Tag Archives: Kushner

… A Man Unacquainted With Honor, Courage, And Character ….

2 Replies

Writers are often advised to begin their work with a powerful sentence that will be remembered. Some of those come readily to mind. Charles Dickens gave us an entire paragraph:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way….

Herman Melville was more succinct. The first line of the novel’s story is:

Call me Ismael.

Whether the first paragraph of the Prologue in Liz Cheney’s Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning is of equal standing, I leave to the judgment of others:

This is the story of the moment when American democracy began to unravel. It is the story of the men and women who fought to save it, and of the enablers and collaborators whose actions ensured the threat would grow and metastasize. It is the story of the most dangerous man ever to inhabit the Oval Office, and of the many steps he took to subvert our Constitution.

The title to this post is found near the end of Cheney’s book. The full paragraph:

One leader ceding power to the next, gracious in defeat, pledging unity for the good of the nation – that is what is required by fidelity to the Constitution and love of country. We depend upon the goodwill of our leaders and their dedication to duty to ensure the survival of our republic. Only a man unacquainted with honor, courage, and character would see weakness in this.

That man is Donald Trump.

To be clear, I abhor most of Liz Cheney’s views on politics and public policy. But her book is, I believe, required reading for everyone interested in understanding more deeply the events leading up to, through, and after the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The writing is fluid, clear and pulls no punches. It is an easy read in the sense of flow. And deeply disturbing. Much of it will not be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the nation’s politics since 2015 or so, but there is much new information and important detail. It is, I believe, entirely true. If you can stand the truth, you must read it.

I am not going to digest all the details here. Instead, I have chosen to highlight some of the lies told by some of the key players in the story Cheney tells with clarity and effect. The lies are organized by the people who told them. The list also includes some, though far from all, of the traitorous conduct of Trump and his enablers in Congress and elsewhere. It is important in the most fundamental sense that we record and understand the full extent of the mendacity, dishonesty, treachery and outright treason of Trump and his promoters.

Donald Trump –

(1) on November 9 Trump fired Mark Esper, his Secretary of Defense and appointed Chris Miller, described by Cheney as “quite possibly the least-qualified nominee to become secretary of defense since the position was created in 1947;”

(2) The next day Trump appointed Kash Patel, with zero military experience, as Miller’s chief of staff, and Douglas MacGregor, a pro-Putin propagandist, as Miller’s senior advisor;

(3) Nov. 17, 2020, Trump fired Chris Krebs director of Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency for having the temerity to assert that the election was secure; a Trump lawyer publicly said Krebs should be killed; no action was taken against him;

(4) Trump tried to co-op the Justice Department by replacing Jeff Rosen with compliant Jeffrey Clark as Acting Attorney General & only backed down when faced with threats of mass resignations;

(5) Trump supporters directed death threats at Liz Cheney and others who pursued the truth about Trump’s involvement in the January 6 attacks;

(6) Evidence that Trump’s plan to reject the election outcome was advance-planned and fully premeditated was overwhelming;

(7) flatly declared that the election fraud he claimed to exist, but knew did not, was sufficient grounds to suspend the law and the Constitution;

(8) Trump organizations paid for legal representation for Cassidy Hutchinson, among others. Her lawyer disobeyed her instructions and suggested she could simply “not remember” certain key pieces of information when testifying.

Kevin McCarthy – a California Republican, was elected to the House in 2007 and became the 55th Speaker in January 2023, a short-lived experience as he was ousted by his party in October 2023.

(1) McCarthy, like Trump himself, was fully aware that typical voting patterns would make it appear Trump was in the lead at the end of Election Day and that later counting of legitimate absentee and mail-in ballots could change the early result. Nevertheless, on November 5 McCarthy appeared on Fox News to declare that Trump won the election. When questioned about this the next day, McCarthy lied and denied he had said the election was stolen;

(2) McCarthy lied about whether he would sign a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Trump’s false election theft claims and stating the signers had specific proof of that theft;

(3) When Congress overrode Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, in 2020, McCarthy announced he would never vote to override a veto by a president of his own party;

(4) When pressed by House Republicans to explain his position on whether it was proper to object to the counting of Electoral College votes on January 6, McCarthy refused to answer;

(5) Even after Trump’s call to Georgia’s Secretary of State Raffensperger to demand that he “find” sufficient votes to change the election outcome, McCarthy announced he would be objecting to the election results;

(6) McCarthy falsely assured members of Congress that security measures were in place to provide for their safety on January 6;

(7) McCarthy joined Eric Trump in threatening first-term members of Congress they would be primaried if they did not actively object to the certification of Biden’s victory;

(8) McCarthy lied to Cheney about his position when the certification process resumed; he said he would oppose further objections, but that was not true;

(9) McCarthy joined Whip Scalise and 137 House Republicans in voting to object to electoral votes in Pennsylvania and Arizona; seven Republican senators did the same: Cruz, Hawley, Hyde-Smith, Kennedy, Lummis, Marshall, Scott, and Tuberville;

(10) On January 11, McCarthy proposed options to impeaching Trump for his actions on January 6;

(11) McCarthy’s continued support for Trump, combined with Trump’s own rhetoric, instilled fear of physical attack against the person and families of any Republican voting to impeach Trump;

(12) McCarthy initially purported to support the legislation establishing the January 6 National Commission, but his support was withdrawn;

(13) On January 25, as the articles of the second Trump impeachment were being sent to the Senate, McCarthy said on Fox News that the impeachment was “a farce,” and reversed prior statements about the January 6 events;

(14) McCarthy traded support for Trump to get access to fundraising sources Trump controlled;

(15) McCarthy lied in claiming that the social media platform Parler, used by the Proud Boys to coordinate their January 6 attack, had been shut down merely because it was conservative;

(16) McCarthy negotiated with Democrats to establish an evenly divided commission to investigate January 6; got everything he asked for, then withdrew his support for the legislation;

(17) Having declined the opportunity to appoint Republicans to the January 6 Select Committee, McCarthy then disingenuously claimed the Committee was deficient because purely partisan.

Mark Meadows –

(1) to cover for Trump, and himself, refused to testify about messages related to Trump’s actions on January 6 that were not covered by any privilege;

(2) worked with Congressman Scott Perry to try to replace leadership at DOJ with people that would do Trump’s bidding without question;

(3) Lied when claiming that Trump had ordered National Guard troops to be on alert for January 6 trouble;

(4) Lied about Trump’s intention to go to the Capitol with the mob on January 6.

Rep. Jim Jordan –

(1) during the Republican leadership call on November 6, Jordan was not interested in discussing procedures and laws about challenging votes. He said: “The only thing that matters is winning;”

(2) During the attack on the Capitol, Jordan was in communication with Trump & plotting how to prevent counting of the electoral votes;

(3) refused to comply with a subpoena for testimony from the January 6 Select Committee, placing his loyalty to Trump ahead of his oath of office;

(4) praised the Department of Justice for investigating the January 6 attack, arguing that the House Select Committee was thus unnecessary, then claimed DOJ was being “weaponized” against Trump;

(5) almost certainly lied to the Congress about his conversations with Trump during which Trump said to instructed the then-Acting Deputy Attorney General to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert – sued VP Pence seeking a ruling Pence could refuse to count some electoral votes on January 6. When the suit was dismissed, Gohmert said that the only option left was violence in the streets.

Rep. Mike Johnston –destined to replace McCarthy as Speaker,

(1) circulated a “friend of the court” brief to support Trump’s false election claims while lying to Republican representatives about the contents of the brief that “made numerous false factual and constitutional claims;”

(2) when the Supreme Court rejected Texas’ lawsuit challenging the 2020 results in four states won by Biden, Johnston declared that the “rule of law” was dead;

(3) on January 5, declared that, despite being fully aware of multiple court decisions to the contrary, four states had violated the Constitution & Republicans would be voting to reject their designated electors;

(4) joined other Republican members in claiming power found nowhere in the Constitution to overturn the election but only in the five key states Biden won;

Katrina Pearson – senior advisor to the Trump campaign, at a December 2020 rally in Washington urged the crowd to “fight like patriots,” arguing that the entire government had been “weaponized against us.” Multiple speakers, including Trump-pardoned former general Michael Flynn, suggested there was some action the people could take that would change the election result.

Former General Michael Flynn –

(1) on December 17, 2021, in an interview on Newsmax, said Trump had authority to seize voting machines and could use the military to force a redo of the election in the swing states he lost;

(2) pleaded the 5th Amendment rather than answer questions from the January 6 Committee about his communications with Trump;

(3) Pleaded the 5th Amendment when asked whether he believed in the peaceful transition of power in the United States.

Senator Ted Cruz on January 2, 2021, led a group of Republican Senators announcing they would object to electors from “disputed states,” citing zero evidence to support “unprecedented allegations” of fraud and other unspecified irregularities. Cruz had coordinated the plan with Mark Meadows in the Trump White House.

Jenna Ellis — one of Trump’s lawyers

(1) announced on a January 4 call that seven states had “dueling slates of electors,” a legally impossible state of affairs since the authentic elector slates had already been certified by their respective governors;

(2) claimed, without evidence, that those seven states had violated their own election laws.

Freedom Caucus Members – even after being told in detail of the injuries suffered by Capitol Police on January 6, the Freedom Caucus Republicans persisted in pressing objections to certification of the election;

Rep. Andrew Clyde — lied to first-term Republican congressmen on January 8, claiming Republican leadership had decided Trump had not incited the January 6 violence.

Senator Mitch McConnell – helped sabotage the legislation to create an independent commission to investigate January 6.

Leader of Wyoming Republican Party – was a member of the Oath Keepers who participated in the January 6 attack.

21 Republican House Members – voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to police who defended the Capitol on January 6.

Rep. Jim Banks (Republican – Indiana) – falsely claimed to be the Ranking Member of the Selected January 6 Committee to which he had never been appointed.

Steve Bannon — knew about Trump’s plan, even before the election, to lie that the election was stolen; Trump’s plan was premeditated.

Ronna McDaniel – Republican National Committee Chair

(1) agreed to pay many of Trump’s legal bills to fight the charges related to January 6;

(2) actively helped Trump assemble and activate fake slates of electors in states Biden won.

John Eastman – attorney for Trump

(1) crafted and promoted a plan for overturning the 2020 election even while admitting that the Supreme Court would reject the legal principle on which the plan was based;

(2) Pleaded the 5th Amendment 100 times when interviewed by the January 6 Committee;

(3) Sued the January 6 Committee to prevent its examination of Eastman’s emails related to the January 6 scheme to overturn the election; the court found his legal theories specious and the plan unlawful; Eastman did not appeal.

Jeffrey Clark – slated to be installed as head of DOJ to do Trump’s bidding in overturning the election, pleaded the 5th Amendment in testimony before the January 6 Committee.

Ronnie Jackson – Trump’s physician in the White House, later elected to Congress from Texas, refused to testify to explain why the Oath Keepers were talking about him by name during the January 6 attack.

Jared Kushner –

(1) admitted he participated in pushing lies about the outcome of the 2020 election;

(2) dismissed White House lawyers’ threats to resign as merely “whining,” not to be taken seriously,

Kayleigh McEnany – Trump’s White House Press Secretary, twisted herself in knots and likely lied when asserting memory failures about information other White House staff admitted to and that she almost certainly knew at the time.

Ginni Thomas – wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and aggressive promoter of lies about the election, rejected the findings of the 60 courts that considered Trump’s claims of election fraud; she simply refused to believe the truth.

Senator Tom Cotton – actively supported Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

Rep. Scott Perry – actively worked to support Trump’s effort to replace DOJ leadership with Jeffrey Clark who would do Trump’s bidding regarding the false claim of election fraud.

There is much more to the full narrative. Cheney’s book should be read by everyone who believes in the U.S. Constitution and that Trump must be held accountable for his many crimes.

MUELLER REPORT PART I – TRUMP CANOODLING WITH RUSSIA – D

Leave a reply

D. The Curious Handling of the Trump Tower Meeting

Jared Kushner in fact received information about Clinton offered by Dimitri Simes, the head of a Washington think-tank, but didn’t find it useful due to its apparent staleness. The alleged source of the information was apparently not interviewed by Mueller – WHY NOT?  I-MR 108-110. Kushner never seemed to be concerned about the issue of Russian sourcing and was all too happy to meet with everyone claiming to have dirt on Clinton. I-MR 108, n. 651

Like Kushner, Trump Jr. was happy to meet with Russians in Trump Tower to get dirt on Clinton.  Trump himself, as usual, claimed to have no knowledge of the meeting and, not surprisingly, Mueller uncovered no documents indicating otherwise. I-MR 110. The Russian attorney could not produce hard evidence of Clinton wrongdoing and the Campaign then lost interest in her claims. I-MR 110

The Mueller-reported record on Trump Tower is very thin. Much of the most important information about the Trump Tower meeting appears to be redacted because it was collected through Grand Jury testimony. I-MR 110-112 Yet this is one of the most obvious cases of overt willingness of high-ranked Campaign officials to use Russian sources to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. Why was the Grand Jury the chosen instrument for investigating this crucial meeting since it would have been known by Mueller’s team that it was going to withhold the resulting testimony from public disclosure?

Rob Goldstone was then a music/events promoter and the publicist for a Russian businessman with ties to Putin. It was Goldstone who proposed the Trump Tower meeting by email to Trump Jr.  The email proposing the Trump Tower meeting refers to “Rhona” by first name only. I-MR 113. This is a reference to Rhona Graff, long- time assistant to Donald Trump, who was apparently well-known to Goldstone. THAT fact was not discussed or explained in Mueller Report.  WHY NOT? Why/how was Goldstone so familiar with Rhona Graff???

On June 6/7, Trump Jr. and Emin Agalarov (Russian real estate developer and pop singer) had “multiple brief calls,” I-MR 114, but no indication is given in the Report about what was discussed. Trump Jr. announced the meeting regarding dirt on Clinton at a regular meeting of senior Campaign staff and Trump family members, sourcing the information to Russia. Yet again, the Trump team had memory failure regarding their knowledge of the Tower meeting. I-MR 115. Trump Jr denied he had told Trump about the meeting.

WHAT are the chances that such a momentous event, as it then appeared, would not have been communicated to Trump? Of course, Manafort, Kushner and Trump himself claimed not to recall Trump being made aware of the upcoming meeting. I-MR 116. Cohen, on the other hand, understood from the tenor of the conversation that Trump had been told. I-MR 115. Trump’s general history is that he rules with an iron hand, a fact that suggests it is extremely unlikely that the possibility of acquiring killer information about his election rival would not have been communicated to him beforehand.

Trump announced on June 7 he would give a major speech the following week, likely on Monday, June 13, on “all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons,” but after the June 9 meeting, the subject was changed to national security. Trump, in his written answers to Mueller’s questions. claimed this was because of the Pulse nightclub shootings that occurred on June 12.

Mueller gives him the benefit of the doubt on this without discussing how the subject was changed and a speech prepared on one day’s notice. Trump’s written responses also claimed that the original speech was planned based on publicly available information and was in fact delivered on June 22.  I-MR 116. Such after-the-fact rationalizations deserve little credence in light of the circumstances surrounding these events and the consistent history of attempts by multiple Campaign officials to cover up or minimize the significance of contacts with Russians.

Trump Jr refused to be interviewed about the Trump Tower meeting – all other participants were interviewed except Veselnitskaya herself, she being the Russian lawyer that purportedly had the dirt on Clinton. I-MR 117.  The Report shows many Grand Jury-based redactions about what transpired at the Trump Tower meeting. Kushner left early because the promised dirt was not delivered, calling it a “waste of time.”  I-MR 118. The clear implication is that if the dirt had been forthcoming Kushner would have been pleased to accept and use it. But Veselnitskaya appeared to have nothing of substance on Clinton. Or, she was holding it back to see what leverage she could get before disclosure.

Since neither Veselnitskaya nor Trump Jr were interviewed, it is impossible to conclude that this dance with the devil was prematurely ended with no crime and no foul. In any case, this seems to be a clear case of attempted coordination. Why Mueller declined to say that remains unexplained.

In a July 2017 interview, Trump Jr, ever the law-abiding citizen, made no apologies about his role in the Trump Tower meeting, claiming he should have been able to hear what was being proposed, then consult with counsel, etc. regarding what to do next. I-MR 119. This is a perfect example of the son mimicking his father in making after-the-fact claims of honesty when his prior attempts at dishonesty have been exposed.

When public coverage of the Trump Tower meeting surfaced in July 2017, lawyers for the Trump Organization tried to engineer statements from Rob Goldstone that exonerated Trump Jr of any wrongful act or intention. Goldstone declined to issue the statements. I-MR 122.

Again, it is difficult to understand the full picture because of so many Grand Jury-based redactions, but it is highly doubtful that the lawyers were acting on their own initiative without consulting their client(s). If they in fact did act on their own, there should be no grounds for withholding information on grounds of attorney-client privilege. Again, a road not traveled by the SCO for reasons not made clear.

Next: Evidence of Conspiracy Everywhere But No Conspiracy?

The Sound of Fear, Starring the Trump Family Deniers

Leave a reply

The latest revelation about the collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is about a meeting attended by the campaign manager Manafort, Trump Son No. 1, Donald Jr., and Trump-in-Law Jared Kushner. I won’t waste your time with the details which were first reported by the New York Times, a newspaper of global fame to which the Trump family has been notably hostile. Maybe not a good move on their part.

I want instead to focus on the narrative that the Trump Family, and its enablers like Kellyanne Conway, have tried to spin in response to the now-admitted meeting whose stated-in-advance purpose was to secure dirt on Hillary Clinton that was sourced in the Russian government. That narrative has a familiar ring as it seems to follow almost exactly the concept of “alternative pleading” that law students learn about in courses on trial practice.

The idea of alternative pleading is that since, in the early stages of a lawsuit, you don’t know for sure how things are going to play out, you, as the defendant accused of some wrongdoing are entitled by rules of court to plead alternative defenses, including defenses that are inconsistent with each other. The evidence will then show what it shows and some defenses will fail while others may succeed. To some extent it resembles the old saw about throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

To illustrate, suppose a lawsuit is filed against D claiming D’s conduct was the proximate cause of injury to plaintiff P resulting in damages of X amount, which P therefore is entitled to recover from D. D’s typical first step is to move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. That is, in simple English, even if everything alleged by P is true, there was nothing wrong with D’s conduct and thus the suit should be dismissed. A “fake suit” in current Trumpian parlance.

Kellyanne Conway, among others, has made this precise argument: even if Junior was seeking dirt on Clinton, this is politics and there was nothing wrong with seeking such dirt that might help the Trump campaign. But this argument ignores the fact that the source of the information was the Russian government, which suggests conspiracy with a foreign power to affect the outcome of an American election. Most rational people consider that seriously wrong, possibly criminally wrong.

So, what next? Faced with the revelations about Junior’s meeting, to which he has confessed publicly via the Family’s chosen medium, Twitter, the Trump Family Deniers change the tune, moving toward classical alternative pleading. First, the story was “there was no such meeting,” Then, if there was a meeting, I didn’t attend it. But if I did attend a meeting, it was a waste of time because we didn’t learn anything with which to smear Clinton so I left the meeting empty-handed. So, even if I did attend the meeting with the intention to do harm to Clinton, no harm to Clinton arose from my conduct, so everything is okeydokey. No harm, no foul. Finally, even if there were some harm, we were just amateurs at politics so we can and should be forgiven our sins and let bygones be ….

In a lawsuit, this sort of stairway to the basement approach is perfectly acceptable practice and the Trump Family Deniers’ playbook appears to follow it quite closely. The problem, of course, is that this is not a lawsuit, not yet anyway.

Instead, it is the early-to-middle stage of investigation into one of the greatest scandals in the history of American politics. One of the singular features of the scandal is that, from the very outset, during the campaign itself, Trump made no secret of his desire for assistance from Russia among others and no secret of his desire to buddy-up with Vladimir Putin (who will be featured in my next blog post). At the same time. Trump repeatedly denied there was any connection between him and Putin or between his campaign and anyone connected with the Russian government. His fame as liar-in-chief, thoroughly documented by many observers, led many to suspect that the denials were false.

Slowly but surely, more revelations of contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign have emerged.  All the while Trump and his enablers, including Attorney General Sessions as well as several family members and key campaign players, have denied there is anything there. Their stories have changed over time, of course, as new revelations undermine the previous denials. This is starkly shown by the latest stories about Junior and Kushner meeting with a promised source of incriminating evidence on Clinton.

Even if it is true that the Russian lawyer with whom Junior/Kushner/Manafort met did not actually have any useful information and was really trying to influence Trump on the issue of adopting Russian children or to blunt the move to increase U.S. sanctions on Russia, the fact remains, and at this point appears to be undeniable and undenied, that the purpose of the gathering, from Junior’s point of view, was to seek Russian help in the battle with Clinton. And, of course, he wants everyone to believe that the President knew nothing of the meeting.

So craven are the enablers of the Trump Family Deniers that Ed Rogers, in an op-ed in the Washington Post this morning, http://wapo.st/2uaPmNy, singing the familiar tune “hysteria among the media,” argues that,

No senior campaign official, much less a family member of the candidate, should take such a meeting. Having the meeting was a rookie, amateur mistake. Between human curiosity and a campaign professional’s duty to get the dirt when you can, Trump Jr. likely felt that the person had to be heard. However, the meeting should have been handed off to a lackey. Said lackey would have then reported the scoop — or lack thereof — and awaited further instruction. [emphasis added]

What can one say after that? A fair reading of it, I suggest, is (1) perfect execution of “we were just amateurs at politics” defense, and (2) in a play right out of the Godfather, never send anyone from the family to do the dirty work and leave fingerprints; send in one of the stooge soldiers who can be sacrificed if necessary to protect the family, (3) seeking dirt from dirty sources like the Russian government is just good political fun, so what’s the problem?

This “win at any cost” mentality may be part of what led Trump to confess to Lester Holt in the now famous interview that he was going to fire FBI Director Comey because of Comey’s pursuit of the Trump-Russia connection regardless of what the leadership of the Department of Justice recommended. Trump and his very very rich family are accustomed to getting their way without arguments and if you do argue, you’re fired.

Maybe I’m being naïve about politics but I continue to struggle with understanding how the Republican Party can continue to support this president, given that he has no real connection to conservative political values that have driven the Republican Party historically and is making a complete hash of the office of the President. He has accomplished nothing of positive significance since taking office six months ago while destroying international relationships that have sustained world peace for decades. More about this in the next post.