Showing posts with label Paul Manafort. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Manafort. Show all posts

Saturday, December 8, 2018

Impeachment? Not so fast

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi News Dec. 11-12, 2018
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/opinion/opinion-muftic-impeachment-not-so-fast/

Immediately last Friday after Michael Cohen’s sentencing memo was filed, President Trump crowed he was cleared and the opposition media claimed there were grounds for impeachment because the President was in effect an unindicted co-conspirator of a crime, which was closer to reality. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s court filings regarding Paul Manafort were either redacted or sealed, revealing little.

Often cited are precedents set by both the impeachment of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.   Neither Nixon nor Clinton was found guilty or was removed from office by Congressional votes. A simple majority in the House can vote to impeach,  but  two-thirds of the Senate must  agree to find him guilty and remove him from office.

 Impeachment is not so much a matter of law  as it is a political action. Voters’ opinions can  give members of Congress political backbones: Clinton’s public  job approval ratings polled  during the impeachment/trial remained over 70% and 66% were against removing him from office over the issue of lying and coverup of sexual misconduct.   Nixon, after release of the tapes, dropped from winning the prior election to  a 31%  job approval with 43% opposing removal from office.  During Nixon’s threatened impeachment, Democrats , the opposition party, controlled both House and Senate with significant majorities. Republican Nixon  resigned before the House could vote  to impeach because tapes were made public that confirmed his guilt. Like Nixon, Clinton's  opposition party, Republicans,  controlled both the Senate and the House though the vote even in the GOP controlled Senate fell short of the two thirds needed and he was acquitted. In Donald Trump's case, the House will be in the hands of Democrats ; the Senate's majority party is Trump's.

The current  public mood  should give the GOP shudders. It is similar to Nixon’s. The key public voter question is whether the actions of the President as charged by Congress  justifies his removal from office , which is the end result of a Senate conviction.  Trump’s  current job approval is around 40% with 42% opposed to his removal from office per a June 2018 poll.  This is  before we know much of what  Special Counsel Robert Mueller has found.

 That Democrats gained a decisive majority in the House of Representatives in  November means they have the simple majority  of votes  needed to impeach Trump  without any GOP help  At this moment it is a debatable intra party question of whether impeachment is an effective political strategy, distracting from promoting their public policy  agenda.  GOP control of the Senate would block removal of the president  at this time in any case. 

So far, public knowledge of facts implicating Trump is thin. Recently filed  court documents do indicate  business financial gain could have been his motivation to commit crimes of conspiracy/collusion and obstruction of justice.  The closest to fingering Donald Trump himself came  last week in the Michael Cohen case filings in which Cohen claimed he was instructed by the President  to break campaign finance  laws.  That  the President intended  to pay for silence of women with whom he had affairs was to protect family peace, not campaign purposes as Cohen claims, could be a reasonable  defense.   Whether the public would think lying and coverup of sexual misdeeds  alone justifies  removing  him from office is  very questionable.    It makes sense to wait for Mueller’s report and findings of Democratic dominated House  committees.
______________________________________________________________________________
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/impeach-trump-nixon-support-bill-clinton-poll/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/politics/michael-cohen-guilty-plea-misleading-congress/index.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-tower-moscow-it-was-the-end-of-a-long-failed-push-to-invest-in-russia-1543532455
Footnotes: On Friday, December 7, 2018  the Southern District of New York's sentencing memo regarding Michael Cohen repeated the charge that Cohen committed a crime by arranging a method to pay off two women who knew of Trump's immoral and unfaithful conduct  for the principal purpose  that they would remain silent during the campaign. Significantly, the SDNY filing said that Cohen committed the crime under the direction of the president.  This could be very damning for the president, though he cannot be indicted for doing it. Any punishment would have to be through the impeachment process. Trump claimed immediately he was "totally cleared". .  The SDNY filings regarding Cohen said that he had been helpful, but not fully. The Mueller fillings said Coehn had been helpful on  the Russian conncection and that Cohen's jail term could be served at the same time as the judge ruled in the SDNY case.
Both the Clinton impeachment case and the Michael Cohen/Trump charges involved lying and covering up sexual misconduct.  Some Republicans voted not to convict Clinton, and all Democrats stood by their man.  Later public opinion polls showed 57% the public did not want Clinton to lose his job over the issue and they considered the impeachment harmful to the country (Gallup via Wikipedia summary)
The Mueller filings regarding Manafort pointed to lies  to the Special Counsel about his coordination with the White  House in 2018 and lies about his contacts with Konstantin Kilimnik, his associate, who had ties with Russian military intelligence, the DNC hackers.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/07/politics/michael-cohen-robert-mueller-donald-trump/index.html

Also see the prior blog posting 12/3/2018. The tangled web of Trump-Russian deceit.

If sexual misconduct, lying and coverup did not reach the "time does not fit the crime" in the Cllinton case , i.e. the offense was not the reason for the Senate to convict because it was not serious enough and the administration's ability to conduct business (high job approval rating), then the "high crimes" needed to be something worse.  Worse could be  treason, bribery and a serious high crime...definition is up to the House to say what it is. What would be "high" enough to warrant a Senate conviction?  Look for  proof beyond reasonable doubt of treason  (collusion, conspire) to work against US, bribery..a tit for tat like: Russia will help Trump win if he gets sanctions against Russians lifted; money lauundering, emoluments clause violations, tax evasion, and whatever else the House defines.   Another nagging problem is can a President be impeached for what he did before he took office?  The other problem: the DOJ has its own rules that a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime, but nothing in the Constitution forbids this. If the offenses took place before the President was sworn in, he could be indicted after he left office and prosecuted, though. 



Monday, December 3, 2018

The tangled web of Russian-Trump deceit

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi News, December 5, 2018
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/opinion/opinion-muftic-a-tangled-web-of-russian-trump-deceit/

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.” per Walter Scott

So what if Donald Trump lied about his Trump Tower Moscow  negotiations while he was running for the presidency. He had claimed many times  that he had “nothing to do with Russia. I never did”.  Last week after his personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty  to lying to Congress about Trump's financial interests in Russia,  Trump changed his tune to” it was no crime and there was no deal. “ There will be many who take Trump  at his word  and leave it at that.  So long as he was not lying under oath to law enforcement , he has a point. However, he has lied to voters during and after the 2016 campaign, and American foreign policy was shaped to be in sync with Russia in ways that would be harmful the US allies and the Atlantic alliance. He created a web of wilful liars under oath and in public  to support  the myth of his lack of conflict of  financial interests in Russia since Trump’s puzzling  “bromance”  with Russia and Putin  had raised many eye brows.

Donald Trump had often advocated weakening NATO throughout 2015-2016 and even in his presidency.  NATO expansion to former Soviet satellites was  a thorn in the side of Russian national interests.  Trump’s fuming about NATO members not contributing enough was his public rationale but the weakening of NATO served both Putin’s national security designs and Trump’s continuing strategy to butter up Putin. Trump also advocated a softer policy toward Russia's grab of the Crimea and loosening sanctions imposed to punish Russia as far back as 2015. Why such a departure from traditional US foreign policy? Did Trump have undisclosed financial ties with Russia? Trump had vigorously denied that.   Did the Russians have something more  on him than just an alleged  carnal Moscow night ? Did the Russians see a Trump’s presidency as an unwitting asset to their national interests, motivating their interference in the 2016 campaign?

We do not have to wait for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to present his final report to learn about the web of  deceit or to get an understanding of what could have motivated Trump's Russia romance. Mueller's court filing documents regarding  Cohen, Paul Manafort, and Mike Flynn, and others contain much information. Mueller's indictments documents  also exposed in detail  methods Russia used in their attempt to tilt the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

The timing of the negotiations to build and finance the Moscow Trump Tower, as disclosed in the Cohen related court documents, coincided with Donald Trump’s  pronouncements as he was campaigning for president with  words and policies that favored Russia. Trump did have business interests in Russia  well into his status as presumptive GOP nominee.  and the Cohen guilty plea court filings  exposed Trump  as lying  to the American people about it. Special Counsel Robert Mueller signed off on the documents charging Cohen  with  lying to Congress for falsely claiming the Trump Tower deal was dead in January 2016 when  emails showed Cohen and Trump were actually  in communication with one another and  Cohen was still pursuing the deal  with Kremlin official Dmitri Peskov until  June 14, 2016 when Trump was already his party's presumed nominee.

  Key to the Moscow tower deal was getting financing from a certain Russian bank. The bank , other banks, and oligarchs were sanctioned by the U.S Congress to punish Russia for grabbing  Crimea  and  the sanctions needed to be lifted if the project was to be funded.  The deal was called off on June 14,  2016.  In the transition period Trump’s National Security adviser Mike Flynn was in secret communication with Russian ambassador  about the sanctions.  Flynn pleaded guilty to charges he lied to the FBI about it  and he  flipped to become  a witness for Mueller's probe. Sentencing is this month .

 In March 2016, Paul Manafort joined the campaign as a “volunteer” and in June rose to campaign chair. Manafort’s prior gig as  political consultant was the former pro Russian leader of Ukraine who opposed closer ties to the West.  During Manfort's campaign activities, Trump's polcies favoring Russia became more focused and specific. Manafort was charged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller .faced trial in August 2018, and was found guilty of  bank and tax fraud . In September  he  pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the US and attempts to tamper with witnesses.  He violated his plea deal to be Mueller's  witness  in the Russian investigation and is now facing sentencing. He already sits in jail.ee: the blog posted dated July 31, 2018: Did Manafort's participation in the Trump campaign shape Donald Trump's views on foreign policy?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/03/president-trumps-misleading-statements-trump-tower-moscow-timeline/?utm_term=.4b8bf7ffd0f7

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/flynns-guilty-plea-confirms-he-talked-russian-sanc/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-sets-dec-18-sentencing-for-michael-flynn

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/opinions/cohen-court-guilty-plea-trump-honig/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/us/politics/fact-check-cohen-trump-.html

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-trump-directed-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/russian-spokesman-says-there-were-contacts-trump-tower-they-disappeared-n942651


Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Did Manafort's participation in the Trump campaign shape Donald Trump's views on foreign policy?

Today the Manafort trial begins. Whether or not he is found guilty of money laundering and tax evasion may not directly lead to Donald Trump. However, Manafort when he joined the campaign in 2016, there was a marked change in Donald Trump's Russian policy, from just a bromance and love of strong men changed to specific policies regarding NATO and and other issues which began to echo Russian foreign policy. For tracking that change, see a prior posting which was also published in the Sky Hi News in October 2017:

"Back in scrutiny is whether Manafort caused the GOP platform to be changed regarding Ukraine and arming the opposition to Russian backed rebels. http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/11/03/investigation-trump-campaigns-russia-collusion-may-focus-ukraine-connection/829702001/

Revelations from  Congressional hearings  into  Russian use of social media to influence the 2016 elections , Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s indictments of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and  associate  Rick  Gates,  and the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos  have been eye opening. Aside from the  implications for  the integrity of future elections  or charges of collusion is whether  the Russian connections  permeating Donald Trump’s campaign and his White House administration shaped Trump’s US foreign policy toward Russia.   The case could be made that Trump  was a willing dupe of Russian influence. The timing of campaign pronouncements that became foreign policy specific coincided with Russian connected staff and volunteers  joining the campaign  in the Spring of 2016.


Before Manafort and  Mike Flynn became key players in Trump’s presidential campaign, Trump was focused on admiration of Putin’s strong man management style. Many were calling this a “bromance”.  Trump has never  uttered one word  of criticism of  President Vladimir Putin. This has been an eyebrow raiser, to say the least.
In  the early months  of 2016,   when  Manafort and company and Mike Flynn came on board the campaign, Trump’s bromance with Putin’s autocratic style  of governing morphed into policy specifics which were similar to  Russia’s policy goals.   Manafort  joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 and was named campaign chair in April, resigning in August because his Russian ties had become more public.  Beginning in March 2016  Trump  on the stump began his anti-NATO crusade.  Putin saw the NATO mutual defense treaty as a barrier to expansion into NATO member countries such as the Baltics and Poland.  Lifting US sanctions against Russia and Putin’s  oligarch friends enacted  in retaliation to Russian takeover of  Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and interference in 2016 elections is believed to be Putin’s  goal.  Flynn resigned as White House adviser  when he was caught fibbing about  conversations with Russians about  sanctions.

Gen. Mike  Flynn , who had appeared  seated near Putin in a Russian Television  (RT) anniversary celebration,  became famous in Trump rallies for his  attacks on Hillary Clinton’s character  with his “lock her up” chant.  There is plenty of evidence that Putin also wanted Clinton to lose and  had blamed her for drumming up anti Putin sentiment in his  prior reelection campaign while she was Secretary of State.


In other policy pronouncements from spring 2016 through inauguration, Trump  supported  foreign policies that dovetailed neatly with Russia's, considering recognizing as legitimate the Russian grab of the Crimea, lifting sanctions against Russia,  calling NATO obsolete as a military defense alliance, demanding members pay more,  and  being fuzzy about whether Russia's ally Assad in Syria must go. None of those policies are in America's or our allies' interests since it weakens US allies’ ability to check Russian land grabs  in the Baltics and Balkans and increased Russian involvement in Syria on behalf of Assad. Later as President , Trump refused to back NATO’s stated purpose  to come to the defense when  NATO  member nations were attacked . He was forced to backtrack that as President. Likewise, his policy evolved  to stronger support of the pro west Ukraine government. Nonetheless, so alarmed was Congress that  President Trump would  lift  sanctions against Russia ,  this summer , 2017, Congress enacted legislation to prevent the lifting of sanctions and increasing them. .Trump signed the bill,  it but he  has ignored and  missed the  implementation deadline."

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

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

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Trump's NATO policy has a Grand County impact.



There are many in Grand County who have more than a passing interest in what happens to NATO.  They still have family in eastern European countries that are current members of NATO and were once Soviet satellites.  Lithuanians and Poles  have settled here and have become respected members of our community. Those countries belong to NATO.  Other Eastern European settlers in Grand County from countries not in NATO are Russians and Moldovans.
Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians (the three Baltic States) and Poles in particular must be looking at alarming statements from Donald Trump for his comments that “We don’t really need NATO in its current form. NATO is obsolete…if we have to walk, we walk.”  Many  look with raised eyebrows  at the  sometimes called “bromance” with Russian President  Vladimir Putin.  Putin called Trump  "a brighter person, talented without a doubt." Putin reiterated has admiration of Donald Trump June 19 on Fareed Zakaria ‘s CNN program, as well as asking why the West still needs NATO.
Trump’s public assertion that not only is NATO obsolete, but their members are not living up to their promises to contribute. There is far more at stake than money.
Russia is on the march in a seeming attempt to reassemble former Soviet satellites , restoring past glories.  Russians also resent and fear  their former neighboring buffer states becoming NATO members and permitting missile defense installations (even if the defense systems are turned toward the Middle East) . Their grabbing  or helping surrogates grab   parts of non NATO members of Georgia, the Crimea and eastern Ukraine has been seen as a threat in particular to the NATO member Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.  NATO was quick to move more forces to the Baltics in response as a warning to Russia not to mess with members of NATO. Without NATO, the small Baltic states in particular would be vulnerable to a Crimea and Ukraine like grabs, making Poland and Romania especially at risk. In his June CNN comments, Putin slyly ignored Russia’s land grabs which would have answered his question of Why NATO?

There may not be a conspiracy involved, just a case of Trump’s ignorance or isolationist advocacy or wanting to make a deal with Russia,  but there is an interesting connection with his most inner advisor. It is his campaign chairman,  Paul Manafort, who was a political consultant to  once  president of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych was attempting to stop some in his country who wanted greater trade ties with the West, while he was closely connected to Russia  and wanted his country to be more connected to them. A revolution followed in 2014.  During that revolution, Yanukovych fled first to the eastern Ukraine and now resides in exile in Russia.

Many in the United States’ foreign relations community on both sides of the aisle  look at Donald Trump’s foreign policy with alarm.  A particularly large howl was raised in a March open  letter  by 121 GOP national security leaders.  George W Bush’s secretary of State, Richard Armitage, announced  this month June,2016, he would vote for Hillary Clinton.

 http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/16/richard-armitage-plans-vote-hillary-clinton/he would vote for Hillary Clinton.

policy/


http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/16/richard-armitage-plans-vote-hillary-clinton/