The Obamagate farce

Obamagate is a farce invented by the Trumpers.

The Obamagate theory that Obama unmasked Mike Flynn for his conversations with the Russians became a farce instead.
Flynn was never masked in the first place in the conversation with the Russian ambassador that was intercepted by the FBI because the FBI deals with domestic, not foreign, contacts with US adversaries.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/flynn-s-name-was-never-masked-fbi-report-phone-call-n1212176?fbclid=IwAR0i0LS5KR_uNM0rf7xRtJnAojh_3-FUzQgkTj4FYVB-x5U4C53K_mIN_gk  His name was never redacted from the FBI report and Obama never ordered it unmasked because Flynn was never masked in the first place.  Flynn lied about that conversation to the FBI and pleaded guilty twice and Trump fired him because Flynn lied to VP Pence. Now the Trump administration is trying to get Flynn off the legal hook, overturn the conviction inspite of his admissions.' That issue is in the courts now.  

Since the Tara Reade scandal tactic by the GOP did not significantly dent Biden's advantage over Trump in preference polls, the next Trump attempt is to invent Obamagate, alleging Obama used the "deep state" to drum up the Russian connection and hurt Mike Flynn. It.is not only far fetched, but it makes no sense. The FBI, the Trump's deep state target, was probably responsible for Trump's win in November 2016 with its on again off again on again (ten days before election day) BS about Hillary's missing emails. Finally, in 2020, the Hillary email fiasco was closed after finding nothing. https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/justice-department-clinton-investigation-finds-nothing-042626189.html
It would make more sense to understand that The Deep State was filled with cold warriors who did not trust Russia and had spent careers considering them to be either an enemy or an adversary to US national interests. This was in contradiction to Trump's bromance with Putin...which was how the Trump relationship with Putin was called then. Flynn was suspected of meeting with Russian officials before inauguration dates to discuss the lifting of sanctions against them which Obama had imposed on Russia for invading Crimea and Ukraine, and interfering in the 2016 elections. Mueller's investigation based upon Grand Jury indictments went into great detail in their final report about who and how Russians interfered to help Trump, though they found no evidence Trump himself had collaborated or conspired with them. Now, in 2020, since Russian's interference has a champion in Donald Trump. He either denies the evidence or denies they would do it again in 2020 and certainly he did not punish the action at any time, The door is left open by Trump: his passive invitation.

So what's wrong with soliciting dirt on an opponent from a foreign government.

10/18/19:  Nick Mulvaney said yes the US denies aid all of the time to influence foreign policy and politics are always involved, but yes aid was withheld to get Ukraine to investigate the theory that Ukraine hacked the DNC emails in 2016, not the Russians.  Oops. Use of military aid was used to force Ukraine to act to help Trump politically.  So what's wrong?" Just get over it", Mulvaney said.
( 10/12/19 revision of a form posting asking So What's wrong with getting dirt on an election opponent  from a foreign government?)
Here is your Colorado Senator Cory Gardner  (R) at work. Gardner is no profile in courage. When a Channel 9 KUSA reporter asked Cory Gardner, ' would  (it) be appropriate for a president to ask a foreign government to investigate an opponent, Gardner did not give a "yes" or "no" answer. 

'The Senate Intelligence Committee is starting an investigation, a bi-partisan investigation. Unfortunately, though, what we've seen is a very political process take over,' he said." https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/sen-cory-gardner-interaction-with-the-press/73-e72b2587-5057-403f-80f1-42f93f562a83?fbclid=IwAR2QUKAl-f2

When asked a  question of a matter of principle with a yes or no answer, Gardner responded with an answer that implied that the answer depended upon whether the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed or not with impeachment charges that asking foreign governments to find dirt on a political opponent.  He added a swipe that it is a partisan matter. So much for standing on principle. So what's wrong with the President soliciting help from a foreign government to help him get elected? The easiest answers: it is illegal and it endangers US political independence from foreign control of our own governance.

While the reporter's question was simple,  to answer yes would have put Gardner in hot water with a President who threatens to primary any GOP member of Congress disloyal to him. To answer no would put him in the category of a pure Trump loyalist in a state that has turned blue and bluer.  He is up for re-election in 2020 and his opponent will be very moderate former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper.
 The correct answer to the Channel 9 reporter should have been " No".  Why? 
1. It's a crime, Mr. President and Senator Gardner
Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said after President Trump publicly stated he would accept foreign intelligence on opponents and saw no problem with that.."Let me make something 100 percent clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election." 
FYI: impeachment does not require proof a crime was committed to be an article of impeachment.  The definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is left up to the impeachers to define.

2. If the foreign country agrees and produces something that would help a candidate get elected, that candidate finds himself obligated to them in the future even though the foreign country, like Russia, has their own agenda that is not ours and in fact may harm national security.  The Declaration of Independence was just about that: freedom from a foreign power, the British.  Foreign interference was one of the basic fears of the writers of our Constitution, too. The early and later Federalist papers were consumed with the fear that England would try to retake their former colonies. During the Articles of Confederation period before the Constitutional Convention, they noted many attempts by foreign governments to bribe leaders in the former colonies so they laced the Constitution with provisions like the emoluments clause against bribery  and when they could not crack the Constitution and loyalty to the new republic, it took it a step farther invading in the war of 1812.

3. A foreign power getting dirt on a US candidate's opponent is both a thing of value and an element of collusion.  Trump crowed loudly Special Counsel Robert  Mueller's report exonerated him of collusion. He knew collusion was impeachable. However, now Trump himself actively demanded a foreign government to collude. As attorney Ari Melber on MSNBC commented in soliciting dirt on an election opponent from a foreign government, as Trump has done,  is "going from no collusion to pro collusion".As Special Counsel Mueller noted, “[a] foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.” 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 This question stands alone in importance even if there was no quid pro quo of conditioning military aid to Ukraine if their president did not do Trump the favor of re-opening an investigation into Joe Biden and his son for business dealings in Ukraine and in shifting the 2016 foreign interference in the 2016 election from Russia to Ukraine.  Both of these "asks" are based on conspiracy theories with plenty of evidence to debunk them, but promoted by Trump media. Just soliciting, accepting or receiving something of value from a foreign government in an election campaign is against the law.
The president has been on media openly welcoming, from "Russia are you listening? Find Hillary's missing emails",  the July 25 telephone call, Oct. 3, urges China to dig up on the Bidens. (The Chinese declined). The Mueller report spent pains to find no collusion with Russia in 2016; now soliciting the collusion is in the open or as Ari Melber on MSNBC  put it succinctly:  "Trump has gone from no collusion to pro collusion". On June 13, 2019, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Trump was asked if he considered accepting "oppo research" from a foreign country broke election laws, he replied: "It's not an interference, they have information -- I think I'd take it," Trump said. "If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI -- if I thought there was something wrong. ..... congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that's the way it is. It's called oppo research." It was during the time of the Stephanopoulos interview that Trump's "personal lawyer" was in the midst of trying to convince the newly elected President of Ukraine to re-open the Biden investigation and play ball. It was in vain until a month later that Donald Trump froze military aid to Ukraine to help that country to  beat back a Russian territorial hot war grab followed by the infamous July 25 telephone conversation in which Ukraine's president said he was ready to buy the aid Trump had frozen Trump said he had a favor to ask "though"  and stated the asks: investigate  Bidens' corruption  and for Ukraine to  take the blame for election interference in 2016 .

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

More: https://campaignlegal.org/update/yes-president-trump-violated-campaign-finance-law-asking-ukraine-favor

Tweetable quote: By directly requesting or suggesting that President Zelensky use Ukraine’s resources to help his reelection efforts, Trump violated campaign finance law.

(More technically, Trump asked Ukraine to make an “expenditure” by spending resources for the purpose of influencing the 2020 election. An “expenditure” that is coordinated with a candidate is a campaign contribution; “coordinated” means made at the “request or suggestion” of a candidate. So Trump requesting that Ukraine make an expenditure means that he solicited a contribution.)

Hamilton on emoluments from the Muftic Forum Blog 6/24/17: Alexander Hamilton did not even trust the voters or elected officials to stop such attempts. Hamilton expressed his fears in his Federalist Paper 22 “.One of the weak sides of republics..., is that they afford trust too easy an inlet to foreign corruption. ...In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust...”  Because of Hamilton’s reasoning  the writers of the Constitution included  the emoluments clause to head off such abuses…” no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” Note Congress' responsibility in these matters.

https://www.apnews.com/d7440cffba4940f5b85cd3dfa3500fb2

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/03/may-ukrainian-oligarch-said-giuliani-was-orchestrating-clear-conspiracy-against-biden/

https://www.justsecurity.org/66277/the-quid-is-a-crime-no-need-to-prove-pro-quo-in-ukrainegate/

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464227-fec-chairwoman-reiterates-illegality-of-soliciting-campaign-help-from
https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-eastern-european-mystery-donors-behind-the-trump-allied-super-pac

https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-foreign-born-men-who-helped-giuliani-on-ukraine-arrested-on-campaign-finance-charges-11570714188

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/sen-cory-gardner-interaction-with-the-press/73-e72b2587-5057-403f-80f1-42f93f562a83?fbclid=IwAR2QUKAl-f2

Impeachment: are we there yet?

Here is why Pelosi is putting the brakes on impeachment. From the article:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/22/pelosi-trump-meeting-1340123

"As the drumbeat for impeachment grows within her caucus, she can argue that what they’re doing is already working. Trump clearly doesn’t know how to respond to the barrage of Democratic investigations; they’re winning in the courts and he’s throwing fits. So why bother with impeachment, especially when Democrats know that a GOP-run Senate isn’t going to remove him from office?"

Updated: June 1 2019
 Per 900 bipartisan prosecuting attorneys, there was plenty of probable cause for criminal charging obstruction of justice...except as Mueller said, DOJ rules precluded going the criminal route and he referred the matter to Congress. However, much of Trump's wrongdoing may have been aiding and abetting Russian interference in the election..not a crime but certainly, a possible article of impeachment since Congress can define whatever that is. However, I am inclined not to proceed with impeachment inquiries so long as the courts uphold the subpoenas for Mueller and McGahn are upheld.

Updated June 2, 2019: Two arguments against impeachment from the right are indeed worthy of a response. Here was mine. "One was what is the big deal of obstruction of justice, which Mueller addressed as being fundamental for law enforcement to be able to investigate and prosecute, and the other is, so what was so wrong about Russians interfering in our elections.both obstruction of justice was the main article of impeachment against Nixon and it was another article against Clinton. It is in the federal criminal statutes. The definition of conspiracy is a narrow one requiring the parties to get together and plan and plot together. To convict takes proof of intent and the proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no term or word of collusion in the federal criminal statutes, and Mueller did not investigate that That Trump and his campaign staff did aid, abet, permit, and encourage is not disputed by the Mueller report. He identified Well over 100 contacts with Russian officials and GRU and friends of Putin, "Russia if you are listening, find the emails", a sharing of secret polling data with the Russians, 3 secret meetings with Putin, a foreign policy that support's Russian national interests are not in American interests. If it is OK with you that the Russian propaganda machine was widespread and actively involved hurting Clinton so Trump would be elected, it is not OK with me..nor should it be even if it helps your guy get elected.. ..Elections should be determined by Americans, not by Russian psychological warfare nor by being able to get into voting machines to 1) change the outcome and 2) destroy American confidence in the accuracy of the vote. The latter. Russians have demonstrated their capability, though they have not executed actually changing voter outcome in 2016."

Continuing with the original message:

There are two reasons for putting on the brakes on impeachment: while Democrats are chomping at the bits to impeach, the rest of the country is not: A recent poll, Harvard/Harris found 60% of the country opposes it and the group Democrats need to win in 2020 are the swing voters, who opposed impeachment.  The other reason: what is the purpose of impeachment? It certainly is not to remove the president from office since it requires 2/3 of the Senate to do that. If the purpose is to damage the president enough to pave the way for his defeat in 2020, impeachment may not be the only way to do it. If the purpose is to dramatize the Mueller report to those who have been confused by the distortions put out by AG Barr, and who have not read the report themselves, then if at least Mueller or Don McGahn can testify publicly and the bank records and tax returns can be exposed, then public opinion may swing the Democrat's way.  Mueller has agreed to testify but only in private. That is better than nothing if the transcripts are released, but it is not nearly good enough to hit the voters in the eye. Compelling former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify is in the courts.  It appears that one way or the other, courts will support the House getting Trump's tax returns and they are already compelling Trump's banking and accounting firms to provide information.   

Here are the questions and demands the House committees should put to witnesses bluntly.
To McGahn: repeat what was in the Mueller report about your witnessing Trump obstructing justice. Was what Mueller reported correct?

To Mueller: Did you or did you not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice? Why did you come to that conclusion?  Caution flag:: even then, obstruction of justice may not be the factor that moves voters, even though it was the main article of impeachment against Nixon.  It is a difficult legal concept for voters to grasp and there may not be a smoking gun as there was in the Nixon tapes.  
To Mueller: did you investigate "collusion"? Is collusion a crime?  What is the difference between "conspiracy" and "collusion"; Why did you exonerate Trump of conspiracy. Did you exonerate him of "collusion".. Caution flag:  Even this distinction seems like a nitpicking technical issue, one of semantics, to voters.  It assumes they understand the criminal code, burden of proof, and the fine points of determining intent needed to convict someone of a crime. 
  
Here is where the Democrats may be on to something:  Trump's financial records and potential financial crimes were not included in the Mueller report.  The House committees may uncover some damning information.  How to frame this is the challenge, but Trump's attempt to stonewall these findings are some indication of the guilt of something he knows and we do not. Pelosi was brilliant in bringing the phrase of "coverup" to public attention since it implies Trump has committed a crime and he does not want voters to know about it; therefore he is stonewalling disclosure of his finances. 

Essential questions the House need to be answered about the banking and finance documents:  Did Trump engage in money laundering through Deutsche Bank? To whom does Trump owe money?  Is there evidence the Russians know dirt about Trump's financial maneuvers that they could or can now blackmail him to dance to their tunes?

So long as the courts keep ruling against the Trump stonewalling and the House committees are able to get witnesses to testify and documents produced, so the inquiries paint Trump in a bad light before the 2020 elections, this strategy will work to cause Trump to lose in 2020. This also assumes the Democrats do not blow it by nominating a candidate who cannot win.

Are the Democrats winning in the courts? 

Yes,  at least in two cases so far, judges have ruled against  Trump stonewalling to keep records from the House.: All of these are rulings are subject to appeal. If the President hopes the process will drag out until after 2020, he may be in for a disappointment since, given the importance of the cases for public information, judges so far have given their hearing and decisions fast tracks.  Yet to be decided in the courts if Trump can be compelled to turn over his tax returns.
One ruling was requiring Deutsche Bank to turn over their records to the House. Another was requiring Trump's accounting firm Mazars to turn over their records to the House. The one regarding Mazars is setting the tone and arguments for all other judges to consider in other cases of stonewalling. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/judge-says-deutsche-bank-can-give-trump-financial-records-to-democrats.html
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/05/21/a-federal-judge-destroyed-trumps-argument-on-stonewalling/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-judge-denies-trump-bid-to-quash-hou

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/HHP_April_vShare.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/23/americans-dont-want-congress-impeach-democrats-arent-listening/?utm_term=.e6ad2b280f1e

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/436087-polling-editor-says-swing-voters-dont-want-impeachment-ahead-of

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretations/the-scope-of-the-impeachment-power


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors#United_States

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1867/01/the-causes-for-which-a-president-can-be-impeached/548144/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-giuliani-collusion-is-not-a-crime

Democrats' strongest messages for the midterms

A version of this was published  in the Sky Hi News September 18-19, 2018

The Democrats’  messages for the November midterms are taking form. What may become  stronger is “  Put a check on President Trump’s behavior and  policies; vote for Democrats in November”.   Why stronger? It has  broader appeal than to just the Democratic party’s faithful since it  has already been championed by some well known Never Trump and traditional conservatives like  Joe Scarborough, David Frum,  George Will, and columnist/radio host  John Ziegler,   who see a defeat of Trump supporters in the mid-terms as a way to clean the GOP house of Trumpism for the future.
The Democrats’ message is strong on its own merits: “ The President personally is not fit for the job and a GOP Congress is complicit in keeping him in office.  Our system of checks and balances is not working when the same party controls all of the levers of power in Washington.  At least one part of the legislative branch needs to hold Trump accountable by holding hearings given their  power to subpoena witnesses testifying under oath.”  The anonymous op-ed in the New York Times, the release of Bob Woodward’s book “Fear”, and  insider insights into the White House chaos authored  by Omarosa  Manigault Newman could  kick  this political science approach into even higher gear.
The issue most on the minds of  voters under 65 per Kaiser Family Foundation polls is the rising  cost of health care and especially whether affordable coverage for pre-existing conditions will continue to be affordable. Trump rule changes would allow higher premiums for  all coverage of pre-existing conditions even for those with employer provided insurance.  A mid August Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that the concept of Medicare for All is supported by 70% of voters, 85% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans.  In October, just before the midterms, the new premium prices will be announced and , based on the Congressional Budget Office estimates, Fox Business News reports that the  increase will be 15% due to Trump’s removing the individual mandate, resulting in fewer healthy participating in Obamacare. So far projections of the cost of Medicare for All  or shrill shouts that this is socialism has not dimmed the support. So long as the GOP dominated Congress controls the agenda, the issue will not be debated nor will credible light be shone on the funding challenges.
“Vote Democratic so you can impeach him” is a message that  is not gaining traction.   A mid-September poll by Quinnipiac indicated  56% Americans do not want impeachment proceedings to begin versus 36% who do. There are good  reasons impeachment and  using the 25th Amendment are not feasible. To remove Trump  using both measures requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate.  That  needs bi-partisan support no matter if the Senate turns more blue in November.
There are two wild cards that may make impeachment  more popular. The  impact of the Woodward, Omarosa, op ed tell-alls  is not yet known. The other is whether findings  from the Mueller investigation  would finger the President himself for obstructing  justice or conspiracy with the Russians to throw the 2016 election his way. The report will probably not be made  before the November 6 elections. As an issue, Mueller’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 elections  is still a matter of speculation though public opinion is turning against Donald Trump. Real Clear Politics polls saw a large dip in blue collar support after Trump’s fawning over Putin at Helsinki. Most recent polls .A Washington Post/ABC poll August 31: Nearly two-thirds of American adults support Mueller's ongoing investigation.  64 %  believe Trump should not fire Attorney General Sessions though Donald Trump says he will fire him after midterms, probably installing am interim  DOJ chief that could squash or cripple Mueller’s probe and report.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/midterm-elections-2018-the-conservatives-who-want-the-gop-to-lose-this-fall

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/406236-poll-mueller-holds-steady-higher-approval-rating-than-trump-on-russia
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pre-existing-conditions-coverage-at-risk-more-than-thought-obamacare/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/most-americans-support-robert-mueller-probe-and-ag-jeff-sessions-poll.html
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/heres-how-much-obamacare-premiums-will-rise-in-2019
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/24/trump_support_among_blue-collar_whites_dips__137616.html
http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/for-most-trump-voters-very-warm-feelings-for-him-endured/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wealthiest-republican-supporter-in-ohio-quits-party/ar-BBNlUBg?ocid=ob-fb-enus-280

Why Spygate became Liegate

This is  revision of an earlier posting on the subject:

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi News, May 30, 2018

https://www.skyhinews.com/news/muftic-why-spygate-became-liegate/www.skyhinews.com

Update: June 8, 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/politics/ryan-trump-spygate-spy.html
agrees: no spies...per Paul Ryan.

Last week Donald Trump lit a firecracker in the media, claiming the FBI had planted a spy in his campaign during the 2016 campaign and called it "Spygate, a scandal worse than Watergate". Spygate became Trump's lie- gate, Democrats charged, with good reason.

The challenge was for the Trumpsters  to prove there was a spy embedded in the campaign..just as they were challenged to prove that Trump Tower was wired by the FBI (still waiting) for political reasons. For that reason the White House called a meeting of its most devoted Congressional partisans, Rep. Devin Nunes and  Rep. Trey  Gowdy, to meet with the FBI and Department of Justice to get the evidence they thought would  justify Pres. Trump's inflammatory claims and to unmask the informant. After a great deal of feathers flying, eventually an established select group, "the gang of eight" security cleared bi-partisan Congressional  members, were invited for a second sit-down.

Spygate has turned out to be a farce after the bi-partisan group listened to the details of the FBI' s use of an informant, an American professor in England, to have conversations  in England with  Americans  about whom they already had evidence of connections to both  Russians and the Trump campaign during 2016. There was no FBI embed in the Trump campaign headquarters or staff. The purpose of the informant's use was part of the then ongoing investigation into the Russians' activities. The use of clandestine informants is a fundamental, common practice of our intelligence services and in the case part of an authorized investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign. 

The President tied this accusation about a spy in his midst  to his rhetoric that it was  being undertaken by "a criminal deep state"  and  his charges were quickly embraced and promoted  by his loyal  one-sided media brigades.  However, even those he appointed in the position to know, Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State and recently director of the CIA, said there is no such thing  as deep state in the State Department or the CIA  in testimony before Congress last week.  

That such a charge can be easily believed  by the public without any evidence is not surprising.  A large bipartisan majority feels that national policy is being manipulated or directed by a “Deep State” of unelected government officials, a recent Monmouth poll concluded. There is always been a wariness of the power of the federal government among citizens  in this country, as that same poll found.  

 But now we have reached the unhealthy stage of paranoia with many  ready to believe  the slightest bit of  unproved evidence  to confirm our worst fears or support Donald Trump.  This is  thanks to Donald Trump's demagogic  playing on these fears to protect himself when he is the subject  of a criminal investigation.  He had demanded  unmasking of the  informant and the disclosure of evidence uncovered in Mueller’s investigation of the investigators of him, the investigation’s subject. This is the mother of all mothers of  conflict of interests, because it could be used  to  get his supporters' stories in sync  in testimony  before a grand jury, or to prepare his defense. These demands  took place in the midst of an ongoing investigation  that flies in the face of every norm and rule in criminal cases. Such "disclosure" takes place after an indictment, not before.   As a sop to  put off Trump’s threats of firing Mueller and his boss,  Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, critics charge Rosenstein agreed to the White House demands for the  meeting and to order an inspector general’s investigation of whether  Department of Justice improperly surveilled the Trump campaign in 2016 for political reasons..
_______________________________________________________________________________

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/389166-top-intel-dem-this-isnt-spygate-its-liegate

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/23/there-is-no-evidence-for-spygate-but-there-is-a-reason-that-trump-invented-it/?utm_term=.987b6b0d197c

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_031918.pdf/

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/23/mike-pompeo-no-deep-state-604199

American elections for Americans

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi News, March 5-7, 2018
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/muftic-american-elections-for-americans/

Due to recent developments and my decision to revise this in a condensed form,to be published in the newspaper I have revised and upddated the version posted 2/20 on March 1, 2018.

Revised, March 1, 2018

Trump supporters   may chant Make America  Great Again or put  America First, but they should be chanting instead: American  Elections for Americans and Make Democracy Great Again.  They are not.   Should you care?  The Russians  have demonstrated the ability to manipulate individual voters, your vote, your thoughts, and your participation in the American version of democracy Russians seek to undermine.   We should be in charge of our own destiny instead of having some foreign adversary bend us to their will  . However,  polls show as many as half ,of Americans do not put this as top of their concerns list and 83% of Republicans in January still believed the Mueller probe is a witch hunt.  So many have buried their heads in the sands of denial or blame Obama for failing to do what President Trump refuses to do.  Could it be that  some even welcome a foreign force interference that supports their leader and  their beliefs? What goes around can come around, and imagine in a future election,  Chinese active measures would favor a Democratic candidate’s trade and military policies.  They have the skills. The Russians got away with it; why would not they?

The Mueller indictment of the 13 Russians for their  execution of a campaign  to swing the 2016 elections toward Donald Trump has  had a very disturbing reaction from  many on the right. Some even called the Mueller Russian indictments a “nothing burger” .    It was not nothing that the Russians undertook  a million dollar a month campaign on behalf of Donald Trump’s election.  Even social media CEOs admitted to Congress in the fall  the Russian bots reached 120 million voters.  The indictment found that “by 2016, the size of many (Russian) organization-controlled groups had grown to hundreds of thousands of online followers.“

It was not a nothing burger  that Russians attempted to hack into twenty one states’ election data bases and succeeded to penetrate those of Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Texas and Wisconsin.  Though Pres. Obama was not told of the actual penetration until his last week in office, in October  2016 he did  publcly warn twenty one states of the Russian attempts and he did take some measures behind the scenes. President Trump has refused to activate sanctions authorized by Congress last year against Russians.  He instead has launched attacks against the FBI, AG Sessions, and Mueller. Admiral Michael Rogers, NSA director and US Cyber chief  testified at  the Senate Military Affairs committee Februaru 27, 2018,  that he has not  received additonal orders he needs  from Trump to disrupt Russian cyberattacks targeting upcoming  elections.

The indictment  of the thirteen Russians did not assess whether the Russian conspiracy tilted  the election to Trump.  It did report  three Trump staffers were unwitting participants.   Did the Russian efforts support the election of Donald Trump?   Yes it did by early to mid-2016.   Identified Trump supporters  were not the only targets. Russian campaigns on social media exhorted Democrats to vote for Jill Stein (Green Party) and Bernie Sanders in order to divide and weaken Hillary Clinton. By the hundreds of thousands,  Americans retweeted, reposted, shared the messages well crafted  by the Russians posing as Americans  to make them hate immigrants, African American activists, Muslims  more  than before and  to love guns even more. Russian bots claimed in October 2016 that there was election fraud, but offered no proof. They also hyped scary false social media postings  of Muslims supporting Sharia law. Read the indictment yourself at https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477 to see if you too were unwittingly  taken in.

A private study of identified Russian bots and trolls revealed that conservatives retweeted trolls 30 times more than liberals and most retweeters of Russian trolls came from Texas and Tennessee. The methodology of this study is at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/inside-the-study-showing-conservatives-retweeted-russian-trolls-30-times-more-often-than-liberals

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587731730/russian-trolls-are-flooding-social-media-with-messages-meant-to-increase-tension

http://www.newsweek.com/russian-bots-facebook-twitter-trump-2016-campaign-793122

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/375784-nsa-director-says-he-hasnt-receive-orders-from-trump-to-disrupt-russian

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2018/01/30/where-is-public-opinion-on-the-russia-investigation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/

https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477

______________________________________________________________________________

original 2/20 version
Trump supporters  may chant Make America  Great Again or put  America First, but they should be chanting instead: American  Elections for Americans and Make Democracy Great Again.  They are not. The Mueller indictment of the 13 Russians for their  execution of a campaign  to swing the 2016 elections toward Donald Trump has  had a very disturbing reaction from  many on the right , both in their media  and in their Facebook comments. Some even called the Mueller Russian indictments a “nothing burger” .   It was not nothing that the Russians undertook  a million dollar a month campaign on behalf of Donald Trump’s election.  Even social media CEOs admitted to Congress in the fall  the Russian bots reached 120 million voters.  The indictment found that by 2016, the size of many (Russian) ORGANIZATION-controlled groups had grown to hundreds of thousands of online followers.“

The indictment did not assess whether the Russian conspiracy tilted  the election to Trump.  It left that issue  simply unaddressed.  Did the Russian efforts support the election of Donald Trump?   Yes it did . Revealed in the indictment  “by early to mid-2016, Defendants’ operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) and disparaging Hillary Clinton.”  If the Russians' purpose was to increase greater enthusiastic turnout of those leaning to Trump and to depress Clinton supporter enthusiasm, they probably were a factor. PEW research exploring why pollsters in the midwest rust belt were wrong was that they failed to measure the enthusiasm factor correctly.

I speculate  the reason  Trump supporters have responded as they  did is that they believe  it helped their guy win; the Russians  were on their side; go blame Obama, not the one in the White House in over a year who called the whole thing a hoax and still does not care to do anything about it. Trump has failed to take any action or leadership to harden our election systems or to punish Russians with executing sanctions as  Congress directed him to do. Instead he has made those blowing the whistle, the intelligence agencies and the FBI, the object of his disaffection and biased against him. He perpetuated the “hoax” and “witch hunt” myth as he  ignored the evidence intelligence agencies  presented in last year’s Congressional hearings..  Even now, he claims he was cleared of collusion. Left hanging by the indictment is that there are  unindicted co-conspirators. Besides ,  findings of obstruction of justice and financial crimes, as well as other kinds of conspiracies  were not addressed in this one announcement of indictments that was  limited to Russian social media use.

While the indictment revealed  at least three Trump campaign officials were unwitting participants,  in another way the unwitting  American supporters of the Russian campaign numbered in the hundreds of thousands, too.  They could well be some reading this. Identified Trump supporters were not the only targets. Russian campaigns on social media exhorted Democrats to vote for Jill Stein (Green Party) and Bernie Sanders in order to divide and weaken Hillary Clinton.

The Russians manipulated  the Trump loyalists and  they too unknowingly carried the Russian messages  on social media to millions . By the hundreds of thousands,  Americans retweeted, reposted, shared the messages well crafted  by the Russians posing as Americans  to make them hate immigrants, African American activists, Muslims  more  than before and  to love guns even more. Russian bots claimed in October 2016 that there was election fraud, but offered no proof. They also hyped scary false social media postings  of Muslims supporting Sharia law. I was wondering why anti-Sharia law hysteria had  such a  sudden rebirth  then and an  anti Muslim speaker was  featured in an event  on an unrelated subject held in my own county last summer. Now I have an idea why.

Some examples from the indictment are that  the (Russian) “ORGANIZATION controlled pages addressed a range of issues, including: immigration (with group names including “Secured Borders”); the Black Lives Matter movement (with group names including “Blacktivist”); religion (with group names including “United Muslims of America” and “Army of Jesus”); and certain geographic regions within the United States (with group names including “South United” and “Heart of Texas”).

Russians are still at it. In the wake of the Parkland, Florida high school massacre, Russian bots immediately appeared on social messages with anti gun control messages and hyping arming teachers.

https://www.wired.com/story/pro-gun-russian-bots-flood-twitter-after-parkland-shooting/

 https://www.npr.org/2018/02/20/587375771/russian-bots-are-spreading-false-information-after-the-florida-shooting.

The newest blast from the White House is to hit the FISA court issue as
pinpointed in the Nunes memo...That the.. FBI failed to disclose that the 
Carter Page surveillance request included references to the Steele dossier.
It did, in the footnotes, though it did not name the exact source of the financing.
This s purely a distraction from the release of the indictments of the thirteen
Russians who engaged in espionage and a propaganda campaign through social
media to influence voters in the 2016 campaign. Instead of barking up this tree,
Trump and the extreme right wing should stop trying to distract voters and instead
take the Russian attempt to attack our electoral system seriously. The disgrace
is Trump's failure to take actions to protect our electoral system's integrity.

http://www.newsweek.com/russian-bots-facebook-twitter-trump-2016-campaign-793122

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-big-loophole-that-left-facebook-vulnerable-to-russian-propaganda-1519314265

https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

Blowing the whistle on the games Trump loyalists are playing

A version published in the Sky Hi News February 12, 13. 14
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/muftic-blowing-the-whistle-on-trump-loyalists/

The games President Trump, his White House, and his friends in Congress are playing are two: one, to replace  those involved in the Russian related investigation  he views are  biased against him  with those who are biased in his favor. The second is to to destroy the credibility of prosecutors and  to stop  them before they finish their investigation.  Both  actions threaten the rule of law by subverting the legal system in order  to protect the power of the rule by a person.

.

A president, the head of the executive branch, does have  the right to appoint those in charge of carrying out his policies,  but when he manipulates law  enforcement  investigating whether he  possibly violated the  the law, it becomes a game dangerous to a democracy.

Fresh on the minds of the founders of this country was what kind of government they did not want. They constructed a form of government  to avoid the rule of a monarchy. But also in their recent   past was the  bitter experience of  a  religious and populist inspired civil war in  mid  17th century England causing and following  the beheading of Charles I. In the late 18th century the US  Constitution provided  a third way, a form of government  that better protected  the rule of law above the rule by any other force and set up a system that divided power among three branches with checks  over each. That third way is being seriously challenged in 2018.

.

Here is how Mr Trump is  attempting to turn law enforcement into an instrument to protect his grip on the White House. Gone are FBI Director James Comey  (fired)) and   Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (pressured to resign), both who failed to swear loyalty or act loyally to  protect President Trump  from investigations into possible misconduct that could lead to impeachment. Mr. Trump’s  view  he openly opined is that the Attorney General’s duty should be to  protect him . When  AG Jeff Sessions recused himself from overseeing investigations into Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign, supervising the investigation  fell to Session’s  deputy,  Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein failed  the Trump loyalty test when he did not reign in the investigation by Special Counsel Mueller. Rosenstein could fire Mueller but he found no grounds and  he  opposed the release of the Nunes memo. To replace him was to be  Associate AG Rachel Brand and she quit Friday. Who fills that vacancy could be a voice more friendly to the Trumpists, clearing the way for firing Rosenstein and Mueller.

The first move  in the current game was a  campaign  coordinated with Trump friendly media and political supporters to destroy the credibility of prosecutors and their findings.They claimed anti Trump texts between two agents painted the entire FBI as biased  even though the  offending agent had been removed from the investigation the summer before. The second salvo was  the Nunes memo concocted by Rep. Devin Nunes, GOP chair of the House Intelligence committee,  and released with the support of the GOP Speaker of the House. The GOP controlled House had become complicit  instead of being a check on the  chief executive.  The Nunes memo lacked credibility itself. Contrary to the memo’s premise, the FBI did disclose to the FISA judge the political funding of the Steele dossier.  Several polls show the campaigns have had a  bit of a  propaganda success, with  growing belief among GOP voters  the FBI is biased against President Trump,  though as a whole American voters still trust the FBI over Mr. Trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/373146-poll-most-say-they-believe-fbi-over-trump

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/most-republicans-believe-fbi-justice-dept-trying-to-delegitimize-trump-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1FP2UH

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/qa-nunes-memo/