Skip to content

Month: March 2019

Game on

Game on

by digby

There’s going to be a LOT more public testimony:

Even before Robert Mueller has delivered his final communiqué, Democrats have activated a new phase in the Trump-Russia wars that ultimately could prove more damaging to the president than the special counsel’s investigation.

For Trump, this has been a behind-the-scenes probe, with sensational yet intermittent revelations. Now, it’s about to become a persistent and very public process — at best, a nuisance; at worst, a threat to his office.

Whether or not Mueller is sitting on a grand finale, Democrats are picking up the baton with a vast probe that already involves a half-dozen committees, and will include public hearings starring reluctant witnesses.

What House Democrats are thinking after the public Cohen hearing, via an email to Axios from MSNBC analyst Matt Miller: “Incredible to start an investigation and have six months’ worth of leads on the first day.”

What Democrats are planning:

They want to call Trump family members — with subpoenas, if necessary.
The Democrats’ investigation will touch Trump’s businesses, foundation and presidency — and could extend into 2020, top Democrats tell me.
Besides Russia, topics include conflicts of interest, money laundering, and Jared Kushner’s security clearance and other White House clearances. (N.Y. Times scoop: “Trump Ordered Officials to Give Kushner a Security Clearance.”)

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who’s on the House Oversight Committee, tells Axios’ Alayna Treene that committees are “zeroing in on the Moscow project, the Russia connection and the influence of other foreign actors like Saudi Arabia.”

Democrats expect all that may serve as a Rosetta Stone to arguable “high crimes and misdemeanors,” touching off an impeachment process.

Well-wired Democrats tell us that even if the impeachment process doesn’t lead to a showdown vote, so much energy in the party is invested in the idea that they see little chance of heading off at least the opening stages.

Coming attractions: House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said the committee will hear from Felix Sater, a Russia-born executive who worked with Cohen on Trump Tower in Moscow, in an open hearing on March 14, per AP.
The committee also plans to bring in longtime Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg.

Kurt Bardella, a Republican former senior adviser for House Oversight, writing in USA Today:
“It will only be a matter of time before the Oversight Committee requests that Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner speak to congressional investigators about their meetings, conversations and plans for a Trump Tower project in Moscow.”

“The Trump Organization will receive requests for all emails, documents, notes and other evidence related to the internal deliberations about the project.”

This is a new day. And Trump isn’t going to like it.

.

QOTD: Donald Trump “Some people say I shouldn’t like him. Why shouldn’t I like him?”

QOTD: Donald Trump

by digby

On Hannity last night:

“He’s a character. He’s a real personality. He’s very smart… And he’s a real leader… He’s pretty mercurial—I don’t say that in a bad way, but he’s a pretty mercurial guy. He likes me, I like him. Some people say I shouldn’t like him. Why shouldn’t I like him?”


Why shouldn’t he “like” him?

Kim rules with extreme brutality, making his nation among the worst human rights violators in the world.

In North Korea, these crimes “entail extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation,” concluded a 2014 United Nations report that examined North Korea.

It’s one thing for a president to meet with odious foreign leaders. It goes with job and is often necessary. But this is just grotesque. As were his comments about the treatment of the American hostage Otto Warmbier, telling the world that Kim “felt bad about it” and didn’t know it had happened. Ridiculous.

There are so many ways this man is reprehensible. Saying he can’t think of a reason why he shouldn’t like Kim Jong Un has to be at the top of the list.

.

Michael Cohen and the Trump cult

Michael Cohen and the Trump cult

by digby


My Salon column this morning:

I had always been under the impression that Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s longtime “fixer,” was a dope. Yes, he’s a lawyer — or at least he was until his disbarment earlier this week. But Cohen’s law degree is from a school with a less than stellar reputation and after listening to the famous recording of him threatening a reporter I assumed he was merely another one of Trump’s hired thugs. So I didn’t expect him to be very effective when he appeared before the House Oversight Committee and assumed that he might lose his cool under what was sure to be overwrought questioning by the Republican members.

The GOP questioners did not disappoint but, surprisingly, Cohen was a poised and articulate witness, showing a grace under pressure I didn’t expect. He calmly told the story of what it was like to work for Donald Trump in a way that reflected the hundreds of familiar White House tales that have been anonymously leaked to reporters about the president’s behavior. Cohen’s story, however, was a confession by an intimate acquaintance who has known the man for years. It carried much more weight, particularly since Cohen is bearing the full burden of crimes he helped Trump commit. It was inevitably going to be dramatic, but this exceeded expectations and validated my belief that the most important assistance Trump’s accomplices in the last Congress gave him was not to hold any public hearings.

Cohen came to talk about specifics. He laid out a long list of unethical and possibly illegal behavior by the president, which I wrote about earlier this week, based upon his written statement submitted the night before his appearance. Cohen accused the president of committing campaign finance violations (even in the Oval Office), tax fraud, insurance fraud, bank fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice and self-dealing.

Cohen also testified that Trump knew specifics about the WikiLeaks dumps of hacked emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party ahead of time. (Roger Stone and Julian Assange have both denied this, not that either is a trustworthy source.) He indicated that he’s working with federal prosecutors on several other investigations, some of which we may not yet know about. And with the help of the Democratic committee members, he laid out a roadmap for further investigation based upon his testimony and some of the documents he provided. He obviously cleared all of that ahead of time with both special counsel Robert Mueller and the Southern District of New York, which indicates that what he said is only the tip of the iceberg.

Republicans were not amused. Apparently, they too had decided that Cohen was high-strung and not very smart, so one or more of them hatched a scheme to rattle him on the night before he testified. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., tweeted threateningly at Cohen, suggesting he might reveal evidence that the latter had cheated on his wife. Although Gaetz is not a member of the Oversight Committee, he reportedly begged for five minutes to “ask some questions.” He was denied this opportunity so instead he just attended the hearing, presumably to put the heat on Cohen as he testified. On Thursday, it was revealed that he was doing all this on behalf of the Big Boss:

As Cohen explained in his testimony, Trump doesn’t have to explicitly give orders. He just declares something and his minions know what they’re expected to do. We don’t know whether the information about Cohen’s alleged girlfriends came from Trump or someone else, but Gaetz understood exactly what Trump wanted and was happy to do it for him.

Gaetz is a member of Trump’s Praetorian Guard and is willing to do the real dirty work. The rest of the Republicans just followed a simple playbook in which they called Cohen a liar over and over again. Some of them foolishly asked him questions they didn’t know the answers to, like Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana, who repeatedly accused Cohen of withholding the documents he was submitting to the committee from federal prosecutors — despite being told that they had been returned to Cohen by the federal prosecutors who had seized them during the raid on his office. Their only defense of Trump was when Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chair of the House Freedom Caucus bizarrely trotted out one of the few African-Americans in Trump’s inner circle to prove that the president cannot possibly be a racist.

The GOP’s sole strategy was to attack Cohen’s credibility and assassinate his character. As we know all too well, that is how Donald Trump operates, but in this case it was a big mistake. Michael Cohen didn’t try to dodge the charges. He admitted to his crimes and repeatedly showed remorse. But he also defended Trump in some important ways by saying that he had no personal knowledge of any Russian collusion and that he had investigated many sordid accusations against Trump that he believed were untrue. Since Republicans had made Cohen’s credibility the only theme of their questioning, they couldn’t exactly turn around and accept those defenses. And they seemed to have no awareness that the man they were defending looks even worse than Cohen in this case. After all, Trump hired Cohen, knowing exactly what kind of guy he was, and worked closely with him for a decade.

None of those nuances seem to have occurred to Republicans on the committee. They were on a mission to destroy this threat to their president and nothing else mattered. As it turned out, the man they were taking on understood them far better than they understood themselves.

Early in his testimony, Cohen had described how he had been drawn to Trump in the beginning. He admitted that he knew what Trump was — the character flaws, the corruption, the greed — and that he was largely motivated by personal ambition. Yet he continued to work for him:

Sitting here today, it seems unbelievable that I was so mesmerized by Donald Trump that I was willing to do things for him that I knew were absolutely wrong.

Cohen then issued a memorable warning that should keep these Trump enablers up at night. He said, “I can only warn people that the more people that follow Mr. Trump as I did blindly are going to suffer the same consequences that I’m suffering.”

Michael Cohen sounded, more than anything else, like a cult member who had been deprogrammed.

There is little evidence that the congressional Republicans saw themselves in him. They should have. While they may not end up in federal prison, as he soon will, they should at least be aware that Donald Trump is fully prepared to take them all down with him. Michael Cohen is their canary in the coal mine.

.

Dangerous nepotism

Dangerous nepotism

by digby

Remember this from last months interview with the New York Times?

HABERMAN: Can I switch gears for a second? There’s been a story in the news the last two weeks about your son-in-law’s security clearance.

TRUMP: Yeah.

HABERMAN: Did you tell General Kelly or anyone else in the White House to overrule security officials? The career veterans —

TRUMP: No. I don’t think I have the authority to do that. I’m not sure I do.

Haberman: You do have the authority to do it.

Trump: But I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t do it.

HABERMAN: O.K.

TRUMP: Um, Jared is a good —

HABERMAN: You never —

TRUMP: I was never involved with the security. I know that he — you know, just from reading — I know that there was issues back and forth about security for numerous people, actually. But I don’t want to get involved in that stuff.

HABERMAN: O.K. Why would you want to — why stay out? You do have the authority to —

TRUMP: I don’t know. I just don’t — I just, I never thought it was necessary. I also know him. He’s a very solid person, and I just can’t imagine he would have — I guess even, Ivanka, they, they, I heard that, uh, something with Jared and Ivanka —

HABERMAN: Mhm.

TRUMP: But, uh, I don’t believe I’ve ever met any of the national security — of the people that would do clearances. Um, and there’d be nothing wrong, I don’t think, with me calling them up to the Oval Office and say, “Hey give these people, you know, clearances” —

HABERMAN: You just told me — [inaudible]

TRUMP: Yeah, yeah, so there, I, I mean, I take back the other — I didn’t, I was answering a little bit different question. Uh, I have the right to do it, but I never thought it was necessary, Maggie. I never thought it was necessary.

HABERMAN: And you didn’t direct General Kelly or anyone like that to do it?

TRUMP: No. And, and frankly, I never thought it was necessary to do so.

Yes, he was lying. Of course he was:

President Trump ordered his chief of staff to grant his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, a top-secret security clearance last year, overruling concerns flagged by intelligence officials and the White House’s top lawyer, four people briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Trump’s decision in May so troubled senior administration officials that at least one, the White House chief of staff at the time, John F. Kelly, wrote a contemporaneous internal memo about how he had been “ordered” to give Mr. Kushner the top-secret clearance.

The White House counsel at the time, Donald F. McGahn II, also wrote an internal memo outlining the concerns that had been raised about Mr. Kushner — including by the C.I.A. — and how Mr. McGahn had recommended that he not be given a top-secret clearance.

The disclosure of the memos contradicts statements made by the president, who told The New York Times in January in an Oval Office interview that he had no role in his son-in-law receiving his clearance.

In an interview with The Times in January, President Trump said he “was never involved” with the security clearance of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, which was reinstated last year despite concerns from intelligence officials.CreditCreditTom Brenner for The New York Times

Mr. Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe D. Lowell, also said that at the time the clearance was granted last year that his client went through a standard process. Ivanka Trump, the president’s eldest daughter and Mr. Kushner’s wife, said the same thing three weeks ago.

Asked on Thursday about the memos contradicting the president’s account, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said, “We don’t comment on security clearances.”

Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Mr. Lowell, said on Thursday: “In 2018, White House and security clearance officials affirmed that Mr. Kushner’s security clearance was handled in the regular process with no pressure from anyone. That was conveyed to the media at the time, and new stories, if accurate, do not change what was affirmed at the time.”

The decision last year to grant Mr. Kushner a top-secret clearance upgraded him from earlier temporary and interim status. He never received a higher-level designation that would have given him access to need-to-know intelligence known as sensitive compartmented information.

It is not known precisely what factors led to the problems with Mr. Kushner’s security clearance. Officials had raised questions about his own and his family’s real estate business’s ties to foreign governments and investors, and about initially unreported contacts he had with foreigners. The issue also generated criticism of Mr. Trump for having two family members serve in official capacities in the West Wing.

Mr. Kushner has spent this week abroad working on a Middle East peace plan. Among his meetings was one with Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

And we hear it’s not going well. Shocking, I know.

I don’t know why they believed Jared was so outside the bounds of acceptable risk, but it must have been pretty bad. They all knew that he was Trump’s son-in-law and they would not have believed it was worthwhile to fight the president on something petty.

Oh look. Ivanka lied too:

.

Gerrymandering goes on trial by @BloggersRUs

Gerrymandering goes on trial
by Tom Sullivan


U.S. Supreme Court photo by Joe Ravi via Wikimedia Commons/CC-BY-SA 3.0.

The U.S. Supreme Court on March 26 takes up partisan gerrymandering cases from North Carolina and Maryland. Researchers have provided additional ammunition in support of fair districts.

At issue in the North Carolina case are congressional maps drawn by the Republican-dominated legislature in 2011 and contested and redrawn since then. A three-judge panel from the Middle District of North Carolina last August ordered new maps drawn for the 2020 elections, the last in the current redistricting cycle.

In the Maryland case, Democrats drew the maps. A three-judge panel there found Democrats’ mapmakers had targeted Republican voters in Maryland’s 6th District and drawn the map to advantage Democrats.

The court has never found that gerrymanders drawn for partisan advantage are so lopsided that they violate the Constitution, and it has in fact avoided doing so.

Theses cases may finally put partisan gerrymandering to the test. Battle lines are drawn:

“Voters nationwide are ready for a ruling from the Supreme Court that finally declares that they come first, not self-interested politicians,” said Paul Smith, vice president of the Campaign Legal Center.

Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, said that “maps that follow traditional redistricting criteria should be free from challenges in federal court.”

The partisans want to keep their weapon.

In Gil v. Whitford last June, the court sent the “efficiency gap” case back to Wisconsin, arguing plaintiffs lacked standing, having not demonstrated sufficient proof of harm (dilution of votes in a specific district). Justice Elena Kagan, however, argued that harm might exist not simply in dilution of votes but in members of the “disfavored party” facing “difficulties fundraising, registering voters, attracting volunteers, generating support from independents, and recruiting candidates to run for office (not to mention eventually accomplishing their policy objectives).” In short, partisan gerrymandering may conflict with freedom of association protected under the First Amendment.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos supports that argument with a study (with political scientist Chris Warshaw) outlined for Slate:

In a nutshell, we found that Kagan was right. A party disadvantaged by gerrymandering fails to contest more districts. The candidates it does nominate have weaker credentials. Donors give less money to these candidates. And voters are less inclined to support them. Moreover, these effects are statistically significant at both the congressional and statehouse levels and hold no matter how gerrymandering is measured. The effects are substantively quite large too. A 1 standard deviation rise in gerrymandering, for example, is linked to about a 5 percentage point drop in the targeted party’s share of campaign contributions. It’s also tied to roughly a 9 point decline in relative candidate quality, as measured by incumbency or having previously won another office.

These results should be helpful to the plaintiffs currently pursuing associational claims around the country. To date, these litigants have relied on qualitative testimony from injured voters, candidates, and party officials. This evidence can now be complemented by our data-driven conclusion that, across many states and years, gerrymandering hinders parties in performing several key functions. Our study provides the methodological rigor that has been absent, so far, from the courtroom.

Freedom caucus chair Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) will want to watch this case closely. Should the lower court ruling stand and he finds his gerrymandered district fairly redrawn before 2020, he will need more than a “black friend” standing behind him to defend his seat.

Hold That Line

Hold That Line

by digby

These Democrats need to listen to Nancy:

House Democrats held an emotional debate behind closed doors Thursday over how to stop losing embarrassing procedural battles with Republicans — a clash that exposed the divide between moderates and progressives.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took a hard line at the caucus meeting, saying that being a member of Congress sometimes requires taking tough votes.

“This is not a day at the beach. This is the Congress of the United States,” Pelosi said, according to two sources.

Pelosi also said vulnerable Democrats who had the “courage” to vote against the Republican motions to recommit would become a higher priority for the party leadership and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the superstar New York freshman lawmaker, suggested she would alert progressive activists when Democrats are voting with the GOP on these motions, said the sources.

In the end, Pelosi and other top Democrats didn’t agree to any rules change and will continue to study the issue. The motion to recommit offers the House minority one last shot at changing legislation before it receives a final floor vote. Typically, the motion is used to try to squeeze the majority party, but it rarely succeeds.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Democratic leaders have vowed to do a better job preparing for the Republican motions, but the controversy has divided Pelosi and her longtime lieutenants, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

Pelosi argues that Democrats must stick together on procedural votes, which is the traditional view of party leaders on both sides of the aisle. Hoyer and Clyburn, however, have suggested that moderate members can vote with Republicans if they think it will improve their political standing.

Republicans have already won two motions to recommit this Congress, including a Wednesday vote that angered Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives. In contrast, Republicans stuck together and never lost a single such motion when they controlled the House from 2011 to 2019.

I don’t know what is wrong with these people but they need to realize that they get NOTHING from capitulating to Republicans on procedural votes. Voters don’t even know what they are. Holding the line will strengthen them, not weaken them.

.