This live cam at Frying Pan Tower 34 miles off the North Carolina coast is capturing the brutality of Hurricane Florence as it approaches.
Hurricane Florence Explained
Hurricane Florence just got a lot more scary. The latest model runs have the monster storm stalling off North Carolina before tracking to the southwest along the South Carolina coast. This could amplify the destructive impact of the storm as it hammers coastal areas with high winds and torrential rainfalls fueled by moisture and energy from warm ocean waters. Storm surges and high waves will inundate and batter coastal areas while massive rainfall will generate devastating flooding in inland areas.
Why Florence’s Path Changed
Hurricane Florence was previously expected to follow a conventional track hitting the Southeastern coast of North Carolina and tracking to the northwest in fairly a straight line. However, projections of the storm’s path have shifted dramatically between Tuesday evening and Wednesday.
According to Phillipe Papin, an atmospheric scientist with the U.S. Navy Research Laboratory, a high-pressure ridge over the Midwest grew stronger. Meanwhile the high-pressure ridge behind the storm to the east, which had been pushing the storm northwards, was dissipated by a deepening trough over Bermuda. The midwestern high-pressure ridge is now set to block the storm’s northern progress and eventually turn it to the southwest.
Why is Hurricane #Florence taking this rather unusual track to the west over the Atlantic south of Bermuda?
A strong "blocking ridge" to the North prevents the typical "recurvature" or escape poleward or northward.
ECMWF 12z update still arriving (https://t.co/XcmEbEJxko) pic.twitter.com/c2UbK5CjOf— Ryan Maue | weathermodels.com (@RyanMaue) September 6, 2018
Echoes of Harvey
Hurricane Florence’s projected jog to the southwest is reminiscent of Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall before turning back towards the Gulf of Mexico and tracking back up the coast. This allowed Harvey to draw moisture out of the Gulf of Mexico for an extended period of time and inundate Houston with massive rainfall for days. Some areas received as much as 40 inches of rain. The result was devastating floods and the wettest storm on record. Hurricane Florence is projected to produce similarly intense rainfall, with an estimated 20-30 inches of rain falling across parts of coastal North Carolina and as much as 40 inches in some places.
Why Florence is Such a Strong Storm
If a hurricane were a fire, hot water would be gasoline. Between the tropics where Florence first formed and the Carolina coast, unusually hot water fueled its intensification to a Category 4 storm. Although winds have subsided a bit back to Category 3 levels as it moves into cooler coastal waters, it remains a powerful and life-threatening storm.
It’s well known that hurricanes gain strength from hotter waters. Rising warm air cause storms to churn more violently. Higher sea temperatures generate higher maximum sustained winds in storms, but warmer air and sea temperatures also increase the rainfall potential of storms.
We know from basic physics that warmer air holds more moisture at a given pressure than cooler air. This can be calculated using the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, which shows that at standard pressures, a 1 C rise in temperature yields a 7% increase in the moisture-holding capacity of the air. Warmer sea temperatures increase evaporation off the water’s surface increases as well. The result is more moisture-laden air that generates storms with heavier rainfall. When Florence stalls on or close to shore, the back side of the storm will continue to pull moisture and energy from warmer offshore waters, dramatically increasing rainfall totals.
![[Image of WPC QPF U.S. rainfall potential]](https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT06/refresh/AL0618WPCQPF+gif/212431WPCQPF_sm.gif)
The Bottom Line
Hurricane Florence is potentially the most dangerous storm to hit the east coast in decades. And, there’s more where that came from. The National Hurricane Center is now tracking four named storms out in the Atlantic, tying the all time record. A fifth storm forming in the Gulf of Mexico may break it.
READ MORE
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/09/climate-change-making-hurricanes-intense/
INTERVIEW: Taylor Griffin on Hurricane Florence, the Anonymous Op-Ed, and Obama’s Return to the Campaign Trail
Roughly Explained Editor Taylor Griffin joined BBC Radio 5’s Rhod Sharp and Democratic Strategist Chris Kofinis to discusses Hurricane Florence, the anonymous anti-Trump NY Times op-ed and President Obama’s return to the campaign trail.
An Insider’s Guide to the Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing
People who have not worked on the Hill may have been confused by what happened at the Senate Judiciary Committee this past week. In order to understand all that you saw, you have to understand the political nature of Congressional hearings. Too often they are not convened to seek the truth, nor to let a witness explain their views. Too often they are not meant to allow lawmakers reach a rational conclusion on complex issues. Rather they are scripted political theatre, sometimes as scripted as a play. They are designed to score political points, make the other side look bad – hopefully villainous, and direct the public’s attention to anything other than the hearing. Senators and Congressmen know it. Staffers know it. Both sides do it. The confirmation hearings of Brett M. Kavanaugh are an excellent example.
There are many strategies to achieve those goals.
The first objective of a hearing is to help your political position. Both Senators Corey Booker and Kamala Harris have been mentioned as possible Democratic presidential nominees. That explains the former’s attempt to goad the Senate to censure or expel him for questions about confidential documents, and the latter’s insistence that Judge Kavanaugh ask him about things he likely could not remember. They are not to blame. Remember, both sides do it.
All politicians develop a set of talking points: themes they repeat again and again and again until the public instinctively memorizes them. Witness the claims of Democrat that, if his nomination is approved, Justice Kavanaugh will undo every progressive policy enacted since Franklin Roosevelt was in office. Those are talking points. And very effective ones at that. That observation is not meant to reflect negatively on Democrats. It is just a statement of fact. Remember both sides do it.
Another political ploy is to appeal to your base. Senators and Members do that through questions designed to make their supporters feel good or, in the words of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, to show that you are on the side of peace, prosperity and puppies.
The questions should also reinforce your talking points. Thus, all the questions directed by Democrats to Judge Kavanaugh about abortion, healthcare, voting rights, and racial profiling. Talking points and questions that repeat your talking points are not confined to the minority side of the dais. Remember both sides do it.
Second is to show your opponents as being for war, economic collapse, and the torture of small furry animals. There are many ways to do this. An oft-used strategy is to make it appear that people with whom you disagree act in bad faith or have something to hide. A classic method is to claim that people are unfair, that they are violating the rules. That is what the Democrats did when they protested the production of requested documents and the designation of some as committee confidential. Or when they said the hearing was a rush to judgement. That strategy is not confined solely to Democrats. Remember both sides do it.
Another way to paint your target in a bad light is to ask questions designed to trap them. Those are known as gotchyas. The questions Democrats posed about whether Judge Kavanaugh supports Roe v. Wade, or the healthcare law mandate that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions are good examples. Senators know Mr. Kavanaugh can’t discuss anything that would likely or potentially come before the Supreme Court. But they ask him so they can tell the world he refused to say whether he will support a woman’s right to choose or deny someone with cancer the ability to get treatment. That makes him into the Snidely Whiplash of modern politics. Democrats aren’t the only ones who do this. Remember, both sides do it.
Third is having the public focus not on the witness’s answers or position or the substance of the hearing but on what lawmakers and staff call food fights – intra-party arguments over procedure or the majority’s motives, or calls to adjournment because of some point of order. During the Kavanaugh hearing the Democrats objected to documents that were not produced in a timely fashion or their classification as committee confidential, claimed the hearing was a charade designed to rush Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation through, and motions to adjourn. The continuous outbursts from the audience also served that purpose. The press chases bright shiny objects and is more interested in conflict than in policy. If you give them something to distract their attention, the media will focus on the arguments and not the hearing itself. To give credit where is due, the Democratic senators and their staff used that tactic perfectly. But, repeat after me — remember, both sides do it.
It’s all part of the game. Score points, make the witness and the other side look bad, divert attention. That’s just good staff work. I know. I’ve done it: scripted hearings, drafted talking points, written questions, developed parliamentary strategy. You may not like it but it’s just the way things are on the Hill. Remember, both sides do it.
Matthew Tallmer spent two decades as a Congressional Committee staffer.
What to Make of the Anonymous Anti-Trump NY Times Op-Ed
The New York Times has published an anonymous anti-Trump op-ed, by a senior Trump Administration official, and boy is it a doozy.
It claims that Mr. Trump’s own aides are actively seeking to undermine his worst impulses in order to protect the Republic from a President that, in the author’s telling, is every bit as off his rocker as the most hysterical media stories would have us believe.
“The root of the problem is the president’s amorality,” the author writes. “Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.” The aim of their effort, he says, is to “do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.”
While the President has had some successes, the author writes, Trump doesn’t deserve credit for them. “[T[hese successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective,” he says.
Those are harsh words from someone who is purported to be on Mr. Trump’s side.
The substance of the op-ed is nothing surprising. Trump’s combative and mercurial tenure in office, and the efforts of aides to contain his excesses have been well documented in press reports, and in several books, the most recent of which, Bob Woodard’s Fear: Trump in the White House, has created a major splash in recent days.
What’s more interesting is who wrote it and why. The efficacy of a secret cabal steering Mr. Trump towards the light is not aided by a member of said cabal publicizing their efforts in the New York Times. Mr. Trump is likely to now be even more distrustful of his advisors, more disdainful of Presidential norms and more prone to the sort of erratic behavior the author and his colleagues say they aim to prevent.
What the author expected writing about this in the New York Times to accomplish is anyone’s guess, as is who wrote it. Perhaps the writer plans to later reveal themselves and hopes that writing this will help them to shake off the misdeeds of a President with whom they have grown disenchanted — the classic Washington staffer trick of claiming credit for things their principal does that people like, while claiming to have opposed all those things that they don’t.
Publishing an anonymously sourced op-ed is extraordinary, and a big risk for The Times. It is justified only if the author is truly a highly-placed Administration official. If the author is revealed to be someone outside of the President’s inner-circle, The Times’ credibility will be in question. As for who is behind it, in Washington the guessing game is on. In the leaky gossiping morass of today’s Washington, secrets don’t last long.
The Midterm Elections: Where Things Stand
The week after Labor Day traditionally marks the start of the midterm election season. The 2018 midterms, like most midterm elections, will be a referendum on the President. But, the current occupant of that office, Donald Trump, cuts an especially large figure in this year’s election season.
Mr. Trump faces allegations that he was complicit in a scheme to pay off a porn star and a former Playboy model in advance of the 2016 election; a special counsel investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and Russia; and an energized Democratic base. But, the economy, traditionally the most important measure of a President’s performance remains quite good and most rank and file Republicans continue to support him, despite the misgivings of his party’s moderates and intellectual conservatives.
History is on Democrats’ Side
An incumbent President’s party almost always loses seats during the mid-term election, and that seems almost certain to be the case this time. The question is, how many. Because fewer Republican seats are up for grabs in the Senate, Republicans are all but certain to maintain control of the Congress’ upper chamber. But, in the House, the Democrats stand a real chance of gaining control.
The Democrats need a net gain of 24 seats to control the House and on average, the opposition party gains 33 seats in a President’s first mid-term. Judging by historical trends alone, Democrat control of the House seems likely.
In special elections so far, that seems to be bearing itself out. Democrats outperformed their predicted margins in every special election. If the trend continues, it bodes poorly for Republicans.
Forecast Models
Election forecasting website Five Thirty Eight gives Democrats 4 in 5 odds (80.2%) of gaining control of the House at this point. Five Thirty Eight’s midterm election model predicted a gain of at least 17 seats and as many as 59.
But, that doesn’t mean Republicans are certain to lose the House, there is a 1 in 5 chance they maintain it. Prediction models are about probability, not certainty — a fact that too many failed to consider when prediction models gave Hillary Clinton the advantage against Donald Trump. Nevertheless, median prediction in Five Thirty Eight’s model leaves Democrats with a 25 seat majority.
Energy and Implications
The defining question will be relative energy among the party’s bases. In special elections, the Democrats improved performance was mostly a function of their greater willingness to turn out to the polls. While Republicans still largely support President Trump, they are less enthusiastic about coming out to the polls to show it. If this enthusiasm gap is continued, a Democrat take over of the House is all but certain.
This will present a particular challenge for President Trump and Republicans heading into the 2020 election. With control of the House, Democrats will be in a position to initiate impeachment proceeding against the President. And in the Senate, the situation will be reversed, with more Republican seats up for re-election than Democrat. By 2020, Democrats will stand a chance of gaining control of both houses of Congress and the White House.
But, there’s a risk of Democrats overplaying their hand, as Republicans learned after they attempted to impeach President Clinton in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Depending on what Special Counsel Robert Mueller finds, the public may judge the impeachment case against Mr. Trump to be weak. And if Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats unpopular House leader once again assumes the speakership, control of the House may prove a liability. But, whatever the case, Republicans have the odds stacked against them in the 2018 midterms and beyond.
Journalism is an Honorable Profession Worthy of Defending
Let me defend an honorable profession that is under siege for political reasons.
In my 33 years in the newspaper business, I worked with dedicated people who worked hard to provide readers with the news they wanted and needed. We strived every day to ensure that our reporting was fair to all concerned and often adjusted wording to make sure reports could not be seen as tainted by personal opinions.
In my career, I encountered both conservative and liberal reporters and editors, but all of them worked to eliminate personal feelings from news coverage.
I agree that today’s 24/7 media is worse than in the “golden age” of newspapering. That is the result of attempting to fill the 24-hour news cycle. Much of that coverage is not news; it’s opinion and should be recognized as such.
The panel discussions on CNN or Fox all consist of a few “experts” giving their opinions about the news, and they drone on for hours. That is not news, and any savvy consumer of news should know that. If you are relying on TV for your “news,” you aren’t really getting the news.
I challenge you to turn off the TV and read an established, recognized print newspaper or its website, where you’ll find an overwhelming volume of important, well-researched and honestly reported news.
People like Robert Chain, a California man arrested this week for threatening the lives of reporters at the Boston Globe, or Jarrod Ramos, the gunman who shot five reporters and injured two others at the Capitol Gazette in Annapolis, MD, really frighten me.
So does a president who calls me “the enemy of the people” and warns of “violence” if the Democrats take the House in November. These statements are like a call to arms or a “fire bell in the night.”
In Charlotte Friday, the president referred to Democratic nominees for Congress from North Carolina as “bad” people. America used to see political adversaries as “the loyal opposition.” Our words have shifted in a dangerous way.
——
Hal Tarleton spent more than three decades as a working journalist and editor of The Wilson (NC) Daily Times. You can read more at his blog, The Erstwhile Editor.
INTERVIEW: Taylor Griffin on John McCain’s Legacy
Roughly Explained Editor Taylor Griffin talks with the BBC’s Rhod Sharp about John McCain’s legacy, Trump’s trade deal with Mexico and the Manafort and Cohen cases.
Trump’s NAFTA Agreement with Mexico Explained
President Donald Trump on Monday trumpeted an agreement with Mexico on trade that he believes rights some of the wrongs of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which Mr. Trump has called the worst deal in history. The agreement, which excludes Canada, is part of Mr. Trump’s plan to scrap the North American trade pact in favor of what he considers a better deal.Noticeably absent was NAFTA’s third party, Canada, without whose participation the bi-lateral trade back with Mexico may crumble.
Hurdles still await a final deal, including a skeptical Congress, which must approve the new deal; opposition from Mexico’s newly elected President; and, the question of whether the Trump Administration can cajole Ottawa into joining the new pact.
The agreement on Monday was not final, only an agreement to resolve some of the issues in NAFTA negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office called it “a preliminary agreement in principle … to update … NAFTA with modern provisions representing a 21st century.”
On Friday, President Trump will formally transmit to Congress his intention to sign a new trade pact, which he says he will rename the U.S. Mexico Trade Agreement. That will start a 90-day clock before Congress can act. The new agreement struck with outgoing Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto is focused substantially on auto imports, modifications to textile rules, and updates to the agreement to reflect the digital economy.
The Question of Canada
Trade talks with Canada have stalled for months. U.S. trade negotiators hope to persuade Canada to join the agreement. U.S. trade negotiators said that their strategy was to strike a deal with Mexico first and pressure Canada to follow suit. But, it’s unclear whether Canada will accept the deal under the proposed terms and political pressure on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to take a tough line on trade with make a breakthrough challenging.
“We will only sign a new Nafta that is good for Canada and good for the middle class,” Adam Austen, spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said, according to the New York Times. “Canada’s signature is required.” Ms. Freedland plans to travel to Washington on Tuesday to continue negotiations.
Mr. Peña Nieto‘s successor, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, is considerably less enthusiastic about the agreement and campaigned against Mr. Trump. Meaning that the deal could face headwinds in Mexico if an agreement isn’t approved by the time Mr. Peña Nieto leaves office Dec. 1. That effectively gives the Trump administration five days to bring Canada on board before transmitting a deal to Congress that can be approved by the end of Mr.Peña Nieto’s term.
Mr. Trump said on Monday that he is considering levying tariffs on Canadian auto imports in a bid to encourage America’s northern neighbor to join the pact with Mexico. However, if that doesn’t work, Mr. Trump’s has signaled a willingness to move forward without Canada, scrapping NAFTA for a bi-lateral trade back with just Mexico.
“Ideally we’ll have the Canadians involved,” Robert Lighthizer, the United States trade representative said Monday. “If we don’t have Canada involved, we will notify that we have a bilateral agreement that Canada is welcome to join.” But, an agreement without Canada could face legal challenges as well as opposition from Congress and industry groups.
“A final agreement should include Canada” in order to ensure that NAFTA continues to benefit American businesses and families, said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). Other key lawmakers have also expressed opposition to any agreement without Canada and stressed that any revised deal must be approved by Congress.
“Nafta is a trilateral agreement. It requires legislation and a change to Nafta requires legislation,” said Senator Patrick Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania. “I’ve told them any change has to go through Congress. There is not necessarily complete agreement about that.”
Excluding Canada would mean substantial disruptions to manufacturing supply chains that rely on the free-movement of component parts and goods between all three countries, says the nation’s leading manufacturing trade group.
“Because of the massive amount of movement of goods between the three countries and the integration of operations which make manufacturing in our country more competitive, it is imperative that a trilateral agreement be inked,” Jay Timmons, Head of the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a statement.
NAFTA Tweaked
The deal with Mexico basically keeps the existing NAFTA deal with some modifications. The agreement will sunset after 16 years, and will be reviewed every six years.
It will require 75% of automobile content to be manufactured in the U.S., up from 62.5% currently and also require that 40% to 45% of autos be manufactured with higher-wage labor making $16 or more per hour, a key concession to organized labor, which has been among NAFTA’s loudest critics. That could encourage additional auto manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
The deal will also restrict the use of textiles outside the trade agreement zone, in a bid to disincentivize the use of Chinese textiles in favor of those sourced from North America.
However, no agreement was reached to resolve the steel and aluminum tariffs Trump imposed earlier this year. “That’s the issue we still have to deal with. It’s not dealt with,” Lighthizer said.
Remembering John McCain
A man like John McCain comes along only once in a very long time. As a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam, he was offered release by his captors because his father was an Admiral, he refused, insisting that men captured before him be released first. In the 2008 campaign, as our politics grew coarser, he demanded that respect for his opponent, Barack Obama.
When a supporter at a 2008 town hall denounced President Obama as an “arab” who could not be trusted, Senator McCain took back the microphone before she could finish, shaking his head. “No ma’am,” McCain said emphatically. “He’s a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is all about. He’s not.”
John McCain was the fearless conscience of the Republican Party. He was the unique politician who refused to bend what was right to what was politically expedient. “He understood the world as it is with all its corruption and cruelty. But he thought it a moral failure to accept injustice as the inescapable tragedy of our fallen nature,” wrote Mark Salter, a friend and long-time aide who knew Senator McCain better than anyone.
At a time when vindictiveness and partisan invective are the currency of politics, Senator McCain called on our better angels. In his last major speech on the Senate floor, he implored his colleagues to kindle the sense of public service that had so animated his career.
“I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to trust each other again and by so doing better serve the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the Internet. To hell with them. They don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood,” McCain said.
John McCain ran for President twice. Twice he was defeated. Yet, as far as anyone can tell, he never held a grudge. It is fitting that he requested that the two men who defeated him, President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, to be the ones to give his eulogy. And that respect was returned by his old political rivals, who issued poignant statements in the wake of his passing.
“Some lives are so vivid, it is difficult to imagine them ended. Some voices are so vibrant, it is hard to think of them stilled,” Former President George W. Bush wrote in his statement.
“Few of us have been tested the way John once was, or required to show the kind of courage that he did,” former President Obama said of his former rival. “But all of us can aspire to the courage to put the greater good above our own. At John’s best, he showed us what that means.”
In his book, The Restless Wave, Senator McCain reflected on his own life. “It’s been quite a ride,” he wrote. “I’ve known great passions, seen amazing wonders, fought in a war, and helped make a peace. I’ve lived very well and I’ve been deprived of all comforts. I’ve been as lonely as a person can be and I‘ve enjoyed the company of heroes. I’ve suffered the deepest despair and experienced the highest exultation. I made a small place for myself in the story of America and the history of my times.”
John McCain lived a life of honor, courage and integrity few can match. Now he’s gone, at a time when we need men like him the most. But he leaves with the ultimate satisfaction, that of a life well lived.
Taylor Griffin worked on Senator McCain’s 2008 Presidential campaign.
Trump, Cohen and the Hush Money Explained
The guilty plea of President Donald Trump’s long-time fixer, attorney, and confidant Michael Cohen revealed the inner-workings of a complex scheme to keep damaging stories of Mr. Trump’s extramarital affairs under wraps. It involved a web of shell companies, a supermarket tabloid and, if Mr. Cohen is to be believed, the blessing of Mr. Trump himself.
Among other things, Mr. Cohen pled guilty to violating federal campaign laws when he made payments to keep the embarrassing details of Mr. Trump’s extramarital affairs with a Playboy model and a porn star from becoming public and damaging his campaign for President. Mr. Cohen also said that he did this at Mr. Trump’s direction and with his full knowledge. At the center of all of it, was Mr. Trump’s close friend David Pecker. Pecker is chairman and CEO of American Media Incorporated (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer.
According to prosecutors in the Michael Cohen case, months after Mr. Trump declared his campaign for president, Mr. Pecker offered to help Mr. Trump’s campaign by identifying negative stories about his relationships with women and brokering deals to keep them quiet. Under the arrangement, AMI and it’s supermarket tabloid National Enquirer acted as an early warning system for the Trump team, alerting Mr. Cohen to negative stories and then working with him to keep them quiet.
The Former Playboy Model
In June of 2016, Keith Davidson, an attorney for Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model with whom Mr. Trump had an affair a decade earlier, approached National Inquirer to sell her story. McDougal had decided to go public after rumors about her affair with Trump began appearing on social media, preferring to tell her story on her own terms. What Ms. McDougal and her lawyer didn’t realize was that the National Enquirer was actively working with Mr. Cohen to suppress stories like hers.
Soon after Mr. Davidson approached the National Enquirer, Mr. Pecker reached out to Mr. Cohen to inform him of the story. Mr. Cohen urged Mr. Pecker to acquire the rights to it and promised to reimburse AMI for the cost of doing so.
In August 2016, AMI paid Ms. McDougal $150,000 for the lifetime rights to the story of her relationship with “any then-married man,” which was code for Mr. Trump. Under the deal, AMI also promised to feature Ms. McDougal on magazine covers and publish fitness columns authored by her — which, for the most part, never materialized.
The real purpose of the agreement, according to the criminal information accompanying Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea, was to prevent Ms. McDougal’s story from becoming public to avoid damaging Mr. Trump’s election chances.
A few weeks later, Mr. Cohen struck a deal with AMI to purchase the rights to the story about Ms. McDougal’s affair with Mr. Trump for $125,000. Mr. Cohen set up a shell company called “Resolution Consultants, Inc.” for the purpose of the transaction, but Mr. Pecker called it off before the transaction actually took place.
While that transaction was never completed, prosecutors charged that AMI’s payment to Ms. McDougal was an illegal campaign contribution because the payment was made in coordination with Mr. Cohen, who promised to reimburse AMI, to avoid the publication of a damaging story that would impact the election. As a corporation, AMI is legally barred from contributing to campaigns.
The Porn Star
The National Inquirer early warning system also played into another payoff Mr. Cohen engineered, this time to Stephanie Clifford, a porn star going by the stage name Stormy Daniels who, like Ms. McDougal, planned to go public with a claim to have had an affair with Mr. Trump.
Prosecutors said that in early October of 2016, Ms. Clifford’s agent reached out to Enquirer editor-in-chief Dylan Howard to inform him that Daniels was willing to go public about her affair with Mr. Trump.
Mr. Howard and his boss Mr. Pecker contacted Mr. Cohen to let him know about Ms. Clifford’s plans. They then connected Mr. Cohen with Mr. Davidson, the same lawyer that represented Ms. McDougal. Mr. Cohen quickly struck a deal to pay Ms. Clifford $130,000 in exchange for her silence. Ms. Clifford signed the non-disclosure agreement.
But, by late October, Mr. Cohen still hadn’t made the promised payment to Ms. Clifford nor had he executed the non-disclosure agreement.
After hearing from Mr. Davidson that Ms. Clifford was preparing to sell her story elsewhere, according to prosecutors, Mr. Howard texted Mr. Cohen that “we have to coordinate something on the matter [Mr. Davidson] is calling you about or it could look bad for everyone.” He and Mr. Pecker called Mr. Cohen over an encrypted messaging app and convinced Mr. Cohen to complete the payment.
Mr. Cohen made arrangements with Mr. Davidson to make the promised payment with $130,000 that he borrowed using a home equity line of credit through the bank account of a shell company he created to do the deal called “Essential Consultants LLC. He recorded the payoff as a “retainer” fee.
Mr. Cohen expected Mr. Trump to reimburse him for the expenses and hammered out an arrangement with Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg for the company to pay him 12 monthly installments of $35,000, which it recorded in its books as “legal fees,” obscuring the true nature of the payments. Mr. Cohen pled guilty to the prosecutors’ charge that the payment was an illegal campaign contribution that exceeded the $2,700 contribution limit.
What Trump Knew
Mr. Trump and his aides have long denied that he had any knowledge of this. Back in April, when Mr. Trump was asked whether he knew about the payment to Ms. Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, he answered emphatically, “no.” A few month earlier, in January, Michael Cohen called the allegations “outlandish.” Both were lying.
Mr. Cohen has now pled guilty to making those same outlandish payments, and Trump has now acknowledged that he not only knew about them, but in the case of the payment to Ms. Clifford, reimbursed Cohen for it. alleges that Mr. Trump knew about the payments all along. Recently, Mr. Cohen’s attorneys produced a tape-recorded conversation of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump discussing the deal to buy McDougal’s story from AMI, which backs up at least part of the story.
In spite of the tape, Mr. Trump and his defenders still insist that Mr. Cohen is a liar and that Mr. Trump only knew about these payments after the fact.
But Mr. Pecker confirmed Mr. Trump’s knowledge of the payments as well. Mr. Pecker has also struck a deal with prosecutors to cooperate in exchange for immunity to prosecution. Which means, it isn’t just Cohen’s word against Trump.
What it Means for Trump
Mr. Trump arguably has legal jeopardy, but it’s not clear cut. If he directed Mr. Cohen to commit crimes on his behalf, as Mr. Cohen has already sworn under oath that he did, Mr. Trump could be criminally liable for them as well.
But, that doesn’t mean Trump will face criminal charges. Nor does it mean that a jury would convict Mr. Trump. The jury hung in a similar case involving John Edwards’ payoff to a mistress during his Presidential campaign. Edwards argued that the payments were intended to avoid his dying wife from learning about the affair rather than to influence the election. Mr. Trump might argue the same. The language of the statute is ambiguous enough that this might be enough to establish reasonable doubt.
But, that’s probably an academic question. As a sitting President, it’s generally understood that Mr. Trump would be immune from criminal prosecution while in office. Congress could impeach him, but at least as long as Republicans control the House of Representatives, the case against him based on these charges alone probably wouldn’t be strong enough for them to take that extraordinary step.
Which brings us to the irony in all this. Mr. Trump arose to power promising to drain the swamp of a lawless Washington elite whose crimes he claimed went unpunished by virtue of their office. If the allegations against Mr. Trump are true, he may have proven his own point.
Michael Cohen: Lawyer, Fixer, Partner in Crime?
In a federal courtroom in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, President Trump’s longtime lawyer, fixer, and (perhaps literal) partner in crime pleaded guilty to eight felonies; and while the President may not have been mentioned by name, his presence was undeniable. Americans have spent the past year and a half debating Russia and obstruction to exhaustion, but Counts Seven and Eight of Mr. Cohen’s Criminal Information suggest that the debate might extend much further — to potential criminal liability of the President himself.
In the peculiar circumstances of a sitting President, a criminal indictment is unlikely. This is because under longstanding interpretations by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), “a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.” While an OLC memorandum of opinion doesn’t have the force of law, it’s likely that Robert Mueller, the special counsel, accepts OLC’s interpretation.
Still, it’s worth considering what Mr. Trump’s potential criminal exposure might be if he were anyone other than the President of the United States. Whether by indictment, or the Special Counsel’s report, the conclusions of Mr. Mueller’s investigation will eventually be made known to the American people. So, it’s worth analyzing how Mr. Trump might be implicated in Michael Cohen’s guilty plea.
Counts Seven and Eight of Mr. Cohen’s Criminal Information are related to campaign finance violations. Under federal campaign laws, individual contributions to a presidential campaign are limited to $2,700, corporations are prohibited from contributing directly to the candidates, and candidates are prohibited from accepting corporate contributions.
Count Seven charges Mr. Cohen with causing an unlawful corporate contribution stemming from National Enquirer’s $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal. Count Eight charges him with making an excessive campaign contribution by his $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels.
In pleading guilty, Mr. Cohen acknowledged and admitted to the facts alleged in the Information. Those facts include:
- Mr. Cohen took the actions alleged in Counts Seven and Eight in coordination with other members of the Trump campaign and in an effort to influence the election.
- Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement of the Daniels payment from the executives of the Trump Organization (referenced only as “the Company”) in the amount of $180,035 and that the executives “grossed up” the requested reimbursement to $360,000 for tax purposes, and then added a bonus of $60,000 bringing the total to $420,000 to be paid in monthly installments of $35,000 over the course of twelve months.
- As instructed by the executives, Mr. Cohen submitted invoices for these payments referencing a retainer agreement and payment for services rendered. His invoices were forwarded to another employee who was instructed by email, “Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.”
- There was no such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices Mr. Cohen submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.
Trump’s Culpability
Looking to President Trump’s culpability based on these facts, it appears that he personally violated campaign finance laws by accepting an unlawful campaign contribution from a corporation (National Enquirer) and a contribution in excess of the $2,700 limit through Mr. Cohen’s payment to Stormy Daniels. If proven that the President had knowledge of Mr. Cohen’s actions, he would be guilty of conspiring and/or aiding and abetting Mr. Cohen and others in those offenses.
However, the list does not necessarily end there. Because the Trump Organization reimbursed Mr. Cohen for his payment to Stormy Daniels, the President’s company could be indicted with making an unlawful corporate donation to the Trump campaign. Furthermore, assuming that the Trump Organization wrote off Mr. Cohen’s $420,000 payment as tax-deductible legal fees (as they were billed and recorded), the company could be charged with tax fraud as well.
Under the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine, an officer of a company may be convicted of an offense alongside the corporation simply by the nature of his position. The doctrine imposes strict liability on high ranking corporate officials. In other words, without having to prove any awareness or knowledge of the criminal activity, the President could personally be found guilty of campaign finance violations or tax fraud committed by the Trump Organization.
I think we can all take a moment away from the debate and agree that Michael Cohen has not done the President any favors.
Laura Beaver is a practicing criminal defense attorney, representing clients in federal and state court.
Michael Cohen Guilty Plea by Taylor Griffin on Scribd
FACT CHECK: Did Former NSA Chief Mike Rogers Warn Trump of a ‘Deep State’ Plot?
To some of President Donald Trump’s defenders, Admiral Mike Rogers, the recently retired NSA Director, is poised to blow the whistle on a purported deep state conspiracy against Mr. Trump. Mr. Rogers’ elevation as a folk hero among the pro-Trump conspiracy community has its roots in a visit he made to Trump Tower in November 2016, as then President-elect Trump was preparing to take office. According to a Washington Post report, the incident rankled his superiors in the Obama Administration, several of whom were already seeking his removal as NSA Director.
“In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower,” the Post reported.”That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters.”
Just a month earlier, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., had recommended to President Barack Obama that Mr. Rogers be relieved of his post. Mr. Carter, according to the report was frustrated with Admiral Rogers’ performance leading the agency, while Mr. Clapper sought to restructure the NSA under civilian leadership. Ultimately, Mr. Obama elected to keep Mr. Rogers in his post. Still, his rocky relationship with Mr. Carter and especially Mr. Clapper are a mark of credibility with those who believe Mr. Trump is the victim of a “deep state” plot.
At the time, Mr. Rogers was being considered by President-elect Trump to replace Mr. Clapper as director of national intelligence, which seems a plausible-enough reason to call on Mr. Trump without telling his bosses in the outgoing administration. But, some of Mr. Trump’s defenders see a more exotic explanation. They believe that Mr. Rogers was there to warn Mr. Trump that Mr. Obama and his lieutenants were spying on him — a claim that every U.S. intelligence official, including Mr. Rogers, has refuted.
In Congressional testimony last spring, Mr. Rogers disputed Mr. Trump’s claim that Mr. Obama ordered his “‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower.”
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017
“I have seen nothing on the NSA side that we have engaged in such activity, nor that anyone ever asked us to engage in such activity,” Mr. Rogers told the House Intelligence Committee.
This is not the only occasion in which Mr. Rogers has refuted theories popular among Mr. Trump’s defenders. At that same hearing, Mr. Rogers also shot down a related theory floated by a Fox News personality and subsequently echoed by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, that Mr. Obama had enlisted GCHQ, Britain’s equivalent to the NSA, to spy on the Trump’s campaign. When asked by Rep. Adam Schiff, the committee’s ranking democrat if he made such a request to his British counterparts, Mr. Rogers shot back, “No sir. Nor would I. That would be expressly against the construct of the Five Eyes agreement that has been in place for decades.”
Mr. Rogers also reportedly refused a request from Mr. Trump, made soon after James Comey, the former FBI director confirmed that the Bureau was investigating potential ties between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election, to publicly state that there was no evidence of collusion. When asked about this in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing last year, Rogers sidestepped the question.
“In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate, and to the best of my recollection during that same period of service I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so,” Rogers said during the June 2017 public hearing.
When pressed, by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) whether he had ever “been asked by the president or the White House to influence an ongoing investigation, Mr. Rogers refused to deny it. “I’m not going to discuss the specifics of discussions with the president of the United States,” Rogers said.
But, several weeks later, Mr. Rogers reportedly told the Committee in a closed-door session that Mr. Trump had indeed urged him to publicly say that there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia. While Mr. Rogers thought the interaction odd enough that Richard Leggett, his deputy, documented it in a memo, Mr. Rogers maintained that he did not take the request as an order to do anything improper.
Earlier this year, Rogers testified to Congress — with evident frustration — that he had been granted no additional authority by Mr. Trump to combat potential Russian interference in the midterm elections.
“What I see on the Cyber Command side leads me to believe that if we don’t change the dynamic here, that this is going to continue, and 2016 won’t be viewed as isolated,” Rogers said. “This is something that will be sustained over time.”
He said of Russian interference: “We’re taking steps, but we’re probably not doing enough.” He said that sanctions and other measures haven’t “changed the calculus or the behavior” by Moscow. “They haven’t paid a price at least that’s sufficient to get them to change their behavior,” he added.
When asked whether he had been instructed by the White House to do more to stop Russian meddling, Rogers said, he had not. While he had taken additional within his pursue, “I haven’t been granted any, you know, additional authorities, capacity and capability, and — no, that’s certainly true.”
Mike Rogers retired earlier this year. He’s now a private citizen and free to say whatever he pleases. If there was a “deep state” plot to undermine Trump, surely he’d be anxious to expose it. Yet he has yet to do so. We might ask, why? The most obvious explanation is that he simply does not believe such a plot exists.
Mr. Rogers’ pro-Trump fans might argue that he fears that no media outlet would report on such an allegation sympathetically. To that, I say, Admiral Rogers, if you’re listening, Roughly Explained will print your story in full unabridged form anytime. I eagerly await your call, but I don’t expect that it will ever come. So much so that if it turns out that Mr. Rogers publicly declares that the Russia investigation a hoax, a witch hunt, or a deep state conspiracy I will eat these words — literally, I will print out a copy of this post and eat it. Thus far, Mr. Rogers has given little reason to fear that I will be forced to make good on that wager.
VERDICT: Unsupported
China’s Belt and Road and the Geopolitics of Infrastructure
The book on the Belt and Road Initiative – a Chinese government plan to build infrastructure such as fiber optic cables, ports, railways, and highways along a 21st-century version of the historic Silk Road – was literally written nearly a decade ago.
“The Ultimate Weapon is No Weapon: Human Security and New Rules of War and Peace,” a 2010 book by the late Lt. Col. Shannon Beebe, a West Point graduate who helped form AfriCom, the U.S Military Command for Africa, and Mary Kaldor, a professor and director of Center for the Study of Global Governance at the London School of Economics and Political Science, argued that the root causes of terrorism, armed and internal conflict were poverty, disease, health, inadequate sanitation and water supplies, discrimination and the effects of climate change. Beebe and Kaldor said that in order to achieve national and international security, Western nations needed to address and solve those problems. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that Shannon Beebe was killed in a 2011 private plane crash along with Liz Pignatello. Both were close friends.)
U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis seems to agree with Beebe and Kaldor. Mattis testified before Congress that climate change is a national security threat. In an apparent bow toward human security, Mattis famously told Congress “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately,” the implication being that diplomacy and international aid can act as an adjunct to defense and a deterrent to war.
Joel Wuthnow, a research fellow at the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs at the U.S National Defense University, testified before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Commission, that by [f]ostering infrastructure development and regional economic connectivity,” BIR “can help address the roots of instability by lifting neighboring populations out of poverty.” That is a view shared by Chinese government officials, including the head of the Central Bank, the functional equivalent of the Federal Reserve, and a former ambassador.
A recent article in The Economist cited an analysis of BRI written by Peter Cai, the group chief advisory for Virgin Australia who was an economics journalist at major financial publications, which quoted the former Chinese ambassador to Pakistan as having said that BRI aims to solve security issues: “The best medicine is to address the terrorism problem the is through tackling the incubator of terrorism, mainly poverty.” Cai also wrote in his analysis for the Lowery Institute for International Policy, an Australian policy think tank, that the head of the Chinese Central Bank said BRI would bring China both “economic and national security dividends.”
Jonathan Hillman, a China scholar, testified before the commission that a goal of BRI was to “strengthen hard infrastructure with new roads and railways.” He testified that BRI “has focused on transportation projects: road, railroads, seaports, and dry ports” and that it “will expand in the future to include power plants, pipelines, telecommunications, and other connectivity infrastructure.”
Beebe told me that, while a Senior Africa Analyst for the Army’s deputy chief of staff for intelligence, he was tasked with determining what African military and civilian leaders needed to ensure security. Beebe said that, to a person, the leaders did not need weapons or American soldiers on the ground, rather they needed infrastructure improvements, such as water and sewage systems, roads, electrification, and medical facilities.
During his service in Iraq, Beebe says the key indicator of the attitude to U.S. forces among Iraqi civilians was whether the Army Corps of Engineers or the Navy’s construction battalions had built infrastructure. Where they had, the civilians were likely to welcome U.S. forces and see them as them as friends; where they had not, civilians viewed them as an occupying force and worked with Jihadist.
Three years before the launch of BRI and shortly before his death, Beebe told me said that time and time again he saw China undertake massive infrastructure developments. I distinctly remember his complaint that everywhere he looked in Africa he saw a road or a water pipeline or a sewer or a hospital that had been built by China.
Beebe warned that, unless the U.S. and our allies devoted the same resources into infrastructure development as the Chinese did, we risked repeating the same mistake we had made in Iraq and elsewhere: If we did not provide adequate human security, another nation would and that effectively turn our allies into potential adversaries.
He said he had made that point in briefings with senior military officials, at defense seminars, and in his book. I do not know whether people in the Pentagon absorbed his lectures, understood the briefing, or read his book, but there is no public indication that they acted on it. And that could turn out to be a national security blunder of monumental proportions.
Ohio’s 12th District Special Election Explained
Today’s special election in OH-12 will be the last time voters will go to the polls in a Congressional election before the crucial midterm elections this fall. With its mix of Democratic-leaning suburbia and rural working-class communities, Ohio’s 12th Congressional District is the kind of district that Republicans will need to win if they are to maintain control of the House. If Republicans can hold on here, it will put a damper on Democrats’ hopes for a mid-term wave. But, a Democratic victory tonight in OH-12 might not spell doom, but it will give the GOP much to worry about.
Tightening Race
The race between Republican State Senator Troy Balderson and Democratic Franklin County Recorder Danny O’Connor has tightened substantially since last month. According to a recent Monmouth University poll, Balderson, the Republican, garners 44% of all potential voters versus 43% for O’Connor, the Democrat. It’s a substantially closer race than it was a month ago when Balderson led 43% to 33% in Monmouth’s poll. But, a relatively large number of potential voters (11%) remain undecided.
The central Ohio district, which Trump won by 10% in 2016, includes affluent, heavily Democratic suburbs north and east of Columbus, as well as deep red rural, working-class counties. It is a district that has traditionally been represented by business-friendly moderate Republicans including Governor John Kasich and, most recently, Rep. Pat Tiberi, who vacated the seat to lead the Ohio Business Roundtable.
The Trump Factor
President Trump will likely be a significant factor in who voters support in today’s election. Monmouth’s poll found that 79% of potential voters said that they felt it was important to cast a vote on support of (or opposition to) President Trump. That was especially true for Democrats, 93% of whom said that their opinion of Trump would be important versus 81% of Republicans. Trump’s approval rating in the district was 46%, according to the poll. That is a little better than Trump’s approval nationwide, but still lower than the 49% of OH-12 voters that disapproved of the job Trump is doing as President.
But, weighing in Baldrich’s favor, the Trump/GOP tax cuts are relatively popular in the District, with 47% approving of the plan versus 35% disapproving, according to Monmouth. Potential voters also slightly prefer Republican control of Congress (41%) over Democratic control (36%). A fifth of potential voters (21%) said it didn’t matter either way.
However, President Trump’s trade wars could prove a drag on Balderson’s support in OH-12. Trump performed strongly in the district’s rural counties, which have been hit hard by tariffs on agricultural exports levied in response to Trump’s trade policies. A plurality of potential voters in the district (46%) think Trump’s trade policies are hurting the local economy, while just 34% say they are helping.
Turnout Key
Who will win depends heavily on turn out. Monmouth’s poll gives the advantage to Balderson 49% to 44% if turnout is low, but O’Connor narrowly outpolls Balderson (46% to 45%) if there is a surge in Democratic voters similar to that seen in other recent special elections. If the voters who turn up look like a conventional mid-term electorate, Balderson gets has 46% versus 45% for O’Connor.
Still, none of these scenarios are comfortably outside the poll’s +/- 4.3% margin of error, making this race a classic toss-up.
Cohen Versus Trump
President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, spent years as Mr. Trump’s fixer and staunchest defender. Now, Mr. Cohen, who once told an interviewer that he would gladly “take a bullet for Mr. Trump,” has turned on him. It is a development that could have profound implications for the President.
Mr. Cohen is reportedly prepared to tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller that President Trump knew about the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting in advance, contradicting Mr. Trump’s denials. A few days earlier, Mr. Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis handed CNN a recording Mr. Cohen secretly made of September 2016 conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, in which they discussed a deal to keep a Playboy model’s allegation of an extramarital affair with Mr. Trump under wraps. Mr. Trump’s camp had previously denied that Mr. Trump knew anything about an arrangement to buy the rights to former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story.
Trump’s ‘Consigliere’
In conversations with confidants, Mr. Cohen often described his role within Mr. Trump’s organization as akin to that of Tom Hagen, the consigliere to fictional mob boss Vito Corleone in The Godfather movies. In Trump world, Mr. Cohen, was the proverbial man who knows where the bodies are buried, often because he buried them himself.
From his post atop Trump Tower, Mr. Cohen helped Mr. Trump navigate his thorniest business problems and tamp down scandals that might damage his political prospects. Mr. Cohen engineered payments to buy the silence of women with whom Trump had affairs and earned a reputation for making outrageous threats against reporters who planned to write unflattering articles about Trump. Importantly, Mr. Cohen, whose own business dealings often involved some rather sketchy characters, was at the center of a broad array of Mr. Trump’s business ventures.
Mr. Cohen’s loyalty to Mr. Trump, however, has come at a cost. He now faces a wide-ranging corruption investigation stemming, in part, from his activities while in Mr. Trump’s employ. Mr. Cohen now appears to be fishing for a deal with prosecutors to escape charges being brought against him by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Mr. Cohen also figures prominently in as yet unproven accusations that Mr. Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia in its efforts to swing the 2016 election towards Mr. Trump. A Democrat-funded opposition research dossier prepared by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele alleges that Mr. Cohen was a key interlocutor between Trump’s campaign and Moscow, a charge which Mr. Cohen vehemently denies.
However, Mr. Cohen‘s potential connections to the Russia affair don’t end there. He took the lead in a new effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow that continued into 2016, well after Mr. Trump launched his campaign. In this, Mr. Cohen worked closely with a Russian-born, Brooklyn-raised, long-time business associate of both Trump’s and Cohen’s named Felix Sater. In a series of emails discussing the potential dealt Mr. Sater, probably overstating his influence, mused about securing Kremlin backing for Mr. Trump’s campaign and making money on the Trump Tower Moscow deal in the process.
“I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected,” Mr. Sater wrote in a 2015 email. “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins [sic] team to buy in on this, I will.”
Mr. Cohen downplayed the emails, saying that nothing ever came of the deal and the talk of securing Russian help for Trump’s campaign was just hyperbole. “He has sometimes used colorful language and has been prone to ‘salesmanship,’” a statement from Mr. Cohen said in reference to Satter. “I ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible.”
While there is no evidence that Mr. Satter ever delivered on his boast, and the accusations against Cohen made in the dossier remain, for the most part, unsubstantiated, if there is any truth the allegations of links between Mr. Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin effort to meddle in the 2016 election, Mr. Cohen likely has a story to tell that Mr. Mueller will be very interested in hearing.
Even if there is no so-called “collusion” between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia, Mr. Cohen — long the keeper of Mr. Trump’s secrets — could still spell trouble for the President.
According to a New York Times report, “President Trump’s advisers have concluded that a wide-ranging corruption investigation into his personal lawyer poses a greater and more imminent threat to the president than even the special counsel’s investigation.”
Guns Blazing
Mr. Trump’s defenders are mounting a furious effort to discredit Mr. Cohen, led by Mr. Trump’s current personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani, that have grown especially intense following reports that Mr. Cohen was prepared to tell Mr. Mueller that Mr. Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting. Mr. Giuliani has called Cohen an “incredible liar” who has “been lying for years” and has a “tremendous motive to lie now.”
This stands in stark contrast to Mr. Giuliani’s take on Mr. Cohen just a few weeks ago when he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “I have no concerns that Michael Cohen is going to do anything but tell the truth” or back in May when Mr. Giuliani described him as an “honest, honorable lawyer.”
In a series of confusing interviews Monday, Mr. Giuliani sought to knock down Mr. Cohen’s allegations about the Trump Tower meeting as “categorically untrue.” Mr. Giuliani also denied that Mr. Trump participated in a previously unreported separate meeting in which Trump’s advisors discussed the upcoming meeting with the Russian lawyer, which was curious because no one had publically claimed that Mr. Trump was there. Mr. Giuliani later clarified that this was something Mr. Cohen’s camp was telling reporters. But, Mr. Giuliani said the whole thing is a “figment of [Mr. Cohen’s] imagination,” and then added that the meeting did happen, it was just about something else. Interestingly, among the purported attendees was Rick Gates, who is already cooperating with Mr. Mueller’s probe, and could potentially corroborate Mr. Cohen’s claim, assuming he actually made it.
Why the Trump Tower Meeting Matters
The strong reaction to Mr. Cohen’s Trump Tower claim is a tacit acknowledgment that if it proves to be true, it could have significant implications for Mr. Trump. If he knew about the meeting, he presumably also knew about the Russian’s intentions to help his campaign. And, if he did, then it would cast his repeated denials that Russia intended to help his campaign and his reluctance to accept that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election in a far more suspicious light.
While Mr. Cohen has much to gain from his allegations against Trump, and he’s hardly known for his honesty, there’s reason to suspect that in this case, he might be telling the truth.
It is hard to believe that Donald Trump, who has always maintained tight control of his organization would not be informed of something as important as the impending delivery of a horde of damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
It’s also interesting that two days before the Trump Tower meeting, Trump said he planned to give a major speech the following Monday in which he would reveal new information about Clinton. After the Trump Tower meeting failed to yield the promised dirt on Clinton, Trump’s speech never happened. It’s not unreasonable to speculate that these two things were connected. It seems plausible that Trump announced his planned speech because he anticipated that the Trump Tower meeting would yield negative information about Hillary Clinton. When it didn’t, he abandoned these plans.
In an email sent to Donald Trump junior by Rob Goldstein, a British publicist who acted as a go between with Kremlin-connected Russian oligarch Aris Agalarov, the information on Hillary Clinton promised at the Trump Tower meeting was “part of Russia, and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
The next month, after cybersecurity firms attributed the DNC hack to Russia’s intelligence services, Mr. Trump tweeted that, “The new joke in town is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails, which should never have been written (stupid), because Putin likes me?”
The new joke in town is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails, which should never have been written (stupid), because Putin likes me
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2016
In a May 2017 interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Mr. Trump declared “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story,” saying “It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.” If Mr. Trump knew about Goldstone’s email and thus was aware that the Russian government’s support for him, then Mr. Trump’s attempts to discredit reports, including from his own intelligence services, about Russia’s role in the DNC hack make it look like he’s covering for Moscow.
It also makes Mr. Trump’s statement suggesting that Russia hack missing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server more troubling. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump implored in a press conference in late July.
While this could be dismissed as a joke at the time, if Mr. Trump knew that the Russian government was trying to help him, then it suggests he might have made this request knowing that the Russians were, in fact, “listening.” According to Special Counsel Mueller’s recent indictment of a dozen Russian spies in connection with the hacking of Democratic emails, we know that the Russians apparently heard him. The very same day Trump suggested that Moscow go looking for his rivals personal emails, Russian hackers attempted to penetrate servers associated with Hillary Clinton’s personal office.
What if Cohen is Lying?
What if Michael Cohen is lying and Trump didn’t know about the Trump Tower meeting? While it seems unlikely Trump was in the dark, if he was, it raises the question of why the Trump aides involved, including Donald Trump Jr., Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner would have kept it from him. After all, if they saw nothing wrong with the meeting, as Donald Jr. claims, there would be no reason not to tell the boss. So, if they didn’t tell him, it suggests that his aides knew that there was something wrong with accepting damaging information on his opponent from the Russians and sought to protect Trump from this by maintaining plausible deniability.
So, one of two things are probably true: Either Mr. Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting, or Trump’s campaign aides agreed to the meeting knowing that it was shady all along. Whatever the case, as Mr. Mueller’s Russia probe moves into its final stages, unraveling exactly what happened during that meeting at Trump Tower will be key.
Mr. Trump has steadfastly maintained that there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia. But, if Mr. Trump has secrets to hide, Russia-related or otherwise, it’s a good bet Mr. Cohen knows them. For Mr. Trump, the prospect of Michael Cohen, the man that said he would take a bullet for him, electing to dodge it instead is undoubtedly unnerving.
Is the FISA Court Really Just a ‘Rubber Stamp’?
The recent release of FISA surveillance warrant applications related to former Trump advisor Carter Page has thrust the once obscure FISA court back into the spotlight, resurfacing criticism that the high proportion of warrant applications the FISA court approves (95% in 2017), show that it is just a “rubber stamp” for an FBI run amuck.
While it is true that the FISA Court grants the overwhelming majority of FISA warrant requests, once you understand how the FISA process works, that high approval rate starts to make a lot more sense.
What Is FISA?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 in response to Nixon-era abuses of government surveillance authority. Before FISA, government surveillance under the guise of national security including snooping on Americans was essentially unchecked. FISA was created to put in place a process for judicial oversight of domestic surveillance to prevent abuses, such as wiretapping political opponents. Under FISA, the government must seek a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for surveillance on U.S. soil related to national security.
The FISC is made up of eleven federal district court judges, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, that serve on a rotating basis. Because the FISC deals with extremely sensitive national security matters, it operates in almost complete secrecy.
FISA Warrants Are Different
FISA warrants are different than traditional Title III surveillance warrants used in criminal cases. FISA warrants authorize surveillance on foreign powers, agents of foreign powers, or suspected terrorists. Title III warrants authorize wiretaps used to gather evidence in criminal cases, and require that the government demonstrate probable cause that the proposed target has committed a crime, while FISA warrants require that the government show probable cause that the intended target is either a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power engaged in clandestine intelligence activities.
According to a recent Daily Beast article written by three former federal prosecutors, “probable cause means a ‘fair probability.’ It is more than a ‘mere suspicion’ but far less than the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard required to convict someone of a crime.”
The bar for a FISA warrant is somewhat lower bar than the probable cause of a crime standard for traditional Title III warrants. But, as Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent who specialized in counterterrorism investigations explains, this is because “when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country.
A ‘Rubber Stamp’?
It is true that the FISA Court approves the overwhelming majority of FISA warrant applications. In 2017, the FISC approved 95% of warrant applications. That’s a really high win rate. But, this doesn’t mean that the government can just put any old thing in front of the FISC and spy on whomever they want.
According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in 2017, the FISC received 1,614 applications. Of those, it:
- granted 1,147;
- modified 391;
- denied in part 50; and,
- denied in full 26.
But, as high as the approval rate for FISA warrants is, it’s actually not as unusual as it seems. Regular old Title III criminal wiretap warrants actually have higher approval rates. In 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, only two out of the 3,168 Title III warrant applications were rejected at the state or federal level — a stunning 99.9994% approval rate!
Betting on Sure Things
According to Conor Clarke, who analyzed FISA and Title III approval rates in a Stanford Law Review article, one major reason for this is that the government only applies for FISA warrants that it thinks are highly likely to be approved. The government is very familiar with what the FISA court will and won’t accept, and simply selects cases it will take before the court accordingly.
“Because it is costly to make…an application (in time, resources, and reputation) and because the executive has long-running knowledge of how the FISC treats applications, there is little reason to expect agencies to submit losing requests,” Clarke wrote.
A ‘Byzantine Process’
Further, obtaining a FISA warrant is a Byzantine process that involves numerous layers of checks before a warrant ever reaches the FISC. When the FBI requests a FISA warrant, agents first prepare an application and send it up the chain at the FBI for approval.
According to Rangappa, such warrants must be reviewed, and ultimately approved, by an FBI Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel, and the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before it is sent to the unit-level Supervisor at FBI headquarters. Based on feedback from the internal review process, agents often make changes to the warrant to address any concerns encountered along the way.
From there, the application goes to the Department of Justice’s National Security Division where it is reviewed for accuracy. “If anything looks unsubstantiated,” Rangappa says, “the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court.”
The Bottom Line
We probably shouldn’t make too much of the high approval rates for FISA warrants. Given the similarly high approval rates for more pedestrian warrants used in criminal cases, it’s not as much of an outlier as it may first appear.
In light of the multiple levels of scrutiny and extensive scrubbing that FISA warrants undergo before they are submitted to the court, the fact that most are approved is not really all that surprising. “Ultimately,” Clarke writes, “we should care about the substance of what the court approves, not the frequency with which it does so.”
What to Make of the Carter Page FISA Warrants
The 412-page disclosure of four FISA applications and corresponding court orders authorizing surveillance on former Trump advisor Carter Page released Saturday is unprecedented. Never before has a FISA warrant been made public.
The documents reveal that the government presented extensive evidence to the court to justify the FISA warrant on Carter Page beyond the opposition research dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. However, much of it lay behind extensive redactions.
The warrants claim that Page has “established relationships with Russian government officials, including Russian intelligence officers” and that he “has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government.”
Page denies conspiring with the Russian government. Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday, Page said, “I’ve never been an agent of a foreign power in any — by any stretch of the imagination.”
While the redactions obscure much of the information that led investigators to believe that Page might be in cahoots with Moscow, the amount of material suggests that there was a great deal more to support the FBI’s assertion than we currently know.
Why the FBI Sought a FISA Warrant
First, it’s important to understand what this warrant was about in the first place. The FBI sought a warrant in the FISA court as part of a counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Its purpose was first and foremost to understand what Russian intelligence agencies were up to in terms of meddling in the U.S. election.
By law, the surveillance of Carter Page could not have been authorized unless the FBI demonstrated to the court that it was likely to serve this goal. Further, surveillance on Carter Page could not have been reauthorized three times unless the government was able to show that it was yielding useful information that revealed the activities of Russian intelligence operatives. Unless we assume that all four FISA court judges who approved the authorization of these warrants were ignoring the law, the FBI’s surveillance on Carter Page was likely justified.
The documents confirm that the FISA warrants were approved by Judges Rosemary Collyer, Michael Mosman, Anne C. Conway and Raymond J. Dearie. While I don’t agree with the premise that who appointed the judges should matter, since some people believe it does, it bears noting all four were appointed by Republicans.
Beneath the Redactions
The release of the FISA warrant applications won’t settle the raging debates about whether the FBI acted appropriately in seeking it. The documents are heavily redacted, obscuring the full scope of the evidence on which the court based its approval of the warrants.
This leaves room for speculation about what lies beneath the blacked-out sections. Proponents of theories that the FBI obtained the warrant in bad faith can imagine that the blacked out sections hide evidence of malfeasance or over-reliance on unverified sources of information such as the Steele dossier. While those, like me, who assume the FBI acted appropriately can surmise that the redactions include independently verified evidence that provided further justification for the surveillance.
What we are able to see is primarily information that is already available publicly in other forms. This mostly includes the parts that refer to the Steele dossier and information from press reports. Critics of the FBI’s handling of the matter, such as the National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Federal Prosecutor, argue that the large proportion of the visible information confirms their belief that the court relied primarily on the Dossier when it decided to approve the FISA warrant. “When you read this thing…it’s as if they took the Dossier, slapped a District Court caption on it and handed it to the judge,” McCarthy said on Fox and Friends on Sunday morning.
Yet, the warrant only references two pieces of information from the Dossier: the claim that during a trip to Moscow in July 2016 Page met with Igor Sechin, the Chairman of Russian Energy giant Gazprom and a close Putin ally, and Igor Divyekin, a former Russian intelligence officer who is currently deputy chief of internal policy. Page denies that he met with either of these officials, but has acknowledged that he did meet with other Russian officials during the trip.
From even a cursory scan of the documents, it is apparent that there was far more evidence beyond the Dossier that was provided to the court. For example, the section discussing the Dossier’s claim that Carter Page met with Divyekin is followed by two pages of redacted classified material. This likely included information from US intelligence sources that may have independently confirmed Page’s contacts with Divyekin or other Russian officials.
The initial warrant also included extensive discussion of Page’s denial of contacts with Russian officials followed by five and a half pages of redacted material that likely further explains what the FBI knows about Page’s contacts with Russians.
We don’t know what information was included in the redacted pages, but we can infer that the FISA warrant yielded more relevant information over time. FISA warrant reauthorizations require that the government demonstrate that the information they were finding through the authorized surveillance supports that there continues to be probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power. Because the redacted sections discussing Page’s contacts with the Russian officials grew in each succeeding FISA warrant application, it seems reasonable to conclude that the government’s surveillance of Page was yielding further evidence that he was in touch with Russians.
The first FISA warrant application on Oct 20, 2016, totaled 66 pages; the application to reauthorize the warrant in Jan. 2017 grew to 79 pages; the next application for reauthorization in Apr 2017 was 91 pages; and, the final reauthorization in Jun 2017 was 101 pages.
We can also infer some things from the exemptions cited to justify the redaction. Of particular interest are:
- Exemption 1 – protects classified information.
- Exemption 7(D) – protects the identity/identities of confidential sources.
The large amount of information redacted under exemptions 1 and 7(D) suggests that significant additional evidence too sensitive to reveal publicly informed the court’s decision to approve the FISA warrant. This may include things like signals intelligence intercepts of foreign spies, or human intelligence sources and other confidential informants.
Was Page Really a Russian Spy?
We still don’t know if Page really was, in the end, an agent of a foreign power. He has yet to be charged with a crime. But, the primary purpose of a FISA warrant is to unravel the intelligence activities of a foreign power rather than to gather evidence to prosecute a crime, so whether or not Page is charged is not strictly relevant.
It is also possible that Page’s contacts with Russians turned out to be innocent. He may have simply been an unwitting pawn of Russian intelligence. But, even if this were the case, the surveillance would still be lawful and appropriate if the government had probable cause to believe that Page was involved with Russia’s schemes. The preponderance of evidence suggests that this was indeed the case.
The FISA warrant applications stated that ”[t]he F.B.I. believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government.” That’s not unreasonable. Page had previously been a target of recruitment by Russian spies. In 2013, wiretaps revealed Russian intelligence officers discussing their efforts to cultivate Page. Notwithstanding what the FBI may have known from intelligence sources, given Page’s continuing contacts with Russian officials and role on the Trump campaign, it seems reasonable to believe that Russian intelligence would have made another run at him.
It is also possible that the government has not levied charges against Page because they plan to do so at a later stage of the investigation, perhaps because divulging the evidence gathered against him might interfere with aspects of the case that they are still investigating. We simply do not know.
The Nunes Memo
One thing that does seem clear, however, is that the memo released earlier this year by House Intelligence Committee Chairmen Devin Nunes omitted key pieces of information that contradict the accusations it leveled against the FBI. When placed in context, many of these accusations appear to be highly misleading.
Among the key claims of the Nunes memo is that the FISA application included information from the dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele while failing to disclose the political motivations behind it.
Yet, the application states that Steele, referred to as Source #1, was not told who was ultimately paying for the memo. Nevertheless, the memo notes that “the FBI speculates that” Steele was likely hired to find “information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s (Trump’s) campaign.”
Defenders of the Nunes memo argue that this was too vague. But vague or not, it’s hard to see how suggesting the FBI hid partisan motivations behind the dossier without acknowledging that they had indeed done so as anything other than dishonest.
The Nunes memos correctly pointed out that the warrant never specifically mentions by name the parties involved in finding Steele’s research, specifically the Clinton campaign and the DNC. But, this too is a canard. First, according to the warrants, Steele didn’t have this information so presumably, the FBI did not either. Second, in order to protect privacy, FISA warrant applications generally do not mention the names of US persons other than those that are the targets of the proposed surveillance. For example, Trump is referred to as Candidate #1.
In the end, the FISA warrant application won’t end the debate about whether the FBI acted properly in obtaining a FISA warrant application on Carter Page. But, it doesn’t provide any reason to believe that the surveillance on Page was intended to spy on the Trump campaign as the President and his supporters have long suggested. Page had parted ways with the Trump campaign by the time it was approved, and the Trump campaign strenuously denied that Page had anything to do with the campaign at that point. Nor does it provide any support for Trump’s tweet more than a year ago claiming that Obama tapped his phones during the campaign.
The FISA applications overwhelmingly support the conclusion that the FBI’s decision to seek a surveillance on Page was reasonable and appropriate. Still, partisans will continue to see whatever they choose to see in the documents. It is a feature of our current political moment that this would probably be true no matter what the documents said.
Even Republicans Are Furious About Trump’s Press Conference With Putin. Here’s What They’re Saying.
A politician knows he is in trouble when he turns around that there is no one behind him. President Trump, after his post-meeting press conference with Vladimir Putin, has no one watching his back. The President expected to be blasted by Senate Minority Leader Schumer and House Minority Leader Pelosi. He could not have anticipated that he would find himself under fire from his own intelligence chief, virtually every single major figure in the Republican Party, including some of the President’s staunchest defenders, conservative journalists and columnists, and even the daughter of his own ambassador to Russia.
Intelligence Community
Dan Coats, director of national intelligence: “The role of the Intelligence Community is to provide the best information and fact-based assessments possible for the President and policymakers. We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.”
Congressional Leaders
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan: “There is no question that Russia interfered in our election and continues attempts to undermine democracy here and around the world. That is not just the finding of the American intelligence community but also the House Committee on Intelligence. The president must appreciate that Russia is not our ally. There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia, which remains hostile to our most basic values and ideals. The United States must be focused on holding Russia accountable and putting an end to its vile attacks on democracy.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: “I’ve said a number of times and I say it again, the Russians are not our friends and I entirely believe the assessment of our intelligence community.”
Senators
Sen. Richard Burr (Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee): “The Senate Intelligence Committee has reviewed the 2017 IC assessment and found no reason to doubt its conclusion that President Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at the 2016 U.S. elections with the goal of undermining faith in our democratic process. Russia has conducted a coordinated cyberattack on state election systems, and hacked critical infrastructure. They have used social media to sow chaos and discord in our society. They have beaten and harassed U.S. diplomats and violated anti-proliferation treaties. Any statement by Vladimir Putin contrary to these facts is a lie and should be recognized as one by the President. Vladimir Putin is not our friend and never has been. Nor does he want to be our friend. His regime’s actions prove it. We must make clear that the United States will not tolerate hostile Russian activities against us or our allies.”
Sen. Marco Rubio: “Foreign policy must be based on reality, not hyperbole or wishful thinking. And the reality is #Russia is an adversary. Because #Putin doesn’t believe in win/win scenarios & thinks only way to make Russia stronger is to make U.S. weaker. Any approach not based on this will fail.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch: “Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Our nation’s top intelligence agencies all agree on that point. From the President on down, we must do everything in our power to protect our democracy by securing future elections from foreign influence and interference, regardless of what Vladimir Putin or any other Russian operative says. I trust the good work of our intelligence and law enforcement personnel who have sworn to protect the United States of America from enemies foreign and domestic.”
Sen. Ben Sasse: “This is bizarre and flat-out wrong. The United States is not to blame. America wants a good relationship with the Russian people but Vladimir Putin and his thugs are responsible for Soviet-style aggression, When the President plays these moral equivalence games, he gives Putin a propaganda win he desperately needs.”
Sen. Tim Scott: “The President’s summit in Helsinki today should have been an attempt at confronting Russian aggression, hacking, and election interference Russia is not a friend or ally. As Americans, we stand up for our interests and values abroad; but I fear today was a step backwards.”
Sen. Susan Collins: “It’s certainly not helpful for the President to express doubt about the conclusions of his own team, He has assembled a first-rate intelligence team handled by Dan Coats and I would hope that he would take their analysis over the predictable denials of President Putin.”
Sen. Cory Gardner: “Whether it be chemical attacks on our allied soil, the invasion of Ukraine, propping up the murder Assad in Syria, or meddling in our elections through cyber-attacks, Vladimir Putin’s Russia remains an adversary to the United States. I believe Russia is a state sponsor of terror . . .”
Representatives
Rep. Trey Gowdy (chairman Oversight & Government Reform Committee, member of Intelligence committee): “Russia attempted to undermine the fundamentals of our democracy, impugn the reliability of the 2016 election, and sow the seeds of discord among Americans. I am confident former CIA Director and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, DNI Dan Coats, Ambassador Nikki Haley, FBI Director Chris Wray, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others will be able to communicate to the President it is possible to conclude Russia interfered with our election in 2016 without delegitimizing his electoral success.”
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (chairman of the House Intelligence Committee subcommittee on the CIA): I strongly disagree w/ statement that Russia did not meddle in 2016 election. With all I have seen on House Intel Comm & additional indictments of 12 Russian officers last week, it is clear Russia’s intentions. President Trump missed opportunity to hold Putin publicly accountable.”
Rep Bob Goodlatte (Chairman of House Judiciary Committee): “U.S. intelligence agencies have confirmed Russia’s actions, and the evidence is plentiful. Today’s summit was an opportunity to forcefully address this growing threat directly with President Putin. I am dismayed that we did not see that.”
Rep. Will Hurd (a former CIA officer): “I’ve seen the Russian intelligence manipulate many people many people in my career, and I never would have thought the US President would be one of them.”
Rep. Peter King (former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee): [Response to President Trump’s statement that Russia should cooperate with the Mueller investigation]: “It would be like bringing ISIS into a joint terrorism task force.”
Rep. Adam Kinzinger: “The American people deserve the truth, & to disregard the legitimacy of our intelligence officials is a disservice to the men & women who serve this country. It’s time to wake up & face reality. #Putin is not our friend; he’s an enemy to our freedom.”
Rep. Liz Chaney (daughter of Vice President Chaney): “As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am deeply troubled by President Trump’s defense of Putin against the intelligence agencies of the U.S. & his suggestion of moral equivalence between the U.S. and Russia. Russia poses a grave threat to our national security.”
Rep. Justin Amash: “A person can be in favor of improving relations with Russia, in favor of meeting with Putin, and still think something is not right here.”
Rep. Elise Stefanik: “Russia has a track record of meddling in elections – not only ours in 2016, but around the world. I support the Mueller investigation in getting to the apolitical truth.”
Politicians
Gov. John Kasich: “Putin’s words should never be given equal weight of our own Director of National Intelligence. Putin is a KGB operative trying to undermine the West and supporting other murderous dictators. He cannot and should not be trusted. Other American leaders, in both parties, should speak with one voice and let the world know we are not on the side of Russia.”
Mitt Romney: “President Trump’s decision to side with Putin over American intelligence agencies is disgraceful and detrimental to our democratic principles. Russia remains our number one geopolitical adversary; claiming a moral equivalence between the United States and Russia not only defies reason and history, it undermines our national integrity and impairs our global credibility.”
Supporters / Conservative Journalists
Newt Gingrich: “President Trump must clarify his statements in Helsinki on our intelligence system and Putin. It is the most serious mistake of his presidency and must be corrected—-immediately.”
John Roberts: (Fox White House bureau chief): “There is a growing consensus across the land tonight … that the president threw the United States under the bus.”
Neil Cavuto (Fox business editor): [After calling the President’s refusal to confront Putin about Russian meddling “disgusting.”] I’m sorry, it’s the only way I feel. it’s not a right or left thing to me, it’s just wrong. A U.S. president on foreign soil talking to our biggest enemy or adversary or competitor … is essentially letting the guy get away with this, and not even offering a mild criticism. That sets us back a lot.”
Brit Hume (Fox News political analyst): “Because Trump is unable to see past himself, he sees the Russia meddling investigation as only about him and the collusion claim, and thus calls it a witch hunt.”
Karol Markowitz (New York Post columnist): “You can love Trump, you can be thrilled he vanquished Hillary, you can be right that Obama’s foreign policy was clownish, but call it here: this was atrocious and no American president should ever behave this way.”
Other
Abby Huntsman (daughter of U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Huntsman): “no negotiation is worth throwing your own people and country under the bus.”
Putin’s Curious Non-Denial About Dirt on Trump
Speculation that the Kremlin possesses compromising information on President Donald Trump has dogged him since he entered office. The possibility that a foreign adversary might be blackmailing an American President is unnerving. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s evasive response, when asked about it directly, was far from reassuring.
At the end of a press conference following the meeting between the U.S. President and the Russian leader in Helsinki, an Associated Press reporter asked Putin a simple yes or no question. “Do you, does the Russian government, have any compromising material on President Trump or his family?”
Strikingly, Putin dispatched the question without ever precisely denying the accusation.
“Yeah, I did hear these rumors that we allegedly collected compromising material on Mr. Trump when he was visiting Moscow,” Putin said, referring to Trump’s 2013 trip for the Miss Universe Pageant. It was during this 2013 visit to Moscow that an opposition research dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele claims Russian intelligence secretly recorded an encounter between Trump and several prostitutes who allegedly urinated on a bed once slept in by President Obama in front of Trump. Putin might have said this is a salacious, untrue allegation from a document commissioned by Trump’s Democratic opponent. Instead, he skirted the question.
“When President Trump was in Moscow back then, I didn’t even know that he was in Moscow,” Putin said. “I treat President Trump with utmost respect, but back then when he was a private individual, a businessman, nobody informed me that he was in Moscow.”
Perhaps, but whether or not Putin knew Trump was in Moscow isn’t really relevant. The question is, did Russian intelligence know Trump was there and gather dirt on him? Putin’s deflection leaves open the disturbing possibility that the answer is yes.
Putin then turned to the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, noting that there were hundreds of people in attendance and Russia’s intelligence services couldn’t possibly monitor all of them.
“There were over 500 American businessmen, high-ranking, high-level ones,” Putin explained. “I don’t even remember the last names of each and every one. Do you think that we try to collect compromising material on each and every single one of them?”
Well, no. However, it’s certainly possible that the Kremlin tried to collect dirt on at least some of them, including Trump.
Nothing Putin said confirmed that Russia had dirt on Trump. Still, conspicuously absent in Putin’s answer was the simple word “no.”
If Putin does indeed possess such material, denying that it exists now might well make it harder to use down the road. Compromising information is only useful if there is a credible threat that it might be publicized.
None of this proves anything. Still, if there is nothing to it, it’s hard to understand why Putin didn’t just say so.
What to Expect from the Trump-Putin Summit
When President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin sit down for their first formal face-to-face meeting in Helsinki Monday, there will be little concrete on the agenda going in. While the two leaders have previously met on the sidelines of other international meetings, this will be the first time they have sat down to formally discuss the extensive range of issues facing the two countries.
The meeting comes against a complicated backdrop that includes a contentious NATO meeting in Brussels in which Trump blasted allies for their paltry defense spending and trade practices and fresh indictments from Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
President Trump is determined to forge a better relationship with Moscow, but the pressure on him to confront Putin is rising. Monday’s meeting will be closely watched in Washington and in European capitals as a test of how willing President Trump will be to challenge Putin over its meddling in the US election and other areas of disagreement between the two countries.
Fractures With Europe
Over the past week, President Trump has given European allies plenty of reasons to question whose side he is on. When CBS’ Jeff Glor asked Trump to identify his “biggest foe, globally,” Trump singled out the European Union. “I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn’t think of the European Union, but they’re a foe. Russia is a foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe. But that doesn’t mean they are bad. It doesn’t mean anything. It means that they are competitive,” Mr. Trump said in the interview taped Saturday at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland.
At the NATO summit in Brussels, Trump lashed out at Germany for their meager defense budget and accused the NATO member country of being “totally controlled” by Russia due to a new natural gas pipeline that will increase their dependence on Russian energy.
Trump’s visit to London didn’t go all that smoothly either. Massive protests, an embarrassing protocol snafu during his meeting with the Queen, and the publication of an interview in which Trump criticized Prime Minister May’s Brexit strategy at the worst possible time, after the resignation of two cabinet members left her in a precarious political position, marred his stop in Britain’s capital.
While European defense commitments and trade practices are legitimate concerns, the fractures Trump is generating align neatly with Putin’s objective of dividing the Western alliance. Trump has an opportunity in Helsinki to reassure nervous allies. However, whether he will do so is an open question.
A Relationship Fraught with Challenges
What Trump will do when he gets into the room with the Russian leader seems as much a mystery to his team as it does to the rest of us.
“You don’t know what’s going to come out of this meeting,” U.S. Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “[B]ut what it will be is the first opportunity for these presidents to actually sit down across a table, alone and then with their teams, to talk about everything from meddling in the election, to areas where we have some shared interests,”
The relationship between the U.S. and Russia has many challenges, including:
- Russia’s meddling in the US election process, and signs that Russia may continue to interfere in the 2016 midterms and beyond.
- Moscow’s flaunting of arms control agreements and Putin’s plans to expand its nuclear weapons force.
- Russia’s annexation of Crimea and presence in Ukraine.
- Russia’s support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and his ally, Iran.
Common Ground
Still, President Trump hopes to find some common ground with his Russian counterpart. For example, perhaps Trump could secure Russian help in reining in Iran’s activities in Syria.
Trump has also mused about more ambitious goals as well. On Friday, in response to a question from Axios’ Jonathan Swan, Trump expressed a desire to address arms control. “I think… that would be a tremendous achievement if we could do something on nuclear proliferation,” Trump said.
As Swan noted in an article Sunday, two significant treaties should be on the table if Trump is serious about arms reduction:
- The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (aka “New START”), which was completed in 2011 by President Obama, limited each country to 1,550 deployed strategic offensive nuclear weapons. New START expires in 2021. While Trump has previously been critical of the deal, Helsinki might provide an opportunity to begin a discussion about renewing the agreement, or at least some form of it.
- An agreement to bring Russia back into compliance with the Reagan-era Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which Russia has been blatantly violating for years, would also be a substantial achievement.
While a significant arms control agreement is probably too ambitious for this meeting, Trump might use the opportunity to start the conversation.
Low Expectations
Trump is setting the bar low for his meeting with Putin. In an interview Friday, Trump told CBS Evening News anchor Jeff Glor, “I don’t expect anything. I go in with very low expectations.”
President Trump says he will raise the issue of Russian meddling in the U.S. election, but doubted the conversation would yield much. “He may deny it,” Trump said at a press conference following the NATO summit last week. “It’s one of those things. All I can say is, did you? And don’t do it again. But he may deny.”
Although Trump is revealing little about the details of what he hopes to accomplish when he sits down with his Russian counterpart, “nothing bad is going to come out of it,” he told CBS, “and maybe some good will come out.” As President Trump likes to say, we will see.
Mysterious 2,000-Year-Old Sarcophagus Discovered in Egypt
Archeologists from Egypt’s Ministry of Antiquities have discovered an enormous black granite sarcophagus in Alexandria, Egypt. The giant stone coffin, which has laid unopened for more than 2,000 years, was discovered by researchers excavating a site for a new building in Alexandria’s bustling Sidi Gaber District. The sarcophagus was found within an ancient tomb dating from the Ptolemaic period, a three-century dynasty of Greek rulers of Egypt that stretched from 305 B.C.E. to 30 B.C.E. No one knows what might be inside it.
What has archeologists really excited is that the original mortar used to seal the sarcophagus closed two millennia ago is still intact. Whatever might have been placed inside more than two thousand years ago is almost certainly still there.
According to Egypt’s Ministry of Antiquities, which announced the find in a recent Facebook post, the sarcophagus which measures 8.3 feet (265 cm) long, 5.4 feet (165 cm) wide, and 6 feet (185 cm) tall, is the largest ever found in Alexandria. Its massive size of suggests that it was probably constructed for someone of high status — just who is an open question.
An alabaster bust of a man, likely the tomb’s owner, was found as well. But, so far no one has worked out who he might be.
The internet, as always, is full of zany theories. Some commenters on Reddit speculate that the sarcophagus contains no less than Alexander the Great himself — either that or a malevolent ancient demon waiting to pop out and unleash devastation upon the world.
To avoid damaging the ancient casket, archeologists will likely try to inspect what’s inside using x-ray imagery rather than opening it. But, they’ll have to get the 30 ton stone box out of the ground first. And, that won’t be easy. In the meantime, we’ll have to be content to wonder.
VIDEO: Why the Supreme Court Upheld Trump’s Travel Ban
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold President Trump’s travel ban. Roughly Explained’s Taylor Griffin appeared on BBC World News to explain why.
Read more about the Supreme Court decision.
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/06/why-the-supreme-court-upheld-president-trumps-travel-ban/
Why the Supreme Court Upheld President Trump’s Travel Ban
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, upheld President Trump’s ban on visitors from five predominantly Muslim countries. This third version of the ban was more narrowly tailored and thus more likely to survive court scrutiny. As Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute wrote, “this third version specifically carves out those with green cards, provides for waivers for those with special cases (family, medical emergencies, business ties, etc.), and also was tailored based on national-security considerations, to which the Court typically defers.”
Broadly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the wide latitude traditionally granted the President by Congress and the courts to restrict immigration based on national security concerns. Generally, courts have been reluctant to second-guess a President’s national security decisions, it’s not surprising that they held to that principle here.
One major source of contention for the Court’s liberal justices who voted against upholding the ban was the question of whether Trump’s campaign rhetoric about a “Muslim ban” tainted his travel ban, which did not explicitly target Muslims but rather restricted admission from some, but not all, Muslim countries. A ban on immigration based on religion would be unconstitutional under the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, which bars the government from enacting policies that favor (or disfavor in this case) a particular religion. This was a key point of contention among the liberal justices on the court who argued that Trump’s animosity towards Muslims was the motivation for Trump’s action.
While the Court’s majority showed no sympathy for President Trump’s campaign statements about banning Muslims, it found that because the President’s executive order did not explicitly cite a religious test for restricting immigration, Trump was within his power to enact a travel ban so long as there was a rational basis for it rooted in national security.
The decision is a victory for Trump in that he won the case, but it would be wrong to read it as an endorsement of Trump’s policy. The Supreme Court did not endorse the President’s travel ban. Rather, it found that the President acted within his power and it was not for the Court to second guess him. The Court’s decision had more to do with fear of opening a Pandora’s box of judicial review of Presidential decisions related to national security in the future than the substance of President Trump’s policy itself.
The Family Separation Controversy Explained
The separation of families at the Southern border has sparked furious outrage in recent days. The chainlink cages and creepy big box stores converted to house crying children ripped from their parent’s arms seem like the stuff of some fictional authoritarian dystopia. Yet, this is real.
From April 19 to May 31st, 1,995 children were separated from their parents at the border, according to Bureau of Customs and Border Protection data released Friday. President Trump has pinned the blame on “liberals” and insists that it is Congress’ problem to fix, not his — that is until late Wednesday he issued an executive order doing exactly that.
Still, while there are some complicated legal factors involved, the family separation crisis is an entirely foreseeable consequence of President Trump’s decision to change the way illegal entrants are handled when apprehended at the border.
Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 19, 2018
The Backstory
Many of the people entering the country illegally are seeking asylum in the United States. Previously, the Obama Administration detained families together, sometimes for months, while their asylum claims were sorted out. But, Obama’s detention policy drew outrage from immigration advocates and the left who argued that locking up children was inhumane. In 2015, a Federal Judge ruled that the Flores consent decree, which stemmed from a 1997 case that barred the government detaining unaccompanied minors for more than 20-days, also applies to minors accompanied by an adult.
Because asylum claims take substantially longer than that 20-days to evaluate, children would have to be released before their family’s asylum case could be heard. Rather than split families up, the Obama Administration decided to release asylum claimants into the US with an order to return for a hearing in their case. Many of those released just melded into the country and were never heard from again.
This workaround — which President Trump refers to as “catch and release” — kept families together, but also made it advantageous to arrive at the border with a child in tow. The Trump administration argues that this created an incentive to expose children to the perilous border crossing, often facilitated by dangerous human smuggling networks.
While crossing the border is a criminal offense, past administrations have usually charged illegal entrants, especially first-time offenders with civil infractions. However, under the Trump Administration’s new “zero tolerance policy,” all illegal entrants will now be criminally prosecuted.
The problem is that you can’t bring kids to jail. The criminal justice system is just not equipped to accommodate children. So, children are taken from their parents and turned over to the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). ORR houses the children in detention facilities while they try to find a relative or friend in the United States that can take the child. Once the parent’s asylum claim is decided, they can then reclaim the child. But, in some cases, ORR has been unable to locate the child before the parent deported. It isn’t supposed to work this way, but it happens often enough that a hotline has been set up to help deported parents find their children.
A Range of Explanations
Many of the immigrants crossing America’s southern border and seeking asylum did so because they believed that America is benevolent and fair in a way that their home country was not. President Trump’s policy will disabuse them of that notion. Instead, it sends the message that America is mercurial and cruel — don’t come. Whether this was the intent depends upon who you ask. Various Trump Administration officials have offered a range of contradictory explanations for the policy.
Some Trump aides argue that the horrors being played out in converted big box stores on the southern border will serve as a deterrent to other potential illegal immigrants. The message is stark: try to come to America illegally and your children will be taken from you.
Others, like Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielsen bristle at this. In a press conference Monday, a reporter asked whether family separation was intended to send a message to discourage would be illegal immigrants. Nielsen shot back. “I find that offensive,” Nielsen said. “No. Because why would I create a policy that purposely does that?”
Instead, Nielsen claimed that it out of her hands. “Congress and the courts created this problem, and Congress alone can fix it,” Nielsen said.
Maybe. But, the Trump administration knew that criminal prosecution of all illegal entrants would mean that families were separated. Yet, they did not seem to do much to prevent the problem. There doesn’t seem to have been much effort to inform Congress or seek any legislative action to fix it before moving forward with a zero-tolerance policy.
Previous administrations faced the same quandary and thought better of it though. “The agencies were surfacing every possible idea,” Cecilia Muñoz, President Obama’s domestic policy adviser, told the New York Times, including whether to separate parents from their children. “I do remember looking at each other like, ‘We’re not going to do this, are we?’ We spent five minutes thinking it through and concluded that it was a bad idea. The morality of it was clear — that’s not who we are.”
The situation at the border is a result of long-simmering problems that Washington has been unable to solve. Immigration, once a mostly bipartisan issue, now inspires a frothing at the mouth anger that has paralyzed our political system and rendered it impotent to deal with the issue in any meaningful way. The result is a broken system held together by dubious executive actions and other half-measures. The chances of that changing any time soon are slim.
Matt Tait, a cybersecurity expert, and also a rather keen political observer, may have put it best in a recent tweet: “The outrage will perhaps evaporate in a few days, but the insane suffering caused by our national inability to have a sustained and serious conversation about immigration will not.”
Ten Times North Korea Agreed to Denuclearization in the Past
President Trump’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un yielded a reaffirmation of the pledge Mr. Kim made in April to his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in to work towards the “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” It is a promise that President Trump sees as a major victory, but to North Korea experts it was nothing new.
North Korea has been committing to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and then reneging on those commitments, for more than three decades. Perhaps this time will be different, but history gives good reason to be skeptical. Here are ten times North Korea has promised denuclearization before.
1985 – North Korea ratifies the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), an agreement between non-nuclear states and the five acknowledged nuclear powers (U.S., Russia, China, France, and U.K.) to forgo development of nuclear weapons in exchange for the sharing of peaceful nuclear technology. North Korea never fully came into compliance with the treaty, tying its adherence to the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from the Korean Peninsula. In 2003, Pyongyang withdrew from the NPT after getting caught enriching uranium to build a bomb.
NORTH KOREA ON THE DENUCLEARIZATION
OF THE KOREAN PENINSULA (1992)
1992 – Following President George HW Bush’s 1991 announcement of the unilateral withdrawal of all U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed abroad, including the 100 or so weapons based in South Korea, which satisfied all of North Korea’s conditions for compliance with the NPT, North and South Korea signed the South-North Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Under the declaration, North and South Korea agreed not to “test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons.” They also agreed not to possess uranium enrichment on nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities.
1993 – North Korea refuses International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of nuclear materials required under the NPT and announces its intention to withdraw from the treaty. After talks with the US in New York, Pyongyang reverses itself, agreeing to comply with the NPT safeguards agreement and committing to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
1994 – North Korea agrees to IAEA inspections, yet limits their activities. That Spring, North Korea removes spent fuel from its 5 MW research reactor, which can be reprocessed into plutonium for use in a bomb, without inspectors present. This was a violation of the IAEA safeguards Pyongyang had promised to abide by just a few months earlier. North Korea withdraws from the IAEA. Later that year, the U.S. strikes a deal with Pyongyang, known as the “Agreed Framework,” to freeze and eventually dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program. In exchange, the US promised to provide two nuclear reactors that couldn’t be repurposed to produce bomb materials and shipments of heavy oil and other supplies.
2000 – In a joint communique following US-North Korea talks in 2000, North Korea reaffirmed its commitment to denuclearization steps under the 1994 framework agreement and the “importance to achieving peace and security on a nuclear weapons free Korean Peninsula.”
2004 – A statement following the second round of the six-party talks between North and South Korea, the U.S., Russia, Japan and China reiterated the commitment of the parties to a “nuclear-weapon-free Korean Peninsula.”
2005 – At the forth round of six-party talks, North Korea commits to “abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards.” North Korea tests its first nuclear weapon a year later.
2007 – North Korea again affirms its commitment to denuclearization and agrees to steps aimed at dismantling its nuclear infrastructure, including shuttering and eventually abandoning its nuclear facility at Yongbyon. The next year, it made a big show of blowing up the cooling tower at the Yongbyon reactor. However, the plant was later restarted using water from a nearby river for cooling instead.
2008 – The six party talks produces a statement agreeing to “establish a verification mechanism…to verify the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.“ North Korea pulls out of the six party talks and conducts its second nuclear test a year later.
2012 – North Korea agrees to a moratorium on nuclear development and missile tests in exchange for food aid. Within a year, North Korea begins violating the agreement, conducting further missile and nuclear tests.
2018 – North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un commits to work towards “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” in summit with President Donald Trump.
See the excellent Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy from the Arms Control Association for additional information.
READ MORE
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2018/06/3402/
https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/11/the-north-korea-nuclear-threat-explained/
The Trump-Kim Summit Explained
It was the photo-op seen around the world. An American President and a North Korean dictator, hands clasped before the flags of the two countries. It is an image that will be long remembered, either as a symbol of colossal folly or the dawning of a new era of peace on the Korean Peninsula. Which it will be is hard to tell.
In President Trump’s estimation, the summit was all a smashing success. “People thought this could never take place,” Mr. Trump said in a news conference following the summit. “It’s a very great moment in the history of the world. And Chairman Kim is on his way back to North Korea, and I know for a fact that as soon as he arrives, he’s going to start a process [of denuclearization] that’s going to make a lot of people very happy and very safe.”
But, what was actually accomplished in Singapore, aside from that soon to be iconic photo is less clear. The joint statement released following the summit was mostly aspirational promises to get along better, give peace a chance, and keep talking. North Korea did commit to returning the remains of American POWs and MIAs from the Korean War, which is nice. But, there was little in the way of concrete commitments.
The statement reaffirmed the pledge North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made in the April summit with his South Korean counterpart, Moon Jae-into, to work towards the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” But, there was no agreement reached about what that actually means, much less how it will be achieved. We are still a long way from the “complete, verifiable, irreversible, disarmament” the Trump Administration has set as its ultimate objective.
Will This Time Be Different?
North Korea has repeatedly promised to give up its nukes in the past, and without exception, it has done nothing of the sort. In 2005, the Six Party Talks yielded a similar joint statement in which North Korea “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.” North Korea staged its first nuclear test a year later.
Mr. Trump contends that this time will be different. He says that North Korea didn’t take his predecessors seriously the way they do him. “I don’t think they’ve ever had the confidence, frankly, in a president that they have right now for getting things done and having the ability to get things done,” Trump said in his press conference. Mr. Trump believes that he will succeed where other Administrations failed, because….well, he’s Donald Trump and they are not. “I don’t think they honestly could have done it even if it was a priority. And it would have been easier back then,” Trump added.
Cocksure swagger aside, the truth is that North Korea is more willing to come to the table now because Mr. Kim calculates that he is now holding a much stronger hand. Having tested a nuclear weapon and a missile capable of delivering it to U.S. shores, North Korea can now claim a credible intercontinental nuclear capability. For Mr. Kim, engagement with the U.S. is about achieving recognition of his place in the nuclear club, not trading it away for some sanctions relief and economic aid.
North Korean commitments for denuclearization should not be taken to suggest that they intend to give up their nukes unilaterally. The joint statement, in referring to “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” broadly, rather than North Korea specifically, hints at this.
The summit almost blew up before it happened after Pyongyang’s furious reaction several weeks ago to National Security Advisor John Bolton’s suggestion of Libya, which gave up all its weapons of mass destruction in exchange for sanctions relief, as a model for North Korea’s disarmament. “[W]e are no longer interested in a negotiation that will be all about driving us into a corner and making a one-sided demand for us to give up our nukes,” North Korea’s foreign minister, Kim Kye Gwan, said in a statement threatening to pull out of the summit. Mr. Trump beat him to the punch and canceled first. But, after some shuttle diplomacy that involved a peculiarly large letter to Trump from Kim Jong Un, things got back on track.
When Kim talks about denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, he means the removal of U.S. troops and perhaps the withdrawal of the protection of the U.S. nuclear arsenal from U.S. regional allies like Japan and South Korea.
North Korea has invested enormous resources for many years in developing nuclear weapons because they believe that membership in the nuclear club makes their claims of being a great world power seem more real. Mr. Kim believes his nukes give him leverage to throw his weight around on the world stage and security lest anyone get bright ideas about regime change. It’s hard to see what the U.S. could reasonably give that would be worth giving that up.
Allies and Enemies
There’s been much made of the contrast between Trump’s aggressive stance towards America’s historic allies at the testy G7 meeting in Canada in the days before the summit and his relatively warm approach of North Korea’s leader.
This contrast reveals an important insight about Mr. Trump’s approach to foreign policy. He views foreign relationships not in terms of a system long-term alliances, but rather the benefit of these relationships to America in the immediate term.
In Trump’s view, some G7 allies are taking advantage of the U.S. in terms of trade. While that point is debatable, to him, this defines the relationship to a far greater extent than the historic alliance between that country and the United States. To Trump, the history of the relationships matter little. What matter is what is to America’s advantage now.
When it comes to North Korea, and even Russia to an extent, where relations are quite strained, Mr. Trump believes engagement can only improve these relationships, with a net benefit to America.
What Happens Next
In the short term, this approach may look like it is panning out, but Mr. Kim may simply be seeking to ride this wave of good feelings as far as it will take him, giving the impression that things are leading towards disarmament, but stopping short of actually giving up his nuclear weapons.
It is likely that Mr. Kim will make a good show of dismantling weapons development infrastructure, which he can explain to internal audiences as no longer needed because North Korea’s weapons program is complete. The demolition of tunnels and various buildings at the Punggye-ri nuclear test site in the lead-up to the summit is one example. And President Trump, in his press conference, said that Mr. Kim also committed to dismantling a missile test facility.
Still, there’s reason to be wary. North Korea has a history of showy demolitions of nuclear facilities that turn out to be meaningless. In 2008, North Korea blew up the cooling tower at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor in spectacular fashion. But, this turned out to be a ruse. North Korea simply restarted the reactor using water pumped from a nearby river to cool the reactor instead.
Whether Mr. Kim is sincere or not, North Korea is already reaping the benefits. The Singapore summit was a propaganda coup for Mr. Kim and a de facto recognition of North Korea’s newly-minted status as a nuclear power. And there were tangible benefits too. Mr. Trump said he had agreed to halt “war games,” military exercises between North and South Korea (which Mr. Trump said were too expensive anyway).
For Mr. Kim, Singapore was a triumph that would never have been possible without his nuclear arsenal — which is a pretty good reason to suspect that he may not give it up so easily.
Can President Trump Pardon Himself?
Can President Trump really pardon himself, as he claimed in a tweet Monday? Legal scholars disagree, but even if he did, it would do little to free him from the scrutiny he is now facing. A pardon could only free him from criminal repercussions. It would have no effect on the more immediate recourse for Presidential misbehavior, impeachment.
As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2018
The Constitution gives the President the power to issue pardons and there is nothing that explicitly says he cannot use that power to pardon himself. Still, even if Trump did pardon himself, it would not do much to change things for him in the short-term.
“The Constitution specifically provides that the pardon power does not prevent — or undo — an impeachment.,” Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Vox News.
Impeachment
The power to pardon is only applicable in the context of a criminal case, and under longstanding Department of Justice legal interpretations, a sitting President cannot be criminally prosecuted while still in office. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution specifically excludes cases of impeachment from the President’s pardon power. So, scrutiny into his actions could still go forward.
“[T]he pardon power does not prevent — or undo — an impeachment.,” Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Vox News.
If Trump were to pardon himself, calls for his impeachment would certainly grow louder and Republicans friendly to the President would have difficulty defending it. Trump’s lawyer Rudolph Giuliani argued that while the President “probably does” have the power to pardon himself, even he said doing so is “unthinkable” and “would lead to probably an immediate impeachment.” Giuliani added that President Trump was not considering such a move.
The Courts
If the President decided to attempt to pardon himself, it would almost certainly be challenged in court. While the courts have never been formally faced with this question, some legal scholars think they would look dimly on an attempt by the President to pardon himself.
Mary Lawton, acting assistant attorney general, argued in a 1974 memo during the Watergate scandal that a bar on Presidential self-pardons is implicit in the principle that “no one may be a judge in his own case.”
Richard Pildes, a constitutional law professor at New York University School of Law says that courts would likely strike down a Presidential self-pardon based on the broader framework of the principles that underlie the Constitution. “[M]uch of constitutional law is based on reasoning from the underlying design of the Constitution and the structures it creates, and a presidential self-pardon is so radically inconsistent with the Constitution’s commitments to (1) limited government; (2) the separation of powers; (3) and elected officials being accountable to the rule of law that I doubt any court would uphold the legality of a presidential self-pardon,” he told CNBC.
The truth is that no one can say for certain. The question of a Presidential self-pardon is not addressed in the Constitution nor has it been considered by the courts. But, this should not be taken as the “absolute right” to pardon himself Trump claims. The President’s pardon power is at least limited when it comes to matters of impeachment. While the Constitution does not address this question directly, it’s unlikely the Founders would have intended that the President be above the law. As James Madison wrote in Federalist Papers 10, “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause.”
In the end, this is mostly an academic question. Trump’s tweet not withstanding, by all accounts the President isn’t seriously considering pardoning himself. That’s not surprising. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which doing so would improve his situation in any meaningful way — and more likely it would make it worse. It would erode support for him in Congress, intensify talk of impeachment, and probably have little practical effect on investigations into his actions. So, can the President pardon himself? Maybe. But, he would almost certainly come to regret it.
Did the FBI ‘Spy’ on the Trump Campaign?
In the putrid rhetorical trash heap that is the public debate over the Russia investigation, a sharp divide has arisen between defenders of the FBI and the Trump camp over the use of “spy” or “informant” to describe the source the FBI used to probe two members of the Trump campaign about possible coordination with Moscow’s effort to sway the 2016 election.
In a barrage of tweets in recent days, President Trump has sought to brand the FBI’s use of a confidential source as “Spygate.”
This whole Russia Probe is Rigged. Just an excuse as to why the Dems and Crooked Hillary lost the Election and States that haven’t been lost in decades. 13 Angry Democrats, and all Dems if you include the people who worked for Obama for 8 years. #SPYGATE & CONFLICTS OF INTEREST!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2018
But, at least one influential Republican sympathetic to Trump isn’t buying it. After a briefing on the matter last week by officials of the FBI and Justice Department, Rep. Trey Gowdy told Fox News that he was satisfied the FBI acted appropriately. “I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got.” he said.
Spy Versus Informant
Whether you use the term “spy” or “informant” is a semantic debate that is only of interest insofar as the connotations with which the term comes loaded. “Spy,” in this case, is meant by Trump and his supporters to imply something sinister — that the FBI “spied” on the Trump campaign for the explicit purpose of benefiting Hillary Clinton’s campaign politically.
“Informant,” the preferred term of the Russia investigation’s defenders, implies that the purpose was to investigate potential wrongdoing of the target and/or those with whom they were interacting.
Political Purposes?
Accepting this construct, calling the FBI’s source a “spy” requires that the FBI sought information primarily for nefarious “political” purposes that are improper. This could take two forms: 1) information was gathered and passed on to the Clinton campaign or, 2) information was gathered and then used in some way to damage Trump and benefit Hillary’s election.
There is no evidence that either of these scenarios reflect reality. As far as we are aware, the fruits of the FBI’s “spying” were not passed along to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, nor were they released publicly in a way intended to politically damage Trump or help Hillary. In fact, the FBI went to lengths to tamp down rumors about Trump and Russia before the election. The FBI’s investigation was not even confirmed until a few days before the election, and when it was, the FBI made clear that their investigation to date had turned up no links to Russia.
Trump supporters contend that information from the FBI’s source may have been used to support the Bureau’s application of a FISA warrant on Carter Page. a former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor. That is possible. But, if the information provided by the FBI’s source bolstered the case for a FISA warrant, it suggests that the information he provided was of value. In which case, the “spying” seems justified.
Trump’s defenders are also quick to point out that Page has yet to be charged with a crime. Evidence, they contend, that the FBI targeted an innocent man in a political vendetta against Trump. Page’s culpability in all this is not clear. He did travel to Russia during the campaign, where he gave a decidedly pro-Russian anti-American speech and met with various Russian businessmen and government officials while there. And, Russian spies attempted to recruit him in 2013 as a Kremlin agent. But, there’s not necessarily anything wrong with that alone. But, combined with other information the FBI had, including the Dossier, probable cause that Page was an agent of a foreign power sufficient to justify a FISA warrant seems plausible.
A FISA warrant requires a reasonable basis to believe that the target was an agent of a foreign power, not proof of it. If Carter Page turns out not to be an agent of a foreign power, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the FBI acted improperly, so long as the FBI genuinely had a basis for reasonable suspicion that this was the case. Investigators acting in good faith can, and sometimes will, bark up the wrong tree.
If the FBI “spied” on the Trump campaign for political purposes, there is no indication that Hillary Clinton’s campaign reaped any sort of benefit. The controversies over Russia that existed during the campaign were driven almost entirely by the Wikileaks dump and Trump’s comments.
Secret Plot to Discredit Trump?
The other theory, that the FBI’s investigation was a secret plot to discredit Trump should he win is undermined by the widespread assumption within the FBI that Clinton would be victorious at the polls.
Could a generally sour view of Trump have made FBI agents more willing to chase down alleged cooperation between Trump and Russia? Maybe. But, all the smoke surrounding the Trump campaign’s links to Russia probably had a lot to do with it too.
The confluence of Russia’s interference in the election, which was intended to damage Hillary Clinton and help Trump win, with the information available at the time provides good reason to suspect something fishy. Setting aside the Dossier and whatever the FBI knew from clandestine sources, from public information this included:
- evidence that at least one member of Trump’s team knew of Russia’s plans in advance;
- the embrace of the offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government that led to that infamous Trump tower meeting;
- the extensive business and personal ties between Russian-linked interests and Trump world;
- Trump’s personal enthusiasm for Russian President Vladimir Putin;
- efforts by team Trump during the campaign to further Moscow’s priorities, such as their successful opposition to a proposed changed in the GOP platform to call for arming Ukrainian rebels; and,
- the deceptiveness of Trump and members of his campaign team about all of this.
None of that, of course, is evidence of guilt. But, it certainly suggests that the FBI’s decision to look into the possibility that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia was not unwarranted.
What About Hillary?
Some Trump defenders point to various controversies around Hillary Clinton to argue that Robert Mueller should investigate those instead. Yes, it’s also reasonable to be suspicious about the coincidence of CFIUS approval of the Uranium One deal and large contributions to the Clinton Foundation. And, as of last check, two FBI field offices are looking into the Clinton Foundation.
But, Hillary Clinton is not the President of the United States; Uranium One didn’t try to meddle in the 2016 election; and, Hillary Clinton did not fire the FBI Director out of annoyance with the ongoing investigation. If all three of those things had happened, it’s a pretty good bet Hillary Clinton would be facing with a special counsel investigation too.
The semantic argument about “spy” versus “informant” confuses the issues. It’s fair to question whether the FBI overreached, or cut corners in its haste to investigate Russia’s election meddling. It’s also fair to ask whether this raises civil liberties concerns.
But, the use of the term “spy,” and affixing “Obama” as a prefix to “FBI,” as President Trump has done in his recent tweets, conflates these concerns with unfounded allegations of “political motivation.”
OPINION: Brett Kavanaugh Deserves the Benefit of the Doubt
Let me start by acknowledging my bias. Brett Kavanaugh is one of the most decent people I have ever known. There is nothing in my experience working with him at the White House in the early 2000s or since that would suggest the accusations against him are plausible. He is simply among the most honorable people I’ve ever encountered.
Now, Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court hinges on what happened at a high school party 36 years ago. Christine Blasey Ford alleges that an inebriated 17-year old Brett Kavanaugh groped her above her clothes and fumbled with her one-piece swimsuit in an attempt to remove it as Mr. Kavanaugh’s friend, Mike Judge, cheered him on. Both Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge deny any such thing happened.
“It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way,” Mr. Judge told The Weekly Standard. Pressed on whether he could recall anything that could have been misinterpreted by either of the parties, Mr. Judge said, “I can’t. I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys. It was an all-boys school, we would rough-house with each other. I don’t remember any of that stuff going on with girls.”
Mr. Kavanaugh also strongly denied the claim. “This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes—to her or to anyone,” he said in a statement released by the White House Monday. “Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making the accusation until she identified herself yesterday.”
“I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity,” the statement said.
It looked as if Mr. Kavanaugh might get that chance at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Monday at 10 am. Mr. Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford were both invited to appear. However, that is now in limbo. On Tuesday, Ms. Ford’s attorney, Lisa Banks, wrote to the committee saying that an FBI investigation should be conducted before her client testifies.
‘Out of Left Field’
Who is telling the truth is, at this moment, impossible to tell. However, for anyone who has ever known Brett Kavanaugh, myself included, it is very difficult to believe these charges are true. Friends of Mr. Kavanaugh have been quick to jump to his defense. Mr. Kavanaugh’s friends quickly assembled a letter from 65 women who knew him in high school vouching for his character. “Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity,” the women wrote. “In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day.”
In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Meghan McCaleb, one of the letter’s signatories who remains a close friend of Mr. Kavanaugh’s, described the letter as a “group effort” initiated by women he knew in high school. The allegation against him is “really out of left field” and is “nothing like the Brett that we know. At all.”
While the letter was written prior to the publication of the specific allegation, signatories to the letter stand behind it. Megan Williams, another of the women who signed the letter, told BuzzFeed that she was unaware of the details of Ms. Ford’s claim when she signed the letter, but was emphatic that her view of Mr. Kavanaugh remains unaltered. “I can’t even tell you how out of character” that would be. “The guy’s a saint.”
I have yet to encounter anyone who knows Brett Kavanaugh well that would not say the same.
Mr. Kavanaugh’s friends and colleagues from adulthood are equally resolute in their support. “Brett Kavanaugh is a good man who is incapable of hurting anyone,” Cathie Martin, who has known Mr. Kavanaugh for two decades, said. “I have seen him date friends, marry a good friend, mentor young lawyers and staffers, coach children and offer counsel to friends and family. He has the kind of moral compass, integrity, and humility that I hope my two young sons grow up to have.”
The high-esteem in which Mr. Kavanaugh’s friends hold him has been undiminished by Ms. Ford’s accusations. “I believe Brett Kavanaugh because I know him as a person and a close friend,” Laura Cox Kaplan, a White House colleague said. “In every setting and in every instance, his behavior has been honorable and above reproach…” Noting his efforts to mentor and promote the careers of women, Ms. Kaplan adds, “his record and his personal integrity speaks volumes. He stands up for what’s right, and does the right thing.“
Karen Keller, who also worked with Mr. Kavanaugh in the White House agrees. “I don’t necessarily believe that Dr. Ford is lying about what happened to her, however, I do believe based on what I know of Brett, that this is a case of mistaken identity,” she said. “Everything in my being knows that Brett is not the person she thinks did this to her. I’ve never met nor worked with someone as principled as Brett.”
Pamela R. Stevens, another White House colleague, describes Mr. Kavanaugh as “decent and kind — a man of true integrity.”
Elizabeth Bingold, who worked under Mr. Kavanaugh in the White House Counsel’s office also vouched for his character. “He was a great boss, a kind mentor, and is an incredible intellect. He is also very humble, respectful, and hard working,” she said. “He cared about the folks who worked for him and made even the lowest level staffer (me!) feel like a valued member of the team.”
Keith Hennessey, an economic advisor in the Bush White House who worked closely with Mr. Kavanaugh, says that while the allegations are serious and should be examined by the Senate Judiciary Committee, he continues to hold Mr. Kavanaugh in high-regard.
“I can’t speak to what Brett was like in high school. I can speak to my personal experience working with Brett as an adult,” Mr. Hennessey wrote in a Facebook post. “Judge Kavanaugh is simply one of the finest professionals with whom I have ever worked. His integrity, intellect, professionalism, and collegiality are unsurpassed. He is a role model for honorable public service, and just a good, solid guy.”
To be fair, Ms. Ford’s defenders say similar things about her.“She’s one of those people who teems with honesty and truth. She’s just that person,” Rebecca White, one of Ms. Ford’s close friends told The East Bay Times.
Alumnae of Holton-Arms, the private girls school in Bethesda, Maryland that Ms. Ford attended, put together a letter of their own. “We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story,” the letter said. “It demands a thorough and independent investigation before the Senate can reasonably vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court.”
Competing Accounts
The Senate Judiciary Committee now has the difficult task of reconciling the competing accounts of what happened. Two of the three people allegedly involved, Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge, strenuously deny that the incident Ms. Ford describes involving Mr. Kavanaugh — or anything like it — ever happened. Those who know him best are unanimous in their skepticism that the Brett Kavanaugh they know could be capable of such a thing.
Ms. Ford, now a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University, never revealed her allegation to friends at the time, although she did confide to Ms. White late last year that she was assaulted in high school by someone who is now a federal judge. Ms. Ford told The Washington Post that the first time she discussed the incident with anyone was in a couples therapy session in 2012, three decades after the fact. She didn’t identify the perpetrator then. But according to her therapist’s notes, which were reviewed by The Post, she did characterize him as someone who went on to be a prominent person in Washington.
The Polygraph Problem
Ms. Ford’s lawyer hired a former FBI agent to administer a polygraph test in early August. According to The Post, the results “concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.” But, as Ms. Ford, a clinical research psychologist would likely be aware, there is ample reason to be dubious of such results.
According to the American Psychological Association (APA), there “is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.” Polygraphs work by inferring deceptiveness from physiological indications of anxiousness, like elevated heart rate, skin conductivity and breathing rate. However, the APA notes that “an honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious…there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception.” So, a polygraph cannot be taken as dispositive proof of the accuracy of Ms. Ford’s allegations. “[T]he most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph,” the APA cautions.
All this leaves Senators with the difficult task of sorting out fact from fiction among conflicting recollections of an event three decades in the past. “It is not unusual for elected officials to have to make tough decisions with imperfect, and even poor, information,” Mr. Hennessey says. “I expect the Senate will ultimately have to do so in this case as well.”
The lack of contemporaneous corroboration of Ms. Ford’s account and the denials of others involved does not disprove her allegations. But, it does suggest that Mr. Kavanaugh deserves the benefit of the doubt. “Both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh should be treated with respect,” Mr. Hennessey says, “and the demagogues (on both sides) should pipe down.”
What People Who Know Brett Kavanaugh Are Saying
Cathie Martin, White House Colleague and longtime friend
Karen Keller, White House Colleague
Laura Cox Kaplan, White House Colleague and longtime friend
Elizabeth Bingold, White House Colleague
Pamela R. Stevens, White House Colleague
Keith Hennessy, White House Colleague
President George W. Bush