Give me a break: one year is long enough for the Mueller investigation?

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi News, June 19-20, 2018
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/muftic-give-me-a-break-the-fat-lady-has-not-yet-sung/

This falls into the give me a break category. The Trump White House launched ,a "wrap it up" campaign; "one year of the Special Counsel  Mueller probe is enough, it has found nothing,  and he works for us" the line goes.The fat lady has not even begun to sing in the last act of  this historical opera and the White House  hopes to shut her up and give her a bad review before the end of the first act.  They must fear the rest of the performance will not be music to their ears. There is much of the performance  plot  they and  we the public do not know yet nor do we know  what other characters have already sung. 

Trump constantly claiming Mueller is on a witch hunt because there is no there there  ignores the witches bagged to date:  20 individuals and three businesses that have either been indicted or admitted guilt and a total of 75 charges ,25 of them against Paul Manafort,  Trump’s former campaign chairman, now in jail for witness tampering. Other.charges  against Manfort  include conspiracy and financial crimes.  59% of Republicans do not know about Mueller's actions per a recent poll.75% of Republicans believe Trump's  slogan that the Mueller probe is a witch hunt, and 53% of all voters think the probe is politically motivated.   .But this is only Act 1 

For the Trump White House to claim Mueller has no proof of collusion, (or obstruction, or financial crimes) is premature and empty propaganda coming  from the White House mouths, to say the least, since no one yet knows what closed lip Mueller knows and he has not made his reports. Nonetheless, Trump continues the attack on the credibility of the FBI, Mueller, and negative press reports: As he said to Leslie Stahl" he bashes to press to discredit negative stories". 

It took three years of Watergate  probes into Richard Nixon's cover up,  four years of Benghazi Congressional  hearings and FBI reports  to fail to pin it on Hillary Clinton,  and three years from Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky's blue dress for these investigations  to play out in the Bill Clinton scandal.. A year seems more than a bit short for these kinds of matters, doesn't it? 

  The Trump White House  mimics the same claim made by Richard Nixon in his State of the Union two years before he was impeached. A year is enough, Nixon  said about the special counsel investigation into Watergate, we turned over all documents, and they have found nothing. The break in occurred in 1971.and after special counsel and Congressional investigations,that  impeachment was begun and Nixon  resigned in 1974. Three years was way too long  for Nixon. 

 Benghazi happened in 2012 and the GOP House and Senate dominated hearings kept the issue alive to skewer Hillary Clinton and never could prove she  herself was at fault. The final report was issued in the summer of 2016. For the GOP then four years was just fine; it kept questions about her character alive.

 Aside from the irony of the Nixon propaganda parallel, the GOP House investigation run by a Trump loyalist, Rep. Devin Nunes,  into the Russian connection was a farce and did not call essential witnesses to testify, concluding there was no there there.

 However, the Senate investigation continues and has found there was there there. In their report May 16, they conclude Russians interfered in 2016 to help Trump's campaign, as the result of their findings into the key meeting in the Trump Tower in June 2016 between  Trump cohorts and a Russian agent regarding emails of Hillary Clinton. The suspicion is that the Trump minions hoped to get the dirt on Clinton in return for lifting sanctions imposed on the Russians for past bad behavior . The quid (offer to provide missing emails)  was there but the quo was not discussed.   Whether or not Trump himself was a part of this  is yet to be seen. He was in the building and may have been receiving  telephone calls.  Was the meeting truly a "nothing burger" or there were other events follow ups ,and  other meetings  that would be evidence of conspiracy? What Mueller knows about any of this we do not know ourselves yet, either.

 In  the   released Senate hearing transcripts regarding the Trump Tower meeting. The angle still unknown is much like Watergate, what did the President know and when did he know about the Trump Tower meeting .We know the meeting  was not about Russian adoption as the Trumpsters claimed, but about  dirt on Clinton's emails.   Donald Trump Jr who organized the meeting  was in emails leading up to the meeting  eager to seek information from foreign governments that would help his father get elected. 

The investigation by Special Counsel Robert  Mueller is about  Trump cohorts, with Trump assured  by Mueller he is  a subject in  the investigation  but not currently  a target of a criminal investigation ,  but  it is Trump and his cohorts that say a year is enough. For Trump to fire Mueller  would also be the ultimate evidence  of obstruction of justice seen as a way to stop the investigation about them  before it was finished. Unfolding now is  Act II,  the maneuvering around whether Donald Trump will ever testify to Mueller in any form about what he knew and when did he know it.

_______________________________________________________________________________

 We have deduced  something about what Mueller is finding  and investigating from all of the texts of the indictments and participants  turning states' witness pleading guilty for lying  about their Russian contacts. Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort  and his partner have been hit for money laundering and working for a foreign government. Thirteen Russians were indicted for active measures interfering in the 2016 campaign.   While none of the charges so far  yet confirm Trump and his cohorts "colluded" with the Russians, proof of  obstruction of justice and financial crimes are still charges that we know nothing  about what Mueller knows. That those  related areas of investigation are within the scope of Mueller's authority to investigate  were confirmed in  a judge's ruling concerning  Paul Manafort's indictment May 15 and the authorization for the probe by the Department of Justice in a document issued in 2017.

https://www.courthousenews.com/poll-most-americans-want-mueller-to-continue-investigation/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/08/muellers-witch-hunt-snags-another-witch

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/23/17384096/mueller-investigation-poll

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/why-don-t-americans-know-111950565.html


 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/10/17340200/poll-republicans-trump-fbi-mueller-witch-hunt

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/trump-told-lesley-stahl-he-bashes-press-to-discredit-negative-stories.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/08/most-americans-think-the-mueller-investigation-is-politically-motivated-poll-finds/

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-manafort-indictment-moves-forward-2018-5

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-told-trumps-attorneys-the-president-remains-under-investigation-but-is-not-currently-a-criminal-target/2018/04/03/d7832cf0-36c1-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.025fbe46c959

For the sake of the country, Hillary Clinton needs to shut down the foundation and clearly apologize for emails.

Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings have now sunk to 31%, on par with Donald Trump's, according the recent polls. Emails and Foundation issues are not  blowing over and it appears she has the advantage now in electoral college votes, but she is in danger of losing the popular vote,or be a minority president with less than 50% of the popular vote,  and  it would weaken her claim of a mandate needed to make her presidency effective.  What if her voters stay home or throw away their votes on a third party?  What if Wikileaks does produce some damning information or  more email disclosures produce a dramatic October surprise? There are some unknowns in this race that is like no other.  What is happening now will also follow her into the White House, complicate her ability to govern, and feed the GOP's never Trump to re-elect their senators, who are clever enough to paint themselves as a check to Clinton. This hurts  the chances of a Clinton friendly Senate and to get her agenda passed or the best choices for a Supreme Court to get approved.

In earlier postings I have recommended that the Clinton Foundation needs to announce a transition to Gates and that Bill Clinton and Chelsea, as well as Hillary be at more than arms length.  Sure the Foundation does great stuff and sure the key is the importance of the Clinton family's influence, but at this point the Gates foundation has the ability to continue with existing programs and Hillary's election and trust in her as a president are far more important issues when we consider the good of the country as a whole.  It is also a pre-emptive strike against unknowns lurking out there that could be even more damaging..such as the Wikileaks threats or even more revelations of pay to play in heretofore unreleased emails.  She should stop  being a lawyer covering her tail.  What Clinton did may not have technically broken the law, but the ethics factor and her  propensity to parse words to skirt the law are harmful to her campaign  and will cloud trust of her even into the Oval Office.  For the good of the country, the Clintons have got to remove themselves from the Foundation and she has got to say again and again, she screwed up with  the emails.  Those are the best inoculations against lurking surprises in October.

Could the shut-down of the Foundation be contingent on Clinton's election?  It could be, though not as convincing as beginning the process now.  The process could be started,  now but reversed if she is elected. If for some reason she is not elected, at least the Foundation could continue its good works and the conflict of interest would no longer be an issue.

Retooling the Hillary Clinton messaging

The most often heard  criticism of Hillary Clinton is that she does not have a passionate single  themed message.  The greatest asset of Bernie Sanders is that he does.  Also a  criticism of Clinton is that she is not appealing to the younger voters, both men and women.  The greatest asset of Bernie Sanders is that he speaks directly to their greatest concerns, college affordability and economic policies that make it difficult for them to succeed after graduation. Another frequent  criticism of Clinton is that she is too close to Wall Street and does  not seem to show equal concern about  blue collar workers falling out of the middle class.  Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, gives them focus for their anger with his anti - Wall Street  and  tax the hyper rich people  message.  

 In spite of Sander's success in getting across his message so effectively, Clinton is still coming out ahead with reminding voters of  her long time credibility in fighting for human and civil rights and for her success in  helping  women and children.  She has made the point, too,  that she has unmatched experience in foreign affairs that makes her ready to be commander in chief day one, However,  unless there is another terrorist attack on the US between now and November, that skill seems doomed  to be ignored or buried by Donald Trump's raging bull in a china closet sloganeering.

 The GOP has been able to weaken Clinton's  credibility  considerably, not only with the GOP base itself, but also with the Sanders' base,  by repeatedly  attacking her as a liar in the context of Benghazi and her emails.  She has failed to counter that effectively , but she has been able to offset it with her message of experience and  her civil rights record. In interviews, she did pledge  to" always  level" with  people  and she said she "always  tried to tell the truth."  That was a nuanced answer, perhaps truthful in itself, but not reassuring enough. 

 If Donald Trump is the GOP candidate, lies might not be much of an issue since every major fact checker awarded him the top " liar of 2015'." .  Intent is an integral element of telling a lie.  What somehow in that" liar against liar combat" in the general election,   spokespersons for Clinton could  easily counter any attacks from Trump by calling  him out for  using lies to gin up fear and loathing of others even when his untruths were documented  by so many as being untrue., In particular, he exaggerated  the Muslim reaction to 9/11  (thousands dancing in New Jersey) and the criminal nature of undocumented immigrants in general.     The "liar wars" would be an ugly checkmate and it would do neither  candidate any good. 

In Nevada, Hillary Clinton  retooled her message to embrace  Sanders' issues.  She had begun that in New Hampshire, saying that she agreed those issues  he identified  are problems, but that Sander's solutions are too focused on narrow goals, and that she  had a wider vision: not only addressing student debt, but taking care of it now instead of just the future and going after the larger list of  participants and policies contributing to the Wall Street crash of 2008, What she could add to counter Sanders', too, is to say that she never makes promises that she blieves  have no chance of passing Congress within her term of office,  

Clinton could never hope to equal the passion of  Bernie  Sanders, but she could do a better job of dramatizing her commitment. In Nevada, Clinton began using the slogan "I will fight for you". It could be the common theme she has been lacking.  In her Nevada caucus victory speech, Hillar Clinton's stage was backed by waiving signs with that slogan. However, she neglected  to tie that slogan to her long list of issues. The words of "fighting for you" were not even  part of that speech.   The slogan  also confirms  her greatest assets: a strong leader, personal drive, toughness,  and demonstrated ability to  get things done.   Perhaps an even  better slogan would be "fighting to get it done for you", since one problem Sanders has is showing how he could get his promises through  Congress, especially with tax increases on everyone, not just on the rich, to pay for medicare for all and a free college education.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-still-leads-democratic-race/
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/alexis-grenell-hillary-clinton-strong-leader-poll-article-1.2511112
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2307

The GOP is hanging its hats on some weak campaign hooks

The GOP primary candidates are revealing common threads in their strategies besides the past year GOP themes. While the past issue positions still are referenced, they are also attempting to do as much damage to their presumed opponent Hillary Clinton early in the game since she still polls well ahead of any announced and unannounced Republican candidates.   

Many individual voters still ask elected officials “what have you done for me lately” .  Off-setting pocket book issues in the minds of voters are party affiliation,  demographic identification, the importance of ideology over other considerations, and  personal  dislike of the candidate’s traits. Which traits are important vary depending on party affiliation. “Caring for people like me” is important to Democrats”, for Republicans,” trustworthiness, strong leader”.

 The GOP presidential candidates are all now hanging their hats on ideology and attacking Clinton’s trustworthiness. Those hooks have weaknesses outside the GOP base in a general election. Clinton’s strategy is to focus on what she would do to solve problems plaguing “kitchen table” concerns.

Clinton can put the GOP ideologues on the spot who say they “want to take back America”.  She can challenge them to be specific about just what programs they want to eliminate and whose middle class ox they would gore.   By just saying “no” to whatever Clinton proposes and not offering credible alternatives to solving the same problems, they will appear to be not caring. Some GOP aspirants have proposed constructive ideas, but if there are hints that government has a new or continuing role or they would cost any upper income taxpayer a dime, there are plenty in the GOP waiting to shoot them down.

GOP candidates to date have launched a campaign of character assassination. Their theme is that Clinton is an untrustworthy person because she kept her own email server, and seems secretive and untruthful.  That she used her personal email was never a secret in Washington since everyone who communicated with her in the State Department saw her  email address on the “from” line. Stonewalling requests from Congress is an inside beltway political game. She broke rules, but unless somehow the contents of her emails are discovered to disclose back dealings, that issue will not have much resonance with those who are more consumed with solving daily problems.  

One weak hook is Benghazi, held up as an example of incompetence or dishonesty. Never mind after two years of Congressional investigation, the Republican dominated Congressional committee concluded screw ups were the CIA’s fault, not the State Department’s. Ben Ghazi is old news that has never gotten traction outside the GOP base.

Some try to paint her resume as weak. That argument is a tough sell. No emerging GOP candidate has a comparable depth of experience in foreign or domestic affairs.

A new attack is Clinton does not represent the future.  Being the first woman president is the future to many.  Polls are showing that factor has only widened the gender gap that plagues the GOP.  For others, solving problems left over from the past is their future.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/03/20/hillary-clinton-women-gallup-poll/

Political Institutions in the United States, p 99; Richard S. Katz, Oxford University Press

Public Opinion and Polling Around the World, Vol. 1, John Gray Geer, ABC/CLIO, p.46

A version of this appeared in the www.skyhidailynews.com  4/23/15