Thursday, December 26, 2019

Will Evangelicals Heed Christianity Today?

Christianity Today's Dec. 19 editorial calling for President Donald Trump's removal from office the day after the President was impeached by the House of Representatives was welcome news.

But, as a Christian who has been pointing out the glaring and grating hypocrisies of Trump for four years now, I have to ask: What took so long?

Predictably, the Christianity Today opinion stirred the impulsive autocratic ire of the morally-bankrupt, endlessly divisive, lawless and arguably treasonous President, who attacked the magazine on Twitter, calling it a "leftist" organization.

This is the same Christian magazine founded in 1956 by Reverend Billy Graham -- the same Reverend Graham, by the way, who in a 1981 Parade magazine profile cautioned that Christian evangelists "can't be closely identified with any particular party or person."

In the Parade profile, Graham admitted getting a little too close to politics himself and said if he had his druthers he would have done things a little differently.  

"I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form," Graham said in the Parade interview. "It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it."

Read that last line again: "The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it."

Boy, has the Reverend been proven right.

The question remains, will the vast majority of "Evangelicals" who helped elect Trump to the presidency in 2016, finally wake up with "eyes to see" the truth before the 2020 elections?

Thursday, December 19, 2019

President Donald Trump Impeached

“In America, no one is above the law. Donald J. Trump sacrificed our national security in an effort to cheat in the next election. And for that, and his continued efforts to seek foreign interference in our elections, he must be impeached.”

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff in his opening address Wednesday during the House impeachment of President Donald J. Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, expertly and succinctly laid out the damning case against the President.

Trump through his corrupt, arguably traitorous actions gave legislators -- charged with defending the integrity of the American Republic''s Constitution -- no choice but to pursue impeachment.

Schiff's full opening statement before the House of Representatives voted on the articles of impeachment against Trump follows:

                        December 18, 2019

 I rise to support the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump.
“When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”
These are the words of Alexander Hamilton, written in 1792. Could we find a more perfect description of the present danger emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
The Framers crafted a constitution that contemplated free and fair elections for the highest office in the land but also afforded the Congress with the power to remove a president who abused the powers of his office for personal gain, who compromised the public trust by betraying our nation’s security, or who sought to undermine our democratic system by seeking foreign intervention in the conduct of our elections. I would say that the Founders could have little imagined that a single president might have done all of these things, except that the evidence has sadly proved this is exactly what this president has done. Hamilton, among others, seems to have predicted the rise of Donald Trump with a staggering prescience.
Having won freedom from a King, the drafters of our Constitution designed a government in which ambition was made to check ambition, in which no branch of government would predominate over another, and no man would be allowed to be above the law, including the president — especially the president, since with whom would the danger be greater than with the officer charged with being our commander in chief?
Over the course of the last three months, we have found incontrovertible evidence that President Trump abused his power by pressuring the newly elected President of Ukraine to announce an investigation into President Trump’s political rival — Joe Biden — with the hopes of defeating Mr. Biden in the 2020 presidential election and enhancing his own prospects for reelection. He didn’t even need the investigation to be undertaken, just simply announced to the public; the smear of his opponent – the smear of his opponent - would be enough.
To effectuate this scheme, President Trump withheld two official acts of vital importance to a nation at war with our adversary, Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The President withheld a White House meeting that Ukraine desperately sought to bolster its standing on the world stage. And even more perniciously, President Trump suspended hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid approved by this Congress to coerce Ukraine into doing his electoral dirty work.
The President of the United States was willing to sacrifice our national security by withholding support for a critical strategic partner at war in order to improve his reelection prospects.
But for the courage of someone willing to blow the whistle, he would have gotten away with it. Instead, he got caught.
He tried to cheat, and he got caught.
Now, this wasn’t the first time. As a candidate in 2016, Donald Trump invited Russian interference in his presidential campaign, saying at a campaign rally: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” a clear invitation to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. Just five hours later, Russian government hackers tried to do exactly that. What followed was an immense Russian hacking and dumping operation, and a social media disinformation campaign designed to help elect Donald Trump. Not only did candidate Trump welcome that effort, but he made full use of it, building it into his campaign plan, his messaging strategy, and then he sought to cover it up.
This Russian effort to interfere in our elections didn’t deter Donald Trump; it empowered him. The day after Special Counsel Bob Mueller testified before Congress about Russia’s sweeping and systemic effort to influence the outcome of our last election, the day after President Trump believed that the investigation into his first electoral misconduct had come to an end, the President was back on the phone urging yet another country, this time Ukraine, to help him cheat in another election.
Three consecutive days in July tell so much of the story. Three consecutive days in July of 2019.
July 24th: the day that Special Counsel Mueller testified before Congress, and President Trump thought he was finally in the clear.
July 25th: the day that President Trump got on the phone with the Ukrainian president, and in the context of a discussion about military support for that embattled nation that the President had recently frozen, said, “I would like you to do us a favor though,” and asked Ukraine to do two investigations to help his reelection efforts in 2020. That was July 25th.
And then we come to July 26th: the day Gordon Sondland called President Trump on his cell phone from a restaurant in Ukraine. Gordon Sondland, not some anonymous “never Trumper,” but a million dollar donor to the President’s inauguration and his handpicked ambassador to the European Union. What does President Trump ask Sondland? The day after this call, what does President Trump ask? What does the President want to know? Did he ask about Ukraine’s efforts to battle corruption? Of course not. Did he ask how the war with Russia was going? Not a chance.
On the phone, his voice loud enough for others to hear, President Trump asked Sondland: “So he’s going to do the investigation?” And the answer was clear. Sondland assured Trump that the Ukrainian president was “going to do it” and that he would “do anything you asked him to.”
If that wasn’t telling enough, my colleagues, in a conversation that followed, an American diplomat dining with Sondland asked if it was true that President Trump didn’t give a [blank] about Ukraine. Sondland agreed, saying the President cared only about “big stuff.” The diplomat noted that there was big stuff in Ukraine, like a war with Russia. And Sondland replied that the President cared only about big stuff that benefits him personally, like the “Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.”
In that short conversation, we learned everything we need to know about the 45th President of the United States. He doesn’t care about Ukraine, or the impact on our national security caused by withholding military aid to that country fighting for its democratic life. All that matters to this President is what affects him personally: an investigation into his political rival and a chance to cheat in the next election.
As Professor Gerhardt testified before the Judiciary Committee two weeks ago, “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.”
Even as this body uncovered the facts of this Ukraine scheme, even as we opened an impeachment inquiry, even as we gathered evidence, President Trump continued his efforts to seek foreign help in the next election. “Well I would think,” he said from the White House lawn on October 3rd, “that, if they’re being honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer.”
And he made it clear it’s an open invitation to other nations as well, saying, “China should start an investigation into the Bidens,” too.
President Trump sent his Chief of Staff to the White House podium and he told the world that, of course, they had linked aid to investigations, and that we should just “get over it.” And even as these articles have made their way to this House floor, the President’s personal attorney has continued pursuing these sham investigations on behalf of his client: the President.
The President and his men plot on.  The danger persists. The risk is real. Our democracy is at peril.
But we are not without a remedy prescribed by the Founders for just these circumstances: Impeachment. The only question is: Will we use it, or have we fallen prey to another evil that the Founders forewarned?  The excess of factionalism, the elevation of party over country.
Many of my colleagues appear to have made their choice — to protect the president, to enable him to be above the law, to empower this president to cheat again, as long as it is in the service of their party and their power.
They’ve made their choice, despite this President and the White House stonewalling every subpoena, every request for witnesses and testimony from this coequal – coequal - branch of government. They have made their choice knowing that to allow this president to obstruct Congress will empower him – and any other president that follows – to be as corrupt, as negligent, or as abusive of the power of the presidency as they choose. They have made their choice, and I believe they will rue the day they did.
When Donald J. Trump was sworn in on January 20th, 2017, he repeated these words:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Has he lived up to that sacred obligation? Has he honored his oath of office? Has he preserved, protected, and defended the Constitution of the United States?
The uncontested evidence provides the simple, yet tragic, answer: He has not. In America, no one is above the law. Donald J. Trump sacrificed our national security in an effort to cheat in the next election. And for that, and his continued efforts to seek foreign interference in our elections, he must be impeached.

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

No Choice But To Impeach This Divisive, Lawless President

It's time to impeach President Donald J. Trump.

It's time to remove the dictatorial President, who from the get-go of his chaotic presidency has used the office as his own private brand builder.

It's time to ouster the "commander-in-chief" who has acted like anything but a leader.

It's time to end the reign of Trump, who with crude, cruel, inciting and traitorous policy, tweets and language has painfully divided the country, undermined our democracy, and consistently run cover for the pro-Trump Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, who interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections.

It's time to defend the proclaimed democratic ideals of truth and justice of the American Republic.

It's time to stand up for our purported Godly values.

Before we run out of time.  

Period.

Thursday, December 5, 2019

Repubs' Weak Trump Defense: "You Just Don't Like The Guy."

"If what we're talking about here is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable," said Gerhardt. "This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created a Constitution, including impeachment, to protect against."

For Republicans it all comes down to a popularity contest.

The real reason the most lawless, treasonous, morally bereft, mentally unstable President in United States history faces impeachment, according to rabid Republican defenders of the autocratically ambitious Donald J. Trump, is that Democrats simply don't like him.

That's it.

"You just don't like the guy," said Georgia Republican Doug Collins, ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, in his opening statement that criticized the impeachment inquiry as nothing more than partisan rancor.

Partisan rancor is right. Republicans are glaringly guilty.

Never mind all the proof that Trump is "giving aid to a foreign enemy," committed bribery and engaged in "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- all infractions the Founders deemed impeachable in our Constitution.

Republicans insist Trump's documented attempts to coerce Ukraine to dig up dirt for his own personal gain, while withholding military aid and trying to discredit our own intelligence on Russia's 2016 U.S. presidential election intrusions, is simply "hearsay."

But, all of the Republicans' distracting theatrics during Wednesday's House Judicial Committee impeachment hearing aside, Trump's abetting loyalists must know deep down that it's them who lack credibility in defense of this President.

Do we need to regurgitate all of Trump's ugliness and criminality?

Collins claimed the impeachment inquiry of Trump comes "way too early" in the Ukraine scandal investigation. What more does Collins need? A written confession from Trump?

In fact, for the President, who has spent these past three years inciting fear, division and lethal violence while intentionally trashing our Republic, impeachment proceedings are coming way too late.

The future of the American Republic hangs in the balance like no time since the Civil War.

Three legal expert witnesses Wednesday were asked: "Did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power?"

All agreed Trump did. University of North Carolina's Michael Gerhardt expounded:

"If what we're talking about here is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable," said Gerhardt. "This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created a Constitution, including impeachment, to protect against."

Enough said. Let's act in defense of America. Impeach Trump.

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Will There Be "Ears To Hear" During Impeachment Hearings?

"Hardcore right wing partisanship, under the national spotlight, will be challenged in the coming days, weeks and months like never before."

On the cusp of President Donald Trump's nationally televised impeachment inquiry hearings, are Americans ready for what's coming?

We are entering what will be remembered as a landmark period in American history, as the House scrutinizes the evidence for possible impeachment of the brazen President. And it's likely to get ugly. 

As the facts of Trump's abuse of power are revealed through the course of witness testimony, starting this morning, it's a given that Republicans' mind-numbing slavish loyalty to the demagogic President these past few years will kick up a notch or two.

Reason and truth will collide head on with willful blindness for all the world to see. Trump abetters will attack, spin and outright lie.

But it has to be. If we are still America, committed to truth and justice, the truth must be heard, justice defended.

But, will the truth be heard?

Hardcore rightwing partisanship, under the national spotlight, will be challenged in the coming days, weeks and months like never before.

We've got a long way to go, but a relatively short time to get there to impeach the President before the 2020 presidential elections just a year from now. 

In the end, will enough of the Trump-supporting citizenry eventually open their minds to the facts? Will they listen?

Whether America survives as a democratic Republic or not, will be determined by the people. Most Republicans in the House and the Senate, by enabling the criminality of Trump for so long, have made it clear they don't give a damn about things like truth and justice.

Clearly, Republicans are compromised in some way -- like Trump, by the Russians, Trump or each other. Bribery? Extortion? These are the central themes running through this presidency. And it seems to have encompassed in some way all the President's inside men.

There may never have been a more disingenuous bunch of crooks on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

So, "the people" -- who have more power than they think -- will be our best shot at ensuring that impeachment ends in justice.

House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff will no doubt keep the inquiry professional, orderly. The testimony will have to be compelling. The facts unassailable. The witnesses reliable, believable.

If impeachment does proceed, conservative citizens shouldn't let their opinions be shaped by their rogue congressional representatives or Trump propaganda outlets like Fox News.

The citizenry as a whole needs to put aside their partisanship, and do some soul serious searching. If enough Americans see the light, they can make enough noise so that their elected representatives in Congress, particularly the Senate (where the deciding votes will be cast) finally pay attention and follow their lead -- instead of the other way around.

Call it wishful thinking. But when it's all said and done, America's only genuine hope to save itself, with God's help, lies with the people.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

The Mounting Threat of Trump

President Donald Trump poses a mounting, serious threat to the United State's domestic and national security.

How many times and how many different ways does that drum need beating before the overwhelming majority of the American citizenry, hears the foreboding warning?

The only aspect more disturbing than America's present fragile reality is the unsettling fact that a complacent core of Republicans -- enabling the President's blatantly destructive impulses -- have refused to see the light.

Trump's sudden abandoning of our Syrian Democratic Force Kurdish allies in northeast Syria, to slaughter by Turkey, is a castrophe with untold ongoing reprecussions.

Not only did Trump's abrupt pullout of U.S. troops from northeast Syria greenlight Turkey's bombing of the region, killing Christians and Arab innocents, including children -- it's reportedly led to the escape of hundreds of jailed ISIS terrorists.

It's insanity. After much fighting and bloodshed in recent years the U.S.-backed Kurds had effectively stamped down and contained the threat of ISIS.

Then Trump, in a mindless move that appeases Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan, scraps it all after a phone call with the Turkish President.

Innocents are dying. Terrorists are free to inflict more bloodshed and chaos. Meanwhile, Trump's many business interests in Turkey and Russia are safe and sound.

What further drastic measures will this President take to protect his own interests and, just as importantly, distract from pending impeachment?

A growing number of mental health experts are sounding the alarm bell louder than ever over the menace this President represents.

You don't hear much about it in the mainstream media due to the Trump-fueled chaos that steals the headlines.

In a recent letter to Congress, the authors of "The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump" edited by Bandy Lee, MD, violence expert and forensic psychiatrist, warn lawmakers about the implications of Trump's "pattern of fragile sense of self."

The letter by the World Mental Health Coalition  (see here https://dangerouscase.org/) points with concern to Trump's threat to the anonymous whistleblower, the House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff and the President's prediction of civil war should he be impeached.

The letter further reads:

"The unfolding of an impeachment inquiry raises the specter of President Trump feeling threatened in ways he never has before. This sense of threat is likely to lead to an exacerbation of his attacks on perceived enemies and to increased encouragement of violence against them. This encouragement may lead to violent actions by others, such as we have seen over the last couple of years but highly exacerbated.

"We also should not ignore the President’s ability to initiate a conflict with other countries in order to distract from his political troubles, perhaps with the hope of rallying the country around him, as often happens at the beginning of armed conflict. The fact that the President holds in his hands alone the ability to initiate nuclear war cannot be ignored.

"We issue this letter to request that honorable lawmakers take these fears of increased violence seriously and plan accordingly. As mental health professionals, we have a professional obligation to use our knowledge and expertise to help individuals and groups avoid harm. Our ethical guidelines also encourage us 'to serve society by advising and consulting with the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of the government.'

"Two things are urgent:

"The impeachment hearings must proceed with all deliberate speed, and
If possible, Congress should reinforce existing laws that limit a president’s ability single-handedly to make war or launch military actions."

Will our elected Republican representatives, in particular, listen?

Friday, September 27, 2019

Trump's Mob Boss Threat To Whistleblowers Is More Impeachment Fodder

Amidst the various tangled threads of the whistleblower hullabaloo, perhaps there's one key event, more than any other, that we can't afford to forget: President Donald Trump musing about executing patriotic American truth seekers.

It's just one more illustration of the President's guilt, brazeness -- and provides serious additional fodder to pursue impeachment.

"I want to know who's the person that gave the whistleblower, who's the person that gave the whistleblower the information because that's close to a spy," said Trump at a closed door meeting with diplomats at the United Nations on Thursday. "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now."

For the record, the United States "used to handle" spies in "the old days" by executing them. In the 1940's alone, America sentenced to death 27 people, many U.S. citizens, for espionage.

So, what the increasingly authoritarian President is suggesting is that maybe we should get the names of the whistleblower informants, who were acting in defense of the remnants of truth and justice in this nation against mounting autocratic control, and you know, possibly try them for treason, or hell, just kill them.

                       

Of course, such talk is on par with the mindset of ruthless dictators like Germany's Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin who abhorred any form of opposition or conscientious objection from their perceived political rivals.

In what's infamously remembered as "The Night of The Long Knives" on June 30, 1934, Hilter ordered the executions of some 85 or more members of the paramilitary SA, known as the Brownshirts, who through violence, secured Hitler's rise to absolute power. Stalin acted similarly, executing or banishing from the country any official or activist he considered a threat. Ultimately, Hitler and Stalin would kill tens of millions of their own citizens.

Clearly, Trump presently doesn't hold such sway. But, the point is, all indications are that he'd like to -- and is persistently striving in pursuit of such absolute power. Demonstrating the narrow-minded intolerance of an autocrat, Trump has ousted, in one manner or another, 55 administration officials, some once considered allies, in just over two and a half years.

The fact that after such political turbulence, oppressive policy, brazen and divisive behavior Trump still celebrates the sychophantic support of Republican congressional leaders defending his occupancy of the Oval Office is deeply concerning to say the least.

It only emboldens President Trump to act like a mob boss, making thinly veiled death threats against conscientious Americans who threaten his absolute rule. 

Recently, I tweeted about the ironic reliability of Trump's dishonesty: "We can take whatever Trump's says, and I mean absolutely whatever he says, flip it around to its opposite meaning and we'll get the truth."

I suggested this unconventional 'Law of Trumpery' is as reliable as Einstein's Theory of Relativity equation E=mc2. It's infallible.


But I was wrong. Sometimes Trump's deception is more subtle. Like his "spies" comment. 

Sometimes the President utters something so seriously inappropriate that it's initially perceived by many as a joke. But in truth, as dark desperation builds and unabashed greed controls in his psyche, he's deadly serious.

Think of then Presidential candidate Trump's televised public request to Russia amidst the inflated rhetoric about Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton's emails in July of 2016:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said, referring to the Clinton’s deleted messages. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”


We now know thanks to The Mueller Report revelations that Russia first attempted to hack Clinton’s email server that very same day.

Coincidence? Or a coordinated act of collusion? Trump said it was a joke. But the evidence suggests otherwise.


Likewise, Trump has repeatedly "joked" about staying in office well beyond 2025 when his Constitutionally mandated two allowable terms as president would end.


But as The Independent reported August 22, the President's comments about staying on as long as "14 more years" as President, "displayed no clear indication he was attempting be humorous." Whether or not the unqualified con ever thought we would win the election, he's got the job now and is emboldened by, and addicted to, the power.


Similarly, it's misguided to think that Trump was kidding around when he spontaneously seemed to daydream about "buying Greenland" in August.


Reported The Guardian in August:

"Greenland, and more specifically its purchase by the US, is being actively discussed in Donald Trump’s Oval Office. But what exactly is it that makes one of the world’s most desolate places such an attractive proposition?

"For the president, it is the real estate deal of a lifetime, one that would secure a land mass a quarter the size of the US and cement his place in US history alongside President Andrew Johnson, who bought Alaska from Russia in 1867, and Thomas Jefferson, who secured Louisiana from the French in 1803."

So, when the President raises the specter of spies out to get him, akin to the alarmism of McCarthyism of the early 1950's, we can't afford to dismiss it as just Trump being Trump or some such nonsense. The writing's on the wall in distinguishable, foreboding letters.

Of late, we're supposed believe that this President -- who swindled his way into the Oval Office and has trashed everything worthy about our Republic for his own enrichment -- is suddenly concerned about corruption.

That's one of the key reasons President Trump says he asked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to get dirt on a Democratic political opponent in the phone call flagged in the whistleblower complaint.

Trump wanted to help clean up corruption. Once again, the irony and hypocrisy would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. But, still the President actually expects Americans to swallow his snake oil.

Increasingly, Trump and his abetting loyalists like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy prove themselves as the "more equal" pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm -- treating the American people like a bunch of dumb barnyard animals.

To boot, certain White House officials are alleged to have tried to protect the President's abuse of office by concealing the incriminating Ukrainian phone call among 
sensitive intelligence.

And Attorney General William Barr, smack at the center of this whistleblower complaint scandal is living up to the moniker of "Cover-up General Barr" first given him by the late New York Times Columnist William Saffire in 1992.

In his first stint as attorney general for President George H. W. Bush, Barr helped defang the prosecution of six indicted or suspected operatives in the Iran-contra affair. Barr also helped bury the Iraq-gate scandal.

In what would become known as the "Christmas Eve Massacre",  Bush, at Barr's recommendation, pardoned six administration officials on Christmas Eve 1992, sparing Bush possible indictment just weeks before the end of his single term as President.

"It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office, deliberately abusing the public trust without consequences," said Independent Counsel Judge Lawrence Walsh at the time, after six years of investigation to the tune of $30 million spent.

Predictably, Barr appears to be covering up once again for President Trump in this whistleblower complaint controversy similarly to how he eviscerated The Mueller Report and deprived Americans of it's crucial findings.

Noteably, AG Barr, referenced the "spy" word in defense of the President this summer when he testified about The Mueller Report before the House Intelligence Committee. The paronoic seeds of destruction, control are strategically being sown.

In the meantime, acting director of National Intelligence Joseph McGuire testified Thursday before the House Intelligence Commitee that the whistleblower at the center of this scandal was operating in "good faith" and "did the right thing."

This menace to decency, truth and justice is mounting daily. Certainly, for a multitude of disturbing reasons, impeachment of the lawless, erratic President is unavoidable.


And the more we learn about the likes of Barr's and even Vice President Mike Pence's apparent role in this latest attempt at cover-up, the more it appears impeachment of the President's key inside men should be on the table too.

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

Do Something. Muzzle Trump.

"Do something."


That was the desperate cry from heart-broken, angry citizens in Dayton, Ohio last Sunday as Ohio Governor Mike Dewine addressed them  in the wake of tragic, deadly shooting rampages in Dayton and El Paso, TX that claimed more than 30 lives and injured dozens more in a single weekend.

Do something.

So, DeWine took steps to do something, pushing a bill for stricter gun ownership rules, tighter background checks and increased mental health funding.

But DeWine along with most Republicans still 
don't get it.

They pathetically refuse to do the most obvious, absolutely urgent right thing in the hellish, heart-wrenching aftermath of the senseless bloodshed, loss of life and ongoing trauma.

Republicans are drastically failing their country by not calling out the most blatantly obvious instigator of violence in America these days:

President Donald Trump.

Before we reinstate Republican-nixed safeguards designed to keep guns from the hands of the mentally ill, or muzzle access to high-powered military assault weapons, the first thing we need to do is to muzzle President Trump. 

Words that intentionally and routinely disparage minorities, fanning the flames of racial hatred have no place emanating from the White House.

Not only is it flat out un-American, it's dead on evil.

A people can't be exposed to four years of unchecked, ugly, bigoted vitriol and intolerance from the highest office in the land for four grueling years without some serious fallout.

Last weekend, we saw some of that devastating fallout. It amounts to an indictment of Trump's desensitizing of American values, whether it's in the way he treats dark-skinned people, women or anyone who remotely disagrees with him.

The damning evidence against Trump is found in the El Paso shooter's twisted racist "manifesto" -- espousing Trump's own inflammatory words like "invasion" to describe Hispanics migration to America.

The dark influence the misogynistic and inciting President may have had on the Dayton shooter is incalculable at this point. But, Trump certainly did nothing to dissuade the heinous act of the culprit who was a member of a misogynist rock band and reportedly had kept a "rape" list and "hit" list in high school. 

This isn't rocket science. The equation is simple. Connect the dots. Words have power. The tongue either enhances life or destroys. Only a fool would suggest that Trump's incessant in-your-face, desperate hate-mongering has nothing to do with such dastardly acts as we saw in El Paso and Dayton.

Hate crimes in America have steadily climbed annually since Trump announced his presidency in 2015 -- and disturbingly have spiked 226 percent in counties where Trump has held his divisive rallies.

One alarming statistic on mass shootings in America, shows that of the 40 mass shootings which occurred in the past 70 years, since 1949, 13, (well over 25 percent) occurred in just the last five years.

Until we face this reality head on, we are in effect condoning more bloodshed.

Do something.

In the meantime, nothing the disingenuous demagogic President says or does as a means of placating the citizenry in the aftermath of last weekend's horrific slaughter means squat. It's not unreasonable to suggest that it's actually Trump's "mental illness and hatred that is pulling the trigger."

Thousands of mental health professionals have publicly warned about Trump's mental instability, citing the book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" written by 27 mental health professionals in 2017.

So, when are congressional Republican enablers of Trump going to finally "do something" for the United States of America -- and rein in this unstable, brazen President who is facilitating the demise of a nation?

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Mueller Critics Prove Russian Swindle Is Working

The Russian swindle of America is still paying off.

Just how does a demagogue get to stay President of the United States, unreprimanded, while a Marine Vietnam War Hero, still fighting for his country after 50 years, is exhaustively disparaged for doing his patriotic duty to protect the homeland?

We're talking "The Great American Experiment" in democracy -- an experiment that's once again in danger of suffering its final meltdown.

How is it possible that a large swath of Americans are not only okay with a brazen President Donald Trump and the trashing of former special counsel Robert Mueller, but can't hear Mueller's dire warning that "demands the attention of every American"?

Mueller is absolutely right. Not only has Russia hacked its way into American Democracy. It's doing a bang up job of bamboozling the citizenry.

Callous cynics, enflamed by a desperate, compromised President, who are foolishly maligning Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence commitees two weeks ago, only bolster the unsettling conclusion of the former special counsel's damning and foreboding report.

Russia, in concert with Trump and loyal congressional Republican insiders have hijacked and contorted our sense of reality and moral discernment to such a radical "sweeping and systematic" degree -- that the average impressionable Joe fails to recognize the alarming truth that's staring him in the face.

These are the documented facts:

Russia created fake Facebook accounts with inflammatory posts favoring Trump that reached an estimated 120 million Americans and hacked into Democratic Party leader's emails, releasing hundreds of them through WikiLeaks, with Trump's enthusiastic endorsement.

Trump incorporated Russia's election help while hoping to make millions of dollars off a Trump Tower Moscow deal. Then, he lied to federal investigators about his Russian business venture and multiple times tried to obstruct their investigation into Russiagate.

Within a day of Mueller's testimony, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report revealing Russia had targeted the election systems in all 50 States in 2016.

But, Trump fans, fence sitters, and even some progressives didn't like the message -- or, more specifically, the manner in which the message was delivered -- so they've shot the messenger.

Three years of Russian meddling has only emboldened Trump's distracting incites and fueled the truth-muddling criticisms in the media, on Facebook and Twitter.

For Russia, Trump and his unscrupulous, arguably treasonous enablers, their dirty work is paying off big time. Mission accomplished.

Perhaps, Mueller's most revealing testimony wasn't so much in any of his one word replies of "yes" or "true." Nor was it when he agreed with Intelligence House Chair Adam Schiff that for a public office candidate to accept aid from a foreign nation was unethical and "problematic to say the least."

Maybe, Mueller's most telling testimony was in those same painstaking optics the talking heads relentlessly bashed.

Yes, Mueller is human, afterall. Not Superman. But if he were Superman, Russiagate would be his kryptonite.

So what if Mueller didn't meet the visual expectations of today's Reality TV standards, favoring baseless incites and corrupting vitriol ushered in by the disingenuous and destructive Oval Office occupier?

Would Americans have rathered Mueller mocked Trump and childishly called him names? That wasn't Mueller's job, nor is it his style, thankfully. Integrity, more than ever, does matter.

So, balancing the need to inform and warn of imminent danger with a measured sense of restraint to protect myriad key ongoing investigations into President Trump and his accomplices, Mueller confirmed the truth of what's in his 440-page report.

And that's all Americans should need in order to take the Russian threat seriously.


(Kevin McKinney is a freelance writer and former daily newspaper journalist living at the Jersey Shore. His writing has appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Hill, Counterpunch, and various McClatchy newspapers. He tweets @WriteFight99.)

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Mueller

The truth is plain. President Donald Trump worked to obstruct the Justice Department's investigation of Russia's high-financed cyber interference in the 2016 presidential election which helped land Trump the presidency.

For a synopsis of why and how, ahead of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judicial and Intelligence committees tommorow morning and afternoon respectively, read and/or listen to Mueller's full executive summaries below.

(from Lawfare's website: https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries.)




DONALD TRUMP

Full Text of the Mueller Report's Executive Summaries

By Lev Sugarman
 Thursday, April 18, 2019, 3:41 PM
Editor’s Note: Below are the executive summaries of the two volumes of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's final report. Volume I deals with links between Russia and the Trump campaign, while Volume II deals with potential obstruction of justice by President Trump. This article is available in audio format on the Lawfare Podcast: Special Edition:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME I
RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN
The Internet Research Agency (IRA) carried out the earliest Russian interference operations identified by the investigation—a social media campaign designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States. The IRA was based in St. Petersburg, Russia, and received funding from Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin and companies he controlled. Prigozhin is widely reported to have ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter]
In mid-2014, the IRA sent employees to the United States on an intelligence-gathering mission with instructions [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter]
The IRA later used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord in the U.S. political system through what it termed "information warfare." The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the U.S. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate Clinton. The IRA's operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities, as well as the staging of political rallies inside the United States. To organize those rallies, IRA employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons and made contact with Trump supporters and Trump Campaign officials in the United States. The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the IRA. Section II of this report details the Office's investigation of the Russian social media campaign.
RUSSIAN HACKING OPERATIONS
At the same time that the IRA operation began to focus on supporting candidate Trump in early 2016, the Russian government employed a second form of interference: cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations.
In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees, including campaign chairman John Podesta. In April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government's role in hacking its network, the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks.
The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign" or "Campaign") showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton. Beginning in June 2016, [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter] forecast to senior Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton. WikiLeaks's first release came in July 2016. Around the same time, candidate Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (he later said that he was speaking sarcastically). [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter] WikiLeaks began releasing Podesta’s stolen emails on October 7, 2016, less than one hour after a U.S. media outlet released video considered damaging to candidate Trump. Section III of this Report details the Office's investigation into the Russian hacking operations, as well as other efforts by Trump Campaign supporters to obtain Clinton-related emails.
RUSSIAN CONTACTS WITH THE CAMPAIGN
The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations. Section IV of this Report details the contacts between Russia and the Trump Campaign during the campaign and transition periods, the most salient of which are summarized below in chronological order.
2015. Some of the earliest contacts were made in connection with a Trump Organization real-estate project in Russia known as Trump Tower Moscow. Candidate Trump signed a Letter of Intent for Trump Tower Moscow by November 2015, and in January 2016 Trump Organization executive Michael Cohen emailed and spoke about the project with the office of Russian government press secretary Dmitry Peskov. The Trump Organization pursued the project through at least June 2016, including by considering travel to Russia by Cohen and candidate Trump.
Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.
Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued into the summer of 2016, as candidate Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for President. On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email proposing the meeting had described as "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary." The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." The written communications setting up the meeting showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer's presentation did not provide such information.
Days after the June 9 meeting, on June 14, 2016, a cybersecurity firm and the DNC announced that Russian government hackers had infiltrated the DNC and obtained access to opposition research on candidate Trump, among other documents.
In July 2016, Campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page traveled in his personal capacity to Moscow and gave the keynote address at the New Economic School. Page had lived and worked in Russia between 2003 and 2007. After returning to the United States, Page became acquainted with at least two Russian intelligence officers, one of whom was later charged in 2015 with conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of Russia. Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow and his advocacy for pro-Russian foreign policy drew media attention. The Campaign then distanced itself from Page and, by late September 2016, removed him from the Campaign.
July 2016 was also the month WikiLeaks first released emails stolen by the GRU from the DNC. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks posted thousands of internal DNC documents revealing information about the Clinton Campaign. Within days, there was public reporting that U.S. intelligence agencies had "high confidence" that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the DNC. And within a week of the release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign. On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.
Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.
Fall 2016. On October 7, 2016, the media released video of candidate Trump speaking in graphic terms about women years earlier, which was considered damaging to his candidacy. Less than an hour later, WikiLeaks made its second release: thousands of John Podesta's emails that had been stolen by the GRU in late March 2016. The FBI and other U.S. government institutions were at the time continuing their investigation of suspected Russian government efforts to interfere in the presidential election. That same day, October 7, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint public statement "that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." Those "thefts" and the "disclosures" of the hacked materials through online platforms such as WikiLeaks, the statement continued, "are intended to interfere with the US election process."
Post-2016 Election. Immediately after the November 8 election, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new administration. The most senior levels of the Russian government encouraged these efforts. The Russian Embassy made contact hours after the election to congratulate the President-Elect and to arrange a call with President Putin. Several Russian businessmen picked up the effort from there.
Kirill Dmitriev, the chief executive officer of Russia's sovereign wealth fund, was among the Russians who tried to make contact with the incoming administration. In early December, a business associate steered Dmitriev to Erik Prince, a supporter of the Trump Campaign and an associate of senior Trump advisor Steve Bannon. Dmitriev and Prince later met face-to-face in January 2017 in the Seychelles and discussed U.S.-Russia relations. During the same period, another business associate introduced Dmitriev to a friend of Jared Kushner who had not served on the Campaign or the Transition Team. Dmitriev and Kushner's friend collaborated on a short written reconciliation plan for the United States and Russia, which Dmitriev implied had been cleared through Putin. The friend gave that proposal to Kushner before the inauguration, and Kushner later gave copies to Bannon and incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
On December 29, 2016, then-President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election. Incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and asked Russia not to escalate the situation in response to the sanctions. The following day, Putin announced that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions at that time. Hours later, President-Elect Trump tweeted, "Great move on delay (by V. Putin)." The next day, on December 31, 2016, Kislyak called Flynn and told him the request had been received at the highest levels and Russia had chosen not to retaliate as a result of Flynn's request.
***
On January 6, 2017, members of the intelligence community briefed President-Elect Trump on a joint assessment—drafted and coordinated among the Central Intelligence Agency, FBI, and National Security Agency—that concluded with high confidence that Russia had intervened in the election through a variety of means to assist Trump's candidacy and harm Clinton's. A declassified version of the assessment was publicly released that same day.
Between mid-January 2017 and early February 2017, three congressional committees—the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), and the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC)—announced that they would conduct inquiries, or had already been conducting inquiries, into Russian interference in the election. Then-FBI Director James Comey later confirmed to Congress the existence of the FBI's investigation into Russian interference that had begun before the election. On March 20, 2017, in open-session testimony before HPSCI, Comey stated:
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. . . . As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
The investigation continued under then-Director Comey for the next seven weeks until May 9, 2017, when President Trump fired Comey as FBI Director—an action which is analyzed in Volume II of the report.
On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed the Special Counsel and authorized him to conduct the investigation that Comey had confirmed in his congressional testimony, as well as matters arising directly from the investigation, and any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a), which generally covers efforts to interfere with or obstruct the investigation.
President Trump reacted negatively to the Special Counsel's appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counsel removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses. Those and related actions are described and analyzed in Volume II of the report.
***
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S CHARGING DECISIONS
In reaching the charging decisions described in Volume I of the report, the Office determined whether the conduct it found amounted to a violation of federal criminal law chargeable under the Principles of Federal Prosecution. SeeJustice Manual § 9-27.000 et seq. (2018). The standard set forth in the Justice Manual is whether the conduct constitutes a crime; if so, whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction; and whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately served by prosecution elsewhere or through non-criminal alternatives. See Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components.
First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election—the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations—violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws, the federal computer-intrusion statute, and they have been so charged. See United States v. Netyksho, et al., No. 18-cr-215 (D.D.C.). [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter, Personal Privacy]
Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project. [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter] And in February 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.
***
The Office investigated several other events that have been publicly reported to involve potential Russia-related contacts. For example, the investigation established that interaction between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidate's April 2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the Republican National Convention were brief, public, and non-substantive. And the investigation did not establish that one Campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. The investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September 2016 at Sessions's Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.
The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME II
Our obstruction-of-justice inquiry focused on a series of actions by the President that related to the Russian-interference investigations, including the President's conduct towards the law enforcement officials overseeing the investigations and the witnesses to relevant events.
FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION
The key issues and events we examined include the following:
The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump. During the 2016 presidential campaign, questions arose about the Russian government's apparent support for candidate Trump. After WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that were reported to have been hacked by Russia, Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter] about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow. After the election, the President expressed concerns to advisors that reports of Russia's election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election.
Conduct involving FBI Director Comey andMichael Flynn. In mid-January 2017, incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President, other administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russia's response to U.S. sanctions on Russia for its election interference. On January 27, the day after the President was told that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and had made similar statements to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to a private dinner at the White House and told Comey that he needed loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn's resignation, the President told an outside advisor, "Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over." The advisor disagreed and said the investigations would continue.
Later that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. Referring to the FBI's investigation of Flynn, the President said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Shortly after requesting Flynn's resignation and speaking privately to Comey, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel's Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered.
The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation. In February 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaign-related investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign. In early March, the President told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing. And after Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisors that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him. That weekend, the President took Sessions aside at an event and urged him to "unrecuse." Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed at a congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," including any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. In the following days, the President reached out to the Director of National Intelligence and the leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) to ask them what they could do to publicly dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also twice called Comey directly, notwithstanding guidance from McGahn to avoid direct contacts with the Department of Justice. Comey had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asked Comey to "lift the cloud" of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly.
The President's termination of Comey. On May 3, 2017, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, state that Comey had informed the President that he was not under investigation. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey's termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had "faced great pressure because of Russia," which had been "taken off' by Comey's firing. The next day, the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice's recommendation and that when he "decided to just do it," he was thinking that "this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story." In response to a question about whether he was angry with Comey about the Russia investigation, the President said, "As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," adding that firing Comey "might even lengthen out the investigation."
The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him. On May 17, 2017, the Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters. The President reacted to news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisors that it was "the end of his presidency" and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions submitted his resignation, but the President ultimately did not accept it. The President told aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and suggested that the Special Counsel therefore could not serve. The President's advisors told him the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been considered by the Department of Justice.
On June 14, 2017, the media reported that the Special Counsel's Office was investigating whether the President had obstructed justice. Press reports called this "a major turning point" in the investigation: while Comey had told the President he was not under investigation, following Comey's firing, the President now was under investigation. The President reacted to this news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel's investigation. On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.
Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation. Two days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor outside the government, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation, the investigation was "very unfair" to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and "let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections." Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do.
One month later, in another private meeting with Lewandowski on July 19, 2017, the President asked about the status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special Counsel investigation to future election interference. Lewandowski told the President that the message would be delivered soon. Hours after that meeting, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New York Times, and then issued a series of tweets making it clear that Sessions's job was in jeopardy. Lewandowski did not want to deliver the President's message personally, so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through.
Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence. In the summer of 2017, the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the emails would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with "an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign" and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. When the press asked questions about the President's involvement in Trump Jr.'s statement, the President's personal lawyer repeatedly denied the President had played any role.
Further efforts to have the AttorneyGeneral take control of the investigation.In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal. In October 20 17, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to "take [a] look" at investigating Clinton. In December 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested, according to notes taken by a senior advisor, that if Sessions unrecused and took back supervision of the Russia investigation, he would be a "hero." The President told Sessions, "I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly." In response, Sessions volunteered that he had never seen anything "improper" on the campaign and told the President there was a "whole new leadership team" in place. He did not unrecuse.
Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. Tn the same meeting, the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.
Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter].After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, the President's personal counsel left a message for Flynn's attorneys reminding them of the President's warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said "still remains," and asking for a "heads up" if Flynn knew "information that implicates the President." When Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn's actions reflected " hostility" towards the President. During Manafort's prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating, the President praised Manafort in public, said that Manafort was being treated unfairly, and declined to rule out a pardon. After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort “a brave man” for refusing to “break” and said that “flipping” “almost ought to be outlawed.” [Redacted: Harm to Ongoing Matter]
Conduct involving Michael Cohen. The President's conduct towards Michael Cohen, a former Trump Organization executive, changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President's involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project, to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen had pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. In 2017, Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project, including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him, in an effort to adhere to a "party line" that Cohen said was developed to minimize the President's connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony, Cohen had extensive discussions with the President's personal counsel, who, according to Cohen, said that Cohen should "stay on message" and not contradict the President. After the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not "flip," contacted him directly to tell him to "stay strong," and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President's personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a "rat," and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.
Overarching factual issues. We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President's conduct.
Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of-justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses—all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same.     
Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first phase covered the period from the President's first interactions with Comey through the President's firing of Comey. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.
STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES
The President's counsel raised statutory and constitutional defenses to a possible obstruction-of-justice analysis of the conduct we investigated. We concluded that none of those legal defenses provided a basis for declining to investigate the facts.
Statutory defenses. Consistent with precedent and the Department of Justice's general approach to interpreting obstruction statutes, we concluded that several statutes could apply here. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(b)(3), 1512(c)(2). Section 1512(c)(2) is an omnibus obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or contemplated official proceedings. No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing the provision to cover only conduct that impairs the integrity or availability of evidence. Sections 1503 and 1505 also offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury, judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings, and they are supplemented by a provision
in Section 1512(b) aimed specifically at conduct intended to prevent or hinder the communication to law enforcement of information related to a federal crime.
Constitutional defenses. As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues. We therefore examined those issues through the framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The Department of Justice and the President's personal counsel have recognized that the President is subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.
Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term "corruptly" sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of "corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article Il powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.