McCarthy Tries To Harm Jan. 6th Committee With His Picks

We have known who the Democrats were on the January 6th Investigation Select Committee for a couple of weeks now, and one Republican (Liz Cheney - picked by Speaker Pelosi). But Minority Leader McCarthy has dragged his feet in choosing the five Republicans who will join the committee. 

He has finally made his choices, and it seems obvious that he has picked members that will obstruct rather than investigate the January 6th seditious riots. His choices are Joe Banks (Indiana), Kelly Armstrong (North Dakota), Rodney Davis (Illinois), Jim Jordan (Ohio), and Troy Nehls (Texas).

I have no quarrel with Armstrong and Davis. They voted against impeaching Donald Trump, but did vote to certify the 2020 election results. I disagree with them on almost all policy matters, but we need five Republicans on the committee, and they are probably as good as can be expected among available Republicans.

The same cannot be said of the other three picks. All three of them not only voted against impeaching Trump, but also voted against certifying the results of the 2020 election. They were among the people who supported Trump's big lie, and in effect, gave their blessing to the rioters who wanted to stop the election's certification. 

Jordan is the worst one of all. He doesn't seem to think his job is to legislate for the good of the country. Instead, he is a bomb-thrower -- trying to obstruct and destroy the legislative efforts of others. He has no business being on this important committee.

At the very least, Speaker Pelosi should ban Jordan from serving on the committee, and personally, I think she should also ban Banks and Nehls. They weren't picked to help find the truth, but to prevent the truth from being revealed.

It's Time To Make Manchin Defend His Indefensible Position

 

Joe Manchin has come out solidly against either reforming or eliminating the Senate filibuster. This gives Mitch McConnell the power to block any bill passed by the House, or any proposal by President Biden. And McConnell has already publicly declared he wants to block 100% of what Biden tries to do. Chuck Schumer may be the Senate Majority Leader, but Manchin's ridiculous stance makes sure that the real power in the Senate belongs to Minority Leader McConnell.

It's time for the public to make Manchin defend his stance (which I believe is indefensible). Manchin has said he believes the filibuster protects and promotes bipartisan speech in the Senate. He's not living in the real world. The filibuster, as Republicans are using it, actually prevents any bipartisan debate from happening.

Here is some of what Jennifer Rubin has to say about Manchin in The Washington Post:

It’s time for Manchin to put up or share blame for Republicans’ subversion of democracy. Let him come up with 10 Republicans for H.R. 4 and for a slimmed down H.R. 1. Let him find four more Republicans to support the Jan. 6 commission. If he cannot, then his thesis that the filibuster promotes debate and makes way for compromise collapses and his role in promoting the tyranny of the minority is laid bare.

Manchin insisted that he will not “weaken or eliminate” the filibuster. He should be compelled to spell out what reforms he would accept. Is requiring Republicans to hold the floor (i.e., demanding a talking filibuster) “weakening” the rule? It is well past the time to start pressuring Manchin to answer some basic questions: If the filibuster is simply a means of thwarting any reasonable legislation, why is it worth preserving? What if the integrity of our democracy is at stake?

Manchin’s bland platitudes suggest he prefers stalemate to taking hard votes. The status quo leaves him with latitude to make holier-than-thou pronouncements to decry both sides.

Elevating the filibuster to the sine qua non of our constitutional system is absurd. It is not in the Constitution. It protects no constitutional principle. It does not constitute a check or balance on the other branches as, for example, a veto override or the Senate’s advise and consent power on nominees. It does not protect minority rights when it is used to thwart voting rights protection for disfavored minorities.

Moreover, the republic survived previous changes to the filibuster, such as reducing cloture to 60 votes, eliminating the filibuster for executive branch nominees and carving out budget reconciliation. There is no reason to assume another modification — one to ensure the fundamental right to vote — would be any more harmful.

What are Democrats to do with someone so seemingly irrational and obstinate as Manchin?

First, Democrats should compel Republicans to filibuster again and again the bills Manchin himself thinks are entirely reasonable. Bring up H.R. 4. Put the Jan. 6 commission back on the floor. After 5 or 6 of these rounds, Manchin’s bipartisan fetish may subside.

Second, Manchin’s Democratic colleagues have a right to demand he present compromise legislation that has 10 Republicans. What magic formula is he aware of that has evaded others? Where are four more Republicans in addition to the six who would support the Jan. 6 commission?

And finally, voters and voting rights activists need to confront Manchin civilly and peacefully, but with unrelenting demands for him to justify his position. An array of interest groups hurt by Republican obstruction and assaults on voting rights — e.g., organized labor, seniors, the disabled community — must turn up the heat. Most of all, Capitol Hill police and other law enforcement officials must demand passage of the Jan. 6 commission — or Manchin’s agreement to push it through with less than 60 votes. They and the widows of law enforcement personnel killed from the Jan. 6 events need to be omnipresent and unrelenting.

The time for Manchin’s excuse-mongering is over. It is time to demonstrate his bipartisan notions are more than fantasy. And if he cannot, he needs to choose his legacy: He either ushers in democracy’s demise or refuses to allow Republicans to dismantle democracy before our eyes. That’s certainly the only thing for which he’ll be remembered.

There Won't Be A Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

The talking heads on cable news have been playing up the "negotiations" between President Biden and the Republicans in Congress regarding an infrastructure bill. But don't be fooled. There is no chance that a bipartisan bill make it through Congress.

That's because the Republicans don't want a bipartisan bill. The offers they have made were far below what President Biden has asked for. They intentionally lowballed their offers because they know Biden can't accept them. And frankly, if he did accept one, the GOP would find a way to oppose it. They don't want a bill.

Why? Because they think that any infrastructure bill passed and signed into law would be viewed as a victory for President Biden, and they can't allow that to happen. They need the Biden administration to fail, which is why they are opposing everything the President tries to do. If they can brand Biden as a failure, they think that will give them control of Congress in the 2022 election.

Here is how Paul Waldman puts it in his column in The Washington Post:

Politics in Washington is full of playacting, but few recent charades have been as absurd as the extended negotiation between Democrats and Republicans over whether they can agree on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. . . .

Let’s start by considering three possible outcomes of this effort. First, Congress could pass a meaningful infrastructure bill with support from members of both parties. This is what both sides say they want (though that isn’t quite true, which we’ll get to in a moment).

Second, Democrats could pass an infrastructure bill with zero Republican votes. This is probably what will end up happening, provided that Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), self-appointed guardians of bipartisan compromise, can be persuaded that the effort to win the support of Republicans was performed with sufficient enthusiasm.

Third, the bill could fail altogether, either because Manchin or Sinema pulls their support, or because a Democratic senator falls ill and can’t vote for it in the 50-50 Senate, or for some other reason.

Here’s where we get to the important part. This is how President Biden would rank those three outcomes in order of his own needs and desires:

1. Bipartisan passage of the bill
2. Democrats-only passage of the bill
3. Failure of the bill

And here’s how Republicans would rank those outcomes in order of their needs and desires:

1. Failure of the bill
2. Democrats-only passage of the bill
3. Bipartisan passage of the bill

As you can see, they’re precisely reversed. Which is a big problem if you’re hoping for an agreement.

If the bill passes on a bipartisan basis, Biden gets a double victory: He can claim a big legislative win, and also tell voters that he has achieved his goal of bringing cooperation back to Washington. He’ll have done what other presidents failed to do, breaking the partisan logjam and showering benefits on communities across the country for years to come.

Which is precisely why that’s the least desirable outcome from the GOP’s perspective: Biden will get the credit, and voters will be a little less likely to believe that Washington can’t get anything done. That would be terrible for Republicans, since dysfunction and gridlock increase voter dissatisfaction and produce a big win for the opposition party in midterm elections.

If the bill fails, on the other hand, it’s a huge win for the GOP, a black eye for Biden, and proof that Democratic rule isn’t delivering for people. They show their own partisans that they’re mounting an effective opposition, and show everyone else that Biden is ineffectual and weak. . . .

Hold on, you might say: Why am I not giving Republicans more credit for sincerely wanting infrastructure to happen? Don’t their constituents need better roads and sewer systems and broadband? Wouldn’t they like to see those people’s lives improved?

Sure they would. But if their sincere desire for infrastructure held any real power for them — if it was more than just “I guess we could do that, but I’m not going to put much effort into it” — then they would have done it when Donald Trump was president.

After all, in the first two years of Trump’s presidency they had control of both houses of Congress. But they didn’t pass an infrastructure bill. They and Trump kept claiming they would — to the point where “Infrastructure Week” became a running joke — but they never did it. Once they passed their big tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, they stopped bothering to do much legislating at all.

There is no outcome, substantive or political, that Republicans would rather have than to see the infrastructure bill go down in flames. Democrats could let them write every word of it, and that would still be true.

Which is why there will be no bipartisanship on this subject. And on every other important piece of legislation during the Biden presidency, the calculation will be just the same.

The Public Is Not Buying Trump's Claim Of Exoneration

These charts show the results of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 27th and 30th of a national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,101 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 2.6 points, and for registered voters is 3.1 points.

In an effort to stymie impeachment and keep his base behind him, Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Mueller Report completely exonerated him of both obstruction of justice and collusion with Russia. Of course, his claims are outrageous lies.

Fortunately, the American public knows this. By a 32 point margin (37 points among registered voters), they say the Mueller Report did NOT exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. And by a 20 point margin (23 points among registered voters), they say the Mueller Report did NOT exonerate Trump of colluding with Russia to affect the 2016 election.

Mueller's Statement Tosses The Ball To Congress

(This cartoon image is by Chris Britt at creators.com.)

Robert Mueller addressed the nation in a short speech on Wednesday. And the cartoon above sums up what he said very well. Republicans (and Trump) don't want to admit it, but Mueller's speech can be summed up with three bullet points:

* Russia substantially interfered with the 2016 election on behalf of Trump, and they will do it again in 2020.
* Donald Trump is guilty of multiple attempts to obstruct justice.
* Congress needs to address both of those facts.

Here is the full transcript of Mueller's speech:

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 cybertechniques 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 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. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. 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, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

Trump's Temper Tantrum Shows He's Scared And Desperate

(Image of Trump throwing a temper tantrum is from medium.com.)

Trump called Democrats to the White House on Wednesday. It was so they could negotiate an infrastructure bill and passage of his trade agreement with Canada and Mexico (NAFTA Redux). But that didn't happen.

The Democrats showed up with a 35 page plan for infrastructure to be used as a starting point for negotiations, but it soon became obvious that Trump had no interest in negotiating infrastructure -- or anything else.

Trump first kept the legislators waiting for 15 minutes. Then he came into the room and delivered a 3 minute tirade, saying he would not negotiate on any legislation (infrastructure or anything else) until the Democrats agreed to stop the investigations of him.

In other words, he threw a temper tantrum. Why? It seems that he's feeling the heat, and he's scared of what the investigations will reveal to the public.

Trump has tried everything he can to stop the investigation of his wrongdoing. We know (from the Mueller Report) that he tried to obstruct justice at least eight times during Mueller's investigation. We also know that his campaign officials met with Russians hundreds of times during the campaign, And we know that Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Is that all that Trump's trying to hide? Or is there more -- like laundering dirty money from Russia? Whatever it is, Trump is trying hard to hide it from the American people. He has ordered his government officials, company officials, and banks to not turn over any documents to House investigators. And he has refused to let any past or present White House employees testify before Congress. He thought he could delay the investigation (perhaps until after the 2020 election) by doing that.

But the courts are not cooperating. A couple of courts have already rules that documents must be turned over to the House committees, and it looks like other cases brought by Democrats may also be fast-tracked. In addition, New York state just passed a law to give state tax returns of Trump to the House investigators, and those state returns will tell Congress a lot about his federal returns (which they are based on).

The walls are starting to close in on Trump as he is running out of option to stop or delay the investigation in his malfeasance. That's why he threw his temper tantrum. It was the only option he had left. But it won't work. There are important things that Congress needs to get done in the next few months (pass a budget, raise the debt ceiling, etc.), and Trump will only hurt himself if he doesn't cooperate. It will be a repeat of his attempt to shut the government down (which didn't work out well for him).

Trump needs to learn that this country has a Constitution -- and that Constitution doesn't allow rule by temper tantrum.

It's Time To Start An Impeachment Hearing For Trump

It is time to start impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump!

House Democrats have balked at starting those proceedings because they know that right now there is not a majority of Americans supporting the impeachment and removal of Trump. But there is also not a majority opposing that.

The chart above reflects the results of the latest Economist / YouGov Poll on impeachment -- done between May 12th and 14th of a national sample of 1,500 adults, with a 2.8 point margin of error.

It shows that 36% want Trump impeach while 40% do not. A substantial 24% are unsure about impeachment and removal.

It is a fact that Donald Trump, in multiple instances, did attempt to obstruct justice by trying to stop the investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election. He was not successful, but not being successful is not a defense. It is a crime to attempt obstruction. Over 1000 former federal prosecutors have signed a petition saying Trump did commit a crime by trying to obstruct justice.

Those prosecutors have read the Mueller Report -- something most citizens have not done. And most people are not going to read the over 400 page report. The public can only be convinced of Trump's criminality through public hearings.

Democrats have wanted to do that through normal committee hearings, and once the public was convinced, then start impeachment proceedings. But Trump has blocked attempts to do that by refusing to turn over documents and refusing to allow people to testify. This is also obstruction, but it could take months of court fighting to get those documents and testimony.

Democrats must realize they have only one good option -- start impeachment proceedings. That would allow them to get the documents and testimony, and it would have a very good chance of changing public opinion (especially among those who are unsure). We must remember that when the impeachment proceeding against Nixon was started, the public also opposed his impeachment and removal. But those televised hearings changed public opinion.

Trump is betting that Democrats don't have the backbone to impeach him, and if they do the Senate Republicans will protect him. The House Democrats need to have the political courage to do the right thing -- start impeachment proceedings. If they are successful in painting a vivid picture of Trump's criminality to the public, the GOP senators might be forced to dump him (just like Nixon). If they don't, they'll be punished at the polls.

It's time for impeachment hearings to be started. No president is above the law, and criminality from the White House cannot be tolerated.

Former Federal Prosecutors Say Trump Obstructed Justice

Attorney General William "Whitewash Willie" Barr told Congress and the American people that Robert Mueller did not find enough evidence that Donald Trump obstructed justice. That is a LIE!

Mueller found plenty of evidence that Trump obstructed justice, and details that evidence in the report he submitted to the Justice Department. The only reason Trump was not indicted on charges of obstructing justice was a Justice Department rule that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Barr's lies were just a pathetic attempt to cover-up Trump's crimes.

I'm not the only one that believes that. Hundreds of former federal prosecutors who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations say the same -- that Trump did obstruct justice.

Here is the letter they have posted online, and which as I write this, has been signed by at least 566 of those former prosecutors. They said:

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

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

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

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and

· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence

Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.

Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation

The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.

First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.

Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.

As the report explains, “[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.

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

Witness tampering and intimidation

The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”

Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.

We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.

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

New ABC/Wapo Poll Looks Bad For Donald Trump

These charts are from a new ABC News / Washington Post Poll -- done between April 22nd and 25th of a national sample of 1,001 adults, with a margin of error of 3.5 points.

The charts are not good news for Donald Trump. The first shows his job approval is only 39%, while disapproval in 54%. That's a negative gap of 15 points.

The second shows he is the only modern president with an average job approval in negative numbers after 2 years and 3 months in office. In other words, he is the most unpopular president in modern times.

The third shows a majority (51%) believes the Mueller report was fair and even-handed, while only 28% thought it was not. And while Trump bragged the report cleared him, the public doesn't believe that. Only 31% said it cleared him, while 53% said it did not clear him.

And as the fourth chart shows, a whopping 58% thinks Trump lied about the investigation while only 31% doesn't. Also, a plurality of 47% says Trump obstructed justice, while 41% says he didn't.

About the only good thing for Trump was that a majority didn't think it was time to start impeachment proceedings. That however, doesn't mean they want to re-elect him. With numbers like these, it's going to be very difficult for Trump to get re-elected.

Half Of Registered Voters Say Trump Obstructed Justice

Donald Trump says he was exonerated by the Mueller Report. He says he did not try to obstruct justice, and that Congress should not investigate any further. But about half of registered voters are buying the lie.

About 49% say Trump did try to obstruct the Mueller investigation, while only 39% say he did not. And 48% believes Congress should continue to investigate that obstruction, while that same 39% say it should not.

As usual, Trump's supporters believe him. Others do not. As the chart below shows, about 62% of registered voters believe Trump has lied to the American people. They want an investigation.

These charts reflect the results of a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between April 21st and 23rd of a national sample of 1,268 registered voters, with a 2.8 point margin of error.

Plurality Now Believes Trump Guilty Of Collusion/Obstruction

Donald Trump has raged for months against the Mueller investigation (which is investigating him for collusion, obstruction, and other possible crimes). He has called it a witch hunt and a fake investigation motivated by politics. But his denials seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Even before Mueller submits the results of his investigation, a significant plurality of American voters believe Trump is probably guilty. By a 9 point margin (45% to 36%), they believe the Trump campaign did collude with Russia to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. And by an even bigger 15 point margin (48% to 33%), they believe Trump did act to obstruct the investigation.

The charts above use information in a recent Politico / Morning Consult Poll -- done between December 14th and 16th of a national sample of 1,994 registered voters, with a 2 point margin of error.

Yes - Trump Has Committed Obstruction Of Justice

(Cartoon image is by R.J. Matson in Roll Call.)

The Brookings Institute has released a new study -- and they believe Donald Trump has committed a crime (obstruction of justice). The conclusion of that report is posted below -- and if you want to see the entire report, you can go here:

In our estimation, the public discourse surrounding President Trump’s course of conduct, including the firing of FBI Director Comey, has lacked a detailed exploration of Trump’s possible obstruction of justice. That may be due to the necessarily piecemeal and delayed manner of disclosures about the relevant facts. It also may be the product of the cacophony of voices that dominate our news cycles—ones that can be too varied and conflicting to make a lasting impression. Our goal in this paper has been to inform the conversation by collecting the relevant facts and allegations (at least as we know them) and engaging in a rigorous and sustained analysis of the legal consequences that might flow from them. In that regard, the analysis herein is likely similar to that undertaken behind closed doors by the special counsel and his team on a daily basis. We of course recognize that their investigation is ongoing, and many facts are still to be determined.

With that caveat, our review of the facts and the law leads us to the view that the president likely obstructed justice. Should that conclusion be borne out, we believe he will be held to account under one or another of the vehicles we have outlined, for no one is above the law in our system. Accountability will have significant consequences for the functioning of our democracy. We offer this paper as a framework to evaluate the facts and the investigation as they develop, and to help prepare for the turbulence that may well lie ahead. 

Pardon Of Arpaio Shows Disregard for Constitution & Law

Donald Trump's pardon of the bigot Joe Arpaio removes any doubt that Trump himself is a racist and a bigot. But more importantly, it also shows he has no regard for the courts, the rule of law, or the Constitution -- and that opens up the possibility that he might use his pardon power to protect himself and his family from the investigation into their criminality (collusion, fraud, money laundering, etc.). He could keep his aides from turning into government witnesses by promising them pardons.

The following is a thought-provoking article, written by Charles Kaiser, found at Moyers & Company:

Donald Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio marks the real beginning of the coming constitutional crisis in America.

Trump started tweeting trial balloons about this a month ago —“all agree the US
— President has the complete power to pardon”– and he has even asserted the unlitigated idea that he can pardon himself. But what he did yesterday puts his presidency on a whole new plane: a Category 5 political hurricane. By pardoning a man convicted of criminal contempt for direct violation of a Federal order, Trump is now flaunting his eagerness to overturn the rule of law in America.

I have never seen anyone who has acted more obviously guilty than Donald Trump has almost every single day since he became president. From his tete-a-tete with James Comey, in which he asked the FBI director to end his investigation of Michael Flynn, to his firing of the same man when he failed to heed that warning, to his newly-reported phone call to North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis to complain about a bill that would protect special counsel Robert Mueller’s independence, the president has engaged in one blatant attempt to obstruct justice after another.

Here is the most logical way to view his pardon of Sheriff Arpaio: it is the latest and gravest step he has taken in his continuing efforts to undermine the rule of law. Obviously Trump delighted in fueling the racism of Arpaio’s supporters by pardoning this convicted criminal –he made that clear earlier this week during his repellent speech in Phoenix. But I am certain that is not the main reason for this heinous act.

For many weeks, Washington has been swirling with rumors that Mueller already has secured the cooperation of Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort in his investigation of the president. And Trump undoubtedly is more vulnerable to the testimony of these two men than he is to that of any other players in this fearful drama. Therefore, Trump must feel compelled to send this message through Arpaio’s pardon: the president is eager and willing to do the same thing for anyone who might be pressured into testifying against him.

I have a written a book about France under fascism, and what we are now experiencing is exactly what incipient fascism looks like. The combination of Trump’s relentless assaults on the free press, his open encouragement of Nazis — which is the only honest description of his initial refusal to condemn them — and now a pardon without even pretending to go through the normal channels of the Justice Department — these are all the acts of man who is blatantly defying his sacred pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Like the men and women of Vichy France who began their collaboration with the Nazis seventy-seven years ago, from now on, every senator and House member of either party who continues to remain silent about this president’s unconstitutional acts is directly complicit in the high crimes and misdemeanors of Donald Trump.

I know very serious students of American justice who already were convinced last night that the pardon of Arpaio has fatally undermined Robert Mueller’s investigation by killing the incentive for anyone to testify against this president. Personally, I am not yet that pessimistic.   I still believe that any pardon of Flynn or Manafort or Jared Kushner will produce a large enough firestorm to end Donald Trump’s presidency, either through impeachment or the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which would allow his removal by a majority vote of his cabinet.

But if there is a majority of Republican senators and House members who wish to avoid a full-blown constitutional crisis worse than anything we have seen since the secession of the Confederate states, they must speak loudly and act clearly right now. They must immediately pass the bill introduced by Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware and Republican Senator Tillis of North Carolina that would shore up the independence of the special prosecutor, and they must pass it with veto-proof majorities.

Senator Lindsay Graham already has said that the firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions would mean the beginning of the end of Trump’s presidency. It is long past time for all of Graham’s colleagues in both houses to declare that the same thing will be true if the president dares to repeat the horrific abuse of his pardon power that we witnessed last night.   Otherwise, America is destined for an era of violence and darkness unlike any we have ever witnessed since the end of the Civil War, one hundred and fifty-two years ago.

GOP: Great At Demonizing Dems - Terrible At Governing

The top cartoon (from bobdiven.com) represents the Republican officials before January of 2017. They were a powerful party when out of power, because all they had to do was demonize the dominant Democrat (and oppose everything the Democrats tried to do).

The bottom cartoon (from davegranlund.com) represents the Republicans since they took over the White House and both houses of Congress in January 2017. They have been exposed as a dysfunctional machine, whose parts no longer fit together. They are now expected to govern, and they don't seem to have a clue as to how to do that.

They are learning that while demonizing and obstructing are easy, governing is much harder.

The following is much of an excellent article by Stan Collender at Forbes.com on the current situation GOP officials find themselves in:

For the past eight years the devil for Republicans was Barack Obama and sometimes Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

During the campaign it was Hillary Clinton.

Since Election Day, some have tried to make it House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

In other words, it was whoever Donald Trump and congressional Republicans said must be stopped before his or her policies go into or stay in effect. For them, it was the monster under your bed, Satan, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from "Ghostbusters" all rolled into one.

Until recently, the GOP's demonization strategy worked brilliantly. Whenever there was a clear demon to be defeated, all of the multiple factions in the Republican Party were able to put their many policy preferences, ideological contradictions and parochial needs aside to slay the dragon of the moment and have good triumph over evil.

But without a scary monster to be battled, the GOP's intraparty mega differences have returned with a vengeance to wreak havoc on their attempts to govern and adopt any significant legislation.

The most obvious example has been the healthcare debate. It has repeatedly stalled as the effort changed from the much-easier stopping of Obamacare (named, of course, for the GOP's supposed demon-in-chief) to the far-harder replacing of the Affordable Care Act. The first was a unifying moment for congressional Republicans and their presidential candidate; the second, without a villain, has been the precise opposite.

But lacking the requisite villain, this year's federal budget debate may be the ultimate example of a Republican-led legislative effort devolving into a GOP-only food fight.

Obama didn't send a fiscal 2018 budget to Congress before he left office so he's not the great Satan on this issue. House and Senate Democrats haven't released their own budget proposals (after all, they're in the minority) so it's not Pelosi or Schumer either. And because the Black Caucus and all the other mostly Democratic groups that typically come up with separate budgets haven't released one either, they're also not the political fire-breathing dragons that need to be slain.

As I explained in my previous post, it was House Budget Committee Chairwoman Diane Black's (R-TN) tremendous problems in cobbling together a group of Republicans who will support any 2018 congressional budget resolution that forced her to cancel a scheduled markup before the Fourth of July recess. Without a devil, the House GOP had to fight itself over policy and there simply wasn't a consensus within the Republican caucus that allowed Black to move forward.

The House GOP disunity is growing. . . .

Especially in the Senate, the Trump administration's and congressional Republican's efforts to diabolize the Congressional Budget Office, something called the "deep state" and even the media have similarly failed to convince individual Republicans to drop their parochial interests and compromise with their GOP colleagues.

That's a huge problem. If the White House and congressional Republicans don't quickly find another Democratic/liberal/progressive dragon that's threatening the villagers, it's hard to see how Trump and the GOP will be able to do much on healthcare, the budget, tax reform, infrastructure or anything else the rest of this year or next.

The Case For Obstruction Of Justice By Trump

(Cartoon image is by Jeff Darcy in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.)

The following is an editorial in the New York Times by Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner (law professors at the University of Chicago). It examines the current state of the case for obstruction of justice by Donald Trump.

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, appears to be looking into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.

It is not easy to prove that a president committed the crime of obstruction, but if publicly reported facts are accurate, Mr. Mueller is likely to find that he has a strong case against Mr. Trump.

Obstruction of justice is a serious offense that lay at the core of Bill Clinton’s impeachment and forced the resignation of Richard Nixon. The Watergate-era cliché “The cover-up is worse than the crime” misses the point that the cover-up is a crime. Congress has made it a felony for any person — including the president — to “corruptly” interfere with a proceeding before a federal agency. Powerful evidence has emerged in recent weeks suggesting that President Trump did indeed interfere with the F.B.I. investigation of Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, which is part of the broader Russia inquiry.

So far, the case against Mr. Trump involves three key events. First, James Comey said that when he was the F.B.I. director, the president told him in a Valentine’s Day chat, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” Two Federal Courts of Appeals have held that similar “I hope” statements can — depending on the context — support charges of obstruction.

Second, President Trump reportedly asked the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, in a private meeting in late March if Coats could get the F.B.I. to back off its Flynn probe. President Nixon’s attempt to use the C.I.A. to shut down the Watergate investigation was one of the reasons the House Judiciary Committee voted for articles of impeachment on obstruction charges.

Last, President Trump fired Mr. Comey on May 9 and then said on television that the firing was related to the Russia inquiry — a signal to Comey’s replacement, Acting Director Andrew McCabe, that he should roll back the investigation if he wanted to stay on as F.B.I. chief.

Even if none of those specific incidents would qualify as obstruction on its own, federal courts have said that an entire course of conduct can constitute obstruction. And whether Mr. Trump succeeded in his efforts is legally irrelevant, because federal law criminalizes attempted obstruction as well as successful obstruction. Nor does it matter whether there was an actual underlying crime.

The more difficult question involves intent — whether Mr. Trump acted “corruptly” when he sought to stymie the investigation. The president is the head of federal law enforcement, and prosecutorial discretion is a core element of executive power. No court would say that a prosecutor is guilty of obstruction for dropping a case because it is hard to prove, too expensive or even politically unpopular. How can a prosecutor’s boss be guilty of obstruction by telling the prosecutor to stop?

The Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has argued that for just this reason, a president cannot be guilty of obstruction. Mr. Dershowitz notes, moreover, that the Constitution gives the president pardon power. President George H. W. Bush thwarted the Iran-contra investigation by pardoning former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, and President Gerald Ford shut down the investigation of Nixon by pardoning him. Mr. Trump could easily end the Flynn investigation with a pardon, Mr. Dershowitz reasons, so he could also shut it down with a request to the F.B.I. chief.

But Mr. Dershowitz is wrong. The president’s law enforcement discretion is not unlimited. He can’t, for example, order prosecutors to enforce drug laws against black people but not white people. He also can’t drop an investigation in exchange for a bribe. He can stop an inquiry for a wide range of reasons but not for “corrupt” purposes. The same is true with respect to pardons: While the president most certainly has this power, we know of no one who believes that the president can simply sell pardons for cash.

Mr. Mueller must now decide where to draw the line between “corrupt” intent and the legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. He might start by looking at the Justice Department’s own regulations, which prohibit prosecutors from taking part in an investigation in which they have a “personal or political relationship” with the subject. Under that standard, Mr. Trump’s involvement in the Flynn investigation is immediately suspect. If Mr. Trump intervened to save a close associate and political ally from indictment, then the argument that he acted “corruptly” would be strong.

The president’s constitutional responsibilities do make his standard of conduct more nuanced than that of an ordinary prosecutor. If Mr. Trump tried to block the investigation of Mr. Flynn because he believed that the inquiry would bring us to the brink of war with Russia, then that would suggest a noncorrupt intent. Mr. Mueller will have to ask not just what the president did but also why he did it.

By carefully considering this question, Mr. Mueller would be fulfilling his mandate, which extends to obstruction allegations arising out of his initial investigation. And even if he decides not to charge the president, his findings may show that Mr. Trump has abused his power in ways that would warrant impeachment, if not indictment.

Yet it is possible that Mr. Mueller will himself be thwarted before he reaches the end of his inquiry. Mr. Trump has reportedly considered firing the special counsel. If he does, the president will have interfered not only with the investigation of his campaign’s Russia ties but also with the investigation into his own possible obstruction of the investigation. Covering up a cover-up would be yet another crime. In this, as in so many ways, Mr. Trump would break new ground.