Lights Out.

Yesterday, Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as America’s 114^th Supreme Court Justice. This took place despite all of the following:

A confirmation process that appeared rushed by Republicans at every step
President Trump declaring 90% of Kavanaugh’s legal writings to be covered by “executive privilege” and therefore unviewable by the Senate Judiciary Committee
Five women expressing a willingness to testify under oath that Kavanaugh had behaved in a sexually inappropriate way toward them – including accusations of gang rape
Only one of those women, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, testifying to the Senate under oath, despite death threats against her and her family
Fox News and President Trump declaring immediately after Ford’s testimony that she was very credible
Republicans forcing Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s testimony to be merely a “he said/she said” by refusing to allow a thorough FBI investigation before they testified: such an investigation could have added valuable facts to help corroborate one side or the other
Kavanaugh telling the Senate Judiciary Committee numerous lies under oath, according to many who knew him during the era in question, including former roommate James Roche, and former classmates Charles “Chad” Ludington, Lynn Brookes and Liz Swisher. Such false statements under oath before the U.S. Senate constitute perjury – a prosecutable federal crime that should absolutely be a disqualifier for a Supreme Court seat. Most notably, Kavanaugh denied ever having had so much to drink that he couldn’t remember his actions, and gave clearly misleading testimony about the meanings of terms that he had used in his high school yearbook around the time of Ford’s assault
Kavanaugh’s proclamation that he was a victim of a smear campaign to avenge Hillary Clinton – a highly partisan statement that raises questions about his ability to be an impartial Supreme Court Justice
Republicans trying to avoid any FBI investigation into these allegations until they were forced by a reluctant Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to allow one
An FBI investigation that:
- Was limited in subject matter by the White House solely to the Ford assault and allegations by one other woman, Deborah Ramirez – not any of the other women who had come public
- Was limited in scope by the White House to a handful of pre-specified witnesses: numerous individuals were not allowed to be interviewed, despite having relevant information, and despite the fact that many were making every effort to provide the FBI with their testimonies
- Did not include FBI interviews with the key individuals, Kavanaugh and Ford: their Senate testimonies had to be considered their interviews
- Could not look at Kavanaugh’s drinking habits, information about which might have helped corroborate part of Ford’s story and uncover additional evidence, and which would also have likely proven that Kavanaugh had perjured himself before the Senate
- Was limited by the White House to no more than a week – apparently an unnecessary constraint because, with so few witnesses allowed to be interviewed, the FBI completed their report more than a day early

Republicans proclaimed this to a legitimate and sufficient investigation, despite its clear deficiencies and despite protests by Democrats

Senators who voted for Kavanaugh conceded that “something” happened to Dr. Ford, but placated themselves and their constituents with the pathetic and insulting claim that she must have just been confused, because it could not possibly have been Brett Kavanaugh. After all, he sounded genuinely upset during his testimony, and he went to Yale.

Yesterday was a dark, dark day for women, a dark day for justice, a dark day for America, and a dark signal for what the future holds. Kavanaugh’s nomination was a grotesque slap in the face to the legitimacy of our political process and to basic decency and morality. Admittedly this is one of hundreds by the Trump Administration and its Republican enablers, but this one somehow seems much uglier. Perhaps it is compounded by the President’s mocking of Christine Blasey Ford at a recent rally, to the gleeful cheers of his supporters. This is where we are at as a nation.

I’ve concluded – perhaps late in the game – that social media posts, participating in protests, and writing this blog are in large part a waste of time and energy. For those who oppose Trump, these activities are merely comforting self-reinforcement. For those who support Trump, these actions do not convince, but rather provide inspiration and a fresh supply of kindling, reassuring them that they are getting under the skin of the weak and overly sensitive “snowflakes” that they blame for their hardships. And for those who might be swayed, these actions are all little more that annoying background noise.

My political energy therefore will now be spent door knocking, phone banking, and doing other activities to help Democratic candidates for the House and Senate – particularly those who are in tough races – between now and November. I intend to keep my emotions in check, be polite and respectful to all whom I encounter, and disengage quickly and cordially from those who clearly cannot be convinced so that my time is not wasted. I hope to see you out there too. Time to leave the screen.

Lights out.

– rob rünt

Trump Will Provide Classified Intelligence to Kremlin

This is what today’s headlines should read, because it conveys what will actually happen when the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of National Intelligence are forced to comply with the President’s reckless order to declassify and publicly release numerous classified documents in the name of “transparency.” According to a September 17, 2018 press release from the White House, the documents to be declassified will include:

Pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of Carter W. Page
All FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation
All FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications
All text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction [blacking out portions of text], of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr

The backgrounds of the people in question are:

Carter Page:
- American citizen who regularly does business in Russia
- Lost a large amount of money if Russian investments
- Came to the attention of the FBI in 2013 when the FBI believed that he was being actively recruited by Russian operatives
- Became Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Adviser in March 2016
- Gave pro-Russia speech in Moscow in July 2016
- Went to Moscow again in December 2016
Bruce Ohr
- High-ranking Department of Justice official with expertise in Russian organized crime
- Long-time friend of highly regarded Russia expert/former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele; Steele had been contracted to begin investigating Trump’s activities in Russia in mid 2016 by research firm Fusion GPS (the company paid indirectly by the Clinton Campaign to do opposition research into Trump); Steele’s interviews with his trusted sources in Russia resulted in the “Steele dossier”
- Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele apparently had conversations after and possibly during the campaign about the information that Steele was uncovering
- Bruce Ohr’s wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS on the different aspects of the same Trump project that Steele was hired to work on (see article of this coincidence)
James Comey
- FBI Director during the 2016 Campaign and for the early months of the Trump Administration
- Fired by President Trump in May 2017, triggering special counsel investigation into Trump for obstruction of justice
Andrew McCabe
- Deputy Director of the FBI during the 2016 Campaign
- Temporary acting Director of the FBI after James Comey was fired
- Was found by the DOJ Inspector General’s office to have made unauthorized releases to the media and to have “lacked candor” when asked about it
Peter Strzok
- Former FBI Chief of Counterespionage
- Led FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server
- Worked for first two months of Mueller investigation into Russian interference in 2016 election
- Removed from Mueller investigation after Mueller learned of anti-Trump text messages between Strzok and an extramarital mistress, Lisa Page, sent between August 2015 and December 2016
- Discussed a “media strategy” in texts with Page
Lisa Page
- Former FBI lawyer
- Briefly served on Mueller investigative team
- Had affair with FBI officer Peter Strzok

There may be validity to initiating a deeper investigation into the actions of some of these individuals and determining whether their personal political biases crept into their professional activities. However, declassifying and releasing these documents to the public is not the appropriate way to do that. The information should instead be evaluated by a special counsel and/or by the courts. Releasing the information publicly will contribute to the legitimacy of an obstruction of justice case against the President and will jeopardize our national security.

When we hear that a government document is being released to the public, we typically envision the public as the average American citizen. In American culture, such transparency with the public is generally considered a good thing. Yet when the government assigns a “classified” label to certain information, there is a reason for that. That reason for classifying the information is usually important and should be bypassed only with thorough consideration of the unintended consequences.

The President’s public release of classified information about an active investigation into himself can provide otherwise unobtainable insights that enable witnesses and accomplices to shape their stories to match the known facts while concealing vital, still undiscovered information. This would be tantamount to obstruction of justice, similar to providing inside police information to a criminal about that criminal’s own case.

Far more alarmingly, however, are the national security implications of the President’s decision. Successful intelligence and law enforcement operations depend on the security of “sources and methods.” This is shorthand for maintaining confidentiality of how information was obtained (disclosure of which would tip off guilty parties and foreign adversaries about, for example, what modes of communication to avoid) and who the information was obtained from (disclosure of which could at best result in those informants and spies no longer being useful sources of information, or could at worst result in those individuals and their families being killed).

In Russia, the mafia and the Kremlin have a symbiotic relationship. What benefit can Russia gain from knowing about the communications between Russian organized crime expert Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele, who relied on numerous individuals inside Russia to compile his dossier? Which of Steele’s sources might be revealed in the declassified documents? How valuable would the Kremlin find information about how Russia’s election interference activities were first uncovered and how the investigation proceeded from there?

Even if names are redacted, the descriptions of dates and locations can enable a foreign adversary to determine how their activities became compromised, and who compromised them. By rendering certain intelligence sources and methods less useful or even useless, the President is jeopardizing our national security, making it that much harder for our intelligence community to determine what hostile adversaries are up to. He also may be intentionally or unintentionally tipping off Putin on how to cover tracks of Russian election interference activities being investigated by Mueller.

Trump’s decision to publicize valuable, unredacted, classified information is not only a disclosure to the average American: it is a prized treasure trove of information for the Kremlin.

– rob rünt

Trump was a More Stealth 9/11

Most Americans over the age of 22 can remember where they were on September 11, 2001 when the planes hit the Twin Towers. It was a memorable spectacle, and was intended to be so.

I was getting ready for work, watching with mild fascination as one of the network morning shows reported the oddity of a small plane or a commercial airline – they were unsure – that had accidentally flown into the Twin Towers. As the TV cameras focused on the smoke pouring out of the building, the second airline hit, prompting news anchors to speculate that there might a problem with the air traffic control at JFK. It was still largely unthinkable that this might be an intentional, coordinated act.

Few of us can say where we were when we first experienced Russia’s 2016 cyber-attack on the United States. It was an attack that was not intended to be seen, and it was just as successful as 9/11. Indeed, there are those to this day who deny that the attack even happened.

The 9/11 attack killed over 3,000 people and left a smoldering hole in the ground in downtown Manhattan.

The Russian cyber-attack – still in progress – has killed our civility to one another and left a smoldering hole in our democracy. Many of us can still see the black smoke rising daily from the Oval Office, ignored by a Republican-led Congress that nervously whistles and looks the other way.

But we often fail to notice the smoke emanating from each of us.

Putin’s attack was meant to divide America, to sow chaos, and ultimately bring down the nation that he holds most responsible for the humiliating collapse of his own then-much-larger nation – the USSR – in 1991. To the degree that we turn on each other, shun friends, demonize and belittle those on the “other side” of the Trump divide, we are doing exactly what Putin would like to see.

For a brief time after 9/11, an America that had been in deep disagreement over Bush Administration policies came together against a common foe. Today, many of us see a portion of our fellow Americans as the common foe. Trump supporters view “snowflakes” as naïve, blissfully or willfully unaware of the hardships of many, and too brainwashed to see how the Deep State is trying to bring down one of the greatest Presidents in history. Those who oppose Trump view his supporters as ignorant, racist, and/or uninformed, and too brainwashed to see the imminent threat to our nation posed by a corrupt, lying, divisive, mentally unstable, and woefully incompetent President.

These views are solidified daily by our choices of news, social media, and interpersonal interactions, all of which reinforce one of two widespread but wildly different realities. Ongoing reinforcement of these realities makes mending the divide nearly impossible.

Today as we reflect on 9/11, we can honor those lost by reminding ourselves that we are all Americans, that our new attacker’s main goal is to see us divided and to watch our nation devour itself from the inside. A reconciliation between the two sides of our nation may not be realistic at the moment.

However, we can each commit to learning more about each other’s perspectives and “facts,” and trying to understand them – not agree with them, just understand them. This is a decision as personal and intimate as the Russian cyber-attack was. We can counter the effects of that ongoing attack by occasionally tuning in to news sources that we consider bogus and trying to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who believes what is being said there. Again, the goal is not to agree, but to understand. We can also commit to learning more about our common adversary, Vladimir Putin.

At some point, the Trump Presidency will be over. Then we will be left with ourselves.

– rob rünt

Yet Another Reason to Impeach

The September 5th New York Times Op-Ed by an anonymous senior White House Official confirms what many have long believed about the President and his leadership capabilities. President Trump is described by the senior staffer as amoral, anti-democratic, ill-informed, erratic, reckless, “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.” While these character traits are about as undesirable as one can imagine in a President, it is the response that they inspire from his staff that gives a very clear reason to seriously consider impeachment.

The senior staffer describes efforts by those around the President to “frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations” and “preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.” It is hard to find precedent for this, particularly as a long-term daily dynamic within the White House.

That things have come to this point is evidence of how truly broken our government system has become, particularly under Donald Trump. The staffer and his/her allies within the White House apparently (and rightly) have little faith in the Trump-intimidated, Republican-led Congress to respond appropriately to protect the nation from an unstable President. This particular staffer has thus instead chosen to go to the media, and the others have resigned themselves to grimly serving as an internal “resistance” to the Commander in Chief.

This is a risky situation under normal global conditions, which thankfully is all that our nation has thus far been confronted with during the Trump Presidency. But what happens in a crisis – particularly a military crisis? We have seen nations like Russia and China taking note of the global leadership vacuum left by Trump’s erratic and isolating approach. Such a void of steady, trusted leadership – which the United States and its western allies have imperfectly provided since World War II – can cause unscrupulous and power-hungry adversaries to test the boundaries, to try to fill the void.

So what happens if a foreign adversary were to launch a nuclear missile at the United States? In a normal White House, the President would have a scant few minutes to verify that the threat is real and decide how to respond. After that decision, it is imperative that the system operates smoothly, and that smooth operation is dependent on trust in the President’s judgment.

But what happens with this President under such a scenario? Do his staff respond by immediately rallying to his side, or do they reasonably write off his commands as the latest delusion or impulse? They have only minutes to choose the right path through their justifiable uncertainty.

If the pictures painted in the Op-Ed and the upcoming Bob Woodward book are accurate, we have a President who is incapable of leading his staff, and who, in his ineffectiveness, poses a danger to the country. There are two remedies for this.

One is to view the senior staff as the problem. In this case, the solution is to weed out these disobedient bad apples and replace them with senior staff who are more comfortably aligned with amoral, anti-democratic, ill-informed, erratic, reckless leadership. It is hard to see how this would benefit our nation.

The other is to use the impeachment process to remove the President and replace him with a leader whose judgment can be trusted by White House staff and the military. In general (Trump excepted), this would be anyone who has risen to the level of being elected to high-level national public office. In this case, of course, that replacement would be Mike Pence.

I personally disagree with Mike Pence on virtually every issue. I have disagreed with the policies of many Presidents. However, Mike Pence fits the bill as someone who can be trusted (as much as most Presidents in our nation’s history) by his White House staff and the military to show judgment that is within the spectrum of “reasonable,” and to make decisions accordingly – particularly on military issues. In short, he can lead. Trump cannot.

The New York Times Op-Ed on its own may not be sufficient justification to impeach Donald Trump. However, it absolutely warrants confidential, closed-committee House and Senate hearings to determine how widespread the apparent chaos and “resistance” within the White House actually is, and to learn what some of the President’s thwarted impulses have been. If what is revealed matches the White House described in the anonymous New York Times Op-Ed, impeachment is appropriate and necessary for the security of the nation.

– rob rünt

Why Do They Hate Us?

You’re driving along the freeway, listening to some great music or peacefully chatting on your cell phone with a friend. Suddenly, a dusty, beaten up old car pulls up alongside you, the driver’s eyes wild, his face contorted with hellish fury. He appears to be swearing at you, he’s flipping you off, he swerves his car slightly into yours. You react defensively by swerving to avoid him, and you hear the fender of your previously undamaged car scrape along the center divider. Your anger at him immediately matches his toward you, and the battle is on. In truth, that man had already had a lot to be upset about that day, but he had actually been outwardly quite calm just a few seconds earlier. Then you had cut him off when you changed lanes without noticing him, and he had almost crashed. You were completely unaware of that: you were busy enjoying your music or talking with your friend. The fact that you weren’t paying attention now has both of you locked in a potentially deadly conflict.

The election of President Trump is like a road rage incident. Mainstream Democrats had been going along peacefully, thinking that they understood the correct focus-tested messaging and statistical analysis of the issues to run a successful Presidential campaign. Then a group of people that they hadn’t been paying attention to came out of nowhere and started ramming into them with a bizarre orange egomaniacal authoritarian in populist’s clothing (clothing purchased and custom-tailored for him at the priciest stores in Manhattan). Bewilderment turned to rage as this erratic new ruler pushed forward racist and xenophobic policies and began dismantling every institution of government necessary to the continued functioning of American civil society. Trump’s supporters defended his every move or at most shrugged, immune to all arguments that Democrats put forth, every scandal that the President created, every hypocritical act, every idiotic or offensive or even dangerous tweet. The worse it got, the more strange the non-reaction of the Trump voters seemed, and the angrier Democrats became.

Just underneath anger often lies other emotions: fear, envy, pride, sadness, a sense of injustice. The anger of the man in the road rage incident was sparked by fear: you had nearly killed him when you cut him off and almost caused him to crash. Your lack of awareness of what you had done as you drove blissfully along in your relatively nice car prompted further outrage: he had recently been laid off and was two months behind on his rent, facing eviction, and on top of it all, someone like you was so unaware of people like him that you had almost killed him without even noticing. The fact that the current conflict could now result in his death (fear of which had ironically started the incident moments before) is of little importance to him: all he wants now is to see you punished.

Likewise, your anger at him was provoked when he threatened your life by swerving at you. It was intensified when you realized that his bizarre actions had needlessly resulted in your car being damaged. Not only had his behavior endangered you: he had also cost you money in car repairs or potentially higher insurance rates. The fact that your car could possibly get totaled and you could get killed as you engage with him on the freeway is now of little importance to you: all you want is revenge.

Similarly, the anger on both sides of the Trump divide has other emotions underneath. For many on the left, like you in the road rage incident, those who elected Donald Trump have needlessly endangered your life in profound and ongoing ways. You have been thrust into living with a scandal-ridden President who seems mentally unstable, who has made the possibility of nuclear war seem real and imminent for the first time in decades, who seems bent on the destruction of essential institutions of government, who is undoing key relationships with our allies abroad, and many of whose decisions seem particularly mean-spirited toward the least fortunate among us.

For Trump supporters, like the guy in the other car, the anger was simmering decades before the election. The grievances have varied – small towns being hollowed out and brought to their knees by unemployment and addiction, hard-earned tax dollars being handed over to undeserving “others,” a long-standing cultural and economic structure upended by progressive causes like civil rights and immigration, a soft stance on the mortal danger of terrorism, or just outrage over a reakingly corrupt government. But in the end, the enemy is the same: “the system” and those in the mainstream who have been keeping it in place – both Democrats and Republicans. For almost all Trump voters, Hillary Clinton was the quintessential embodiment of the out-of-touch, cosmopolitan system of corrupt career politicians.

Just as you had been driving along peacefully in your car without noticing the havoc that you had created for other driver, you had not noticed how some significant systemic issues were (in reality or in their imaginations) endangering the lives of Trump voters. As small towns silently buckled, you instead encouraged government to help the equally needy and deserving inner cities. As people in rural America had to drive long distances to their jobs and to get groceries, you advocated paying for infrastructure repairs with a gas tax increase that would hit rural people disproportionately hard. As terrorists (whom many Trump supporters equate with “all Muslims”) waged deadly attacks against our country, you asserted reasonably that not all Muslims were terrorists, which in the minds of some Trump voters made you not only woefully naïve, but putting American lives in danger with your idiotic “tolerance.”

The guy who swerved into you on the freeway didn’t see his action as a way for him to get a new job or a way to pay his rent, but his act was partly an expression of his rage and despair over those problems. Similarly, Trump voters did not necessarily see their vote as a solution to their festering problems, but rather as an expression of long-standing anger and despair over those festering problems, and over the system that inflicted them. Going at least as far back as Timothy McVeigh, it was a kick in the nuts to the guy with the boot on their neck. The goal was simply to impose some sort of damage to the system, to hurt it. The fact that Trump supporters will likely experience even greater hardship under Trump than they would have under Clinton, the fact that the other driver could get killed antagonizing you on the freeway – it all has little relevance. What’s important to them is that punishment is inflicted, that you feel some of what you have unwittingly inflicted on them, and that you are not able to continue ignoring them and their pain. Your outrage, fear, confusion, or despair is all just an indication that the punishment is having the desired effect. Regardless of the impact on their own lives, there is satisfaction among some Trump voters in what they see as the justice of you having to lament the collapse of your democracy (they haven’t felt like it was theirs for a long time), your damaged fender.

In the road rage incident, if you and the other driver were to pull over and get out of your cars, the ensuing conversation would almost certainly be unproductive at best. You would yell about your fender, which the other driver couldn’t care less about: he would see it as just desserts for your endangering his life. He would yell at you about cutting him off, which would seem disproportionate compared to his overblown reaction and the bill that you are now facing for body work on your car. You would essentially be talking past each other, having two different conversations at the same time in which neither person could hear the other.

Most attempts at dialog between Trump supporters and those on the left are similarly unproductive. Many on the left consider Trump’s election to be primarily about racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, and ignorance. Many of Trump’s supporters, on the other hand, consider his election to be about geographic and economic unfairness, political corruption, over-involvement abroad, strength toward foreign enemies, religious issues, and working class dignity. When Trump supporters and those who oppose Trump debate each other, they are therefore often having two different conversations at the same time. They shout past one another, neither hearing the other. It is why Steve Bannon says that he’s happy to debate “identity issues” all day long, because he knows that as long as polarization remains, he wins.

There is no easy way to heal our political divide. Many news outlets, social media trolls and craven political opportunists have found it profitable to feed division rather than seek to resolve it. A constant flow of information or misinformation supporting whatever reality each American wants to believe is certainly an obstacle too. But one thing is for certain: giving each other the simple courtesy of listening cannot hurt. When an angry person knows that they have been listened to and genuinely understood, the intensity of their anger diminishes dramatically, and they can begin to hear the other person.

Listening does not mean agreeing with the “other side,” letting go of principles, or stopping the important work to further deeply held values. It merely means hearing a different perspective and trying to put onesself in someone else’s shoes. At this point, the goal of listening is not some kumbaya moment where everyone hugs it out and moves on in harmony. The goal is to lower the intensity enough that we don’t total the car.

– rob rünt

GOP Backing Roy Moore is About Keeping the Presidency, Not Just a Senate Seat

How low can Republicans go, some may ask. After months of looking the other way as Donald Trump toys with nuclear war, alienates our international allies, reaps millions in profits from his Presidency, and tweets falsehoods on a regular basis, many thought that the Republican Party had hit rock bottom. Until they endorsed accused pedophile Roy Moore for the US Senate.

Multiple women have alleged that Roy Moore dated them or engaged in sexual activity with them when they were teens. At the time, Moore was a District Attorney in his 30s in Alabama. In his defense, Moore recently asserted on Fox’s Sean Hannity’s show that he had never dated any girl without first getting “permission of her mother.”

Signature-Gibson — *Alleged messages written by Alabama District Attorney Roy Moore to Debbie Gibson and Beverly Nelson when they were teenagers.*

How can the Republican Party, which for years had sanctimoniously proclaimed itself the party of God and morality, throw its endorsement behind someone who appears to have sexually preyed on children? Is keeping one Senate seat really so important to them that they are willing to throw aside all pretense of integrity? Yes and no.

Republicans currently hold a slim majority in the Senate, and they would no doubt like to maintain that majority. But there is an office that is far more important to them to hang onto: the Presidency.

The tie-in here requires a look at the immediate circumstances of the President, the Mueller investigation, and what kind of political process could prematurely end that investigation.

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has recently subpoenaed and received Donald Trump’s financial records from Germany’s Deutsche Bank. Aside from being one of the few financial institutions willing to lend money to Mr. Trump after one of his bankruptcies, Deutsche Bank was also fined $630 million by the US government in January of this year for laundering over $10 billion for wealthy Russians in a stock fraud scheme. (Money laundering means running illegally obtained money through some process to make it appear legitimate). My personal suspicion is that, prior to his life as a political figure, Donald Trump engaged in real estate transactions that assisted others, including wealthy Russians like oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev, to launder or hide their money. Such assertions have been made in the infamous “dossier” compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

Vladimir Putin would no doubt be aware of such illegal activity, and could use that knowledge to blackmail President Trump, which would explain the President’s baffling reluctance to criticize Putin while attacking virtually everyone else, including the US intelligence community.

As Mueller ”follows the money” and gets closer to areas that can bear fruit in his investigation, many Republicans, who initially supported the selection of Robert Mueller (a Republican with an excellent reputation within the legal community for his dogged investigative practices and impeccable integrity) have suddenly begun turning on the Special Prosecutor, now calling him “corrupt” and “the head of the snake.” The President has made no secret of his dislike of the Mueller probe, calling it a “witch hunt.”

Yet if Trump were seen as directly trying to remove Robert Mueller after already having fired FBI Director James Comey, it would be viewed as a blatant obstruction of justice. Republicans have discovered another way to get rid of Mueller, and it requires the election of Roy Moore to the Senate.

The Special Prosecutor would ordinarily be appointed by the US Attorney General. However, in the current situation, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions (former Alabama Senator) had recused himself from the Russia investigation, due to his potentially being considered a witness in that case. So instead, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was given the responsibility to appoint a Special Counsel. He chose former FBI Director Robert Mueller. Rosenstein would be the most appropriate person to remove Mueller from the case, but seems unlikely to do so, and Sessions cannot do so, because he has recused himself.

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has been encouraging Alabamans to write in Jeff Sessions when they vote. He has also said that if Roy Moore is elected, the Senate will immediately begin an ethics investigation into the allegations of the various women against Moore. Such an investigation will likely find that these women are in fact telling the truth about their teenage encounters with Roy Moore, and such findings will likely result in the Senate expelling Moore or demanding his resignation.

When a Senator leaves office prematurely, that state’s Governor is empowered to appoint a replacement. Some Republican political operatives have advocated for Moore to be replaced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, essentially putting Sessions back in his old job as one of Alabama’s two Senators. It would seem a natural choice.

Yet the resulting absence in the US Attorney General’s office would allow the President a “mulligan” on appointing an Attorney General – enabling him to select a new Attorney General who would not need to recuse himself/herself from the Russia investigation and who would therefore have the authority to remove Robert Mueller and either replace him with a new Special Prosecutor or declare the investigation over.

Currently, Roy Moore is ahead of his Democratic opponent Doug Jones in the Alabama polls. If Moore wins, the wheels can easily be put in motion for a premature end to the Russia probe, or for an investigation that avoids looking in the most meaningful and damning areas.

– rob rünt

July 9 – 31, 2017

Articles & Editorials:

Main Stories

Scaramucci

Scaramucci on Leaks: ‘I’m Going to Fire Everybody’
(New York Times – 7/25/17)

Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve Bannon
(The New Yorker – 7/27/17)

Scaramucci: ‘If Reince wants to explain that he’s not a leaker, let him do that’
(Washington Post – 7/27/17)

“The fish stinks from the head down. But I can tell you two fish that don’t stink, and that’s me and the president.”

– Anthony Scaramucci, White House Press Secretary

Is it a felony to leak a financial disclosure form, as Anthony Scaramucci said?
(Politifact – 7/27/17)

Reince Priebus Is Ousted Amid Stormy Days for White House
(New York Times – 7/28/17)

Anthony Scaramucci’s wife files for divorce
(Page Six – 7/28/17)

“There are people inside the administration that think it is their job to save America from this president. OK, that is not their job. Their job is to inject this president into America.”

– Anthony Scaramucci, White House Press Secretary
(CNN – 7/27/17)

Anthony Scaramucci removed as White House communications director
(Washington Post – 7/31/17)

Trump and Putin

Week-0027-170708-010

“This is like the guy who robbed your house proposing a working group on burglary.”

– Ash Carter, Former US Secretary of Defense
(Telegraph UK – 7/9/17)

Trump and Putin Held a Second, Undisclosed, Private Conversation
(New York Times – 7/18/17)

Trump Spins Putin Dinner Conversation
(FactCheck.org – 7/19/17)

Trump and Russia

All The Dots, Connected
(The American Interest – 7/25/17)

A Timeline: Russia and President Trump
(Moyers & Company – 7/17/17)

Bill Browder’s Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee
(The Atlantic – 7/25/17)

Russian mob money helped build Trump business empire
(MSNBC – 7/17/17)

Paul Manafort Reportedly Owed Millions to Russian Oligarch Before Joining trump Campaign
(Vanity Fair – 7/20/17)

Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow
(Washington Post – 7/19/17)

Mueller has broader authority in his Russia investigation than Trump may realize
(Business Insider – 7/21/17)

This Is How the Russian Kleptocracy Operates
(Esquire – 7/27/17)

Russia Seizes 2 U.S. Properties and Orders Embassy to Cut Staff
(New York Times – 7/28/17)

Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer
(Washington Post – 7/31/17)

Maybe What Russia Wants From Trump Is Permission to Launder Its Dirty Money
(Slate – 7/20/17)

“He isn’t smart enough to do the job and isn’t man enough to own up to the fact.”

– Kevin Williamson, National Review – 7/30/17

Healthcare Reform

Frustrated in defeat, Trump threatens healthcare of voters — and lawmakers
(Los Angeles Times – 7/29/17)

Dems pivot to offering ObamaCare improvements
(The Hill – 7/29/17)

Editorials

Liberals can win again if they stop being so annoying and fix their ‘hamburger problem’
(Business Insider – 7/17/17)

Trump’s breathtaking surrender to Russia
(Washington Post – 7/20/17)
Note: Senator John McCain (R-AZ) recommends that every American read this piece written by a former Senior Policy Advisor for George W. Bush

The Democrats’ New Agenda Is Everything That’s Wrong With the Party
(In These Times – 7/27/17)

No, Trump can’t pardon himself. The Constitution tells us so.
(Washington Post – 7/21/17)

Trump’s Mistake at the Boy Scout Jamboree
(The Atlantic – 7/24/17)

Trump Is Woody Allen Without the Humor
(Peggy Noonan – Wall Street Journal – 7/27/17)

The Triumph of the Idiocracy: How Narcissism, Stupidity and the Internet Got Us Donald Trump, an Accidental President
(Alternet – 7/31/17)

Alternative Facts from an Alternative Universe

Self-selecting our news sources, a reluctance to hear opposing ideas, and the choice by many of us to surround ourselves only with like-minded individuals has resulted in many Americans becoming oblivious to the beliefs of those with whom they disagree. This bubble helped create the world of “alternative facts” in which Donald Trump could become President.

To counter this, each week I will present a little of what Trump’s supporters are thinking. Their reality may be very different from yours. Please listen/read to the end, and consider what respectful questions you could ask to better understand and have a conversation, rather than seeking to prove them wrong as quickly as possible and shut them down. We can’t change minds if we can’t talk to each other.

Posted on Facebook by An0maly, reposted here because it’s important to understand Trump supporters’ different perspectives so that we don’t have to go through this again.

Cartoons, Images & Videos

A video tweeted by Donald Trump about the G20 Summit – remarkably similar to the kind of video that one might expect the leader of North Korea to broadcast:

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! pic.twitter.com/NVDVRrWLs4

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2017

Posted on Facebook by “Union Thugs:”

TWIT-00003

Source: Unknown:

Cartoon by Nate Beeler, Columbia Dispatch:

Cartoon by Steve Sack, Star Tribune:

Source: Unknown:

This Week’s Blog Entry

The Mueller Investigation:
Why Trump’s Finances and Beauty Pageants are 100% Relevant to Russia

Events & Actions

Resources & Organizations

“People don’t realize he loves holding my hand. And that’s good, as far as that goes.”

President Donald Trump speaking about French President Emmanuel Macron
(New York Times interview – 7/19/17)

The Mueller Investigation: Why Trump’s Finances and Beauty Pageants are 100% Relevant to Russia

The Mueller Investigation:
Why Trump’s Finances and Beauty Pageants are 100% Relevant to Russia

News outlets like the Washington Post and New York Times have reported that Trump’s legal advisors are looking for ways to disqualify Robert Mueller, the Special Prosecutor investigating possible Trump Campaign collusion with Russia. One way in which Team Trump hopes to do this is by claiming that Mueller is overstepping the scope of his investigation by looking into things like Trump’s personal finances. While such areas of inquiry might on the surface seem unrelated to electoral meddling by Russia, Trump’s taxes, financial dealings and other areas are in fact very legitimate and essential aspects to explore.

When Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as Special Prosecutor, he defined the scope of Mueller’s investigation as “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated” with Trump’s campaign, “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation,” and “any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)” such as obstruction of justice, destroying evidence, and intimidating witnesses.

In looking at whether or not the Trump Campaign colluded with Russia – or if Trump or his Administration are currently colluding with Russia – Mueller needs to look at why Trump and Putin would possibly want to cooperate.

There are a number of possible explanations for such cooperation. One is “kompromat” – potentially compromising evidence of something embarrassing or illegal – that Putin might be using to blackmail Trump, as alleged in the dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele (Buzzfeed – 1/10/17). Another explanation is major financial debts which Putin may in some way be helping Trump get rid of, or which Trump owes to Russia. And another explanation is the possibility of a financial crime yet to be committed against the United States, in which Putin or other Russians and Trump are currently coordinating.

Here is how some of Mueller’s possible avenues of investigation can help show whether there is anything of substance to any of those explanations.

Tax Returns

Donald Trump has been evasive about his tax returns ever since he was first asked about them. During his campaign, unlike previous Presidential candidates, he said that he would only disclose his tax returns if elected, citing the feeble and long debunked excuse that he was under a “routine audit” by the IRS. Once elected, Trump continued to refuse to make his tax returns public, claiming falsely that only the media care about them (The Hill – 1/11/17), when in fact even a majority of Republicans want him to release them (The Hill – 4/13/17).

Trump’s tax returns are relevant to the Russia investigation because they can show debts that he owes and business relationships that he has. Knowing to whom Trump owes money, and how much, can help Mueller connect the dots, if there are any, between those debts and Russia. Understanding Trump’s business relationships can also be a starting point toward uncovering closer connections with Putin than the President has admitted.

Bank Loans

As a real estate mogul, Donald Trump has taken out loans from financial institutions around the world in order to purchase real estate, build on or improve properties, and other legal real estate activities. If Trump has had difficulty repaying some of those loans, someone offering to help take care of them could be appealing to the President. If that person is Vladimir Putin or an associate of Putin’s, that is highly relevant information for Mueller’s investigation. The first step toward exploring this angle is to look at Trump’s bank debts.

The relevance of bank loans in the Russia scandal becomes even more acute if some of the banks are actually Russian banks, especially Russian state banks. As Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 (British intelligence agency) said in April, “What lingers for Trump may be what deals — on what terms — he did after the financial crisis of 2008 to borrow Russian money when others in the west apparently would not lend to him.” (The Sun UK – 4/13/17)

Real Estate Deals

Exploring Trump’s real estate deals can provide not only a starting point to learning more about Trump’s debts, but also about illegal activity that he may have been involved in during his civilian life or which he may currently be involved in – knowledge of which, if known by Putin or associates of Putin, could be used to blackmail the President.

In particular, learning more about Trump’s real estate deals can yield clues about money laundering. Money laundering is the act of putting illegally obtained money through a process that can give that money the appearance of legitimacy. Former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort is currently under investigation for money laundering for some New York condos that he purchased with all cash (The Atlantic – 3/29/17).

Trump himself has had numerous questionable real estate transactions, including the 2006 purchase of a Palm Beach mansion, which stayed vacant until he sold it a year later to a wealthy Russian oligarch named Dmitry Rybolovlev – for nearly twice the amount that he had purchased it for (MSNBC – 3/27/17). Rybolovlev reportedly never even visited the home.

Wilbur Ross

Rybolovlev was introduced to the President by an old friend named Wilbur Ross (MSNBC – 3/27/17). Ross was appointed by Trump and confirmed as the US Secretary of Commerce in February. Prior to that, Ross was one of two Vice Chairmen of the Bank of Cyprus. Cyprus is an island off the coast of Turkey whose banks are often used by wealthy Russian oligarchs to launder money. The other Vice Chairman of the Bank of Cyprus is Viktor Vekselberg, the second wealthiest man in Russia and a close personal friend of Vladimir Putin.

In 2014, Ross and Vekselberg appointed Josef Ackerman to be President of the Bank of Cyprus (The Irish Times – 11/1/14). From 2002-2012, Ackerman had been CEO of Deutsche Bank, one of the largest banks in the world. Deutsche Bank had also been engaged in laundering approximately $10 billion for wealthy Russians in a stock fraud scheme (Vanity Fair – 7/20/17) – a crime discovered in 2013, and for which the United States fined the bank $630 million. Trump owed Deutsche Bank millions of dollars at the time that Wilbur Ross connected him with Dmitry Rybolovlev for the seemingly overpriced purchase of the Palm Beach mansion.

Untangling this mess, figuring out who knows what about it, looking at how Russia and Deutsche Bank and the Bank of Cyprus factor in, as well as understanding the role of Wilbur Ross, may help Mueller better decipher how Donald Trump may be compromised by Russia and why he may be unduly interested in cooperating with them.

Beauty Pageants

In 2013, Donald Trump brought his Miss Universe beauty pageant to Russia (New York Times – 7/11/17). The recently disclosed June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and a Russian lawyer was arranged by Rob Goldstone, a marketing executive who has worked for the Miss Universe pageants. Aras Agalarov, the person whom Goldstone cited as the connection to the Russian lawyer, had paid almost $20 million to bring the Miss Universe pageant to Russia.

While these connections are important for Mueller to investigate, the Miss Universe pageant is also relevant because the Christopher Steele dossier (Buzzfeed – 1/10/17) alleges that Trump participated in a potentially embarrassing private event in 2013 in a room at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow – an event which Vladimir Putin may possess video footage of. Such footage could be used to blackmail President Trump. In order to determine whether Trump is compromised as the Steele dossier alleges, Mueller needs to develop a timeline of Trump’s activities during any 2013 visits to Russia.

Donald Trump has proven to be a brilliant artist when it comes to smearing those he dislikes and branding them in a negative way. We should be conscious that news outlets are currently reporting possible plans by Trump’s associates to discredit and remove Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller. Mueller’s reputation as an ethical and dedicated law enforcement professional is impeccable. And the areas now believed to be coming under the scrutiny of his investigation are all absolutely relevant and necessary to get a full picture of any potential collusion between Donald Trump/his campaign/his Administration and Russia. We should also remain acutely aware that Vladimir Putin does not have the best interests of the United States at heart.

– rob rünt

What You Don’t Need to Know: Understanding Intelligence and Law Enforcement Regarding Trump

We are likely to hear plenty of testimony before Congress from law enforcement and intelligence officials in the coming months. People who see Donald Trump as corrupt or worse may find themselves frustrated by what appears to be an attempt by these officials to hide key information from Congress and from the public. Some Americans may even begin developing conspiracy theories about these officials’ silence or apparent evasiveness under oath.

It is possible that some individuals in the FBI, Secret Service, NSA, CIA, etc. may be inappropriately trying to conceal incriminating information about the President. However, when law enforcement or intelligence people conceal such information from Congress in open testimony, it is almost certainly not an attempt to protect the President. Rather, it is an attempt to protect the investigations into his campaign and administration from becoming compromised, because they want to ensure that any wrongdoing can be prosecuted with the best evidence possible when and if arrests are made.

Law enforcement and intelligence have obligations that at times can be hard to balance. They are supposed to serve the American public, which in the minds of many means that the public has a right to know everything that is going on in an investigation, what evidence has been compiled so far, how it was discovered, and all other important information. Americans want to quickly and definitively know, in the words of Richard Nixon, “if their President is a crook,” and they certainly don’t want a crook to stay in office if law enforcement have strong reason to believe that the person is corrupt in some way.

But law enforcement and intelligence personnel are also supposed to serve the American public by doing their job, by “getting the bad guys,” by performing as thorough an investigation as they can, by ensuring that their evidence is as airtight as it can be, by preventing crimes, sabotage, and foreign intelligence operations from being successful in the future. That means that not everything that they know can or should always be disclosed to the public all the time.

The audience for public statements from law enforcement and intelligence is not only the American public. Criminals being investigated are paying attention as well. People considering committing future crimes are paying attention. In the Russia investigation, the Russians are paying attention. Other hostile countries are paying attention. It is important not to give them useful information.

For this reason, there are things that law enforcement officials may be reluctant to disclose publicly, particularly in the middle of an active investigation, including:

Who is under surveillance
What facts, testimonies and evidence have been gathered so far
Who are the witnesses, informants or undercover agents
What don’t law enforcement currently know
What evidence don’t they have
How is information being collected/what techniques are being used
What is their strategy for getting the needed evidence or making an arrest
Any sensitive/classified/secret information
Conclusions that law enforcement have reached so far

Prematurely disclosing such information can damage an active investigation in many possible ways. It can enable a criminal to better know how to cover their tracks, who to stop trusting, who to kill to prevent testimony in court, what not to lie about under oath, or any number of other issues that can complicate or even completely ruin an investigation. That information is appropriate to reveal in court after the arrests, and much may be appropriate to reveal publicly as well at that time, but not during the investigation.

Similarly, there are things that intelligence officials may be reluctant to disclose publicly, especially in the middle of their operations or investigations, including:

Who or what their sources of information are (or things that could enable someone to figure that out)
What they know about other foreign powers (or how they know it)
What they don’t know about other foreign powers (or why they don’t know it)
What tactics and techniques they use
Where they are focusing their attention

Gathering intelligence, setting up an effective surveillance operation, and gaining access to key information is very difficult. It can require extensive resources, money, talent, and in some cases years of cultivating trustworthy relationships. Once that information is revealed publicly (and therefore to the people about whom it has been gathered), it becomes far less valuable, or sometimes completely useless. For that reason, intelligence officials are very careful about what they say about their work.

Publicly disclosing information about an intelligence operation or its results – or revealing that information to the wrong person – can have severe consequences beyond merely rendering years of hard work useless. Those consequences include:

Agents or informants being killed
Hostile countries learning of previously unknown vulnerabilities of the US, American allies, or themselves
Hostile countries being able to more effectively conduct intelligence or military operations to harm the US or its allies
Military operations of the US or Americas allies becoming compromised, resulting in American troops or those of our allies being needlessly killed
Hostile countries taking military actions elsewhere in the world which they otherwise might not have
Terrorists knowing how to better avoid detection of their plans and activities

That is why Israel was so outraged – and other nations so deeply concerned – when President Trump boastfully blabbed classified information to Russian officials in the Oval Office: he had recklessy damaged an intelligence operation of an important ally, rendered the information less useful, made that ally’s future intelligence operations more difficult, and potentially put the lives of that ally’s informants or spies at risk – and for what?

Additionally, law enforcement see their own investigations in ways that may not always make immediate sense, especially during testimony or public comments.

Law enforcement treat investigations that are in progress differently from those that have been completed. An ongoing investigation requires some degree of secrecy, for reasons described above. Law enforcement consider an investigation complete when they have gathered what they believe to be all of the evidence, spoken to what they believe to be all of the relevant people involved, and come to a conclusion that the evidence collected is sufficient (or not) for a court of law to potentially determine the guilt or innocence of one or more persons. At that point, if that evidence points sufficiently to guilt, arrests are made, after which law enforcement officials feel more free to publicly discuss some of the details of the case.

An example of this would be former FBI Director James Comey’s controversial handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation. The FBI had been investigating Hillary Clinton and those around her for evidence of conscious wrongdoing in their use of a private e-mail server (potentially more open to being hacked) to transmit classified government information.

The FBI considered that investigation to have been completed in July of 2016: they believed that they had reviewed all of the evidence, and because Clinton was a candidate for President, they took the step of publicly announcing that their investigation was complete. It should be noted that the closing of that investigation did not mean that Hillary had done nothing wrong, but merely that the FBI did not have sufficient evidence to prove in a court of law that she had knowingly and intentionally done something illegal.

In October of 2016, in a separate investigation into illegal online sexual activity by former Senator Anthony Weiner (D-NY), a large number of Clinton-related e-mails from Weiner’s wife, Clinton aid Huma Abedin, were discovered on Weiner’s computer. The FBI could not be instantly certain that all of these e-mails had already been reviewed during the Clinton e-mail investigation. In other words, it was possible that the FBI had been mistaken and premature in concluding in July that they had reviewed all of the evidence.

Because a public announcement had already been made that the Clinton e-mail investigation had been closed, because it now needed to be reopened, and because it was important for the public to know that the investigation’s status had changed, James Comey took the unusual – and to many, outrageous – step of notifying Congress shortly before the election that the FBI was reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail activity. Through the allocation of extra staff, time and resources, the FBI was able to quickly process the potentially new e-mails and announce before the election that they were once again closing that investigation.

It is almost certain that Comey’s decision impacted the results of the election in favor of Donald Trump, and one can question Comey’s judgment in how he handled things, but looking at it from his perspective, the outcome of the Clinton investigation had become once again not known. Had Hillary become President, and then the e-mails on Weiner’s computer had revealed that she was guilty of provably, knowingly, and intentionally committing a crime, Americans would have been demanding why Comey had concealed from them the fact that the investigation had been reopened. The outrage currently felt by many Democrats about Comey’s last-minute Hillary revelation would have been felt even more strongly by Trump supporters, who would likely have made accusations and developed conspiracy theories about how the FBI had covered for Hillary Clinton to get a Washington insider unjustly elected to protect the status quo. In other words, it was a no-win for Comey, and he made the best decision that he could in a situation where there were no good decisions.

One could ask why Comey did not give what would seem to many people to be equal treatment to the Trump investigation, which was by then underway. Why did he choose not to notify Congress, at the same time as his announcement of reopening the Hillary investigation, that the Trump campaign was also under investigation for activity related to Russia? This again was a judgment call in a situation where there were no good decisions.

At the time, the Trump Campaign did not know that the FBI was actively investigating them. Notifying Congress of that fact while the investigation was ongoing – and in truth just starting – would have damaged the investigation, potentially causing people in the Trump Campaign or the Russians to be more cautious, cover their tracks more thoroughly, stop talking to certain people, etc., all of which would have made gathering sufficient evidence for an eventual prosecution much more difficult or even impossible. The efforts by Russia were huge and sophisticated: it was absolutely in America’s best interest to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of it to prevent such activity in the future. That meant that the FBI did not want to take action that could jeopardize the investigation.

On the other hand, not telling Congress about the Trump-Russia investigation could result in America having a President whose campaign – or who himself – was influenced by or compromised by a hostile foreign power. Comey apparently believed that this was at least something that could be managed through continued monitoring of the situation by the FBI and other law enforcement. This does not mean that he made the right decision, or that he did not. It merely explains the difficult decision that he made.

Finally, when law enforcement and intelligence officials are questioned publicly before Congress, they may say things like “I don’t think that’s appropriate to discuss here” or “I can’t talk about that in open session,” they are not being underhanded. We are used to assuming a greater likelihood of guilt or shiftiness when people “plea the Fifth” under oath, but that is not what is happening here.

Some Congressional hearings are held in “open session,” meaning that the public can potentially watch, listen to, or be made aware of what is said there. Other Congressional hearings are held in “closed session.” Statements and information revealed in closed hearings may not be disclosed publicly, and may only be attended by Senators or Representatives who have been properly “cleared” (formally assessed to be capable of keeping their mouths shut).

The reason for a closed hearing is usually so that Congress (in the form of the handful of “cleared” legislators) can be notified of information that cannot be revealed publicly. In the various Trump-, Russia-, and election-related investigations, referring some subjects to a closed session is likely because disclosing such information in a public setting could jeopardize an investigation or an intelligence operation in some way.

We live in a time when trust in government is low and our suspicions high. It is natural for us to question when someone testifying before Congress appears to be concealing the truth. Understanding the perspectives and priorities of law enforcement and intelligence officials can help us better assess what we are seeing and hearing – and not seeing and hearing – from them.

– rob rünt

It’s Time for an Intervention in Washington DC (Part 3 of 3)

Photo by Michael Vadon (Own work)
Usage via Wikimedia Commons

It’s Time for an Intervention in Washington DC (Part 3 of 3)

There is no question that Season 2 of the Trump Presidency is shaping up to be far more exciting than Season 1. In this past week’s episode alone, the President said “you’re fired” to the very same FBI Director investigating him over Russia ties, met the next day in the Oval Office with two Russian officials (allowing only one reporter to be present – from Russian state news), there was riveting testimony before Congress from former acting Attorney General Sally Yates (“you’re fired”), and poor Press Secretary Sean Spicer hid in the bushes from reporters.

But really, for the good of the nation, the show needs to be cancelled – ideally before Season 2 is over. It is not healthy for Americans to wake up wondering if, while they were asleep, their President might have tweeted out the start of World War III, launched nuclear weapons, or haplessly brought on a major economic collapse.

Below are seven ways that the show can be brought to an early close and we can get on with our lives.

Ending #1

Trump’s profits as President are found to violate the STOCK Act.

Likelihood:

Somewhat Likely

Background:

The STOCK Act was written to prevent Congress from profiting from their legislative decisions. Frustrated that this restriction did not also apply to then-President Obama, legislators added the provision that “no executive branch employee may use nonpublic information derived from [or acquired through] their position as an executive branch employee as a means for making a private profit.”

Relevant Facts:

When President Trump chooses to spend another weekend at his for-profit Mar-a-Lago resort (he has done this most weekends since his Inauguration), some of his security and staff must also stay there. If he or his family profit from that, it would be a violation of the STOCK Act. As a side note, after Trump was sworn into office, Mar-a-Lago resort doubled its membership fees.
The President has chosen to have his wife and son live at Trump Tower instead of the White House. An on-site Secret Service detail is required to provide security for them. If Trump or his family profit from that arrangement (rent, etc.), it would be a violation of the STOCK Act.
As a President with for-profit businesses, Trump has numerous conflicts of interest (see a partial list here). Many of these have potential to be seen as violations of the STOCK Act. When you hear the phrase “conflict of interest” on the news in regard to Trump, think “STOCK Act.”
Because the STOCK Act applies to “executive branch employees,” it may also apply to many of Jared Kushner’s and Ivanka Trump’s business activities, because those businesses may now represent conflicts of interest.

Areas of Uncertainty:

Few

Potential Action:

Congress can commission an investigation into Trump’s business activities, and whether Trump is profiting from them.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees should each be provided at least ten paid full-time staff with strong backgrounds in the law and finance to work solely on investigating the many questionable issues surrounding President Trump.
Congress can ensure that the FBI has adequate resources to investigate.
If Trump is profiting from any of his businesses in a way that is positively impacted by nonpublic knowledge that he has as President (including the decisions that he makes as President), he is in violation of the STOCK Act.

Implications of Inaction:

Donald Trump can use decisions that he makes as President to enrich himself and his family – sometimes with government (i.e. our tax) money.
Decisions made in President Trump’s best personal/financial interest may not always be in the best interest of the United States. That is why it is called a conflict of interest.
The legitimacy of Congress as a trusted check on the Executive Branch will be put into question.
Americans’ belief in the integrity of our democracy will be further eroded.

Ending #2

Trump’s Presidential profits from foreign entities are found to violate the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution.

Likelihood:

Slim

Background:

Written in the 1700s to prevent US ambassadors abroad from being influenced by wealthy Europeans, the Emoluments Clause in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution forbids a President from taking gifts or payments from foreign leaders. Exact text: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” An emolument is defined as a salary, fee or profit.

Relevant Facts:

Foreign officials are believed to be paying to stay in Trump properties in order to curry favor with the President of the United States.
A New York hotel owner has joined a lawsuit alleging that the President owning nearby hotels is creating unfair competition for other hotels.
Trump rents his properties to foreign businesses and individuals as well, such as the Chinese government-controlled Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.

Areas of Uncertainty:

Even among Constitutional scholars, there is disagreement about whether the wording of this clause definitely applies to Trump’s situation. Do the profits nonetheless smell of bribery at worst and disregard for ethics at best? Absolutely.

Potential Action:

Congress can commission an investigation into money paid by foreign governments to Trump’s businesses, and whether Trump or his family are profiting from those payments.
Congress can ensure that the FBI has adequate resources to investigate.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees should each be provided at least ten paid full-time staff with strong backgrounds in the law and finance to work solely on investigating the many questionable issues surrounding President Trump.
If Trump and/or his family are making a profit from those payments, it is possible that a case could be made that the Emoluments Clause has been violated. That case would depend upon a specific interpretation of the law and would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court, to be decided at their discretion.

Implications of Inaction:

Foreign governments and leaders may be able to influence the President in ways that are not in the best interests of America.
The legitimacy of Congress as a trusted check on the Executive Branch will be put into question.
Americans’ belief in the integrity of our democracy will be further eroded.

Ending #3

Trump is found to have colluded with Russia in their interference with the 2016 Presidential Election, or he is found to be currently under Russia’s influence.

Likelihood:

Somewhat Likely

Background:

Title 18 of the US Code, Section 1, Chapter 115, § 2381 states “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

Relevant Facts:

Russia President Vladimir Putin is no friend of the United States. As a former officer in the KGB (the then-Soviet Union’s equivalent of the CIA), Putin considered it an affront to national pride when the Soviet Union collapsed – a situation for which he blamed the US. He has harbored a grudge ever since, and has dreamed of one day reuniting the Soviet Union and restoring what he considered its former glory – by force if necessary. That is why it was so worrisome when Putin annexed Crimea in the Ukraine on March 18, 2014: the act was likely one of many steps that Putin has in the works to reconstitute the old Soviet Union. In order to achieve his goals, Putin understands that he needs to weaken western countries (and their alliance, NATO) so that they cannot be a potent counterforce. So Russia has recently been trying to politically destabilize western countries like Germany, France, the UK, and the United States, in part through interfering in their elections.
Eric Trump allegedly boasted about his family getting enormous amounts of money in loans from Russia – a claim that he now denies.
Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, while doing “opposition research” for one of Trump’s Republican political opponents and later for a Democratic client, claims to have discovered evidence that Russia could be blackmailing Trump. Disturbed that what he had found was of grave concern to both the wellbeing of the US and UK, Steele bypassed his client and presented this findings to the US intelligence community in a dossier before the 2016 election.
All of the evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia is currently circumstantial, but there is a lot of it (too much to list here). Here are a few links to sources that have compiled or are compiling the information:
- Donald Trump’s Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia
  (Time – 8/2/16)
- Here’s What we Know so Far About Team Trump’s Ties to Russian Interests
  (Washington Post – originally published 3/31/17, updated 5/11/17)
- The Many Paths from Trump to Russia
  (CNN – Updated 5/9/17)
- The web site of US Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), member of the House Intelligence Committee
- Russia: The Scandal Trump Can’t Shake
  (BBC – 5/10/17)

Areas of Uncertainty:

Given the 2016 Trump Campaign’s many Russian connections, it seems quite possible that someone in the campaign may have coordinated in some way with Russia to help or encourage Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 US election. However, for Trump to be implicated in any way in the Russia scandal, there would need to be evidence – testimony, documents, e-mails, recordings, financial records – showing that Trump himself either actively participated in or at least knew about cooperation between his campaign and Russia. That may be a high bar to reach.
FBI Director James Comey, who appeared to be doggedly investigating these connections and was beginning to ramp up his efforts significantly, has been fired. It is currently uncertain whether the person appointed by Trump to investigate Trump will be as bright, diligent, nonpartisan or trustworthy.

Potential Action:

A special prosecutor and an independent committee, both agreed upon by a majority of both parties in Congress, should be appointed by Congress to investigate the possibility of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia, as well as the possibility of any current influence that Russia may have on the President or his Administration.
The special prosecutor and independent committee should be given all the funding and resources that they need to conduct a thorough investigation.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees should each be provided at least ten paid full-time staff with strong backgrounds in the law and finance to work solely on investigating the many questionable issues surrounding President Trump.
Congress can ensure that the FBI also has adequate resources to investigate.
If sufficient evidence is found that Trump collaborated with Russia in any way in their interference, was aware of collaboration in his campaign, or is currently being influenced by Russia, appropriate legal action (including removal from office) should happen immediately.

Implications of Inaction:

Putin may be able to overtly or covertly influence Trump to make decisions that are not in the best interest of the United States or its allies. Some of these decisions could have profound negative implications for the wellbeing and future of the United States. It would give Putin no greater satisfaction that to see the US fail, to become the object of international ridicule or hatred, and to become as relevant on the world stage as a third world banana republic.
Putin will likely become more aggressive toward countries of the former Soviet Union, testing western powers to see what we are willing to do to stop him.
If Trump is believed by our allies to be in collusion with Russia, our allies – relationships that the United States has cultivated over decades and even centuries – will begin to shift their alliances to more trustworthy partners than the United States, putting the US in danger of having less support in military conflicts, among other situations.
The legitimacy of Congress as a trusted check on the Executive Branch will be put into question.
Americans’ belief in the integrity of our democracy will be further eroded.

Ending #4

Trump is found to have been involved in criminal activity before his 2016 Presidential run.

Likelihood:

Somewhat Likely

Background:

Money laundering is the act of processing tainted money in a way that makes the money appear “legitimate” It is an illegal activity that is often associated with organized crime.

Relevant Facts:

According to Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist David Cay Johnston’s recent book “The Making of Donald Trump,” businessman Donald Trump occasionally worked with individuals involved in organized crime.
In 2006, former Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort paid an enormous amount in cash to buy a condo at Trump Tower in a transaction that had the appearance of money laundering.
In 2008, Trump sold a Palm Beach mansion to a Russian oligarch named Dmitry Rybolovlev – at a 150% profit from his purchase price two years prior – in a transaction that had the appearance of money laundering.
While money laundering would obviously not be reported as such in one’s taxes, Trump’s tax returns and those of his businesses could show other questionable transactions worthy of investigation. Trump has thus far refused to release his tax returns.

Areas of Uncertainty:

A pattern of activity as well as criminal intent would likely need to be established in order for this activity to be considered something worthy of impeachment.

Potential Action:

The Senate Intelligence Committee has recently requested documentation on Donald Trump from the US Treasury’s financial intel unit as part of its Trump-Russia probe. This is an excellent start toward getting at the truth of Trump’s financial dealings.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees should subpoena Trump’s tax returns and those of all his businesses.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees should each be provided at least ten paid full-time staff with strong backgrounds in the law and finance to work solely on investigating the many questionable issues surrounding President Trump.
Congress can ensure that the FBI has adequate resources to investigate as well.
If Trump is found to have knowingly been involved in criminal activity, appropriate legal action should be taken.

Implications of Inaction:

If Trump has been knowingly involved in criminal activity, he could potentially be blackmailed by anyone who has proof, and could therefore be influenced to make decisions that are not in the interest of the American people.
If Trump has been knowingly involved in criminal activity, and is allowed to remain in the highest political office in the land, our children will learn a horrible message about crime and its consequences.
The legitimacy of Congress as a trusted check on the Executive Branch will be put into question.
Americans’ belief in the integrity of our democracy will be further eroded.

Ending #5

Trump is found to have interfered with a federal investigation.

Likelihood:

Very Likely

Background:

Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 73 of the US Code deals with obstruction of justice – essentially covering up a crime or preventing law enforcement from doing their job. Crimes that fall under this category include:

Relevant Facts:

In 1974, US President Richard Nixon was forced to resign not so much because of the crimes that he had committed, but because of his attempts to cover them up afterward, which was also a crime.
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017, Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was in charge of investigating him.
Days earlier, Comey had asked for more resources to intensify the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia – an indication that evidence was increasing and was worth pursuing more vigorously.
Explanations coming from White House spokespeople for Comey’s firing lacked credibility, because they contradicted Trump’s past statements about Comey. Two days after the firing, however, in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Trump himself connected the firing with the Russia investigation, saying “But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.”

After the interview, upon hearing that Comey had described a January dinner conversation between Trump and Comey in a way that conflicted with Trump’s story of the event, Trump tweeted something that sounded like a threat:
If President Trump is guilty of any kind of illegal behavior, what we have witnessed of his personality thus far indicates that he will attempt to cover it up, and his attempt will likely be quite clumsy, easily proven, and illegal in itself.

Areas of Uncertainty:

Specifically regarding Trump’s statement to Holt, while it sounds somewhat incriminating, it is still not a direct, unequivocal statement that “I fired Comey because I was concerned that his investigation of me would result in my impeachment and/or imprisonment.” With the evidence currently available to the public, Comey’s firing alone is unlikely to rise to the level of an impeachable act. It is very suspicious and raises a lot of questions, but it is also within the President’s legal authority.
The assessment that Trump’s impeachment for interfering with a federal investigation is “Very Likely” is based on an expectation of future actions by the President.

Potential Action:

As Trump is being investigated, Congress, journalists, law enforcement, federal employees, and the American people should be paying attention to any attempts by the President or his associates to destroy evidence, fire/reassign investigators, or otherwise interfere with the investigation.

Implications of Inaction:

America will be thrown into a Constitutional crisis.
The power of the Executive Branch will outweigh the other branches of government, with the potential for a shift in America’s form of government toward authoritarianism.
Americans’ belief in the integrity of our democracy will end.

Ending #6

Trump willingly resigns.

Likelihood:

Likely

Background:

The 25th Amendment of the US Constitution, Section 3, provides for the President of the United States to be able to resign. He must provide his written resignation to the Senate majority leader (in this case, Mitch McConnell) and the Speaker of the House (in this case, Paul Ryan). Exact text: “Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”
Nixon resigned to avoid the embarrassment of an almost certain impeachment. As impeachment of the current President becomes increasingly likely,, Trump may choose the same path in order to save face.

Relevant Facts:

There are several investigations into Trump that are heating up and appear likely to bear fruit.
Trump would not want the embarrassment of impeachment. A way to avoid that is for him to resign.

Areas of Uncertainty:

Trump has a history of denying facts even when presented with irrefutable evidence. He may just hang in there no matter how bad things look for him.
It is unclear if the communication can be done via tweet. If that were possible, Trump could make history by being the first to do it. His tweet could be something along the lines of:

@SenateMajLdr @SpeakerRyan The #FBI and #fakenewsmedia are making it impossible for me to do my job. I hereby #resign. America’s loss. Sad.

Ending #7

Trump is found “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Likelihood:

Somewhat Likely

Background:

The 25th Amendment of the US Constitution, Section 4, states that the President of the United States can be removed if he or she is deemed unable to do his or her job. Exact text: “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

Relevant Facts:

Mental health professionals have broken with tradition and publicly expressed their conclusion by the tens of thousands that the President is mentally ill or mentally unstable, offering diagnoses that include everything from malignant narcissism to cocaine use to alzheimers. However, the idea that there must be a specific clinical diagnosis muddies the waters. The behaviors that lead to those diagnoses are what matters.
The President regularly makes statements that are easily proven false, indicating that he is either boldly and willfully lying or he is frighteningly disconnected from reality. Among his false statements are:
- Ted Cruz’s dad was linked to Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald
- Former President Barack Obama was not born in the US
- Trump had the largest Inauguration crowd size in recent history
- Former President Barack Obama had Trump’s phone tapped at Trump Tower
The President behaves with the impulsiveness of an eitght-year-old child. This is not a trait that we want in the person in command of our military and our nuclear arsenal.
The President is not competent to run the country. Evidence would include his chaotic White House, the hundred of key positions that he has not yet chosen to fill, and the slap-dash way that his first Muslim ban was rolled out, among many others.
The President is profoundly gullible. His claim about Obama wiretapping him, for example, was the result of a conspiracy theory that he heard expressed by a guest on Fox News. Trump immediately tweeted the conspiracy theory rather than consulting the people who could actually tell him if it was true or not. What if Fox or Breitbart ran a story that North Korea had just launched missiles at us? What if he hears a rumor on Twitter that China is thinking of invading us?
The President is erratic in his policy positions. One minute NATO is outdated and needs to be disbanded, then it’s a vital international organization. One minute Mexico is paying for his wall, then we are. One minute China is a currency manipulator, then it’s not.

Areas of Uncertainty:

Few

Potential Action:

Vice President Pence and a majority of Trump’s Cabinet need to submit a written statement to the Senate majority leader (Mitch McConnell) and the House Speaker (Paul Ryan) that President Trump is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” or
Congress can appoint a nonpartisan group with relevant backgrounds to assess the President’s ability to serve effectively. If that group determines that Trump is unfit for the office of the Presidency, that group and Vice President Pence need to submit a written statement to McConnell and Ryan that the President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

Implications of Inaction:

Allowing President Trump to continue in office while displaying the kind of impulsive, dishonest, disorganized and gullible behavior that he has shown so far puts America at risk. Among the risks to the nation:
- He will not be believed by foreign leaders. Some degree of credibility and trust from other countries is essential to our international safety. If we are in a situation where we must legitimately go to war and we are asking our allies to commit the lives of their troops – their citizens – to help us, they need to believe in our President’s honesty and judgment 100%. That faith is currently shaky at best and getting worse by the day.
- Trump’s erratic and impulsive nature and potential inability to distinguish reality from fantasy creates a risk that he might use nuclear weapons, an act which would certainly be reciprocated and which would usher in a worrisome international norm that we haven’t had to live with for decades. As it is, he has put nuclear weapons back on the table in a way that many thought was a thing of the past.
- A chaotic and understaffed Executive Branch makes us woefully unprepared to respond adequately in times of crisis.
- It is questionable whether the President understands or has even read the Constitution that he swore to defend when he took the oath of office. A President who is ignorant of the US Constitution cannot defend it properly.
The legitimacy of Congress as a trusted check on the Executive Branch will be put into question.
Americans’ belief in the integrity of our democracy will be further eroded.

Necessary Conditions:

With the exception of Trump’s resignation, all of the above scenarios require a US House and Senate willing to seriously explore the possibility of the President being a risk to the country or having committed wrongdoing, and to pursue appropriate consequences based on the facts.

Given the highly partisan nature of the House and Senate, both of which are currently controlled by Republican majorities, action on their part will require massive and consistent public pressure.

Likely Negative Consequences of Removal from Office:

While one would hope that America could simply scrape Trump off the bottom of its shoe and walk away clean, removal of Trump from office will almost certainly have negative consequences.

First, Trump’s replacement would be Mike Pence, who may be even more disagreeable than Trump on some issues. However, Pence carries one powerful calling card that makes him a infinitely more desirable than President Trump: mental stability.

The more significant consequence of removing Trump from office is the response of his supporters, who have generally remained silent in recent months. While some might interpret that silence as shame or embarrassment, it is far more likely that they are simply tired of being called stupid and racist and having to justify their views to self-righteous hypocrites who don’t listen to them anyway. A recent poll by ABC News/Washington Post shows that 96% of Trump’s supporters have no regrets about their vote. Let that sink in.

The more that Trump’s removal from office is seen by them as unfair, unjust, partisan, or the work of the “establishment,” the more outraged his followers are likely to be. Under the wrong circumstances and if not addressed thoughtfully, removing Trump from the Presidency could make the current divisions in the nation look blissfully peaceful in comparison. Decades of silenced and sidelined bitterness that had been given voice via Trump and which was being channeled through the system will suddenly be left with no clear appropriate outlet.

Thus, anyone wishing to pursue the impeachment of Trump should devote equal energy to doing something that may be new to them: listening.

Trump voters are not going away. They are a part of America. They need to be heard respectfully and with humility, rather than being shut down before they have time to express a complete thought. Their statements need to be responded to with questions to gain deeper understanding rather than with judgment. Their viewpoints must be scanned meticulously for areas of common ground, places from which a unifying political agenda can be built, and places from which long-damaged personal relationships can be rebuilt. Their sources of ideas and information should be listened to on an ongoing basis in a mutual exchange of ideas. When facts are presented to counter fiction, it should be done so respectfully.

The awfulness and nonstop crisis presented by Trump’s Presidency has been an understandable but potentially disastrous distraction from the Democratic Party’s ability to engage in any genuine introspection to discover and meaningfully address their own blind spots. If Democrats come through this experience without learning to listen, look at themselves, and stop judging people, they will have failed as much as the Republicans, and, worse yet, will leave the door open for another Trump-like monstrosity to take office in the future.

You Get to Choose How the Show Ends!

Trump’s Presidency will no doubt have an exciting conclusion with lots of drama – we would expect nothing less from our President – but it’s absolutely time for an intervention in Washington DC. Here’s what you can do:

Contact your US Senators and US Representative, especially if they are Republican, and tell them why you believe that Trump should be removed from office. You can get their contact info here and find dates and locations of town halls here. Constant pressure on them is important.
If you don’t see your legislators taking the action that you want, get involved in political campaigns in 2018 to get Democrats elected to the US House and US Senate.
Reconnect with Trump supporters that you stopped talking to or unfriended on Facebook. Tell them that you’d like to start over and to hear them out. Start slow. Listen. Suspend judgment. Don’t bail. When you want to express an opinion, ask an open-ended question instead to better understand their views and the reasons behind them. Keep asking questions. Whenever you want to judge, remind yourself that your best political instincts and your best thinking about how to handle people with different ideas has resulted in the situation we’re in now. Look for opportunities to feel empathy and compassion, to see a human being, and to find common ground. Has the person experiencing real pain, injustice, hardship or loss, and has merely misidentified the cause? Take the time to really listen to that pain until you can feel it as if it were your own. Hold firm to your values but trust that instantly squashing ideas with which you disagree is not the only way to change them.
Start paying attention regularly to sources of news and opinion that you would ordinarily reject. Listening does not mean that you support or agree with what is being said. It merely means that you are trying to get a better grasp of what is influencing people that you don’t understand.
Share this article on social media or via e-mail.

– rob rünt

Because It's Happening. Here.

Lights Out.

Trump Will Provide Classified Intelligence to Kremlin

Trump was a More Stealth 9/11

Yet Another Reason to Impeach

Articles & Editorials:

Main Stories

Scaramucci

“The fish stinks from the head down. But I can tell you two fish that don’t stink, and that’s me and the president.”

“There are people inside the administration that think it is their job to save America from this president. OK, that is not their job. Their job is to inject this president into America.”

Trump and Putin

“This is like the guy who robbed your house proposing a working group on burglary.”

Trump and Russia

Congressional Testimonies

Mueller Investigation

Trump Pardoning … Himself?!

“He isn’t smart enough to do the job and isn’t man enough to own up to the fact.”

Healthcare Reform

Other Stories That You Should Know About:

Keeping Track of the Basics:

Editorials

Alternative Facts from an Alternative Universe

Cartoons, Images & Videos

This Week’s Blog Entry

“People don’t realize he loves holding my hand. And that’s good, as far as that goes.”

The Mueller Investigation: Why Trump’s Finances and Beauty Pageants are 100% Relevant to Russia

Tax Returns

Bank Loans

Real Estate Deals

Wilbur Ross

Beauty Pageants

What You Don’t Need to Know: Understanding Intelligence and Law Enforcement Regarding Trump

It’s Time for an Intervention in Washington DC (Part 3 of 3)

Ending #1

Ending #2

Ending #3

Ending #4

Ending #5

Ending #6

@SenateMajLdr @SpeakerRyan The #FBI and #fakenewsmedia are making it impossible for me to do my job. I hereby #resign. America’s loss. Sad.

Ending #7

Necessary Conditions:

Likely Negative Consequences of Removal from Office:

You Get to Choose How the Show Ends!

Menu

The Mueller Investigation:
Why Trump’s Finances and Beauty Pageants are 100% Relevant to Russia