NO COLLUSION! Exoneration! "Nothing to see here!"
Trump's lackeys are crowing about how Mueller's "witch hunt" did not nail its target.
On that, if you read absolutely nothing else about this sad affair, this is what you need to read in the Mueller Report - from the end of the Executive Summary...
"The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete
picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked
their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office 's
judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other
witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be
members of the media-in light of internal Depa11ment of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice
Manual§§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was
presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter ( or
"taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes
provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges
described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as
well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United
States.
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct
we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant
communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature
encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In
such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to
contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared
inconsistent with other known facts.
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office
believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps,
the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional
light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."
Mueller's report notes that there is not enough evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy; specifically, with coordinating with the Russians to subvert American democracy in favour of the Trump Campaign. The reason why there is no evidence is in the quote above - because the attempt to subvert this investigation and to take measures to hide illicit activities when they were undertaken, were ultimately successful.
On this, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...of conspiracy. Or, just because Mueller can't prove it, does not mean it didn't happen. The reality is that he simply could not assemble enough evidence to charge people - and it is clear from the Executive Summary that there is evidence of illicit and conspiratorial coordination. Trump therefore successfully subverted the investigation - that is all you need to know.
This successful subversion happened in the following ways.
1. Liars. People lied to the FBI to hide their illicit activities. We know about Papadopoulos, Flynn and Cohen. As noted in this blog repeatedly, the key fish that Muller had to land as a fully-cooperating witness was Manafort. It didn't happen.
No coordination? How about this...
The Report outlines how Manafort fed polling data to persons known to be associated with the Russian state for months on end. This is what you would do if you wanted to help the Russians gauge the success or lack thereof of their campaigns of disinformation.
He also met with Russians and at their bequest put forward a plan for Ukraine that would have changed US foreign policy and essentially handed the Eastern part of the country to Russia. As noted here before, this was the obvious quid pro quo for Russian help in defeating Clinton.
But Mueller could not prove this because Manafort would not cooperate - he even lied when he was supposed to be cooperating, meaning even more jail time! It is possible that Manafort feared his Russian friends more than his FBI enemies. In the end, the pigeon-in-chief got away, and with him went any chance of finding out what these people were really up to.
2. Inaccessible Evidence. Certain people "took the fifth" and refused to provide evidence on the grounds that it could lead to a criminal conviction. When Mobsters do this, no one has any problem noting that this means crimes were committed. So please understand - There are crimes here that Mueller could not prosecute, which is the plain meaning of people having "taken the fifth." A number of criminals associated with Trump got away with it...so far.
One of the most interesting parts of the above quote is this..."The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media-in light of internal Department of Justice policies."
So Mueller believed that certain members of the "so-called" media had information germane to the investigation, but he chose not to pursue them because of Department of Justice policies. I think this is obviously referring to Sean Hannity, who we have since learned knew about the infamous June 9, 2016 meeting between Kushner, Manafort and Trump Jr., and the Russian lawyer a week before it happened, and did not report on it. "Fair and Balanced"... in favour of a criminal conspiracy against one's own country?
3. Deletions and Encryptions. I guess Trump learned from Hillary and the Democrats! Simply put, if you have embarrassing e-mails, for goodness sakes do what Hillary did and delete them! Better still, make sure no one can ever access them in the first place by using encryption services!
Understand that this means that the Trump Campaign took measures to hide its activities from authorities even while the campaign was on. They weren't hiding their dinner plans and off-colour jokes.
Who uses encryption services in regular electronic communications?
Governments do this when communicating secrets, as do corporations that do not want competitors accessing their sensitive commercial information.
Child pornographers and money launderers use encryption, as do mobsters and others of their sort.
And, as we now know, so did members of the Trump Campaign.
Conclusion: In the end, what Mueller is teling us at the end of his Executive Summary is that the obstruction of the investigation was a success. It was not "NO COLLUSION", but "SUCCESSFUL OBSTRUCTION!" Trump is a criminal like few others. Too bad his political oppostion is so utterly deficient and corrupt as well.
For the record, I think the conspiratorial deal was likely this - release Hillary's damaging e-mails and provide the information that will incriminate her, and we will change the foreign policy of the United States of America specifically concerning Ukraine once we are in power. Had it proved possible to prove this, the charges could have included Treason. But Trump and his crew beat the FBI by lying, evading, and by being careful to cover their tracks while engaged in their illicit conduct.
In light of the above, Barr's exoneration of Trump needs to be seen as nothing more than shameful political theatre. His summary of the Mueller Report does not focus on these evidentary issues - does not focus on the on-going obstruction of the investigation by Trump himself and his minions that was ultimately successful. In fact, Barr himself exonerates Donald Trump of Obstruction of Justice! The word you are looking for is "betrayal".
What should worry anyone who is concerned about the state of the world is that while Mueller could not prove conspiracy, the fact is that the Russians know all about it, and they could certainly provide proof of criminal conspiracy on the part of the Trump Campaign at any time.
Query - What concessions may the Russians want to extract from the President of the United States over the next few years to make sure that they do not do precisely that? If I were in the Baltic States or Ukraine, I would be very worried.
Sunday 30 June 2019
Tuesday 18 June 2019
Mueller Report 1 - Mueller v Barr
This is the first in a series of blogs regarding the Mueller Report.
This blog starts with a comparison between the mini-summary of the report that is provided in the first few pages on the report itself, and the summary provided by AG Barr, with commentary on the conclusions reached.
The Mueller Report Summary:
After a paragraph outlining the legal status and obligations of a Special Counsel, Mueller starts his report with the following startling statement, "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."
He notes that the FBI began to investigate possible Russian interference in July, 2016. The investigation began following a tip from a foreign government that one of its representatives had been advised by Papadopolous, who was part of the Trump campaign team at the time, that the Trump Campaign had received information that the Russian government could assist it through the release of embarrassing information about Clinton.
After outlining the mandate of the investigation, Mueller outlines how the Russians interfered, and that "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Mueller than adds a paragraph about the evidence that the evidence that his team looked at, which ends with this line, "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."
Read with the statement about not establishing conspiracy on the part of the Trump Campaign, the plain meaning of this was that there probably was some evidence of such conspiracy, just not enough to establish - in law - that the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.
Mueller then goes to explain that "collusion" is irrelevant - it is not a crime, and they were looking at possible "conspiracy", with a definition of what would constitute "conspiracy" provided. In essence, to make our "coordination" or "conspiracy" would require that "...the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." Again, and following from the above discussion on evidence, it seems clear that they did find some information indicating coordination and conspiracy.
Regarding possible Obstruction of Justice by Trump, Mueller merely notes in the mini-summary that this is addressed in Volume II of the report.
The Barr Summary:
The Barr summary was released before Barr himself had finished reviewing the Mueller Report, as noted in the Barr summary itself. Barr indicates that his primary purpose in releasing the summary was "the public interest".
Unlike the short mini-summary provided by Mueller, the Barr 4-page summary goes to great lengths to highlight the fact that, "'The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'" Barr actually makes this point four times in four pages.
Barr also addresses the Obstruction of Justice issue directly. He notes that Mueller "determined not to make the traditional prosecutorial judgement.", and quoted the report which says, "...while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Barr then personally exonerated his boss - the President - by noting that because Mueller did not decide one way of the other, the task would fall to the Attorney General - i.e. to him.
After consulting officials, including Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, Barr notes that "I have concluded (with Rosenstein) that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offence."
Barr then provides a legal rationale for his finding that of no Obstruction of Justice having been committed by Trump.
Commentary:
Mueller's report starts with a warning that the American democratic process had been perverted by America's historic enemy and opponent. Its first few pages subtly suggest that there was evidence of conspiracy between the prime beneficiary of this interference and the Russians, but not enough to establish conspiracy in law.
The first few pages also respond to he suggestion that the investigation was prompted by the Steel Dossier by outlining how it all started, and the first few pages of the report respond to the idiocy of many on the Right about "NO COLLUSION!" by noting that this is a massive red herring - it was never a consideration, nor could it ever be a consideration as it is a concept unknown to law.
Barr's summary is a piece of propaganda, designed to buttress claims of "NO COLLUSION!" on the part of Trump, by noting no fewer than four times in four pages that the investigation did not "find" coordination of conspiracy. The clear point of this in "the public interest" summary was to support Trump's claims. Rather than the public, Barr's summary was clearly released in Trump's interest.
Note - Words mean things to lawyers and are carefully chosen. Mueller said that the investigation could not "establish" coordination and conspiracy, while Barr says the investigation could not "find" it. The use of the word "establish" suggests that they did in fact "find" something, just not enough to move ahead with indictments, as it is possible to find evidence that does not establish a crime. Barr's use of the word "find" in this context suggests that the investigation did not find anything - not necessarily true.
AG Barr also personally exonerated the President of the crime of Obstruction of Justice in his four page summary. This finding had nothing to do with the report, and which again was an act of seeming political propaganda.
In fact, only two pages of the four page summary of the Mueller Report are actually about the report, with the rest about the Attorney General's public exoneration of Trump, replete with a legal rationale for such exoneration.
Please also keep in mind that this exoneration came from a man who noted at the very first part of his summary that, "Although my review is ongoing...." In other words, he exonerated Trump before he had even finished reviewing the report. One is left wondering if Barr wrote the summary, or did Trump's personal lawyers write it for him?
Finally, Trump recently noted that he would accept dirt from a foreign country about his future political opponents if offered, and he would not feel obligated to tell the FBI. (Note - the problem is that information may have been obtained illegally.) He has since retracted - after all, look at how much trouble doing that caused the first time!
Mueller did respond with a letter to Barr complaining that Barr's summary did not accurately reflect the report - the reader is encouraged to read that letter.
This blog starts with a comparison between the mini-summary of the report that is provided in the first few pages on the report itself, and the summary provided by AG Barr, with commentary on the conclusions reached.
The Mueller Report Summary:
After a paragraph outlining the legal status and obligations of a Special Counsel, Mueller starts his report with the following startling statement, "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."
He notes that the FBI began to investigate possible Russian interference in July, 2016. The investigation began following a tip from a foreign government that one of its representatives had been advised by Papadopolous, who was part of the Trump campaign team at the time, that the Trump Campaign had received information that the Russian government could assist it through the release of embarrassing information about Clinton.
After outlining the mandate of the investigation, Mueller outlines how the Russians interfered, and that "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Mueller than adds a paragraph about the evidence that the evidence that his team looked at, which ends with this line, "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."
Read with the statement about not establishing conspiracy on the part of the Trump Campaign, the plain meaning of this was that there probably was some evidence of such conspiracy, just not enough to establish - in law - that the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.
Mueller then goes to explain that "collusion" is irrelevant - it is not a crime, and they were looking at possible "conspiracy", with a definition of what would constitute "conspiracy" provided. In essence, to make our "coordination" or "conspiracy" would require that "...the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." Again, and following from the above discussion on evidence, it seems clear that they did find some information indicating coordination and conspiracy.
Regarding possible Obstruction of Justice by Trump, Mueller merely notes in the mini-summary that this is addressed in Volume II of the report.
The Barr Summary:
The Barr summary was released before Barr himself had finished reviewing the Mueller Report, as noted in the Barr summary itself. Barr indicates that his primary purpose in releasing the summary was "the public interest".
Unlike the short mini-summary provided by Mueller, the Barr 4-page summary goes to great lengths to highlight the fact that, "'The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'" Barr actually makes this point four times in four pages.
Barr also addresses the Obstruction of Justice issue directly. He notes that Mueller "determined not to make the traditional prosecutorial judgement.", and quoted the report which says, "...while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Barr then personally exonerated his boss - the President - by noting that because Mueller did not decide one way of the other, the task would fall to the Attorney General - i.e. to him.
After consulting officials, including Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, Barr notes that "I have concluded (with Rosenstein) that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offence."
Barr then provides a legal rationale for his finding that of no Obstruction of Justice having been committed by Trump.
Commentary:
Mueller's report starts with a warning that the American democratic process had been perverted by America's historic enemy and opponent. Its first few pages subtly suggest that there was evidence of conspiracy between the prime beneficiary of this interference and the Russians, but not enough to establish conspiracy in law.
The first few pages also respond to he suggestion that the investigation was prompted by the Steel Dossier by outlining how it all started, and the first few pages of the report respond to the idiocy of many on the Right about "NO COLLUSION!" by noting that this is a massive red herring - it was never a consideration, nor could it ever be a consideration as it is a concept unknown to law.
Barr's summary is a piece of propaganda, designed to buttress claims of "NO COLLUSION!" on the part of Trump, by noting no fewer than four times in four pages that the investigation did not "find" coordination of conspiracy. The clear point of this in "the public interest" summary was to support Trump's claims. Rather than the public, Barr's summary was clearly released in Trump's interest.
Note - Words mean things to lawyers and are carefully chosen. Mueller said that the investigation could not "establish" coordination and conspiracy, while Barr says the investigation could not "find" it. The use of the word "establish" suggests that they did in fact "find" something, just not enough to move ahead with indictments, as it is possible to find evidence that does not establish a crime. Barr's use of the word "find" in this context suggests that the investigation did not find anything - not necessarily true.
AG Barr also personally exonerated the President of the crime of Obstruction of Justice in his four page summary. This finding had nothing to do with the report, and which again was an act of seeming political propaganda.
In fact, only two pages of the four page summary of the Mueller Report are actually about the report, with the rest about the Attorney General's public exoneration of Trump, replete with a legal rationale for such exoneration.
Please also keep in mind that this exoneration came from a man who noted at the very first part of his summary that, "Although my review is ongoing...." In other words, he exonerated Trump before he had even finished reviewing the report. One is left wondering if Barr wrote the summary, or did Trump's personal lawyers write it for him?
Finally, Trump recently noted that he would accept dirt from a foreign country about his future political opponents if offered, and he would not feel obligated to tell the FBI. (Note - the problem is that information may have been obtained illegally.) He has since retracted - after all, look at how much trouble doing that caused the first time!
Mueller did respond with a letter to Barr complaining that Barr's summary did not accurately reflect the report - the reader is encouraged to read that letter.
Monday 17 June 2019
Buy Backs - Canadian Style
From the Globe and Mail...
"Canadian companies reluctant to reinvest excess cash are instead buying back their own shares at a furious pace. Buybacks by companies in the S&P/TSX Composite Index soared to nearly $50-billion in the 12 months up to the end of the first quarter. As a proportion of the whole stock market, that’s around 50 per cent higher than the previous record set a decade ago, according to a report by Ian de Verteuil, head of portfolio strategy for CIBC World Markets."
The Market in Canada is buying the Market, as it is in the USA. This cannot last, and when it ends, the Market will fall.
The Last Days of the Free Money Disco.
"Canadian companies reluctant to reinvest excess cash are instead buying back their own shares at a furious pace. Buybacks by companies in the S&P/TSX Composite Index soared to nearly $50-billion in the 12 months up to the end of the first quarter. As a proportion of the whole stock market, that’s around 50 per cent higher than the previous record set a decade ago, according to a report by Ian de Verteuil, head of portfolio strategy for CIBC World Markets."
The Market in Canada is buying the Market, as it is in the USA. This cannot last, and when it ends, the Market will fall.
The Last Days of the Free Money Disco.
Thursday 6 June 2019
Hicks!
Hope Hicks is handing over Trump Campaign documents to the House of Representatives' investigation into the Trump Campaign.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/locals-rescue-calf-fell-hole-170000726.html
What!?
How is it possible that Mueller did not get this!???
As noted here repeatedly in previous posts - this lady is key.
This ain't over!
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/locals-rescue-calf-fell-hole-170000726.html
What!?
How is it possible that Mueller did not get this!???
As noted here repeatedly in previous posts - this lady is key.
This ain't over!
The USA's Lost Twenty Years
Let's look back at the dying days of the Clinton presidency.
It is 1999, and we are about to have President Bush, then Obama, then Trump. What did the USA look like then, and what does it look like now?
The Economy:
1999 - Gross Domestic Product growth in the USA in 1999 was 3.8%, following growth of 4.5% in both 1997 and 1998.
2019 - Gross Domestic Product growth will be about 1.3% in the second quarter of 2019.
The USA economy has not grown by more that 3% a year since 2005, in spite of literally trillions of dollars in stimulus funding courtesy of massive government borrowing and spending and historically low interest rates.
The Stock Market:
1999 - The S&P 500 was at about 1,425 at the end of 1999.
2019 - The S & P 500 is about 2,800 today.
If you bought the S&P 500 on January 1, 2000, you spent the next 13 years underwater, and did not see any net capital accumulation until 2013. You have only made money in the last 5 - 6 years.
Food Stamps:
1999 - There were about 15 million Americans on Food Stamps in 1999 - about 1 in 20 Americans. If you met 100 "average" Americans at that time, 5 were living on Food Stamps.
2019 - After peaking at about 46 million recipients in 2013, there are still about 39 million Food Stamp recipients in the USA - about 1 in 8.5 Americans. If you were to meet 100 "average" Americans today, 12 of them would be living on Food Stamps.
With a broad unemployment rate of about 7.5% (U6 - total unemployed and underemployed in one year), and a Food Stamps recipient rate of 12% of which about half (6%) are able-bodied people, the real rate of people out of a job in the USA is at least 14%. This is slightly better than the rate of unemployed persons on the dole in America in the better years of The Great Depression.
Debt and Deficits:
1999 - National debt was $5.65 Trillion.
2019 - National debt is about $22.7 Trillion.
The USA will soon have a higher debt to GDP ratio than it had during WW2, which was the peak. There is no actual political will to force the country to live within its means, instead, politicians act as if they think their country can keep relying on the Chinese and the US Fed to finance deficits. The political class in that country has never more obviously failed in its most basic responsibilities.
Income Distribution:
1999 - The top 1% of income earners had 17% of national income, while the poorest half of the population - the bottom 50% of income earners had just under 16% of national income.
2019 - The top 1% of income earners have over 20% of national income, while the poorest half of the population - the bottom 50% of income earners had approaching 12% of national income.
The USA is a country of the rich, by the poor, for the rich. The present trend cannot continue and that country continue to call itself a democracy.
Where would this country be if it had avoided relentless tax cuts for rich people, it balanced its budgets, and if it had fought fewer wars?
What a waste.
It is 1999, and we are about to have President Bush, then Obama, then Trump. What did the USA look like then, and what does it look like now?
The Economy:
1999 - Gross Domestic Product growth in the USA in 1999 was 3.8%, following growth of 4.5% in both 1997 and 1998.
2019 - Gross Domestic Product growth will be about 1.3% in the second quarter of 2019.
The USA economy has not grown by more that 3% a year since 2005, in spite of literally trillions of dollars in stimulus funding courtesy of massive government borrowing and spending and historically low interest rates.
The Stock Market:
1999 - The S&P 500 was at about 1,425 at the end of 1999.
2019 - The S & P 500 is about 2,800 today.
If you bought the S&P 500 on January 1, 2000, you spent the next 13 years underwater, and did not see any net capital accumulation until 2013. You have only made money in the last 5 - 6 years.
Food Stamps:
1999 - There were about 15 million Americans on Food Stamps in 1999 - about 1 in 20 Americans. If you met 100 "average" Americans at that time, 5 were living on Food Stamps.
2019 - After peaking at about 46 million recipients in 2013, there are still about 39 million Food Stamp recipients in the USA - about 1 in 8.5 Americans. If you were to meet 100 "average" Americans today, 12 of them would be living on Food Stamps.
With a broad unemployment rate of about 7.5% (U6 - total unemployed and underemployed in one year), and a Food Stamps recipient rate of 12% of which about half (6%) are able-bodied people, the real rate of people out of a job in the USA is at least 14%. This is slightly better than the rate of unemployed persons on the dole in America in the better years of The Great Depression.
Debt and Deficits:
1999 - National debt was $5.65 Trillion.
2019 - National debt is about $22.7 Trillion.
The USA will soon have a higher debt to GDP ratio than it had during WW2, which was the peak. There is no actual political will to force the country to live within its means, instead, politicians act as if they think their country can keep relying on the Chinese and the US Fed to finance deficits. The political class in that country has never more obviously failed in its most basic responsibilities.
Income Distribution:
1999 - The top 1% of income earners had 17% of national income, while the poorest half of the population - the bottom 50% of income earners had just under 16% of national income.
2019 - The top 1% of income earners have over 20% of national income, while the poorest half of the population - the bottom 50% of income earners had approaching 12% of national income.
The USA is a country of the rich, by the poor, for the rich. The present trend cannot continue and that country continue to call itself a democracy.
Where would this country be if it had avoided relentless tax cuts for rich people, it balanced its budgets, and if it had fought fewer wars?
What a waste.
Tuesday 4 June 2019
Hundreds of Prosecutors and Obstruction
See here...
A total of 417 former prosecutor and justice officials have written to the Attorney General and have claimed that, based on the evidence revealed in the Mueller Report, they would have charged Trump with Obstruction of Justice if he were not the President of the United States. Mueller himself said that he could not charge him because of a Department of Justice policy - it seems pretty clear that the case can be made out that the president committed a criminal act.
As noted here before, it doesn't matter. Mueller could not show that the Trump Campaign worked with the Russians to secure Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election, so the show is over. Obstruction of Justice is normally important, but these are not normal times, and that is not what the investigation was all about - no conspiracy = "nothing to see here." The Democrats may talk about impeachment - it means nothing.
Biden is ahead of Trump by about 10% in most public opinion polls. That is how Trump will be removed from office, to start his life as a defendant in many a criminal trial.
Note - Trump may have to reveal his tax returns soon.
If so, they will reveal that he was bankrupt in the early 1990's, then he staged a miraculous financial recovery by the end of the decade. I think observers will conclude that he must have received cash from someone to avoid total ruin....to avoid being a "loser".
Further, I think it will quickly become obvious that the support came from the Russians, who made a strategic investment in the 1990's and bought a powerful American as a wiling stooge.
In short, the release of his tax returns will mean showing that the man has been owned by Putin for 20 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)