Monday, November 4, 2019

Trump in a Nutshell

How Trump will try to derail impeachment

Following the "Roy Cohn playbook," he will delay, lie, destroy evidence, attack patriots … anything to save himself


DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
NOVEMBER 4, 2019 9:00AM (UTC)
Read more articles from the DCReport here.
dcr-logo
The damning Oct. 29 testimony by a decorated Army officer who revealed misleading White House edits to the infamous rough transcript of Donald Trump’s “perfect” call to Ukraine’s leader fits perfectly Trump’s lifelong abuse of records.
Altering, destroying, fabricating and hiding records is Trumpian behavior going back decades that the late Wayne Barret and others including me have thoroughly documented, but that rarely makes the mainstream news.
Trump has repeatedly, and falsely, said that the memorandum of the July Ukraine call is a “word for word, comma for comma” perfect transcript. Yet on its first page, the document warns that it  “is not a verbatim transcript.” Trump acolytes, especially Fox News viewers, can hardly be blamed for believing the president since the “fair and balanced” cable channel has become TrumpTV, a Moscow-like propaganda outlet that distorts nightly the verifiable record.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Russo-Ukraine expert on the White House national security staff, told House investigators the transcript was misleadingly edited to protect Trump from proof of wrongdoing. He said Trump clearly sought Kyiv’s interference in domestic American politics. Vindman said he tried twice — unsuccessfully — to make the record accurate by filling in words replaced with ellipses.
Vindman’s testimony only increases the reasons Americans should see the accurate and full records of a call between Trump and Chinese President Jinping Xi in which a similar request to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son was discussed.
00:00/01:12
The concerns flowing from Vindman’s testimony, since confirmed by other witnesses, go far beyond Trump soliciting foreign intervention in American electoral politics, which is a serious crime. They raise questions about Trump’s disloyalty, threats to our national security and the integrity of official records on which future administrations must rely.
Attacking officer’s patriotism
Trump and his supporters, including John Yoo, a former deputy attorney general, have attacked the patriotism and loyalty of Vindman, a Soviet Jewish émigré who came to America as a toddler.
Vindman is a decorated combat officer while Trump was a draft dodger. Vindman is also one of only 1,200 or so elite military Foreign Area Officers, a specialist in the politics of the former Soviet empire who holds a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard.
The attacks on Vindman reek not only of trying to make a loyal officer, who walks around with shrapnel in his body from Iraq combat duty, they are also part of Trump’s anti-Semitism, itself part of a larger animus to people who are not white and claiming to be Christian.
Writer Julia Ioffe, like Vindman a Soviet Jew émigré, detailed this in a smart article this week.
“While Trump has a history of attacking anyone who questions his power,” she writes, “there is a particularly insidious history to questioning the loyalty of Jewish émigrés.
Rich, but little known, public records establish that throughout Trump’s career as a white-collar criminal posing as a businessman, he has profited and avoided prosecution by misleading law enforcement investigators, deceiving auditors, tricking investors. His Taj Mahal casino was also fined $10 million for money laundering, the kind of crime he is suspected of having performed for Russian criminal interests for decades.
Trump knows how to use the criminal justice system to subtly inform those who pose a danger to him to keep their mouths shut if they want a future reward. He now has the almost unlimited power to pardon, a power he claims he can even apply to himself, though it is of no value in impeachment, which is a non-criminal matter.
Roy Cohn’s advice
In fighting impeachment and conviction Trump will rely on the Roy Cohn playbook.
The notorious lawyer, whom Trump has said he regarded as a second father, taught that when law enforcement and other government officials suggest anything is amiss, you turn the tables and attack their integrity and legitimacy.
What we could call “Roy Cohn’s Lying Without Consequences Playbook” includes: Throw up every obstacle you can use or fabricate. Toss legal brickbats with novel and bizarre legal claims. Be nasty. Be accusatory. Challenge the legitimacy of government. Attack the integrity of individual officials.  Make claims of government action that bear no relationship to the actual issue. Insist that records are confidential.  Claim records no longer exist because some random, low-level employee accidentally erased them or tossed them out. Claim that a broken water pipe flooded the accounting file room. Blame an act of God. And always delay, delay, delay in the hope that the salaried government officials will grow weary and move on to easier tasks.
Trump has always torn up his desk calendar at the end of the month, a classic Roy Cohn technique. In legal disputes, a consistent practice weighs less against you than destroying records only when convenient.
Another Cohn trick: make dirty payments in cash. Checks, like credit cards, leave a trail that the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCen can track anywhere in the world, given enough time and analysts. But cash, even million-dollar payoffs, is much harder to trace. Trump has been suspected of laundering money for Russian-speaking criminals, based on deals that make no economic sense.
Trump helped cocaine trafficker
When Trump was caught doing extraordinary favors for a mobbed-up career criminal named Joseph Weichselbaum, he denied it. He also denied writing a letter praising the drug trafficker, and manager of Trump’s personal helicopter, a credit to the community. Only when casino detectives showed him the letter did he acknowledge his signature, but nothing more.  Trump should have lost his casino licenseunder New Jersey law, but protecting casino owners by never asking hard questions that would force such actions was an unstated but de facto mission of the New Jersey Attorney General’s offices, as my book Temples of Chance detailed at length in 1992.
Trump wrote a letter, ostensibly to a judge but in reality signaling the mobster that if he kept his mouth shut he would be taken care of. The third time felony loser did as Trump asked, got an extremely light sentence after his case passed through the courtroom of Trump’s sister, federal Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, and Trump escaped further scrutiny.
Part of Trump’s strategy in that matter was to claim he didn’t recall writing the letter. That’s odd since candidate Trump told voters he enjoys “one of the world’s greatest memories,” something he now says he doesn’t remember saying. Transcripts of testimony show that Trump has used this trick many times.
Candidate Trump declared he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose a vote. That hubris has grown. On Oct. 23 Trump’s lawyers asserted in court that even if Trump actually shot someone no federal or state law enforcement agency could investigate.
As we can see daily from his attacks on Vindman and his claims of a witch hunt and hoax, Trump has no scruples about anything. And he will say or do anything to protect his delusional self-image as the world’s smartest, most expert, most deserving leader who is so perfect that as a claimed Christian he doesn’t even need to ever ask God for forgiveness.
Kremlin blackmail
Federal law requires Trump to preserve all presidential records, but he thumbs his nose at that law.
Trump illegally deletes Tweets in violation of the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which makes the tweets public property.
The National Archives assigned an employee to go through Trump’s Oval Office wastebasket to reconstruct shredded papers.
Trump snapped at his then-national security adviser, General H. R McMaster, for taking notes in an Oval Office meeting. Without notes, disputes devolve into “he said, she said” squabbles, while courts generally treat notes and memos written at the time a conversation takes place as solid evidence. That’s why Trump hates note-taking.
Trump seized and destroy the notes of American government translator Marina Gross after they met in Helsinki with Vladimir Putin. No other Americans attended. Normally such meetings involve a half dozen or more American officials with deep expertise to safeguard American national security and look for clues into the behavior of Putin or any leader of a foreign power, friendly or hostile.
Later Trump held a second and unannounced meeting with Putin that relied solely on the Kremlin’s translator, leaving no American record of what was discussed, what promises may have been made.
This conduct means Trump made himself vulnerable to blackmail by the Kremlin, which has the only record of what was said. Trump’s actual words and promises, or a Russian fabrication, could be used to force Trump to play ball on Kremlin initiatives and poses a danger to American national security. Whether such blackmail has already been used is unknown, but given some Trump’s bizarre pro-Kremlin behavior concern is reasonable.
Hiding records
When New York City auditors sought records after Trump slashed his annual rent payments on the Grand Hyatt hotel from about $3 million to $60,000, Trump did his best to evade scrutiny.
The first response was to say the time limit for audits had passed, a fabrication. Next was a claim that the city had no right to see the books even though the contract between Trump and the city explicitly granted that authority. Then auditors were told that a broken water pipe in the new building destroyed the books.
When auditors learned of an electronic copy in Chicago, they were told someone had accidentally erased the files the night before auditors were to inspect the records. Finally, in a New Jersey warehouse, auditors found enough of the records to show Trump had cheated the city out of close to $3 million.
Vindman and others told House members in both parties that the records of the Ukraine and China calls, and presumably others, are stored in a super-safe White House computer. That lets Trump hide the records far more effectively than the games he tried to play with the New York City auditors. What we should hope is that others kept their own records of these calls and give them to Congress.
Forgetting eyeglasses
Trump is notorious for cheating small business vendors and workers and then lying under oath to escape responsibility for his misdeeds.
After a long trial U.S. District Court Judge Charles E. Stewart Jr., ruled in a lengthy opinion that Trump engaged in a conspiracy to cheat the workers, as I recount in The Making of Donald Trump.
Trump didn’t fully pay about 200 illegal immigrants from Poland who for $4 an hour (about $11 today) literally tore down by hand the landmark 12-story Bonwit Teller Department Store, where Trump Tower now stands. At trial, Trump denied knowing the workers were illegally in America and failing to fully pay them. 
Judge Stewart, in a lengthy opinion, found that Trump’s testimony lacked credibility. He noted that Trump visited the site and had an office with a view from across the street.
In stealing the wages, Trump violated his duty of loyalty, also known as fiduciary duty, to the workers and to a union. This “breach involved fraud and the Trump defendants knowingly participated in this breach,” Judge Stewart ruled.
At times Trump relies on cheap tricks to avoid answering questions, which may be asked of him in a Senate trial.
Just three years ago, in a videotaped deposition involving the hotel that Trump illegally operates a short walk from the White House, he used an old trick to avoid answering questions about a document he was shown.
“I am at a disadvantage because I didn’t bring my glasses,” he testified, a problem of his own creation that benefitted only Trump.
As events unfold in the weeks and months ahead keep all of this in mind. And beware it is just a sampling of the voluminous record showing how Trump will lie, fabricate, destroy, conceal and accuse without regard for fact or even, as we see in the baseless attacks on the patriotism of Lt. Col Vindman, basic human decency.
Think about what life will be like for you if we abandon more than two centuries of the rule of law and choose to enable a dictatorship under a man whose only operative principle is self-preservation.
And what if you adore Trump, what if you think it would be good to have him just takeover? Think about what he wrote in his book Think Big and said in numerous public talks Trump declared that his life’s philosophy boiled down to a single word: revenge.
His specific story in the book is about deriving increasing pleasure in the miseries of a Trump Organization executive he held in high esteem until she declined to make a phone call that would have been unethical and possibly illegal.
Never forget that all it would take for Trump to turn on on you and use the powers of our government against you is just a modest slight.

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Setting the Stage


Democrats pivot from private inquiry of Trump to public case for impeachment

Behind closed doors, party leaders are sketching out how they plan to use a series of blockbuster hearings to argue for the president's removal from office.

Friday, November 1, 2019

The Republican Party is Crazy

by Amanda Marcotte from Salon.om

When the final vote tally on a formal resolution governing the impeachment inquiry concluded on Thursday with a party-line split — all Republicans present voted against the resolution, and all but two Democrats voted for it — one could practically hear the squeak of excitement from the mainstream media pundit class. Here was an opportunity to run with a "partisan polarization" narrative that neatly sidesteps the substantive disagreement between the two parties.
The situation is simple: The Republican Party, both its politicians and its voters, has collectively decided that it's fine for Donald Trump to use his office to run an illegal extortion scheme against a foreign leader in an effort to cheat in the 2020 election. The moral rot of the Republican Party, and its cultist loyalty to a criminal president is the sole reason for this situation. Democrats are — rather too reluctantly! — trying to do something to stop the bleeding.
But to read mainstream news coverage, one would think the real problem is that both sides are irascible and bitterly divided, and that there's some reasonable solution that involves everyone joining hands and finding some way to compromise.
"Analysis: On Impeachment Fight, Neither Side Seems Willing To Give an Inch," read the Friday morning front-page headline at the New York Times, which, as usual, was the most egregious offender when it comes to "both sides" pablum.
The article underneath, by Carl Hulse, focused exclusively on the failure to compromise, noting that "the two parties [are] pulling ever further apart as they dig in deeper on the righteousness of their respective causes" and that "[l]ittle evidence has emerged that either side is willing to give an inch."
00:03/01:12
How the parties are supposed to compromise on the issue of whether the president should be allowed to commit serious crimes is not even addressed. After all, to acknowledge that one side is for crimes and the other side is against them might expose how ridiculous this "compromise vs. polarization" framework really is.
The Associated Press covered the vote in a similar vein, writing that "Democrats swept a rules package for their impeachment probe of President Donald Trump through a divided House," and failing to note until the 22nd paragraph that Republicans have been calling for such a vote for weeks, as Media Matters pointed out.
Other outlets, including NBC NewsCNN and the Washington Post, ran front-page stories on the way partisan polarization shaped the vote and is driving the polling on impeachment.
These stories are tough, because, in one sense, it's technically true that the vote and the polling shows that Americans are deeply divided, by party identity, on the issue of impeachment. But that framework misses the larger story: The reason for this deep division is that Republicans, both voters and their representatives, have completely abandoned any respect for democracy and rule of law, choosing instead the cult of personality around a flagrant criminal. It ignores that Democrats value the truth and Republicans are awash in lies. It equates the two sides in a way that is not justified by looking at the bigger picture.
The "both sides" frame, in other words, hides the fact that this situation is very a one-sided problem.
One shining exception in the coverage was another front-page story at the Washington Post that looked away from the "both sides" frame and focused on the real story, which is how the Republican Party has become an authoritarian cult.
The story, written by Washington Post staffer Griff Witte, follows what happened to Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., when he ever so gently suggested that it was important "to get all the facts on the table" and said he valued substantive evidence such as the testimony from "professional diplomats" and the fact that Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, had literally admitted to holding up military aid to extort political favors from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Even showing mild interest in the facts, however, led to Rooney getting drummed out of the party by Republican leadership in his district, who saw his curiosity about truth as "an act of supreme disloyalty to a leader they say they have come to revere more than any in their lifetimes."
"I think it’s better when people think," Rooney told Witte when asked if he thought such cultish behavior is good for the country.
Nothing of this sort, or even close to it, is going on with the Democrats. On the contrary, the 2018 midterms, in which the newly elected Democrats who helped take the House of Representatives ran the gamut from centrists to socialists, was a reminder of how ideologically diverse the coalition is. The Democratic presidential primary, too, makes that candidates from the center, the left and everywhere in between are getting support in the polls.
The "polarization" framework is profoundly misleading because it suggests that the two parties are like magnets repelling each other with identical force and velocity. But the real story is that while Democrats have moved modestly to the left on some issues, most of the divisions in the country are the result of Republicans becoming both more fascistic and completely untethered to reality.
This isn't about "both sides" acting in an equal manner. It's about Republicans losing their minds and everyone else, understandably, reacting against that.
Nowhere is this more obvious than on the issue of impeachment. There's not really any middle ground on the issue of using military aid to blackmail a foreign leader into helping you fabricate lies about your political opponent, as the evidence shows Trump clearly did. This isn't an issue where reasonable people arguing in good faith can disagree. This is a black-and-white, wrong-versus-right issue.
Our mainstream media, with its addiction to "balance" over truth, is manifestly ill-equipped to handle a story where one side is so clearly in the right and the other side is so clearly in the wrong. So reporters and editors hide behind these factual-but-shallow stories that argue the nation is "divided" and "polarized," all while gently gliding over the fact that the division is happening because 40% of the country has abandoned basic decency while the rest of us look on in horror. But as the impeachment process intensifies, it may become harder to maintain the illusion that the issue is polarization, rather than the radicalization of the Republican Party.

Fully Legitimate

BRENDAN HOFFMAN / GETTY
In declaring the initiation of a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was solemn: “We’re not here to call bluffs. We’re here to find the truth, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This is not a game for us; this is deadly serious.”
In the weeks since, she has upheld that intention: Three different committees of the House of Representatives, with their Republican and Democratic members in attendance, have called a series of witnesses, who have all confirmed the whistle-blower’s report that Trump had improperly solicited foreign intervention on his behalf in the 2020 presidential election. And now the House has formally approved an impeachment resolution affirming all the steps the Democrats have taken thus far in the investigation and setting out the roadmap for the rest of the inquiry, which will include the additional measure of holding public hearings.
The seriousness and circumspection of this process stands in marked contrast to the president’s attacks on it. He and his defenders have declared the inquiry not just a “sham” but a “coup.” Some Republican commentators called Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s top expert on Ukraine, who testified before the committees in closed-door sessions, guilty of “espionage.” Several members of Congress, who had been attending closed-door hearings investigating Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine, protested publiclyagainst those hearings as “Soviet”-style star chambers. And even though he and Republicans in Congress had repeatedly asked for a formal impeachment authorization, the president greeted the news of the resolution’s passage by declaring, “The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History!”  Once again, Republicans have moved the goal posts in their quest to defend the president’s conduct as perfectly legitimate and the current hearings as anything but.
Their argument is not merely wrong but dangerous, and it seems to be gaining traction in the national conversation. I have been working on federal impeachment law for more than two decades—since I published my first book on the topic—and in that time I have been asked numerous questions about impeachment, typically about the scope of impeachable offenses. But I have never heard assertions like those being made today on the president’s behalf, which question the legitimacy of the process itself and the Constitution’s constraints on presidential power.
To appreciate how unusual the claims of the president, his lawyers, and his allies in Congress are, it is helpful to know one thing—that the law of impeachment and the rules of the House are clear and indisputable: The Constitution provides that the House has “the sole power of impeachment,” and Article I provides further that the House and the Senate each have the power to determine their own rules of internal governance.
That is all one needs to know to understand why the impeachment inquiry thus far has been fully legitimate—because the Constitution leaves it to the House alone to determine how to initiate and conduct an impeachment inquiry. These are the same rules that the Republicans put into place when they last commanded a majority in the House. Trey Gowdy, a former Republican member of Congress, has said he agrees “100 percent with” the Democrats’ use of closed-door hearings, with Republican members present, to protect the integrity and credibility of its fact-finding. Gowdy should know, since he followed the exact same rules, including using closed-door hearings, when his committee investigated the 2012 attack in Benghazi. No Republican complained then.
Thus, in their efforts to trash the impeachment inquiry, the president and his defenders are trashing the Constitution along with it. In response to the House’s initial investigations of possible impeachable misconduct, Trump has called the House’s actions “partisan,” “unfounded,” a “Witch Hunt,” “stone cold Crooked,” and “presidential harassment.” His White House counsel, in an astonishing letter addressed to the speaker and the heads of the three committees investigating the president, went even further, denouncing the investigations as “constitutionally illegitimate” and an effort “to overturn the results of the 2016 election.” These attacks no doubt resonate with the party faithful, but they are completely devoid of any credible analysis of either the rules or the Constitution, which could not be clearer in vesting the House alone with the power to conduct impeachments and providing no role whatsoever for the president.
Yet, in the president’s world, the Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” That is not what the Constitution allows. All powers, even those of the president, are limited and subject to checks and balances to ensure their proper and legal exercise. There is no law that requires blindly following a president and assisting in a cover-up (for example, by editing and storing the transcript of a phone call on the nation’s most secret server, which is meant only for the most sensitive national-security data). And there is no privilege that bars any official from disclosing evidence about criminal activities and abuses of power. But there is a Constitution, which the president and all his people swore to uphold, and which places limits on the presidency. There is also a law protecting the identity of whistle-blowers, one that Trump has been charged to follow but instead has been trying to break.
If you add up the nonsense that the president’s defenders have proliferated and his protestation that the Constitution allows him to do whatever he wants, their proposed result is disturbing: an executive who can shut down an impeachment inquiry and protect from disclosure anything done by anyone in the executive branch, and who is immune to criminal investigation and allowed to defy subpoenas.
This is not the president our Constitution established. He would be a king, in spite of the fact that the Founders’ generation rebelled against one. They set out to create a presidency that was accountable to Congress if the occupant abused power and breached the public’s trust. Donald Trump’s efforts to delegitimize the impeachment inquiry destroy their vision.
This story is part of the project “The Battle for the Constitution,” in partnership with the National Constitution Center.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Florida Here He Comes!

Breaking News: President Trump doesn't want to be a New Yorker anymore. He filed residency paperwork for Florida, a favorite of the wealthy for tax reasons.