;)
The Commentariat -- July 25, 2019
Afternoon Update:
** Katie Benner of the New York Times: "The federal government will resume executions of death-row inmates after a nearly two-decade moratorium, Attorney General William P. Barr said Thursday. The announcement reverses what had been essentially a moratorium on the federal death penalty. The federal government has not executed an inmate since 2003, though prosecutors still seek the death penalty in some cases, including for Dylann S. Roof, an avowed white supremacist who killed nine African-American churchgoers in 2015, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber.... Mr. Barr said that Hugh Hurwitz, the acting director of the Bureau of Prisons, has scheduled executions in December and January for five men convicted of murder. They will take place at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind., and additional executions will be scheduled later, Mr. Barr said." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: How to divert attention from Mueller's denunciation of Barr & Trump: execute somebody.
Senate Republicans Oppose Everything about Fair Elections. Jordain Carney of the Hill: "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked two election security measures on Thursday, arguing Democrats are trying to give themselves a 'political benefit.' The move comes a day after former special counsel Robert Mueller warned about election meddling in 2020, saying Russia was laying the groundwork to interfere in the 2020 election 'as we sit here.' Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) had tried to get consent Thursday to pass a House bill that requires the use of paper ballots and includes funding for the Election Assistance Commission. It passed the House 225-184 with one Republican voting for it. But McConnell objected, saying Schumer was trying to pass 'partisan legislation.'... Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also asked for consent to pass legislation that would require candidates, campaign officials and their family members to notify the FBI of assistance offers from foreign governments. McConnell also objected to that bill." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: I am beginning to wonder if this is part of a GOP plot not only to erode voters' confidence in election results but also to give Republicans a fake "basis" to challenge results that go against them.
Andrew Desiderio of Politico: "The House Oversight and Reform Committee voted on Thursday to authorize subpoenas for senior White House officials' communications via private email accounts and messaging applications, a significant escalation in a years-long, bipartisan effort to learn more about potential violations of federal record-keeping laws. Thursday's vote by the Democrat-led panel came after the White House refused to turn over the messages voluntarily earlier this month -- including senior adviser Jared Kushner's WhatsApp communications with foreign officials..., Ivanka Trump's use of a private email account to conduct official business, and ... Stephen Bannon's use of a personal mobile device for White House business."
Jonathan Chait: In the last minutes of the Intelligence Committee hearing yesterday, "Mueller confirmed that Russia had blackmail leverage over Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign." Chait runs through the lines of questioning that establish Russia's ability to compromise Trump. Mrs. McC: I suspect Russia's got more on Trump than Schiff & Mueller highlighted. If so, I'll bet Trump knows it.
John Cassidy of the New Yorker: "With Republicans united behind the President, Democrats uncertain about how to proceed, and Mueller reluctant to the last to come straight out and say that the President committed impeachable offenses, it looks like Trump's blitzkrieg tactics of demonizing anyone who challenges him, terrorizing potential dissidents on his own side, and relentlessly spouting propaganda over social media may have worked. If so, he will have recorded a historic victory over the bedrock American principles of congressional oversight and equality before the law.... The wanton disrespect that these elected Republicans [on the House committees] showed Mueller was perhaps the most alarming testament yet to Trump's total conquest of the Party." ...
... Tom Nichols in USA Today: "The Republicans once prided themselves on being the toughest opponents of America's enemies. They have now been reduced to inane babbling about conspiracy theories, excusing the Russians, whitewashing the hostile foreign intelligence service called WikiLeaks, and attacking a man of indisputable honor and probity -- a fellow Republican, no less -- all in the name of covering Donald Trump's tracks.... I have never been prouder to be an ex-Republican."
Tom Porter of Business Insider: "... Donald Trump took to the stage at the Marriott Marquis hotel in Washington, DC, on Tuesday to deliver a speech to thousands of young, cheering supporters at the Turning Point USA conference. But ... no one seemed to notice that there was something subtly different about the presidential seal that was being shown on the screen behind him. Instead of the bald eagle featured in the official seal of the president of the United States, the image featured a double-headed eagle, which bears a striking resemblance to the one on the official coat of arms of the Russian Federation.... And instead of clutching arrows in its left claw, the eagle in the altered image held golf clubs...." Thanks to Ken W. for the link. ...
... Betsy Klein of CNN: "An audiovisual aide for conservative student group Turning Point USA was fired this week after ... Donald Trump appeared on a stage in front of a parody image of the presidential seal at its Teen Student Action Summit.... TPUSA had event branding on the screens, but during a run through ahead of Trump's remarks a few hours before the event, the team was told they had to change the branding to a presidential seal...." Mrs. McC: "was told?" By whom? I'd guess it was the crack White House advance team. And instead of sending over a high-res image of the seal, the White House guy (I'm guessing) left it to a TPUSA AV aide to punt. He did. And he got fired for his trouble.
~~~~~~~~~~
Grace Segers of CBS News: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shied away from advocating for impeachment in response to former special counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.] The American people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our Constitution,' Pelosi said in the Capitol of Mueller's testimony. 'It is a crossing of a threshold in terms of the public awareness of what happened,' she later said during a news conference following Mueller's testimony. But she stopped short of advocating for impeachment right now. 'My position has always been, whatever decision we made in that regard would have to be with our strongest possible hand, and we still have some matters outstanding in the courts,' Pelosi said, arguing that Democrats needed more information before considering impeachment." Mrs. McC: For what it's worth, I thought she got a little closer to impeachment than she has in the past. Later in the day, some opinionators backed me up, including Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who I think is a long-time friend of Pelosi's. ...
... Update. John Bresnahan, et al., of Politico: "House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler pushed to launch impeachment proceedings against ... Donald Trump during a closed-door meeting Wednesday, only to be rebuffed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to four sources familiar with the discussions. At a caucus meeting following the hotly anticipated testimony of special counsel Robert Mueller, Nadler suggested that several House committee chairs could begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump. Pelosi called the idea premature, said the sources."
Politico fronts with a banner headline: "'Euphoria': White House, GOP exult after a flat Mueller performance." Eliana Johnson & Melanie Zanona: "The tense opening moments of former special counsel Robert Mueller's much-anticipated testimony on Capitol Hill gave way to an early sense of relief at the White House, where aides were quietly celebrating what they viewed as disjointed questioning from Democrats and a weak performance from the star witness himself. Mueller, whose steely reputation has cast a long shadow over the Trump's tenure, proved -- at least in th early offing -- a less formidable witness in the flesh than Democrats had hoped, offering up clipped, monosyllabic responses and repeatedly asking lawmakers to repeat their questions. Watching from the White House, at least one Trump aide said the former FBI director, who spent some 22 months investigating the president, simply seemed past his prime and incapable of doing Trump much harm.... 'We had a very good day today, the Republican Party,' Trump told reporters as he prepared to depart for a fundraiser in West Virginia. 'There was no defense of what Robert Mueller was trying to defend.... There was no defense to this ridiculous hoax, this witch hunt.'" ...
... Mrs. Bea MCrabbie: White House staff isn't wrong about Mueller's performance, but they seem to be forgetting the House isn't finished.
Mrs. Bea McCrabbie: Here's snippet from Adam Schiff's closing questions to Bob Mueller:
Adam Schiff: ... From your testimony today, I gather than knowingly accepting assistance from a foreign government is an unethical thing to do. ...
Robert Mueller: And a crime. [pause] Given certain circumstances.
... Mrs. McCrabbie: You can hear the full exchange in this video which Schiff posted on YouTube. Mueller volunteered, unbidden, that accepting help from foreign governments was a crime, an assertion he quickly qualified. The Mueller report details & Mueller agreed in testimony yesterday, Donald Trump repeatedly sought & received campaign help from Russians. The Mueller report explains that Don Jr., Jared Kushner & even Paul Manafort were too damned dumb to know that they were breaking the law when they met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. BUT. We know Donald Trump, Sr. thought this meeting was at least dodgy because he went to some lengths to concoct a series of lies about it. On August 17, 2016, Trump Sr. received an FBI briefing warning him he could be a target of Russian spies. "Trump would have been told, 'If you see these kinds of contacts please let us know about them so we can keep you updated on the threat picture,' said Frank Montoya, a former FBI counterintelligence agent...." Trump apparently never contacted the FBI, and he absolutely knew about Russian contacts because Michael Cohen was regularly briefing him on the Moscow Tower deal up until June 2016 & possibly until November 2016, & Trump also knew in advance about the Russia/Wikileaks dumps. So didn't Mueller just spontaneously tell us Donald Trump committed another crime?
Mrs. McCrabbie: It seems to me Democrats did the best job possible with a very reluctant witness, who refused even to read from his own report & declined to answer questions at least 200 times over the course of the day. As a number of you have suggested or said outright, the last act of Bob Mueller, American hero, was a great disservice to the country.
Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) opened the Intelligence Commitee session with impressive remarks about "the story of the 2016 election":
... Schiff subsequently questioned Mueller:
In the Intel Committee hearing, Mueller told Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) that Trump's repeated public embrace of WikiLeaks -- which he had identified earlier as "a hostile foreign entity" -- was more than problematic: "Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays, giving some hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity."
... Also in the Intel Committee hearing, Rep. Sean Maloney (D-NY) asked Mueller why he didn't pursue a subpoena of Trump. A very interesting exchange:
... Another highlight of the afternoon hearing: PBS: "... Robert Mueller told Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., that ... Donald Trump did not answer many questions that were asked as part of the Russia investigation. 'Isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did that his answers showed he wasn't always being truthful?' Demings asked Mueller. 'I would say generally,' Mueller said":
Justin Baragona of the Daily Beast: "Towards the end of Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, the former special counsel indicated that the FBI is currently investigating matters of blackmail and compromise involving those [who] were in ... Donald Trump's orbit. During his allotted time, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) noted that because it was outside the Mueller investigation's purview, the final report did not reach any counterintelligence conclusions regarding 'any Trump administration officials who may be vulnerable to compromise or blackmail by Russia.'... The Illinois lawmaker [later] noted that Mueller had charged former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn with making false statements about his conversations with Russian officials. 'Since it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not address how Flynn's false statements could pose a national security risk, because the Russians knew the falsity of those statements, right?' Krishnamoorthi wondered. 'I cannot get into that, mainly because there are many elements that the FBI are looking into different aspects of that issue,' Mueller said in response. 'Currently?' Krishnamoorthi quizzically replied. 'Currently,' the one-time FBI chief confirmed." Includes video. ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: Julie Davis & Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times assert in their lede in the Times' top story that "Robert S. Mueller III offered no new revelations on Wednesday into Russia's interference in the 2016 elections or President Trump's attempts to derail his probe." But I think the revelation that the FBI is still investigating Trump's associates -- and maybe Trump himself -- as security risks because of their international entanglements is pretty explosive. I hope Jared was watching.
Jerry Nadler began the questioning of Robert Mueller, in what was a highlight of Wednesday morning's Judiciary Committee hearing:
... Ted Lieu elicits the most significant response from Mueller re: obstruction:
... Ted Lieu is one of the sharpest tacks on the board. Update: Mueller tried to clean up his response to Lieu during the afternoon session before the House Intelligence Committee, "correcting" his answer to say he "did not make a determination" on obstruction. So Wow! followed by "never mind." ...
... Here are Andrew Desiderio & Kyle Cheney of Politico on the correction: "Mueller, however, corrected himself during the second portion of his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, saying, 'That is not the correct way to say it.' Mueller clarified his response by noting instead that the Justice Department policy that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president meant that he 'did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.'" That's not quite a reversal of his initial testimony. P.S. The Politico report is a pretty good summary of what's transpired so far. Matt Ford, in his column linked below suggested Mueller may have reworded his answer because he realized "that he had let something slip past his shield of impartiality." ...
... Dahlia Lithwick of Slate: "... the one bit of news that seemed to have been news has been clarified back into the same exact legal language as was carefully crafted in the report. It was a misstep that was misunderstood and then retracted, a perfect capsule performance of how dragging an unwilling witness into a polemical hearing was never going to go well."
... Jonathan Chait: "Democrats tried fruitlessly to lead Mueller to his own conclusions. Two Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, Hakeem Jeffries and Ted Lieu, walked the witness through the three stated elements of an obstructive act defined in the Mueller report: an obstructive act, a nexus with an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. Jeffries went sequentially through the elements, getting Mueller to agree that Trump's actions had fulfilled each one. But then Mueller interjected, 'Let me just say, if I might, I don't subscribe necessarily to your -- the way you analyzed that. I'm not saying it's out of the ballpark, but I'm not supportive of that analytical charge.' He agreed that it was 1 + 1 + 1, but would not agree that it added up to 3. He was not denying, it either -- merely hewing to his ultrafastidious conception of a uniquely constrained prosecutor who could lay out the constituent pieces of a crime but could only leave it to Congress to name the final product. This was a key vulnerability Republicans used against Mueller.... Despite the copious evidence he produced, the lack of bottom-line conclusion allowed Republicans to define it as exoneration and dare Mueller to disagree." Mrs. McC: I highlighted that one clause only because I think it's fine writing. ...
... David Graham of the Atlantic: "... because Mueller had decided at the outset of his report that he could not and would not charge the president with crimes, thanks to Justice Department guidance and in the interest of fairness, Mueller did not make the otherwise obvious jump from laying out the ways that Trump's behavior met the three-prong test to actually stating that Trump obstructed justice. During [Wednesday's] House Judiciary Committee hearing, Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries sought to demonstrate the disconnect by walking Mueller through the three-prong test.... Mueller, seeing the trick, tried to cut it off.... During the next round of Democratic questions, Representative Ted Lieu executed a similar maneuver, and Mueller once again tried to put the cat back in the bag.... But by then, the point was made: Mueller himself had acknowledged all the ways that Trump's behavior met all three prongs of the test for obstruction of justice."
Almost Everything You Need to Know about Republicans' Interrogations. Eric Levitz of New York: "... in questioning the former special counsel Wednesday morning, Republicans cast their president as the victim of an illegitimate, partisan witch hunt -- which nevertheless totally exonerated him of all wrongdoing. Specifically, GOP lawmakers asserted that the Mueller investigation had concluded that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign 'colluded, collaborated or conspired with the Russians'; that this finding was inevitable, since the entire investigation was triggered by a fraudulent dossier; that Trump knew he was entirely innocent and therefore could have legitimately ended Mueller's probe if he'd wished; that Trump nevertheless graciously refrained from impeding the investigation; and that Mueller ultimately betrayed Trump's good-faith cooperation by releasing an 'extra prosecutorial' analysis of the president's potential acts of obstruction, in defiance of Justice Department regulations and the core principles of the American legal system. All of which were lies." [Levitz writes] "a quick debunking of the five false premises in the GOP's counternarrative[.]"
David Corn of Mother Jones: "Whether or not Trump engaged in active collusion with Vladimir Putin's regime, he gained the presidency with covert foreign assistance and then abandoned his most fundamental duty: to protect the United States. Arguably, this is more significant than the obstruction issue, for Trump has permitted a foreign power to get away with perverting the foundation of American democracy.... A US election was hijacked. Trump stood by as it happened and profited from it. And ever since he has attempted to cover up this original sin of his presidency. At the hearing..., in the quiet way of an institutionalist who respects norms and rules, Mueller made it clear: Trump engaged in treachery. This is not news. But it remains a defining element of the Trump presidency that deserves constant attention."
Politico Magazine rounds up some legal experts' opinions on the effects of the hearings.
Michael Shear of the New York Times: "President Trump started shouting on Twitter before 7 a.m. on Wednesday, venting about what he called the 'Greatest Witch Hunt in U.S. history' as Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, was headed to Capitol Hill to testify in the Russia inquiry.... By 8:10, the president had posted seven more times, delivering a kind of Twitter greatest hits -- punctuated by capital letters and exclamation points -- in which he portrayed himself as the innocent victim of an illegal crusade by Mr. Mueller, Democrats and the country's intelligence community. He said that his accusers were part of an 'illegal and treasonous attack on our Country.'... On Tuesday, Mr. Trump had shrugged off the impending testimony, telling reporters that he would not watch the hearings on Wednesday, then admitting that 'maybe I'll see a little bit of it.' But the president's early morning online activities betrayed his real intentions, indicating once again that Mr. Trump appeared consumed by the investigation that had dominated much of his presidency.... Wednesday morning, Mr. Trump appeared to threaten Mr. Mueller with prosecution for lying to Congress if the special counsel claimed during his testimony that he did not apply for the job of F.B.I. Director the day before he was appointed to lead the Russia probe. 'Hope he doesn't say that under oath in that we have numerous witnesses to the interview, including the Vice President of the United States!.'..." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: On that last point, it looks as if Mueller's friend Bill Barr will be prosecuting him. During the hearing, Louie Goemert asked a question predicated on the assertion that Mueller applied to Trump for the FBI job. Though Goemert was talking over Mueller, I believe Mueller said something to the effect of "I didn't apply for the job." Update: Later, Greg Steube (R) asked Mueller about applying for the FBI job, & Mueller said he did not. He said the purpose of the interview with Trump was to inform Trump about what the FBI director's job involved (paraphrase). Get out your handcuffs, Sheriff Bill. ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: One thing I found funny: a Democrat (I forget who) asked Mueller to put his conclusions on obstruction in plain English so the American people could understand what-all he found. Mueller's response: "The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed." Exculpated? Really? What percentage of voters knows what that means? Plain English for thee, Bob, but not for me.
Nicholas Fandos of the New York Times writes a fairly good summary of "what we learned" from the hearings.
On substance, Democrats got what they wanted: that Mueller didn't charge Pres. Trump because of the OLC guidance, that he could be indicted after he leaves office, among other things. But on optics, this was a disaster. -- Chuck Todd, in a tweet, Wednesday ...
... Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. Maria Bustillos in the Columbia Journalism Review: "... Chuck Todd managed to demonstrate, with uncharacteristic brevity, his basic misunderstanding of the requirements of his job[.]... Todd's focus on the 'entertainment' aspect of politics coverage is often in evidence -- for example, in his own recent performance as moderator in the Democratic presidential debate. He managed to talk more than all but three of the candidates, even as he demanded that they keep their own answers brief.... For Chuck Todd all the political world's a stage, and he's the star. And it's not just Todd. Other MSNBC anchors reacted to the Mueller hearings similarly, finding fault with the Democrats', and Mueller's, lack of pizazz as performers." ...
... It Wasn't Just Chuck & the Gang. Matt Ford of the New Republic: "Even before Robert Mueller's appearance before Congress on Wednesday reached the halfway point, some [D.C. reporters] concluded that it was a major setback for impeaching ... Donald Trump.... The focus on congressional theatrics and [Mueller's] demeanor misses the point. In substantive terms, the former special counsel in the Russia investigation affirmed several key interpretations of his report and its findings.... While the political press was busy lamenting that Mueller didn't break character and accuse the president of impeachable crimes, it missed the news: Mueller, in his own way, underscored the case for Trump's impeachment.... It's no surprise that those who view impeachment as a cable-news narrative saw little of value in Mueller's hearing. There were no bombshells to be found, but that's largely because the bombs have already gone off." ...
... Michael Grynbaum of the New York Times has more on pundits' analysis of the Mueller's "performance." Mrs. McC: But I think the problems were not his sometimes shaky grasp of the particulars of the report (and that time he couldn't remember the word "conspiracy"), but his self-imposed limitations on his own testimony. There were no doubt some matters Mueller could not discuss for valid reasons like ongoing investigations & national security considerations. But, as Matthew Miller said (cited by Grynbaum), "It would have been better for him to come to Congress ready to answer questions about the president's conduct and how it should be interpreted, rather than punting over and over again." Exactly.
Senate GOP Responds to Mueller's Warnings about Foreign Election Interference. Jordain Carney of the Hill: "Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cybersecurity measure on Wednesday in the wake of ... Robert Mueller warning about meddling attempts during his public testimony before congressional lawmakers. Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staff. But Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) blocked each of the bills. She didn't give reason for her objections, or say if she was objecting o behalf of herself or the Senate GOP caucus." Mrs. McC: Apparently GOP senators are assuming all the foreign hacking & fake Facebook posts will inure to their benefit.
Zachary Cohen & Betsy Klein of CNN: "... Donald Trump has vetoed three joint resolutions prohibiting arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the White House announced Wednesday, rejecting an attempt by congressional lawmakers to halt the controversial weapons transfers. In messages to the Senate, Trump announced he was returning the bipartisan bills that would have blocked licensing for certain arms sales in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the UK, France, Spain and Italy."
Andrew Desiderio of Politico: "The Justice Department will not bring criminal charges against Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross after the Democrat-led House voted last week to hold them in contempt. In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said the Cabinet officials' defiance of congressional subpoenas seeking information about the 2020 census 'did not constitute a crime.' Lawmakers never expected the Justice Department to prosecute its own leader and another cabinet official, but Rosen's letter represented the department's formal response to a House vote that, in effect, referred Barr and Ross for criminal prosecution."
Andrew Harris of Bloomberg: "... Donald Trump asked a federal judge for an emergency order keeping House Democrats from getting -- or even asking for -- his New York State tax returns. One day after the president sued to block the House Ways and Means Committee from obtaining those records under a newly enacted New York State law, he petitioned the court to stifle any such request before it's made by Committee Chairman Richard Neal [D-Mass.]... U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden in Washington set a July 25 hearing on Trump's request. Neal hasn't committed to asking for the returns. They were placed within reach by the TRUST Act, a measure signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo earlier this month. It compels the state's tax department to comply with the House committee records requests. Trump wants the court to invalidate the law too."
Camilo Montoya-Galvez of CBS News: "Delivering a painful defeat to the Trump administration's most sweeping effort to single-handedly overhaul the asylum system without Congress, a federal judge on Wednesday blocked a rule that made most migrants from Central America and other countries ineligible for asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California agreed to issue a temporary injunction halting the policy while he reviews the merits of a legal challenge spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In his order, Tigar seemed to agree with the concerns raised by the plaintiffs that policy could result in the U.S. government sending asylum seekers back to dangerous circumstances just because they did not seek protection in countries like Mexico." Thanks to Ken W. for the link.
Jonathan Dienst & Tom Winter of NBC News: "Jeffrey Epstein, the millionaire financier who is being held on federal sex trafficking charges, was found injured and in a fetal position in his cell at a New York City jail, sources close to the investigation told NBC News on Wednesday night. Epstein, 66, was found semi-conscious with marks on his neck in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan some time in the last two days, the sources said. Epstein is on suicide watch, two sources said. Two sources told NBC News that Epstein may have tried to hang himself, while a third source cautioned that the injuries weren't serious, questioning whether Epstein might have staged an attack or a suicide attempt to get a transfer to another facility."
Beyond the Beltway
** Puerto Rico. Patricia Mazzei & Frances Robles of the New York Times: "Gov. Ricardo A. Rosselló of Puerto Rico announced his resignation on Wednesday night, conceding that he could no longer credibly remain in power after an extraordinary popular uprising and looming impeachment proceedings had derailed his administration. In a statement posted online just before midnight, Mr. Rosselló, 40, said he would step down on Aug. 2. He said his successor for the moment would be the secretary of justice, Wanda Vázquez, a former district attorney who once headed the island's office of women's affairs. Ms. Vázquez was next in line under the commonwealth's Constitution because the secretary of state, who would have succeeded Mr. Rosselló as governor, resigned last week when he also was caught up in a chat scandal that enveloped the administration."
Way Beyond
So Boris Johnson -- the "Britain Trump," according to the United States Trump -- is now the Britain Prime Minister. He has been to London to visit the Queen. ...
... Maybe Elizabeth will like him, because "her people" picked him out. Joe Roberts of U.K. Metro News: "Boris Johnson has been elected as prime minister by 92,000 people who are predominately male, white, middle-class pensioners. It's not the first time a prime minister has been elected without a general election, but many are questioning why our new leader should be chosen by 0.14 per cent of Britain's population. Experts have looked closely at the Conservative membership and found it is 'entirely unrepresentative' of the general population based on gender, wealth, ethnicity and their hard-line attitudes against Brussels. Research has confirmed that 70% of party members are male and 97% are white British. The average age is 57, although over 40% of the group is aged 65 or above." Eighty-six percent are wealthy.
News Lede
New York Times: "Never in recorded history has Paris been hotter than it was on Thursday. The same was true of Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, as temperatures rose and records tumbled one by one across Western Europe, scorching the continent and sending residents scrambling to seek relief from a dangerous heat wave. In Paris, the temperature soared to 42.6 degrees Celsius (108.7 Fahrenheit), breaking a record set in 1947, 40.4 degrees Celsius, according to the French national weather service, which said the temperatures could rise further. Some 20 million people in northern France were expected to be affected by the heat."
Share Article
Reader Comments (20)
Avoided the hearings by the grace of exigency.
A trip to Seattle to get the old dog's (the four-legged kind) BP checked and an afternoon picking up and recycling twigs, leaves and small branches, the detritus remaining from a logging job occasioned by a good sized limb that got so tired of the unusually dry weather and lack of moisture, it just gave up and broke off its mother tree last Sunday, making a major mess in a yard we're responsible for--which doesn't begin to the equal the mess the country is in, for which I have no responsibility at all and don't know how to clean up.
So, Bea, thanks for the summaries, the videos and your comments. Due to RC, I don't think I missed anything. In fact, the only people who missed what the report and now Mueller himself had to say, much of it very damning indeed, are those who wish very much to miss it.
An exonerated (or exculpated)? Pretender? No.
The Russia investigation a hoax? No.
Did the Pretender and members of his team encourage Russian interference? Yes.
Were lies told about it by at least some of those who coordinated (if hot conspired) with the Russians? Yes.
Were there business dealings with Russia and Turkey by members of the Pretender team and the Pretender himself during the campaign? Yes.
Did they lie about that too? Yes.
Did the Pretender make efforts to obstruct the investigation? Yes.
Did that same chickenshit Pretender who repeatedly said he'd just love to sit down with Mr. Mueller under oath because he had nothing to hide actually do it?
No, because he's a chickenshit.
And that's not all. There's more.
But for all those willing to read, and now actually hear in (mostly) plain English , shouldn't that be enough?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/bernard-madoff-asks-trump-to-reduce-prison-sentence-for-ponzi-scheme.html
Think it will happen? Madoff is the Pretender's kinda guy.
The White House just told me they had a great day because Mueller's testimony didn't amount to anything.
Wonder what they thought of this good news?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asylum-ban-trump-administration-blocked-by-judge-today-2019-07-24/
Maybe I'm just too contrarian. I know I'm out of step with most of the bloggers I follow. I think most people do not consider "obstruction of justice" to be a "high crime or misdemeanor." After all, we see District Attorneys and Attorneys General doing it all the time, while egregiously overcharging (i.e., charging with a felony instead of a misdemeanor, asking for decades in prison) poor people. What would you call the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement? And that was approved at the Department of Justice, but we don't yet know by whom. Did Mukasey sign off on it? Inquiring minds want to know. But that's not going to move Blue Dog or New Democrat House members to call for impeachment. Russian interference? Pfui. A mere nothing compared to what Israel does every year, all year long. I don't think they're going to get popular support for impeachment, no matter how much they froth about "he's committing crimes every day!!!" Maybe I'm just jaded by the overblown hysteria of those suffering from TDS.
I found it curious how many times Dems went back to beat the dead horse of the "obstructive act" of Drumpf attempting to fire Mueller, like THAT would've REALLY more obstruction-y than the other 10 acts of obstruction spelled out.
Here's the thing. According to AG Barr's "Magical Unitary Exec Potion", Drumpf could've fired Mueller out of "frustration" and Barr would've shilled for him on TV and Fox "News", the public would shrug, and Pelosi STILL wouldn't push for impeachment.
Overall I came away with this: American decline is real, and it's happen right before our eyes. It won't be a great explosion like the URSS, but rather with the saboteurs knifing the underbelly while screaming distractions about emails and underground pedophilia pizza joints. America's decline as the sole superpower will be as exceptional as its rise. Is the world ready?
We’re living in a third world country. We just don’t know it yet.
@Procopius: I think you're confusing "obstruction of justice" with "prosecutorial discretion."
The legal definition of "obstruction of justice," according to Webster, is "the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process." An example of that is when Wilbur Ross lied to Congress about the reason for & source of the motivation behind adding the citizenship question to the Census.
An example of "prosecutorial discretion" is when the DOJ immediately decided not to prosecute Wilbur. The first is an act by an individual to mislead authorities & the second is authorities deciding not to bring charges. The "miscarriages of justice" you cite are of the second type.
@safari: I think you'll find that by the end of the morning session, the Democrats pretty well covered most of the "obstructive acts" laid out in Mueller's report, & some of them did so brilliantly. I would include here the questioning by Hakeem Jeffries, Ted Lieu & Val Demings. (In the afternoon session, Patrick Maloney built on Demings' questions.) As a former Air Force JAG officer, Lieu has prosecutorial experience. Jeffries & Demings are just smart questioners.
The questioners may have kept going back to Trump's attempts to fire or eviscerate Mueller in hopes of getting a rise out of him; after all, I might be pissed off to find out my boss's boss had been scheming to fire me. Trump made several attempts to fire or constrain Mueller: he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller; he "encouraged" Sessions to unrecuse himself & get rid of Mueller, & he ordered Lewandowski to tell Sessions to tell Mueller to investigate only "future election meddling," whatever that means. So the questioning wasn't always about exactly the same dead horse.
I did think the Democrats' questions were fairly well-organized, as opposed to the usual hearings where nearly every member makes a 4-minute speech before asking a question that requires follow-up she never gets to. Even the Republicans managed to cover more than one conspiracy theory, so I guess you could call that organized, too, tho they did take more times to speechify on the horrors of the Mueller witch hunt.
@RockyGirl is right about our increasing third world status. Corruption is seeping downwards from the top and by the end of a second Trump presidency we'll likely be taping 50$ bills to our drivers licenses as a "social lubricant".
Today, finally, the intense heat has subsided and we can finally open the windows, shut off the air conditioning and breathe a little easier. A somewhat apt metaphor for the finality of the hot button issue of the M. hearing of yesterday. For those who wanted–-nay, NEEDED–- a more robust, thoroughly engaged, entertaining spectacle I'd advise them to stick to watching T.V. court dramas. Bob Mueller is 75, has had a full life of service to this country and spent two years on what Trump continues to call a "Witch Hunt"––he is not a grandstander, he did not want to do this hearing, and yes, if at times he seemed befuddled, couldn't process a question clearly, wouldn't give more clarifying answers did it in the end change what we already knew? In some ways his blunt one word exchanges had more of an impact than if he had rambled on. That Chuck Todd would use Trump's favorite word–-DISASTER–-to describe this hearing is breathtaking.
If we put ourselves in the minds of those who didn't know much of the report they, I would think, learned a great deal. And I agree with Marie about the Democrats doing a very fine job.
And back on the South Lawn late yesterday afternoon as Trump was about to take off for W.V. for another rally to rally round himself, he couldn't seem to tear himself away from the throng of reporters. I couldn't hear any of their questions but Trump's answers were rude, even vicious and his demeanor reminded me of someone desperately hanging on to the BIG little lies that have been his modus operanti from the beginning. Here's a few of his retorts:
"You––(pointing to a reporter) you always ask–-you and your paper are fake news! How dare you ask me that question!"
"Mueller was a disaster–-the Dems were a disaster but my guys were heroes–-real heroes, I can tell you that!"
"Get out of here–-you and your fake paper–-such a stupid question–-you always ask these stupid questions."
"There was no collusion, there was no obstruction, everybody now knows that."
Let's hope that the coming Days of August will not become another "Guns of August" and we can get on with the matters at hand and right now those matters are mighty. And let's hope that Trump's "heroes" get an earful from their constituents back home during the August break. Alas, I hope for too much.
Someone had some fun:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-speech-in-front-of-presidential-seal-with-russian-eagle-2019-7
And on the subject of America's decline, which is real enough but deserving of more thought than I can give it, I'd offer only this at the moment.
Yesterday's hearings may not have provided the riviting TV moments that so many pundits craved and seemed to think necessary for them to be "successful," but the facts were laid out there for all to see. It's the public's reaction, or lack thereof, to those damning facts about a corrupt, lying president who is in league with a dictator that is the critical issue.
It's not only the Republican Party that has changed since Watergate. It has changed in concert with its base, and that base is now clearly comfortable with the obvious corruption the Pretender has brought to the political table.
Why that change over time? That's the question that invites much more thought. I don't know the answer(s), but Bobby Lee has identified one of its signatures: the acceptance of bribery as a way of life, when outright corruption brings no outrage, only a shrug of the shoulders, or as is the case for present-day Republican leaders, lies, excuses or deflection, which serve simltaneously a nod to standards of decency their party no longer adheres to and by implication the closest they can come to acknowledging that their leader has been behaving badly.
For me, that their supporters go along with the obvious charade is far more disturbing.
In their earliest days, weren't the repugnants led by someone they were proud to call "Honest Abe?"
Stephen Colbert understands:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZIzYge-BmQ
David Corn (linked above) is at pains to remind everyone of perhaps the single most important issue of the Mueller report and, interestingly enough, the subject of one of the few (only?) unbidden, unscripted opinions voiced by Mueller himself:
Donald Trump's treason.
There's a reason I've been calling R's members of the Party of Treason. And forget the textbook, Constitutional definition. You allow another country to screw America for your benefit? That's treason no matter how you try to spin it.
And he'll do it again. In a heartbeat. So will his entire party. They benefited from Russia's interference in the election and this time they'll be happy to let them in through the front door, sit them down in the living room, a little borscht, a little vodka, high speed internet connections, anything they need. Just so long as they fuck American democracy for their benefit.
This is treason. And as far as Mueller is concerned, the most egregious of the Trump Crime Family's many sins. Obstruction of justice is bad, yeah. But standing by while foreign enemy agents stab Americans in the back FOR YOUR BENEFIT??
Calling Dante, calling Dante. Another ring of hell, please. Yeah. Make it a nasty one. Grazie molto.
Jeffrey Epstein found injured and unconscious in jail cell. Cell
mate says "I didn't see nothin'." Don't most of these places have
cameras, especially if it's Jeffrey Epstein.
And of course, the commenters are certain it was Bill and Hillary
trying to silence him.
https://youtu.be/sjVQF5iHpOg
So now Nancy Pelosi says a move toward impeachment would be “premature”.
This tells me two things. First, since premature means something done or occurring too early or before the appropriate time, her use of the word indicates that there will be a right time.
Second, it makes me wonder when that time will be.
If your house is on fire would it be premature to call the fire department, or must you wait until the neighborhood looks like the Burning of Atlanta scene from “Gone With the Wind”?
Seriously. Bob Mueller pretty much called Trump a traitor yesterday. When IS the right time, Nancy?
If she’s thinking impeachment will piss off the Trumpbots, lemme tell you, they’re never not pissed off. They’re pissed off about everything all the time.
What this interminable delay does is turn off everyone we need to come out and vote in 2020. Oh, Donald Trump is a terrible guy? Then why didn’t you do your Constitutional duty and try to get rid of him? Because Mitch McConnell won’t like it? So what? Is he your boss?
It’s never a waste of time to do your duty.
And it’s never “premature”.
Forrest,
No one tried to strangle Jeffrey Epstein.
How do I know?
He’s still alive.
I watched/listened to most of yesterday's circus. I am not concerned with "optics" but I am sick of hearing people concern-troll about them...I saw a man heartily sick of giving the entire trumpster party rope to hang themselves and their king, and seeing it sold in a garage sale. No, they will NEVER do the right thing. Cuz-- their version of "the right thing" will always be personal and public grift. They are monsters. And Robert Mueller should go sit on a porch somewhere and contemplate his nobleness in NOT finalizing the report-- I'm sure history will be replete with shining reports of how he did not betray the DOJ. (Which deserves nothing now that its master is as corrupt as the president of the Ununited States of America, whose heyday has apparently ended.)I don't know what magical time will present itself so Nancy can act. This does not inspire me to work to overthrow the dumpmaster and his minions-- instead, I will go clean out some more of the garage...even that is more satisfying than watching the Dems not act.
Timing is Everything
Literally hours after Mueller finished pointing out the fact that Trump was never exonerated of anything and reminding congress and the country that allowing enemy agents of a foreign government to hack an American election for the purposes of electing that government's favorite puppet is still, ya know, a crime and all, here comes the Trump Crime Family consigliere to announce that Executions Will Recommence! Let there be dancing in the streets of Eye for an Eye Land.
It's funny how those who will gleefully welcome the return of Biblical justice support, without question, the most criminal president in the history of the Republic.
But that's all beside the point. Don't look over there. That's Old Man Mueller, pay no attention to what that old geezer is saying, step right this way, we're gonna draw and quarter this guy for your amusement. And don't forget to drop a few dollars in the Save Vlad bucket. Democrats are saying bad things about our very good friend Vladimir. We have to show him we still care.
What happens if impeachment gets off the ground? What will they do then for a distraction? Public hangings?
And don't miss the fact that Barr is sniffing that he has to resume executions because the Trump DoJ is all about the rule of law. '
Gag me.
Hahahahahahaha....
The other day, at that rightwing Turning Point harangue during which Trump regaled teenagers with tales of his personal woes and brilliance (his favorite song..."Me-me-me-me-me"), he was standing in front of a "Presidunce-shul seal".
The standard presidential seal (regularly defiled by the presence of the Orange Menace), was decorated with a two headed Russian eagle carrying golf clubs. And in place of the motto "E pluribus unum" was a new, but entirely more fitting reminder that "45 is a puppet".
Clearly, none of his minders noticed. And, of course, neither did he.
Hahahahahaha....
Trumpskyev, punked again!
I know everyone's pitchforks are raised and on the ready NOW, and people are disappointed in Mueller and Pelosi, but I think Pelosi's calculation is that additional information, which could be made available when subpoenas for McGhan's testimony and Trump organization financials currently working though the courts are finalized, will make an more solid case, not just for obstruction of justice, but against currying favor from a foreign adversary for personal financial gain (treason?). My only concern is in the timing, and potential loss of momentum during the summer recess. OTOH, I don't see why Nadler couldn't start drafting the articles of impeachment with the info they already have - just in case the subpoenas are blocked.
As the gods of irony sit silent and bemused, my idealism flourishes with a glimmer of hope that maybe the framework of our constitution is just robust enough that we will have the means to amend and extricate ourselves from the mistake of electing tyrant and demagogue - that there is just enough justice left in the world that makes our system viable. That would be cool! That would be an example of hope for other democracies. The other option is dark indeed.