Wondering on Wednesday (v216)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I don't have a theme for tonight, so let's just meander, shall we?

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III will not be headed back to the United States Senate, having lost his primary to former football coach Tommy Tuberville. And he lost in spectacular fashion, getting not even 40% of the vote.  One could be forgiven for wondering whether Sessions might have thought about recusing himself from this race...

Peter Navarro, the president's Director of Trade and Manufacturing policy, might find himself manufacturing some sort of public mea culpa he can trade for a private pat on the back from his boss. Navarro, almost certainly doing his level best to do whatever he needs to for the team, wrote a nastygram whining about Dr. Anthony Fauci, and that got him in hot water with some folks. 

Even the president said Navarro was speaking for himself and shouldn't have written it, but I can't help wondering if Trump didn't let out a little squeal of glee when he heard about it.  Unless, of course, Navarro (a master of military language) was only following an actual directive of his commander-in-chief...

We had our first federal execution since 2003 this week, even though relatives of the three victims in the case had petitioned to not have the execution during the coronavirus pandemic, because they did not feel safe travelling to witness the execution. AG Snitty Snitty Bill Barr had said that it was the duty of the DOJ to carry out the death penalty sentences, in part to give closure to the families of victims and people in the communities where the capital crimes were committed. 

What's interesting, though, is that the family members did not want to see Daniel Lee executed; rather, they wanted to see him spend his life in prison, the same sentence given to the other person convicted in the crimes. So, I wonder: would there have been such a push to execute him, outside the presence of the victims' families, had they been supportive of the execution?  

And finally, we learned today that the 2012 Rose Bowl Parade has been cancelled because of the coronavirus.  Here's an excerpt from a statement making the announcement.

While the parade itself is more than five months from now, the preparation for such a large event typically begins in February. “In addition to the advance planning required by our band and equestrian units, the construction of our floats takes many months and typically requires thousands of volunteers to gather in ways that aren’t in compliance with safety recommendations and won’t be safe in the coming months,” said David Eads, Executive Director/CEO. “While we are extremely disappointed that we are unable to host the parade, we believe that not doing so will prevent the spread of COVID-19, as well as protect the legacy of the Rose Parade for generations to come.”

Now, what's got me wondering here?  Simply this: if it's not safe for adults to build floats and decorate them with flowers and other materials, how can it possibly be safe to send children to school?

Shots Fired: Systemic Racism? Here?

Shots fired.

Shots, in the form of voices talking about systemic racism, echoing around the interwebs. I hope they continue to do so, until the echoes ring in everyone's ears, creating a deafening sound that simply cannot be ignored.

We need that; we do.

Well, I don't believe in systemic racism. I think the American system is the best system ever devised for mankind, for history. We are liberty, we are equality, we are fairness, we have come a long way in this country...Here's a thought: President Obama, the first black president was elected twice, and he got 79 million white votes - 79 million in two elections. Now therefore, I find it hard to understand something called 'systemic racism. ~ Larry Kudlow, White House economic advisor, June 2020.

I live through the crisis and the systemic racism every single day, but I say, 'Maybe George Floyd is different.' We need to do whatever we can and commit every resource that we have...to combat this 400 years of systemic racism across every one of the important areas: education, economics, criminal injustice, and health care. ~black executive Ray McGuire, vice chairman of Citigroup, June 2020

We tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a Civil War, by passing landmark civil rights legislation, electing an African American president. I don't think we should be trying to figure out how to compensate for it. First of all, it would be hard to figure out whom to compensate. ~Kentucky's Senator Mitch McConnell, on the topic of reparations, June 2019

It remains a shocking failure that many African Americans, especially young African American men, are harassed and threatened in their own country. It is a strength when protesters, protected by responsible law enforcement, march for a better future. This tragedy - in a long series of similar tragedies - raises a long overdue question: How do we end systemic racism in our society? The only way to see ourselves in a true light is to listen to the voices of so many who are hurting and grieving. Those who set out to silence those voices do not understand the meaning of America - or how it becomes a better place. ~George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, May 2020

I do not think that we have a system racism problem with law enforcement officers across this country. Do I acknowledge that there are some law enforcement officers that abuse their job? Yes. And again, we need to hold those accountable. And I would say that there are individuals in every profession across this country that probably abuse their authority and their power. And we need to hold them accountable. Can we do better? Can we continue to do more in the law enforcement arena? Outreach to our communities? Particularly those that feel slighted or -- absolutely. And so, I think there's always that - things that we can do more. But, again, I think painting law enforcement with a broad brush of systemic racism is really a disservice to the men and women who put on the badge, the uniform every day, risk their lives every day to protect the American people, to protect them so that they can go to school, they can have a business and come home safe to their families. So, I think we need to keep that in mind as well. ~Chad Wolfe, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, June 2020

These events are yet another reminder that many of our fellow citizens endure the burden of unjust, exploitative, and abusive treatment by institutions in this country. Over the course of American history, the examples of such institutionalized racism are many, and include slavery, federal law (consider the Three-Fifths Compromise our founding fathers established to determine federal representation), sanctioned intimidation during Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws in southern states, redlining by bankers and brokers, segregation, voter suppression, and racial profiling in policing. These institutions hurt not only the African Americans they've targeted, but the systemic racism they've codified also hurt, and continues to hurt, America and its economy. By limiting economic and educational opportunities for a large number of Americans, institutionalized racism constrains this country's economic potential. The economic contributions of these Americans, in the form of work product and innovation, will be less than they otherwise could have been. Systemic racism is a yoke that drags on the American economy. This country has both a moral and economic imperative to end these unjust and destructive practices. ~Raphael Bostic, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, June 2020

I think there's racism in the United States still but I don't think that the law enforcement system is systematically racist. I understand the - the distrust, however, of the African American community given the history in this country. I think we have to recognize that for most of our history, our institutions were explicitly racist. Since the 1960s, I think we've been in a phase of reforming our institutions and making sure that they're in sync with our laws and aren't fighting a rearguard action to impose inequities. ~William Barr, US Attorney General, June 2020

The truth of our nation is that too often, the color of your skin alone can endanger your life, and for far too long, systemic racism has oppressed communities of color in the United States. Black and brown communities must no longer be the only ones to bear the weight of pushing for change. No one can stay silent. No one can ignore injustice. It's long past time for our nation to deal with systemic racism, including its contributions to growing economic inequality. We must seize this moment of opportunity to address all the issues that have denied the promise of this nation to so many for long. Let's use this moment or urgency to finally find the path forward. ~former Vice President Joe Biden

Systemic racism is manifesting itself in the public lynchings of Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd, as well as the state violence against Breonna Taylor. Black folks are also dying at startling numbers to COVID-19 due to systemic racism. One virus (systemic racism), two manifestations. ~Bakari Sellers, attorney, author, former state representative in South Carolina

Not all of the folks here necessarily have the same opinions they've always had; some have evolved, as is part of human nature. Others may not have.  But if the thinking is that it's enough to say that there is (or is not) systemic racism in law enforcement, that thinking is missing the boat.

Systemic racism in law enforcement can lead to a very violent death, a 'public lynching' as described by Bakari Sellers, but perhaps the more insidious systemic racism - the kind that can bring about a long, slow, death - is the kind talked about by Ray McGuire, by Raphael Bostic, and by Sellers, too.

The kind that kills not one individual at a time, but entire communities of people who are not allowed the chance to succeed. The ones with bad water, and lead paint, and permanent code violations and redlined zip codes. The ones with poor transportation options; the food deserts; the medical deserts; the ones without polling places; the ones with 'labels' that last for generations, whether deserved once, now, or never.  The communities where 'those people' live.

How do we end systemic racism in America? Maybe we can start by admitting it exists...

Shots fired.

TGIF 5/8/20

Another Friday, already? Let's dive in and see what was going on this week.

Right off the bat, we now know that coronavirus has entered the White House, with both a presidential valet and the vice president's press secretary having tested positive. I understand now that the valets will be wearing masks, which makes sense, at least according to the CDC experts. Better late than never, I guess.  Pence's aide, Katie Miller, happens to be married to Trump's immigration policy guru, Stephen Miller. She's being quarantined for 14 days, not sure about him.

The president went to a mask company in Arizona this week, where he wore glasses but not a mask. But that's OK, I guess, because as the song says, Live and Let Die. Also while he was in Arizona, the president did an interview with ABC's David Muir which was, well, Trumpian to the extreme. I'll have more on that tomorrow.

Attorney General Snitty Snitty Bill Barr tried (and failed, it would seem) to convince the Administration to drop their assault on the Affordable Care Act, and he tried (and succeeded) in getting the DOJ to drop the charges against Michael Flynn, who cooperated with the Mueller Investigation. On the former, Barr's concern seems to be kicking tens of millions of people off their insurance, or appearing to, during an election year - which would not be an actual crime, only a political crime. On the latter, Barr said that "people sometimes plead guilty to things that turn out not to be crimes."  As with the Roger Stone case, the line prosecutor on the Flynn case withdrew. Seems things continue to be not so warm and fuzzy at DOJ...

Unemployment numbers for April came out today, and they were not good. I had heard estimates of between 16-17%  but  the unemployment rate came in at 14.7%. All of the job gains over the past 11 years have been wiped out. The 10.3% increase was the largest "over the month" increase in the metric's history.

For a somewhat unusual reason, Andrew Yang is in the news again this week. Last week, Yang sued the NYS Board of Elections for cancelling this year's presidential primary, as there are no candidates still officially in the running other than Joe Biden. And just the other day, a federal judge ordered NY to hold the primary after all. While some saw it as a victory for delegates who still have a chance to impact the party's platform at the convention, others don't feel the same. Ben Adler, writing in City and State New York, disagrees.  Adler said "this is just more proof - as if any were needed after Trump - that "outsider" candidates who run to promote their personal brand or idiosyncratic ideas usually leave politics worse for their involvement." Ouch.

And finally, Joe Biden. Evidence appears to be mounting against him vis a vis Tara Reade. On the heels of a recording alleged to be her mother calling in to the Larry King Show that came to light last month, we now have documents from her divorce, filed in 1996, in which her ex-husband references Reade saying she was sexually harassed while working for Biden's office.

I don't know how anyone looks at this, with a believing or disbelieving eye, and doesn't think it seriously hurts the Biden campaign.

TGIF, everyone.

Ranting and Raving (v5): Pandemic Pandemonium

Boy, don't you love a good pandemic and the pandemonium it causes? I sure do. We've got the quote-unquote #fakenewews reporting actual data and actual news and we've got people who don't know the difference between news reporting and opinion columns conflating the two and losing their minds over the WRONG thing when the right thing is sitting right in front of them, and we've got the president reporting #fakenews and his feelings and his #stablegeniousity and the rumblings in his gut and that's what his supporters are hanging on to and EVERYTHING IS GREAT because there are FACTS when the are none and the are LIES when there is truth and those people (yes, I said 'those people') are now promoting #FireFauci on Twitter because the virus-fighting doc who has served not one, not two, not three, not four, not five but SIX six presidents (and no, the best was not saved for last), is doing doctor-talk and science-speak and truth-telling and mostly because he had the audacity to correct the #fakenewspresident, the #Trumpeters are trumpeting that THE DOC HAS TO GO and there's a chance that he will be fired because as we know, the #celebritypresident likes nothing better than bigly good numbers on social media - he's #1 on Facebook and ratings for his daily failed #socialdistancingexercises are through the ROOF! - he has to do what his Keyboard Kops tell him to do especially if #FauxNews aka #TNN (Trump News Network) picks it up and oh by the way, someone apparently told Trump if he #wenttoJared and dragged him out on the rally stage the heat would be off, which it was, and that allowed Trump cover to fire the ICIG who said that the #whistleblower was telling the truth and provided proof that it was (but I digress) so NOW, we have Pence and Jared and Navarro and Gaynor and Adams and SnittySnittyBillBarr (what the hell was HE doing up there?) and people think the GOVERNORS are being childish because they're complaining about not being able to get straight answers???? Dear Lord, this really low bar administration sure can raise the bar on chaos, can't it? (Takes breath and stiff drink) And SPEAKING of the governors, most of whom (all of the Blue State ones for sure) are doing a better job than the point people and the president, some of them (Red State ones for sure) are getting MORE supplies than they request, and they're getting more, MORE THAN ONCE and meanwhile, the governors and the county execs and town supervisors and mayors ('mares' as the president calls them - time for him to take a 'Bare' aspirin or something) are doing one helluva job trying to keep their people safe and not feeding us a boatload of BS from a rotating cast of characters on a stage where social distancing apparently doesn't apply. They tell us what we need to know, and they explain why they're making decisions and yet - AND YET - there's crap like what a semi-local radio host posted, that our Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo (I'm very more often not a fan of his, so don't start with me) is apparently doing everything he can to make sure that the folks who are dying from or with the #coronavirus are people who VOTED FOR HIS OPPONENT - I kid you not - because Cuomo said he was going to sign an executive order and have the National Guard take PPE, supplies and yes, probably 500 or so ventilators, maybe less, that are less likely to be needed upstate, or not needed right now, and deliver them downstate where the people are dying in numbers that are horrifying, that are are mind-numbing, that are stomach-turning and somehow we're supposed to get on board with the radiojerk's theory that he's signing our death certificates and committing EXECUTIVE HOMICIDE by working to figure out where people have things that they don't currently need (and may not need for the pandemic) and moving those to the place of greatest need IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY -- but that's wrong? #WTF is he supposed to do, just let people downstate die? Would that make all of the haters happy? I mean, it's mostly just those immigrants (legal or otherwise) that are getting sick and dying, right? It's not like they're humans who had jobs and families and aspirations and dreams and birthdays and upcoming weddings and family reunions and what not, right? "Those people" that's who they are, right? Because here's the deal (as the radiojerk says all the time), the deal is, the morgues are full, people - FULL - and there are dozens and dozens of refrigerated trucks parked on the streets in NYC stacked high with bodies of the dead and we are anticipating that another 85 TRUCKS are going to be coming to NYC to hold more bodies of the dead and if you think that's happening here where we sit, let's put on our cloth facial coverings and go for a ride and SHOW ME THE BODIES piling up in Buffalo and Syracuse and Rochester and Watertown and Albany and Auburn and Oneonta and Penn Yan and Herkimer and Saratoga and Cortland and Webster and Henderson and Oswego and Cooperstown, show me the trucks full of bodies and convince me that the supplies are better sitting here, just in case, than they are down there where, literally (not just Joe Biden Literally) the bodies are piled high and THEN tell me that if the situation were reversed and it was up here where all those trucks were parked in neighborhoods near our hospitals and the morgues were full and every bed was full and every hallway was full of patients and the parking lots were all full of medical tents, you tell me that you wouldn't want said Homicidal Maniac Executive er, Executioner, sorry to do WHATEVER IT TAKES including sending in the National Guard to get whatever supplies we could get our hands on, for Pete's sake are you even listening to yourselves? And why is it I keep noticing that the same people spitting this stuff, include many Republican politicians,  are the ones echoing the 1,000,000,000% partisan political hack that we have as president telling us we all have to set politics aside and come together and blahdittyblahblahblah because we know he is mentally and morally incapable of doing that - and won't even try, doesn't even care enough for one Pearl Harbor Moment - but because HE says it THEY all say it and wave their flags in our faces? (Takes breath and stiff drink) Could the Sonofa Gov had done this differently? Sure, there's always a better way to do something, and he SHOULD have done it differently, but is he taking every last mask, face shield, pair of gloves and ventilator and wandering through hospitals checking voter registration data on downstate patient bracelets looking to buy one last vote and screw the Republicans who can't find a halfway decent candidate to run for anything in this state - ANYTHING - when he's not up for re-election until 2022? Stop it. Just. Stop. It. Is Cuomo the greatest thing since sliced bread? Of course not: everyone knows that Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are the greatest thing since sliced bread but oh -- by the way-- for the most part, ALL of the governors are doing the same thing, getting supplies from place A in their state and moving them to place B in their state, because what good are the supplies if they're not being used or are likely to not be needed to the same degree as they are needed NOW in other areas? And you know what else? Those other governors are SENDING SUPPLIES TO US and they're sending medical professionals to us, because THEY understand that the place of greatest need is where we need the greatest good, and because they know that New York would do the same for them, under the same circumstances, whether upstate folks like it or not, whether Republicans like it or not and honestly a Republican NY gov (yes we've had them before) would do the same thing, or he'd be called out for not doing the same thing by EXACTLY the same people who are bitching about the Sonofa Gov and you KNOW I'm right. So yes, regular readers, at this moment I'm actually siding with the politicians and yes, there's a chance that a little bit of hell might actually have just frozen over, but have no fear - there's more than enough hatred and fear and ill will to thaw it out pretty darn quickly and now I'm going out in my garden and getting the heck away from all this BS and pulling the weeds I can pull, vs. staying inside trying to pull the ones I can't control. (Takes breath and stiff drink).  Have a nice day. And don't forget to wash your hands.

Wondering on Wednesday (v198)

Ready... Set... Wonder!

So, how's everyone doing today? Getting ready for the debate with five moderators and six candidates? I really hope NBC comes up with another person so every candidate can be matched with an individual questioner... and if they don't add one, I'll really have to wonder about their sense of adventure.

I'm going to be watching - and celebrating National Wine Day at the same time, even though I'm a day late on the latter. But no point wasting a good drinking game night, right? Here are some of my keywords for tonight: delegates; family values; Super Tuesday; South Carolina; people of color; Nevada Culinary Union; pardons; stop and frisk; media bias; raise your hand; front-runner; Elizabeth Warren (since she's been inexplicably missing from recent polls); and farmers. My bonus word? Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA.

Now, we won't have a 'debate' or anything close to that -- what we'll likely have, as we usually do, is a group interview, with a little bit - or maybe even a lot - of sniping at each other, particularly the designated front-runners: That Guy from Vermont, who is tied with a former mayor in delegates, and the other former mayor, the billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who hasn't been on the ballot anywhere, so has zero delegates and zero votes.

And speaking of billionaires, let's take a moment to wonder about the other billionaire in the race, Tom Steyer, the one who's actually on the ballot in Nevada, but who didn't make the debate stage.

That other billionaire, the impeached president, is still out there, not spending a dime of his own money, but continuing to make money off everything political. That's right: according to this Forbes article, 

Billionaire Donald Trump still has not donated a cent to his 2020 campaign, opting to fund the effort with money from supporters around the country. At the same time, Trump’s private companies are continuing to charge the campaign for expenses like rent and consulting, according to the latest federal filings. That means that since January 20, 2017, the day Trump officially declared his intent to run for re-election, his campaign has put $1.9 million of donor money into the president’s private business.

So, where's the money going?

• $1.3 million to Trump Tower Commercial LLC, in which the president has a 100% interest from his re-election team, with additional money coming from the RNC;
• $259,000 to the Trump Corporation, in which the president has a 100% interest, for legal and IT consulting;
• $126,000 to the Trump International Hotel;
• $60,000 to the Trump Hotel Collection, a management company also called Trump International Hotels Management LLC, solely owned by the president;
• $84,000 to Trump Plaza LLC, owned outright by the president; and
• $3,000 monthly payments to Trump Restaurants LLC, in which the president has a 100% interest.

Now, the assumption is that this is all legal and above board, as long as the campaign is paying market rates and all, which of course they said it does. However, the article also notes that

Even if a campaign were breaking rules by paying exorbitant rates, there’s not a lot anyone could do about it right now. The FEC, which examines such things, cannot take any official commission action unless at least four of its six commissioners vote to do so. Since Trump took office, three of the FEC’s commissioners have left their posts. Their seats—which demand presidential appointments and senate confirmations—have yet to be filled.

I don't know about you, but I have to wonder a couple of things: first of all, is there NO non-Trump-enriching space available? And second, is there any wondering why the FEC isn't up to full strength?

And one more - do the folks who are spending all of their money on Trump properties (the same as they did back in 2015 an 2016) do this on their own, or because they know if they didn't, they'd be out of a job?

What else is going on?  Let's see...  Virginia failed to pass an assault weapons ban this week, when

Four Democrats on Virginia's Senate Judiciary Committee broke ranks with their party handing the Republican minority a victory in tabling the bill for the remainder of the year. It also sent the measure to the state's Crime Commission for further review. 

The bill would have banned the sale or transfer of certain assault-style weapons in Virginia. It also would have made it illegal to possess silencers and magazine holding more than 12 rounds. 

Lots of people are wondering what happened to everyone's courage, after the Dems took control and turned Virginia into single-party government; this was a shock to many, it seems.

Reports say that Snitty Snitty Bill Barr considered resigning because of Trump's meddling and tweeting and impossible-job-making interference.  I have to say, part of me thinks that's a load of hooey - if he wanted to resign, he could have, and still can. I also wonder if it had anything to do with the couple thousand former DOJ employees calling on him to resign?

And finally, a couple of noteworthy bankruptcy filings making the news: the Boy Scouts of America and the Diocese of Harrisburg, PA have both filed, for the same reason - abuse of young people. There's not a lot left to wonder about in either case, I think for either, I think - other than, have we heard the last of it?

That's where we'll leave it for now. Enjoy the debate, if that's the correct word for it. And don't overdo the drinking game...

TGIF 2/14/20

Time to review the lists again...

Happy Valentine's Day - and for those who are celebrating in some way, large or small, congratulations - you're on the good list!

For those of you who think holidays like this are silly, guess what? You're also on the good list - because here at veritable pastiche, the tent is big enough for different opinions on holidays (especially the ones in December...).

Moving on to the bigger picture, I can't decide what kind of week Snitty Snitty Bill Barr is having. On the one hand, he's continuing to do exactly what president Trump wants him to do, but on the other hand he's complaining that the president making his wishes known are making it "impossible" for him to do his job. Honest, that's what he said.

...to have public statements and tweets made about the department, about our people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we're doing our work with integrity.

And of course, the president assures us he's just doing what he's allowed to do, when he interferes and in particular when he attacks judges, which he has started doing with the Roger Stone case, and what he famously did with Judge Gonzalo Curiel earlier on. Here's a compilation of those attacks.

What else is going on this week? Oh - that's right: New Hampshire voters had a good week, with record-setting turnout in the Democratic primary and what's likely a record or near record narrow margin of victory for That Guy from Vermont. And even though I don't understand why, over 150,000 of them showed up to vote for Trump in the meaningless Republican primary. That's desire, I guess.  Other good weeks? Mayor Pete, who earned just as many NH delegates as the "clear front runner," and Amy Klobuchar, who picked up six delegates. Papa Joe left for South Carolina before voting was even done, and Elizabeth Warren? I think only a fool would write her off.

Andrew McCabe, who oh-so-long ago was the Deputy Director of the FBI, got late-breaking good week notification. His lawyers were advised that McCabe won't be charged with anything after being left hanging for nearly two years. I'll let you decide whether this is an effort by AG Barr to demonstrate how independent he is, or if we'll see a review of this decision anytime soon. You know -- after Trump inevitably tweets about it.

In my neck of the woods, NY's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo went to Albany to try and get the administration to back off on plans to keep New Yorkers from participating in a few travel programs. We were stripped of that right ostensibly because of the Green Light Law which allows undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses and prevents the DMV from sharing info with immigration officials.

Now, there's a little issue of what might look like a quid pro quo here, which came in the form of a tweet from you-know-who.

I'm sure, as you are, there's no question that's a perfect tweet right there, but even if it's neither perfect nor a quid pro quo, our AG Tish James set the record straight.

And finally, I'll end with news that Mike Bolsinger, a relief pitcher for the Toronto Blue Jays, is suing the Houston Astros for damages and to have their $30M+ in bonuses donated to charities for kids and for retired major leaguers.

Bolsinger, an off-speed pitcher, had one disastrous inning in the 2017 playoffs and was released by the Blue Jays that night - never to pitch in the majors again. His lawyers say the Astros knew every single pitch in the inning, in which he walked three batters, gave up four earned runs, and got one batter out. The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles, home of the Dodgers, who eventually lost the World Series to the Astros. I'm putting Bolsinger squarely on the good week list.

TGIF, everyone.

Trump in Transition (42): We're Not Done Yet

I thought that I was done with Trump in Transition posts, but I felt compelled to do one more, because of the threat a potential acquittal in the impeachment trial will pose.

I encourage you to read and thoughtfully consider this editorial in the Washington Post today, and understand what this impeachment is really all about and what it means if it is ignored.

The editorial notes, referencing the president's legal team, that

The defense brief they filed Monday argues that the president “did absolutely nothing wrong” when he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch investigations of Joe Biden and a Russian-promoted conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. It further contends that Mr. Trump was entirely within his rights when he refused all cooperation with the House impeachment inquiry, including rejecting subpoenas for testimony and documents. It says he cannot be impeached because he violated no law.

Think about that last sentence, and think about this:

• Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, the United States Attorney General, believes that a US Attorney or Special prosecutor can determine that a that a president has committed a crime, but that a sitting president cannot be charged with the crime that the prosecutor identified.
• president Trump's attorneys have argued in federal court that the president could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City and be immune from prosecution, significantly expanding on the initial point of this scenario, which is that even if Trump did that, he wouldn't lose any votes.

The editorial continues by noting that asking for an acquittal on that basis, Trump's lawyers (again, emphasis added)

are, in effect, seeking consent for an extraordinary expansion of his powers. An acquittal vote would confirm to Mr. Trump that he is free to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election and to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to induce such interference. It would suggest that he can press foreign leaders to launch a criminal investigation of any American citizen he designates, even in the absence of a preexisting U.S. probe, or any evidence.

I'm not sure any Senator who goes along with that line of thinking really wants that to happen, especially if they consider the personal impacts on them. Pretend, for instance, that a spine miraculously appears and a Senator decides to go against the president on something he feels strongly about (other than not being impeached, of course). Say one of them decides to

• vote against his insane buildup of our military, on which we already spend more than then next seven highest-spending countries combined, and more than the rest of the world, another 140+ countries, combined?
• vote against his stealing appropriated money and putting it on the border wall?
• vote against his vast expansion of welfare for paid leave, child care and all the rest?
• vote against an environmental regulatory repeal that will jeopardize his or her constituents should a heinous failure of an energy company occur? (You know, a burst pipeline, or a coal mine collapse, poisoned water from a pig farm, or a few thousand fracking earthquakes...)

They already know that going against him now may lead to the threat that he'll withhold his "full and complete endorsement" - but if they were to cross the un-indictable and unimpeachable asterisk president? Who knows which country he'll call upon to dig up dirt on them? I'm thinking Senators might want to check their junket itineraries for their entire time in office to see what they're up against...

And, think about the consequences of allowing this expansion of power should someone else get elected this fall: picture a President Sanders asking a foreign country to investigate an opponent of 'Democratic Socialism' or a President Biden having a friendly foreign government dig up dirt on all of the nepotism hires in the government, or a President Buttigieg having an equality-centric foreign country go after anti-gay politicians and their families, or a President Warren asking another country for help in digging around in DNA databases for dirt on political opponents... 

Those investigations would need no evidence of a crime; they could be done merely to satisfy the whims of a petulant, thin-skinned president acting like - well, acting like the current president. 

Now, the likelihood that any of the leading Dems would resort to that kind of nonsense is pretty darn low, but ignoring the actions for which the president was impeached and focusing on who is bringing the charges, or on the process under which the issues were investigated, voted on and approved presents a huge personal risk to all current and future politicians. Because none of those actions could be considered an abuse of power, and all of them would be perfectly acceptable in the world the president's defense contemplates.

And it's also dangerous for regular folks like me. I mean, I've slammed Trump on Twitter, on this blog, on Facebook, in bars and restaurants, in letters to my Congressman, while walking down the street with my husband, while talking to myself as I worked in my garden; I curse a cardboard cutout of him, I shake my fist at him when I watch news clips of him telling bald-faced lies - and I'm not the only person who'll read this who does that.

Any number of people have done the same, some with different targets: Clinton. Obama. Sanders. Biden. Buttigieg. Warren. Pelosi. Schiff. Nadler. AOC. Ilhan Omar. Rashida Tlaib. Maxine Waters. The list is endless, on both sides. Do you really want a president to be able to investigate me, or you, or your family members, just because said president has his or her panties in a knot?

Lots of people with much larger audiences than mine criticize and castigate and challenge this president, every single day - many of them members of the media, or as the asterisk president calls them, the "enemy of the people." Do we even know which reporters he has had investigated, or is having investigated right now for the simple offense of telling the truth, calling out one of his lies, or spouting an opinion? No - we don't.

We honestly have no idea how far astray

his anger, his thin skin, and his unfettered pride have taken him -
or will take him in the future.

Beyond that, the editorial also notes that under his defense scheme, a president could "flatly refuse all cooperation with any Congressional inquiry" in total disregard of the United States Constitution, which gives the House the power to impeach the executive. And,

it would establish that no president may be impeached unless he or she could be convicted of violating a federal statute - no matter the abuse of power. Those are principles that Republicans will regret if they conclude that a Democratic executive has violated his or her oath of office.

If they can't selfishly protect themselves and their own longevity, and they aren't willing to selflessly protect you and me, is it too much to ask that they simply uphold their oaths and protect the Constitution?

We'll see - we surely will - and we may not have to wait all that long to find out.

Sunday School Extra Credit 12/15/19

I want to spend some time with Chris Wallace and former FBI Director James Comey, who chatted in yesterday's Fox News Sunday classroom.

Not surprisingly, much of the conversation related to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report, which didn't find any political bias in the investigation, but did find that there were a whole mess of errors and mistakes by folks involved in it. What was surprising to me was how Comey reacted to the IG's report. For example, here's what Comey said about the report and 'vindication.'

It is. I mean, the FBI's had to wait two years while the president and his followers lied about the institution. Finally the truth gets told.

And here's Horowitz on whether his report vindicated Comey.

It doesn't vindicate anyone at the FBI who touched this, including the leadership.

Comey suggested the difference between the two takes on vindication drive from how the word is being understood; he's interpreting it as clearing his FBI from the 'nonsense' that was the many accusations from the president and his minions.

What I mean is that the FBI was accused of treason, of illegal spying, of tapping Mr. Trump's wires illegally, of opening an investigation without justification, of being a criminal conspiracy to unseat -- defeat and then unseat a president. All of that was nonsense. I think it's really important that the inspector general looked at that and that the American people, your viewers and all viewers, understand that's true. But he also found things that we were never accused of, which is real sloppiness, and that's concerning. As I've said all along, has to be focused on. If I were director I'd be very concerned about it and diving into it.

Regarding the FISA applications and the resulting warrants - about which Comey had previously expressed "total confidence" both in the process being followed and the case being handled in a "thoughtful, responsible way" by the FBI and DOJ, Horowitz had a different opinion.

We identified significant inaccuracies and omissions in each of the four applications, seven in the first application and a total of 17 by the final renewal application.

Comey expressed some contrition, saying

I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years. I thought they were robust enough. It's incredibly hard to get a FISA. I was overconfident in those. Because he's right. There was real sloppiness, 17 things that either should've been in the applications or at least discussed and characterized differently. It was not acceptable and so he's right. I was wrong. 

Wallace suggested that Comey sounded like a "bystander, an eyewitness" but in fact Comey was in charge of the FBI. I felt the same way as Wallace did about Comey here.

Sure. I'm responsible for it. That's why I'm telling you I was wrong. I was overconfident as director in our procedures and it's important that a leader be accountable and transparent. If I were still director, I'd be saying exactly the same thing that Chris Wray is saying, which is we are going to get to the bottom of this. Because the most important question is, is it systemic? Are there problems in other cases?

Comey and Horowitz also disagreed on the importance of the notorious Steele dossier; while Comey maintained it was "part of a broader mosaic," while Horowitz declared it "played an essential role in establishing probable cause." Wallace talks about the report saying that, if the Steele dossier had not been received, the FBI might never have even submitted a FISA application, but that when they did review the dossier, they did in fact submit the application.  

Comey suggested that he and Horowitz were not far apart on that issue,

What his report says is that the FBI thought it was a close call until they got the Steele report, put that additional information in, and that tipped it over to be probable cause. It's a long FISA application. It includes Steele material and lots of other material. I don't think we're saying different things.

Wallace disagreed. 

Well, I think you are, sir, because he's saying -- you're saying it's part of a broader mosaic; it's just one element. He's saying it was the tipping point. It's what brought it over. That doesn't make it part of a broader mosaic; it makes it the centerpiece of the whole FISA application and the ability to surveil Carter Page.

They had some further back and forth on that, with Comey holding his ground that

It was one of a bunch of different facts that were assembled to apply to the court. It was the one that convinced the lawyers that they had enough now, with that added to the pile, to go forward.

Wallace was disbelieving of that, saying that he appeared to be "minimizing the role of the Steele dossier" while Horowitz was "saying it's a lot more important than you let on."

Okay. If I was, then I'm sorry that I did that. But I meant it was one part of the presentation to the court. It was not a huge part of the presentation to the court, but it was the fact, according to his report, that convinced the lawyers to go forward.

After achieving no real agreement there, Wallace moved on to the IG's issues with whether a source (sub-source?) referenced in the dossier had his statements misinterpreted or exaggerated, but still used to get renewals on the FISA applicant and continued surveillance. Here again, there was little agreement between the two men, with Wallace accusing Comey of mischaracterizing the information in the dossier, and Comey accusing Wallace of mischaracterizing the Horowitz report. 

And they disagreed about how much knowledge Comey should have had about the investigation. Here's Wallace.

You're the FBI Director... This isn't "some investigation," sir. This is an investigation of the campaign of the man who is the president of the United States. You had just been through a firestorm investigating Hillary Clinton. I would think, if I were in your position, I would have been on that, you know, like a junkyard dog. I would have wanted to know everything they were doing investigating the Trump campaign. 

Comey tried to set him straight on how things work, but again, I share Wallace's disbelief on this.

Yeah, that's not the way it works, though. As a director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people, you can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career professionals to do, to the special agents who do this for their lives. And if a director tries to run an investigation, it'll get mucked up in all different kinds of ways, given his or her responsibilities and the impossibility of reaching the work that's being done at the lower level.

On it went, with Comey minimizing or disagreeing with what Horowitz found, including that there was a criminal referral made regarding an attorney who apparently altered emails. Comey seemed to minimize it, saying that there's been no resolution on the referral. Wallace was incredulous.

I mean, you make it sound like it's not much... It's quite a lot. I mean, not a source - 'a source' to 'not a source' is a big deal.

Comey agreed, but added

But remember how we got here. The FBI was accused of criminal misconduct. Remember, I was going to jail, and lots of other people were going to jail. People on this network said it over, and over, and over again. The Inspector General did not find misconduct by FBI personnel, did not find political bias, did not find illegal conduct. The Inspector General found significant mistakes, and that is not something to sneeze at; that's really important. But the American people -- especially your viewers -- need to realize, they were given false information about the FBI. It's honest. It is not political. It is flawed.

In return,  Wallace asked if Comey would "agree that the FISA court was also given false information by the FBI?" Comey agreed. 

I think that's fair. The FBI should have included -- or at least pushed to the lawyers, so they could make a decision -- information that you just said, things like that, that another agency -- not a source relationship, but some kind of contact relationship --.

Blissfully, we are nearing the end of this train wreck of an interview. Wallace played another clip of Horowitz answering a question about how he explains what happened, the significant errors on "one of the FBI's most significant cases..." Wallace said  Horowitz said "it's one of two things, and he can't decide: gross negligence or it was intentional misconduct." Comey claims that in the report Horowitz says

He says, "I -- we are not concluding that there was intentional misconduct by FBI officials."

Seriously?  Wallace tried again, pointing out that Horowitz was asked "How do you explain it?" And he said, "Gross negligence or intentionality." And again, here's Comey tap-dancing.

Yeah. Well, I'm sorry. He doesn't find intentionality, but that doesn't make it any less important. As director, you are responsible for this. I was responsible for this. And if I were still there, I'd be doing what Chris Wray is doing -- is figuring out, "So, how did this happen? And is it systemic?" Because that's the scariest thought, is that --

Wallace interrupted to ask Comey whether he would resign, if he "were still there, and all of this came out, and it turned out it happened on your watch..."

I don't think so. There are mistakes I consider more consequential than this during my tenure, and the important thing is to be transparent about it and then look to fix it, and explain to the American people how you fixed it.

Wallace asked about Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, how he's been "harshly critical" of the FBI, and shared his reaction to the Horowitz report, in which he said the issues "leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith" and Wallace wondered if Barr had a point.

No. He does not have a factual basis as the attorney general of the United States to be speculating that agents acted in bad faith. The facts just aren’t there, full stop. That doesn’t make it any less consequential, any less important, but that’s an irresponsible statement.

And, to rub salt in Comey's wide open wounds, Wallace then shared a clip of the president's reaction.

They’ve destroyed the lives of people that were great people, that are still great people. Their lives have been destroyed by scum, okay? By scum.

Here's his question, after the clip.

I’d like your response to that, and I’d like you specifically -- because you said the other day, “Where does former FBI lawyer Lisa Page go to get her reputation back?” where does Carter Page go -- the target of these FISA warrants and surveillance -- where does he go to get his reputation back?

And, the response from Comey.

It’s a great question. Carter Page was treated unfairly, most significantly by his name being made public. He’s a United States citizen, and it never should have been made public, and that’s an outrage. But that statement is just a continuation of the lies about the FBI. The FBI is an honest, apolitical organization. Remember the treason; remember the spying; remember all of us going to jail. That was false information that your viewers and millions of others were given. My own mother-in-law was worried I was going to jail. I kept telling her, “Look, it’s all made up, it’s all made up. Don’t worry about it.” But I couldn’t say that publicly for two years. Well, now I’m saying it on behalf of the FBI. It was all made up, and I hope people will stare at that and learn about what the FBI is like, human and flawed, but deeply committed to trying to do the right thing.

I'm surprised that Comey went to Fox News for this interview - and I have no idea if he got out the message it seemed he wanted to, that the FBI was deserving of people's respect, even if they've been blasted by the president for the past two years and even if they made some pretty bad mistakes on this investigation.

I hope he did, because it might be his last chance to do so, particularly given the statement by US Attorney John Durham, who was handpicked by Trump's AG to investigate the investigation:

I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff.  However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.  Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened. 

As Comey himself said, "Sure. I'm responsible for it."

See you around campus. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v183)

I don't know about you, but I'd say 'WoW' sure fits today.

Right off the bat, we've got an unhinged Rudy Giuliani doing an interview with Fox and Friends that would have left the hosts slack-jawed had they not been clenching their teeth to keep their mouths from allowing huge peals of laughter to spill forth. I wonder how they managed to do that? I mean, there were several times when I literally (not just Joe Biden literally) laughed out loud listening to Rudy. Do you think they practiced the stone-faced look while watching his interview with Chris Cuomo?

And next batter up, we've got the Official Readout of president Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky, which is widely being referred to as "the transcript" by most people. And what does the readout say?  Let's take a look; and yes, I've taken the liberty of bolding parts of the conversation if you want to skim.

Zelensky was very complimentary to Trump, saying he learned a lot from him on how to run a campaign, and he'd like to keep running so he can keep talking to Trump; he even mentioned 'draining the swamp' in his country.

Trump, as you might imagine, lapped all of that up. And then, he got down to business. For anyone who looks at this and says there's nothing threatening here, I would strongly disagree.

...I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. 

Got it? You're a former comedian, reality star guy who ends up president, talking to a guy who has to be your idol, and you're not supposed to get a message from that?

Zelensky does get the message, saying Trump is not just 100% correct, but 1000% correct, and how the European Union should be doing more but the US is technically the bigger partner. And he expressed that they were "almost ready" to purchase more weapons from us, which of course is literally music to Trump's ears - nothing more important than selling our weapons to foreign countries, right?

And then Trump said this:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I  would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance- but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. 

I want you to find out what happened, I'll have my people call your people, I would like you to get to the bottom of it...  Trump didn't come right out and say, yeah, maybe those arms sales won't be happening, and he didn't mention the hundreds of millions in aid that he ordered held up, but did he really have to?

Zelensky confirms his understanding, like a gambler would when threatened with collection action by his bookie.

Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine.

He talks about getting a new ambassador to the US, noting he's looking to see "trust and confidence" on Trump's part here, to allow for "cooperation even more so." And then, he tells Trump, hey - we're already dealing with your people on this stuff, and you're among friends - and provides additional reassurance that the message has been received.

I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once  he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us... I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you. 

Trump comes back with a strong second serve, getting the Bidens into the mix. He also plays up the importance of this piece of the puzzle, even though everyone - the US government, the IMF, the EU - agrees it did not happen the way Trump presents it.

Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

Zelensky allows as how since he holds the parliament the new prosecutor will be "100% my person" and will start in September and will look into things, "specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue." And then, knowingly or not, he invites the conspiracy theorists into the mix.

... I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country.

He also thanks Trump for tipping him off to the previous ambassador being bad. Trump reiterates he'll have his people get in touch with Zelensky, and then dangles a carrot.

Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.  I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, they're incredible people.

You found the carrot, right, about the economy getting better? Is that just going to happen organically, or are we going to be player in that, I wonder? Bet Zelensky knows the answer, depending of course on how those investigations go.

The Ukrainian then adds another dose of flattery, saying he stayed at Trump Tower the last time he came to New York, and then he did exactly what someone under 'no pressure whatsoever' would do - he promises again to take care of business, and then tosses out his own carrot, which was well played. I guess he has been studying the Trump playbook.

I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also wanted to (assure) you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful (in) cooperating on energy independence with the United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.

Happy that his message was received, Trump's ready to wrap things up, but not without mentioning yet again Rudy and Barr.

Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

Zelensky must have missed the cue that the call was over, now that he had committed to doing what Trump wanted. Suggesting they get together in Ukraine after a meeting in Poland, he says

We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.

I love that last part: you've got a better plane, let's take yours. He's still got a bit of the comedian in him, don't you think? And maybe he was trying to let Trump he had nothing to worry about?

But on the important stuff:

• Don't wonder whether this was a shakedown: it was.
• Don't wonder whether this was inappropriate: it was.
• Don't wonder whether this was ethical: it was not.
• Don't wonder whether this was a normal conversation: it wasn't.
• Don't wonder whether there was pressure on Ukraine: there was.

And don't wonder whether a quid pro quo was on the table: There was.  It wasn't directly expressed (do this or we won't sell arms to you, for example) but there is certainly an implied quid pro quo in Trump's comments:

• we're good to you, better than Europe, but you're not reciprocating.
• You do me a favor or two, and I predict your economy is going to start doing much better.
• It's very important that you look in to these issues.
• Speak to my personal attorney, that would be great, speak to the Attorney General, that would be great, that would be appreciated. Talk to them, and you can come visit me any time.

There was clear understanding that Zelensky had received the message, whether he recognizes or  admits he was being pressured on the call or not. After all, how can he say no to his country's biggest supporter, the country that protects him, the country with a petulant, retaliatory child sitting in the president's chair? 

A nothingburger? Who knew Trump could be so nice?  Everyone can wonder how those two statement can be associated with this call. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v179)

I had no idea it's been so long since I've wondered out loud, as it were, on Wednesday - looks like it was a month ago?

I wonder about that right off the bat. I mean, vacation aside, it's not like there nothing head-scratch worthy going on. Sigh

Here's just some of what has me wondering tonight.

• The 'prorogation' of the British Parliament. What a fascinating process! Just suspend the whole thing, and don't let anything get in my way, says PM Boris Johnson. And we thought the filibuster was bad? How long, I wonder, before #POTUS will be asking Snitty Snitty Bill Barr if there's a way he can do the same thing here? It would be way more cooler than just forcing Mitch McConnell to 'go nuclear', something Trump has called for several times. I mean, he sees a massive military parade, and wants one... He sees an obsequious press in a dictatorial country, and wants one... I mean, this 'put parliament on the sidelines' thing is right up his alley.

• There are around a dozen members of Congress not running for reelection next year - so far - and the majority of them are Republicans. This is on the heels of 34 Republicans not running for reelection in 2018. There are a variety of reasons cited - usually the desire to do something else (is Fox News hiring?), or spend more time with their families, and so on. Most don't say it's because they can no longer keep quiet about the direction the party is taking, but I have to wonder how much that plays a part?  And will we have to wait for the books to come out before we know for sure? 

• How many resorts are there in the United States that are near airports and are not owned by the Trump family, I wonder? And why wouldn't the United States government consider using even the worst of those resorts for the next G7 summit, instead of entertaining discussions about enriching the president by using his Doral resort? How hard do you have to wonder about simple things like this?

• And speaking of Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, is there really no other place for him to throw his annual holiday party than the president's hotel in DC, I wonder?  Seriously - that's the ONLY place that could accommodate him, in all of the capitol area? And lest you're wondering, this is not a case of me being disappointed I'm not on the guest list - it's really a case of how can people like Barr be so unconcerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest, of a lack of independence, for the role of AG, for the Justice Department as an institution, and for the people that work there? 

• It seems that Kirsten Gillibrand is the first of the rest of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to read the handwriting on the wall; a couple of hours ago she announced she's dropping her candidacy after failing to qualify for the September 12th debate. Who else will be announcing a similar decision tonight, I wonder?  Ten have qualified: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, Yang and Castro. The rest have not. I'm liking that smaller debate stage - how about you?

There's more to wonder about - there always is. What's on your mind?

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.