Mueller Report Executive Summary

So, with that out of the way, what does the Mueller Report say?  I have not yet read it myself, only the executive summary.  Or rather, the two executive summaries, one of possible collusion and one of possible obstruction.  And I must say, the most striking thing about the two reports is that they don't say a lot that hasn't already been reported in public sources.  Journalists have been doing a good job.

The report begins by describing the Russian Troll Farm. On this the Mueller indictment really is the main public source of information, although there has been some journalistic reporting (including in the Russian press!) on the Troll Farm.  Next, the Executive Summary sets forth the hack-and-leak information.  Again, Mueller's indictment on the subject has revealed a great deal the public did not know before, but the Executive Summary says nothing that was not known even as the campaign was ongoing.

The list of contacts between Russian and the Trump campaign does not reveal any that were not previously known, if only through Mueller indictments.  It mentions:

• Negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow
• Papadopoulos' meetings with Russian cut-outs offering damaging information on Hillary Clinton and unsuccessful attempts to set up a meeting with the Russians and the campaign.  This looks like one of the most damaging contacts, but also the only one that appears to have been expressly rejected.
• The Trump Tower meeting, which went nowhere.
• Carter Page's visit to Moscow to deliver a graduation address (no mention of any secret meetings).
• Paul Manafort's meetings with Konstantin Kilimnick "who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian Intelligence."  They discussed a "Ukrainian Peace Plan" that would allow Russia control of eastern Ukraine, and discussed Trump's strategy for winning in the Midwest.  Manafort had shared polling data with Kilimnick months before the meeting and continued to share such data "for some period of time after their August meeting."
• A meeting after the election between Kirill Dmitriev and Erik Prince and an unnamed friend of Jared Kushner in the Seychelles, also including a Ukrainian plan.
• Michael Flynn's calls to persuade the Russians not to retaliate for sanctions.

Of all of these, the Manafort meeting sounds by far the most alarming.  It looks like either smoking gun collusion or document theft, depending on whether Manfort's actions were authorized or unauthorized.  

The report did not find grounds to charge any campaign member with either being an unregistered Russian agent or campaign finance violations.  (Accepting foreign assistance in a campaign is illegal).  The report also mentions that Jeff Sessions' meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak (the meetings that forced Sessions to recuse) were innocent exchanges of greetings.  That does not surprise me.  If the Russians were engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the Trump campaign, it seems most unlikely that so public and closely surveilled a figure as the Russian Ambassador would take part.  Besides, Sessions was never amount the members of the Trump campaign who had sinister ties to Russia.  

Part I ends by saying that there are deleted messages and witnesses who invoked the Fifth Amendment, so there may be more information out there that could change their minds.  I think this refers specifically to Manafort and is transfer of campaign data.

As for Part II, most of the obstruction took place in plain sight or has been reported to the press, so the Executive Summary adds very little that we did not already know.  It certainly shows Trump behaving very badly, being more concerned about stopping the investigation or making clear that he was not a target than in whether Russia had meddled.  Both Flynn and Comey were fired in a vain attempt to stop the investigation.  Trump made repeated attempts to have Sessions fired for recusing, to fire the Special Counsel, or to have Sessions give assurances that the investigation was "very unfair" to the President, who had done nothing wrong, and that investigation should be limited to future Russian meddling.  Trump also tried to persuade Flynn, Manafort, Cohen and Stone not to testify against him.  

Probably the most shocking new ground broken here was that Trump called the appointment of Special Counsel, "the end of his presidency."  So the obvious question is why. Why was he so alarmed and why did he go to such lengths to stop the investigation if there really was no "there" there?  

I think the answer can only be that Trump has no concept of a neutral investigation, of one whose purpose is to find out what actually happened.  To his mindset, the only purpose of an investigation can be to ruin the target.  Hence his conviction that the investigation of Hillary Clinton was rigged because it did not end in an indictment.  It explains why he is now arguing that the fact that this investigation did not end in indictments proves that it should never have been launched.  And it gives us some idea what to expect when he calls for an investigation of the investigators.

This is an alarming view of our President, to put it mildly.  It may not be grounds for an impeachment, but it is more than grounds for a primary challenge.

Further Comments

Here is the reason I don't favor impeachment.

What is an impeachable offense?  I would say, an impeachable offense is whatever public opinion says is impeachable.  So what is public opinion?  Well, I would say considerably more than majority opinion, or even a super-majority opinion.  This is not to say that the President has to get down to a zero percent approval rating to be impeachable, but something like a super-super-majority, including much of his own party, is needed to impeach a President.  Something like Nixon's 24% approval, with only 50% of Republicans approving is what we need.  As things stand now, I am confident that Donald Trump could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and Republicans would rally behind him.  And they would see impeachment efforts as purely partisan.

And that is what I fear most.  Not just that impeachment will fail.  Not just that it will unite the Republicans behind Trump.  But that Republicans will see it as purely partisan and will retaliate by impeaching the next Democrat elected President.  And that impeachment will become a routine tactic of partisan politics.  I would rather see impeachment never used than always used.

So what does that leave?  I would say, there is plenty in the report to make electoral hay.  To judge by Trump tweeting, he appears to agree.

And I would say to take a page from Karl Rove's play book.  Rove's advice was always to hit your opponents where the are strongest.  He said it was useless to hit where they were weakest because the public already knows about a candidate's weakness and has factored them in.  In the case of Trump, his biggest weakness was his ethics.  It seems a safe assumption that nobody voted for Trump because they were vowed by his ethics.*

So what is Trump's strongest point?  Believe it or not, it is that his followers saw him as a strong and competent leader, and probably that many saw his lack of ethics as an expression of strength.  And the Mueller Report portrays Trump as a weak, incompetent leader whose subordinates routinely disregard his orders, manipulate him, and undermine him.  This article perceptively refers to Trump as "a leader who detests weakness -- but doesn't necessarily mind an amoral reputation."  And such his his appeal -- amoral, but strong, particularly appealing to people who equate strength with amorality and see moral constraints as weakness.  Play on all the portrayals of Trump as a weak leader.

And attack his reputation for competence.  Yes, you and I know he was never competent to begin with, but his supporters don't know that.  Don't portray him as an unethical businessman.  His followers are fine with his lack of ethics so long as his unethical behavior is deployed on their behalf.  Show all the times he backed down when faced with a real challenge.  And above all, set out to prove that he isn't as rich as he claims to be.**  That drives him nuts.  And it contributes to showing him as a weak man who can't handle the slightest adversity.

This article also puts it well:

As Mueller’s report demonstrates, the willingness of his subordinates to be insubordinate has generally served Trump well, because his own judgement is often so shockingly bad that almost anyone else’s judgment (including that of some very shady characters) would be better. That willingness to ignore or contradict the president seems to have averted some criminal acts that might have endangered his presidency. And it has likely saved us from other dark fates.

That may not be sufficient grounds for impeachment. But it is more than sufficient grounds for a primary challenge.

___________________________________
*Although some misguided souls did vote for him in the belief that at least he was not as crooked as Hillary.
**This is assuming, of course, that Trump doesn't make a serious attempt to strip 20 million people of their health insurance again, in which case the campaign ads write themselves.

Advice to Democrats on How to Troll

Come on folks, this isn't hard.  Republicans understand the value of staying on message and hammering the same point over and over again.  We need to do the same.

Some wise soul commented that the Mueller Report was apt to be perfect for democrats -- bad enough to be highly embarrassing, but not bad enough to compel impeachment.  And so it is.  You should be shouting from the rooftops, repeating all the juiciest, most awkward-but-not-quite-criminal portions of the report and solemnly intoning, "This may not be grounds for impeachment, but it is more than grounds for a primary challenge."

Some wise person commented that the Mueller report was likely to be ideal for Democrats -- not enough to force impeachment, but plenty to embarrass and force Republicans to defend the indefensible.  Or not defend it, which can be equally useful to us.

Think about it, folks.  How did Trump win in 2016?  And don't say with the help of the Russians.  What more than anything else did the Russians (and Wikileaks) do to swing the election for Trump?  They kept the Democrats divided.  They kept us relitigating the primary.  They kept Bernie Sanders followers all riled up, convinced that Clinton had stolen the primary and ready to defect to the Green Party rather than vote for Hillary.

We need to do the same. 

When Mitt Romney -- or any other Republican, for that matter -- criticizes Trump's conduct, praise him/her to the skies and urge him/her to mount a primary challenge.  Yes, granted, the Republican will almost certainly back down, intimidated by fear of his/her own primary challenge or, worse, Trump not appointing any more judges.  But it turns Trump's venom on his fellow Republicans.

So long as Republicans see an impeachment challenge in the works they will all unite to defend their leader from the Democrat and argue with at least some plausibility that anything not rising to the level of an actual, indictable crime, does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

But is you keep talk of a primary challenge circulating, Republicans will be forced to explain why Trump's conduct is not only not impeachable, but not even primary-able.  Say it often enough and the talking heads will see no choice but to ask Republicans whether they think Trump's conduct is worth a primary challenge.  Watch them squirm trying to answer!

It should be entertaining.

Brexit: A Case Study in Ignoring Reality

If you really want to see the dangers of choosing policy makers for their ignorance of policy and dismissing facts and evidence as mere elitism, the best place to look isn't the Trump Administration at all.

Try the Brexit.

The British Parliament is apparently engaged in an experiment to see if unwelcome realities can be eliminated by majority vote. 

It's unreal.  Parliament has been presented with a menu of options on how to handle Brexit, ranging from a do-over for the referendum to just crashing out.  Every single one of them has been rejected.  Eye roll! 

Look, guys, maybe it would have been a good idea to decide on one of these plans, one that could get an actual majority vote before starting the two-year clock ticking, rather than attempt to decide this with the clock set to run in a matter of weeks (or less).  And if there are absolutely no acceptable options -- well maybe it is better to think about that before you get into such a situation in the first place.

And some people are asking why, given May's utter failure, she hasn't been replaced as Prime Minister.  The answer seems bleeding obvious to me.  No one else wants to get stuck with the job and blamed for whatever unacceptable outcome the country gets stuck with.  Duh!

So, my fellow Americans, you are witnessing a real-time example of what happens when you make ignorance your prime qualification for office and think reality can be abolished by majority vote.  And reality is set to strike in less than ten days unless someone can think up something very fast.

So seriously, folks, is this what you want for our country?  Because Trump's handlers just might not be able to restrain him forever.

One Further Though on Trump

No President has ever gone so far as Donald Trump in failing to distinguish appearance from reality.  To all appearances, Trump is governed by what he sees on Fox News and doesn't accept anything as real until he sees it on TV.  

He puts me in mind of a Doonesbury cartoon savaging Jerry Brown as void of all substance.  Alas, I do  not know how to post it, but the dialog is as follows:

Reporter:  Governor Brown, why will you only announce a "context" for your candidacy?

Brown:  This is an era of limitations.  I don't think people want formal declarations anymore.

Reporter:  Will that apply to your program as well?

Brown:  In the electronic global village, programs are unimportant.  They're just words. Appearances are the new reality

Reporter:  Then it's true your idea of a social worker is a T.V. repairman.

Brown:  I don't think that question rises to the level of whatever network you front for.

Reporter:  Governor, if we turned off the cameras would you still exist?

Brown:  I don't want to speculate on that.

Donald Trump, by contrast, has no need to speculate.  He appears fully convinced that if the cameras were turned off, he would no longer exist.  He behaves accordingly.  It is, perhaps, the best explanation for his behavior.

Why Trump Hasn't Done Any Serious Damage

I feared disaster if Donald Trump was ever elected President, he was so obviously unqualified for the job, in terms of either knowledge or temperament.  But I do have to admit that nothing disastrous has happened.  And the reason appears to be that Trump simply isn't competent enough to cause too much damage. 

He has absolutely no idea what he is doing, which gives him all sorts of nutty ideas that could cause serious damage if implemented.  The most recent one was a proposal to close the Mexican border, presumably to all travel and trade.  People around him appear to have convinced him just how serious this would be and he is now backing down.  Examples of loony things he wants to do proliferate -- start a war with North Korea, make North Korea's Kim Jong-Un our best friend, release highly classified materials from the Page warrant, and now (possibly) fire the entire Federal Reserve Board and replace them with hacks.

But if Trump's damn fool ignorance and extremely short attention span make him inclined to tweet out the nuttiest things as our latest policy, it makes him easy to thwart.  Not knowing how things actually work in the real world leads to crazy ideas, and also to not knowing how to implement them.  Part of the Trumpster's frustration with the Deep State is probably the realization that the President does not, in fact, rule by decree, that getting stuff done requires knowledge of the bureaucracy and how to work it, and that Trump has neither the aptitude nor the patience for it.

On the rare occasions Trump has actually managed to do the crazy things he is proposing, the have rather rapidly run into reality and gotten the worst of it.  Pushing for the repeal of Obamacare made clear the the Republicans had no alternate plan and would have dismantled the system millions now rely on for health insurance and put nothing in its place.  The family separation policy for asylum seekers led to public outrage and forced Trump to back down.  And above all, his decision to shut down the federal government proved that government shutdowns are not just a way of being emphatic, but cause actual damage to ordinary people.  Trump appears not to have understood that.  Significantly, the shutdown is the only thing Trump has done so far that has actually hurt his followers, and the only thing that appears to have dented his popularity with them. 

To me, the most important reason not to vote for Trump was that he seemed like the sort of person who in time of crisis you would want to handcuff, gag, and lock in the closet until it blew over.  Well, Trump's crew has (famously) not managed to gag him so far, but they have effectively handcuffed him -- so far.

And maybe permanently.  It's just that now Trump has seriously gone off the deep end.  He has cut off aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and appears actually to mean it.  He is also pushing for an end to Obamacare, still having failed to learn that creating great health care means more than just saying that you will create great health care.  Granted, he has also threatened to close the border with Mexico and been talked down, so maybe cooler heads will prevail. 

Devin Nunes' Libel Suit is Even Nuttier Than it Sounds

Devin Nunes' suit against Twitter has led to a lot of ridicule and a lot of cow jokes.  But if you look at it closely, it is even more alarming.  This is not to suggest that it will succeed.  There are multiple reasons why it will not.

For one thing, even if Nunes can prove libel, Twitter will not be liable under the Communications Decency Act, which hold that an internet forum that merely provides a place to publish is not liable for the content that is published there.  In other words, Nunes has no claim against Twitter, only against the posters there.  And his libel claim fails on multiple counts.

One is that under longstanding Supreme Court case of New York Times v. Sullivan, for a public figure to win a libel suit, he or she has to prove "actual malice," defined as knowing the statement was false or seriously doubting its truth.  It is true that Clarence Thomas as recently expressed an interest in overturning this rule, so Nunes may be hoping that this will be the test case that overturns it.  However, even if Nunes gets New York Times overturned, he will face other problems.

Furthermore, to be libel, a statement has to allege "fact."  This means, it must be something meant to be taken more-or-less literally.  The complaint consists largely of quotes from hostile Twitter accounts, many outrageous, some obscene, but very few anything that could be taken literally or even close to it.

Nunes also claims for emotional distress.  But that claim has been foreclosed by the case of Hustler v. Falwell (and yes, that really is Jerry Falwell versus the porn mag).  In that case Hustler ran an obscene story about Jerry Falwell in a drunken incestuous tryst with his mother in an outhouse.  It was not considered defamatory because it was clearly not meant to be believed.  The Supreme Court held that if Falwell couldn't claim for defamation, he couldn't claim for emotional distress, either. 

In this case, everyone who has ever looked at Twitter knows that it is a sewer.  Nunes appears to think that he has been personally singled out, but in fact he has been treated no worse than anyone else on Twitter.  If one takes this suit seriously, it is an attempt to outlaw Twitter.  (Maybe a good idea, but that is a different matter).

But it isn't just Twitter that Nunes wants to outlaw.  He also makes a claim for "defamation per se."  Roughly speaking, some things are considered so defamatory as to be defamatory by law (unless true).  There are traditionally five allegations that are considered defamatory per se:  (1) commission of a crime of moral turpitude (OK); (2) affliction with a loathsome communicable disease that would tend to exclude the plaintiff from society; (3) unfitness for some office or employment for profit or want of integrity in the discharge of the duties of such office or employment; (4) some falsehood that prejudices the plaintiffs profession or trade; or (5) the unchastity of a woman (sometimes changed in these modern times to an allegation of serious sexual misconduct).  Clearly the distinction between numbers 3 and 4 is rather unclear and they are often lumped together.  But Nunes claims in this category are just plain nuts:

The statements impute to Nunes an unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment for profit, or the want of integrity in the discharge of the duties of such office or employment. Finally, Defendants’ false statements also prejudice Nunes in his profession or trade as a United States Congressman.

He also complains that these Twitter attacks were a conspiracy to make him lose the election, and that as a result he did, indeed, win by a narrower margin than in the past. 

Of course, anyone challenging an incumbent routinely impugns the incumbent's fitness to hold office or integrity in discharging those duties.  Yes, granted, it is hypothetically possible to run for office solely by boasting about one's own credentials and/or challenging the incumbent on the issues.  Maybe it would be better to run for office that way.  But here in the real world, we all know things don't work that way.

And the whole point of seeking office is the prejudice the incumbent's profession or trade as an elected official.  To say nothing of the idea that running for office is a "conspiracy" or that costing the incumbent votes is an actionable item of damages.

If we take Nunes at his word, he wants to outlaw election campaigns!