MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.
Comments
Seems Robert Costa wanted in on the WaPo Friday night dump, so ... tada!
by barefooted on Fri, 05/26/2017 - 8:05pm
OKAY! So! What are the rules about President's not having to turn over campaign documents? They are not presidential documents, after all. Um but Watergate was about....
I would think all those campaign staffers wil have nice kindling for their Memorial Day bonfires from shredded docs? What's to stop them? Who's watching them? Less paper for the Trump Presidential Library, no big loss there.
Note last line says
A White House spokesperson had no immediate comment.
Who the heck are we going to get to spin the Sunday shows? Kellyanne?
Where's the Wolraich stopwatch?
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/26/2017 - 8:30pm
Yeah - another one of those Dag polls for who the tires hit first. I'm not really wondering who anymore, though, more like when and how many? Is Jared safe? Hell, at this point I wouldn't put it past Ivanka to toss him to the curb if it meant saving Daddy and the Trump family name/fortune.
by barefooted on Fri, 05/26/2017 - 8:58pm
I was thinking sort of different from the "toss him to the curb" scenario. He doesn't really have an official position at the White House, so there's nothing really to fire him from. You just say he's got to go back to his real estate work and can't advise at the White House anymore. And he advises anyway.
He's family. Think first ladies. You know, that got me thinking about if Hillary had won, there would be.all kinds of commotion about what Bill was advising her. We've always had presidential spouses willing to give up their careers. That might be more unlikely in the future.
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 7:12am
P.S. The term "kitchen cabinet" came to mind and I looked it up on wikipedia and got a surprise: it was coined to apply to advisors that Andrew Jackson used after he purged his own "parlor" or official, cabinet.
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 7:18am
Artappraiser...
I've always found this little gem quite telling . . .
Reagan and Holmes Tuttle. The man who led Reagan's "kitchen cabinet" was a car salesman right here in Southern California.
And the rest was history...
~OGD~
by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 12:11am
Always glad to see more proof for my initial horror that a B-movie actor became president. Especially since I often get pushback on that along the lines of: oh but he was a successful governor, and had great political leadership sills getting there. What some people call political leadership skills in this case, I tended to think: nah, just ability to schmooze with the guys. So the used car salesman thing fits. Alas, lots of people buy used cars from used car salesman....
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 11:16am
Yes, campaign staff quite busy copying or shredding or whatever:
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 10:40am
One interesting point of many in this evening's WaPo installment of the greatest story ever leaked bit by bit:
Does this not basically admt that some variety of Feds were monitoring the Trump tower apt. for Russian communications?
So like when Trump says: Obama was bugging me....
But it's so strangely worded, maybe it's intercepts of those communications by another country or entity that were later shared with U.S. Intel?
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/26/2017 - 8:13pm
I'm guessing that Kislyak was in touch with Moscow at some point after the meeting in Trump Tower with Kushner. You know, kinda one of those you won't believe this! conversations ...
by barefooted on Fri, 05/26/2017 - 8:51pm
Barefoot is correct. The information came from "intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials." Further, "Neither the meeting nor the communications of Americans involved were under U.S. surveillance, officials said."
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 05/26/2017 - 9:44pm
Per Seth Abramson (who hates Louise Mensch, BTW), within 5 days of Kushner (Trump) asking for a secret back channel Russia signed its biggest oil deal ever. Here's his well laid out synopsis from 2 months ago
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 1:24am
Abramson's summary of what we do know about this secret meeting at Trump Tower.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 1:36am
doh! I should read more carefully.
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 6:49am
The Hill has put up
Trump and Russia: A timeline on communications
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 10:29am
And:
Ex-CIA Director: CIA would consider Kushner actions 'espionage'
05/27/17 08:01 AM EDT (it's quoting John McLaughin on MSNBC last night, with video)
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 10:33am
The defense is already out, it's the classic:
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 10:46am
They haven't come up with much of anything - yet - as a defense for the back channel request ... but they're trying?? Sorta?
by barefooted on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 11:55am
It's a really strange answer to give to that question, isn't it?
How many people can credibly say that they had so many phone calls that they can't quite remember if there was one where they asked the Russian ambassador if they could become their double agent?
I mean, that's a phone call most of us would be pretty certain we did not make. But, ok maybe Jared doesn't, but then what kind of insanity was going on in the other 1000 calls?
by Obey on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 12:47pm
lawyers advise saying it all the time, all the time, for all kinds of things. how can anyone prove what you remember and what you forgot?
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 12:49pm
Sure, but if you are not in a position to come up with a wording which qualifies as some sort of a fig-leaf denial, then it's a sign you are really really screwed.
by Obey on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 12:56pm
Yes. I would say it implies guilt in most cases. Unless you are a bimbo type where it's believable, for political appearances or if not in politics, just one's professional reputation, it really sucks, mho, Close to taking the fifth.
The intent is to keep you from being sued or put in jail. When lawyers advise that, it's up to you to judge whether it's worth the hit you have to take to your rep, they don't care about the downside to your rep, how it looks, that's your problem. They get upset any time you say anything at all, even if you are confident you can be convincing by explaining. It's part of the poker game they play: they always want the other side to say more first, so that they know what they got in their hand.
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 1:26pm
Haberman and Thrush over @ NYTimes have published what they know about what's up:
Trump Returns to Crisis Over Kushner as White House Tries to Contain It
including that Trump himself is tending to lawyering up:
and Kushner, is playing it like he's staying but there's no guarantee he'll stay if it starts to hurt too much::
There's a lot more, it's a long piece, including more about lawyers and about struggling to change the White House communications to keep Trump from basically incriminating himself with his shoot from the hip habits, hah....
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 2:30pm
If I were newly arrived from Mars I´d think it was just common sense for a trusted subordinate-actually the son in law of the incoming President- to explore setting up a back channel to the leader of the most powerful adversary. Particularly when the incoming Pres as a candidate claimed as a ¨selling point ¨ that he´d be
better able to communicate with that adversary
Not having actually recently arrived from outer space - no matter what anyone says- I understand the rational objections to having ¨more than¨ one president at a time¨. But my guess is majority of the Trumpites will consider Kushner´s gambit at worst yawn-worthy and more likely just the kind of thing they hoped for from Donnie.
by Flavius on Sat, 05/27/2017 - 11:17pm
So it's just the timing? The request would have been fine after the inauguration?
Am I wrong in assuming that the aim of communicating via Russian-secured comms equipment was to avoid the state foreign policy establishment being able to sabotage his efforts to reconfigure US alliances towards Russia and away from the EU/Nato? That is obviously not illegal, and was something Trump campaigned on. What seems problematic is that they are doing it in order to get a few hundred million dollars (or is it a few billion now) in loans from Russian banks and condo purchases by Russian mafia types. Nice deal if you can get it. Or is this understanding completely off base?
by Obey on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 7:16am
Sorry, but in early December Trump was president-elect, not president, and Jared Kushner was officially nobody, especially since they're claiming went rogue, was not just following Donald's orders, so circumventing official governmental sanctions through subterfuge with the enemy is certainly illegal.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 10:19am
I certainly hope it's more. Otherwise Jared gets formally accused of logan act transgression, gets pardoned and that's the end.
by Obey on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 10:34am
I agree with you, it's just one piece, Mueller has to prove more, bigger, wider.
Plus there's that iif it's proven that he did something very iffy but not personally illegal, he can come and go and make it appear like he's doesn't have power anymore when he does. Because: he's already part of a kitchen cabinet, no formal role, and it's accepted, Trump's not being told by Congress he can't have him.
That won't happen because: if Hillary got in, there would be Bill.
If we are going to start vetting presidents for what family members they will be close to, we will start opening whole new cans of worms.
Certainly from now on during campaigns, though, there should be a lot more questions along the lines of: who in your family are you going to bring to the White House to help advise you?
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 11:08am
I don't particularly care what happens to Jared, aside from the puerile enjoyment of seeing slop all over his pampered face. It already looks like he'll lose his security clearance.
I assume that any mess he's involved with goes far beyond a mere infraction of the Logan Act, and that it's going to rub off on Trump.
Trump can pardon him all he wants - and then Jared will have no fallback on not testifying due to the Fifth Amendment, as his past crimes will have been forgiven but not irrevocably secret.
And it is largely agreed that Trump can't pardon himself. My biggest concerns are 1) impeaching Trump, 2) impeaching Pence before he can become president, 3) impeaching or implicating Ryan so he can't take over, plus Sessions. That's a Hail Mary for sure, but not so far-fetched at this point, and if it happens the party will be so discredited it'll be hard for anything to rise from it for 5 years (I again hope).
As Heritage notes:
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 4:17pm
So what did I miss about Ryan being involved with the Russian mess, you must have seen that on Louise Mensch?
More seriously, on what grounds do you imagine impeaching Ryan?
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 4:57pm
Depends on how complicit he was with GOP using Russian-stolen data or abnegating duty to defend Constitution and follow up on threats in his "hee hee hee, DCCC got hacked and Trump's on the take" recording. I admit this #3 is a longer stretch at the moment, though there's quite a chance that that first recording was just a shot across the bow, and there are more embarrassing/compromising ones waiting.
MotherJones following up on WaPo:
Brilliant - first denied (covered up), then lame excuses given, all while the election is being hacked. These fuckers are too stupid for words - they're going down. And I'd hazard there's a lot worse to come. And no, this has little to nothing to do with Mensch. This is more like All the King's Men - enough stench to wake the dead.
"Yes, I knew the Russians had hacked the Democratic DCCC and gave it to us, but we only used the data a little bit, like in Florida and other swing states...." How will that play in Poughkeepsie (& DC)???
[and looks like the Sun-Sentinel can't differentiate between the DNC & DCCC... your media at work]
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 7:15pm
First thing I thought when I saw this headline was that these tweets were vetted by his lawyers (as WaPo and NYT articles suggest might happen soon), the lawyers said these would be okay:
Trump: Many leaks are 'fabricated lies' made up by 'fake news' media @ The Hill 05/28/17 08:47 AM EDT
I swear I have spent too much time talking to lawyers the last couple years....
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 12:47pm
Aside: Joe Scarborough not going to be a big fan of these tweets.
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 1:09pm
Good to keep in mind the big picture that the whole thing is going to proceed like a herd of turtles in a cloud of dust:
Mueller’s appointment complicates Congress’ Russia investigations
Lawmakers are eager to set up ‘deconfliction’ agreements with the new special counsel, but they have yet to meet with Mueller.
@ Politico.com, 05/28/2017 07:17 AM EDT
Ken Starr took forever, Watergate took eons.
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 1:16pm
Also I just heard legal eagle Jonathan Turley make a really good big picture comment on CNN:
What if all of this is a coverup without a crime?
I didn't catch the whole discussion, only this great phrase. If it's all for political appearances about conflict of interest, ethics, standards, etc., but a crime can't be proven. What is the result if that is the case? Lots of sturm and drang with no change, same old same old,Trump fans vs. everyone else. My first thought for Trump opponents is that it doesn't matter, because like Ken Starr et. al., where Clinton's work was delayed or stymied, same here?
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/28/2017 - 3:26pm
There´s no ¨there¨ , there.
Other than to us happy few who hate everything Trump, it just doesn´t seem like such a BFD.
Shouldn´t an incoming President be concerned about the welfare of the Country for which he´ll be responsible in 3 weeks? Shouldn´t he want to know what our principal antagonist is up to?
Logan/smogan. That seems like Act more honored in the breach than in the observance thereof.
Let´s put the turkey on the table :Trump wants to ¨cut taxes¨ ( translation: slash Obamacare and everything else ) destroy the EPA and Planned Parenthood , install a racist immigration policy.,reinstall a ¨lock em (i.e. blacks) up¨ justice policy, and undercut the stirring of the less- immoderate Iranians, emasculate the Paris accords. For starters.
And we should be complaining because 3 weeks before he officially takes office he wants to send messages to Putin with out the contents appearing in Obama´s next morning´s briefing? Talk about straining at a gnat!
What we´re actually doing is just making ourselves a bit ridiculous. And. thus undercutting our necessary critique of this disastrous (or at least intended to be so ) presidency.
by Flavius on Mon, 05/29/2017 - 1:41pm
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/29/2017 - 2:00pm
Oops, Republicans starting to ask questions...
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/29/2017 - 2:59pm
that's exactly what I have been watching for more than anything else since ike week two.
Was hoping Boehner's rant would help. The type of nudges to make them think again: are you really sure letting this jerk slide is good for your party much less your country?
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/29/2017 - 4:27pm
Now McCain's getting riled. Good times.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/30/2017 - 12:18am
Fox News more curious than usual. Rather detailed rundown.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/30/2017 - 12:36am
I had to look up "BFD". Once I did, made me think of how attacking the Clinton's judicially, including impeachment trial, did end up distracting the whole country and prevented execution of much agenda.. That said, where did the focus on attack, distraction, negativity and delay get the GOP in the end? They don't know what to do with power they gained because they haven't thought out any positive agenda for decades besides "cut taxes", and not even sure of the best way to do that.
I've read so many different poll results on what's known as "gridlock", which voters actually think it's good, which don't. It's hard to know...I do however, think that most Trump voters definitely fell for "drain the swamp and get some stuff done." Ever keeping in mind that they are not a majority and many of those who did come and vote for him wouldn't bother to come out for "a politician." And prosecuting politicians is usually fine with those types..and many are undoubtedly seeing that the emporer has no clothes....I'm so confused
Back to any legal case. Takeaway from Turley: don't get your hopes up. It's going to be tricky and take a long time (unless Mr. Trump has temper tantrum and says "take this job and shove it"). In the end, whatever happens, isn't it good that the media (and their leakers in aide) is doing its Fourth Estate work in constantly pointing at the possible criminality, malfeascence, ethics, conflict of interest, veniality, idiocy, incompetence, etc. etc. etc. Pound at it until everyone's sick to death, Though the attackees will shout "partisanship", it's not. And that will eventually sink in with enough swings, because it's the media, not the Dem partisans. So all that thought upon, seems to me that the best strategery that the Dems can have is to be dignified with the accusations, but focus on positive agenda sales. Not make the same mistakes the GOP did in the wilderness.
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/29/2017 - 2:45pm
Who knows if it'll take a long time or not - we're in uncharted waters. But we can make it as uncomfortable for him as we can, spur on that temper tantrum or heart attack or indictment or whatever it takes. Better Club Chaos for him than for us.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/29/2017 - 2:57pm
Sound advice.
by Flavius on Mon, 05/29/2017 - 11:02pm
This would be the Congressional committees. But I don't think Bob Mueller will be "doing nothing very well." So those GOP in Congress who want to do "nothing very well" as regards Trump misdeeds, in preference to proceeding with their own agenda(s)-- like repeal and replace Obamacare or whatever--they are going to have to deal with Mueller and media drumbeat on the investigation instead. Just like Dems had to deal with Ken Starr stuff during Clinton's second term instead of getting on with their agenda(s). They are torn between tending to the circus and the constituents yelling that they are not getting done what the promised to do. In the end, if it's bad, and there continues to be heavy interest from "the media" and "the people", the only smart choice is "okay, let's get it over with." All depends upon how much air it pulls out of the room.
Was the same argument that got Nixon to resign: standing firm and defending and dragging out process is just going to drag on a "long national nightmare".
Edit to add: I for one never thought Watergate crimes were that big of a deal, didn't give me the "outrage" factor, rather was like "just politicians doing dirty tricks that they always do." So the coverup was making a mountain out of a molehill. Even the mysteries didn't intrigue me for that reason. But happy to see Nixon dogged and then gone. Took too long though.
by artappraiser on Tue, 05/30/2017 - 11:23am
Hillary email server vs direct safe encrypted channel to Putin, America's enemy as "official member of transition team" for unspecified reasons - which is the bigger story? The former stayed in the headlines 1 1/2 years and cost her the election. I want payoff for the latter - off with their heads, said the Red Queen. (hat tip Peter). Nothing "ridiculous" about that.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/30/2017 - 1:07am
The Problem With Jared Kushner by THE EDITORIAL BOARD @ The New York Times, June 2
The president’s son-in-law, with a sprawling portfolio and no government experience, is in way over his head. And then there’s Russia.
I think the concluding paragraph is meant to poke him with pins where it might hurt the most: his future reputation in NYC:
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 5:09am
Historian Evan Thomas, biographer of RFK, has made the comparison with the JFK admin. in an op-ed in today's WaPo; like it or not, folks, it's out there now:
We may owe our lives to a back channel with Russia
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/03/2017 - 6:26pm