The Mueller Report – my synopsis

I have read the Mueller Report. Several things are clear from this official document of an important investigation.

– the Russians had an orchestrated influence on the US presidential election actively using social media and hacking and releasing information obtained from Democrat campaign files;

– the highly researched effort officially documents the US president has a very hard time with the truth and the legality of certain actions and his aides know that;

– the US president repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice (see example below);

– while not crystal clear from a legal standpoint that he coordinated with Russia, the US president had a relationship with Russia he (and Michael Cohen) lied about and there were changing stories, deleted texts/ emails/ messages, and an incredible naiveté not recognizing that interfacing with Russians during the campaign was improper; and

– the US president was and is obsessed with the investigation, but with the results thus far and still pending, this is definitely not a hoax or a witch hunt.

One of the paragraphs I found telling relates to the president continually trying to get White House Counsel Don McGahn to change his story that the president ordered him to fire Mueller. McGahn would not fire Mueller or change his story as reported in The New York Times. The quote is as follows:

“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 further scrutiny of the President’s conduct towards the investigation.”

While there are other examples, this summary of intent is clear indication the US president tried to obstruct justice.

While the Mueller report noted there was no clear evidence the US president coordinated with Russia, Mueller notes with the missing information including an interview of the president, they may have come to a different conclusion. To me, overt coordination was not necessary as there were so many links between Russian influencers and campaign officials and with their active social media/ hacking, the Russians accomplished their goal with unwitting participants.

So, I concur with the Republicans for the Rule of Law, now former Republican Congressman Justin Amash and more than 1,000 plus former federal prosecutors that there are grounds for impeachment. But, I think the Republican Party should be in lock-step with the Democrats. To me, the Republican leaders must recognize publicly what many discuss in private per several highly researched books.

 

Red flags all over the place

The Mueller report concluded that there was no evidence the President and his team colluded with Russians to influence the election. But, they also concluded the Russians successfully influenced the election through social media and facilitating the hacking, modification and release of emails. That middle word gets overlooked, but per Thomas Rid (a cybersecurity expert at Johns Hopkins University who has closely studied Russian operations) in an interview on PBS Newshour, the Russian agents would modify things they leaked.

Further, per an article in MSN.com, entitled “Mueller report shows Trump campaign left itself wide open to Russians, officials say,” the Trump campaign naively opened themselves for being used. Here is a quote from the article which can be linked below.

“The Russians came up against a group of people who were not intelligence savvy and who were predisposed not to listen to the intelligence and counterintelligence community,” said Luis Rueda, who spent 27 years as a CIA operations officer. “The Russians made a very bold and aggressive attempt to take advantage of that — to try to compromise people, to try to leverage their access.”

More will come from the pending court cases, but this article notes the Mueller report paints a very unflattering picture of the Trump campaign and White House. I personally believe there was collusion, as they did not interview the President and they also did not dive as deep as they could have. To me, there was too much story changing going on, especially about financial ties to Russia, for there not to be some nefarious effort going on.

Setting that aside, even if there was no collusion, the Russians were invited in to play and they would not do this unless they had something to gain. I encourage you to read the attached brief article. Or, check out the PBS Newshour interview because the Russians will not go away in 2020.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-report-shows-trump-campaign-left-itself-wide-open-to-russians-officials-say/ar-BBWh5Sc?ocid=spartandhp

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/after-mueller-revelations-how-to-protect-election-integrity-in-2020

Why Comrade Trump Why?

I am puzzled. For some reason, the President of the United States has made decisions that benefitted Russia. Why?

The decisions range from failing to condemn Russia once incontrovertible evidence was presented that showed they meddled and still are meddling with our democracy to failing to do anything about the continuing meddling to failing to sanction Russia as recommended by Congress with at least 98% votes in each Chamber. And, there are other examples, such as not including Russia in a list of countries on trading sanctions with North Korea. Why?

The possible reasons might include: significant long term financial ties to members of the Russian oligarchy, desire for future investment for his business, admiration for a dictatorial leader posing as a democratically elected official, unwitting and now embarassing participation in Russia’s meddling in our election, unwillingness to admit such as it would damage the veracity of his election, collusion with Russian meddlers or being a compromised asset of Russia.

Unfortunately, various combinations of the above reasons could be true. To be brutally frank, the financial ties and admiration of Putin are givens. I also think his ego is having a hard time with the fact he may have been aided in his win. What the Special Prosecutor will determine is whether he was just an unwitting participant, involved in collusion or a compromised asset. Given where he gets information, at a minimum he was and is an unwitting participant. The meddlers noted how delighted they were (and are) when the candidate parrots their words.

Given the above and his (and others’) fluctuating storytelling and obstruction efforts, I find it hard to believe Comrade Trump is not more culpable. I truly hope this is not the case, but we will have to see what transpires.

A few hard truths

In the land where entertainment and sports news get much more attention, a few hard truths need to be communicated. On the first Saturday of the new year, here are a few of those truths.

Our capable intelligence community is convinced with a high degree of certainty that Russian elements influenced the 2016 Presidential election and continue to sow seeds of discord to disrupt the US. This is a continuing attack on the US by a foreign entity that our President and this Congress have largely chosen to ignore. My suggestion is to ask your Congressperson, Senators and President what they plan on doing about it?

The US Tax Plan was passed to a lot of fanfare and chest beating under the guise of stimulating the economy, but it still needs a larger sales job on disbelieving Americans. Giving a lot of money to rich people and corporations is supposed to trickle down, yet do we need to add $1.5 trillion more to an increasing debt? Do we need to further stimulate an economy that has had 103 consecutive months of economic growth dating back to June, 2009? Do we need to stimulate an economy that just posted 2 million added jobs for the seventh year in a row, with a continuing run up of the US stock market? Nonpartisan economist groups have posed the same questions.

Let me get this straight, is the Republican Party for states rights or for federal rights? It seems to differ based on where the power lies. The White House has announced that 95% of coastal areas will be subject to offshore drilling to the dismay of governors who want to foster their tourism and fishing industries. Further, the Attorney General wants to crack down on states who are now selling regulated medical and retail marijuana changing an earlier Obama order to allow states to do this. Both of these decisions are getting heavy nonpartisan pushback from state leaders and it is my understanding the White House was asked not to do this.

Finally, the US continues to declare the cut in funding to countries that do not cooperate with us. This is not necessarily new, but we seem to be bullying others more and to what end? We are not the biggest funders to these places and China, India and Russia are easily picking up more influence as we decrease ours. The Pakistan PM basically said it is not a big deal if they lose US funding. The question to ask as we beat on our chest, is who are we trying to convince, the other country or a base of uninformed voters?

That is all I have for today. Unfortunately , the answers to these points can be summed up in one ugly word, “politics.” Have a great weekend and 2018. One thing is for certain is it will be interesting one.

The lone constant

Please indulge me a few questions. It won’t take too long.

If you worked with someone who repeatedly was in verbal, text, email and twitter fights with other people, what would be your observation?

If the other people who had dust ups with this person included customers, colleagues, third parties, and the media, what would you conclude?

If you spoke with previous employers and found the same was true at their locations, what might you ascertain?

If you investigated further and found out the stories keep changing when new information is revealed, does that paint a better picture of the person?

If the person was found to be less than truthful on many more than a few occasions, would that help you understand the situation? What if it was apparent the lying was more routine?

If the person repeatedly failed to admit when he wronged someone and it was never his fault, does that convince you of something?

The key conclusion is there seems to be a lone constant in these equations. It would appear the person is of little character and is hard to get along with.

If you were his colleague, you would choose to limit contact with this person and you would document everything for verification. An email saying “this is what you agreed to” would help in that regard.

If you were a customer, you would request a new contact or change providers of service.

If you were a third party, a senior person at your firm might call a senior person at his firm to register concerns.

If you were the media, you would get information from a better, more reliable source.

If you were his boss, you would have long ago put him on an improvement plan, perhaps several. At some point, you would ask him to leave or get him to leave. My guess is his ego would be bruised by the first improvement plan and he would leave. He would tell his new employer that his previous one did not appreciate him enough.

The person who I am obviously talking about is in the position of the President of the United States. He is being investigated for collusion with the Russians, which may lead to his demise. More than a few psychiatrists think he may be unfit for office. In the interim, we are stuck with his actions noted above. Maybe the first step is a censure, which would be Congress’ performance improvement plan.

A survey reports that 42% of Americans want this man impeached and 15% want him censured. That is an absolutely amazing statement that 57% feel he is worthy of some formal repudiation, with almost half saying he should be removed.

 

 

Rule of Law is a weak anti-DACA Argument

I read a letter to the editor on Wednesday that spoke to me about the President’s decision on eliminating the Dreamer’s program referred to as DACA, short for Deferred Action for Children Arrivals. I won’t cite her name, as I don’t have permission, but the letter quite succinctly and forcefully addresses those who are saying DACA is not a law as it was passed by executive action and therefore must be eliminated.

“Slavery: rule of law. Women, blacks have no vote: rule of law. Married women can’t own property: rule of law. Japanese-internment camps: rule of law. Jim Crow: rule of law. Children as young as 6 can work 12 hour days: rule of law. No requirements for child restraints in cars: rule of law. Gays can’t marry: rule of law. Anti-DACA people: Find another excuse for your cruelty.”

For those not familiar with DACA, it was executed by President Obama when Congress failed to act. It allows children of undocumented immigrants to remain in the US legally. These approximate 800,000 children, who know not the country they came from, are now at risk.

Let me be frank. President Trump can talk all he wants about “loving dreamers,” but don’t pee on their head and tell them it is raining. These folks add value through intellectual capital and revenue to our country. They came forward to sign up as they love our country and embody the true spirit of America. I agree Congress should pass laws to take care of them, but screwing these kids as a lever is not the way to do that. This is on your shoulders Mr. President. You did this.

A missed opportunity for Democrats

I had a sense around July of 2016, that Hillary Clinton may not win the White House. But, as she distanced herself from Donald Trump due to his relatively horrible debate performance and the Access Hollywood leaked tape, I thought she just might win – then came Comey.

Yet, going back to the summer of 2016, she made a mistake that will haunt her and the rest of the Democrat party. She picked a plain vanilla nice guy to be her running mate. Senator Tim Kaine is a capable public servant, but the initial reaction to her announcement was “who?” The guy I was hoping she would pick would have added sizzle and substance. Senator Corey Booker of New Jersey would have added that sizzle.

Booker is not only an effective speaker, he was an effective Mayor of a major city before becoming a Senator. And, as an African-American, he would have shored up a weakness of Clinton’s, as many African-Americans and others were not too enthused about her and did not vote. Clinton is also a very competent public servant, but she does not exude passion like her husband does and she needed some passion on the ticket.

Yet, mainly Booker represents the future of the Democrat party who is searching for a new Moses to lead them to the promised land. Right now, there are many fine leaders, but the ones who stand out are older sages and may not rev up the base and attract independents and disillusioned Republicans. If you are not familiar with Booker, check him out. He is articulate, smart and knows the issues, three qualities that we need more of. I am not saying he is the only answer, but the opportunity to showcase someone like Booker was there for the taking and passed on.