Tag: news

Top House Democrat: Impeachment ‘Not Worthwhile At This Point’ 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said on Thursday that he doesn’t think it would be “worthwhile” to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Trump, following the release of the highly anticipated Mueller report. 

“Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point,” Hoyer told CNN‘s Dana Bash, adding “Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement.”

Perhaps it has something to do with Mueller’s findings of no collusion with Russia, combined with 10 instances of potential obstruction that didn’t rise to the level of a chargeable crime.

Hoyer’s comments echoed those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who said recently that impeaching Trump is “not worth” the political divide it would cause. 

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Pelosi said in March. 

Trump on Thursday quoted Fox News‘s Jesse Watters, who said “Donald Trump was being framed, he fought back. That is not Obstruction.” The President then added “I had the right to end the whole Witch Hunt if I wanted. I could have fired everyone, including Mueller, if I wanted. I chose not to. I had the RIGHT to use Executive Privilege. I didn’t!”

 Not all Democrats agree that impeachment is off the table. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said on Thursday afternoon that impeachment was still “one possibility” but that it was “too early to reach those conclusions.” 

 Meanwhile, the rest of the Democratic party has had mixed feelings on the notion of impeachment:

Rank-and-file House Democrats have had more mixed opinions on the prospect of impeachment. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) made headlines earlier this year when she said the incoming Congress would “impeach the motherf—er,” referring to Trump, but Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), another of several progressive freshmen members, was cooler on the idea of impeachment, noting the difficulty of getting the votes to convict with a Republican majority in the Senate. –The Hill

Other Democrats simply want Trump gone by any means. Rep. Al Green (D-TX) has unsuccessfully introduced articles of impeachment against Trump several times – says that his motive has nothing to do with the Mueller report, rather, that Trump’s statements amount to “bigotry.”  

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Gg31Y0 Tyler Durden

Dollar Dominance Is Under Multiple, Converging Threats

Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

For years, currency analysts have looked for signs of an international monetary “reset” that would diminish the dollar’s role as the leading reserve currency and replace it with a substitute agreed upon at some Bretton Woods-style monetary conference.

That push has been accelerated by Washington’s use of the dollar as a weapon of financial warfare, including the application of sanctions. The U.S. uses the dollar strategically to reward friends and punish enemies.

The use of the dollar as a weapon is not limited to trade wars and currency wars, although the dollar is used tactically in those disputes. The dollar is much more powerful than that.

The dollar can be used for regime change by creating hyperinflation, bank runs and domestic dissent in countries targeted by the U.S. The U.S. can depose the governments of its adversaries, or at least blunt their policies without firing a shot.

But for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

As the U.S. wields the dollar weapon more frequently, the rest of the world works harder to shun the dollar completely.

I’ve been warning for years about efforts of nations like Russia and China to escape what they call “dollar hegemony” and create a new financial system that does not depend on the dollar and helps them get out from under dollar-based economic sanctions.

These efforts are only increasing.

Russia has sold off almost all of its dollar-denominated U.S. Treasury securities and has reduced its dollar asset position to almost zero. It has been amassing massive quantities of gold, and has increased the gold portion of its official reserves to over 20%. Russia has almost 2,000 tonnes of gold, having more than tripled its gold reserves in the past 10 years. It has actually acquired enough gold to surpass China on the list of major holders of gold as official reserves.

This combination of fewer Treasuries and more gold puts Russia on a path to full insulation from U.S. financial sanctions. Russia can settle its balance of payments obligations with gold shipments or gold sales and avoid U.S. asset freezes by not holding assets the U.S. can reach.

And Russia is providing other nations a model to achieve similar distance from U.S. efforts to use the dollar to enforce its foreign policy priorities.

Certainly any talk of a monetary reset must involve China. Despite its present weakness, China is still the second-largest economy in the world and the fastest-growing major emerging market. Like Russia, China is amassing gold, and likely has far more gold than it officially lists. It has also been helping to suppress gold prices so that it can buy gold cheaply without driving up the price.

Europe has also shown signs that it wants to escape dollar hegemony. For example, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has called for a new EU-based payments system independent of the U.S. and SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) that would not involve dollar payments.

SWIFT in the nerve center of the global financial network. All major banks transfer all major currencies using the SWIFT message system. Cutting a nation off from SWIFT is like taking away its oxygen.

In the longer run, these are just more developments pushing the world at large away from dollars and toward alternatives of all kinds, including new payment systems and cryptocurrencies. The signs of a reset are everywhere, but at least for now the dollar is still king of the hill.

The dollar represents about 60% of global reserve assets, 80% of global payments and almost 100% of global oil sales. With such a dominant position, the dollar will not be easy to replace. Still, the trends are not good for the dollar. The international reserve position may be 60%, but as recently as 2000 it was over 70% and just a few years ago it was still at 63%. That trend is not your friend.

Another challenger to the dollar is the IMF’s special drawing rights or SDRs. The SDR is a form of world money printed by the IMF. It was created in 1969 as the realization of an earlier idea for world money called the “bancor,” proposed by John Maynard Keynes at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.

The bancor was never adopted, but the SDR has been going strong for 50 years. This article describes how the IMF could function more like a central bank through more frequent issuance of SDRs and by encouraging the use of “private SDRs” by banks and borrowers.

At the current rate of progress, it may take decades for the SDR to pose a serious challenge to the dollar. But that process could be rapidly accelerated in a financial crisis where the world needed liquidity and the central banks were unable to provide it because they still have not normalized their balance sheets from the last crisis.

In that case, the replacement of the dollar could happen almost overnight. Individuals will not be allowed to own SDRs, but you can still protect you wealth by buying gold. That’s what Russia and China are doing. Both countries have more than tripled their gold reserves since 2009.

But attacks on the dollar are not limited to gold or SDRs themselves. The most imminent threat to the dollar actually comes from a combination of gold and digital currency.

The fact that Russia and China have been acquiring gold is old news. Still, there are practical problems with using gold as a form of currency, including storage and transportation costs. But Russia is solving these transactional hurdles by combining its gold position with distributed ledger, or blockchain  technology.

Russia and China could develop a new cryptocurrency that would be transferred on a proprietary encrypted ledger with message traffic moving through an internet-type system not connected to the existing internet. Other countries could be allowed into this new system with permission from Russia or China.

The new cryptocurrency would be a so-called “stable coin,” where the value was fixed with reference either to a weight of gold or another standard unit such as the SDR. Goods and services would be priced in this new unit of account. Periodically, surpluses and deficits would be settled up in physical gold.

Such net settlements would require far less gold than gross settlements (where every transaction had to be paid for in real-time). This type of system (also called a “permissioned blockchain”) is not pie-in-the-sky, but is already under development and will be deployed soon. But you can count on the U.S. government being the last to know.

The development of a gold-backed digital currency is just one more sign that dollar dominance in global finance may end sooner than most expect. And we may be getting dangerously close to that point right now.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2vbjo31 Tyler Durden

Samsung’s $2,000 Foldable ‘iPhone Killer’ Keeps Breaking After 1 Day Of Use

Samsung’s long-awaited ‘foldable’ iPhone killer is shaping up to be yet another bomb (no pun intended).

With the company’s reputation still not fully recovered from the 2016 recall of the Samsung Galaxy 7 following reports that the batteries in some phones had spontaneously combusted, several tech journalists provided an advanced model of the ‘Galaxy Fold’ ahead of its public debut later this month reported myriad problems with the handset.

Samsung

Reviewers at CNBC, the Verge and Bloomberg complained about issues including a malfunctioning LED screen, problems with the hinge and strange bulges.

Here’s an excerpt from the Verge’s review.

Look closely at the picture above, and you can see a small bulge right on the crease of my Galaxy Fold review unit. It’s just enough to slightly distort the screen, and I can feel it under my finger. There’s something pressing up against the screen at the hinge, right there in the crease. My best guess is that it’s a piece of debris, something harder than lint for sure. It’s possible that it’s something else, though, like the hinge itself on a defective unit pressing up on the screen.

It’s a distressing thing to discover just two days after receiving my review unit. More distressing is that the bulge eventually pressed sharply enough into the screen to break it. You can see the telltale lines of a broken OLED converging on the spot where the bulge is.

Though other expensive gadgets have been released with well-publicized glitches (one MacBook pro model’s keyboard issues come to mind), the ‘Galaxy Fold’s’ problems are “on an entirely different level,” the Verge said.

Other reviewers may not have reported issues, but Bloomberg and the Verge’s accounts of the malfunctions were similar enough to raise serious questions. When it reported the issues to Samsung, Bloomberg said a company representative said the device should be used with the plastic protective layer left on the screen. However, BBG’s reporter said no such warning was present anywhere on or in the packaging.

In one of the more serious apparent flaws, the inner screen stopped working. First, the left side of the display went dark – then the right side developed problems before also failing completely. Other reviewers reported similar issues, including flickering visuals and how the area around the central hinge lost viewable pixels. The external display still functioned for Bloomberg’s review team when the phone is closed. Separately, the demo unit’s screen retained permanent marks wherever a fingernail made contact during the course of use.

Other reviewers however reported no major issues with the gadgets Samsung provided. In an email sent Tuesday – a day after providing the demo units – it asked media not to remove a “special protective layer.” The device’s packaging didn’t discourage the attempt however, and the sheet seemed similar to the protective films that come with most phones, tablets, and TVs right out of the box.

“The main display on the Galaxy Fold features a top protective layer, which is part of the display structure designed to protect the screen from unintended scratches,” Samsung said in its statement. “Removing the protective layer or adding adhesives to the main display may cause damage. We will ensure this information is clearly delivered to our customers.”

“We have received a few reports regarding the main display on the samples provided. We will thoroughly inspect these units in person to determine the cause of the matter,” Samsung said in an statement Thursday. The phone’s commercial launch is still planned for April 26.

Samsung eventually clarified that the reason for some of the defects reported by the reviewers was their decision to remove a polymer layer that, at first glance, appeared to be a screen protector but is actually part of the phone. Samsung said warnings about the ploymer layer would be present on retail models.

But even if Samsung manages to fix this communication error, and rectify the other issues reported by reviewers…a stream of tweets from tech journalists warning that the phone, which costs nearly twice as much as a new iPhone, broke within days of purchase.

Though Samsung has time to fix any issues with the phone before its release date, this is definitely not a good look.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Isb3AD Tyler Durden

Vox symposium on the Mueller Report

Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The Vox website has an insta-symposium on the Mueller report, with contributions by a variety of legal commentators, including Volokh Conspiracy co-blogger Keith Whittington and myself. I think Keith had the best one-line take on the report: “If this is what a complete and total exoneration looks like, I’d hate to see a damning report.”

Here is an excerpt from my own, admittedly less eloquent, contribution:

The…. Mueller report released today paints an unflattering picture of President Trump, particularly on the question of obstruction of justice. Although special counsel Robert Mueller did not reach any conclusion on whether the president should be prosecuted for obstruction, he did conclude that “Our investigation found multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russia-interference and obstruction investigations.”

Trump’s efforts to hamstring the investigation mostly failed. But that was “largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders and accede to his requests.” The fact that White House counsel Donald McGahn and other legally sophisticated officials refused to carry out the president’s orders is a strong sign they considered them improper and likely illegal.

The report also includes a compelling response to claims that the president could not have committed obstruction of justice, if he did not commit any underlying crime related to Russia. As the report notes, “obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a grey area, or to avoid personal embarrassment.”

All of these motives were very plausibly present in the case of Trump….

An additional possible motive was preventing revelation of crimes by his close associates that were not directly related to “collusion.” The Mueller investigation did in fact reveal many such crimes….

On the question of collusion, the report is largely good news for Trump. The investigation did not find enough evidence to justify filing charges. But the report documents extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. The latter sought to help the former, and the campaign hoped to benefit from Russia’s actions. The fact that a hostile authoritarian regime believed Trump’s victory would advance their interests, and made extensive efforts to secure that outcome, is highly damning, even if Trump and his associates did not commit any crimes in the process.

It’s also worth noting that the report includes a detailed critique of claims that the president, by virtue of his constitutional prerogatives, cannot commit the crime of obstruction of justice. I think that this section is largely correct, though advocates very broad conceptions of executive power will surely differ. And it is unlikely Mueller would have included it if he thought that Trump did nothing illegal.

As noted in my contribution, Trump is in little danger of immediate legal jeopardy. Justice Department policy forbids prosecution of a sitting president, and Attorney General Barr has repeatedly indicated he thinks the president did not commit any crimes. But a future attorney general could potentially differ with that view, and a prosecution might then be initiated when Trump leaves office. Impeachment is also potentially on the table, though I think it is highly unlikely that there will be enough votes to convict (which would require the support of numerous GOP senators).

Finally, all those who comment on the report within a few hours of its publication—myself most definitely included—take the risk of overlooking something important. It’s entirely possible that a more careful reading will yield greater insight and lead us to reconsider some of our initial reactions, including my own. We should be open-minded about that possibility.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2VO7x6N
via IFTTT

Vox symposium on the Mueller Report

Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The Vox website has an insta-symposium on the Mueller report, with contributions by a variety of legal commentators, including Volokh Conspiracy co-blogger Keith Whittington and myself. I think Keith had the best one-line take on the report: “If this is what a complete and total exoneration looks like, I’d hate to see a damning report.”

Here is an excerpt from my own, admittedly less eloquent, contribution:

The…. Mueller report released today paints an unflattering picture of President Trump, particularly on the question of obstruction of justice. Although special counsel Robert Mueller did not reach any conclusion on whether the president should be prosecuted for obstruction, he did conclude that “Our investigation found multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russia-interference and obstruction investigations.”

Trump’s efforts to hamstring the investigation mostly failed. But that was “largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders and accede to his requests.” The fact that White House counsel Donald McGahn and other legally sophisticated officials refused to carry out the president’s orders is a strong sign they considered them improper and likely illegal.

The report also includes a compelling response to claims that the president could not have committed obstruction of justice, if he did not commit any underlying crime related to Russia. As the report notes, “obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a grey area, or to avoid personal embarrassment.”

All of these motives were very plausibly present in the case of Trump….

An additional possible motive was preventing revelation of crimes by his close associates that were not directly related to “collusion.” The Mueller investigation did in fact reveal many such crimes….

On the question of collusion, the report is largely good news for Trump. The investigation did not find enough evidence to justify filing charges. But the report documents extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. The latter sought to help the former, and the campaign hoped to benefit from Russia’s actions. The fact that a hostile authoritarian regime believed Trump’s victory would advance their interests, and made extensive efforts to secure that outcome, is highly damning, even if Trump and his associates did not commit any crimes in the process.

It’s also worth noting that the report includes a detailed critique of claims that the president, by virtue of his constitutional prerogatives, cannot commit the crime of obstruction of justice. I think that this section is largely correct, though advocates very broad conceptions of executive power will surely differ. And it is unlikely Mueller would have included it if he thought that Trump did nothing illegal.

As noted in my contribution, Trump is in little danger of immediate legal jeopardy. Justice Department policy forbids prosecution of a sitting president, and Attorney General Barr has repeatedly indicated he thinks the president did not commit any crimes. But a future attorney general could potentially differ with that view, and a prosecution might then be initiated when Trump leaves office. Impeachment is also potentially on the table, though I think it is highly unlikely that there will be enough votes to convict (which would require the support of numerous GOP senators).

Finally, all those who comment on the report within a few hours of its publication—myself most definitely included—take the risk of overlooking something important. It’s entirely possible that a more careful reading will yield greater insight and lead us to reconsider some of our initial reactions, including my own. We should be open-minded about that possibility.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2VO7x6N
via IFTTT

The Ebola Outbreak In Congo Is Close To Becoming A Global Emergency

Authored by Dagny Taggart via The Organic Prepper,

In recent months, public health experts have claimed the deadly Ebola virus outbreak that has been ravaging the Congo will not become a global health threat.

However, recent events and updates paint a less optimistic picture.

Last week, the World Health Organization issued a statement on the ongoing Ebola outbreak in North Kivu and Ituri provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

If this Ebola outbreak isn’t stopped soon, it could become a global threat.

The recent spike of cases increases the threat that the deadly virus will spread to other countries and efforts must be redoubled to stop it, the WHO said last Friday after a meeting of its expert committee.

On April 12, the WHO claimed that while the ongoing Ebola outbreak in Congo is of “deep concern” the situation does not yet warrant being declared a global emergency.

But don’t get too comfortable.

Here are a few concerning excerpts from the statement:

However, the Committee wished to express their deep concern about the recent increase in transmission in specific areas, and therefore the potential risk of spread to neighbouring countries.

Special emphasis should be placed on addressing the rise in case numbers in the remaining epicentres, notably Butembo, Katwa, Vuhovi, and Mandima.

Because there is a very high risk of regional spread, neighbouring countries should continue to accelerate current preparedness and surveillance efforts, including vaccination of health care workers and front-line workers in surrounding countries.

Cross-border collaboration should continue to be strengthened, including timely sharing of data and alerts, cross-border community engagement and awareness raising. In addition, work should be done to better map population movements and understand social networks bridging national boundaries.

The Committee maintains its previous advice that it is particularly important that no international travel or trade restrictions should be applied. Exit screening, including at airports, ports, and land crossings, is of great importance; however, entry screening, particularly in distant airports, is not considered to be of any public health or cost-benefit value. (source)

This Ebola outbreak has no end in sight.

The outbreak has become the second-deadliest in history, behind the West African one from 2014-16 that killed more than 11,300 people.

As of April 15, the outbreak has claimed 821 lives. The total case number is 1273. Unfortunately, both numbers are soaring, and experts say it is not even close to ending:

Some health experts predicted months ago that the outbreak would end within six months’ time. As complications keep appearing, the time frame is pushed back.

“Given the average number of cases we’re seeing now, this is not going to be over for at least another six months or more,” Tariq Riebl with the International Rescue Committee said Friday.

The chair of WHO’s expert committee that unanimously decided the outbreak is not yet a global emergency, Robert Steffen, said experts were “moderately optimistic” the outbreak could be contained within a “foreseeable time.” (source)

A top Red Cross official told the Associated Press he’s “more concerned than I have ever been” about the possible regional spread of the Ebola virus in Congo after a recent spike in cases.

Emanuele Capobianco spoke by phone ahead of a key World Health Organization meeting in Geneva later Friday about whether to declare the Ebola outbreak in northeastern Congo an international health emergency.

Capobianco, head of health and care at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, cited Congolese health ministry statistics announced on Thursday showing 40 new cases over two days this week.

He called that rate unprecedented in the current eight-month outbreak. (source)

Here’s why Ebola is so dangerous.

As Daisy Luther explained in It’s Back: How to Prep for Ebola 2.0, “Part of the reason Ebola seems particularly terrifying is the graphic presentation, which is the stuff of horror movies. It is a hemorrhagic disease, which means that it can cause bleeding from the mouth, eyes, nose, and rectum.”

Here’s how it progresses:

The incubation period, that is, the time interval from infection with the virus to onset of symptoms is 2 to 21 days. Humans are not infectious until they develop symptoms. First symptoms are the sudden onset of fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat. This is followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, symptoms of impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding (e.g. oozing from the gums, blood in the stools). Laboratory findings include low white blood cell and platelet counts and elevated liver enzymes. (source)

But it isn’t just the gruesome visuals. Ebola kills up to 90% of those infected, depending on the strain. This outbreak is the Zaire strain of Ebola, which is the same one that made it to America back in 2014.

Could an Ebola outbreak occur in America?

The odds of an Ebola outbreak occurring in the US have long been considered extremely low, mainly because of how the disease is transmitted. People in America usually don’t eat bushmeat, and we have much better sanitation, health education, and health care facilities.

National Geographic explains how Ebola is transmitted from animals to humans:

Ebola is a zoonosis, or a disease that can “spill over” into humans from nonhuman animals in the wild that carry the sickness. Researchers don’t know for sure which animals are Ebola carriers, but there’s evidence that fruit bats may play a role in spreading the virus to other animals, such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and duikers. Humans, in turn, can come into contact with the virus by interacting with infected animals, such as by hunting or preparing bushmeat.

Ebola spreads through contact with bodily fluids—such as blood, urine, feces, vomit, breast milk, and saliva—from people who have fallen ill or died from EVD. The virus gets into the body through breaks in the skin or through mucous membranes, such as those in the eyes, nose, or mouth. Contaminated needles or syringes also can transmit the virus, and there’s a strong chance that it can also spread via sexual contact. The virus can persist in semen, even after a man has recovered from EVD. (source)

It is possible that migrants from Africa could bring Ebola to the US.

Some independent news outlets are reporting that 20 African migrants from the Democratic Republic of the Congo were monitored for Ebola and other diseases at the border of Mexico and Laredo, Texas. Full disclosure: Those reports have been difficult to verify and may not be factual.

However, in an article dated April 16 and titled Hundreds of Africans tried to reach the United States. Now they’re stuck in Mexico, The Washington Post reported:

Although the vast majority of migrants passing through Mexico on their way to the United States come from Central America, hundreds are from African countries such as Congo, Cameroon and Ethiopia.

At the Casa Del Migrante Amar, a migrant shelter in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, on the Texas border, more than 80 African migrants have gathered. Most are from Congo, Ethi­o­pia or Eritrea.

So, we do know that migrants from Congo are trying to get to the United States, but data on how many have actually arrived – and whether any of them have been screened for Ebola – are not available.

For now, getting prepared for a possible outbreak isn’t a bad idea. To learn how, please see It’s Back: How to Prep for Ebola 2.0.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2IMspHI Tyler Durden

What’s Really in the Mueller Report

While preparing the public for the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report this morning, Attorney General William Barr noted that Mueller examined 10 separate instances where President Donald Trump might have potentially obstructed the investigation.

Mueller ultimately decided not to decide whether Trump had actually attempted to obstruct, and Barr has concluded that Trump’s behavior was not enough to justify obstruction charges.

But the minute Barr noted that Mueller had flagged 10 separate instances, that became the news hook for the day. Since Mueller did not draw a conclusion on obstruction, what does the report say?

Mueller explains from the start of the report’s obstruction section—an entire volume of the overall report—that he would not come to a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” about Trump because he’d accepted the Office of Legal Counsel’s conclusion that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.” But Mueller does say that investigating a president for potential illegal conduct is itself permitted.

Mueller then adds that if he were confident that Trump did not obstruct the investigation, he would clearly say so. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

Here are the 10 cases that Mueller explored.

1. How Trump behaved during the investigation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Flynn ended up resigning from the administration after admitting he had lied to officials when he said he hadn’t discussed with Russian officials the easing of sanctions that President Barack Obama’s administration had put into place as a response to evidence of election meddling. Flynn had, in fact, discussed this issue with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in order to discourage Russia from retaliating over the sanctions. Flynn then reportedly lied to FBI investigators about the conversation.

When the Washington Post reported on the conversation between Flynn and Kislyak in January 2017, Trump angrily called Reince Priebus, who was coming in as his chief of staff. Flynn said he was then pressured to try to get the whole story killed. Flynn’s deputy contacted the Post to deny the conversation happened, even though she knew the story was true. Several Trump officials denied that sanctions were discussed during the discussions. This series of events alarmed the Justice Department because they had already been investigating ties between Flynn and Russia, and they worried that Russian officials could prove the conversations happened and therefore compromise Flynn by threatening to expose him.

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates had warned the White House that Flynn was lying about the nature of his discussions with Kislyak and that the administration was inadvertently passing along the lies.

Trump subsequently forced Flynn’s resignation. Trump then pulled then-FBI Director James Comey aside for a private conversation where he reportedly said to Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, letting Flynn go,” rather than charging him for his false statements.

In Mueller’s analysis, he notes that Trump then publicly denied asking Comey to let Flynn go, but he finds evidence to corroborate Comey’s account. He then analyzes whether this statement as a “hope” or an actual request, which is how Comey says he took it. Mueller agrees that Comey saw this as a directive.

But was this obstruction? Mueller observes that Trump went through the effort to talk to Comey alone, against advice from the White House attorney who told Trump not to speak directly to Justice Department officials by himself so as not to appear as if he was attempting to influence the investigation. Then Trump denied he had made the request, something he wouldn’t have needed to do had he believed that his request was appropriate.

We’re left hanging about whether Mueller sees this as obstruction. It’s clear he sees the behavior as inappropriate and strange, but we don’t know whether he thinks it was illegal.

2. How Trump responded to the announcement of the FBI investigation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal.

After the special investigation was announced in March 2017, Sessions recused himself due to his participation in Trump’s campaign. This infuriated Trump, who wanted Sessions to “unrecuse” himself. Trump contacted Comey and other intelligence leaders to ask them to state publicly that Trump was not connected to Russian election interference.

Sessions recused himself from overseeing the investigation due to his ties to Trump’s campaign and also because it turned out he had not disclosed his own meetings with Kislyak during his confirmation hearings. Trump, through his White House counsel, kept trying to get Sessions not to recuse himself. Sessions did anyway. According to Mueller’s report, Sessions believed Trump was worried that the investigation “could spin out of control and disrupt his ability to govern” if Sessions were not leading it.

When Comey confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee the existence of the investigation of Russia’s involvement in the election, Comey specifically made sure not to state who was being investigated. He also declined to answer when asked if Trump was under investigation. This led some press outlets to suggest that maybe Trump was under investigation, and this made Trump angry at Comey. Trump pushed then-White House Counsel Don McGahn to try to intervene with the Justice Department and ask if there was a way to speed up the investigation. It was at this point that McGahn’s office began looking into whether Trump needed to have cause in order to fire Comey.

On several occasions following Comey’s testimony, Trump asked officials in his administration to put out the word that he was not under investigation and that there was no link between him and Russia’s election interference. He asked Comey if anything could be done to “lift the cloud” over the presidency being caused by the investigation.

Does all this count as obstruction? After looking at all over, Mueller notes that, unlike the Flynn situation, people that Trump spoke to said that it didn’t feel as though they were being given directives to interfere with the investigation. Here Mueller concludes that Trump’s behavior was influenced by his anger and frustration that the investigation was interfering with his ability to govern and would detract from his accomplishments. All of that is to say, here it appears as though Mueller doesn’t see Trump’s actions as directly trying to interfere with the investigation itself.

3. The firing of FBI Director James Comey

Trump fired Comey in May 2017, formally citing Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private servers as Secretary of State. But he privately admitted that the termination was at least in part due to the way the Russian investigation was going, and he told the Russian foreign minister exactly that, saying that he thought it would take the pressure off.

Was firing Comey obstruction of justice? In Mueller’s analysis, firing Comey could have been obstruction if it had the actual effect of ending the investigation. But it didn’t, and Trump was told before firing Comey that it wouldn’t stop the investigation from continuing.

Mueller notes that it’s obvious that Trump’s termination of Comey had nothing to do with his handling of Clinton’s case, and most telling was the fact that Trump ordered the termination letter to include a sentence that Comey had on three separate occasions told Trump he wasn’t under investigation. While Trump was again somewhat acting out of frustration that the investigation was interfering with his ability to do his work, there was evidence that Trump was concerned about the investigation into the campaign.

Here’s an important note from Mueller: “[T]he evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.”

There’s also a short section in this part of the report that’s redacted due to an ongoing investigation of the Trump Tower negotiations. Considering that there are actually very few redactions in this part of the report, that’s worth noting.

4. Trump’s alleged attempt to end the special investigation and get rid of Mueller

In June 2017, following media reports that Trump was being investigated for obstruction, Trump tried to get White House Counsel McGahn to have Mueller removed. McGahn didn’t do so and instead prepared a resignation letter.

When Trump found out that a special counsel had been appointed he reportedly freaked out and said it would be the end of his presidency, and blamed Sessions. Sessions submitted his letter of resignation, but Trump convinced him to stay on.

Trump then tried to argue that Mueller had conflicts of interest because he had previously interviewed for FBI director. Noted Trump whisperer Steve Bannon thought the idea that Mueller had conflicts of interest “ridiculous.” McGahn warned Trump that attempting to get rid of Mueller would be another argument used to claim he was obstructing the investigation.

Regardless, Trump ignored his advisors after the Washington Post reported that Mueller was investigating Trump for obstruction, and asked McGahn to have Mueller removed. McGahn was not willing to do so and decided he’d have to resign. Priebus and Bannon convinced him not to.

So what does Mueller himself think of Trump trying to fire him? Is it obstruction? Much as with Comey’s firing, Muller notes that removing him wouldn’t necessarily mean the end of the special investigation, but a factfinder would have to determine whether doing so would have a chilling effect on his replacement.

Mueller also notes that Trump’s sense of urgency to have him removed, particularly after reading that he might be a target of an obstruction investigation, made a lie out of Trump’s claims that he was concerned about conflicts of interest, because he could have sought out an ethical evaluation rather than immediately on a weekend try to have Mueller removed.

Mueller adds that by this point in the investigation, Trump had been warned repeatedly that contacting the Justice Department would feed the obstruction investigation. Mueller bluntly notes, “The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the president to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed.” He adds that Trump likely knew that it was wrong to ask McGahn to take this action because McGahn already told him the White House could not be involved with this. And then Trump subsequently denied ever telling McGahn to remove Mueller and tried to get McGahn to deny the story.

So once again, here, without actually saying obstruction happened, Mueller wants the reader to clearly understand that he believes Trump tried to have him removed in order to stop the investigation because Trump knew he himself was a target of the investigation.

5. Trump’s attempt to affect the scope of the special counsel investigation

Just days after the failed effort to have Mueller removed, Trump had Corey Lewandowski deliver a message to then-Attorney General Session asking him to limit the scope of the special investigation to the subject of making sure Russia didn’t meddle in future elections.

Trump wanted Sessions to give a speech explaining that Trump was being treated unfairly and shouldn’t be the subject of a special counsel investigation because he hadn’t done anything wrong.

At the time, Lewandowski failed to deliver the message due to scheduling conflicts. By July of 2017, it became public knowledge that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and others had met with Russian lobbyists in June 2016. Trump pushed again for Lewandowski to deliver the message to Sessions. Lewandowski handed it off to White House official Rick Dearborn to pass along. According to Mueller’s report, Dearborn said the message “raised an eyebrow” and being asked to pass it along to Sessions made him uncomfortable, so he didn’t.

A few days later the Washington Post reported that Sessions had discussed campaign matters with Russian officials, and this prompted Trump to again consider firing him. He told Priebus to demand Sessions’ resignation. Priebus warned that he might not be able to get a replacement through the Senate. Priebus and McGahn discussed again the possibility of resigning rather than carrying out Trump’s orders. Eventually, Priebus convinced Trump not to demand Sessions’ resignation, but then Trump began to tweet comments critical of Sessions.

Was this obstruction? Mueller notes that Trump was still trying to get Sessions to “unrecuse” himself and take control over what the investigation’s scope. Mueller says that these “directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation of the president and his campaign.”

Again in this example, without saying “this is obstruction,” Mueller outright states that the evidence shows here that Trump was attempting to prevent further scrutiny of his conduct. Mueller observes that trying to use Lewandowski to quietly pass a message along to Sessions rather than going through official communication channels demonstrates his intent to bypass people like McGahn who had been urging him to stop trying to meddle with the Justice Department’s work.

6. Trump’s involvement in efforts to prevent disclosure of emails about the Trump Tower meeting and Russian lobbyists

In response to initial reports that Trump Jr., Kushner, Manafort, and others had met with Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, Trump’s campaign said it was a meeting about Russian adoption rules. A lot more happened in that meeting: The most notable of which was that Trump’s team had been told that the Russians had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

Trump played a role in crafting initial statements about what happened at the meeting in explanations to the press, deliberately concealing the full nature of the discussion and preparing his son’s statement.

Here, Mueller notes that the lies were being told to the press, not Congressional investigators or to Mueller’s team. Trump apparently made no effort to keep emails about the true nature of the meeting out of the hands of investigators. In this case, Mueller makes it clear that he doesn’t see evidence of obstruction. They were trying to keep the information from getting into the hands of the press, sure, but not investigators.

7. Trump repeatedly tried to get Sessions to unrecuse himself before firing him

As 2017 went on, Trump complained to Sessions that the Department of Justice wasn’t investigating who he thought they should be investigating, by which he meant Clinton’s private server use. He urged Sessions to look at her and then started tweeting that Comey’s letter exonerating Clinton happened before the investigation was complete.

For months, Trump would attack Sessions in tweets and interviews for recusing himself. Then, the day after the midterm elections in November 2018, Trump dumped Sessions.

In his analysis, Mueller notes that evidence shows that part of Trump’s intent to get Sessions to unrecuse himself was his belief that Sessions would limit the scope of the investigation to protect Trump. Trump was aware at this point that the investigation included him and his son.

8. Trump ordered McGahn to lie about his attempts to fire Mueller

Trump’s failed effort to remove Mueller was uncovered by The New York Times in January 2018. Trump several times tried to convince McGahn to publicly deny that the story was true. McGahn refused each request.

Here, Mueller’s analysis notes that Trump disputes McGahn’s characterization of his request. Trump says he didn’t say the word “fire.” But McGahn insisted that the stories were accurate when they said Trump ordered him to have Mueller fired.

At this point, Mueller’s grand jury had brought back several indictments, and Mueller notes that the president had received a list of topics Mueller’s office wanted to discuss in a potential interview. Obstruction was among them. Trump also knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Muller’s team and had told them about the attempt to remove Mueller.

Here Mueller concludes that “substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s urging here for McGahn to dispute the story was intended as an attempt to influence McGahn in “in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President’s conduct towards the investigation.”

9. The president’s conduct toward Flynn, Manafort, and [Redacted]

In this section, Mueller notes Trump’s differing treatment of those who have been caught up in Mueller’s investigation based on how loyal they are to him and whether that counts as obstruction.

Flynn initially received supportive comments from Trump until he ended a joint defense agreement with Trump’s team and started cooperating with the government. Trump raised the possibility of a pardon for Manafort and made it clear he felt the man was being treated unfairly by the government over his fraud convictions.

There is an entire section of this part of the report about a third person that is entirely redacted. I’m not inclined to speculate.

Mueller notes that there’s evidence that Trump’s public comments are intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the investigation and that Trump raised the possibility of a pardon as a way of influencing his behavior. But he also notes that it’s possible Trump genuinely felt bad for Manafort and he was trying to influence public opinion, not necessarily Manafort or a jury.

10. Trump’s treatment of Michael Cohen

Trump’s former personal attorney, who has turned against him, gets his own section in the obstruction volume. Cohen was part of the team pursuing the Moscow Trump Tower project for the Trump organization, insisted that the organization didn’t have any business in Russia when they were still negotiating, and when Cohen’s lies were uncovered, Trump said publicly that Cohen wouldn’t “flip” and passed along private messages of support. Cohen also said he thought he’d get a pardon from the president if he remained “on message.”

Then Cohen began cooperating with the government and all hell broke loose. The media found out that Cohen had a recording of a conversation with him and Trump arranging to pay off a woman Trump had an affair with to keep her mouth shut. This was the second case, and Cohen would eventually plead guilty to campaign finance violations for these payoffs.

Trump and Cohen turned on each other. Trump started publicly making comments that implied that Cohen’s family members were also involved in crimes. Trump said that Cohen had turned rat to get his sentence reduced and suggested that Cohen’s father-in-law had done something wrong. This prompted Cohen to postpone testimony before Congress (though he did eventually testify.)

In Mueller’s analysis, he explores both whether Trump encouraged Cohen to provide the false testimony to Congress that led to him being charged, and whether Trump took actions that would otherwise stop Cohen from testifying truthfully.

Mueller says that, while it’s likely Trump knew Cohen lied to Congress, he could not establish that Cohen did so at Trump’s request. Cohen has said that he believed that Trump wanted him to lie to Congress that negotiations to build a hotel in Russia ended before the campaign began, but Mueller isn’t so sure.

As for Trump’s treatment of Cohen abruptly changing after he started cooperating with investigators, Mueller notes that the inference here is that Trump gives off positive messages to those who refuse to cooperate with the government and “then turns to attacks and intimidation” to either deter or undermine the credibility of those who assist.

In Mueller’s analysis of Trump’s intent here, he is clear that he sees evidence that would support a claim that Trump’s treatment of Cohen is deliberately intended to discourage him from cooperating with the government precisely because it would “shed adverse light” on the president’s conduct during the campaign.

In the end, while Mueller will not specifically say that Trump did or did not engage in obstruction, what he has written in this report is most certainly intended to direct us to look at a trend of behavior designed specifically to either bring the investigation to a halt or to stop the people around him from cooperating with investigators.

And it does leave you to wonder what Mueller would conclude had he not decided from the start that he was not going to make a traditional prosecutorial decision about whether Trump had engaged in obstruction if Trump were not the president.

All of which is to say: This report really reads as though Mueller believes that Trump engaged in obstruction.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2vck4p6
via IFTTT

What’s Really in the Mueller Report

While preparing the public for the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report this morning, Attorney General William Barr noted that Mueller examined 10 separate instances where President Donald Trump might have potentially obstructed the investigation.

Mueller ultimately decided not to decide whether Trump had actually attempted to obstruct, and Barr has concluded that Trump’s behavior was not enough to justify obstruction charges.

But the minute Barr noted that Mueller had flagged 10 separate instances, that became the news hook for the day. Since Mueller did not draw a conclusion on obstruction, what does the report say?

Mueller explains from the start of the report’s obstruction section—an entire volume of the overall report—that he would not come to a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” about Trump because he’d accepted the Office of Legal Counsel’s conclusion that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.” But Mueller does say that investigating a president for potential illegal conduct is itself permitted.

Mueller then adds that if he were confident that Trump did not obstruct the investigation, he would clearly say so. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

Here are the 10 cases that Mueller explored.

1. How Trump behaved during the investigation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Flynn ended up resigning from the administration after admitting he had lied to officials when he said he hadn’t discussed with Russian officials the easing of sanctions that President Barack Obama’s administration had put into place as a response to evidence of election meddling. Flynn had, in fact, discussed this issue with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in order to discourage Russia from retaliating over the sanctions. Flynn then reportedly lied to FBI investigators about the conversation.

When the Washington Post reported on the conversation between Flynn and Kislyak in January 2017, Trump angrily called Reince Priebus, who was coming in as his chief of staff. Flynn said he was then pressured to try to get the whole story killed. Flynn’s deputy contacted the Post to deny the conversation happened, even though she knew the story was true. Several Trump officials denied that sanctions were discussed during the discussions. This series of events alarmed the Justice Department because they had already been investigating ties between Flynn and Russia, and they worried that Russian officials could prove the conversations happened and therefore compromise Flynn by threatening to expose him.

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates had warned the White House that Flynn was lying about the nature of his discussions with Kislyak and that the administration was inadvertently passing along the lies.

Trump subsequently forced Flynn’s resignation. Trump then pulled then-FBI Director James Comey aside for a private conversation where he reportedly said to Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, letting Flynn go,” rather than charging him for his false statements.

In Mueller’s analysis, he notes that Trump then publicly denied asking Comey to let Flynn go, but he finds evidence to corroborate Comey’s account. He then analyzes whether this statement as a “hope” or an actual request, which is how Comey says he took it. Mueller agrees that Comey saw this as a directive.

But was this obstruction? Mueller observes that Trump went through the effort to talk to Comey alone, against advice from the White House attorney who told Trump not to speak directly to Justice Department officials by himself so as not to appear as if he was attempting to influence the investigation. Then Trump denied he had made the request, something he wouldn’t have needed to do had he believed that his request was appropriate.

We’re left hanging about whether Mueller sees this as obstruction. It’s clear he sees the behavior as inappropriate and strange, but we don’t know whether he thinks it was illegal.

2. How Trump responded to the announcement of the FBI investigation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal.

After the special investigation was announced in March 2017, Sessions recused himself due to his participation in Trump’s campaign. This infuriated Trump, who wanted Sessions to “unrecuse” himself. Trump contacted Comey and other intelligence leaders to ask them to state publicly that Trump was not connected to Russian election interference.

Sessions recused himself from overseeing the investigation due to his ties to Trump’s campaign and also because it turned out he had not disclosed his own meetings with Kislyak during his confirmation hearings. Trump, through his White House counsel, kept trying to get Sessions not to recuse himself. Sessions did anyway. According to Mueller’s report, Sessions believed Trump was worried that the investigation “could spin out of control and disrupt his ability to govern” if Sessions were not leading it.

When Comey confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee the existence of the investigation of Russia’s involvement in the election, Comey specifically made sure not to state who was being investigated. He also declined to answer when asked if Trump was under investigation. This led some press outlets to suggest that maybe Trump was under investigation, and this made Trump angry at Comey. Trump pushed then-White House Counsel Don McGahn to try to intervene with the Justice Department and ask if there was a way to speed up the investigation. It was at this point that McGahn’s office began looking into whether Trump needed to have cause in order to fire Comey.

On several occasions following Comey’s testimony, Trump asked officials in his administration to put out the word that he was not under investigation and that there was no link between him and Russia’s election interference. He asked Comey if anything could be done to “lift the cloud” over the presidency being caused by the investigation.

Does all this count as obstruction? After looking at all over, Mueller notes that, unlike the Flynn situation, people that Trump spoke to said that it didn’t feel as though they were being given directives to interfere with the investigation. Here Mueller concludes that Trump’s behavior was influenced by his anger and frustration that the investigation was interfering with his ability to govern and would detract from his accomplishments. All of that is to say, here it appears as though Mueller doesn’t see Trump’s actions as directly trying to interfere with the investigation itself.

3. The firing of FBI Director James Comey

Trump fired Comey in May 2017, formally citing Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private servers as Secretary of State. But he privately admitted that the termination was at least in part due to the way the Russian investigation was going, and he told the Russian foreign minister exactly that, saying that he thought it would take the pressure off.

Was firing Comey obstruction of justice? In Mueller’s analysis, firing Comey could have been obstruction if it had the actual effect of ending the investigation. But it didn’t, and Trump was told before firing Comey that it wouldn’t stop the investigation from continuing.

Mueller notes that it’s obvious that Trump’s termination of Comey had nothing to do with his handling of Clinton’s case, and most telling was the fact that Trump ordered the termination letter to include a sentence that Comey had on three separate occasions told Trump he wasn’t under investigation. While Trump was again somewhat acting out of frustration that the investigation was interfering with his ability to do his work, there was evidence that Trump was concerned about the investigation into the campaign.

Here’s an important note from Mueller: “[T]he evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.”

There’s also a short section in this part of the report that’s redacted due to an ongoing investigation of the Trump Tower negotiations. Considering that there are actually very few redactions in this part of the report, that’s worth noting.

4. Trump’s alleged attempt to end the special investigation and get rid of Mueller

In June 2017, following media reports that Trump was being investigated for obstruction, Trump tried to get White House Counsel McGahn to have Mueller removed. McGahn didn’t do so and instead prepared a resignation letter.

When Trump found out that a special counsel had been appointed he reportedly freaked out and said it would be the end of his presidency, and blamed Sessions. Sessions submitted his letter of resignation, but Trump convinced him to stay on.

Trump then tried to argue that Mueller had conflicts of interest because he had previously interviewed for FBI director. Noted Trump whisperer Steve Bannon thought the idea that Mueller had conflicts of interest “ridiculous.” McGahn warned Trump that attempting to get rid of Mueller would be another argument used to claim he was obstructing the investigation.

Regardless, Trump ignored his advisors after the Washington Post reported that Mueller was investigating Trump for obstruction, and asked McGahn to have Mueller removed. McGahn was not willing to do so and decided he’d have to resign. Priebus and Bannon convinced him not to.

So what does Mueller himself think of Trump trying to fire him? Is it obstruction? Much as with Comey’s firing, Muller notes that removing him wouldn’t necessarily mean the end of the special investigation, but a factfinder would have to determine whether doing so would have a chilling effect on his replacement.

Mueller also notes that Trump’s sense of urgency to have him removed, particularly after reading that he might be a target of an obstruction investigation, made a lie out of Trump’s claims that he was concerned about conflicts of interest, because he could have sought out an ethical evaluation rather than immediately on a weekend try to have Mueller removed.

Mueller adds that by this point in the investigation, Trump had been warned repeatedly that contacting the Justice Department would feed the obstruction investigation. Mueller bluntly notes, “The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the president to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed.” He adds that Trump likely knew that it was wrong to ask McGahn to take this action because McGahn already told him the White House could not be involved with this. And then Trump subsequently denied ever telling McGahn to remove Mueller and tried to get McGahn to deny the story.

So once again, here, without actually saying obstruction happened, Mueller wants the reader to clearly understand that he believes Trump tried to have him removed in order to stop the investigation because Trump knew he himself was a target of the investigation.

5. Trump’s attempt to affect the scope of the special counsel investigation

Just days after the failed effort to have Mueller removed, Trump had Corey Lewandowski deliver a message to then-Attorney General Session asking him to limit the scope of the special investigation to the subject of making sure Russia didn’t meddle in future elections.

Trump wanted Sessions to give a speech explaining that Trump was being treated unfairly and shouldn’t be the subject of a special counsel investigation because he hadn’t done anything wrong.

At the time, Lewandowski failed to deliver the message due to scheduling conflicts. By July of 2017, it became public knowledge that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and others had met with Russian lobbyists in June 2016. Trump pushed again for Lewandowski to deliver the message to Sessions. Lewandowski handed it off to White House official Rick Dearborn to pass along. According to Mueller’s report, Dearborn said the message “raised an eyebrow” and being asked to pass it along to Sessions made him uncomfortable, so he didn’t.

A few days later the Washington Post reported that Sessions had discussed campaign matters with Russian officials, and this prompted Trump to again consider firing him. He told Priebus to demand Sessions’ resignation. Priebus warned that he might not be able to get a replacement through the Senate. Priebus and McGahn discussed again the possibility of resigning rather than carrying out Trump’s orders. Eventually, Priebus convinced Trump not to demand Sessions’ resignation, but then Trump began to tweet comments critical of Sessions.

Was this obstruction? Mueller notes that Trump was still trying to get Sessions to “unrecuse” himself and take control over what the investigation’s scope. Mueller says that these “directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation of the president and his campaign.”

Again in this example, without saying “this is obstruction,” Mueller outright states that the evidence shows here that Trump was attempting to prevent further scrutiny of his conduct. Mueller observes that trying to use Lewandowski to quietly pass a message along to Sessions rather than going through official communication channels demonstrates his intent to bypass people like McGahn who had been urging him to stop trying to meddle with the Justice Department’s work.

6. Trump’s involvement in efforts to prevent disclosure of emails about the Trump Tower meeting and Russian lobbyists

In response to initial reports that Trump Jr., Kushner, Manafort, and others had met with Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, Trump’s campaign said it was a meeting about Russian adoption rules. A lot more happened in that meeting: The most notable of which was that Trump’s team had been told that the Russians had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

Trump played a role in crafting initial statements about what happened at the meeting in explanations to the press, deliberately concealing the full nature of the discussion and preparing his son’s statement.

Here, Mueller notes that the lies were being told to the press, not Congressional investigators or to Mueller’s team. Trump apparently made no effort to keep emails about the true nature of the meeting out of the hands of investigators. In this case, Mueller makes it clear that he doesn’t see evidence of obstruction. They were trying to keep the information from getting into the hands of the press, sure, but not investigators.

7. Trump repeatedly tried to get Sessions to unrecuse himself before firing him

As 2017 went on, Trump complained to Sessions that the Department of Justice wasn’t investigating who he thought they should be investigating, by which he meant Clinton’s private server use. He urged Sessions to look at her and then started tweeting that Comey’s letter exonerating Clinton happened before the investigation was complete.

For months, Trump would attack Sessions in tweets and interviews for recusing himself. Then, the day after the midterm elections in November 2018, Trump dumped Sessions.

In his analysis, Mueller notes that evidence shows that part of Trump’s intent to get Sessions to unrecuse himself was his belief that Sessions would limit the scope of the investigation to protect Trump. Trump was aware at this point that the investigation included him and his son.

8. Trump ordered McGahn to lie about his attempts to fire Mueller

Trump’s failed effort to remove Mueller was uncovered by The New York Times in January 2018. Trump several times tried to convince McGahn to publicly deny that the story was true. McGahn refused each request.

Here, Mueller’s analysis notes that Trump disputes McGahn’s characterization of his request. Trump says he didn’t say the word “fire.” But McGahn insisted that the stories were accurate when they said Trump ordered him to have Mueller fired.

At this point, Mueller’s grand jury had brought back several indictments, and Mueller notes that the president had received a list of topics Mueller’s office wanted to discuss in a potential interview. Obstruction was among them. Trump also knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Muller’s team and had told them about the attempt to remove Mueller.

Here Mueller concludes that “substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s urging here for McGahn to dispute the story was intended as an attempt to influence McGahn in “in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President’s conduct towards the investigation.”

9. The president’s conduct toward Flynn, Manafort, and [Redacted]

In this section, Mueller notes Trump’s differing treatment of those who have been caught up in Mueller’s investigation based on how loyal they are to him and whether that counts as obstruction.

Flynn initially received supportive comments from Trump until he ended a joint defense agreement with Trump’s team and started cooperating with the government. Trump raised the possibility of a pardon for Manafort and made it clear he felt the man was being treated unfairly by the government over his fraud convictions.

There is an entire section of this part of the report about a third person that is entirely redacted. I’m not inclined to speculate.

Mueller notes that there’s evidence that Trump’s public comments are intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the investigation and that Trump raised the possibility of a pardon as a way of influencing his behavior. But he also notes that it’s possible Trump genuinely felt bad for Manafort and he was trying to influence public opinion, not necessarily Manafort or a jury.

10. Trump’s treatment of Michael Cohen

Trump’s former personal attorney, who has turned against him, gets his own section in the obstruction volume. Cohen was part of the team pursuing the Moscow Trump Tower project for the Trump organization, insisted that the organization didn’t have any business in Russia when they were still negotiating, and when Cohen’s lies were uncovered, Trump said publicly that Cohen wouldn’t “flip” and passed along private messages of support. Cohen also said he thought he’d get a pardon from the president if he remained “on message.”

Then Cohen began cooperating with the government and all hell broke loose. The media found out that Cohen had a recording of a conversation with him and Trump arranging to pay off a woman Trump had an affair with to keep her mouth shut. This was the second case, and Cohen would eventually plead guilty to campaign finance violations for these payoffs.

Trump and Cohen turned on each other. Trump started publicly making comments that implied that Cohen’s family members were also involved in crimes. Trump said that Cohen had turned rat to get his sentence reduced and suggested that Cohen’s father-in-law had done something wrong. This prompted Cohen to postpone testimony before Congress (though he did eventually testify.)

In Mueller’s analysis, he explores both whether Trump encouraged Cohen to provide the false testimony to Congress that led to him being charged, and whether Trump took actions that would otherwise stop Cohen from testifying truthfully.

Mueller says that, while it’s likely Trump knew Cohen lied to Congress, he could not establish that Cohen did so at Trump’s request. Cohen has said that he believed that Trump wanted him to lie to Congress that negotiations to build a hotel in Russia ended before the campaign began, but Mueller isn’t so sure.

As for Trump’s treatment of Cohen abruptly changing after he started cooperating with investigators, Mueller notes that the inference here is that Trump gives off positive messages to those who refuse to cooperate with the government and “then turns to attacks and intimidation” to either deter or undermine the credibility of those who assist.

In Mueller’s analysis of Trump’s intent here, he is clear that he sees evidence that would support a claim that Trump’s treatment of Cohen is deliberately intended to discourage him from cooperating with the government precisely because it would “shed adverse light” on the president’s conduct during the campaign.

In the end, while Mueller will not specifically say that Trump did or did not engage in obstruction, what he has written in this report is most certainly intended to direct us to look at a trend of behavior designed specifically to either bring the investigation to a halt or to stop the people around him from cooperating with investigators.

And it does leave you to wonder what Mueller would conclude had he not decided from the start that he was not going to make a traditional prosecutorial decision about whether Trump had engaged in obstruction if Trump were not the president.

All of which is to say: This report really reads as though Mueller believes that Trump engaged in obstruction.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2vck4p6
via IFTTT

With 486 Manufacturers, China’s Electric Vehicle Bubble Is Set To Burst

In a global auto market that is collapsing, China’s electric vehicle sales have consistently been the silver lining. The massive shift to electric vehicles in the world’s largest auto market has helped pad numbers coming out of China that, in aggregate, still look disappointing, as we recently wrote about.

But now, that silver lining looks to be reaching an unceremonious end, according to Bloomberg. There’s now more than 486 electric vehicle manufacturers registered in China, which is triple the number from two years ago. While sales of passenger electric vehicles are projected to reach a record 1.6 million units this year, that still is not going to be enough to keep all of these manufacturers producing steadily, and this has prompted some warnings that the EV market “bubble” could burst and leave only a few survivors.

Thomas Fang, a partner and strategy consultant at Roland Berger in Shanghai said: 

“We are going to see great waves sweeping away sand in the EV industry. It is a critical moment that will decide life or death for EV startups.’’

At least two dozen electric car brands will be showcasing models at the Shanghai auto show this week. The companies range in age and experience, including names like NIO and BYD Co. And dozens of startups have entered this global EV business over the last few years, raising a total of $18 billion since 2011. Most of the biggest fundraisers have been Chinese, including names like NIO, WM Motor, Xpeng Motors and Youxia Motors.

Combined, the startups will deliver a collective manufacturing capacity of 3.9 million vehicles per year. This excludes what some already existing automakers are planning to add.

Annual sales of passenger EVs in China barely surpassed 1 million units for the first time last year, helped along by subsidies that could take thousands off of prices. But EV sales still just make up only 4% of overall passenger vehicle sales of 23.7 million units. At the same time, traditional automobiles are currently in freefall, down for the tenth straight month in March.

Cui Dongshu, secretary-general of the China Passenger Car Association said: “There is still huge room out there in the new-energy vehicle market with China’s relatively low vehicle-penetration rate. Yet that market is for the competitive players, not the weakest ones, and the latter will be squeezed out.’’

The government has started to push development of electric vehicles to help eliminate pollution, reduce oil imports and develop high technology manufacturing. China’s leaders seek annual sales of new energy vehicles to reach 7 million units by 2025. This is about 20% of China’s total auto market.

But this rate would only be enough to sustain a few dozen companies – not the hundreds currently out there. And these companies face additional headwinds, like subsidy cuts announced last month by the finance ministry.

Zhou Lei, a Tokyo-based partner for Deloitte Tohmatsu Consulting said:

 “With the subsidy adjustments, some less technologically advanced EV startups will disappear. There will be a reshuffle.’’

Popular name manufacturers like Ford, Tesla and Volkswagen all continue to swarm to China. Toyota, Fiat and Honda are all, alongside of Mitsubishi, trying to sell a similar car developed by Guangzhou Automobile Group.

Local manufacturers like BYD have the highest chance of withstanding the competition and the cuts, given their long-term track record and diversity in manufacturing both cars and buses to an existing customer base. BYD has been growing its revenue for six straight years and has turned a profit since 2000.

“Only companies that have solid technology reserves can stand out amid competition. By owning core technologies, we can see further and deeper.’’ said Wang Chuanfu, founder and chairman of BYD.

Those facing the largest risks in China are upstarts that have been founded or funded by people with internet or technology backgrounds and not aware of the massive investment needed for automobile manufacturing. Non-car companies that are spending heavily on EV’s include Foxconn Technology Group, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and China Evergrande Group.

Thomas Fang continued: “The investment needed for actual production is several times of that they’ve spent on marketing and production development. That’s why we are seeing some of them delaying mass-production plans.’’

Li continued: “A large amount of companies will be eliminated in a year, and 90 percent of the investors will suffer great losses.”

In March, retail sales of sedans, SUVs, minivans and multipurpose vehicles dropped 12% to 1.78 million units, according to the China Passenger Car Association. This is after an 18.5% drop in February and a 4% drop in January.

The country’s slowing economy and continued trade tensions with the United States are weighing on consumer sentiment among its 1.4 billion people. Additionally, changes in tax policies and import tariffs have also acted as a headwind for car demand. Cars were the only consumer product category in China that shrank the first two months of 2019.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2V6hsrl Tyler Durden

Middlebury College Disinvites Polish Politician Ryszard Legutko, Fails Free Speech Test Yet Again

Two years after a mob of activists silenced Charles Murray and attacked his debate partner, Allison Stanger, Middlebury College is again permitting censorship to rule the day. But this time, it is the administration, rather than the students, shutting down the debate.

Earlier this week, Middlebury officials cancelled a planned event featuring Ryszard Legutko, a Polish politician and philosopher. Ryszard is known for his conservative social views, and has criticized “homosexuals, Africans, and feminists.” This led many on campus to criticize the Alexander Hamilton Forum, a group associated with the college’s political science department that seeks to create stimulating discussions on campus, for inviting him.

“By giving Mr. Legutko a platform to promote his book, you legitimize the destructive party and government that he is associated with,” wrote Thomas Gawell, a recent graduate, in an op-ed for The Middlebury Campus, the student paper. “As a Middlebury alumnus from Poland, I am truly hurt that you showed such level of insensitivity and ignorance. I am all for Middlebury inviting speakers that hold views different than those of the campus majority. But you could at least seek speakers who are not bigots and hypocrites.”

Legutko was slated to discuss his views on democracy, not his views on homosexuality. Even so, student-activists had planned to protest the talk and were organizing an LGBT-affirming event to take place outside the forum. Importantly, as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s Nico Perrino notes, the activists had no intention of shutting down Legutko. On a Facebook page for protest organizers, an activist leader said, “It is absolutely, unequivocally not the intent of this protest and those participating in this protest to prevent Legutko from speaking. Disruptive behavior of this nature will not be tolerated.”

This makes the college’s decision to cancel the talk very troubling indeed. No doubt the administration did not want a repeat of the Murray debacle. But preemptively shutting down difficult conversations out of an abundance of caution is really no different from shutting them down due to mob pressure. The administration claimed that its decision “was based on an assessment of our ability to respond effectively to potential security and safety risks for both the lecture and the event students had planned in response.” This sounds like excuse-making.

Per one student’s request, a political science professor, Matthew Dickinson, invited Legutko to address his class instead. This is better than nothing, but did not and could not have included everyone who wished to attend the Hamilton Forum event.

A college that values the free exchange of ideas should be able to host a controversial or provocative speaker—and supporters and critics alike should be able to show up, ask tough questions, or protest in a manner that does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. That Middlebury has once again failed this test is not an encouraging sign.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2XiDnZM
via IFTTT