FEC: Why Aren't You Enforcing the Law?

I sent this email to the Federal Elections Commission yesterday. I will let you know if I receive a response.

Dear FEC: 

It was quite refreshing to see reports of FEC Chair Weintraub's tweeted statement inspired by the president's response to George Stephanopolous regarding the president's willingness to receive information from foreign sources. She wrote in part, 

"Let me make something 100% 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."

The chairperson also made it clear that violators risked facing federal investigation (and presumably federal prosecution) for so doing, and that all such contacts should be reported to the FBI. 

While this is welcome, it stretches credibility to expect her words to be borne out. There were clear and well-publicized incidents of such violations, about which the commission has apparently taken no action. I refer to the meeting at Trump Tower in June, 2016 at which Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, among others, met with known Russian nationals for the expressed purpose as shown in Trump Jr.'s emails, of receiving derogatory information about candidate Trump's principal opponent, which was something of value from a foreign source. During the campaign, candidate Trump, at public campaign appearances, openly called upon Russia to release damaging information about his opponent. This was clearly an effort to solicit something of value from a foreign source. During the campaign, candidate Trump, at public campaign appearances, openly called upon Russia to release damaging information about his opponent. This was clearly an effort to solicit something of value from a foreign source.

As a citizen, I would like to know whether the chairwoman's words have any real meaning and whether charges are soon to be forthcoming about these obvious violations of the laws she referred to.

Steve Natoli

San Diego, California

"Beneath a Scarlet Sky" is a Must Read!

I've just finished a book that was such a great read I'm compelled to share it with you. "Beneath a Scarlet Sky" by Mark Sullivan is the can't-put-it-down story of the life of a teenage Italian boy who risked his life resisting the German occupation of his country in World War II. It's been a number one best seller, so get yourself a real or an e-copy and see what the buzz is all about.

Based on the true story of Giuseppi (Pino) Lella, "Scarlet Sky" is a real page turner. Sullivan spent years interviewing Lella, who is still alive, other survivors, and poring through archives to authenticate this breathtaking saga. Lella guides Jews over the Alps to Switzerland and safety, and even becomes the personal driver of a Nazi major general, passing along crucial secrets to the Allied high command.

Replete with narrow escapes, inspiring triumphs and tragic loss, and set within the scope of world-shaking events, in terms of how it affected me this is one of the great books I've ever read. It affirms that one person can make a difference for the good against great odds, and preserves the memory of many who deserve to be remembered, quite a few of whom gave their lives opposing one of the greatest evils the world has ever seen.

While reading the book I thought often about what a tremendous movie it would make. I've checked and found that the movie rights have been acquired by Pascal Pictures, with actor Tom Holland slated to play Pino Lella. I can't wait to see it! But in the meantime, I urge you to read the book. It's one you'll not soon forget.

Mueller Implies Trump Guilty of Obstruction

From the Washington Post:

Standing alone on stage in a room used for press conferences on the Justice Department’s seventh floor, Mueller said that if his office “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” and noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president of wrongdoing.”

Mueller noted that his team found “insufficient evidence” to accuse Trump’s campaign of conspiring with Russia to tilt the 2016 election, but emphasized they did not make a similar determination on whether the president obstructed justice.

But if Mueller was trying to suggest Democrats could initiate impeachment proceedings, he also seemed to dash any hopes they might have had of doing so with him as their star witness. The special counsel — who noted he was closing up shop and formally resigning from the Justice Department — said he hoped the news conference would be his last public comments, and if he were compelled to testify before Congress, he would not speak beyond what he wrote in his 448-page report.

For the whole story, click here.

My Take:

Mueller was careful also to say Justice Dept. guidelines do not allow an indictment of a sitting president, and that to make an accusation against someone who could not then defend himself in court would not be fair. He is saying the president is guilty of obstruction of justice, that he cannot be criminally indicted for it while president, and congress can impeach if they want to do something about it. Congress should begin an impeachment inquiry without further delay.

Republican Abortion Bans Give Democrats Major Opening for 2020

Women. They were the biggest factor in allowing Democrats to flip 40 seats and gain control of the House of Representatives in 2018. If the Democrats are to win in 2020, women are the constituency most likely to provide the margin of victory. Republicans lost them by 12 points in 2016 and by nearly 20 in 2018. If that happens again in 2020 Trump won't get re-elected. The run of abortion bans being passed by GOP legislatures might be really popular in Alabama but plays right into our hands in swing states. Read this article showing just how unpopular a total ban on abortions is nationally. 

A successful Democratic campaign must pound women's liberty, in addition to health, education and jobs.

Will Trump Have to Release His Tax Returns?

We are about to find out whether any truth remains in the statement of principle carved into the facade above the entrance to the US Supreme Court Building: EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. With Democrats now in the majority in the House of Representatives, President Trump is about to be subjected to the kind of scrutiny lacking under the previous Republican-controlled House.

In one such case, moves are underway to get Trump to do something every president has done voluntarily since the days of Nixon: show the American people his tax returns. Section 6301(f)(1) of the tax code is unequivocal in its authority. It states:

"Upon written request from the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives...the (Treasury) Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request..."

The current Ways and Means Chairman, Congressman Richard Neal of Massachusetts, has sent such a request to IRS through Treasury. It comprises the past six years of Trump's personal taxes, from years 2013 through 2018, and the returns of eight of his companies. Note that there is no uncertainty or ambiguity in the statute. The chairman can request "any" return. The Secretary of the Treasury "shall furnish" the returns or information requested.

That hasn't stopped Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, a Trump appointee, from refusing to comply. The committee deadline for receiving the documents was April 10. Instead, Mnuchin returned a message to Congressman Neal referring to "serious issues concerning the constitutional scope of Congressional investigative authority, the legitimacy off the asserted legislative purpose, and the constitutional rights of American citizens." In other words, to him, the plain letter of the law is meaningless. The Trump Administration will fight the request, tie things up in the courts, and attempt to run out the clock on transparency until after the 2020 election, the end of Trump's projected second term, or likely in perpetuity if possible.

So, does the clear wording of the law have any meaning, or does the fact one is president nullify any obligation to adhere to it? In the coming months we will get a clear answer to that question, along with a good indication of whether we are still a republic, or are evolving into something else.

Intriguing New Presidential Candidate

Here is a possibility for the new, charismatic face many Democrats have been looking for in the Democratic 2020 presidential field. Pete Buttigieg (pronounced Bootajedge) has surged to the top rank in the polls and trails only Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris in the amount of money raised through small contributions so far. The South Bend, Ind. mayor appeared on "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell" recently and was, I felt, pretty impressive. This isn't an endorsement; I'm tentatively supporting Sen. Harris, but Mayor Pete merits a look.  Watch the interview linked below if you have some time. It's 15 minutes.

watch

First Take on Mueller Report

So now at least Attorney General William Barr's summary of the Mueller Report is before us. It was far-fetched to think Trump himself actually was on Putin's email list sending instructions to Vladimir's Moscow troll farm. That's the bar Trump set and from which he declares total vindication. I never expected that to be discovered, and I'm sure you didn't either. Numerous other obstruction events took place, though perhaps in Mueller's view not necessarily rising to the level of prosecutable--though not necessarily not, either, according to Barr's summary. He is neither indicted nor exonerated on those, according to Barr's summary of Mueller's report. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of probity, but it's not immediately getting cuffed, either.

So Trump can declare victory, and of course, he has. Hopefully now the Democratic investigations in the House can proceed with a tinge less breathless publicity, which is just how we and Speaker Nancy Pelosi want it. If they find damning evidence of a character serious enough to impress 20 Republican senators (the number that would need to vote for conviction were Trump to be impeached by the House and tried in the Senate) then all well and good. If not then let the 2020 election proceed on the lines of the issues, and let us get out our base and the moderate suburbanites whom Trump disgusts and the educated folks who are appalled, and women, along with an effective enough appeal to working class whites to get a few of them back (health care, social security, medicare, education, job training, some cultural sensitivity) and win the election on its merits. Trump hasn't actually accomplished much of anything that doesn't primarily help the wealthy and corporations.

If Reagan was the "Teflon President" Trump is the "Houdini President" for his escapes from conduct and predicaments that would have sunk any other politician.