Reparations for All!

(I wrote this about 15 years ago, and my thoughts on paying reparations to black Americans have changed a bit since then.  Still, there are some good points here about the history of slavery and the concept of mentalite.)

Renewed calls for the U.S. to admit its guilt in the whole issue of enslaving Africans, and to pay some form of reparations to the descendants of American slaves, have come on the heels of a recent conference in Africa.   Surely these would be cleansing acts, as well as a way to improve African-Americans’ self-esteem.  Acknowledging culpability is a necessary step in the long process of mending the immense damage done to the collective black psyche in America.  And it is only fair that blacks in the U.S. should be compensated for the incalculable role their ancestors played in making this country the wealthy superpower it is today – we are told.

What is missing in all of this, however, is some understanding of historical reality and perspective.  Most informed folks know that black Africans themselves, in capturing and selling other Africans, played a role in the slavery issue that is perhaps as heinous as the roles played by the Europeans and Americans.  But even more importantly, we can’t just blame Africans (or whites) without realizing that this all occurred in a much different time.  The slave trade that brought Africans to the U.S. in the 17^th-19^th centuries came after millennia of worldwide, indiscriminant enslavement.  For as far back as we have written records, men have enslaved one another (and women and children too) – sometimes for money, but more often as a result of war.

Babylonians enslaved Israelites, Persians enslaved Babylonians, and Romans enslaved them both.  Spaniards took Englishmen as slaves when they could; Native Americans widely practiced slavery.  Mexican-Americans rue how vile U.S. Yankees stole the Southwest from innocent Mexico, yet the Spaniards of Mexico enslaved native Indians and imported African slaves in vast numbers.  And the Aztecs, which any good Mexican is proud to tell you were their glorious ancestors, were slavers of the worst kind.  Cortez and his few hundred men conquered the mighty Aztecs in no small part because they were aided by rival Indians that had been ravaged and enslaved by the Aztecs. 

The Slavic peoples (Slavs) got their name because they were so often taken into slavery over the centuries.  Whites took whites and blacks as slaves, and Asians too, when they had the chance.  Black Africans did the same thing; Asians were hardly above taking slaves.  At some point or another in history, just about everybody was enslaved by someone else.  This is simply the way it was in the past, when the world wasn’t quite as nice a place as it is these days. 

But gradually people began to see things differently.  Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1789; by 1830, slavery had ended in all Northern states.  Britain abolished slavery four years later, France in 1848, and freedom-loving Holland in 1863, only 2 years before slavery was abolished throughout the entire U. S.  Spain continued to allow slavery until 1883, Brazil until 1888, China until 1910, and Ethiopia until 1923!  So the United States was hardly out of line with the morality of the time a couple of hundred years ago, and in fact was one of the leaders of the world abolitionist movement.  It’s neither realistic nor fair to hold slave traders of 300 years ago responsible based on the (dramatically different) morals of today.  It makes even less sense to hold people responsible today for what their ancestors may or may not have done 300, or even 150, years ago.  Because if that’s the way we’re going to do things…..

I know that my Scottish ancestors, the original Britons, were brutally conquered over the centuries by Germanic invaders (the Angles, Jutes, Saxons, etc.).  Germanic atrocities on the Britons between the 6^th and 12^th centuries are fairly well documented, as were many cases of enslaving the surviving Britons.  These Germanic tribes, benefiting from the work of their slaves, went on to create one of history’s most powerful and richest empires: the British Empire.  Since I can clearly prove my Scottish ancestry, should I not, then, respectfully but firmly request reparations from Elizabeth II, the current and enormously wealthy British monarch?

Then there’s the Jewish side of my family.  Oy – don’t get me started on how they suffered at the hands of just about everybody for 3000 years!   Just consider perhaps the most famous enslavement in history: that of the Egyptians over the Jews.  This episode lasted, coincidentally, about as long as the U.S. South’s enslavement of Africans.  Surely it contributed greatly to Egypt’s ability to amass and display great wealth, so very long ago.  Egypt’s kind of a poor country these days, though, so I’d be willing to accept some priceless antiquities from them for the way their ancestors treated mine.   Or – hey, this could really work out well: you know how so many African-American historians now claim that the Egyptian pharaohs were really black?  So then, Oprah and Michael (Jackson or Jordan) are basically the descendants of the folks that kept mine as slaves.  Those guys – they have some serious money, and are in a position to help mend my shattered Jewish psyche with some monetary reparations.

But what if Oprah or Michael or Michael aren’t descended from Egyptian slave-keepers?  Would it be fair to make them pay reparations?  That makes me think about my American ancestors.

You see, my people came to the U.S. in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, and they all lived in the North.  None of them owned slaves.  In fact, the Streblers themselves didn’t get here until 1888, long after slavery was history.  Great-grandpa Burns (on mom’s side) volunteered to fight for the Union during the Civil War, and then signed up for another tour when his time was up!  Great-great grandpa Kieffer also fought for the Union, as did great-great grandpa Moeder, who was seriously injured in battle.  I’d be willing to bet that they signed up out of patriotism, and maybe for the veterans’ benefits, but they probably were anti-slavery, and they did help end that “peculiar institution” in this country.  Yes, I realize that they, and I, all benefited indirectly from the labor of Southern slaves.  But if reparations to the ancestors of American slaves should ever come about, would I be responsible for the same amount as someone whose granddaddies owned slaves?  How come? 

So look – here’s how it goes:  African slaves in the U.S. got a raw deal.  So has everyone else, at some point in history.  Even after slavery ended, blacks had it really tough.  By all means, let’s apologize as a nation for what happened in the past.  But we’ve got better laws and a better sense of right and wrong now, and slowly – slowly but surely – black folks are getting where they should be.  Today they are top athletes, Oscar-winning actors, national teachers of the year, Secretaries of State.  These people didn’t need reparations to give them motivation and purpose, and neither does anyone else.

America gave a big chunk of change to Japanese-American internment camp survivors, and Germany did the same thing with Holocaust survivors.  But that’s where it ends: you pay the living survivors for the egregious suffering they personally experienced.  You don’t go back generations; you don’t go back centuries.  Because if you do, then we all just keep paying money to one another, and I want Oprah’s phone number! 

Jon Strebler

Back to the Future

 Let’s go back in time to January 1, 2015. 

The 2016 presidential election is just starting to be a thing, with Jeb Bush the only Republican candidate so far.  Bush would be followed later in the month by Chris Christie, then Lindsey  Graham and Mitt Romney, but nobody has any idea who might end up being the front runner at this point.

You don’t really care for Barack Obama.  But the economy is doing great, with the Dow Jones Industrials more than doubled from when he first took office, and unemployment at 5.7%, down from 8.1% six years earlier.  Still, you’re a political conservative and you hate Hillary Clinton.  So you plan on voting Republican this year.

But what if I told you that the candidate the Republicans chose:

·         Had zero (no) experience in government?

·         Was described by a former professor as the stupidest student he ever had in 35 years?

·         Lied to the American people almost every time he opened his mouth?

·         Faced charges of sexually molesting more than a dozen women, and would soon brag on tape about “grabbing women by the pussy”?

·         Was a convicted conman, having ripped off many contractors and run multiple scams?

·         Would be diagnosed as a malignant (as in evil) narcissist?

·         Was a really horrible person in just about every other way imaginable?

BUT WORSE THAN ALL THAT,

·         Was Russia’s guy, and their election interference is what would put him in office?

 

Just for now, assume that you were convinced that all of these claims were true, and be perfectly honest.  You’d never vote for this guy in a million years, would you?  And neither would anyone else you knew, Republican or otherwise – right?

That guy, who of course turned out to be Donald J. Trump, was on nobody’s radar as a serious candidate in early-2015.  Yet he won the US presidency, and then went on to add such deeds as these to his earlier résumé:

·         Reneged on his promises to release his tax returns

·         Asked Russia to release Clinton’s private emails, which they did the following day

·         Publicly announced that he believed Putin rather than his own intelligence experts

·         Met privately with Putin 5 times with no witnesses, and refused to release the transcripts

·         Was impeached for blackmailing Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election

·         Has reversed, or is working on reversing, 94 key environmental protections

·         Refused to comply with numerous constitutional requests by Congress for testimony and  

       documentation

·         Made over 18,000 false or misleading claims since taking office

·         Refused to believe the corona virus was a real threat, causing 54,000 needless US deaths

Those are just a few of the countless ugly things Trump has done as President.  But the big question is: Are those claims really true?  Earlier I asked you to “assume that you were convinced” that these things are true, but actually you are probably NOT at all convinced.  So how about this:

Have a conversation with the you from 2015.  You really do love your country, and you do not want a horrible person like I described running it.  With just a modest amount of effort, you can see for yourself that these things are true.  Most of them can be proven to be 100% factual, without any doubt at all – reasonable or otherwise.  Much of this proof comes in the form of Trump’s own words shown and heard on tape, and his own tweets.  The rest comes from written records and other documentation that can be easily verified as legitimate.  

These things are not opinions or theories.  They are facts that you yourself can verify.  They’re also not a matter of politics – which political party thinks it’s OK to collaborate with our enemies, to defy Congress, to lie to us all the time, for example?   Take a fresh look at the facts, with an unbiased eye.  Truth can shatter the spell that Trump's never ending lies have cast over millions of decent people and TRULY make America great again.

Insults

We live in a time when people seem quicker than ever to throw out insults in response to criticism or differences of opinion.  Rather than use facts to dispute criticism, many people’s go-to response is to simply insult the other person.  Nowhere is this more evident than with our President, whose use of insults (often fallacious) about his critics and opponents is thoroughly documented.  For example, Never Trumpers are human scum; Omarosa Newman is a crazed lowlife, a dog; Megyn Kelly is a bimbo, with blood coming out of her… whatever.  And war hero John McCain was an incompetent dummy, about whom 5-time draft dodger Trump explained: I like people who weren’t captured.

Trump is both a sign of the times in this regard and also a model for others to copy, as insults beget insults and become ever more acceptable. 

But simply stating a FACT isn’t the same thing as an INSULT, especially one that is FALLACIOUS.  Here’s how two respected sources define those terms:

Fact                 (Cambridge Dictionary) something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists

(Wikipedia) a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence

Insult              (Cambridge Dictionary) to act in a way or say something that is offensive or rude to someone

(Wikipedia) an expression or statement (or sometimes behavior) which is disrespectful or scornful

Fallacious       (Cambridge Dictionary) not correct; false

(Wikipedia)  invalid, deceptive, or otherwise faulty

For example, we know that President Trump is very often untruthful.  It is easy to document, to prove beyond any doubt, that he lies on a regular basis.  This link will take you to a short essay that summarizes just a few of his falsehoods, though only those made before he took office.  https://jstrebler.blogspot.com/2017/01/  Countless more have been documented in the three years since.  Therefore, we might reasonable call him a liar.  That is not really an insult, certainly not a fallacious one; it is simply a provable FACT.

Because of Trump’s countless insulting, bullying, and egotistical statements and tweets, we might think of him as an egotistical narcissist.  Rather than a fallacious insult, such a claim is supported by large amounts of objective proof.  According to John Gartner, Ph.D., a psychologist who taught at Johns Hopkins University Medical School for 28 years, the president has malignant narcissism.  Here’s what he says: “Trump suffers from malignant narcissism, a diagnosis [that is] far more toxic and dangerous than mere narcissistic personality disorder…  the closest thing psychiatry has to describing a true human monster.”⁷

Gartner goes on to describe Trump’s narcissism: “… (he knows “more about everything than anyone” and “has empathy for no one but himself”); paranoia (“his demonization of the press, minorities, immigrants, and anyone who disagrees with him, are all signs of paranoia”); sociopathy (“a diagnosis that describes people who constantly lie, violate norms and laws, exploits other people, and show no remorse”); and sadism (“He takes gleeful pleasure in harming and humiliating other people. He is undoubtedly the most prolific cyberbully in history.”) https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/201903/malignant-narcissism-does-the-president-really

Wow!  But the bottom line here is that we can say that Donald Trump is a paranoid narcissist, a sociopath, a sadist, and a prolific cyberbully.  While those claims are surely negative, they are NOT fallacious insults.  They are FACTS; facts that should be acknowledged and dealt with. 

Actually, we can go a bit further and just say that Donald Trump is a truly horrible person.  From his countless lies and insults, to his ridiculous claims of knowing more than (fill in the blank) about (fill in the blank), of being a “very stable genius”, and his famous “grab ‘em by the pussy,” few unbiased people would see Trump as being a good person.  Interested in more evidence of what kind of person Trump is?  Take a look here: https://jstrebler.blogspot.com /2018/11/  Calling him a truly horrible person is therefore just stating a FACT.

The man is also a proven con man, a swindler, and a tax-cheat.  Too harsh?  Fallacious insults or just opinions?  Nope.  Court records are full of examples where the Trump businesses refused to pay contractors for work done properly.  We also know that he has fudged legal records to reduce taxes paid over the decades, and that he conspired to cheat the government on hundreds of millions of dollars due on his father’s estate.  All of these things can be shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, as can the way he heartlessly ripped off students for his Trump “University” – which was later shown to be a total scam.  So I say that Donald Trump is a crooked conman; that may qualify as an insult, but it is not fallacious; it is merely a FACT. 

You’ve probably heard Trump being called a fascist, and done so in a way that seems like an insult.  Yet it’s also true that Trump almost perfectly fits the textbook definition of a fascist.  You can see how that is true here: https://jstrebler.blogspot.com/2018/12/fascism-back-in-fashion.html  Now that is not necessarily an insult; many people like fascism.  But simply stating the Donald Trump is a fascist, well – that is just a FACT. 

One of my biggest problems with Donald Trump is that he gained the Presidency by illegitimate means.  Much of his success was due to a campaign based on an unprecedented level of gross lies, aided by the Russians. Trump both welcomed Russian help and used Russian assistance to win the Presidency.  So said the extremely detailed Mueller Report, and so said the US’s top intelligence officer of the time.  You can read up on the FACT that Trump is an illegitimate President, put in power by the Russians here: https://jstrebler.blogspot.com/2019/04/. 

Similarly, it is not an insult to call Donald Trump grossly unqualified to be President, as much as it is simply a matter of fact.  We know that he had zero government experience before running for office; his behavior and statements once in office make it clear that he isn’t particularly bright and that he knew little about how the federal government actually worked.  Want more evidence that Trump has no business being President?  Check this one out: https://jstrebler.blogspot.com/2019/07/

There are other ugly and negative facets of Donald Trump that we could cover, but let’s skip to the present, and his responsibility for thousands of unnecessary American deaths, trillions of dollars of economic loss, and countless amounts of sorrow from the coronavirus.  How?  Well, it’s a simple matter to prove that Trump didn’t take the virus seriously back in January, February, and even into late-March, and ignored his own experts’ advice to take action.  And long before that (in 2018), he terminated the agency tasked with fighting a future pandemic!  

The results so far?  The US has more COVID-19 cases than any other nation, and the numbers are rising at an astonishing rate.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans will probably die, rather than the few thousand that would have perished, had Trump kept the pandemic agency intact and had followed the steps urged by his medical experts.  The economy is in free-fall, with signs that the country is likely due for years of Great Depression-style tragedy.  So I say it is a FACT that Donald Trump committed manslaughter on thousands of people he was elected to protect.

I’m going to end by saying that Donald Trump is a total fucking asshole.  I do mean that as an insult to the man, but yet it is also a FACT.  Here’s what it means to be an asshole:

(Cambridge Dictionary): an unpleasant or stupid person.

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary): a stupid, annoying, or detestable person

Now, a quick review of the FACTS that we established in this little essay make it clear that Trump is quite unpleasant and a detestable person.  His stupidity has also been established.  And I think it’s fair to say that having such a stupid, unpleasant, and detestable person running our country is annoying at the very least.  Since he therefore meets every descriptor of an asshole, then we are justified in saying that he is a TOTAL asshole.  The “fucking” part?  Just a bonus, a personal flair, if you will. 

But finally: WHY throw around insults, even if they are completely true and based on facts?  Here we may disagree, as many would say it is unnecessary and just makes the world a nastier place.  I agree with the second part, but disagree with the first, as I think these kinds of claims are important to put out there. 

It is important to recognize truth and facts.  Many people, including most Trump supporters, don’t know that their man is a liar, a swindler, a fascist, and all the rest.  So while very few people are likely to change their mind about the guy at this point, at least not in the near future, if we can help just one person see the facts, then it will have been worth it.  And in the long-run, I’ve gotta think that the more the truth gets put out there, the more likely people are (while seeing for themselves more and more of Trump’s assholiness) to finally see the light.

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. – Abraham Lincoln

FOUR REASONS

There are four powerful reasons why Donald Trump has no business being President of the United States.  Each one of them by itself would have been more than sufficient to keep him out of office throughout the 18^th, 19^th, 20^th, centuries, and first decade of the 21^st century.  And yet, with all four reasons together, he is the President, and there are many millions of Americans who feel he should continue in that role for years to come.  What the heck?

The four reasons are for the most part not about politics, and not a matter of opinion.  They are, instead, based primarily on facts, a.k.a. things that are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and that can be verified by anyone.  The FOUR REASONS are:

·         Donald Trump is grossly unqualified 

·         Donald Trump is a truly horrible person

·         Donald Trump’s is a pathological liar.

·         Donald Trump was not legitimately elected

To reiterate: at any time in our nation’s past, it is virtually inconceivable that a person would be elected President who lied all the time, or who was almost totally unqualified, or who was a horrible person, or who won the office by various dishonest means.  Especially when those "dishonest means" included interference by this country’s greatest adversary: Russia.  And yet – Trump sits in office in the White House, with all four of these conditions having been met.  This is not my opinion; rather, I will make the case for each of the four reasons using verifiable facts, logic, and related means that, at least until very recently, Americans understood and valued.  Let’s get to it.  

Donald Trump is GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED to be President.

A number of credible sources have suggested that he had no expectation of winning the position, but instead ran just as a way to further improve his image, his “brand,” gain support for issues he cared about, and to stroke his large ego.  Even if that is not the case, the fact is that he had absolutely no experience in government.  Furthermore, evidence supports the idea that Trump had little idea of how the federal government actually works.  Just one example of this was his claim in 2015 that judges (like his sister) are the ones that make laws.

Evidence of his overall lack of understanding about politics, history, government, economics, and world affairs abound.  A classic example was when he was asked, shortly before Britain’s vote on the matter, what he thought about Brexit.  “Huh?” Trump responded.  He hadn’t heard of Brexit, one of the most important world issues of the time, and he listened as the reporter explained it to him.  Anyone who is interested in doing so will have no problem finding dozens of other, easily verified examples of Trump’s ignorance of those matters in which a President should be well-versed. 

This lack of knowledge about even the basics of governing a giant like the United States of America is easy to understand, given Trump’s dislike of reading.   Asked what his favorite book was during the 2016 campaign, he said that he had only read one book after college – and that was his own biography.  Throughout the campaign, and during his time as President, anecdotal evidence is simply everywhere regarding his disinterest in reading reports, paying attention to anything other than short bullet points, and outright lack of curiosity about practically anything other than things that relate to him personally. 

Trump has several times repeated the claim to be a “very stable genius.”  The facts show that he is neither stable nor a genius.  From blowing up at reporters, his staff, and anyone else who he feels has crossed him, to making one decision one day, and totally reversing it the next day – on numerous occasions – “stable” is not a word that anyone other than Trump or his staff ever use to describe the man. 

As for being a genius, previous examples of his cluelessness bring that into question, along with claims by his own hand-picked people that the man is a “fucking moron,” and similar descriptions.  His own staff repeatedly reports, off the record, that they have to dumb down any information they give him, such as using pictures and video instead of written material, just so he can understand their reports.  Apparently, Trump wasn’t a very good student, having been described as a “C minus/D” student in college.  Trump denies this, claiming instead to have been a top student, but yet refuses to release his college transcripts or his SAT scores, threatening to sue anyone who divulges what they show.  Why would a “stable genius” not want to clear the air on just how good a student he was, or how smart his SAT score shows him to be?

Apart from those points, it has been obvious since Day One that the man is an idiot.  From his very first campaign speeches, Trump spoke like a 13-year old tough guy.  Small words, incorrect grammar, repeating the same simple phrases over and over, insulting, bragging, making false statements – those are the marks of Trump’s speaking.  Linguistic experts claim those things are signs of someone whose intellectual development remains in their teens.  Even his response to being called uneducated and his undeveloped vocabulary confirmed the charge against him: “I know words.  I use the best words!”  An eight year old couldn’t have said it any better. 

Let’s face it: A lot of people like the fact that Donald Trump is “just one of them.”  Not educated, not part of the political establishment, with no experience or great knowledge when it comes to running the government.  They feel that his fresh outsider status is a big plus, and not a disadvantage.

To some degree, they’re right.  It’s good to have a fresh face with an outsider’s perspective.  But Trump is so ignorant about the world and how things work, so disinterested in learning about government, economics, the military, other cultures, etc. These things matter.  The United States depends on having a President that understands what’s going on, how to run the government intelligently, and how to evaluate events and proposals from an experienced, educated, and rational perspective.  Donald Trump has repeatedly shown that he has none of those requisite characteristics, he is in way over his head, and has no business being in any public office. 

Donald Trump is a TRULY HORRIBLE PERSON. 

This is not a matter of name calling, of exaggeration, of just one man’s opinion.  By any reasonable definition, Trump is essentially the opposite of what most people would consider “a good man,” and there is an incredible amount of verifiable evidence to back up that claim.   

One way to consider this claim is by reading the essay A Good Person that I wrote in my Trump Tales book.  In it, I took the Boy Scout Law, which does a pretty good job of describing what it means to be a good man, with its A Scout is Loyal, Trustworthy, Helpful, etc.  One by one, I considered how Trump matched up with the 12 characteristics of a good man that the Law defines.  Using Trump’s own words and actions, it turns out that he is basically the opposite of a good man in 11 of the 12 categories (the exception being: Brave).  Now you may take exception to some of those interpretations, or you may suggest that the Boy Scout Law isn’t a good way to evaluate a person, but if you do, I think most  people who are being truthful would disagree with you.

But anyway, we can look at the “Trump is a horrible person” issue another way, by simply citing examples of behavior that show who he is.  Let’s start with his horrible treatment of women.  From it’s all about “having a nice piece of ass on your arm,” to “look at that face; who would vote for her?” to “grabbing them by the pussy,” to the 16 women who have made credible accusations that he groped, molested, or raped them – there is little doubt that Trump’s views and treatment of women ranges between unacceptable to felonious.

He’s a crook and a con man.  The many court cases against him for stiffing the people who’ve worked for him as a real estate developer make that pretty clear.  Though Trump claims he didn’t pay up for work because it wasn’t done properly, his own top financial officer is on record stated that not paying sub-contractors was an intentional strategy that Trump used to increase his profits.  In numerous cases, his failure to pay for work done resulted in bankruptcy for the small firms that he stiffed. 

Another aspect of his criminal behavior is that the court ordered him to terminate his "charitable" foundation, since the money was all going to him and his campaign instead of to charities.  Further, the court has prohibited Trump or any of his family from operating a charitable foundation in the future, due to "a shocking pattern of illegality."  And most recently, he had to pay a $2 million fine after "conceding that he used his charitable foundation at times as a personal piggy bank."

Finally, let’s not forget the Trump University scam, where students were promised a world-class education from top, hand-picked instructors that would make them rich in the real estate business.  All for only $35,000!  Of course, it turned out that there was little substance to the “curriculum,” that Trump had nothing to do with hiring instructors (as promised), and that the high-pressure sales tactics resulted in a total waste of money for those who signed up.  Trump finally settled the lawsuits from students by paying $25 million, claiming he did so just to clear the air before his election.  But a quick review of the evidence leaves little doubt that this was a total scam and that he would almost certainly have lost had the cases gone to trial.

Donald Trump is a nasty bully.  In every case where somebody criticizes him or points out that he’s wrong, his response is to attack the person, rather than intelligently respond to the criticism.  So Meghan Kelly has “blood coming out of her whatever,” John McCain isn’t a hero because “he was captured,” Congresswoman Maxine Waters is “a very low-IQ person.”  More recently, it was using the occasion of the 75^th anniversary of D-Day to blast House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as he sat in a graveyard of lost American soldiers.  Nancy Pelosi is an “very evil, nasty person; a real loser,” said our most un-presidential of Presidents.  And on and on.  Who the hell talks like that?

Aside from that, one of his favorite responses is the lawsuit.  If someone has negative information about him, Trump has his lawyers sue the person to prevent the information from becoming public.  Claim that he molested you?  Trump will sue you.  Claim that it’s actually Trump that is the “very low-IQ individual” by requesting to see his university records?  He’ll sue the university for releasing those.  Insult people and threaten to sue them: That’s Trump’s modus operandi.

Donald Trump only cares about what is good for Donald Trump.  More than a few psychologists and psychiatrists have studied his actions and concluded that, apart from being a pathological liar, he is a “prototypical narcissist.”  So when presented with conclusive evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, instead of acting to prevent that in the future, Trump’s only concern was about how that impacted his legitimacy.  His inauguration in early-2017?  The greatest attendance ever, by far, even when the evidence showed something quite different.  He even ordered the White House to Photo-Shop pictures to show a bigger crowd than was actually there.  Then there are all his ridiculous claims of having “the world’s greatest memory,” that he is “dazzled by his own creations,” and that “only he can fix” the US’s problems.  Who the hell talks like that?  The man is in love with himself and disconnected from reality.

But besides that, his focus on him and him alone places the nation in great danger.  By refusing to address Russian meddling,  by charging taxpayers tens of millions on his golf trips, by exchanging “beautiful love letters” with a vicious N. Korean dictator, by insisting on a pointless investigation to prove the existence of “3-5 million fake ballots” against him in the 2016 election – Trump harms the nation, all in pursuit of further stroking his gigantic ego.

And he is a fascist.  Too much?  An exaggeration?  Nope.  The essay Fascism in Fashion in my Trump Tales book considers the characteristics of fascism, written before Trump came along by an expert on the topic .  It turns out that Donald Trump basically meets every requirement, from backing nationalist, racist policies, to bashing the free press, and so forth.  Who would have ever thought that Americans would elect a fascist – and then continue to support him as it becomes ever clearer that he is one?

Granted that details and citations of evidence are sparse here, but anyone who doubts the President’s nastiness, narcissism, crookedness, and the rest will have no problem finding countless examples and evidence of those traits by simply looking.

Donald Trump’s entire persona is based on lies; HE IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.  Shouldn’t this claim be part of the prior point of him being a horrible person?  Well, it could be.  But apart from all his other horrible traits, the scale of his lies is so huge that it deserves special focus.  Of course a person who lies all the time is a horrible person.  Who would claim otherwise? 

It is easy to show how Trump’s lies enabled him to capture the attention and support of tens of millions of Americans, starting with “Barack Obama isn’t a US citizen” way back in 2010.  Long after that claim was disproved, Trump continued to promote it, becoming the darling of those who opposed a liberal (and black?) President.  Trump built on that base with non-stop lies about Mexicans (criminals and rapists), Clinton giving weapons-grade uranium to the Russians, to knowing “more about Iraq than all the generals,” building a wall that “Mexico will pay for,” “climate change is a Chinese hoax,” “wind turbines cause cancer,” and on and on. 

There’s no point in further detailing all the man’s lies; it is no exaggeration to say that he can barely open his mouth without twisting, spinning, or outright lying about practically every and any thing.  “Yeah, but all politicians lie,” his supporters counter.  Well sure, but Trump’s degree of telling falsehoods probably exceeds even the least honest other politician by a factor of 10 or more.  In other words, if we take the next biggest liar in US political history, then for every lie he or she told, Trump probably has told ten or more lies.

Think that is an exaggeration?  According to Vanity Fair, Trump told an average of “23 false or misleading statements a day” over the past 7 months.  The President loves to criticize the New York Times and the Washington Post as FAKE NEWS and the “enemy of the people” (a classic line for dictators), but it’s a simple matter to prove almost everything those sources print, and at the same time disprove most of what Trump says. The mainstream media is not the source of FAKE news; Donald Trump is.  

Speaking of the Washington Post, it claims that Donald Trump exceeded 10,000 “false or misleading statements” earlier this year.  Maybe you’d disagree with some of their judgements; maybe you think a more accurate number is more like 5,000, or 15,000.  But the point simply is that the man is dishonest at an astounding level, far more than anyone else we've ever known. 

This matters because it got an incredibly flawed person elected as our President.  It matters because it allows him to continue to mislead the tens of millions of gullible Americans who take his words as truth.  And importantly, it matters because intelligent Americans can never trust what he says.  What will happen in the case of a genuine disaster or emergency?  How can we believe what he says about it?  Well of course, we can’t.  The leader of our nation, the leader of the free world – is a liar on an unprecedented scale, and that is a huge problem.

Donald Trump DID NOT LEGITMATELY WIN THE PRESIDENCY.  When you think about it given the facts, it is somewhat remarkable that nearly 3 million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Trump.  As explained in more detail in my Have They Pulled It Off? essay from Trump Tales, there are three main reasons to challenge the legitimacy of Trump’s election.  We can argue about whether each of the three were illegal or merely unethical, but in any case, each of the three were unprecedented in American politics and disturbing enough to question whether Trump should have been allowed to assume the office.  Taken together, the three leave little doubt (at least, to unbiased and truly patriotic Americans) that the man should not be in the White House.

To briefly summarize, the first reason is that Donald Trump and his campaign used fake news and phony social media stories to spread wildly false information.  Sure, politicians have always spun the news, tweaked the facts, and thrown out a whopper or three in their campaigns.  “All’s fair love and politics,” as one version of the old saying goes.  But as my previous point explained, the degree of spinning and lying by the Trump campaign wildly exceeded anything we’ve seen before.  Combined with an astute use of social media, Trump was able to capitalize on Americans’ lack of knowledge about history, economics, world events, and government, along with their inability to distinguish between facts, opinions, lies, and propaganda.  The result was that millions of Americans bought into what should easily have been seen as FAKE NEWS, converting them into Trump supporters.

The second factor was the proven Russian interference in the 2016 election.  Every US intelligence agency long ago stated that there was no doubt the Russians sought to impact the presidential election in order to help their candidate, Donald Trump, win the post.  Trump himself has consistently denied this, as it obviously implies that perhaps he wouldn’t have won without Russian help.  But even he has acknowledged their interference in recent months, ostensibly since it is now far too late to reverse those results.  Despite disagreement about what the Mueller investigation found, there is no question that it shows the surprising extent of Russian interference, with goals of 1) sowing domestic discord and 2) electing Donald Trump.

The question is, of course, just how much that Russian involvement changed the results.  The answer largely depends on one’s politics and ability to be objective, but I believe it could easily have pushed Trump over the top.  Various analyses of his victory show that it was accomplished with just a few thousand votes in specific districts, areas where (not surprisingly) the Russians had directed much of their effort.  

Again considering the Mueller report, it documented how operatives of the Trump campaign shared important voter information with the Russians.  That, along with other proven facts such as Don Jr. welcoming Russian dirt, leave no real doubt that there was collusion, which is defined as secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.  Luckily for Trump, collusion is not a legal term, not criminally defined, so he and his supporters can lie in boasting of "NO COLLUSION!" found by the Mueller investigation.  

Former Air Force general James Clapper, as the Director of National Intelligence from 2010 to 2017, is in a unique position to know more than just about anybody about what the Russians did in 2016.  He is quoted as saying: "Surprising even themselves, [Russia] swung the election to a Trump win. To conclude otherwise stretches logic, common sense and credulity to the breaking point. Less than eighty thousand votes in three key states swung the election. I have no doubt that more votes than that were influenced by this massive effort by the Russians.”  None of Clapper’s fellow intelligence chiefs have disagreed with that assessment.    

Former President and US Naval Academy graduate Jimmy Carter recently joined Clapper in this opinion, calling Trump an “illegitimate President,” and claiming: "There's no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election. And I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf." 

Sidebar!  Let’s take a little detour to consider the fact that other notable former military officers have a big problem with Donald Trump being President, even those whom he chose to serve in his administration.  Marine General and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattias, for example, finally gave up trying to work with someone he said was like “a 5th or 6th grader.”  Four-star General and Trump’s Chief of Staff John Kelly called Trump “an idiot.”  Trump’s own National Security Advisor, Gen. HR McMaster is on record as calling Trump “a dope, with the intelligence of a kindergartner.”   

There’s also retired Admiral William McRaven, former head of the military’s Special Operations, who’s taken on Trump several times.  McRaven scolded Trump for calling the press “the enemy of the people.”  He said Trump “embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.”  Finally, consider four-star General Barry McCaffrey, the most highly decorated General in our nation’s history.  I doubt that anyone would consider him, or any of those other officers just mentioned (all Republicans, except Carter), to be “snowflakes” or “libtards”.  Yet McCaffrey has repeatedly criticized President Trump, calling him (among other things) “under the sway of Vladimir Putin,” and a “serious threat to national security,” and most recently blasting his use of the military to make the 4th of July a “vile political fight.”  

(Update: A January, 2020 report revealed that in a meeting with the nation's top military leaders in July, 2017, Trump said: "I wouldn't go to war with you people.  You're a bunch of dopes and babies."  To America's top generals and admirals!  Who talks like this?) 

So my question is: Why in the world do so many military veterans, and current members of the military, back Donald Trump?  Seriously.  
I mean, besides all of these guys’ thoughts on Trump, he’s a 5-time draft dodger, as his former physician recently admitted he provided false evidence of Trump’s “debilitating bone spurs.”  He claims, as mentioned earlier, to know more about military affairs than the generals.  He trusts Russia’s leader more than his own military and intelligence advisors.  And he lies all the time.  So I really want to know: Why is this despicable person the overwhelming choice of our military and veterans?

OK – back on topic now with the third factor that unfairly brought the presidency to Donald Trump, and that was FBI Director James Comey’s decision to publicly announce, some ten days before the 2016 election, that there “might” be some negative information on Hillary Clinton in some newly discovered emails.  Donald Trump later put Comey on his hate list for refusing to proclaim his loyalty to the President and so forth, but the fact is that this decision of Comey’s, in hindsight, sort of sealed the coffin on Clinton’s run for President.

You see, in the weeks before Comey’s decision, Clinton had been well ahead of Trump in all the polls, up by some 3-4%, and still gaining.  But immediately after Comey’s announcement, Clinton’s numbers started to drop.  About a week later, Comey proclaimed the results of reviewing those new emails: There was NO negative information about Clinton.  But it was too late; there were just a couple of days until the election, and not enough time for Clinton to recover from her loss of momentum to Trump.  As we all know, Trump just barely squeaked by, winning the Electoral College vote, even while losing the popular vote.

Also as we all know, Comey directly violated a clear FBI policy against taking action or making announcements that might affect an upcoming election.  I have read Comey’s book, wherein he explains why he made that tough decision contrary to FBI policy, and I understand his rationale.  But nevertheless, the fact is that his actions almost certainly took the Presidency out of Clinton’s hands and put it in Trump’s – a decision he likely will regret for the rest of his life.

James Clapper and Jimmy Carter are right: Russia’s interference almost certainly gave the Presidency to Donald Trump.  But add in the Trump campaign’s unprecedented level of lying and manipulating social media (Pope Francis supports Donald Trump for President), and James Comey’s unfortunate reveal of “potentially” negative emails on Hillary Clinton and, well – there doesn’t seem to be any reasonable doubt that Trump unfairly, illegitimately took the Presidency from Hillary Clinton.

So that’s my case.  Donald Trump is a horrible, unqualified person who stole the Presidency from Hillary Clinton.  Besides my question about why in the world American military types support this idiot, this leaves us with the sad fact that tens of millions of Americans don’t care.  Trump is their guy, they love him no matter what he does, and no matter what the facts are.  May God save America!

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)