TRUMP’S LAST-DITCH TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IS ALREADY IN MOTION: THE FIRING OF JEFF SESSIONS AND ROBERT MUELLER

The nation seems transfixed by the recent revelations in the book Fire and Fury about President Trump’s lack of mental competence and fitness to serve as President, but other than a few juicy tidbits – such as the fact that Trump likes to dine at MacDonalds because the food is pre-prepared and therefore less likely to be poisoned – there is really nothing new here. The fact that Trump is monumentally unfit and unprepared to carry out the duties of the Presidency has been plainly apparent to even the most casual of observers since Inauguration Day, when he gave his bizarre “American Carnage” speech and declared that the crowd size was “the largest ever.”

This is all very entertaining, but not terribly newsworthy. What does qualify as news, however, is the fact that amid this “witches brew” of chaos and controversy, the embattled White House appears to be starting a roll-out of its “nuclear option,” which is to try to stop the Special Counsel’s Russia investigation in its tracks by firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein, and then Special Counsel Robert Mueller himself.

Trump may be crazy like a fox. Realizing that Muller has him in his cross-hairs, with Flynn and Papadopoulos cooperating with him, and Muller now having conclusive evidence that Trump himself drafted the fake story while returning from Europe on Air Force 1 about Don Jr.’s meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, The Trump Team must be now painfully aware that the jig is up. Mueller now has enough evidence to make an Obstruction of Justice case against Trump, and probably also has enough to establish that senior members of the Trump team –if not Trump himself – colluded with the Russians to successfully interfere with the 2016 presidential election. We know this because there is now sufficient public evidence of this in press reports, and it can be safely assumed that about 70% of what Mueller knows about Trump’s collusion and obstruction efforts has not yet been made public.

The only way to stop the Mueller investigation and the additional indictments and plea agreements that are expected to be rolled out over the next couple of months is for Trump to try to blow up the entire process, just as embattled President Nixon tried to do with the October 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre” firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus.

To be sure, Trump and his remaining close advisors must realize that this is a longshot “Hail Mary” pass, which marked the beginning of the end for the Nixon Presidency, but he is rapidly running out of options. We know by now that he is temperamentally and emotionally incapable of just patiently waiting for the next shoe to drop from Mueller’s office, which could be an indictment of Jared Kushner, Don Jr. or other senior staff members or close family members, or he could just decide to roll the dice and either stop the Russia investigation in its tracks or go up in flames trying.

The expression “going nuclear” may not be a euphemism, now that Trump is in a name-calling contest with the equally unstable leader of North Korea over who has the biggest nuclear button. There has always been a persistent “Wag the Dog” theory that when the going gets tough for a President, then the best option is to start a war to distract the public’s attention from other issues, such as scandal at the White House. However, never before has anyone hinted or even considered that a President would literally use the nuclear option to get himself out of a jam. With Trump, however, everything has changed. Who can say with confidence that Trump will never push the “nuclear button” just to create a distraction from the Mueller investigation? No one, you say? I thought so.

 

But first the “political nuclear option.” On Thursday, two top House conservatives —  Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee – called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign. The Republican drumbeat for Sessions to step aside will undoubtedly intensify over the next several days, with the White House no doubt issuing statements to the effect that Sessions should never have accepted the job in the first place if he knew that he would have to recuse himself from supervision over the Russia investigation. Fox News and Devin Nunes, or some other White House loyalist, can also be counted on to make seemingly high-minded statements about the Justice Department being in “chaos” and that there is an urgent need for change in leadership so that an new Attorney General can “take back control” of the Department and make sure that the Special Counsel’s investigation does not “go off the rails” by investigating matters that were never intended to be investigated (such as the Trump Organization’s finances and massive Russian funding).

Even though watching the Trump White House’s attempt to undermine and then terminate Mueller’s Russia investigation will be much like watching a massive car wreck unfold in slow motion, the country must prepare itself as best as possible, just as we would if a huge tsunami were approaching. To paraphrase a recent statement by Rep. Elijah Cummings, this is truly a battle for the soul of our democracy. When the dust settles, there will be no innocent bystanders. Every citizen must now choose a side, and your children and grandchildren will be asking: “Which side were you on?”

COMEY, GIULIANI AND THE POLITICALIZATION OF THE FBI

No matter what the outcome of the Presidential election, the FBI is shaping up to be one of the biggest losers of this election season. Over one week’s time, the FBI’s well-deserved reputation for being a professional law enforcement agency operating above the political fray has been virtually flushed down the toilet into the murky cesspool of contemporary American politics.
On Friday, October 28, 2016, FBI Director James Comey gave us his “October Surprise”, darkly hinting through a thin veil of innuendo that Hillary Clinton might be due for another round of email investigations. Shortly after he sent this incendiary letter up to Capitol Hill, it was leaked that the possible renewed FBI interest in Secretary Clinton was a fallout from a probe of former Congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer that he had shared with his estranged wife and top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin. As further details emerged, it was learned that the FBI had not actually seen the emails on Weiner’s computer because no court order had yet been issued or even sought permitting a search of his computer. Nor did the FBI know whether Weiner’s computer contained any emails that were sent to or from HRC, and if so, whether those emails were merely duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI.
In other words, Director Comey intentionally interjected the FBI into the Presidential Campaign, and since the clear (albeit erroneous) implication to the public was that the FBI Director would not send a letter to Congress on such an important topic eleven days before a national election if he had not already determined – at least preliminarily – that the new emails contained some “smoking gun” classified documents that would warrant a reopening of the FBI’s investigation of Ms. Clinton.
What we now know one week later is that Director Comey knew or should have known at the time he released the letter to Congress (knowing that it would be made public a few nanoseconds after it reached the Hill) was that an agent or agents in the FBI’s New York field office had already leaked the story about these “new emails” to the Trump Campaign. This is why Rudy Giuliani was already appearing on Fox News, smiling like the Cheshire cat and barely able to keep himself from spilling the news that he knew was about to be publicly released by the FBI. He cryptically announced that the Trump Campaign had “a couple of things up our sleeve” that would be “game changers.” And then, as if on cue, the FBI Director drops the letter bombshell two days later.
One week later, four days before the election, Giuliani confirmed that he knew that something big was happening at the FBI, thus confirming that FBI insiders had leaked information to the Trump Campaign in advance of Comey’s announcement. Giuliani insisted that he had learned about this information from former FBI agents, who had presumably received the information directly from active FBI agents, but whether the leak to Giuliani was a one step or a two-step process makes little difference. The important point is that the FBI has now joined the Russians and WikiLeaks as full-fledged members of the Stop Hillary campaign.
For the past 40 years of the post-Watergate era, the FBI and the Department of Justice have largely steered clear of partisan politics, re-building a generally well-deserved reputation as professional investigative (in the case of the FBI) and prosecutorial organizations. Public release of information regarding criminal investigations came only after indictments were handed down, and if a decision was made not to indict a high-profile subject or target of an investigation, any derogatory information obtained about that individual was not leaked to the press. Such information remained secure in the FBIs confidential files, no matter how frustrating it was to the FBI agents or AUSAs who had worked on the case, only to have it decided by higher-ups in Washington that the investigation would not proceed to an indictment and trial.
One notable exception to this general rule was Rudy Giuliani, who was as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and then U.S. Attorney in New York was so consumed by an overwhelming ambition for publicity and self-promotion, that he regularly leaked information about Grand Jury investigations and other confidential information to the press on “deep background.” He was often at the center of the “anonymous sources” within the Justice Department that reporters were so fond of citing. To be sure, Giuliani had many successful prosecutions of high-level political and organized crime figures during his tenure as a federal prosecutor, but his habit of leaking information to the press in advance of indictments or before a trial did some irreparable damage to the professional reputation of the federal prosecutors office in New York and the federal judicial system here.
The flip side is that Rudy Giuliani also took a “pass” on some cases involving high profile individuals, such as Donald Trump. During the time period that Trump Towers and Trump Plaza were being built in Manhattan, the mob-controlled Teamster Local 282 and its President, John Cody, had a virtual lock on every major construction site in the City. Every truck driver who drove a redi-mix cement truck onto a jobsite was a member of Local 282, and if the real estate developer did not make an illegal side deal with John Cody’s union, the flow of redi-mix cement would be cut off and the entire construction project would grind to a halt. Through the good offices of Roy Cohn, the mentor and godfather to Donald Trump, a deal was made with Local 282 whereby Trump agreed to hire no-show Teamster foremen, whose salaries were then funneled to the organized criminal organizations controlling the Teamster Local. Trump also agreed to modify the construction of Trump Tower to accommodate an apartment for one of Cody’s girlfriends and mob associate, Verona Hixon, who wanted a swimming pool included with her massive Trump Tower apartment, which was second in size only to Trump’s own apartment.
In order to close the deal with organized crime and guarantee that his Manhattan construction projects would not be interrupted by labor strife or work stoppages, Trump and Cohn also made a deal with “Fat” Tony Salerno, another notorious mob figure who owned C&A Concrete, the redi-mix cement company whose trucks delivered the cement to the Trump Towers and Trump Plaza job sites. Trump readily agreed to pay C&A an inflated contract amount, knowing that the excess profits would go into the coffers of organized crime.
During the Justice Department investigation of Teamster Local 282, the FBI and federal prosecutors working on the case were able to get the cooperation of at least one of the developers who made a corrupt deal with the union, but when Donald Trump was questioned about his dealings with the union, he refused to cooperate and adamantly denied that he had any illegal deal with either Local 282 or with C&A Concrete. With some difficulty, the Justice Department was still able to indict and convict John Cody on racketeering charges based upon the testimony of Sigmund Somers, one of the other major real estate developers in the New York area, but the investigation and prosecution would have gone much more swiftly if Trump had cooperated. Moreover, once Cody was indicted, he called a City-wide strike of truck drivers that closed down every major job site in the New York City area, with the notable exception of the Trump Towers and Trump Plaza job sites, which were specifically exempted by the union, based in large measure to the fact that Trump had proved himself to be a “stand up guy” who had refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement.
In fact, since lying to FBI agents and federal prosecutors is itself a federal crime, even if those false statements are not made under oath, there were those within the federal law enforcement community, myself included, who strongly felt that Donald Trump should have been indicted, but we were overruled by those further up the ladder in the Justice Department. At the time, in 1981 and 1982, Rudy Giuliani was the Associate Attorney General, the third highest official in the U. S. Department of Justice. As part of his supervisory responsibilities over all the U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country, Giuliani would have necessarily had a decisive policy-making role as to whether the major labor racketeering investigation underway at that time, including the investigations of Teamster Local 282 and C&A Concrete, would have focused exclusively on the prosecution of corrupt union leaders and organized crime controlled construction companies, or whether real estate developers like Donald Trump who had entered into unlawful racketeering agreements with organized crime controlled unions and construction companies but who refused to testify truthfully about it should also be prosecuted.
By actively participating in the transformation of the FBI from a professional non-partisan agency into a political arm of the Trump Campaign, Rudy Giuliani is helping cause irreparable damage to the FBI’s integrity and reputation. And if Giuliani were to be named as the next Attorney General of the United States, this country would have the most political and partisan Attorney General since John Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury following the Watergate Scandal.

WHY AREN’T WE HEARING ANYTHING FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT?

During the first Presidential primary debate and in the days to follow, we heard much about Alicia Machado, the former Miss Universe pageant winner and whether the recent hacking of the DNC emails was the work of the Russian intelligence services or an anonymous 400- pound hacker lying on this bed. However, not a word was spoken during the debate about the environmental dangers facing not only our country but the planet itself.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, suggested during an interview by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the way we have to deal with global warming and climate change is “that we do have to inhabit other planets. The future of the human race is space exploration.” Well, at least Gary Johnson recognizes that the environment is an issue and is speaking out about it, even if it is in his typically inane way.
To the extent that Donald Trump has said anything about energy and the environment, it has been to reassure the big-coal and big-oil lobby that he will support them 100%, abolish the EPA and all those annoying environmental regulations that are hampering the fossil fuel’s ability to maximize their profits by polluting the atmosphere as much as possible. He has categorically denied the science of climate change and bashed renewable energy, suggesting that the concept of Climate Change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to hurt the U.S. economy.
Of course, all of this climate change denial and run-of-the-mill Republican bashing of environmental regulations is all just a show for purposes of political expediency. In 2009, Trump actually signed a New York Times full-page ad supporting President Obama’s plans to combat climate change, and the Trump International Golf Links & Hotel in County Clare, Ireland filed out an application to build a seawall explicitly referencing “global warming and its effects” as the reason for the construction. Trump
As a candidate of the Republican Party, Trump felt that he had to do a 180 degree turn and pledge to support a “no-nothing” platform on the environment which basically says that the fossil fuel industry can do anything it wants to pollute the planet, and that that all environmental regulations are a socialist plot. Trump’s energy advisor, Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, basically believes anything that the fossil fuel industry lobbyists tell him to believe, which means that he is a big fan of fossil fuel extraction, dislikes environmental regulations, and believes that mainstream climate science is based on “fraudulent science.”
It is a fairly safe bet, therefore, that a President Trump would also seek to eviscerate President Obama’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, which regulates carbon pollution from the power sector through a flexible arrangement with each state. In any event, there is little doubt that a President Trump would make history – not in a good way – as the first climate change-denier of any major country on the planet. Another first!
Hillary Clinton’s environmental policy positions say all the right things from the point of view of an environmentalist. She believes that the economy should be transitioned to a clean energy economy, and has set an aggressive agenda for the creation of enough renewable energy to power every home in America. She has also called for a half billion solar panels to be installed by the end of her first term as President, and the reduction of oil consumption by one-third, as well as sharp reduction in energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals, offices and manufacturing facilities. However, Secretary Clinton has not emphasized her environmental agenda on the campaign trail, perhaps in response to various polls showing that environmental issues are not as important as other issues to American voters.
However, if the Clinton campaign were to get the message out that a Trump Administration would roll back most of the environmental achievements of the Obama Administration, and would jeopardize American leadership on the climate change issue following the Paris agreement on climate change, the narrative could quickly become a compelling one for the American public. Leaving aside the importance of addressing climate change and other pressing environmental issues, the United States would be voluntarily abandoning its world leadership on this issue and ceding it to — in all probability – China, which has already begun to raise private capital for environmental projects through the sale of “green bonds.” In fact, according to former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., these Chinese bonds now account for 40% of the global environmental bond market after only a six-month period. See www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/opinion/how-to-raise-trillions-for-green-investments. China also plans to spend $1 trillion over the next five years for energy efficient buildings, low-carbon transportation and clean energy for its cities, and it will sharply reduce carbon emissions by creating a nationwide carbon market in 2017.
Both the Clinton and the Trump campaign organizations owe it to the American people to direct more – or at least some — of their attention to the environmental and energy issues that will determine what kind of future and what kind of planet our children and grandchildren will be living on. If a non-democratic country such as China can squarely face the impending crisis regarding climate change and global warming, then a democracy such as ours, which professes to care about the well-being of all of its citizens, should be able to do so as well.