". . . “The boundaries of acceptable presidential behavior are defined by which actions the political system tolerates or condemns,” writes Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes. . .We are already “perilously close to the point at which there may no longer be a national consensus that there’s anything constitutionally problematic about using governmental powers to advance one’s own pecuniary and electoral interests.” . . . Writes Wittes: “If a substantial group of members of Congress signals not merely that the president’s conduct does not warrant impeachment and removal but also that it does not even warrant branding as intolerable, such conduct will become normalized—at a great cost to previously unquestioned first principles of constitutional governance—even if the House impeaches Trump.” . . . This is why you should pay more attention to the Federalist Papers than Fox News. . . On Fox News, the impeachment proceedings will be characterized as a “coup,” or an attempt to “overturn an election.” But they are neither. . ."
". . . Barr, asked if Mueller intended for Congress, not the attorney general, to decide whether Trump obstructed justice: “Well, Special Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view. ... I didn’t talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision.”
THE FACTS: Mueller’s report actually does indicate that Congress could make that determination.
The report states that no person is above the law, including the president, and that the Constitution “does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice.”
VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: “Today’s release of the Special Counsel’s report confirms what the President and I have said since day one: there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and there was no obstruction of justice.”
KELLYANNE CONWAY, White House counselor: “What matters is what the Department of Justice and special counsel concluded here, which is no collusion, no obstruction, and complete exoneration, as the president says.”
THE FACTS: No. The special counsel specifically leaves open the question of whether the president obstructed justice. . . “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment,” the report states. . . The report identifies 10 instances of possible obstruction by Trump and said he might have “had a motive” to impede the investigation because of what it could find on a multitude of personal matters, such as his proposal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. . . “The evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns,” the report states. . . In explaining its decision, Mueller’s team said reaching a conclusion on whether Trump committed crimes would be inappropriate because of Justice Department guidelines indicating that a sitting president should not be prosecuted. It nevertheless left open at least the theoretical possibility that Trump could be charged after he leaves office, noting that its factual investigation was conducted “in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary material were available.”
BARR: “These reports are not supposed to be made public.”
THE FACTS: He’s not going out on a limb for public disclosure. . . Justice Department regulations give Barr wide authority to release a special counsel’s report in situations it “would be in the public interest.” Barr had made clear during his Senate confirmation hearing in January that he believed in transparency with the report on Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference during the 2016 campaign, “consistent with regulations and the law.”
BARR, saying it was “consistent with long-standing practice” for him to share a copy of the redacted report with the White House and president’s attorneys before its release: “Earlier this week, the president’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an independent counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication.”
THE FACTS: Actually, Barr’s decision, citing the Ethics in Government Act, is inconsistent with independent counsel Ken Starr’s handling of his report into whether President Bill Clinton obstructed and lied in Starr’s probe.
. . . did he really mean? . . . or. . . does he even really know?
(from https://thehill.com/policy/defense/308364-trump-picks-mattis-for-defense-secretary-report)
". . .Mattis has been seen as a top contender for the job since he met with Trump earlier this month. . . After the meeting, Trump heaped praised on Mattis, calling him the “real deal” and a “brilliant, wonderful man.”. . ."
(from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/23/us/politics/trump-mattis.html)
". . . After initially praising Mattis in announcing his resignation last week, Trump jabbed his top military official on Saturday, tweeted that he gave the retired four-star general "a second chance" after former President Barack Obama "ingloriously fired" him. Mattis led U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013, but his time at the helm was cut short because of disagreements with the Obama administration on Iran. . ."
". . . the budget boosts Defense Department spending by $54 billion (or by 10%); it cuts the State Department by 28% and the Environmental Protection Agency by 25%; it provides $1.5 billion for construction of Trump's wall; it eliminates funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; and it all fails to balance the budget in the process.. . The problem? "It's dead on arrival," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) . . . And what about presenting evidence to prove his claim that Barack Obama tapped Trump Tower? "Let's see whether or not I proved it," he said on Fox News . . . "You looked at some proof. I mean, let's see whether or not I prove it. I just don't choose to do it right now." In fact, the top Republican and Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said there is no evidence<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/house-intel-committee-still-no-evidence-trump-tower-wiretap-n733886> that Obama did what Trump originally tweeted<http://www.nbcnews. com/news/us-news/trump-accuses-obama-wiretapping-residence-during-campaign-n729056>. "Are you going to take the tweets literally? And if you are, then clearly the president was wrong," Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) said. . ."
Courtesy of The Principles of Adaptive Design | Brad Frost
(from http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/orioles-vp-doesnt-want-president-trump-to-throw-out-the-first-pitch-at-camden-yards/)
". . . Earlier this week Angelos, son of team owner Peter Angelos, appeared on the B-more Opinionated podcast, during which he said Trump would have to apologize for some things before being allowed to throw out the first pitch at Camden Yards. CBS Baltimore has a transcript:
“I know the administration has taken on some criticism for its controversial positions concerning things that are considered to be problematic from a race, ethnicity, religious, gender, disability community ... people in those communities have been spoken about very negatively by a candidate, now the President. . . “My personal opinion, I think it’s incumbent upon any individual who leads a country to step away from those type of statements, to apologize for those statements and turn the page and then to move forward in embracing their community. Until that happens, it wouldn’t be my preference to have the President come throw a pitch.”. . . “Everybody wants to see whoever is in the office the President do extremely well. The first step to doing extremely well, is for this person who is in the office, to retract all these outrageous things that have been said and simply apologize. You don’t say those things about women, you don’t say those things about different ethnic groups ... and if you do say them, you need to be big enough to apologize.”. . . "
