Home Blog Page 2

READ: Defense Secretary James Mattis Resignation Letter

DOD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Jette Carr

James Mattis, President Trump’s Defense Secretary, has resigned his post. A reserved, yet forceful when necessary former Marine Corps General, Mr. Mattis is widely respected and had long managed to stay in Mr. Trump’s good graces despite fundamental disagreements about the President’s foreign policy approach. However, relations between the men have reportedly soured in recent months. Mr. Mattis resignation comes a day after Mr. Trump announced his decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria, a move Mr. Mattis bitterly opposed.

“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position,”  Mr. Mattis wrote.

Mr. Mattis stressed the importance of our international alliances and his concern about the threats posed by Russia and China, whose authoritarian leaders Mr. Trump has often embraced more readily than traditional American allies.

“While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies,” Mr. Mattis wrote.

Adding, “I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies.”

“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues,” Mattis said.

The full letter is below.

December 20, 2018

Dear Mr. President:

I have been privileged to serve as our country’s 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.

I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department’s business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO’s 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense. My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better allied with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department’s interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability within the Department. I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.

James Mattis

PODCAST: The Wild Michael Flynn Sentencing Hearing

In this week’s Axis of Reason podcast, the last before Christmas, we unwrap Tuesday’s wild sentencing hearing in the Michael Flynn case and why Judge Emmet Sullivan thought Michael Flynn deserved a lump of coal.

LINKS


https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/12/read-mueller-court-documents-detailing-fbis-interview-of-michael-flynn/

 

READ: Mueller Court Documents Detailing FBI’s Interview of Michael Flynn

Special Counsel Robert Mueller released several documents Friday disputing the suggestion made by Michael Flynn’s attorney’s in their sentencing memo that Mr. Flynn was duped into lying in an interview with FBI agents. Among them, Mueller’s reply to the defendant’s sentencing memo; the FBI’s 302 report from the Flynn FBI interview; and, FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s notes on the interview. In his reply, Mueller says that the argument that Flynn was tricked or ambushed does not hold water, and should not be considered a mitigating factor in Flynn’s sentencing.

“Nothing about the way the interview was arranged or conducted caused the defendant to make false statements to the FBI… The defendant chose to make false statements about his communications with the Russian ambassador weeks before the FBI interview, when he lied about that topic to the media, the incoming Vice President, and other members of the Presidential Transition Team.”

According to Mueller’s reply and supporting documents, Mr. McCabe brought up the need to conduct an interview after Mr. Flynn called him on an unrelated topic.  Mr. Flynn asked Mr. McCabe if the interview would concern his interactions with U.S. Ambassador to Russia Sergei Kislyak, he said it would. Nevertheless he gave false statements to the investigators even after being confronted with his own words.

During the interview, the FBI agents gave the defendant multiple opportunities to correct his false statements by revisiting key questions. When the defendant said he did not remember something they knew he said, they used the exact words the defendant had used in order to prompt a truthful response.But the defendant never corrected his false statements.

In notes following the interview, Mr. McCabe said that he told Flynn he wanted to clear the matter up as quickly and discreetly as possible. Mr. Flynn agreed and offered to do an interview that day. Mr. McCabe said that if Mr. Flynn felt he needed counsel present, he’d need to involve the Department of Justice. The quickest way to “get this done” was to just meet directly with the agents. Mr. Flynn agreed. He said he didn’t need a lawyer present and told Mr. McCabe to go ahead and send  the agents over. Not having an attorney present does not, Mueller argued, absolve him of his responsibility to be truthful.

The defendant agreed to meet with the FBI agents, without counsel, and answer their questions. His obligation to provide truthful information came with that agreement; it did not turn on the presence of counsel… A sitting National Security Advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired Lieutenant General, and 33-year veteran of the armed forces knows he should not lie to federal agents. He does not need to be warned it is a crime to lie to federal agents to know the importance of telling them the truth. The defendant undoubtedly was aware, in light of his “many years” working with the FBI, that lying to the FBI carries serious consequences.

Nevertheless, Mueller concluded, Flynn’s cooperation and military service justifies a sentence of little or no jail time.

While the circumstances of the interview do not present mitigating considerations, assuming the defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions, his cooperation and military service continue to justify a sentence at the low end of the guideline range.

Here are the documents in their entirety.

Mueller Reply to Flynn Sent… by on Scribd

McCabe Memo re: Flynn Inter… by on Scribd

Michael Flynn FBI Interview… by on Scribd

Mueller’s Filings in the Cohen and Flynn Cases Hint at ‘Collusion’

CREDIT: White House (Pete Souza); Gage Skidmore; Illustration by Roughly Explained

Prosecutors often drop bombshells in court filings. The sentencing memos Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed in the Michael Cohen and Michael Flynn cases are not bombshells. They are the legal equivalent of carpet bombing the White House. Read from the perspective of a professional investigator ‒ a position this author held with congressional committees for nearly 20 years ‒ the memos, particularly those in the Cohen case should worry, if not terrify, President Trump and his legal team. They paint a vivid picture of potential collusion which began much earlier than anyone thought or knew and link Russian interference in the election to Trump’s businesses.

Possible Collusion in 2015?

Cohen told the Special Prosecutor’s office in one of his seven debriefings that “in or around November 2015” the President’s self-described fixer spoke with a Russian, who claimed to be trusted by Vladimir Putin, and said he “could offer the campaign ‘political synergy’ and ‘synergy on a government level.’”

Take a deep breath. Think about that hand grenade that Mueller dropped into the President’s lap. Someone close to Putin offered to have the Russian government assist the Trump campaign a year before the election.

Mueller also said this unnamed Russian offered to set up a face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin. The Russian said the proposed meeting “could have a ‘phenomenal’ impact” on the election. The proposed meeting never happened. But the Special Counsel significantly does not say whether Cohen or anyone else in the campaign followed up on the offer by Russia to provide “political synergy” with the nascent campaign.

What Else Cohen Told Mueller

Buried within the Cohen sentencing memo is the revelation that he told Mueller “about attempts by other Russian nationals to reach the campaign.” We know about the Trump Tower meeting. Were there more Russians who tried to speak with the Trump campaign or its officials? Cohen provided information “about his conduct and that of others on core topics under investigation” by the Special Counsel. Starting in August of this year Cohen held seven “lengthy” meetings with Mueller in which he spoke about “his own contacts with Russian interests during the campaign and discussions with others.” Do the “others” include President Trump, who was identified in court filings as “Individual 1”? Mueller didn’t say. It might.

Mueller says Cohen told his office facts about “Russian-related matters” that Cohen obtained during “his regular contact” with unnamed Trump organization “executives” during the 2016 campaign.” Until shortly after he was sworn in the President was head of the real estate empire that bears his name

In an almost off-handed way, Muller says Cohen talked about “his contacts with persons connected to the White House during the 2017-2018 time period.” Mueller doesn’t reveal the names of those persons, but the President obviously is someone “connected to the White House.”

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/11/what-to-make-of-michael-cohens-newest-guilty-plea/

It’s Strictly Business

The press has long speculated that Trump’s largest potential legal liability stems not from the campaign’s contacts with Russians but from his business dealings. Cohen provides a direct nexus between the Trump real estate business and possible Russian collusion. Mueller, based on Cohen’s information, says there was a direct connection between contacts the campaign had with Russia and a planned Trump Tower in Moscow.

Cohen admitted he lied to Congress about when the Moscow project died. He testified it ended before the Iowa caucuses. Cohen in fact continued to “discuss it with Individual 1 well into the campaign.” Those chats with Trump directly related to Mueller’s probe because they “occurred at a time of sustained efforts by the Russian government to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.” That’s link number one.

Link Number two may be equally if not more damaging. Mueller said the Moscow Project could have reaped millions for the Trump Organization and thus “was a lucrative business opportunity that sought, and likely required, the assistance of the Russian government.” The unnamed Russian close to Putin offered that assistance when he spoke with Cohen in November 2015. He suggested that a meeting between the now-President and Putin that would help move the project along. Cohen says he spoke with Trump before he reached out to the Russian government to set up the meeting. That implies the President approved it.

The meeting never happened because, as Mueller put it, Cohen “was working on the Moscow Project with a different individual who Cohen understood to have his own connections to the Russian government.” That describes Felix Sater. The House Intelligence Committee called Sater someone with “a unique and colorful background.” Sater told the panel about “his path from Wall Street banker to white-collar criminal to government informant.”

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/07/muller-investigating-trumps-business-ties/

What Michael Flynn Told Mueller

The Mueller sentencing memo in the Michael Flynn case isn’t particularly enlightening. The same cannot be said for the Attachment to that memo or the one filed by Flynn’s attorney.

Mueller, in the attachment, hints that the “links or coordination” between Russia and the Trump campaign after the election. He says Flynn has helped on a probe of “interactions between individuals in the Presidential Transition Team and Russia,” among other topics. The portion of the attachment that describes “useful information” about those contacts was redacted, indicating that it is an ongoing and sensitive investigation.

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/12/what-to-make-of-michael-flynns-sentencing-memo/

Both Mueller and Flynn’s attorney say the former National Security Advisor has had 19 debriefings with Mueller’s office and the Department of Justice, which took up nearly 63 hours. His lawyers say Flynn “has produced thousands of documents” to DOJ and turned over his “electronic devices.”

Flynn, who served as senior advisor to the Trump campaign and then as a senior White House official gave Mueller a treasure trove of documents and presumably every email or text message he had. The noise you hear is every campaign or White House official who communicated with Flynn speed dialing criminal defense lawyers.

The noise you hear is every campaign or White House official who communicated with Flynn speed dialing criminal defense lawyers.

Only a stupid or reckless prosecutor would make false or misleading representations in court filings. Mueller is neither. He has a reputation for being very smart and thorough. He likely has evidence to substantiate every word in the sentencing memos. If even half the revelations are true, President Trump may be in very serious political or possibly legal trouble.

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/12/can-president-obstruct-justice-might-not-matter/

The Election Fraud Allegations in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District Explained

Republican Mark Harris narrowly defeated his Democratic rival, Dan McCready, by a scant 905 votes in North Carolina’s Ninth District Congressional race last month. But, allegations of election fraud have thrown the outcome into question and a new election is becoming a very real possibility. The North Carolina State Board of Elections recently voted 7-2 against certifying the result amid an ongoing investigation into irregularities surrounding mail-in absentee ballots, among other things. Mr. McCready has withdrawn his concession in the race. The North Carolina Republican Party now says that at least some of the election irregularities, if they prove true, warrant a new election.

The details of exactly what happened remain murky. But, the accusations fall into four main buckets:

  1. A contractor hired by Mr. Harris’ campaign consultant collected mail-in absentee ballots from voters promising to turn them in on their behalf. It is illegal for third parties to handle absentee ballots.
  2. Mail-in absentee ballots were collected unsealed and could have been altered.
  3. Unusually high numbers of unreturned absentee ballots suggest the possibility that ballots were collected and not returned.
  4. Early voting results were tabulated in Bladen County before Election Day and potentially viewed by unauthorized people.

Improper Early Vote Tabulation

Tuesday, North Carolina GOP officials said if early voting totals were leaked, which state Republican Party Executive Director Dallas Woodhouse says appears to be the case, that alone would be sufficient to justify a special election.

Affidavit of precinct worker Agnes WIllis filed Nov. 29.

A precinct worker in Bladen County said in an affidavit filed with the State Board of elections by Democrats that early vote totals were tabulated at the County’s one-stop voting location on the Saturday before election day and viewed by people who were not authorized to see them. State law requires that early votes be counted after the polls close on Election Day. Advance knowledge of early voting results would provide a big strategic in last-minute get out the vote efforts, especially if only one side had access to this information.

‘Ballot Harvesting’

Photo of McCrae Dowless.
McCrae Dowless. Image via Twitter.

Significantly more attention has been paid to a grassroots absentee vote operation run by Leslie McCrae Dowless, an independent contractor hired by Red Dome Group, the campaign consultant to Mr. Harris’ campaign. Typically, absentee ballot drives employ canvassers to knock on doors and encourage voters likely to vote for their candidate to request absentee ballots. Canvassers will often follow-up with the voter later to ensure that they returned their completed ballots. There is nothing inherently improper about these sorts of absentee voter drives. They are routinely employed by campaigns of both parties and can be very effective at securing votes for candidates. But, they can also be prone to mischief.

Rather than a straightforward absentee voter drive, Mr. Dowless is accused of running an illegal ballot harvesting operation. Ballot harvesting is an election fraud scheme in which canvassers collect absentee-by-mail ballots from voters promising to return them on on their behalf. The ballots are then altered to favor a particular candidate or discarded when they contain votes against that candidate. There’s mounting evidence that something very much like this may have been afoot in the Ninth Congressional District, especially in the district’s Republican-heavy enclaves of Bladen and Robeson Counties. While the allegations now focus on Republicans, especially in Bladen County, allegations of election shenanigans involving absentee ballots have been going back and forth for years. The Bladen County Improvement PAC, a Democrat-aligned group, among others, has also been accused of shadiness surrounding absentee ballots in the past.

Hints in the Data

When Dr. Michael Bitzer, a political science professor at Catawba College started coming through the absentee voting data, he found some big hints that something was amiss. Nearly a quarter of the requested absentee ballots in the Ninth Congressional District were never returned, far higher than any other Congressional district in the state.

Graphic: Dr. Michael Bitzer

This was even more pronounced in Bladen and Robeson Counties. An astonishing 40% of the requested absentee ballots requested in Bladen and 62% in Robeson were never returned according to Dr. Bitzer’s analysis of voting data. Among the ballots that were turned in things looked fishier still. In Bladen County, Republicans accounted for only 19% of the accepted absentee by-mail ballots yet somehow Mr. Harris, the Republican candidate, managed to win an astonishing 61% of the absentee by-mail vote. Either unaffiliated voters and Democrats voted for the Republican candidate in implausibly large numbers or some kind of election mischief was afoot. Affidavits filed by Democrats with the state board of elections over the past few weeks point towards the latter.

Datesha Montgomery, a Bladen County voter, said that a woman came to her door collecting absentee ballots. Ms. Montgomery only filled in votes for Sheriff and Board of Education. The woman told her that the other races didn’t matter. “I gave her the ballot and she said she would finish it herself. I signed the ballot and she left. It was not sealed up at any time,” she wrote in one of several affidavits Democrats filed.

Datesha Montgomery’s affidavit

‘Stacks’ of Ballots

Other voters have also reported turning over absentee ballots to people who knocked on their door. According to Joe Bruno, a reporter for Charlotte TV station WSOC, many of these canvassers, including the one that visited Ms. Montgomery, fit the description of people who worked for Mr. Dowless.

Reporter Joe Bruno interviews Cheryl Kinlaw.
WSOC’s Joe Bruno interviews Cheryl Kinlaw, who says she was paid by Mr. Dowless to collect absentee ballots (Image via Twitter)

Mr. Bruno has spoken with at least two women who have come forward to say they were paid by Mr. Dowless to collect ballots. “I feel bad now that I know that it wasn’t legal, but I didn’t know at the time,” one of the women, Cheryl Kinlaw, said in an interview with Mr. Bruno. Ms. Kinlaw says she received $100 to collect ballots, which she delivered to Mr. Dowless. She had no idea what ultimately became of the ballots. “I don’t know what happened to them,” she added. “He had stacks of them on his desk.”

Not the First Time

North Carolina Republicans say they have been sounding the alarm about election fraud for years and are dismayed that it is only getting attention now that it may have affected a Democratic Candidate. “It’s certainly frustrating,” Jeff Hauser, spokesman for the North Carolina Republican Party told Roughly Explained.

Mr. Hauser says that there were indications of similar shenanigans in Bladen County two years ago. But then it was Republicans alleging absentee ballot fraud by a PAC aligned with the Democratic Party. “In 2016, the Bladen County Improvement Association PAC was allegedly running an absentee ballot mill in the area and harvesting ballots,” Mr. Hauser said.

In an interesting twist, the person who brought the 2016 complaint was none other than Leslie McCrae Dowless. In it, Mr. Dowless alleged that workers for the PAC entered fraudulent write-in votes against him in the County Conservation Supervisor race (which he nevertheless won.) There were also instances of voters who said they had requested absentee ballots they never received and were barred from voting as a result. Ultimately, the State Board of Elections voted 3-2 to dismiss Mr. Dowless’ complaint after concluding that there were not enough disputed votes to have mattered. Given Mr. Harris’ slim lead and the scale of the alleged problems, this time around, there’s a very good chance that enough votes may be in question to sway the outcome.

A New Election is Very Possible

Under North Carolina state law, the State Board can order new elections if irregularities affected a sufficient number of voters to change the outcome of the election or “taint the results of the entire election and cast doubt on its fairness.” Mr. Hauser told us last week that the state Republican party would support a new election if the evidence warrants it. This week, as evidence of the problems in NC-09 mounts, Republican officials have been leaning into that position. The reality is that the State Board of Election has broad authority to order a new election. It seems increasingly likely that they will use it. Even if Mr. Harris clears the state board of elections hurdle, there is no guarantee that Democratic leaders in Washington will seat him when they take over Congress in January. For Mr. Harris, the road to Washington is set to be a lot steeper than he planned.

Everything You Wanted to Know About the Bush 41 Locomotive

Image of Union Pacific 4141 in blue and white presidential paint scheme
Photo by Ken Whitehead Oct 22, 2005 College Station, TX

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Bush 41 locomotive, gleaming in its Air Force One style blue and white color scheme, has sparked a lot of curiosity. We asked Dan Gurley, who spends his days toiling in politics and his spare time watching trains, to explain.

A blue and white locomotive pulls a double-stack train through barren landscape.
UP4141 in regular service rolling through San Timoteo Canyon east of Redlands, CA, Oct. 28, 2008. Photo courtesy Kevin Cavanaugh.

Locomotive 4141 (SD70ACe 4141) was manufactured by EMD and delivered to Union Pacific in 2005. It has always been painted this way. When the unit was initially delivered it was unveiled at the presidential library in College Station. Although 4141 would occasionally show up on the road, most of the time it sat in storage at Union Pacific’s North Little Rock shops. When not on one of its rare appearances in revenue service, the unit would occasionally be pulled out and inspected to make sure it was in tip-top running order and ready for “the call.”

Since its delivery, it has been common knowledge (among those who knew about it) this unit would pull the Bush Funeral Train. Each president and former president has a funeral plan that is periodically updated. They, along with the president’s family, Secret Service, and other stakeholders, work together well in advance so that every detail of the funeral is pretty much pre-planned. Once a president passes, they simply start to execute the funeral plan that is “on file.”

A map of the Bush 41 funeral train route.
Photo: Union Pacific
UP1943 painted in livery honoring veterans
The second train in the Bush 41 funeral train procession pulled by UP1943 painted in livery honoring veterans. (Photo credit: Tyler Silvest)

This locomotive and train have been a part of George HW Bush’s funeral plans for many years. Union Pacific Railroad has been involved from the beginning. The trains — there were two with the first carrying, press, law enforcement, dignitaries, and other relevant parties — operated with all Union pacific passenger equipment over the railroad’s tracks from Spring, TX in suburban Houston to College Station. The first train operated with a specially painted locomotive dedicated to veterans.

Now that the special mission is completed, the unit will be taken back to North Little Rock and stripped of all internal operating parts including the prime mover — train-speak for the engine. The body of the locomotive will then be donated and returned to the George HW Bush Presidential Library for permanent display.

Blue and white Bush 41 locomotive pulls the funeral train of Pres. George HW Bush over a bridge.
UP4141crossing the Trinity River in Dallas, TX with President George HW Bush on board. Photo courtesy of David Hawkins

Special thanks to David Hawkins and Kevin Cavanaugh for generously providing permission to use their photos of UP4141. You can view more photos from them on Flickr by clicking on their name. 

 

PODCAST: Trump and the Economy Part II (with Jim Rickards)

This week on , bestselling author Jim Rickards (joins Taylor Griffin ( and Tyler Cralle () for part two of our discussion of Trump and the economy. Listen here or find us on the Apple Podcasts app.

SHOW NOTES


Photo of Jim Rickards

Trump and the Economy Part II (with Jim Rickards)

We continue our discussion of Trump and the economy with New York Times bestselling author Jim Rickards, who makes the case that Trump is on the right track with trade. But first, Taylor and Tyler break down the week’s news: the legacy of George HW Bush, the Democrats’ contentious leadership fight, and what to make of the latest turn of events in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, Michael Flynn’s sentencing memo.

About Jim Rickards

James Rickards is the Editor of Strategic Intelligence, a financial newsletter, and Director of The James Rickards Project, an inquiry into the complex dynamics of geopolitics + global capital. He is the author of three New York Times best sellers, The Road to Ruin (2016), The Death of Money (2014), and Currency Wars (2011), and the national best seller, The New Case for Gold (2016), all from Penguin Random House.

 

LINKS


Jim Rickards Bio
Jim Rickards Latest Book, The Road to Ruin

Click here to get The Road to Ruin on Amazon.

Follow on Twitter

Jim Rickards: @JamesGRickards

Taylor Griffin: @tgriffinnc

Tyler Cralle: @tylercralle

RoughlyExplained: @roughlyexplain

 

 

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/12/what-to-make-of-michael-flynns-sentencing-memo/

 

What to Make of Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Memo

Michael Flynn, arms crossed, set against a blue background.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has asked a federal judge to spare Michael Flynn jail time in recognition of the “substantial assistance” President Donald Trump’s former National Security Advisor provided the special counsel investigation.

In a sentencing memo filed with a federal court Tuesday evening, prosecutors outlined the areas in which Flynn assisted the investigation. However, because much of Flynn’s assistance related to investigations that are still ongoing. So, most of the specifics are redacted. So, what can we conclude from this document and all its blacked out portions?

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/12/read-michael-flynns-sentencing-memo/

Flynn Provided Valuable Information to Prosecutors

First and most obviously, the document indicates prosecutors are pleased with whatever Mr. Flynn has told them. They argue that he was prompt and forthright in acknowledging his offense and that he’s been telling the truth ever since.

The term used here to describe Mr. Flynn’s assistance, “substantial cooperation,” is a term of art with specific meaning in the context of sentencing guidelines. Substantial assistance permits a judge to depart from the minimum sentence for an offense. According to the Federal Sentencing Commission’s formal policy guidance, which the sentencing memo cites:

“Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, the court may depart from the guidelines.” (U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines, Section 5K1.1, 2018)

The sentencing guidelines prescribe incarceration of 0-6 months in the case of the violation of lying to investigators to which Mr. Flynn has pled guilty, so a downward departure is unnecessary in this case. But, the use of the term “substantial assistance” is intended to underscore the value of his assistance and justify prosecutors’ request that the judge consider giving Mr. Flynn no prison time.

Second, Mr. Flynn has provided information on the offenses of other individuals under investigation. We can infer this based on the requirement in the sentencing guidance mentioned above that the “defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense.”

Third, Mr. Flynn has provided information relevant to at least three matters under investigation: 1) an unknown criminal matter presumably being investigated by other federal authorities; 2) The Special Counsel’s investigation into any links or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia; and, 3) another matter that has been redacted in its entirety.

Fourth, Mr. Flynn provided information specifically pertinent to interactions between Trump campaign officials and Russia. The details of exactly how Mr. Flynn assisted prosecutors are frustratingly hidden under redactions. They are available to the judge, but because they pertain to ongoing investigations they must be redacted in the version provided to the public. But, it’s still possible to work a few things out from the addendum to the sentencing memo.

We know that Mr. Flynn specifically provided assistance on interactions between Trump officials and Russia during the transition. In the unredacted portions, prosecutors are mostly referring to Mr. Flynn’s own actions here. Since the investigation of Mr. Flynn’s conduct has concluded, there’s no need to redact them. Redacted portions indicate that he may have provided information on actions of others during the transition as well.

The rest of Mr. Flynn’s assistance in regards to interaction between the Trump campaign and Russia are redacted. However, from the use of a comma before a redacted portion we can infer that there are at least two more areas in which Mr. Flynn assisted in this area since a comma would only be necessary in a list of three or more items.

We Don’t Know Much About What Flynn Told Prosecutors

Fifth, there is no new evidence that Trump campaign officials conspired with Russia. However, this should not be taken as confirmation that no such evidence exists or that it does. We just don’t know.

Prosecutors typically hold their cards close in ongoing investigations for good reason. We don’t know what Mr. Flynn has told prosecutors. But importantly, neither do other witnesses. Other witnesses have to assume that Mr. Flynn has already told prosecutors everything. By highlighting Mr. Flynn’s cooperation, Mr. Mueller is signaling to other witnesses that it would be a mistake to lie.

As they have with other documents that have emerged from Mr. Mueller’s shop, Mr. Trump’s defenders have predictably seized on the absence of smoking gun evidence of so-called “collusion” to further their claim that Mr. Mueller’s probe is an unjustified partisan witch hunt. This conclusion is rooted in a fundamental misread of Mr. Mueller’s aims.

Mr. Trump’s defenders assume that Mr. Mueller is primarily motivated by a partisan desire to undermine Mr. Trump’s presidency by tarnishing it with the stink of “collusion.” So, if Mr. Mueller had discovered any indication that there was active coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, they surmise that he would include it in his filings. It follows, in their reckoning, that because Mueller has yet to publicly provide evidence suggesting “collusion,” none exists.

This argument is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of how investigations operate generally, and of Mr. Mueller specifically.

The special counsel investigation is focused first and foremost on uncovering what, if any, coordination there was between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government and, if such coordination existed, holding those responsible for it accountable. Second, it is focused on answering the question of whether Mr. Trump or any of his aides obstructed justice in an attempt to thwart investigation into these matters.

Investigators have good reasons not to reveal what they know about the core matters under investigation prematurely. Because the details of what they already knows are under wraps, when witnesses offer information that corroborates it, they can be more confident that the witness is being truthful. It also makes it easier to confirm that the account of events as they understand it is correct and not just the product of witnesses repeating what they believe investigators already know. Conversely, when witnesses offer contradictory information, it indicates that one of the witnesses is wrong and that perhaps their understanding of events is potentially incorrect. If investigators put out information in real time, it makes it harder to ascertain the reliability of witnesses and ultimately, to confidently determine the facts.

It’s important to stipulate that we don’t know that Mr. Mueller has any conclusive evidence of anyone in Mr. Trump’s orbit conspiring with the Russians. This may be because none exists. But, it’s also possible that Mr. Mueller knows more than he has revealed to date.

The Bottom Line

Mr. Flynn’s sentencing memo does not provide much new in terms of our understanding of what exactly happened between the Trump campaign and Russia — it’s still possible that the answer is nothing. Nor does it tell us much more about whether anyone abused their power in an effort to impede the investigation. But, it does strongly suggests that Mr. Flynn has provided valuable information that may implicate others. It is all but certain that there are more shoes yet to drop.

READ MORE: 

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/11/trump-answered-muellers-questions-is-the-russia-probe-winding-up/

READ: Michael Flynn’s Sentencing Memo

Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed a sentencing memo in Federal court Tuesday, December 4, 2017 requesting that Michael Flynn receive no prison time in recognition of the “significant assistance” he has provided prosecutors. You can read the sentencing memo and the heavily-redacted addendum detailing Mr. Flynn’s cooperation here.

Michael Flynn Sentencing Memo and Addendum by Taylor Griffin on Scribd

What to Make of Michael Cohen’s Latest Guilty Plea

Michael Cohen and Donald Trump

It’s been a significant week in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. On Monday, prosecutors filed a court document saying that President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, breached his plea deal by repeatedly lying to prosecutors. On Wednesday, Jerome Corsi, an associate of Roger Stone and conservative commentator, made public a draft court filing that showed Mr. Mueller was preparing to tell the court that Mr. Stone had asked Mr. Corsi to contact Wikileaks in an attempt to obtain unreleased emails stolen from Democrats by Russian hackers. On Thursday, Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former personal attorney, pled guilty to lying to Congress in exchange for an agreement to cooperate with Mr. Mueller’s investigation.

Mr. Cohen’s plea agreement is perhaps the most significant development of the week. In it, Mr. Cohen acknowledges lying to Congress about how long the Trump Organization’s efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow continued into the 2016 campaign season and the extent of Mr. Trump’s involvement in the project.

Mr. Cohen told Congress that the Trump Organization abandoned the Trump Tower Moscow project in January of 2016, before the Presidential primary elections began. In fact, Mr. Cohen admits in his guilty plea that discussions about the project continued for six more months, until at least June of 2016. Further, Mr. Cohen told Congress that he had only spoken with Mr. Trump, who is identified in the court document as “Individual 1,” about the Trump Tower Moscow effort on three occasions. In his guilty plea, Mr. Cohen now acknowledges that his discussions with Mr. Trump about the project were more numerous.

Mr. Cohen’s plea indicates that Mr. Trump was more involved in the Trump Tower project than he had previously acknowledged and that Mr. Trump’s claims of having no business interests in Russia were not entirely true. According to the documents prosecutors filed in court Thursday, Mr. Cohen “made the false statements to (1)minimize links between the Moscow Project and Individual 1 and (2) give the false impression that the Moscow Project ended before ‘the Iowa caucus and . . . the very first primary,’ in hopes of limiting the ongoing Russia investigations.”

Mr. Trump defended his role in the discussions over the Trump Tower meeting Thursday. “There was a good chance that I wouldn’t have won, in which case I would have gotten back into the business, and why should I lose lots of opportunities?” he told reporters as he left for the Group of 20 meeting in Argentina.

What It Means

The court documents do not allege a connection between the Trump Tower deal and Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election. Neither do they address whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in Moscow’s election meddling. It’s important to recognize that this is the statement of the criminal information related to the charges to which Mr. Cohen plead guilty, not a comprehensive accounting of his, Mr. Trump’s, or anyone else in the Trump orbit’s interactions with Russia.

It is significant that unlike Mr. Cohen’s August guilty plea on tax and campaign finance charges, this one includes a cooperation agreement. A cooperation agreement indicates that Mr. Mueller has concluded that Mr. Cohen has valuable information to offer on other targets of his investigation. Just what this information is or to whom it relates we don’t yet know, but it’s safe to assume that there are other shoes to drop.

Further, Mr. Trump was reportedly asked about the Trump Tower Moscow deal in the questions Mr. Mueller put to him. Now the question becomes did Mr. Trump’s accounting of events in the responses he submitted last week align with Mr. Cohen’s? Mr. Trump’s lawyers say they did. But, when asked about Mr. Cohen’s statements, Mr. Trump called Mr. Cohen a liar who made up a story to save himself from a long prison term, which implies that they didn’t. If Mr. Trump’s account matched Mr. Cohen’s, why would he say Mr. Cohen lied? This raises the possibility that Mr. Trump could have misled in his response to Mr. Mueller on the topic.

Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea could also spell trouble for others in Mr. Trump’s orbit, including members of his family, who have spoken with prosecutors and congressional investigators about the Trump Tower Moscow project and may have given misleading accounts of events that conflict with Mr. Cohen’s.

On Friday, several news reports indicated that Mr. Mueller had asked questions about Mr. Trump’s eldest children’s role in building projects in Russia as well. Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. both engaged in efforts to develop properties in Moscow separate from that which Mr. Cohen was pursuing and may have had some tangential involvement in Mr. Cohen’s. As far as we know, there is nothing to suggest that there was anything improper about this. So, it’s unclear what Mr. Mueller’s interest in the Moscow dealings of the Trump children might indicate.

The Bottom Line

There is nothing inherently illegal about the Trump Organization’s pursuit of real estate development projects in Russia prior to the election. The main problem for Mr. Trump at this point is the extent to which this undermines the credibility of his repeated claims of having “nothing to do with Russia” and the potential that he and others around him could be in legal hot water if they misled investigators about it.  There is no “smoking gun” for “collusion” in Cohen’s plea deal. And perhaps there will never be one. But, given the cooperation agreement Mr. Cohen has struck, it’s very possible that he has more information that could implicate others in Mr. Trump’s orbit, if not Mr. Trump himself.

Indeed, if Mr. Mueller does possess smoking gun evidence of collusion — and we don’t know that he does — I wouldn’t expect him to reveal that at this point. It’s more likely that he would hold such information until the conclusion of his investigation. Mr. Mueller appears to be methodically putting in place the pieces to the puzzle of what happened between Russia and Mr. Trump and those in his orbit during the 2016 election. This plea agreement is but one piece — and the puzzle is not yet complete.

PODCAST: Trump and the Economy

A depiction of national flags as balls colliding.
International relationships and global economy consequences concept with a cradle and flags on spheres 3d illustration.

On this week’s Axis of Reason podcast, a deep dive into Trump and the economy. The US economy is performing strongly in 2018 as tax cuts fuel strong growth in consumer spending. But, could headwinds from Trump’s trade wars and tighter monetary policy from the Federal Reserve sap the economic momentum. Also, Trump threatened to punish GM for idling plants and laying off workers. But, can he do that? Should he? And are Trump’s trade policies to blame for GM’s decision? Plus, how Trump’s experience in real estate might be distorting his view of how the economy works. Hosted by Taylor Griffin and Tyler Cralle.

Why the Guardian Report of ‘Secret Talks’ Between Manafort and Assange Could Be Significant

The Guardian is reporting that President Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, met with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in the spring of 2016 around the same time Mr. Manafort joined Mr. Trump’s campaign. The Guardian report is based mostly on vaguely identified unnamed sources, so some caution is warranted. But, given Wikileaks’ role in releasing tens of thousands of Democratic emails hacked by Russia’s intelligence services such a meeting, if it did actually happen, would be of significant interest to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

If there was coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election, Paul Manafort would have been the most plausible interlocutor. His shady, and allegedly outright corrupt, business dealings with Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s former pro-Russian President, and a rogues gallery of oligarchs and former Russian spies would position him well for such a role. According to the opposition research dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, a former British spy, Mr. Manafort was the key figure on the Trump side in a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.”

Mr. Manafort and Mr. Assange vehemently deny any involvement with each other or with Russia’s 2016 shenanigans. Mr. Manafort issued a statement blasting the story as “totally false and deliberately libelous.” Wikileaks likewise denounced the story in a tweet Tuesday morning.

Still, suspicions linger over both men. If Mr. Manafort and Mr. Assange did meet in March of 2016, as the Guardian report suggests, what did they talk about? The answer is that we don’t know. It could have been related to Trump’s campaign, Russia, or something else entirely. Or, maybe it didn’t happen at all, and The Guardian story is just wrong. But, accepting the premise that it did, there are some intriguing coincidences to consider.

It was around this same March 2016 timeframe that hackers associated with the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence agency, stole 50,000 emails from the Gmail account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. It was these same emails that Wikileaks began posting just minutes after The Washington Post published the Access Hollywood tape, a recording of Mr. Trump bragging about groping women that seemed certain to doom his Presidential bid. Wikileaks’ release of the the Podesta emails proved a critically-timed distraction that blunted the impact of the tape and perhaps saved Mr. Trump’s campaign.

Was the timing of the Podesta emails a remarkable coincidence or a carefully coordinated fail-safe? If so, coordinated with whom? Wikileaks, the Trump campaign, Russians? Whatever the case, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Assange’s alleged confab in the Ecuadorian Embassy, London, could hold the answers.

Trump Answered Mueller’s Questions, Is the Russia Probe Winding Up?

President Trump’s lawyers said Tuesday that they had submitted Mr. Trump’s written answers to questions from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The agreement to allow Mr. Trump to provide written answers to a limited set of questions comes after months of bargaining between Mr. Trump’s attorneys and the special counsel. Mr. Mueller had sought to conduct an in-person interview with the President. Mr. Trump’s lawyers balked at that request out of fear that in such a free-wheeling format, Mr. Trump may expose himself to perjury charges.

However, answering the questions may not end the stand-off between the special counsel and the White House. Mr. Mueller may still seek an in-person interview.

“Look, we made an agreement with them that we’d agree to disagree about that,” Mr. Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani told The Washington Post. “They said, in good faith, they’d go over our questions and decide if there was still a need for one. We said, in good faith, we’d listen to them, but would be very much inclined against it.”

The dozen or so questions Mr. Trump answered cover his campaign’s interactions with Russia during the 2016 election, but do not address Mr. Trump’s conduct while in office, including allegations of obstruction of justice. That doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller will let it go. “I can’t tell you he’s given up on obstruction,” Mr. Giuliani told Axios.

Mr. Trump’s attorneys have strongly disputed the basis for the obstruction allegations. Late last year, Mr. Trump’s former attorney John Dowd argued that a “President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case.”

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/12/can-president-obstruct-justice-might-not-matter/

While Mr. Trump’s legal team has so far rebuffed Mr. Mueller’s efforts to ask Mr. Trump about his actions while in office, it is still possible that Mr. Mueller could subpoena Mr. Trump. If he were to do so, it would set off a protracted legal battle that would be all but certain to end up in the Supreme Court. Mr. Giuliani says that he believes it’s an argument they would win.

“I don’t think he has any way to compel testimony on obstruction because the argument of executive privilege would be very, very strong. It all relates to a period of time after he was president,” Mr. Giuliani said in an interview with Axios.

Bottom Line

As a rule, investigators usually interview the central figure in an investigation last. If Mr. Mueller judges Mr. Trump’s responses sufficient, the special counsel probe could wrap up very soon. If he elects to pursue an in-person interview with the President, it could go on for some time to come.

Was Obama the First President Without a Full Year of Three Percent GDP Growth?

President Barack Obama delivers an address to the nation on immigration, from the East Room of the White House, Nov. 20, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

A frequent talking point for President Trump and Republicans is that during President Obama’s term, the U.S. economy never grew three precent or better in a year. “Obama is the first president in modern history not to have a single year of three percent growth,” Mr. Trump said at a 2016 campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.

Depending on whether you view a year as any 12-month period or just the January to January calendar year, you can arrive at different conclusions. Fact-checkers have pointed out that there were two 12-month periods in which the economy grew 3% during Mr. Obama’s term. The economy grew 3.4% between the third quarters of 2009 and 2010 and 3.3% between the first quarters of 2014 and of 2015. Still, on a calendar year basis Mr. Trump’s statement is true. There was no calendar year during Mr. Obama’s term in which GDP growth exceeded 3%.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Real Gross Domestic Product [GDPCA], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, November 17, 2018.
Every modern President prior to Mr. Obama has indeed had a calendar year of GDP growth at 3% or greater. The economy grew an average of 2.1% during Obama’s tenure. That’s not the lowest, but it’s towards the bottom of the pack. In 2017, Mr. Trump’s first year in office, the economy faired only slightly better, with 2.2% GDP growth. However, the economy looks on track to grow at 3% or better in 2018. The economy logged impressive growth of 4.2% in the second quarter of 2018 and 3.5% in the third quarter. Still, during Mr. Obama’s term the economy logged growth higher than 4.2% in four quarters and higher than 3.5% in six quarters. But, Mr. Trump may surpass Mr. Obama in terms of annual GDP growth this year.

Fact-checkers have rated Mr. Trump’s claim as “mostly true” and some have called his statement misleading for failing to note 12-month periods of three percent growth under Obama. However, because Mr. Trump was clearly talking about calendar year growth, we judge Mr. Trump’s claim as accurate without need for qualification.

Politics is Falling Apart

The Irish poet William Butler Yeats, a year after World War I, wrote “Turning and turning in the widening gyre / The falcon cannot hear the falconer; / Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, / The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere / The ceremony of innocence is drowned; / The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.” Since the 2016 election those words from “The Second Coming” have become clichés. The recent outbreak of political violence show they may also be prophetic.

Many pundits and talking heads ‒ yelling heads in reality ‒ have blamed President Trump for the outbreak of political violence. That is too simplistic. It also is a commentary on the sorry state of our politics and discourse. Politics now is defined by what you are against and who you hate. There are myriad examples: Standing in opposition to any policy proposal from the other side of the aisle; vowing to resist elected officials; calling people from another country who seek a better life criminals and rapists; saying that one-third of the electorate are deplorable racists, sexists and homophobes; contending that anyone who opposes you is part of a vast conspiracy or an enemy of the state; and, claiming that a single appointee threatens western civilization as we know it — ad nauseam, ad extremum.

The politics of hate and disdain leads to scapegoating, which leads to demonizing your opponent. Once you believe that your opponent is the devil incarnate it is a logical leap to think that you can use any means to stop them. Be that harassing your opponents in public, threatening their lives in emails or in person, murdering them with your car while they peaceable protest; shooting them at a baseball practice; sending them pipe bombs in the mail; or, massacring them while they pray.

All this is not new. American politics always has been a blood sport. Since 1800, politicians have demonized their opponents. John Adams said Thomas Jefferson supported a violent revolution; James Blaine raised the issue of Grover Cleveland fathering a child out of wedlock. On occasion, actual blood was spilled.

Joanna Freeman’s new book, “The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War,” shows that physical attacks on the floors of the House and Senate were common. It should be required reading for all politicians and people involved in the political process.

What has changed is how wide-spread the viciousness has become. There are many reasons for this. First is the media, specifically the every-second, every-minute news programs. Fox News Channel, MSBNC, One America News appeal to narrow segments of the populace, and are feedback loops that appeal to the political extremes. Second is the Internet, especially Facebook, Tweeter, and the numerous hyper-partisan and hate-filled websites. As with cable news, people only read things that reinforce their beliefs and outlooks. Their focus narrows. They don’t consider other points of view and reject them out of hand. (We’ve written about this before).

Elections also are decided on the margins. Candidates must find a way to ensure their supporters go to the polls. Emotions, especially negative ones, are great motivators. Politicians, once they are elected, generally only are concerned with re-elections. They play to their bases and nothing gets done.

The budget is a prime example. Congress’ main job is to pass a budget (it is the first power listed in the Constitution). Since 1996, less than half the time Congress has failed to do that basic job.

Things were different as late as 1997. Democratic and Republican staffers acted like the sheepdog and the wolf in the old Looney Tunes cartoon: they would beat each other up during the day and go out for drinks together in the evening. Not today. Some politicians understand the new dynamic and work to change it. That is why the late John McCain and Sen. Ben Sasse were and are popular among their colleagues, why Gov. John Kasich and even Vice President Biden are quietly respected. All tried to restore a modicum of sanity and civility to politics. They tried to reach bipartisan consensus, fought for their beliefs, but rarely personally opposed their opponents. A partial solution to this political battlefield (sometimes a literal battlefield) may be to follow their examples.

W.H. Auden also had some advice. A generation after Yeats wrote his epic, Auden wrote the following in “September 1, 1939” ‒ a poem titled in reference to the day that the Second World War started: “All I have is a voice / To undo the folded lie, / The romantic lie in the brain / Of the sensual man-in-the-street / And the lie of Authority / Whose buildings grope the sky: / There is no such thing as the State / And no one exists alone; /Hunger allows no choice / To the citizen or the police; / We must love one another or die.”

The question is whether we will listen to the poets.

Can Trump End Birthright Citizenship With an Executive Order?

Just in time for the midterm election, President Trump has reignited a debate over birthright citizenship. In an interview with Axios’ Jonathan Swan for the news outlets’ new HBO series, Mr. Trump said he was considering issuing an executive order ending the practice in which children of foreigners born on U.S. soil are considered citizens of the United States regardless of whether their parents are in the country legally.

Mr. Trump’s suggestion that he could upend birthright citizenship by executive fiat elicited howls of protest. Critics were quick to point out that such a move would be unconstitutional. A plain reading of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution would suggest that anyone born in the United States is a citizen by birth.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sec. 1)

At the center of this question is how the wording of the 14th Amendment, and specifically the limiting phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” applies in the context of parents who are foreign nationals. Are the children of unauthorized immigrants subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore eligible for birthright citizenship? Most credible legal scholars thinks so. Still, a handful of birthright citizenship opponents think enough uncertainty exists to potentially allow Mr. Trump to restrict it.

Birthright Citizenship in Historical Context

To sort all of this out, a little understanding of history is important. Since the founding of the American Republic, citizenship has been automatically conferred upon most anyone born on U.S. soil without regard to the nationality of their parents. But, the issue came to a head with the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision. In Dred Scott, the court ruled that despite his having been born on U.S. soil, “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves, whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen…” Anyone other than former slaves were generally considered to be U.S. citizens at birth already. It was Dred Scott, surely the court’s most shameful moment, that the 14th Amendment was intended to address. That context is important.

Birthright citizenship in the United States is rooted in the British common law tradition of jus solis, or “right of the soil.” This differs from jus sanguinis, or “right of the blood,” which confers citizenship based on the citizenship of the parents. As the 18th Century British legal commentator William Blackstone explained, the British jus solis tradition differed from the countries of continental Europe, whose citizenship rules generally followed the jus sanguines, which derives from Roman Law.

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.” – William Blackstone

The American tradition of birthright citizenship was not accidental. Nor, is America the only country to embrace it. Currently some 30 countries confer citizenship to those born on their territory regardless of the nationality status of the parents.

‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’

Opponents of birthright citizenship argue that the presence of the limiting phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” exempts children of parents who are subject to allegiance to some power other than the United States. Otherwise, why note this exception?

Most legal experts dispute that interpretation. John Yoo, a constitutional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, explained in a recent blog post, that “at the time of the Framing of the Constitution and of the Amendment, there were discrete categories of persons who could be on US territory but not subject to our laws, such as diplomats and enemy soldiers occupying US territory during war. International law grants both diplomats and enemy soldiers protected status, when present on the soil of another state, from the application of that state’s laws.”

Further, Native Americans, who maintained tribal sovereignty at the time that the Amendment was drafted, would have been another group exempted from U.S. jurisdiction. It wasn’t until the 20th Century that Congress extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans after all.

The clear consensus among legal experts is that the 14th Amendment’s “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” exception was intended for diplomats, foreign soldiers and (at the time) Native Americans who were not subject to the laws of the United States. Most everyone else, including children of foreign nationals, would fit under the 14th Amendment’s test of born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

However, a handful of scholars, like John Eastman of Chapman University’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, disagree. Mr. Eastman told Axios that ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof language refers only to people with political allegiance to the U.S. such as green card holders and citizens. But, he is distinctly in the minority.

“When the 14th Amendment included the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ the framers and the public clearly understood that they were setting aside the children of foreign diplomats,” Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham University said. “Other visitors to the United States were and continue to be plainly under the jurisdiction of US law. Why else can they be detained and convicted in US courts for violating US law, unlike diplomats?”

It was well-understood at the time of ratification that the 14th Amendment would apply to the children of immigrants. A growing backlash against Chinese immigrants in the latter half of the 19th Century made this an issue in the debate. As Mr. Yoo wrote in his recent blog post:

“Significantly, congressional critics of the Amendment recognized the broad sweep of the birthright citizenship language. Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, a leading opponent, asked: ‘is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?’ Senator John Conness of California responded yes, and later lost his seat due to anti-Chinese sentiment in his state.”

It is clear that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply to the children of immigrants. But, the question of illegal immigrants is still unsettled. The problem is that at the time the Amendment was drafted in 1866 (and ratified in 1868), there were no restrictions on who could enter the U.S. — the concept of “illegal immigrant” did not yet exist. So, answering the question of whether birthright citizenship applies to unauthorized immigrants requires some degree of interpretation. The key question is this: are those that entered the country illegally considered “subject to the jurisdiction of” the U.S. for the purposes of the the 14th Amendment?

Probably so. When we refer to unauthorized immigrants as illegal, we are conceding that they are indeed subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Federal government regularly subjects unauthorized immigration to the jurisdiction of the United States when it prosecutes them for the crime of entering the country illegally. When an unauthorized immigrant commits this or any other crime in the United States, they are prosecuted under U.S. law and so, by definition, subject to its jurisdiction.

If the Congress had sought to prevent the children of foreign nationals from becoming citizens by birth, it had at hand a model for doing so. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which passed the same year the 14th Amendment was drafted, excepted those “subject to any foreign power” and “Indians not taxed” from eligibility for birthright citizenship. Congress could have used that same language in the 14th Amendment if they wished to exclude the children of foreign nationals. Yet they did not. Their decision to instead adopt the “jurisdiction thereof” language cannot be understood as anything other than a conscious choice.

The Supreme Court Would Decide

There’s no indication that an Executive Order banning birthright citizenship is really in the works. By all appearances, talk of it is little more than pre-election pot-stirring. But, if Mr. Trump were actually to go through with it, it would almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court. And there, Mr. Trump would face an uphill climb.

Supreme Court precedent argues strongly in favor of an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that grants birthright citizenship to immigrants. As Jessica Levinson, a law professor with Loyola Law School told Vox:

“This issue was largely settled in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. There, the Supreme Court held that ‘to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.’”

The issue in Wong Kim Ark was whether a child born in San Fransisco to Chinese parents who were ineligible for citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Act, was considered a citizen of the United States. The court found that the answer in this instance unequivocally yes. In Wong Kim Ark, the court further held that “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.”

However, because there was no distinction at the time between legal and illegal immigrants at the time, Wong Kim Ark does not directly settle the question of birthright status for children of illegal immigrants. Even so, the Court’s logic in the case suggests that the 14th amendment would apply to unauthorized immigrants in similar fashion.

Because the Supreme Court has never opined explicitly on the question of birthright citizenship as it applies to illegal immigrants, there is no definitive answer to the question of the constitutionality of an executive order restricting it. if Mr. Trump were to issue such an executive order, it would be immediately challenged legally and almost certainly end up in front of the Supreme Court. For now, we can say only that given the historical and legal precedent, it is unlikely that the high court would uphold it.

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/06/why-the-supreme-court-upheld-president-trumps-travel-ban/

Axis of Reason: Crazies & The Caravan

On this week’s Axis of Reason, as the caravan approaches and pipe bombs are being sent through the mail, crazies are seizing on both stories for their own political gain. Meanwhile, lawyer for Stormy Daniels turned Democratic presidential aspirant, Michael Avenatti, has a really bad week.


Axis of Reason: The Midterms Cometh

In the latest Axis of Reason podcast, Tyler and Taylor discuss the crisis in U.S.-Saudi relations in the wake of the disappearance and alleged gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi; reports that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is wrapping up his Russia investigation; and, where things stand for the midterm elections.

Will Jamal Khashoggi’s Murder Upend the U.S.-Saudi Alliance?

Photo credit: Project on Middle Eastern Democracy; Illustration by Roughly Explained.

The disappearance and alleged killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is an inflection point in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Mounting evidence that the Saudi government, and specifically its young crown prince, Muhammed bin Salman, are responsible for his murder has sparked an intense international backlash. As the grisly details of his alleged killing have emerged, that backlash has grown especially intense.

Mr. Khashoggi was a Saudi citizen and columnist for The Washington Post living in the U.S. But, he was more than a journalist, he was also an insider with close ties to the Saudi monarchy. In the past, he held various posts with members of the Saudi royal family. In recent years, Mr. Khashoggi grew critical of the Crown Prince, and especially his efforts to stifle dissent.

Turkish authorities claim to have audio recordings of Mr. Khashoggi’s torture and murder inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The details are too gruesome to ignore. According to Turkish police, the tapes reveal that when Mr. Khashoggi arrived at the consulate in Istanbul, a Saudi hit team was waiting for him. First, they cut off his fingers. Then they severed his head. A forensic doctor advised the others to listen to music as he dismembered Mr. Khashoggi with a bone saw. His body was then packed into suitcases and taken off in a Mercedes van.

The Saudi government has denied involvement, but has been casting around for explanations as evidence of Riyadh’s culpability mounts. The Saudis are reportedly mulling issuing a report acknowledging that Mr. Khashoggi was killed within the consulate by “rogue elements” acting without official sanction.

Buying Time

President Donald Trump has sought to give the Saudis the benefit of the doubt. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump suggested that “rogue” killers may be behind Mr. Khashoggi’s murder. “Who knows,” he added. When asked about it in an interview with the AP, Mr. Trump bristled at the assumption that Saudi Arabia was responsible. “Here you go again with ‘You’re guilty until proven innocent,’” he said. “I don’t like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I’m concerned. So we have to find out what happened.”

Earlier this week, Taylor Griffin talked with former Time Senior Correspondent Adam Zagorin about what Khashoggi’s disappearance and apparent murder means for the geopolitics of the Middle East. Listen here.

 

Mr. Trump has also said that if the allegations are true, there will be “serious consequences.” Yet, he desperately doesn’t want to be placed in a position that will oblige him to follow through on that pledge. The Trump Administration seems to be buying time for the Saudis to figure a way out of this mess. Still, behind the scenes, they are pressing the Saudis to act swiftly.

Mr. Trump dispatched Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Riyadh earlier this week to meet with Saudi leaders, including Crown Prince bin Salman. Press reports indicate that Mr. Pompeo’s meeting Tuesday with the Crown Prince was more tense than the smiling pictures released earlier this week suggest. Behind closed doors, Mr. Pompeo reportedly urged the crown prince to “own” the situation and do so quickly before mounting international pressure forces Mr. Trump’s hand. Mr. Pompeo told him that the Saudi government needed to complete its investigation within 72-hours and hold those responsible accountable.

The U.S.-Saudi Alliance Isn’t Going Anywhere

Even if the Saudis did it, and all signs point towards that conclusion, the reality is that we’re stuck with them. There’s simply no stable configuration of the Mideast geopolitical chessboard that doesn’t involve a U.S.-Saudi alliance. As Danielle Pletka, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, wrote this week, “There is no other Saudi Arabia — no regional power which has the resources and the will to provide a counterweight to Iran and help lead us out of the current morass. Egypt is no longer that nation; the UAE is too small. Iraq is too riven.“

Given Saudi Arabia’s importance to U.S. interests in the region, what is important now is how Washington and Riyadh find their way through this debacle. “Addressing, even falsely, the Khashoggi crime will bring Saudi Arabia and its young de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), to another fork in the road,” Ms. Pletka says, “The key question is will MBS take the right turn?”

According to Ms. Pletka, the Khashoggi debacle has “horribly, and ironically,” presented the young Saudi leader an opportunity to steer the Kingdom back onto the path of modernization. She suggests several steps MBS could take:

  • “A thorough scrub of political prisoners, and the release of those who have committed no real crimes.

  • “A national commission (I would say international, but I’m trying to be realistic) to assess the conduct of the war in Yemen.

  • “A real ambassador in Washington so that messages are flowing not just between Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and the White House. (The Crown Prince’s younger brother seemed a nice enough fellow, but 28 is not the age or the experience for this job. Word is he’s leaving, but who will come next?)”

What Happens Next

It is increasingly likely that the U.S. will be forced to mount some sort of response. The political pressure from Congress and the international community is just too great. Lindsay Graham, a Republican Senator from South Carolina who has been among Saudi Arabia’s staunchest defenders in Congress, is all but calling for Muhammed bin Saltan’s head.

“This guy is a wrecking ball, he had this guy murdered in a consulate in Turkey, and to expect me to ignore it, I feel used and abused,” Mr. Graham said on Fox and Friends Tuesday. President Trump should “sanction the hell out of Saudi Arabia,” he added.

The U.S.-Saudi relationship will continue. But, it cannot continue unchanged. The U.S. should demand that Saudi Arabia commit to reverse the tide of illiberalism as part of the bargain.

All American Presidents have accepted, to varying degrees, the devil’s bargain implicit in the US-Saudi relationship. The Saudis are no angels. Still, things like the internal brutality of Saudi Arabia’s sharia justice system could be understood in terms of the balance that the ruling family must strike to keep the Wahhabi maniacs at bay.

When it comes to the Kingdom, American policy has always weighed human rights concerns against the risk of a bunch of Islamic nut-jobs gaining control of the world’s largest oil reserves. But, this is something different. Murdering and dismembering a journalist on foreign soil is shocking even for them. The U.S.-Saudi relationship will continue. But, it cannot continue unchanged.

Crown Prince bin Salam has sought to market himself as a reformer. And, he’s taken some steps in the right direction, such as permitting women to drive. But, his recent efforts to crack down on dissent and consolidate power demonstrated an ugly illiberal bent. The Crown Prince wants to be seen by the world as a modern, progressive, Arab leader. The U.S. should demand that he act like one.

Mr. Khashoggi’s final column, published in The Washington Post Thursday, had an eerie prescience. In it, he decried press censorship and suppression of dissent in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Middle East. “These actions no longer carry the consequence of a backlash from the international community,” he wrote. “Instead, these actions may trigger condemnation quickly followed by silence.”

Now, Mr. Khashoggi’s own murder begs the question: will this time be different?


 

Axis of Reason Podcast: The Death of Jamal Khashoggi

Earlier this week, Taylor Griffin talked with former Time Senior Correspondent Adam Zagorin about what Khashoggi’s disappearance and apparent murder means for the geopolitics of the Middle East. Listen here

 

Axis of Reason Podcast: The Death of Jamal Kashoggi (Guest: Adam Zagorin)

The Trump Administration has made Saudi Arabia the lynchpin of its Middle East strategy. Now, the alleged murder of Jamal Kashoggi, a Saudi journalist and columnist for the Washington Post, threatens to upend the relationship between the United States and a key Middle East ally. In the latest Axis of Reason podcast, Taylor Griffin talks with former Time Magazine Senior Correspondent Adam Zagorin about what happened and what Kashoggi’s death means for the geopolitics of the Middle East.


 

Axis of Reason Podcast — “Nevermore Never Trump”

In the latest edition of our new podcast, Axis of Reason, Taylor Griffin and Tyler Cralle break down this week’s political news.

“Nevermore Never Trump”

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is calling it quits and everyone wants to know who could replace her, why is Russia choosing to remain silent in the midterms, and the Kavanaugh fiasco has splintered the Never Trump movement by separating the principled conservatives and metropolitan Republicans. Is the Never Trump movement DOA?

 

A Mysterious Computer Server May Hold the Key to Unraveling Whether There Was ‘Collusion’ Between Trump and Russia

Abstract image of computer servers.

One of the enduring enigmas of the investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election  centers on communications between a computer server registered to the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. It’s not a new story. Franklin Foer reported on it for Slate in the closing days of the 2016 campaign. Now Dexter Filkins, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist with The New Yorker, has picked up where that story left off two years ago. In a lengthy article published this week, Mr. Filkins chronicles the extraordinary detective work into a mystery that could hold the key to understanding what really happened between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In the summer of 2016 after the Russian hacks of the DNC, a group of elite computer scientists began sifting through mounds of data. They assumed that if the Russians were hacking Democrats, surely they would be targeting the Republicans as well. As they hunted for evidence of Russian attempts to attack Republican computer systems, they found something completely unexpected. A server registered to the Trump Organization (mail1.trump-email.com) was communicating almost exclusively with that of a Russian bank.

Illustration of a computer connecting with DNS and web servers

The group of cybersecurity experts had unusual access to the Domain Name System (DNS), a sort of phone book for the internet that allows computers to find each other. Whenever you do something online, your device must first connect to a DNS server to locate the computer you’re trying to reach. For example when you type RoughlyExplained.com into your browser, your computer will query a DNS server to obtain this site’s Internet Protocol or IP address — a string of numbers that identifies the location of our web server on the Internet. These DNS queries can be logged, leaving a record of attempts to connect to a site on the internet.

In the summer of 2016, the group began sifting through DNS logs of web addresses associated with Republicans. The were looking for patterns of DNS lookups similar to those that they had seen in the Russian hacking attacks on the DNC. What they found instead was decidedly odd.

The Trump server was being looked up almost exclusively by Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s largest banks, and to a lesser extent Spectrum Health, a company owned by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ family. DeVos’ brother is Eric Prince, who met with Russian officials in an effort to set up a back-channel communication link with Russia after the election.

The server had formerly been used to send marketing emails for Trump hotels. But, in March 2016 the Trump Organization switched to a new email marketing firm and the server lay mostly dormant. In May 2016, it came alive again.

Whatever was happening between these servers may reveal what, if anything, was really going on between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election.

The DNS records showed that Alfa Bank and Spectrum Health servers began repeatedly looking up the Trump server in May of 2016. As the campaign wore on, they did so with increasing frequency. Further, the DNS queries seemed to spike around key moments in the campaign. All this raised suspicions among the researchers that they had stumbled onto some sort of clandestine communication channel. Whatever was happening between these servers may reveal what, if anything, was really going on between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election.

DNS records don’t reveal what transpired once the computers connected. So, there’s no way to ascertain for sure why the computers were communicating from DNS queries alone. There could be innocent explanations for why the servers were talking. But, the researchers concluded, none of them seemed very plausible. “Is it possible there is an innocuous explanation for all this?” one of the experts who reviewed the data told The New Yorker. “Yes, of course. And it’s also possible that space aliens did this. It’s possible—just not very likely.”

Some have suggested that the unusual traffic was an attempt by Alfa’s servers to verify old emails or a glitch in its security software. There are, after all, a lot of ways computer servers can go haywire. Yet, the pattern of communications didn’t really fit that explanation. The lookups from Alfa’s servers came intermittently. Some days there would be a couple, other days there would be dozens. If it were a glitch, there would likely be a more regular rhythm to the lookups. This theory also doesn’t explain why those contacts would have accelerated as the campaign reached its climax. Further, why would Spectrum Health’s server just happen to be suffering from a similar glitch? The traffic between the servers had a randomness that looked a lot more like human activity.

There are a several ways such a system might have worked to facilitate communication. It could have functioned as an instant messaging system. Or, it could be something called “foldering,” a practice that is commonly used by people who want to communicate undetected. For example, messages might be written as draft emails and then read by the other party logged into the server.

While the traffic between the servers was strange, the way it stopped was stranger still.

While the traffic between the servers was strange, the way it stopped was stranger still. The New York Times’ Eric Lichtblau was also contacted by the computer scientists in 2016. On September 21, Mr. Lichtblau contacted Alfa Bank’s lobbyists in Washington for comment. Two days later, before Lichtblau had reached out to anyone in the Trump organization, the Trump domain disappeared from the internet. Both Alfa Bank and the Trump organization have strenuously denied any contact between them. Yet, it appears that someone with Alfa Bank must have given the Trump Organization a heads-up.

When the FBI got wind of Mr. Lichtblau’s reporting they pushed him to delay publication, arguing that it could interfere with their ongoing investigation into Trump and Russia. Ultimately Dean Baquet, The New York Times’ editor, pulled the plug on the story. Mr. Baquet was reluctant to publish unless they knew why the communications occurred.

If there was any communications between the Trump campaign and Russia, this server might have been at the center of it. As things stand now, we still don’t know definitively what it all means. Yet, there may be a way to solve the mystery.

The Trump server belonged to a Pennsylvania company called Listrak and was administered by Cendyn, a Florida-based e-mail marketing firm. Records maintained by the two companies might reveal what was really happening between the servers. Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee wanted to issue subpoenas to get the data, but the committee’s Republicans refused.

However, it’s very likely that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been able to obtain those records. A local Pennsylvania news outlet reported in March 2017  that the FBI visited Listrak’s offices. According to its CEO, the company gave the FBI everything it asked for. Whether the Trump server‘s connection with a Russian bank was a fantastically unlikely coincidence or a smoking gun for so-called-collusion remains an open question. But, the odds are good that Special Counsel Mueller already knows the answer.

INTERVIEW: Griffin and Manson on Kavanaugh, Rising China Tensions

Roughly Explained’s Taylor Griffin and the Financial Times’ Katrina Manson joined BBC Radio 5 to discuss the aftermath of the Kavanaugh confirmation battle and rising tensions with China. Oct. 9, 2018

Trump’s Trade War with China Explained

The trade war between the U.S. and China is escalating, and there’s very little chance of it abating any time soon. The real test is which country will feel enough pain to cry uncle first and how much damage will be inflicted in both economies in the meantime.

In September, Mr. Trump imposed $200 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports on top of the $50 billion he imposed in May. He also threatened to levy another $267 billion if Beijing retaliated. China responded be levying $60 billion in tariffs of their on US products. If Mr. Trump follows through on his threat, more tariffs may be on the way.

The Trump Administration’s tariffs are meant to address very real problems. China’s habit of strong-arming American companies into turning over technology in exchange for access to the Chinese market is the explicit basis for the two rounds of tariffs introduced this year. There are also broader concerns about the vast and opaque government subsidies China provides to state-owned businesses, which give them an unfair advantage over foreign competition.

For Mr. Trump though, America’s trade deficit with China is the central issue. “Last year, we lost $500 billion on trade with China,” Trump said earlier this year. “We can’t let that happen.” Mr. Trump’s figures are off — the trade deficit with China was actually $375 billion, not $500 billion — as his preoccupation with it.

The Trump Administration is pushing China to trim $200 billion from its trade deficit with the U.S. by 2020, a demand that will be impossible for China to meet. Even if China rectifies the legitimate complaints Mr. Trump’s Administration has raised about China’s unfair trade practices, it is unlikely to make a major dent in the trade deficit, and even if it were possible, it might not necessarily desirable. This is because the primary driver of the trade deficit with China lies in deeper, underlying issues such as the variation in savings rates in the two countries. Closing the trade deficit would require American consumers to consume dramatically less and save more, likely plunging the American economy into recession in the process.

Mr. Trump sees America’s goods trade deficit as a zero-sum game with the country possessing a trade surplus the winner and that with a trade deficit the loser. But, that misunderstands how trade between nations works.

At its most basic level, the trade deficit means China sends more stuff to Americans than they require Americans send them in return. This is great for consumers, who get cheaper goods. The excess dollars China receives in the process flow back into the U.S. in the form of investment, principally in the form of U.S. Treasury securities that finance government spending and facilitate low interest rates.

Of course, for U.S. workers that might otherwise be employed to produce goods, at higher cost, that can be more cheaply imported from China this is cold comfort. But, reducing the trade deficit with China does not necessarily mean those jobs return to the U.S. More likely, those same goods will simply be sourced from other low-cost producers or from highly automated U.S. factories that employ relatively few workers.

Will the U.S. or China Win?

In an economy as large and dynamic as America’s, the impact of the tariffs will probably not be felt immediately by most consumers. The current round of tariffs focuses on intermediate goods, such as auto parts and computer chips. This means that U.S. manufacturers, especially those that depend on Chinese component parts, will likely absorb the brunt of the increase in costs. The Trump Administration has attempted to soften the blow as well by phasing the tariffs in over time — rising from 10% to 25% by January of next year. This, it hopes will give firms time to adjust.  Still, some of the very manufacturers that it hopes to help will feel bear the heaviest burden in the meantime.

The more immediate effects are being felt by U.S. exporters facing retaliatory tariffs from China. The pain is especially acute among farmers that export soybeans and other commodities to China. The Trump Administration has attempted to blunt the impact with subsidies to agricultural producers through deficit spending that is financed, ironically, by Chinese purchases of U.S. Treasury securities.

The Trump Administration maintains that the tariffs give it leverage to force China to the table. Mr. Trump credited his hard-edged strategy with the new NAFTA Agreement announced earlier this month. “Without tariffs, we wouldn’t be talking about a deal,” Mr. Trump said of the revised North American trade pact.

Mr. Trump’s team calculates that its trade war will inflict more pain on China than China inflicts on the U.S. in return. China has been experiencing an economic slowdown as it faces a reckoning over excessive debt held by Chinese businesses. Trade frictions with the U.S. certainly do nothing to help its troubles, but resolving them doesn’t fix China’s underlying problems either.

Beijing has introduced measures to blunt the impact of the tariffs. Most recently, the People’s Bank of China slashed the amount of cash it requires banks to maintain in reserve in a bid to pump more money into its sagging economy. That won’t completely stop the bleeding, but it shows that China is digging in for a long-term fight.

The U.S. shows no sign of backing down either. “We changed the paradigm, we have tariffs in place, and the president is not going let this go long, where you take intellectual property, where you have a forced transfer of intellectual property, where you treat American companies and farmers and ranchers poorly,” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in September.

President Trump once tweeted that “Trade wars are good, and easy to win.” Reality is proving that trade wars are neither.

With the FBI Investigation Complete, Kavanaugh Confirmation Fight Nears End

The FBI‘s extended background check into sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court is complete and the wheels are in motion for a final confirmation vote this weekend. The 46-page confidential report, which was made available to Senators Thursday morning, reportedly does not corroborate the allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh. Republicans and Democrats had starkly different reactions to the report. While Republicans seemed largely satisfied with the FBI’s work, Democrats maintained that the report wasn’t sufficiently comprehensive.

Charles Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a statement Thursday morning, stating, “there’s nothing that we didn’t already know.” Mr. Grassley said that the report provided no convincing evidence to confirm the allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh. “This investigation found no hint of misconduct and the same is true of the six prior FBI background investigations conducted during Judge Kavanaugh’s 25 years of public service,” he added.

Corey Booker, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, unsurprisingly, disputed Mr. Grassley’s characterization of the report. “In plain English what I just read, there are hints of misconduct.” Echoing the standard line Democrats have been taking all day, Mr. Booker said that not enough witnesses had been interviewed. So, it’s very frustrating that they didn’t do a thorough investigation that they didn’t interview all the relevant witnesses. They didn’t interview all the potential eyewitnesses,” Booker said.

What Was In the FBI Report

We don’t know what is actually in the report in any detail. But, we do know that the FBI interviewed some additional witnesses over the past week. This included Mark Judge, Mr. Kavanaugh’s high school friend whom Christine Blasey Ford says was in the room 36-years ago when she alleges Mr. Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and attempted to remove her clothing. Mr. Judge’s interview accounted for nine of the 46 pages of interviews included in the report.

While we don’t know what Mr. Judge said to the FBI, in earlier statements made to the Senate Judiciary Committee under penalty of felony, Mr. Judge said he had no recollection of the party Ms. Ford described nor the incident involving Mr. Kavanaugh. There’s no reason to believe he said anything different in his FBI interview.

What Wasn’t In the FBI Report

The FBI apparently did not interview Ms. Ford and other witnesses that Democrats say were relevant. An official explanation for why the FBI chose to forgo an interview with Ms. Ford and others has yet to be offered. However, it is likely that given the compressed timeframe, the FBI chose to focus on only the witnesses likely to add meaningful new information. Ms. Ford’s testimony at last week’s hearing was, in this view, sufficient.

In a letter released Thursday morning, Ms. Ford’s attorneys blasted FBI Director Chris Wray for not interviewing Ms. Ford or eight witnesses she suggested. However, there was no indication from that letter that any of them could corroborate the events of 36 years ago Ms. Ford described. With the exception of her husband, most only learned of her allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh relatively recently. For the most part, the information they offered is either undisputed or already known and four of the eight have already provided sworn statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Interviewing them again was arguably redundant.

The FBI did interview Deborah Ramirez, a Yale Classmate who alleges that Mr. Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a night of heavy drinking in their freshman-year dorm. However, Ms. Ramirez concedes that her memory of the incident is hazy and she was initially uncertain that it was in fact Mr. Kavanaugh. But, she says she recalls seeing Mr. Kavanaugh thrust his hips forward as if he were pulling up his pants and heard another student shouting that, “Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face.”

No witnesses have yet come forward that can corroborate the incident first-hand. However Kenneth Appold, one of Mr. Kavanaugh’s freshman year suitemates told the New Yorker earlier this week that he heard about the incident from another classmate soon after it happened. Yet, when The New Yorker contacted the person whom Mr. Appold said told him about it, the person had no recollection of the incident. Mrs. Ramirez’s lawyers complained that the FBI had not followed up with Mr. Appold and others. But, from the public reporting it’s unclear it would have made a great deal of difference if they had.

The Undecideds

Senators Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins remain undecided about how they will vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Whatever was or wasn’t in the FBI report, most Senators made up their mind about Brett Kavanaugh long ago. What really matters is whether three key undecided GOP Senators felt it sufficient. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have all been on the fence about Kavanaugh. Assuming no Democrats break ranks, at least two of the three will need to vote yes for the Senate to confirm him.

Ms. Collins and Mr. Flake have both indicated that they were satisfied with the FBI’s investigation. Ms. Murkowski said she’s still reviewing the report.

After an initial review of the report this morning, Ms. Collins told reporters that “it appears to be a very thorough investigation.” She said she planned to go back this afternoon to read it in greater detail. Mr. Flake agreed, adding, “We’ve seen no additional corroborating information [in the FBI report].”

While neither Senator has yet committed to voting yes, their positive comments can be taken as an encouraging sign. A yes vote from Flake and Collins alone would be enough to confirm Mr. Kavanaugh.

The truth of what really happened remains remains as uncertain now as it did last week. Democrats say the FBI’s investigation is insufficient, Republicans are ready to move on. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader plans to hold a procedural vote on cloture Friday. This will allow no more than thirty hours of additional debate, meaning that a final vote on the nomination could come as soon as Saturday or Sunday.

No matter how expansive, the FBI’s background investigation was never likely to satisfy anyone completely. Definitively refuting or confirming an allegation of sexual misconduct from 36 years ago at a party no one remembers, at a house Dr. Ford can’t locate, and on a date she can’t recall is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Ms. Ramirez’s allegation is equivalently difficult to verify. Cases don’t get much colder than these.

Still, the die is cast and the Kavanaugh confirmation saga has entered its final chapter. Barring something unexpected, the fate of Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court will be decided this weekend.

https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/09/a-wild-week-in-the-kavanaugh-confirmation-saga-2/

Trump’s NAFTA Deal Explained

SOURCE: White House video

President Donald Trump has long derided the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as a terrible deal. Campaigning for President he vowed to scrap, or at least substantially renegotiate, the trade pact. On Monday, the President announced that the U.S., Canada, and Mexico had reached an agreement on a new version of NAFTA, fulfilling his campaign pledge. The U.S. struck a similar deal with Mexico last month. But, the agreement announced Monday adds Canada, bringing all three North American trading partners on board.

President Trump said at the White House on Monday that “it’s not NAFTA redone, it’s a brand-new deal.” Still, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), as its now being called, leaves much of NAFTA’s existing provisions in place. However, it does make changes affecting the dairy and auto industries and updates NAFTA’s framework for protecting intellectual property. While undoubtedly a win for the President, for most businesses, the most significant difference between the old NAFTA and the new NAFTA is its name.

What it Does

Under the new agreement, U.S. dairy farmers will have somewhat better access to the Canadian market. It allows U.S. producers to gradually access a greater share Canada’s $16 billion dairy market. The new agreement also increases the proportion of autos that must be manufactured in North America to 75%, up from 62.5% previously, and requires forty to 45% of auto workers to earn more than $16 an hour. Finally, it strengthens intellectual property protections by, among other things, protecting data for biologic drugs for 10-years and minimizing limits on where data must be stored.

The deal includes some concessions to Canada and Mexico as well. The U.S. agreed to largely exempt passenger vehicles, pickup trucks and auto parts from potential tariffs under Section 232, a provision of U.S. law that allows the President to impose trade restrictions to protect national security. It also leaves NAFTA’s dispute resolution mechanism, which the U.S. had sought to eliminate, mostly unchanged. This had been a sticking point for Canada, which uses this process to protect Canadian lumber producers.

However, there is still work remaining. The deal does not resolve contentious questions about the steel and aluminum tariffs that the Trump Administration imposed earlier this year. Also, the new agreement will need to be approved by Congress and that can’t happen until next year. If Democrats make gains in the midterm elections, winning approval on Capitol Hill will be more complicated.

What it Means

In the long term, the deal is expected to have only marginal impact on the overall economies of the three countries. But, in the short term, resolving the trade standoff will remove uncertainty and boost investor and business sentiment. After the deal was announced, stocks rallied as businesses and financial markets, worried about potential for disruptions to supply chains if the stalemate could not be resolved, breathed a sigh of relief.

While the deal is narrower than Mr. Trump might have hoped, it’s significant enough that Republicans can trumpet a win on one of his key campaign promises. Still, the relatively marginal revisions included in the new agreement reflect the gulf between populist rhetoric and political and economic reality. A more sweeping rewrite of NAFTA would have been politically untenable for trading partners and potentially could have resulted in economic disruptions that would prove more damaging than its benefits. The most significant achievement of Mr. Trump’s NAFTA deal may be that it put that genie back in the bottle.

A Wild Week in the Kavanaugh Confirmation Saga

Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee (9/29/18)
United States Senate cameras. From Official YouTube channel for US Senator Dick Durbin.

A chaotic, emotionally-charged week in the bitter partisan fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court took another dramatic on Friday. Jeff Flake, the Senator from Arizona, broke ranks with fellow Republicans to join Democrats’ call for a one week delay in Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote to allow the FBI to investigate accusations of sexual misconduct. Mr. Flake vowed that he would not vote to confirm without it, forcing the hand of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and President Donald Trump.

PHOTO: Gage Skidmore

The loss of Mr. Flake’s vote would put Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination in serious jeopardy. By the end of the day, President Trump and ordered the FBI to investigate and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had agreed to push the vote back another week.

A Dramatic Hearing

Friday’s plot twist came a day after Mr. Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman whose allegations of sexual misconduct against him upended the confirmation process in its 11th hour, appeared before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to examine Ms. Ford’s claims.

Over the course of eight riveting hours Thursday, Ms. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh delivered competing accounts of events three decades ago when Ms. Ford says Mr. Kavanaugh assaulted her at a high school party. Mr. Kavanaugh, in emotional and at times indignant testimony, was emphatic that it never happened. Ms. Ford was equally emphatic that it did.

The controversy over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination has caught the nation’s attention because it is a human story as much as it is a political one. On the one side is Christine Blasey Ford, a woman clearly still haunted by a traumatic event far in her past that has now thrust her uncomfortably to the center a contentious national debate. On the other is Mr. Kavanaugh, a man who has watched a lifetime’s work building a reputation for decency and honor destroyed overnight.

At Thursday’s hearing Ms. Ford told the Senate Judiciary Committee that at a high-school party thirty years ago, Mr. Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge forced her into a bedroom where, she says, Mr. Kavanaugh pinned her down on a bed, attempted to remove her clothes, and placed his hand over her mouth to prevent her from crying out. Ms. Ford said she believed that he intended to rape her and feared that he may accidentally suffocate her.

Mr. Kavanaugh strenuously denied the accusation while taking care not to disparage Ms. Ford. “I am not questioning that Dr. Ford could have been sexually assaulted by someone, someplace at some time,” he said in his testimony. But, “I have never done this. Not to her, or to anyone,” he said.

“I am not questioning that Dr. Ford could have been sexually assaulted by someone, someplace at some time. But, I have never done this. Not to her, or to anyone.” — Brett Kavanaugh.

Ms. Ford came off as a compelling and sympathetic witness. However, there were problems with her account. She could neither recall exactly where the party was, nor when it occurred. She remembers running out of the house after the incident and standing on the sidewalk outside it, but not how she got home or who drove her. And none of the people whom she said were there have corroborated her story. Nevertheless, she said, she was 100% certain that it was Mr. Kavanaugh that attacked her.

Republicans focused much of their fire Thursday on Democrats, and specifically Diane Feinstein, the Committee’s senior Democrat, whom they charged had withheld Ms. Ford’s allegations from the committee until the last minute in what they saw as an attempt to maximize the political damage to Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Ms. Feinstein countered that she was simply honoring Ms. Ford’s desire for anonymity. Yet, her accusations were nevertheless leaked to the media and Republicans held Democrats responsible. Mr. Kavanaugh, in the course of impassioned testimony punctuated by righteous anger, lashed out at Democrats’ political maneuvering.

“This confirmation process has become a national disgrace,” Kavanaugh said. “The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.”

Ms. Ford’s allegation, he said, “was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn’t take me out on the merits,” Mr. Kavanaugh said. “When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford’s wishes,” he added.

Mr. Kavanaugh also pushed back forcefully on the allegations against him. “All four witnesses who were alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend Ms. [Leland] Kayser, who said she didn’t know me and that she does not recall ever being at a party with me with or without Dr. Ford,” Mr. Kavanaugh said.

Still, he said “allegations of sexual assault must always be taken seriously, always. Those who make allegations always deserve to be heard. At the same time, the person who is the subject of the allegations also deserves to be heard.”

Among the most poignant moments came as Mr. Kavanaugh, choking back tears, recounted his daughters’ empathy for Ms. Ford. “I intend no ill will to Dr. Ford and her family,” he said. “The other night Ashley and my daughter Liza said their prayers and little Liza, all of 10 years old, said to Ashley, ‘We should pray for the woman.’ That’s a lot of wisdom from a 10-year-old.”

The FBI Investigation

Democrats repeatedly pressed their demand for an FBI investigation into Ms. Ford’s claims, something Republicans saw as purely a stalling tactic. “If you wanted a FBI investigation, you could have come to us,” Lindsay Graham, the Republican Senator from South Carolina said in a fiery rebuke of Democrats. “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020,” he added.

Thanks to Mr. Flake, the Democrats will get an FBI investigation after all. But, even after the FBI investigates, the question of what happened to Ms. Ford thirty years ago may not  be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. It’s unlikely that an FBI investigation into events so long ago will turn up anything conclusive. There is no evidence, beyond Ms. Ford’s testimony, to corroborate her claim and the gaps in Ms. Ford’s memory about details like the time and location of the alleged attack further complicates matters.  The FBI will be able to interview witnesses. Yet, all of the people Ms. Ford has identified as being at the party so far have disputed her account. Unless they change their story or new witnesses turn up, the FBI investigation may not add much more certainty.

Emotion and Anguish

For anyone who has followed this drama closely, it’s hard not to feel compassion for the people caught in the middle of it and their families. Ms. Ford’s anguish seemed genuine, Mr. Kavanaugh’s emotion when talking about the effects of all this on his family was moving.

Ms. Ford deserves respect. Her allegations cannot be dismissed lightly and must be taken seriously. But, the grotesque political bloodspot that we are now witnessing is neither respectful of Ms. Ford nor fair to Mr. Kavanaugh. Taking accusations of sexual assault seriously should not be confused with trial by mob. Mr. Kavanaugh deserves respect too. He is, by the account of nearly everyone who knows him well, uncommonly decent and honorable. Like anyone else, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Partisan resentments have grown so hardened, and the gulf between those who support and oppose Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation so wide, that any notions of a fair and impartial confirmation process have been rendered absurd.

At the end of the day, the rancorous debate over the Kavanaugh confirmation has plumbed new depths in the cesspool of our current political moment. Partisan resentments have grown so hardened, and the gulf between those who support and oppose Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation so wide, that any notions of a fair and impartial confirmation process have been rendered absurd.

Barring some unanticipated bombshell, Mr. Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed and go on to a long and distinguished career on the Supreme Court. While he will always bear the scars, they will fade over time. But, the effect on the public trust may be more enduring.

What to Expect From the Brett Kavanaugh Hearing

As the Senate Judiciary Committee completed its confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick seemed to be headed for easy approval by the full Senate. Now, his nomination has hit rough waters after two women came forward publicly with accusations of sexual misconduct. The allegations, which Mr. Kavanaugh strenuously denies, stem from his time in high school in one case and his freshman year at Yale in the other.

Christine Blasley Ford, now a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University, says that at a high school party 36 years ago, an inebriated Mr. Kavanaugh held her down, attempted to remove her clothing and held his hand over her mouth to prevent her from shouting. Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale University, claims that Mr. Kavanugh exposed himself to her during a night of heavy drinking at a dorm room party their freshman year. Mr. Kavanaugh emphatically denies that these incidents, or anything like them, ever occurred.

“I have never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not ever,” Mr. Kavanaugh said in an interview with Martha McCallum of Fox News Channel on Monday night. “I’ve always treated women with dignity and respect.”

Thus far, no third party with direct knowledge of the events in question has corroborated either claim.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary committee is scheduled hold a hearing to consider the Ms. Ford’s allegations. Both she and Mr. Kavanaugh are expected to appear. From what we know so far, it will be her word against his.

Ms. Ford says she is unable to recall details of exactly where the alleged attack occurred or when it happened. All of the people she says were present, including one of her close friends, Mr. Kavanaugh, and two others have said they could neither recall the party in question nor the alleged attack.

Mark Judge, the friend of Mr. Kavanaugh whom Ms. Ford said was in the room when he allegedly attacked her flatly denied any such thing happened. “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way,” he said in an interview with the Weekly Standard.

Patrick Smyth, whom Ms. Ford said was at the party, also disputed her account. “I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh,” Mr. Smyth said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

Leland Ingham Keyser, a longtime friend of Ms. Ford since high school whom Ms. Ford said was there, couldn’t recall this, or any party at which Mr. Kavanaugh was pesent. Ms. Keyser’s lawyer, Howard Walsh, told CNN that “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” he said in a statement.

A second accusation, reported by the New Yorker last week, threw an additional monkey-wrench into the works. It was made by a Yale classmate of Mr. Kavanaugh’s, Deborah Ramirez, who said he exposed himself to her at a dorm room party at a dorm party during his Freshman year.

However, Ms. Ramirez acknowledged that her memory of the event was fuzzy. According to the New York Times, which passed on the story, Ms. Ramirez acknowledged to Yale classmates she spoke with last week that she could not say for certain that it was Mr. Kavanaugh. However, by this past weekend she grew more confident in her recollection.

While she could not recall directly whether Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself to her — she acknowledges that she had been drinking heavily at the time — Ms. Ramirez says she does remember specifically seeing him laughing and making a motion that seemed to her to be pulling his pants up.

“Brett was laughing,” she told the New Yorker. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She also says that she heard another student yelling down the hall that “‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said.

The New Yorker and The New York Times contacted dozens of Mr. Kavanaugh and Ms. Ramirez’s Yale classmates over the past week. None could directly confirm Ms. Ramirez’s account. A male classmate whom Ms. Ramirez said was in the room denied any memory of the party. “I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter,” he told The New Yorker. The other classmate Ms. Ramirez also said, “‘I have zero recollection.”

Most Republicans view the accusations against Mr. Kavanaugh as thin on evidence and heavy on politics — a last-minute tactic on the part of Democrats to stall and potentially derail Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination based on dubious claims from three decades ago.

Democrats counter that the burden of proof is on Mr. Kavanaugh to clear his name. “It is Judge Kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and who I think now bears the burden of disproving these allegations rather than Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez who should be dismissed with slanderous accusations,” said Chris Coons, a Democratic Senator from Delaware in an interview with MSNBC.”

Both Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez depict the alleged incidents in varying degrees of detail. However, to date, no one who they say were there has corroborated either account. Neither can recall much detail that could be externally verified. With so little to go on, the Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to break along party lines in a vote that could come as soon as Friday to recommend Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate.

Democrats like Mr. Coons were almost certainly going to vote against Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination before the allegations emerged. The more important task now is to keep wavering Republican Senators on-board. Susan Collins, the Senator from Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, the Senator from Alaska, remain uncommitted. With a bare 51 vote Senate majority, Republicans cannot afford to lose any votes.

I Know Brett Kavanaugh. What is happening is so very wrong.

I am pro-choice, and pro-gun control. I support the #MeToo movement, in fact I am a #MeToo-er. I’m also a #NeverTrump-er. And most importantly I am a #IStillStandWithBrett-er.

People who know me well accuse me of being a closet democrat. I understand by admitting some of these things publicly I may lose friends on both sides of the aisle, but I will risk that because I am heartbroken over what is happening to the Kavanaugh family and America.

I will say again and say to my dying day that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a good and decent man with the highest moral character.

I was George W. Bush’s personal secretary for his last term in office (for the record I am an avid supporter and fan of President Bush). Ashley Kavanaugh was my predecessor and Brett Kavanaugh was a very close colleague. We have remained friends ever since. I will say again and say to my dying day that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a good and decent man with the highest moral character.

Brett’s character is being besmirched because of political motivations. Maybe he got drunk and partied too much in high school. So what? Who among us, and I know there are very few, can say we didn’t do the same? But, because he and his friends may have displayed some frat boy behavior (and maybe it was just his friends and not him) that doesn’t mean he did the things of which he’s accused. I bet there are at least a few male senators sitting on the judiciary committee that partied too much or wrote stupid things in yearbooks. That doesn’t mean they committed sexual misconduct.

My cousin has known Brett since she was 15, and hung out with the Prep school boys in the early 80’s. She and dozens of her girlfriends were at many parties with Brett and never witnessed the behavior of which he is accused. In fact, she said he was nothing but polite, respectful and very studious.

She married a very close friend of Brett’s and in 2001 she suggested setting me up with him. But, that didn’t happen — shortly thereafter he started dating Ashley. Still, would my cousin have suggested setting me up with someone who mistreated or disrespected women?

My millennial nephew told me to stop posting about Brett on Facebook because it’s not going to help. Maybe so. I am writing this early in the morning because I can’t sleep. What is happening is so very wrong. I can imagine Brett and Ashley haven’t slept for weeks either.

This is not the America I know and love. We are better than this and I pray fervently every day that Brett’s name will be cleared and that these politically charged accusations will be proven wrong.

Scientists Gave Octopuses Ecstasy, Here’s What Happened

Unless they’re mating, octopuses want nothing to do with each other. Put two in the same tank, and they will usually  stay far away from one another — or try to kill and eat each other. But, a study published this week in Current Biology found that when scientists spiked the water in their tank with MDMA, a psychoactive compound commonly known as Ecstasy, something remarkable happened — the prickly octopuses transformed into warm and fuzzy creatures.

Octopuses are separated from human evolution by 500 million years. They have a complex nervous system that has evolved in a dramatically different way from that of humans, with bundles of neurons in each of their eight legs connected to a central bundle of neurons. Yet, just like humans, on MDMA, the normally grumpy octopus becomes friendly and sociable.

“They have this huge complex brain that they’ve built, that has absolutely no business acting like ours does — but here they show that it does,” Judit Pungor, a neuroscientist at the University of Oregon, told NPR. “The fact that they induced this very sort of gentle, cuddly behavior is really pretty fascinating.”

While dramatically different in structure, after sequencing the genome of the California two-spot octopus (Octopus bimaculoides) last year, researchers found that octopuses and humans are encoded to produce a protein that binds the neurotransmitter serotonin to brain cells in a very similar manner. It is this same protein that is affected by MDMA.

This result got Gul Dölen, a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins University, curious about whether MDMA would produce the same effect on the anti-social octopus as it does in humans.

To find out, Dolen and her colleague Eric Edsinger from the Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory, placed a pair of octopuses into a tank with three chambers. In the first chamber, they placed a toy, the second was empty, and in the third they confined one of the octopuses. The other octopus was allowed to roam freely.

SOURCE: Gül Dölen and Eric Edsinger, “A Conserved Role for Serotonergic Neurotransmission in Mediating Social Behavior in Octopus.” Current Biology, Sept. 20, 2018.

The research team then logged the time spent in each chamber normally and again after the water in the tank was laced with MDMA. Initially, the octopuses loitered more in the tank with the toy with it. But, after the researchers dosed the water in the tank  with MDMA, the free-roaming octopus chose to spend more time in the chamber with the other octopuses. Not usually touchy feely creatures, after being given MDMA, the octopuses actually started hugging.

“My lab has been studying MDMA for a long time, she said, “and we have worked out a lot of neural mechanisms that enable MDMA to have these really, really profound pro-social effects.”

MDMA, has long been known as a party drug that inspires a sense of euphoria and empathy along with a desire to dance all night. But, serious interest in MDMA has grown as researchers have begun discovering promising applications of the drug in treating PTSD and other disorders.

The study in octopuses helps give scientists a better understanding of how the neurological mechanisms regulating social behavior evolved. The presence of a similar role of serotonin in the octopus, which parted evolutionary ways with humans far in the distant past, suggests that the physical structures that underlie emotional connection are deeply wired.

There are promising signs that further research into the drugs effects can help unravel how social behavior is wired into our brains. “Even though octopuses look like they come from outer space, they’re actually not that different from us,“ Dr. Dölen told the New York Times. “We need to be taking full advantage of these compounds to see what they’re doing to the brain.”

RECENT POSTS