Trump is becoming increasingly frenzied and volatile in his Tweets and at his rallies, and he seems very upset at the possibility that his son Donald Jr. may have some serious legal exposure. Mueller's job seems increasingly vulnerable.
Starting in the early 1970's William D. Ruckelshaus served in posts like EPA administrator, acting director of the FBI, and deputy attorney general. He has an editorial in today's Washington Post:
Anyone want to guess who he's talking about before I give it away? Is there even anyone who doesn't already know?
Ruckelshaus was one of the players in what has become known as the Saturday Night Massacre when Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon gave the same order to Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus who also refused and resigned. Solicitor General Robert Bork (later a failed Supreme Court justice nominee under Reagan) did the job.
If Trump orders Mueller fired will anyone stand up to him? Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein seem to stand up to him a fair bit. If Trump orders Mueller fired then Jeff Sessions dodges a bullet since he recused himself, but I can see Rosenstein resigning rather than carry out the order. The job would then fall to Solicitor General Noel Francisco who seems like a nice guy but with not a lot of backbone, so he will probably be the guy to Bork Mueller should it come to that. If Francisco does refuse then the line of succession goes like this, I'll start at the top with Sessions just so the list is complete, even though Sessions doesn't factor in:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
Solicitor General Noel Francisco
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Engel
Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Demers
US Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Robert Higdon
US Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Erin Nealy Cox
Like I said, should Trump order Mueller's firing I'm betting Francisco does the job. If by some chance he does not I can't imagine any of those lower on the list refusing.
A Couple Legal Minds Weigh In on the Trump Tower Meeting
Harry Litman is a former deputy assistant attorney general and a constitutional law professor at UC San Diego. David Lieberman is a former Massachusetts assistant attorney general and a lawyer with the Whistleblower Law Collaborative. They have an editorial in today's Los Angeles Times stating that No, the Trump Tower meeting was not 'totally legal'. Some excerpts:
quote:Meeting with a foreign power to get assistance with a presidential campaign is not totally legal; special counsel Robert S. Mueller III almost certainly could indict Donald Trump Jr. today for what is publicly known about the meeting; and the president should be deeply concerned about his own liability.
Mueller’s February indictment of the Internet Research Agency, and associated Russian entities and individuals, charged...violations of 18 U.S. Code 371 conspiracy to commit an offense against, or to defraud United States. [This is the same statute under which Trump and company would be charged]
Under the defraud clause, as precedent and the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual make clear, the statute criminalizes any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government, even if the object of the conspiracy is not a criminal offense. According to Mueller’s indictment, the conspiracy sought to defraud the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice the agencies charged with preventing foreign nationals from making contributions, donations or expenditures (which can include not just money, but any thing of value) that would influence U.S. elections. ... The Trump Tower meeting clearly fits established definitions of conspiracy to defraud the United States....
On the face of it, Trump Jr. was approached by a foreign government seeking to influence an American election. Trump Jr. welcomed the possibility of influence, and candidate Trump’s actions [announcing at a rally held on the eve of the meeting that he'd soon give a speech about everything the Clintons had done, but there was never any such speech], while circumstantial, indicate that he intended to make use of that information. It is irrelevant, in conspiracy law, that Trump Jr. found the information ultimately worthless, or as Trump said, that it went nowhere.
In other words, Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner and probably Trump himself even though not at the meeting give all the appearance of having conspired with a foreign government to influence an American election. They then lied about the meeting over and over again, which is a coverup and constitutes obstruction of justice. While lying to a newspaper is not a crime, Trump's efforts to influence the Mueller investigation constitute obstruction of justice. It's a long way from appearances to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but the alleged conspirators appear in a very exposed position right now. It is not a coincidence that Trump is suddenly tweeting manically and maniacally.
Sorry to continue the slightly off topic distraction, but where does it indicate this? I had a look at some pictures and can't see it.
What Hyroglyphx said was, "There are, however, Limited-Term Drivers Licenses issued to non-residents with proof of work/school visas. And, at least in Texas, it states the type of license you hold in big, red block letters." I looked this up, and apparently they're issued to anyone who only has temporary lawful status in the United States. Here's what one looks like:
But now that I think about it, that means that permanent residents get regular licenses, so unless Hyroglyphx or Jar can give us more information, it looks like driver's licenses are not a reliable indicator of citizenship even in Texas.
quote:An analysis of 188 peer-reviewed studies dating back to 2000 on the relationship between immigration and U.S. healthcare expenditures found per capita total health spending for immigrants was $1,139 compared to $2,546 among U.S.-born individuals.
The results were even more stark among undocumented immigrants, who were found to have lower expenditures compared to both naturalized immigrants and U.S.-born citizens and contributed a greater amount to Medicare's trust fund than they withdrew. ... As a group, immigrants consume roughly 8.6% of all healthcare expenditures despite making up 12% of the total population. ... Undocumented residents accounted for 1.4% of total U.S. medical expenditures despite making up 5% of the population. ... But the study found insured immigrants also accounted for fewer expenditures, accounting for 52% lower costs than insured U.S.-born individuals while uninsured immigrants had 61% lower medical expenditures than uninsured U.S.-born individuals.
Trump's claims that immigrants are healthcare moochers is dead wrong. The reality is that US born individuals are benefiting from the presence of immigrants with regard to healthcare because immigrants pay a proportionally larger share.
How much does strong economic growth help workers?
The Trump administration keeps touting the strong economy, but how much does that really help American workers? If Apple and GM and Walmart all have strongly increasing revenue, does that help American workers? Let's see.
Here's a graph of annualized GDP growth by quarter over the past two and half years:
That's an average GDP growth rate of 2.85%, which is pretty good. The economy is roaring along. Unemployment is also low, as shown by this graph that goes back about ten years:
So all this is great news for workers, right? A strong economy and low unemployment - what more could you want?
But rapidly growing economies tend to cause inflation, so wages must also grow in order for workers' pay to keep up, but are they? Well, according to the latest figures wages are up 2.7% over the past year, but the cost of living is up 2.9%. Workers' pay is worth less now than a year ago. (Source: U.S. wage growth is getting wiped out entirely by inflation)
Most economists expect that low unemployment would put strong upward pressure on wages, but for some reason it is not. This is not Trump's fault because low unemployment under Obama didn't cause strong wage growth, either. But what *is* new under Trump is that the inflation rate has surpassed the wage growth rate, and this is because his tax cuts added to an already strong economy are causing overheating. The Fed has been slowly increasing interest rates to help tamp down inflation, but when the engines of economic growth wind into overdrive then the Fed's actions are like twigs in a hurricane, to mix my metaphors.
Clearly a strong economy is good for workers because it keeps unemployment low. But too strong an economy can be bad for workers because it causes more inflation than wage growth. The economy grew at or above 4% for a fair stretch of the 1990's, so there's nothing wrong with the current 4.1% growth rate, but the unemployment rate during the 1990s probably averaged around 6%. Most economists consider full employment to be around a 5% unemployment rate. Well, we're way below 5% unemployment now at 3.9%.
It's amazing how easily influenced leading economists can be by short term effects - Federal Reserve economists are currently saying that full employment is no longer an unemployment rate of 5% as was believed for decades but is now somewhere between 4.1% and 4.7%. I will walk out on what I believe is a very short and sturdy limb and predict that we're heading for high inflation (>6%), low wage growth (<3%), and rising unemployment (caused by economic disruptions caused by the Trump trade wars).
This could easily have gone in the humor thread, but there's a lot of political commentary, too, so I put it here. Bill Maher explains Q and why everything you think is the opposite:
This is Michael Avenatti's speech at the Iowa Wing Ding, a Democratic Party fund-raiser in Clear Lake, Iowa. It's considered an event where prospective candidates can test the waters. This is only nine minutes of a twenty-six minute speech:
I'd say he's still finding his voice. He needs an experienced political adviser, a better speech writer and speaking coach, but all the raw material is there. I wish he'd given us a few specific examples of, "When they go low, we go harder." For those with the patience and interest here it is, all twenty-six minutes:
Unfortunately the sound and video are not precisely synchronized, and there are a few unfortunately timed cut-outs, but if you have the time the longer one is the one to watch.
The Trump tax cuts have been in place for about six months, and the Washington Post has run an article about how they're faring: You Know Who the Tax Cuts Helped? Rich People. That headline about sums it up.
I was going to present the graphs from the article in this post, but that doesn't work. Only part of each graph is in a PNG. All the textual and numerical portions are produced with CSS and carefully positioned div's, obviously produced with some software tool.
So since I can't present any graphs I can't meaningfully present the case made by the article. Those interested will have to read it. I'll just summarize by saying that it shows companies are buying back their stock, which helps the higher up employees of the company who own significant amounts of stock rather than the rank and file. Investments by companies in their businesses have leveled off instead of increasing. Real wages have declined because inflation exceeds wage increases. And the federal deficit has exploded.
I can't believe how little is being made of how negatively the recording of John Kelly firing Omarosa reflects upon him. I'd embed the audio in this message, but I haven't yet found it in a form that allows me to do that. The full recording can be found on this webpage: Omarosa Releases Tape Of John Kelly Firing Her In White House Situation Room. Scroll down just a little to where you see a video that has the word "EXCLUSIVE" in the upper right. That's the full audio.
Here are my comments on the interaction between Kelly and Omarosa:
quote:KELLY: I'm only going to stay for a couple of minutes. These are lawyers. We're going to talk to you about leaving the White House. It's come to my attention, over the last few months, that there's been some pretty, in my opinion, significant integrity issues related to you and use of government vehicles and some other issues. And they'll, they'll, they'll walk you through the legal aspects of this. But there is some, from my view, there's some money issues and other things, but from my view, the integrity issues are very serious. I'm stuck with my past experience and that is, when we hold people accountable in the military, I would, I compare what I see here at the White House and other issues that I've had to deal with and say what would I do to this, in this case if I was in the Pentagon dealing with a Marine or a soldier or something like that? And the issue that you may or may not have a full appreciation for, but I think you do, this would be a pretty high level of accountability, meaning a court-martial. We're not suggesting any legal action here.
Kelly has just accused Omarosa of the civilian equivalent of an offense worthy of court martial. He does not say what the offense is.
quote:OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN: That I -- that I did?
JOHN KELLY: Just stay with me, just stay with me. Yep. That it would be a a pretty serious offense.
Kelly still doesn't say what Omarosa did.
quote:JOHN KELLY: So with that I'm just going to ask you -- these gentlemen will explain it. We'll bring a personnel person in after after they talk to you. But just to understand that I'd like to see this be a a friendly departure. There are pretty significant legal issues that we hope don't develop into something that, that'll make it ugly for you.
Kelly is pretty unambiguously threatening Omarosa with legal action if she doesn't make this a "friendly departure."
quote:JOHN KELLY: But I think it's important to understand that if we make this a friendly departure we can all be, you know, you can look at, look at your time here in, in the White House as a year of service to the nation. And then you can go on without any type of difficulty in the future relative to your reputation.
Kelly repeats the threat, this time to her reputation. So first he threatens her legally, then he threatens defaming her character.
quote:JOHN KELLY: But it's very, very important I think that you understand that there are some serious legal issues that have been violated. And you're, you're open to some legal action that we hope, I think, we can control, right? So with that, if you would stay here with these gentlemen they'll lay this thing out —
Kelly is threatening Omarosa legally again.
quote:OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN: Can I ask you a couple questions? Does the president -- is the president aware of what's going on?
JOHN KELLY: Don't do -- let's not go down the road. This is a non-negotiable discussion.
OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN: I don't want to negotiate. I just, I've never talked -- had a chance to talk to you General Kelly so if this is my departure I'd like to have at least an opportunity —
JOHN KELLY: No.
OMAROSA: --to understand.
JOHN KELLY: We can, we can talk another time. This has to do with some pretty serious violat -- integrity violations. So I'll let it go at that. So the the staff and everyone on the staff works for me, not the president. And so after your departure I'll inform him if he gets interested on, on where you may be. So with that I'll let you go and if gentlemen you could take it.
MALE VOICE: Thanks. Yep. I'm really sorry we're here.
So that's it, and we're left wondering what Omarosa did. Since they're obviously unaware of her recording activity, it wasn't that. And since Omarosa is making all this public, she evidently isn't cowed by any legal threat. Her publishers legal department (Gallery Books) has probably assisted her in vetting how much she can make public.
A little Googling says that the supposed offense was using the White House car service for office pick-up and drop-off. This is not a severe integrity issue. This is a "Hey, cut it out" type of offense, and that's it.
I also don't believe the reports that Omarosa tried to "storm the White House residence to appeal to Trump, according to one of the officials, accidentally tripping an electronic Secret Service wire that monitors entry and egress from the residence." That's from Politico. Reason I don't believe it? I think guards are stationed at the entries and exits from the residence. I doubt the doors are just open with only "an electronic Secret Service wire."
For me, though, Kelly comes off as bullying and dishonest. Whether Omarosa was qualified or not, the interaction reads to me like him railroading her out. After cutting her off he says, "We can talk another time," like there's ever going to be an opportunity for her to talk to him after she's out of the White House. And if I have this right, according to Omarosa this was her first meeting with Kelly.
The public needs these glimpses, even from people we don't like (that might just be me - independent of her competence, I just don't like Omarosa), into the inner workings of this presidency of a corrupt and repugnant man.
Sean Spicer must have signed one of those NDAs Omarosa talks about. It explains the insipid fawning untruthfulness of his book. How can you trust anything anyone who worked in the Trump administration says when they've signed an NDA that has clauses like this (link to NDA):
No Disparagement. During the term of your service, and at all times thereafter, you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly, in any form or through any medium, the Campaign, Mr. Trump, Mr. Pence, any Trump or Pence Company, any Trump or Pence Family Member, or any Trump or Pence Family member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the forefoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts. To avoid any doubt, you agree that this shall survive the termination of this agreement pursuant to Paragraph 10.
There's been some discussion in the press about this NDA being unenforceable because it is overly broad (in the case of the the White House version of the NDA) and because it seeks to restrict information about a candidate for public office (in the case of the Trump Election Committee version of the NDA). Omarosa says she signed an NDA while working on the apprentice, and another NDA while working for the Trump campaign, but not when she started working in the White House.
It would also be my hope that any "no badmouthing in perpetuity" clause would be unconstitutional on 1st Amendment grounds no matter the sector. It shouldn't be possible to coerce lying (either explicit or by silence) through the promise of employment, which would be the case were all employers to begin using such NDAs. (And though not the topic I'll add that I don't believe the flood of mandatory binding arbitration agreements is right, either, such as in product warranties, credit card agreements, health treatment consent forms, and so forth.)
quote:Again, put legalities aside. Heck, put ethics or self-respect aside. If you worked for the Trump administration and signed one of these things, why should anyone believe anything you say about it? More specifically, why should TV shows or op-ed pages invite you or pay you to share your views without disclosing the fact you’ve vowed, in writing, that you will never, ever, for all eternity criticize this administration?
Look, I get that many flacks and hacks don’t need the threat of a million-dollar lawsuit to carry water for their former boss or party. But there’s a difference between being a loyal party guy or gal, and actually entering into a binding legal agreement that says you cannot tell the truth if the truth is embarrassing to Donald Trump and the extended Trump Universe.
At minimum, I think any Trump White House alum who has a contract with a news network or academic institution, should disclose whether they signed a NDA with a non-disparagement clause in it (or any of its associated PACs). They should produce the actual document for public review. They should also openly declare whether they consider it binding. Their answer, yes or no, should be noted at the end of any op-ed they write and mentioned by any interviewer asking them to share their opinion or analysis.
Lots of people in politics and journalism don’t tell the truth (you could look it up). But these people put it in writing, and there should be consequences for that. And if consequences are just another one of the nice things we can’t have anymore, we should at least get some transparency.
Along these lines, I recently commented that the NDA explained the fawning Sean Spicer book.
I don't know why the news media so often gives serious consideration to anything said by the Trump administration until disproven by hard evidence. Compare politicians and scientists. Maybe I'm biased, but I strongly believe that in general scientists have a great deal more integrity than politicians, yet the tobacco industry had no problem getting scientists to shill about the safety of cigarettes. Therefore scumbag politicians like Trump have an even easier time getting their entire administration (and half of Congress) to shill for them, and the news media should assume they're lying until they prove they're telling the truth. The evidence thus far says they'd be right far more often than wrong.
My hope would be that the practice would be unheard of in the public sector. There's been a lot written in the press recently expressing doubt about their enforceability, e.g., Mark Zaid: 'Any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional.'.
At this point, you are wishing. We knew that Trump was making volunteers sign NDAs even during his campaign.
Not counting Trump - we already know he's a scumbag using NDAs to prevent knowledge of his illegal and/or immoral actions from becoming public.
I wasn't thinking of political campaigns as part of the public sector, and Wikipedia's article about the public sector doesn't mention them, but maybe they are. I don't know. If they are then according to numerous experts both the campaign and the White House NDAs are likely unenforceable, see further below.
As for the idea that an NDA extends beyond classified information being unconstitutional, that's simply bad legal advice. Perhaps there was some context to Zaid's remarks that makes then something other than wishful thinking.
quote:It's entirely inappropriate & likely unconstitutional to require Fed employees to sign NDA that applies post-employment beyond classified info. We'll rep anyone who has signed & wishes to challenge such agreement pro bono. ... The courts have been clear that any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech.
quote:On Aug. 14, the Trump campaign filed an arbitration case against Manigault alleging that she violated a confidentiality agreement that she had signed in 2016. But despite the lawsuit, Manigault might not have a lot to worry about, given that experts are saying that the NDA might not be enforceable.
I'll stop there. I'm not trying to make legal arguments, just trying to point out that Zaid isn't a lone voice in the night - there are other legal voices that agree with him.
We've all heard of the Nixon tapes. Well now there's the Omarosa tapes, and as Donald Jr. would say, "I love it!" The score is currently Omarosa 3, Trump administration 0. Here are the details:
Omarosa's account of her firing by John Kelly: the Trump administration said it didn't happen that way, Omarosa produced a tape.
Omarosa's account of Trump expressing no prior knowledge of her firing: the Trump administration said it didn't happen that way, Omarosa produced a tape.
Omarosa said she was offered a do nothing job to keep quier: the Trump administration said it didn't happen that way, Omarosa produced a tape.
Why is the media investing Omarosa with so little credibility? Omarosa was on one of the Sunday morning political interview programs facing a panel of liberal interviewers (and one conservative) who all challenged her credibility but asked her virtually not a single question about any of the information in her book that had already been made public prior to the Tuesday release.
I never watched the Apprentice and I had no awareness of Omarosa before the 2016 campaign began, and very little awareness of her after. My impression from what little I saw was that she was a verbally aggressive, combative and overly dramatic Trump supporter, but unlike Kellyanne Conway she never struck me as a liar. Am I wrong about that?
I don't know what all else is in Omarosa's book, but if I were the media I'd start paying closer attention.
™ Version 4.2
