The Mueller Report: What IT says

The Mueller report on Russian intervention in the 2016 election
How does it answer some key questions about Russia’s intervention and the Trump campaign’s involvement therein?

If you haven't read through the whole 448 pages yourself, OR aren't particularly interested in what the left or the right say that it says, this is for you.

(Exact words of the report itself are italicized)

1)    What does the report conclude about Russian interference in the 2016 election?

Vol. I of the report leaves no doubt that the Russians interfered in a variety of ways to sow discord among Americans, but especially to hurt Clinton and to help Trump in the election. 

“Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations,”  (Vol. 1, p. 14 )

"Using fictitious U.S. personas, IRA employees operated social media accounts and group pages designed to attract U.S. audiences,"   "By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton."  (Vol. 1, p.  14)

2)    Was there collusion between the President and Russia regarding the election?

Well first, there is no such legal thing as “collusion.”  But moving on, the answer is No – at least not that rising to a criminal level.  The President and his campaign basically get a clean bill of health on this charge, to the surprise of many of his opponents. 

….collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute….. For that reason, this Office 's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion."  (Vol. I, pp. 180-181)

The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law- including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts,

….the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged , namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra . Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contacts described in Section IV above (Vol. I, p.181)

…the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos , and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government-or at its direction control, or request during the relevant time period. (Vol. I, p. 183)

…the Office considered whether two of those efforts in particular- the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower  ….. constituted prosecutable violations of the campaign-finance laws. The Office determined that the evidence was not sufficient to charge either incident as a criminal violation. (Vol. I, p. 184)

3)    Does that mean the President did nothing wrong regarding Russian and Wikileaks interference in the election?

Not exactly.  The report concludes that the Russians tried to coordinate with the Trump campaign, and that the campaign was interested in using Russian information.  As shown above (Vol. I, pp. 183 &184 of the report), there was evidence of wrong-doing, but not sufficient to charge the individuals.

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. (Vol. I, pp. 1 & 2)

The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA (Russia’s Internet Research Agency) and members of the Trump Campaign. (The investigation identified no similar connections between the IRA and the Clinton Campaign.) First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted-typically by linking, retweeting , or similar methods of reposting - pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts.  (Vol. I, p. 41)

According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.  …..shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming. (Vol. I, p. 54)

 “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and Its government's support for Mr. Trump.”  (Email to Trump Jr. from Goldstone) “….if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” (Trump Jr. reply to Goldstone, Vol. I, p. 113)

…the evidence of contacts between Campaign officials and Russia - affiliated individuals may not have been sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges, (Vol. I, p. 180)

4)    Were charges not brought because of the Department of Justice’s policy of not charging a sitting President?

In the case of conspiracy, this doesn’t seem to be a factor, but regarding obstruction it WAS a reason for not bringing charges against the President.  That’s another way of saying that if Donald Trump was not the President, it is more likely that criminal charges of obstruction might have been made against him. 

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."   “….we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” (Vol. II, Page 1)

“…we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.” (Vol. II, Page 2)

“Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges

can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a

speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An

individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In

contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,

affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.” (Vol. II, Page 2)

“…if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President

clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the

applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment… while this report does

not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. (Vol. II, Page 2

5)    Did the President obstruct the investigation?

There is a substantial amount of evidence that he did obstruct justice, but also possible alternative rationales for a number of the things he did.  Volume II of the report provides details of numerous instances when the President seems to have sought to obstruct the investigation.  The following are key examples:

Some evidence indicates that the President believed that the erroneous perception he was under investigation harmed his ability to manage domestic and foreign affairs, particularly in dealings with Russia…. Other evidence, however, indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign... The President also said he wanted to be able to tell his Attorney General "who to investigate."  (Vol. II, p. 76)

The initial reliance on a pretextual justification could support an inference that the President had concerns about providing the real reason for the firing, although the evidence does not resolve whether those concerns were personal, political, or both. (Vol. II, p. 77)

“….when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked.” (Vol. II, p. 78)

The evidence accordingly indicates that news that an obstruction investigation had been opened is what led the President to call McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated.  There also is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn…. suggest the President's awareness that the direction to McGahn could be seen as improper. (Vol. II, p. 90)

Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct. (Vol. II, p. 97)

The evidence establishes the President's substantial involvement in the communications strategy related to information about his campaign's connections to Russia and his desire to minimize public disclosures about those connections.  (Vol. II, p. 106)

“There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President's conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope…. A reasonable inference from those statements and the President's actions is that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation.”   (Vol. II, pp. 112 & 113)

“Substantial evidence exists that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President’s conduct towards the investigation.  (Vol. II, p. 120)

With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President's actions had the potential to influence Manafort's decision whether to cooperate with the government. The President and his personal counsel made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Mana fort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to "flip" and cooperate with the government. (Vol. II, p. 131)

* It is notable pro-Trump Fox News’ legal analyst Judge Napolitano on April 25, 2019 claimed that the President showed a clear pattern of “criminal obstruction of justice” based on the Mueller report.  https://www.aol.com/article/entertainment/2019/04/25/fox-news-judge-napolitano-mueller-report-shows-trump-obstructed-justice/23717457/ ) *

6)    Why did Special Counsel Robert Mueller not express an opinion on whether the President committed obstruction of justice?

Mueller could not fully establish intent, since Trump refused to fully answer all questions.  Also, he felt it was unfair to accuse the President since he could not be tried and thus would not have a chance to clear his name. 

“We noted, among other things, that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not “recall” or “remember” or have an “independent recollection” ’ of information called for by the questions. Other answers were ‘incomplete or imprecise.’ ”  

“We again requested an in-person interview, limited to certain topics….The President declined.” (Appendix C, Pages 1 & 2)

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct.  (Vol. II, p. 8)

“The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case,” he wrote. “A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”  (Vol. II, p. 10)

7)    Is there good reason to believe that Mueller and his deputies were “conflicted”, “angry Democrats”, or otherwise likely to be biased against the President? 

There is little reason to believe that the Special Counsel was “conflicted” or biased against Trump, as shown in the report itself.  Mueller is a life-long Republican, appointed by Republican presidents.  Regarding his staff, most (but apparently not all) are registered Democrats, though according to the non-partisan website Politifact.com, considering them “angry Democrats” is a judgment all.  Overall, Politifact rates the claim about Mueller’s staff as “half-true.”  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/21/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claims-about-Mueller/

“Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a total disgrace to the USA!”) Vol. II, Page 125

“In the days following the Special Counsel’s appointment, the President repeatedly told advisors, including Priebus, Bannon, and McGahn, that Special Counsel Mueller had conflicts of interest.  The President’s advisors pushed back on his assertion of conflicts…. Bannon recalled telling the President they were ‘ridiculous’ and that none of them was real or could come close to justifying precluding Mueller from serving as the Special Counsel.” (Vol. II, pp. 80 & 81)

“He (McGahn) and other advisors believed the asserted conflicts were ‘silly’ and ‘not real’ and they had previously communicated that view to the President.”  (Vol. II, p. 85)

8)    Did the White House “fully cooperate” with the investigation, as claimed by the Attorney General?

No.  Apart from all of the President’s attempts to discredit and end the investigation, as mentioned in 4) above, the President declined several requests to be interviewed by the Special Counsel.  Furthermore, Donald Trump Jr. also declined to be interviewed by the Special Counsel. 

“We also sought a voluntary interview with the President. After more discussion, the President declined to be interviewed.”  (Vol. II, p. 13)

9)    Did the investigation “spy” on the White House? 

No.  “Spy” is a term used by the White House and by the Attorney General, and implies improper action.  The investigation was fully authorized to investigate the White House and Trump’s campaign, and it did so lawfully. 

“Relying on "the authority vested" in the Acting Attorney General, "including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509,

510, and 515," the Acting Attorney General ordered the appointment of a Special Counsel "in

order to discharge [the Acting Attorney General 's] responsibility to provide supervision and

management of the Department of Justice , and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the

Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election."  (Vol. I, p. 11)

“…the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury , obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses ." 28 C.F.R . § 600.4(a). The authority to investigate "any matters that arose . .. directly from the investigation ," Appointment Order ,r (b)(ii), covers similar crimes that may have occurred during the course of the FBI's confirmed investigation before the Special Counsel's appointment. "If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, " the Order further provided, "the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters."  (Vol. I, p. 11)

10)           Did the investigation identify other wrongdoing by the President?

Yes.  It identified actions regarding conspiracy with Russia and the obstruction of justice that may not have reasonably led to convictions for criminal matters, but that were nevertheless improper, unethical, and/or illegal.  Additionally, it identified other actions that did not constitute conspiracy or the obstruction of justice (for example, violating campaign laws), but were similarly improper, unethical, and/or illegal.    Here are just two of such excerpts:

“Donald Trump Jr. had direct electronic communications with WikiLeaks during the

campaign period.”  (Vol. I, p. 59)

“….the June 9, 2016 meeting between high-ranking campaign officials and Russians promising

derogatory information on Hillary Clinton-implicates an additional body of law: campaign finance

statutes.  (Vol. I, p. 180)

PLAIN and SIMPLE

Not to be mean or too blunt about it, but President Donald Trump is a non-stop liar, a crook, and has almost certainly engaged in traitorous acts.  These are not opinions.  They are realities, supported by a vast, overwhelming number of facts that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the first two instances, and leave little doubt in the third case.  Given the fact of who he is (a liar, a crook, probably a traitor), there can be no logical reason why ANY American, regardless of their politics, should support the guy.  And yet millions do, for a variety of reasons.  Not knowing how to tell fake news from real facts is a big problem in America, and certainly is a factor.  Not even hearing or reading the real facts, since they only listen to Fox News and similar right-wing opinion sources, and preferring their own “gut feelings” to facts, add to the problem.

Trump is other things as well, and again, these are not merely unsupported opinions, but facts that are easily proven.  He is grossly uneducated and woefully unqualified for the job of President; he disrespects women (grab their pussies!) and has likely sexually abused many; he insults and verbally attacks everyone who disagrees with him; he is an extreme narcissist; he dislikes and denies proven science; he happily attacks the environment at every opportunity.  All of these claims, and more, can also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  But to keep things simple, here we’re just going to focus on the three characteristics of the man that, by themselves, are enough make him a disaster as the country's President: He is a liar, a crook, and a traitor to the United States of America.

None of these things would be much of a problem but for the fact that Donald Trump occupies the Presidency illegitimately; he basically stole the election.  This is something people now seem to have forgotten.  Is this also "just an opinion" by a disgruntled Clinton supporter?  No, it is not, and the facts backing this claim are shown beyond any reasonable doubt in my essay “Have They Pulled It Off?” in my paperback Trump Tales, and also on my website: https://jstrebler.blogspot.com/2017/07/have-they-pulled-it-off.html   We have every right to dislike and point out all the flaws and crimes of the man, because he has no right to be our President.  Thus, even if he appointed judges, and pushed legislation and Cabinet-level actions through in legal, ethical ways, those actions are the result of a stolen election, are mostly contrary to what the majority of voting Americans wanted, and are therefore illegitimate. 

But yet Trump IS in power, so we have to deal with that unjust fact.  Starting with the first issue, having a President who LIES ALL THE TIME is a big problem for three reasons.  First, because he’s not being honest about why he’s doing things.  Example: The big tax cut for the middle-class, which gained lots of middle-class support.  Would those people have supported his tax cut if they’d known the truth, that the tax cuts only benefited businesses and the wealthy after the first 2 years, and that they’d cause the national debt to balloon further?  So Trump’s lies convince people to support him when they probably wouldn’t have if they’d known the truth. 

Second, because we won’t be able to trust him when it really matters.  Think of the boy who cried wolf.  After years of lying, hundreds and hundreds of lies, what will happen if there is a genuine emergency – not a “build the wall” kind of phony emergency, but a real one like China attacking all our infrastructure?  How will we know when to believe what Trump tells us, after all his lies?

Third, because quite simply someone who lies all the time is a bad person.  It’s a sign of someone with no moral compass, and who is likely to do all kinds of other bad things.  Why in the world would we want such a person as the leader of our country, the one who represents us around the world?  It just makes no sense.

There are countless documented examples of Trump’s lies.  According to the Washington Post, he had made more than 6,000 “false or misleading claims”, as of November, 2018.  According to the South China Morning Post, Trump lied an average of 15 times a day in 2018.  I heard it's over 9,000 lies or false statements as of March 4, 2019.  So there’s really no question about his lack of truthfulness.  Here, just for the record, are a mere five (5) false statements that Trump made.  They may not be his biggest lies, and not his most important lies, but they are just examples we can cite, and that you can verify by the sources cited.

Lie #1 – “I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!," 2016  https://theweek.com/speedreads/810185/8-times-trump-denied-doing-business-russia

But then – “Trump’s business ties to Russia stretch back more than 30 years, from big building projects to beauty pageants.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/11/30/trumps-russia-ties-new-scrutiny-amid-michael-cohen-plea/2149518002/

And - "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. said at a New York real-estate conference that year.” 2008, cited on: https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-said-money-pouring-in-from-russia-2018-2

Plus – “President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani said Sunday that plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow remained an "active proposal" as late as November of 2016” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/20/giuliani-talks-on-trump-tower-in-moscow-active-during-2016-election-.html

Lie #2 – “If I decide to run for President, I’ll produce my tax returns – absolutely; I would love to do that.” This is critical in understanding his Russian loans, etc.

Watch him say these exact words in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtQeb7RHUC4

But then - “The White House response is that he’s not going to release his tax returns,” Kellyanne Conway said in January, 2017.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-returns.html

And later - "I might release them after I'm out of office."  May, 2017 https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1421/release-his-tax-returns-after-audit-completed/

Lie #3 - Referring to his giant tax cut of 2017: “The rich will not be gaining at all with this plan.” https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/

But then – “The $1.5 trillion cut, however, has so far disproportionately benefited the country’s richest citizens. In 2025, a quarter of tax benefits will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, and 66 percent will go to the top 20 percent of earners,” September, 2018 https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tax-cuts-rich-americans-republicans-1133372

Pictures are worth 1000 words: Here’s who the non-partisan Tax Policy Center says would benefit from the tax cuts in 2018 (left) and in 2027 (right).  The winners, by far, are those earning $200K or more annually. (Pictures don't show up here.  Go to NPR's link to see them)

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571754894/charts-see-how-much-of-gop-tax-cuts-will-go-to-the-middle-class

Lie #4 – “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border,” he declared that day at Trump Tower in New York. “And I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-story-keeps-changing-trump-falsely-asserts-he-never-promised-mexico-would-directly-pay-for-the-border-wall

And – Trump said Mexico would pay for it in a one-time, direct payment - "It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year," https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jan/10/donald-trump/trump-claims-he-never-meant-mexico-would-write-che/

And, “The president has said he is ‘not thrilled’ with the spending legislation. It would allocate $1.375 billion (of US taxpayer money) for 55 miles of bollard fencing.”  February, 2019  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/congress-votes-to-pass-spending-bill-and-avoid-government-shutdown.html

Lie #5 – "Thank you to the LGBT community!" Trump tweeted in June 2016. "I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.”   https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/trump-lgbt-rights-discrimination-353774  

But then – The Trump administration tried to kick transgenders out of the military, said it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender or gay, said it’s OK for shopkeepers to turn away LGBT customers, withdrew protection for transgender students, protected health care workers who refuse to help transgenders patients – etc. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/trump-lgbt-anti-actions-administration-pride-month

Moving on, there is overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump is a crook, a criminal.  How much of that will ultimately be used in court to convict him of felonious crimes that could easily include Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges remains to be seen.  But more than one senior government official who is familiar with the situation has compared his business and presidential operations to that of a mob boss. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26405932/andrew-mccabe-donald-trump-russia/    As with charges of Trump being a liar, there are numerous cases, backed by credible evidence, of him being a crook.  Once again, I’ll cite a mere five (5) examples of the President’s crookedness both before and during his presidency, just to give the reader the general idea: 

Trump’s a Crook! #1 – Sources including the very Republican Wall Street Journal show that throughout his career as a real estate developer, Trump earned a reputation for stiffing the people who worked on his properties, driving numerous contractors into bankruptcy.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-business-plan-left-a-trail-of-unpaid-bills-1465504454

On just one of his projects, Trump’s (failed) Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, “records released by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission in 1990 show that at least 253 subcontractors weren’t paid in full or on time.”  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

Pathetically enough, Trump also had a reputation for failing to pay the attorneys who successfully defended him in these matters, which was one reason he had such a hard time finding good attorneys to defend him in the Russia investigation. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/opinion/trump-lawyers-elites.html

Trump’s a Crook! #2 – Donald Trump engaged in tax fraud by grossly undervaluing hundreds of millions of dollars of his father’s real estate.  Fox News reported that Trump and his siblings allegedly “set up a phony corporation in an effort to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents.  Trump helped his father take millions of dollar in improper tax deductions and formulated a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings in order to reduce the tax bill when the properties were transferred.  In total, Trump’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred over $1 billion to their children. The money would have created a tax bill of at least $550 million given the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances, but the family only paid $52.2 million, tax records indicate.”  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-reaped-millions-in-shady-tax-schemes-from-fathers-business-report-says-ny-tax-department-reviewing-allegations

(This has obvious connections to Trump’s refusal to release his own tax returns, as discussed earlier.)

Trump’s a Crook! #3 – Along with his other failed enterprises such as the Taj Majal Casino, Trump’s airline, his premium steaks, his own wines, and his multiple bankruptcies that all challenge his reputation as a successful businessman, Donald Trump created a totally fraudulent scam with his Trump University.  Using high pressure sales tactics, and claiming to have personally hand-chosen the top professionals in the field (he later admitted he didn’t choose any of the instructors), people plopped down as much as $35,000 for a course that would give them Trump’s secrets to becoming rich in the real estate business.  Evidence upon evidence showed that the unaccredited “university” did little or nothing to help its students, and that its “98% favorable ratings” from former students was forced out of them in order to get a diploma or get their money back.  https://apnews.com/43033e7cb9974faf879b51251c3a0d07

When you listen to the testimony of Trump’s victims, it is beyond clear that they were “swindled” from the beginning, a total rip-off that was based solely on Trump’s name.   In the end, Trump settled for $25 million, supposedly to clear the air before his term started, but more so because he likely would have had to pay much more if the lawsuits had continued.  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/18/donald-trump-university-settles-president-lawsuit-25-million

Trump’s a Crook! #4 – According to USA Today, Trump and his businesses had been involved in more than 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state court, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.  Trump has been involved in “far more litigation than fellow real-estate magnates; the USA Today analysis in 2016 found that Trump had been involved in legal disputes more than Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., Donald Bren, Stephen M. Ross, Sam Zell, and Larry Silverstein combined.”   On "at least three dozen occasions the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has obtained tax liens against Trump properties for nonpayment of taxes.” 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

Trump’s a Crook! #5 – The Constitution’s Emoluments clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) prohibits “federal officials receiving benefits from business ventures while in office.”  The Trump International Hotel in D.C. is widely known to be THE place for foreigners to stay when trying to do business with the Trump administration.  Apparently, word gets out if they’re staying there or not, and those staying at Trump’s hotel are believed to have a better chance of having a successful visit.  The President personally profits from stays at the hotel, and so the Attorney Generals of D.C. and Maryland have sued the President in federal court for violating this clause. 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/23/karl-racine-profile-attorney-general-emoluments-lawsuit-trump-2020-225200?fbclid=IwAR2f0_gEvOXNPgPh4huhOKSg7rC5BkgfYiHY0b-AZNYyZdVmy33VS5qCzzk

This is closely related to Trump’s refusal to divest from his businesses as all other Presidents have, in order to avoid running afoul of this Clause and otherwise have conflicts of interest while in office. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2017/01/11/donald-trump-will-hand-over-business/#603c019960d7

According to the BBC, the Office of Government Ethics chief resigned in protest of Trump failing to follow his rulings in this regard.  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40522488

Finally, there’s the whole Russia thing that shows our President to have worked with the Russians – the US’s fiercest adversary - in ways detrimental to the nation.  This means he is a traitor.  For this charge, the evidence is mostly circumstantial, and a bit weaker than the first two (Trump is a liar, a crook).  With the results of the Mueller investigation still unknown, there is no definitive evidence, no smoking gun.  Yet there is strong evidence nevertheless.  For the third time now, we will look at just five (5) things that leave little doubt that Donald Trump has harmed the US by working with the Russians.

Trump the Traitor? #1 – As shown by Lie #1, Trump’s relationship with the Russians goes back decades, and yet he has consistently denied having anything to do with them.  WHY?  Why did his first National Security Advisor (Flynn) lie about his dealings with Russia? https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/politics/michael-flynn-russia...court.../index.html  

Why did his first Campaign Manager lie about dealings with Russia?  nymag.com/intelligencer/.../manafort-lying-collusion-russia-protect-trump-mueller.html   

Why did his personal lawyer lie about his, and Trump’s, dealings with the Russians?  https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/trump-told-cohen-to-lie-about-trump-tower-moscow   

And how can a man, with three of his very most important connections dealing with the Russians and lying about it, a man who prides himself on controlling everything that happens in his businesses – how can that man not be connected to Russia in ways that are unethical, illegal, even traitorous?  Trump denies any connections whatsoever, and denies even knowing about his guys doing these things.  I suppose it’s possible, but why would we believe that?

Trump the Traitor? #2 – Trump’s son Eric claimed that “We don’t rely on American banks.  We get all the funding we need out of Russia.”  This was during the years when American banks closed their doors to Trump because he had defaulted on so many loans they had made to his businesses.  https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/eric-trump-russia-investment-golf-course 

At the same time, there were credible claims of Russia engaging in a huge money laundering operation, in part using American real estate transactions.  https://www.esquire.com/news- politics/politics/a21654291/ /wow-its-strange-these-russians-paid-millions-in-cash-for-trump-properties/ 

Donald Trump himself boasted about selling a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch for $100 million in 2008; he had bought it for $41.5 million two years earlier. The oligarch, Dmitry Rybolovlev, never lived in the place and only visited it once, according to the Miami Herald.  This was just one of the many transactions Trump made with connected Russians, done all in cash.  https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article135187364.html  

Finally, there’s the connection to Germany’s Deutsche Bank, which kept loaning Trump hundreds of millions of dollars after all the American banks refused to do business with him.  Odd, right?  Well, it’s a little less odd when you learn that Deutsche Bank has paid over $600 million in fines for its role in laundering more than $10 billion of Russian money.  https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/investing/deutsche-bank-us-fine-russia-money-laundering/index.html

Rather obviously, Trump was in bed with some top Russians in ways that involved huge amounts of money.  How much leverage that gave them over him, and how much Vladimir Putin was involved, isn’t clear.  But surely there were some hi-jinks going on between the two parties, especially considering how much Trump has denied and tried to hide these things since he started running for office (See: Lie #1)

Trump the Traitor? #3 – In June of 2016, three top members of Donald Trump’s campaign met with several Russians at Trump Tower.  Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, his campaign manager Paul Manafort, and son Donald Trump Jr. met with Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, allegedly to discuss the issue of Americans adopting Russian children.  But Veselnitskaya, with connections to top Kremlin insiders, and Akhmetshin, a former Russian counter-intelligence officer, were really there to start the ball rolling on getting relief from the sanctions put on Russia, in exchange for “dirt on Hillary Clinton.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting  (Subsequent evidence has shown that at least one of the three Americans – Manafort – had a number of contacts with other connected Russians such as Konstantin Kilimnik, related to the exchange of information about the campaign and the election.  And a vast amount of evidence uncovered by the Mueller investigation is expected to show other Trump associates, e.g. Roger Stone, coordinating with the Russians over the release of emails harmful to the Clinton candidacy, in exchange for sanctions relief.)  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-has-evidence-suggesting-stone-associate-knew-clinton-emails-would-n924036

In terms of hard evidence, we know that Trump senior helped Trump junior write a letter explaining the Trump Tower meeting, a letter that falsely presented the adoptions idea.  Now why in the world would Donald Trump help his son lie about this meeting if there were nothing wrong going on?   https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/06/us/politics/trump-tower-russia-meeting.html

Trump the Traitor? #4 – One of the very most disturbing Trump actions are his private meetings with Russian President, Vladimir Putin.  Four (4) times, Trump sat down with Putin and spoken privately with him, with NO Americans learning what was said.  The first time was in Hamburg, Germany on July, 2017 when Trump and Putin spoke at length, with no other Americans present except Trump’s translator; Trump then confiscated the translator’s notes.  The two met briefly again in Hamburg, when Trump pulled up a seat next to Putin at the dinner table for a follow-up chat – again with no Americans knowing what they discussed.  One year later, the two spoke for two hours in Helsinki, Finland, again in secret and with no record of what they discussed.  After that meeting, Trump issued his infamous defense of Putin, saying he believed Putin’s denial of interfering in US elections, rather than believing the unanimous insistence of US intelligence agencies that Russia HAD interfered!  Shortly thereafter, Trump called Putin after Putin had won the rigged presidential election.  Despite “DO NOT CONGRATULATE” written in large letters on the President’s notes by his aides, Trump congratulated Putin on his win.  Finally, the two met in Buenos Aires, Argentina in late-2018, despite Trump saying he wouldn’t meet with Putin because of Russia’s seizure of 3 Ukrainian naval ships.  Once again, they spoke privately, with no information available regarding what was said.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/us/politics/trump-putin-meetings.html

In fact, USA Today reported that Trump went to “extraordinary lengths” to keep the details of his conversation with Putin secret, even from members of his own administration.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/13/trump-putin-meetings-interpreter-notes/2565471002/  

No other President has ever done anything like this, and every intelligence and diplomacy expert agrees that doing so is very dangerous, and gives Russia leverage over Trump.  It doesn’t take much imagination to think of the ways these conversations could be harmful to America, and could have been related to Trump working secretly with the Russians in ways that prosecutors have suggested.

Trump the Traitor? #5 – Trump’s record of taking extraordinary action to protect Russia, the US’s most dangerous adversary, started before he even took office.  His campaign insisted on having the Republican Party change their 2016 Platform, making it less supportive of Ukraine, and friendlier to Russia than the Party had wanted. https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/        2016-rnc-delegate-trump-directed-change-to-party-platform-on-ukraine-support

Also before taking office, a team of the top US intelligence agency heads met with Trump to explain how they knew without a question the Russians had interfered in the 2016 election to help him and hurt Clinton.  Trump didn’t seem impressed by the information, and from then on refused to acknowledge that it had been the Russians.  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europetrump-intelligence-russian-election-meddling-.html  

Once in office, President Trump originally wanted Mitt Romney as his Secretary of State.  But evidence shows that the Russians preferred Rex Tillerson, who had previously worked with Russia on oil deals, and had won the Russian Order of Friendship medal.  So Tillerson got the job.  Incidentally, after several months of working with Trump, Tillerson famously called Trump a “fucking idiot,” https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376746-russia-says-it-stopped-mitt-romney-from-becoming-secretary-of-state  

In January of this year, the Trump administration inexplicably lifted sanctions on top Russian oligarch and friend of Vladimir Putin, Oleg Deripaska, which would add hundreds of millions of dollars to Deripaska’s billions of dollars.  Congress opposed this bizarre gift to an enemy of the American people.  According to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, “removing them would be ‘deeply flawed and wrong,’ and called Deripaska an ‘agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin's interests abroad’ who is tied to ‘organized crime and Mr. Paul Manafort.”  Trump barely beat back a Congressional measure, with a number of Republicans’ support, opposed to lifting those sanctions, but the measure barely failed.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oleg-deripaska-us-lifts-sanctions-on-3-companies-major-russian-oligarch-rusal/

So yes, it’s true that Donald Trump hasn’t been convicted of any crimes.  So far.  But that’s much different than saying he hasn’t done anything wrong.  Recently we’ve been getting more clues about what the Mueller investigation has turned up – and it’s not good.  What happens with that information, whether Trump gets impeached or indicted or whatever, we’ll just have to see.  But it’s very obvious that the man is bad news for our country, since he’s a “big league” liar, crook, and almost certainly a traitor.