Impeachment? The answer is still no

Michael Cohen is on his way to jail for a very long time.  But as his ship sinks, he and his attorney are grasping for straws to reduce that sentence.  Cohen has agreed to sing if it means a reduced sentence.  But Mueller already passed on a Cohen plea bargain.

But what if everything Cohen is saying is true?  Is Trump in trouble?  According to precedent, the answer is no.  Let’s start with John Edwards.  Friends and megadonors paid nearly $1 million to Edwards’ mistress to cover up his affair right before an election.  The DOJ brought the charge that those were reportable campaign contributions because they were made to benefit Edwards’ campaign and influence the election.  Edwards was acquitted.  The DOJ could not successfully make the argument that those amounts to pay off his mistress should have been reported.

President Obama found himself in hot water after failing to report $1.8 million in campaign donations made through normal channels and for keeping donations that were in excess of allowed limits.  His campaign paid a $350,000 fine, the largest in history, and moved on with life as though nothing happened.

Bill Clinton lied about an affair during a sexual harassment trial that suddenly fell into the scope of the White Water special counsel.  But he was under oath.  He actually committed perjury.  But nothing happened to him.

In Trump’s case, he paid Michael Cohen a retainer as an attorney to represent him and to deal with issues like paying off people he had an affair with.  Does that make Trump a Clinton grade slimeball?  Of course.  Who didn’t know that already?  But even the leftovers from Obama’s DOJ are going to have a hard time turning a $130,000 payment into something they couldn’t get with the million dollars spent on Edwards’ mistress.  Additionally, the liar and singer Michael Cohen, who stated in the past that Trump didn’t know about the payoffs, never had affairs, etc is going to have to provide hard evidence.  So far the Cohen tapes have disappointed in that area.

From our analysis, the only charge Cohen has made that could put Trump in serious trouble is that Trump knew about the DNC hack before it happened.  Even then, knowing about it is a far cry from causing it.  But that could get Trump into enough trouble that a Democrat run House could at least introduce impeachment charges.  They would never get 75 votes in the Senate.  But more importantly, we’d have to see more than the word of a man on his way to jail being advised by Bill Clinton’s personal attorney, Lanny Davis.  Cohen would need to produce a tape of Trump talking about the DNC hack along with timestamp proof that it was before the hack took place.

I’m pretty sure if that existed, we would have heard it by now.  But who knows, maybe it’ll be an October surprise.

Narratives crumble on eventful Tuesday

First let’s talk about media censorship.  As we’ve documented, reporters like CNN’s Jim Acosta went crazy when Trump suggested Fake News was the enemy of the people.  Over 200 newspapers wrote coordinated editorials attacking Trump based on the narrative that he was anti-Press.  But in West Virginia, Trump shot down that narrative by going after social media censors.  “I would rather have fake news than have anybody — including liberals, socialists, anything –than have anybody stopped and censored,” Trump said.  He added warnings about the dangers of censoring opposing viewpoints.

Trump makes statement opposing censorship of any viewpoints, including liberals

The Left is frothing at the mouth over convictions of Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.  But there’s very little chance it will amount to anything.  The media also seems to be confused into thinking that paying people for non-disclosure agreements of affairs is somehow illegal.  What was illegal was Cohen submitting the payoff to one of Trump’s companies as some sort of expense reimbursement.  For investigators to even begin to think they have a crime to charge Trump with, they have to get evidence beyond Cohen’s unreliable testimony.  But beyond that, Trump can’t be indicted.  He can only be impeached if evidence of criminal activity can be proven.  An impeachment vote won’t pass with the current House makeup and even after November there is no way the Senate will have 75 yes votes on impeachment.

But more importantly, the Russian collusion narrative is once again proven to be dead.  Manafort’s convictions are all for pre-Trump campaign financial crimes that have nothing to do with Trump.  Despite Cohen’s willingness to sing like a bird to Mueller, he had nothing to offer when it comes to Russia.  These two were literally the best hope Mueller had of ever having anything on Trump when it comes to Russia.  Both flipped.  Neither one had anything to offer.  There was no Russian collusion with Trump.

Trump could be in political trouble, but won’t be impeached

In another Russia related story that the media is dutifully ignoring, Rick Scott announced Tuesday that the Department of Homeland Security and FBI informed him that there is no evidence that Russia has infiltrated the Florida election system.  This was a wild and baseless claim made by his opponent Sen. Bill Nelson.  Nelson provided no evidence for the claims, but seemed to be indicating that it was classified.  After being called out on his claim by even the Washington Post, Nelson got quiet but hasn’t apologized for lying.

DHS and FBI confirm Bill Nelson lied about Russian meddling in Florida

Manafort and Cohen Guilty

On Tuesday, Paul Manafort was found guilty on 8 of the 18 charges against him.  The jury was hung on the other 10 charges.  All of the charges were related to Manafort’s actions before working with the Trump campaign.  They included tax and bank fraud and hiding a foreign account.  This was when Manafort was working with the Podesta Group.  None of the charges had any relation to Russian collusion or the 2016 election.

Michael Cohen plead guilty in a plea deal to tax and bank fraud and is facing 3-5 years in jail.  Cohen was Trump’s personal attorney.  While this had nothing to do with Russia, collusion, or election meddling, there is a charge with Cohen that could touch Trump.  Cohen is charged with two counts of illegal campaign contributions related to his paying off two porn stars who had alleged affairs with Trump.  The key here is that in Cohen’s plea he said he was directed by the candidate to make those payments.

If Trump directed Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels, and then reimbursed Cohen from the campaign, that could be trouble for Trump.  However, if Cohen was paid by Trump’s company as a reimbursement as deputy US attorney Robert Khuzami explained, it could result in nothing more than an IRS issue for the President.  Even then, a prosecutor would have to prove that Trump knew Cohen’s invoice was fraudulent.  Cohen is less than trustworthy as a witness and had great incentive to rat on Trump.

Cohen also indicated that he would be willing to testify to Mueller that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting between his son and a Russian attorney, but there doesn’t seem to be anything illegal about that meeting even if he did.

The two biggest takeaways from these huge stories is that Russian collusion still has not materialized, but that Trump likely has not been honest about his affair with Stormy Daniels.  That leaves Trump in the same boat as Bill Clinton in 1998, but without the perjury or obstruction of justice.

Hogg rages against Pelosi and “older Democrats”

The media is finally catching up with Trump.  Boasting an “exclusive”, Reuters is finally reporting the real reason Trump doesn’t want to meet with Mueller.  Anyone who has been paying attention knows that Rudy Guiliani has been talking about their fears of the perjury trap for weeks.  Mostly though the media has misunderstood what Guiliani was saying and instead speculated about why Trump’s lawyers might be meeting with Mueller.  When McGahn met with Mueller for 30 hours with no attorney client immunity, the New York Times speculated that he was flipping on Trump rather than speaking on his behalf.

Trump’s concern has been that if Mueller interviews him and he happens to say something contrary to what Comey or someone else has said, Mueller will slap Trump with a perjury charge.  Of course, it would be a he said, he said situation, but Mueller would likely take Comey’s word for it.  Unlike Bill Clinton who committed perjury and was proven to have lied by the DNA on Lewinsky’s dress, Trump would be giving his word versus Comey or some other long time Mueller ally/business associate.

Media discovers Trump is avoiding perjury trap

Speaking of the unhinged media, NY Times columnist Michelle Goldberg said on MSNBC’s The Lid that she believes Trump wants to “murder people without due process”.  Goldberg was explaining why she felt Trump was no longer the leader of the free world, but instead should be classified as a murderous dictator.  When asked if she thought he would murder people without due process, Goldberg replied “he would certainly like to.”

 

David Hogg is back in the news, giving an interview to New York Magazine.  In the interview, Hogg expressed frustration with “older Democrats”, saying they should get out of the way and let him take over.  He also called Pelosi old and suggested there should be an age limit for people in Congress.  In case you were still taking him seriously, Hogg also said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was going to be the President of the United States.

Hogg: Pelosi is too old for Congress, Ocasio-Cortez will be President

Twitter, Facebook, #metoo, and a rare rebuke from one liberal to another

First, James Clapper took John Brennan to task over the weekend over his rhetoric.  Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, said that Brennan says what’s on his mind, but that is becoming a problem.  Brennan is the former director of the CIA and recently lost his security clearance after becoming an MSNBC commentator and insisting that the President committed treason.  Brennan has offered no evidence for his claims except his heartfelt belief that Trump colluded with the Russians.

The problem with insisting on baseless claims of Russian collusion is that Brennan speaks as someone who has authority as a former CIA director, not just as as a political commentator.  Bill Nelson recently ran into the same problem when he claimed the Russians had infiltrated Florida’s election system.  It’s either a flat out lie used to influence an election, or it’s the illegal release of classified information.  Since John Brennan and Bill Nelson have not had criminal referrals for illegally giving out classified information, it’s clear they are lying.

Former Obama officials battle over the appropriateness of public accusations

If you thought Social Media platforms might have an inherent bias against conservative outlets, it’s because that is true.  Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted they have a left leaning bias, but said they are aware of their own bias and try not to let it affect their decisions.

Meanwhile, Facebook is in hot water for letting real estate companies and lenders violate the Fair Housing Act by using advertising that targets their desired demographics.  So apparently they aren’t quite as leftist when it comes to making money.  If a leftist company violates leftist principles, does anyone care?

Facebook violates 1968 Civil Rights Act by allowing advertisers to discriminate against minorities

Speaking of hypocrisy, one of the first accusers of Harvey Weinstein secretly paid off one of her own victims.  Ground floor member of the #metoo movement Asia Argento paid $380,000 to silence a male actor who she had raped when he was 17.  The payment came shortly after Argento accused Weinstein.  She was 37 and child actor Jimmy Bennett was 17 when she assaulted him.

Weinstein accuser pays off her own victim

Healthy skepticism and how to read the paper

Everyone is familiar with the term Fakenews.  But actually, this is nothing new.  If you were into politics in the 90s, then you remember CNN being dubbed the “Clinton News Network”.  The alternative media revolution began with the Rush Limbaugh radio program and has grown to include other programmers as well.  The rise of Fox News initially made for competition between the normal mainstream media outlets and more conservative outlets.

David Hume was a philosopher and skeptic who came up with a guide for reading about miracles.  I think that guide is helpful when reading the paper too.  Is the headline incredible?  Does the person writing it stand to gain?  Does it contradict what you know to be true?  Many people get sucked into clickbait or shocking stories from unnamed sources because they don’t ask these questions.  The Russian Dossier made it into four FISA court applications because it took so long for the FBI to ask themselves what Christopher Steele was getting paid, or whether his incredible and shocking claims had been fact checked.

I would add to Hume’s rules a few of my own.  Do the sources have names?  In the past, you would have an unnamed source because they didn’t want their cover blown.  But they would collect data and release it at a point where it was safe to do so.  Today, the use of unnamed sources often masks the fact that they are embellishing, outright lying, non-existent, or delivering their information to the media illegally.  That last one is especially true in the context of FBI investigations or foreign intelligence.  If you were sitting in a court room and you heard testimony read from a frightened victim who preferred anonymity for her or his own protection, you might give that some credence.  If the prosecutor gets up and announces that according to an unnamed source the defendant also doesn’t wear deodorant and picks his nose, the judge would have some things to say to that prosecutor.

Look at the context.  I recently saw a political ad where an opponent was accused of wanting to raise taxes 23%.  What they were talking about is the Fairtax.  The Fairtax is a 23% tax, but it replaces all income tax, payroll tax and capital gains tax.  Now, I have my own personal feelings about the Fairtax, but without that context this sounded awful.  Once you add that context, it sounds pretty great.

Understand the writer’s bias.  For example, if you’ve been reading my stuff you know that I tend towards libertarian conservatism.  It helps to know who the authors previously worked for or are related to.  Chris Cuomo from CNN is the brother of NY Governor Andrew Cuomo and son of Mario Cuomo.  That’s a good place to start.  And sure enough, you’ll discover he is a New York liberal who sees everything through that lens.  Sean Hannity is obviously biased heavily towards the right.  If Trump says “we need to stop the Mexicans”, Cuomo is going to read that in the worst possible light while Hannity gives Trump the benefit of the doubt.   The best way to combat this is to use multiple sources and check them against each other.

Understand the business.  Let’s go back to the Trump “Mexicans” example.  There may be nuance in that statement.  But nuance doesn’t sell news.  Flashy headlines and shock drive the industry.  So when Trump talks about illegal immigrants, no one wants to take the time to try to figure out if he’s talking about gang members, if he has a slight personal bias against Hispanics, or what his statement was actually all about.  The important thing for the media is getting a headline that people will read.  The partisan sides can do with it what they will.

From time to time you’ll see what I like to call a “false quotable”.  It’s a misstated fact, bad statistic, or urban legend sort of quote that takes on a life of it’s own.  A good example was Sarah Palin’s “I can see Russia from my house” quote.  Except, she never said that.  It was a line by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live impersonating Palin.  But the idea that Palin herself said that persisted in the media.  Another good one is Trump calling Mexicans murderers and rapists.  At the time, he was talking about MS-13 gang members.  But the quote took on a life of it’s own and there are still people who insist that Trump thinks all Mexicans are murderers and rapists.

Lastly, it’s important to understand how narrative works.  Narrative is like an assembly line.  It makes for efficient story writing and disseminating of the news without much worry about content.  If it is commonly accepted for instance, that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, then articles can be written about various instances in accordance with that narrative without having to do the hard work of fact checking.  Trump Russia collusion was a good example of this.  Once the narrative was established, no one seemed to care things happened like Comey said Trump wasn’t a target of the investigation.  Instead, the only stories that were made a focus were ones that fit the narrative.  It took Trump firing Comey and saying that one of the reasons was Comey’s failure to counter the narrative to get any media outlets to even talk about that.

The use of narrative to avoid the hard work of journalism is difficult for the reader to compensate for.  Multiple sources will often run the exact same story even down to the headline rather than balancing one another.  A great recent example was Fox News and CNN both saying that the White House wouldn’t deny the existence of a tape of Trump using a racist slur.  Of course, Trump had already denied it, but that didn’t stop all of the media outlets from persisting with the false narrative based on a false quotable.  To combat a false narrative, the reader needs to go to the source video or documents themselves and do the hard work.  At Political Brief, sometimes we have to go back and listen to several minutes of video to get the context and figure out what truly happened.

It’s sad that the media is so careless and sometimes intentionally biased.  But a reader armed with skepticism and the desire to find the truth can combat this and discover reality.

Ocasio-Cortez bans the press so the people will feel “safe”

It wasn’t Trump who banned the media from a recent townhall.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez banned the media from a recent press conference claiming that it was a “non-story” and that she did it so that her potential constituents could “feel safe discussing sensitive issues in a threatening political time.”  So far no one in the media has thought to ask her if she thinks the press are the “enemy of the people”.  But many media members weren’t buying her reasons.

Ocasio-Cortez bans the press so the people can feel safe

James Clapper, Leon Panetta, and several other former CIA directors and Obama administration big wigs joined 70 former CIA leaders in ridiculing Trump for taking away John Brennan’s security clearance.  Apparently their argument is that former intelligence officials should be able to use their unclassified information to hit the President with partisan attacks.  However, security clearance is usually maintained for those who “need to know” so that their successors can go to them for help and information.  But it is doubtful that anyone from the Trump administration is going to be going to hostile John Brennan for help.

Former intel agents upset about Brennan’s clearance being revoked

The jury in the Manafort trial is home for the weekend, but Judge Ellis is not revealing any information about their identities.  Apparently the jury had expressed to him that they feared their identities being released.  That’s probably a good move.  The media and public opinion has already condemned Manafort, and any verdict that sets him free is sure to cause riots.  As it is, the Manafort trial has been a disappointment for many on the Left.  He is in trouble for tax and bank fraud, but the massive Russian collusion has once again failed to materialize.

Manafort jury fears the press

Cuomo: America was never great

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is in hot water for countering Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan with one of his own: “America was never that great”.  I don’t know how far that’s going to get him with the majority of Americans, but it will play well with the radical Democratic Socialists on the Left.  Just yesterday Bernie Sanders said America is “fundamentally immoral and wrong”.  Andrew Cuomo’s brother and CNN commentator Chris Cuomo recently got himself in trouble suggesting that punching right-wingers was morally justifiable.

Democrat governor says America was never great

Economists are taking Elizabeth Warren to task over her far fetched Accountable Capitalism Act.  Warren, who opposes free market capitalism, came up with the idea of having corporations have to obtain a “Federal charter” to operate.  The license, in addition to the hoops they have to jump through to work in their state, would raise $1 billion in fee taxes.  Warren’s so-called “charter” would require corporate directors to consider not just their stakeholders, but also their employees and communities.

Of course, this is moronic.  Any well run company has to consider the well-being of their employees and communities or the free market will eliminate that company from competition.  In fact, that point was made by none other than BET co-founder Robert Johnson.  The Black Entertainment Television co-founder said “Most companies and most boards look at all of their stakeholders, not only their shareholders. They look at their employees, they look at the community where they reside and do business, they look at even the vendors that they do business with. So I think it’s a solution in search of a problem that’s absolutely not necessary,”

What Warren’s bill, along with the exemptions for friends of the ruling party that we have seen with previous Socialist overreaches, would create a new avenue for crony capitalism.  In other words, to get an exemption for your federal charter or to guarantee you have your charter maintained, you have to stay friendly with the party in power.  We saw the same thing with ACA where Obama’s biggest supporters received exemptions to various new labor rules.

Warren’s new socialist measure to control businesses gets a failing grade

Trump is implementing what Obama failed to do with his new Buy America push.  Trump is planning on using an executive order to create rules to ensure that federal agencies use American made goods and services for their projects.  There are questions about the legality of the executive order and sure to be legal challenges.  There are also issues of increased costs to the taxpayers if the government has to buy more expensive American goods.

Obama tried and failed to pass a buy American provision in 2009 and again in 2011.  He backed off of the provision in 2009 after American companies who sell overseas swayed him away from the influence of the US labor unions with fears of foreign retaliation.  When Obama flopped back to supporting Buy American, the Jobs Act of 2011 was squashed by the GOP.

Our opinion?  It was wrong when Obama tried it, it’s wrong now.  Free trade produces lower prices for consumers and taxpayers, and competition helps American producers to be efficient.  A better way to help American producers is to cut taxes and regulation so that they can compete on the high end of the global scale.  But Trump is doubly wrong by doing this as an executive order rather than through Congress.  Many Democrats support Buy American provisions.  Labor unions love it.  By going it alone, Trump will alienate conservative and free market GOP members, but I doubt he’ll receive any recognition from the left.  Democrats also supported protectionist tariffs, until Trump did it.  All around this is poor strategy and contrary to free market principles.

Trump to accomplish Obama agenda item with Buy American executive order

Fox News and CNN earn 100% bias rating on the same story

It’s rare to see too competing and ideologically different media outlets get the same issue so wrong.  But that’s what happened on Wednesday when Sarah Sanders refused to guarantee that Donald Trump has never and would never behave a specific way.  That sparked unfounded accusations from the two media outlets that Trump was on some secret tape somewhere using racial slurs.  Of course, if that tape ever did arise it would be a glorious day for liberal and establishment Republican allies.  So glorious in fact, that if the tape existed it, like Russian collusion evidence, would be on a 24/7 news cycle until even the spaghetti spine GOP establishment would be voting to impeach Trump.  But no tape has surfaced.

In fact, Trump himself made a statement that no tape exists because he doesn’t use those words.  “They aren’t in my vocabulary” tweeted the President.  Mark Burnett who produced The Apprentice has confirmed no such tape exists.  But the media took one ridiculous question from a reporter and Sarah Sanders’ reasonable response and turned it into the big story.

CNN took it a step further with Anderson Cooper “explaining” how Sarah Sanders basically admitted there is a Trump N-word tape out there somewhere:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/14/kth-omarosa-trump-white-house-nword-dog-ac-vpx.cnn

“Today the woman who speaks for the President of the United States said she cannot rule out…” was how Cooper begins.  But that is a complete mischaracterization of what actually happened.  In fact CNN tweeted the exchange before driving their unhinged narrative that Sanders was admitting something.  As a reporter asks her about the possibility of the existence of the tape, Sanders says several times that President Trump has addressed the question directly and she would refer them to him.

The reporter pressed and asked if she could guarantee that no tape with Trump using a racial slur will ever show up.  But Sanders can’t predict the future, nor can she speak beyond what she knows.  So she directed them back to the President’s statement.  Sanders’ refusal to guarantee that there will never be a tape now or in the future of Trump saying something turned into the Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC headline.

We spelled it out for CNN on our Instagram page:

As a result of this media narrative, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC have earned a 100% bias rating on the story, and our Brief’s On Fire label.

Drain the Swamp: Brennan loses security clearance

Former CIA director turned far left political commentator John Brennan saw his security clearance finally revoked on Wednesday.  Brennan was cited for “lying” and conduct unbecoming for someone who has access to the nation’s secrets.  But Brennan isn’t the only one on the list being considered.

Politico also names FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Bruce Ohr.  McCabe and Strzok were fired from the FBI for misconduct.

Bruce Ohr has been demoted from assistant deputy attorney general and may not have a job much longer.  He was a crucial part of the Russian investigation, even though his wife worked for Fusion GPS.  In addition to Bruce Ohr’s connections to Fusion GPS, Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya was also a client of Fusion GPS when she set up her meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. in Trump tower.  Nothing happened at the meeting, but it has been cited by liberals as Russian collusion.  Some speculate that entire meeting was a Fusion GPS setup.

It’s possible these late moves are more than just cleaning house.  Many of these individuals have a very suspect past when it comes to the botched Clinton investigation and the unnecessary Trump investigation.  We have seen plenty of evidence from Strzok’s texts of collusion with the Obama administration to stop Trump.  And when you add in the Fusion GPS connections, everyone seems to be in bed with everyone else.  In some cases, literally.

The Inspector General’s office continues it’s investigation into these individuals, but Horowitz’s conclusions have thus far been suspect.  His decision that Strzok’s texts didn’t show bias gives me little hope for the future of that investigation.