.

But you see we thought after the election

it would stop. 
But it didn't stop.

It just started. And 

tremendous corruption

Tremendous corruption.

So we had a campaign.

...It's a very tough thing. And

then we ended up winning on

Russia Russia Russia. 

Thank You for Being A Friend (II)

Then Bob Mueller testified.

That didn't work out so well for the

other side. But they should have said,

that first week - because it came out.
Is that right Jim Jordan?

They know in the first two days actually.

Devin, is that right? 
They knew that we 
were totally innocent

But they kept it going, Mark, 

They kept it going because

they wanted to inflict political pain

on somebody that had just won 
an election that, to - a lot 
of people were surprised.

Winning

I mean, we had polls that said

we were going to win.

And we did win.

It was one of the greatest

wins of all time.

And they said,

"OK, he won."

15 Minutes Can Save You 15% or More

And you know, I wrote this down

because that was where a thing called

the "insurance policy" - to me, 

when I saw the "insurance policy" -

and that was done long before the election.

That was done when they thought

that Hillary Clinton was going to win. And

by the way, Hillary Clinton and the DNC

paid for millions - millions of dollars -

the fake dossier. And now Christopher Steele

admits that it's a fake because 
he got sued by rich people. 

I should have sued him too.

But when you're president

people don't like suing. 

Thank You for Being A Friend (III)

I want to thank my legal team

by the way - not for that advice

- but for other advice. 

Pat, Jay. Pat.

You guys stand up please.

Right at the beginning, they said,

"Sir, you have nothing to worry about.

All the facts

are on your side."

I said "You don't understand.

That doesn't matter.

That doesn't matter."

And that was really true.

We're not even halfway through his remarks, even though I made a few cuts for length - some random applause lines and newspaper waving, and whatnot -  we'll see if we can finish this in two parts.

I'll also remind you that, according to research, any time the president says someone called him"sir" he's about to tell a lie. 

TGIF 7/26/19

Time for our look at good weeks and bad weeks.

Robert Mueller had a mixed week. On the one hand, he testified for six or seven hours before two House Committees and managed to make both Democrats and Republicans look silly. Mueller said his report was his testimony, and he generally stuck to his guns on that. And in doing so, he made a mess of the ulterior motives of both parties.

The Rs wanted to talk about the inception of the investigation, and of course Mueller was not allowed to talk about that, even if he had been so inclined. The Ds attempted to get him to read his report to them;for some reason, many still haven't read the darn thing. That approach failed beautifully, as he had them read key sections out loud instead of the other way around.  I don't know what the Dems were hoping to accomplish with the hearings, but all they got was confirmation of what was already documented in the report, and in the statement Mueller made back in May.

On the other hand, Mueller came off as bit befuddled, they say, asking for questions to be repeated, or being unable to quote chapter and verse about footnotes that were in the 400+page report, or for sounding less than clear in his responses. Next steps are also not clear, now that they made him do what he didn't want to do.

While the House fiddles, the 2020 campaign burns, or something.

Wondering on Wednesday (v178)

Didja watch the Mueller testimony before the House Judiciary and/or Intelligence Committees?

I confess, I did not. I was in the garden, listening to my favorite NPR shows, so I only caught soundbites that people thought were important. Things like the part where Mueller said he did not exonerate Trump, that he didn't charge him because of the DOJ ruling that you can't charge a sitting president, and that Trump could be indicted for obstruction after he leaves office. You know, the kind of stuff we already knew.

So, in a nutshell, it was just what we thought it would be: a bunch of people trying to score points, some of whom did and some of whom really only swung and missed. And yes, if you're wondering, I appreciate that I'm covering multiple sports there, so no need to point that out.

But here's the part that I think is truly worthy of wonder. In his opening statement to both committees, Mueller reminded us that Russia did try and interfere in our 2016 election. Here's what he said to the Judiciary gang:

And let me say one more thing. Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American.

Similarly, he told the House Select Committee on Intelligence this:

Finally, as I said this morning, over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to intervene in our election is among the most serious. I am sure this Committee agrees. 

So, is anyone listening to that, or are they only listening to themselves ask questions (including a number of them that Mueller flat out said he couldn't or wouldn't answer, but they wasted everyone's time on them anyway)? What are our elected representatives doing about this type of threat, that is happening right now, which Mueller told them could come from other countries too?

In other wondering, there is concern that the budget deal worked out by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin that raises the debt ceiling, and more, will have plenty of detractors on both sides - but it has to be passed this week, we're told, before the House leaves for the rest of the summer, because we could be put in a position of not being able to pay our bills before they get back.

So we have to wonder, will the detractors make a mess of things and not let the bill pass in the Senate? Here's the most colorful answer to that question, and it comes from Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who wasn't sure what he was going to do, but suggested it would be appropriate to "color (him) doubtful."

It may taste like pumpkin pie, but I've got a lot of questions. Cutting spending around here is like going to heaven. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody's quite ready to take the trip... 

Now that today's shenanigans are out of the way, maybe we'll quickly see where everyone lands on the spending plan.

And finally, turning back to Mueller's testimony, the only other thing I have to wonder is, what will the Dems do next?

Sunday School 6/23/19

Yep, I'm going there: one of my least favorite talking heads, and my least favorite squawk box: Chuck Todd and president Trump on Meet the Press. The interview was taped Friday morning and aired today.

Here are some highlights.

They talked about Trump's decision not to go ahead with an attack on Iran, it being a disproportionate response to kill 150 or so Iranians in retaliation for the shooting down of an unmanned drone. Trump indicated that he has 'ready-made plans', and said

Oh, I have so many targets, you wouldn't believe. We have targets all over.

Todd asked if Trump thought the Iranians were trying to provoke him into a military response.

No, their economy is shattered. Shattered. Their inflation is through the room. They've never had, the highest in the world right now. Worse than any place. They're not living well. 

On the border, Todd wondered if Trump was frustrated because his border numbers were worse than Obama's.

 No, because the people are coming up because our economy is so good. They're pouring up because the economy is so good. Obama had a lousy economy. It was a dead economy.

Huh.  All this time, I thought it was rapists and murderers and drug dealers and sex traffickers who were coming here, not people looking to take part if our awesome economy.  I seem to have been misled by someone, someone in the White House, I believe it was...

On Obama's jobs record and Trump's jobs record (hint: Obama's is better), here's Trump's explanation.

That's because he started of with a, with such a bad base. I mean, he hit - but Chuck, you have to understand, nobody was working. The whole place was a disaster. And I don't - I'd never take that away. But it's very easy because when that turned around they pumped a tremendous amount of money into the economy. He also had a Federal Reserve person who kept the interest rates low. I don't. I don't have that privilege.

But wait -- didn't we pump trillions or scadzillions of dollars worth of tax cuts for corporations and wealthy people into the economy? And didn't that trickle down to the average Joe, just like they said it would?  Yeah, no.

Trump's biggest mistake, the one thing he'd like a do-over on, if he could have one?

I would say if I had one to do over, it would be, I would not have appointed Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General. That would be my one.  Yeah, that was my biggest mistake.

On family separation at the border, that was Obama's fault and Trump ended it. Or something. But it was Obama's fault. This part of the interview was mostly Todd telling Trump to "do something" over and over and over. Eventually. coming back to 2019 and his administration, it's still the Democrats' fault that children don't have toothbrushes.

On impeachment, it's a crap shoot.

I think I win the election easier. But, you know, I'm not sure that I like having it. Look, I did nothing wrong. I was spied on. What they did to me was illegal. It was illegal on the other side. I did nothing wrong. So impeachment's a very unfair thing because nothing that I did was wrong. And if you look at the Mueller report, there was no collusion. This was all about collusion. This was about conspiracy.Use the word collusion. Use the word conspiracy. 

I'll be honest with you, nobody even mentions Russia anymore since the Mueller report. They don't mention it, in all fairness. Nobody mentions Russia anymore. And it was about Russia. It was a hoax. 

On losing the popular vote in 2016,

Well, I think it was a -- I mean, I'll say something that, again, is controversial. There were a lot of votes cast that I don't believe. I look at California... Take a look at Judicial Watch, take a look at their settlement where California admitted to a million votes. They admitted to a million votes.

Todd asked, "a million votes of what?"

Take a look at Judicial-- Judicial Watch made a settlement, there was much, there was much - there was much illegal voting. But let me tell you about the popular vote. Do you have a second?

Oh for Pete's sake, he is SUCH a liar!  The Judicial Watch settlement was about inactive voters being on the rolls, not about illegal votes. Similar settlements have been reached with Ohio (a red state) and Kentucky (another red state). Many states to not aggressively remove people from the rolls if they fail to vote. And even in the case of the California settlement, voters have two more federal elections in which to fail to vote before they'll be removed from the rolls. And nothing in the settlement suggests that any of the inactive voters, including the dead ones, actually voted. This, my friends, it a complete line of crap that Chuck Todd basically let him get away with.

Finally, on Saudi Arabia, Trump says in a nutshell their money's worth it. 

They buy a massive amount, $150B worth of military equipment that, by the way, we use. We use that military equipment. So Saudi Arabia is a big buyer of America product. That means something to me. It's a big producer of jobs.

On having the FBI investigate the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and involvement of the Crown Prince in that.

Well, I think it's  - I think it's been heavily investigated. By everybody. I mean, I've seen so many different reports... Here's where I am, are you ready? 

Iran's killed many, many people a day. Other countries in the Middle East, this is a hostile place. This is a vicious, hostile place. If you're going to look at Saudi Arabia, look at Iran, look at other countries, I won't mention names, and take a look at what's happening. And they you go outside of the Middle East and you take a look at what's happening with countries. Okay?

And I only say they spend $400 to $450B over a period of time - all money, all jobs, buying equipment... I'm not a fool that says "we don't want to do business with them" And by the way, if they don't do business with us, you know what they do? They'll do business with the Russians or with the Chinese. They will buy - we make the best equipment in the world, but they will buy great equipment from Russia and China. 

Chuck. Take their money. Take their money, Chuck. 

Take their money. And, don't forget, have them take our money too, since we're having them help build some of our more strategic weapons systems.

See you around campus.

OrangeVerse XLIV: Opposites Detract

The president gave an amazing amount of access to enemy of the people George Stephanopoulos of ABC News recently.  The first portion of that interview has been released, and it's the part about the Mueller investigation and collusion and foreign interference in US elections.

And, of course, it's all poetry, isn't it?

Fighting Words

Yeah, uh, my life

has always been a fight. 

And I enjoy that I guess.

I don't know if I enjoy it or not, I guess--

sometimes I have false fights

like that Russian witch hunt.

That's a false fight.
that's a made-up hoax.

Rebuffed Again

I don't know anything

about that. What difference

does polling information make?

It doesn't matter... Who knows? 
But they said specifically 
that there was nothing to do

and we, in fact, rebuffed them.

Who You Gonna Call?

...you're a Congressman, somebody 
comes up and says "Hey I have

information on your opponent."

Do you call the FBI?

You don't. I'll tell you what-

I've seen a lot of things

over my life. I don't think

in my whole life I've

ever called the FBI. 

In my whole life.

I don't -- you don't--

call the FBI...

"Oh, let me call the FBI."

Give me a break

life doesn't work that way.

Research, They Call It Research

Maybe today you think differently.

But two or three years ago if 

somebody comes into your office with

oppo research -

they call it oppo research -

with information that

might be good or bad or something

but good for you

bad for your opponent

you don't call the FBI.

Does He or Doesn't He?

Now, that's called the-- 

no, no. No, no. 

It's being investigated 

I assume now.

I don't know.

I stay uninvolved.
I stay totally uninvolved

and don't talk to...

We have a great attorney general 
now. I don't talk to 

my attorney general about that.

"Hullo? Is That You, Thor?"

I think maybe

you do both. I think

you might want to listen,

there's nothing wrong 
with listening.

If somebody called

from a country, Norway,

"we have information

on your opponent."

Oh, I think I'd want to hear it.

Pass: Interference

It's not interference,

they have information.

I think I'd take it. 

If I thought there was 
something wrong, I'd
go maybe to the FBI. 
If I thought there was 
something wrong.

But when somebody comes 
up with oppo research

right, they come 
up with oppo research.

"Oh, let's call the FBI."

But you go and talk honestly to

congressmen, they all do it

they always have.

And that's the way it is.

Robert Mueller Speaks

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. 

Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Now, I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel’s office, and as well, I’m resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life. I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. 

But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s 

written work speak for itself. 

Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks.

The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. 

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation, where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. 

When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. 

This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. 

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. 

And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. 

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. 

A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. 

Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. 

The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, 

the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. 

And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was Justice Department policy. 

Those were the principles under which we operated. 

And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations. The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. 

And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.

Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. 

Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made.  We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.  And the report is my testimony. 

I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I’ve said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it’s for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.

Now, before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the F.B.I. agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. 

These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel’s office were of the highest integrity. 

And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systemic efforts to interfere in our election. 

And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. 

Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

Sunday School 5/26/19

Let's see how far we can make it, hoping for three classrooms today: two discussions with people of whom I'm not fond, and one with a person with whom I'm relatively unfamiliar.

So let's start there, with Face the Nation where Margaret Brennan  and Beto O'Rourke had a sit-down.  First up was immigration.

O'Rourke was asked if he favors 'catch and release' - no, this is not about fishing, it's about detaining and then releasing immigrants, giving them a court date and trusting them to appear as scheduled. He pointed out that, historically, when we assign them case managers, 99% of them come back for their hearing. He doesn't like the 'catch and release' term any more than I do.

I wouldn't call it catch and release. I'd call it helping those who are seeking asylum in this country to follow our laws. 

Brennan asked if, under his administration, the folks who cross illegally at non-points of entry would be detained

... Those families, if they pose no threat to this country or the communities in which they are apprehended should be released with a case manager who ensures they follow our laws, that they attend their court hearings, that they meet their appointments 

They talked about his campaign, and then Brennan asked if the Democratic Party needs some kind of "generational change." He pointed to the sense of urgency on the part of voters, saying in part.

All I know is that we need to match that with a relentless energy that brings people in who may have been left out before.... We need to be able to bring in new energy. We need to be able to bring in new voters. We need to make sure that this democracy, so badly damaged, works for everyone...

He said that Russia is our greatest adversary, noting that after the Mueller Report came out, Trump called Vladimir Putin for a private chat, noting

We've got the most dangerous person who's ever held office in the White House right now who's inviting the involvement of our greatest adversaries. And we've got to be able to stand up not as Democrats but as Americans to this challenge. 

He's right on that, I think.

Poll Watch: Dump Trump

Who would have thunk that, at this stage of the most successful presidency since sliced bread, a pretty decent majority of voters believe it's time we had a different person sitting in the Oval Office.

Strange as that must seem from the president's perspective, that's the case, at least in a recent poll by Monmouth University, which was discussed in this article.

A new poll finds that a strong majority of voters believes that president Trump does not deserve a second term in office. A Monmouth University survey released Wednesday found that only 37% of voters believe Trump should be reelected, while 60% said they think it's time to have someone new in the White House. 

Monmouth has been asking this question since November, and this is the highest percentage of voters saying enough, already.

The survey also shows that Trump's approval rating is 40% positive, which is on the low end of the scale (40 - 44%) for this poll over the past year, while his 52% negative rating is on the upper end of the 46 - 54% range during the same time period.

As expected, Republicans still are holding him in high esteem (86% approval rating), but only 37% of Independents view him favorably, with 50% having an unfavorable opinion of him.

So, what else did this poll show us?

TGIF 5/11/19

Friday again, already? Let's dive in to our good week/bad week review.

On the bad week side of the ledger, let's took at Rand Paul, the irony-blind junior senator from Kentucky, who's been known to have a battle or two with the Senate leadership, including the other senator from Kentucky, what's his name, the guy who's married to Trump's Transportation Secretary, Elaine Chao? Oh, Mitch McConnell, that's the guy.

The other day, Paul tweeted that his colleague, North Carolina's Richard Burr, must not have gotten the memo that the case is closed on the Mueller investigation per an edict from Mitch McConnell.  Does Paul wish that his colleagues would have sent him a reminder about what McConnell thinks is right? I suspect not, but you never know.

Burr, you see, as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. to come chat with the Committee. Lots of people are confident that Trump Jr. lied during his testimony to Congress, but you know how things go -- you don't question anything that a Trump does if you value your political future.

And while the Senate Majority Leader had not responded to requests for comment, that's not a problem because if you can't get the Majority Leader himself, you get the next best thing - no, not the Transportation Secretary, you get one of his donors. I kid you not.

But a top McConnell donor, who is also close with the Trump White House, told Breitbart News that McConnell must intervene to end Burr's decision to go rogue. 

"What Burr's doing isn't just a slap in the face to the President and his family, it's a slap in the face to Americans across the country," the top McConnell donor said. "It's incumbent that Leader McConnell steps up to the plate and strips Senator Burr's Chairmanship of the IntelCommittee. If he refuses to do that, then he shoulders just as much blame for this travesty of justice as the Senator from North Carolina. 

To which I say, as an American across the country, "hit me with your best shot" and "thank you sir, may I have another?" And I'll also add that, as McConnell is the least popular senator according to his constituents (34% positive/50% negative), he darn well better listen to whoever this top donor is if he wants to get re-elected, by golly.

ICYMI: If Not for the OLC Memo...

There are now more than 700 former federal prosecutors who have signed on to the statement saying that, absent the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel's determination that a sitting president can't be indicted, president Trump surely have been indicted on multiple counts of obstruction of justice.

Their statement is excerpted below:

We are former federal prosecutors. We have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice.  The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Each of us believes that the conduct of president Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. 

The folks who signed onto the statement include some who have served as far back as the Nixon, Ford and Carter presidencies; they have a total of over 8929 years of service, and average of over 12 years of service each.

These are not inexperienced people and they're a whole lot more qualified the vast majority of the armchair quarterbacks  - including the president himself, a boatload or three of elected officials, and countless talking heads, Trump voters and Clinton haters who have (or maybe haven't even) read the Mueller report and reached the conclusion that the president was 'totally exonerated.'

So what did these experts find when they read the report?

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming.  

The "overwhelming" evidence of corrupt intent? Yeah, that includes:

• the president's efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
• the president's efforts to limit the scope of Mueller's investigation to exclude his conduct; and
•  the president's efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign. 

And, they provide details on each of those bullet points to make their case, going so far as to point out that

All of this conduct - trying to control and impede the investigation against the president by leveraging his authority over others - is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions. 

There was more in the report that added to the obstruction case, they noted; they called out facts on the three bullet points only. And while they note that there are defenses or arguments that could be made, and that under our system the accused are presumed innocent, not guilty, they are clear that

...to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice - the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution - runs counter to logic and our experience. 

As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction - which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished - puts our whole system of justice at risk.  We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.  

 Another 15 people have signed on during the time it took me to complete this post.

TGIF 5/3/19

Yay -- it's Friday!  Time to see who had a good week and who had one that was, well, less than stellar.

On the latter, can you say Bill Barr? The poor guy - he goes to the Senate, tries to tell his story, gets hammered by a bunch of Angry Democrats, refers to a letter from Robert Mueller as a bit snitty, and then, being more than a bit snitty himself, refuses to sit before a House committee because they wanted to have staff attorneys question him, and not only that - they called him chicken! And one of them brought a plastic chicken to the hearing. And ate Kentucky Fried Chicken...

Now, there's no doubt that was childish and ridiculous, but so is pretty much everything the president has been saying about the investigation since he announced his total exoneration, even though the Mueller report did not exonerate him.

In fact today the president tried to ruin what should have been a good day - another good jobs report, and another drop in the unemployment rate - but then he had a conversation with Papa Vlad and even he agreed with Trump there was no collusion... and so, back down the hill he slides. I swear, he's incapable of not making a mess of things.

Sing it With Me...

(to the tune of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, of course)

Snitty Bill Barr, Snitty Snitty Bill Barr 

Snitty Bill Barr, Snitty Snitty Bill Barr 

Snitty Bill Barr, Snitty Snitty Bill Barr,

you're so petty.

Snitty Bill Barr, Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, 

We loathe you. And our petty

Snitty Bill Barr, Snitty Snitty Bill Barr

Loathes us too.

Hell no - anywhere you go

Oh Snitty Snitty, no defense - 

Bill Barr, Snitty Snitty Bill Barr

Our fickle lying friend,

Bill Barry Snitty Snitty Bill Barr,

We'll get you in the end!

You lied like a thoroughbred

Donny smiled upon your head

Oh, you showed your loyalty, indeed.

But you work for us, you know?

Not the orange-haired freak show - 

And we deserve respect from you!

Oh, Snitty, you Snitty, petty Snitty Bill Barr

Snitty Snitty Bill Barr we loathe you

And Snitty Snitty Bill Barr loathes us too!

High Snitty, Low Snitty,  anywhere you go

Oh Snitty Snitty, you can't hide!

Bill Barr, Snitty Snitty Bill Barr -

You'll get yours in the end

Snitty Snitty Bill Barr,

You'll get yours in the end!

Poll Watch: The Economy, 2020, and More

Think you have your finger on the pulse of the republic?  Let's see how you stack up with a Fox News poll from last mid-March.

First, the small print: the survey was taken via landlines and cellphones, with interviews of 1,002 randomly selected registered voters March 17 - 20.

First up: Trump's approval rating was 46%, with 51% disapproving, for a net -5 overall. However, his 'strongly approve' rating of 27% was well below the 'strongly disapprove' rating of 42% (-15).

Questioned on Trump's handling of four key issues - the economy, taxes, immigration, and health care, only on the economy, at +8, did he have a net positive. On taxes (-7), immigration (-13) and healthcare (-15), his approves were below his disapproves. Even worse, the numbers on his signature piece of legislation, the Christmas tax cut, are down from a year ago.

There were several questions on the economy, including one asking whether the respondents are confident, nervous, mixed or don't know. Here are the results from the current survey, along with last year's.

• Confident: 37% (-3)
• Nervous: 43% (-4)
• Mixed: 17% (-6)
• Don't know: 3% (even)

Let's look at some of the even more interesting details.

Sunday School 4/28/19

OK, let's see how much ground we can cover today, starting with Andrea Mitchell sitting in for Chuck Todd on NBC's  Meet the Press.  On the show were presidential candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and former Deputy AG Sally Yates, who was fired by the Trump administration. We'll start there.

Mitchell asked what Yates thought about Trump calling the FBI "scum" at his rally in Wisconsin last night. Yates said those were "words we shouldn't be throwing around" about our law enforcement and intelligence folks. Mitchell also asked about the Mueller Report and whether it exonerated the president.

... I think it paints a devastating portrait of a president and a campaign who welcomed a foreign adversary's illegal interference into our election, who then continually lied about it and then used the power of the presidency to try and thwart an investigation into his own conduct. That's not exoneration.

And whether she thought there would have been an indictment on obstruction, absent the "sitting president can't be indicted" position, and whether Trump would have been indicted on the ten obstruction charges if he was just a regular guy? Yates said she's prosecuted obstruction on less evidence, but all ten scenarios might not be prosecutable, just the ones where Mueller found no "significant factual or legal defenses."

Yates pointed out that Mueller "specifically references" the possibility of prosecution after Trump is out of office, but there's a bigger issue, she noted. It's about presidential conduct.

I mean, when the Russians came knocking at their door, you would expect that a man who likes to make a show of hugging the flag would have done the patriotic thing and notified law enforcement. 

And about Rudy Giuliani's comment that there's nothing wrong with taking help from a foreign adversary?

Yeah, that's a shocking statement. And it also just reflects how they have moved the goalpost, when the truth comes out...Surely, that's not what we've come to. 

Sen. Johnson said he personally wouldn't welcome support from the Russians, even given Giuliani's comments. And on the FBI scum comment?  Johnson spent a lot of time talking about "understanding the president's frustration" before finally saying "Probably, I would use different words."

Sen. Klobuchar was asked about obstruction; she supports Congressional subpoenas for administration officials and is looking forward to questioning AG Bill Barr this week. Mitchell wondered if, as a candidate, the senator should say whether or not the impeachment process should be started. Klobuchar noted that the House will make that decision; her interest is in holding Trump  accountable, and citing the Mueller report, noted there are many ways to do that:

One is with the process through Congress, which includes these investigations, which the president is already stonewalling. The second is other investigations that are going on right now, including in New York. And the third is pretty straightforward, Andrea. That is defeating him in 2020. And that's what I intend to do and will do.

Asked about what Joe Biden should say to Anita Hill, who apparently is not happy with her recent conversation with him, Klobuchar correctly noted that was Biden's question to answer. If enough of the candidates not named Biden give that answer, maybe the medial will stop asking them the question. 

There's always hope.

Wondering on Wednesday (v171)

Where do we begin with today's wondering?

Maybe we start with the president saying he'd go to the Supreme Court to prevent an impeachment action, which is of course a legitimate oversight activity of a co-equal branch of government?  Trump has said that not only are there no high crimes or misdemeanors, but there's no crimes at all - the latter part, at least so far, is true when it comes to him.

But impeachment is a political check and balance, not a criminal one - and if you look at what Trump's personal senator, Lindsey Graham said regarding the impeachment of Bill Clinton, there's room for the current Congress to act.

So the point I'm trying to make is that you don't even have to be convicted of a crime, to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role... Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.

Yes, yes it is. And I wonder what Graham would say now?

Or, maybe we should start wondering what's going to happen next?  The president has been found 'not chargeable' because the Justice Department feels a sitting president can't be indicted, so the obstruction that he attempted to do, all that might just be water under the impeachment bridge or over the "we'll charge you when you're out of office" dam, or something.

But now he's formally and very publicly obstructing Congressional investigations. Trump will attempt to block testimony by Don McGahn, his former attorney. He barred a guy from the security clearance operation from testifying, likely leading to a Contempt of Congress citation. He's sued a financial firm to block them from releasing information requested by Congress and also sued Elijah Cummings, chair of the House Oversight Committee, for asking for the records. The IRS has missed a deadline to turn over Trump's taxes as requested...  and on and on it will go.

If he didn't officially obstruct Robert Mueller's investigation, he has no qualms about obstructing Congress...