FEBRUARY 15, 2019

NEWS AND VIEWS

THIS WHOLE TRUMP CASE READS LIKE A SPY NOVEL, IN WHICH SPY NUMBER ONE DEPOSITS THE SECRET MISSIVE INTO THE EMPTY COFFEE CAN INSIDE THE TRASH BIN, WALKS ON; AND UNKNOWN SPY NUMBER TWO COMES ALONG AND PICKS IT UP, THEN PUTS IT IN AN ENVELOPE AND INSERTS THAT UNDER THE DOOR AT THE APARTMENT ONE BLOCK UP. AS HE DOES SO, SOME UNSEEN PERSON DRAWS THE ENVELOPE INSIDE SLOWLY. IT’S HARD TO BELIEVE ANY OF THESE PEOPLE SHOULD AVOID A JAIL TERM.

IT’S AMAZING THE NUMBER OF RUSSIAN NAMES SHOW UP IN THIS MESS, BUT TRUMP INSISTS THAT HE HAS NO BUSINESS WITH RUSSIA. THIS MYSTERIOUS ROGER STONE IS THE MOST ELUSIVE OF ALL. HE’S ALSO THE MOST LIKE A MOBSTER. IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO LIKE ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE EXCEPT THE LAWYER COHEN. TOO BAD HE’S “GETTING THE SHAFT.”

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/15/18223791/mueller-roger-stone-russian-hackers-related-case
Why Mueller said Roger Stone’s case is “related” to his Russian hacker indictment
Stone is disputing this and asking for a different judge.
By Andrew Prokopandrew@vox.com Feb 15, 2019, 8:10am EST

PHOTOGRAPH -- Roger Stone on February 3, 2019, in Arlington, Virginia. MediaPunch/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images

Roger Stone has asked for his case to be transferred to a different federal judge — and what seems like a minor procedural move could have intriguing implications for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as a whole.

Currently, Stone’s indictment for obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering is before Judge Amy Berman Jackson in the District of Columbia. But the case wasn’t assigned to her at random. It was given to her because Mueller designated it “related” to another case Jackson was already overseeing.

That “related case” was US v. Netyksho et al. — Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking Democrats’ emails during the 2016 campaign, and leaking them so they could be posted by WikiLeaks.

Mueller’s team said this case is related to Stone’s for two reasons: first, that certain “stolen documents” are a topic in both cases, and second, that warrants used in the Russian hacker case surfaced “certain evidence that is relevant” to Stone’s case.

Stone’s lawyers, however, objected to that designation in a filing last week, claiming the cases didn’t seem particularly related and asking to be randomly assigned a judge. Mueller’s team is due to respond sometime Friday.

The judge in question, Amy Berman Jackson, also happens to be overseeing the DC case of Stone’s longtime friend and former business partner Paul Manafort. In fact, she’s the judge who ordered Manafort sent to jail last June (after finding that he’d violated his conditions of release), and who concluded this week that Manafort lied after committing to cooperate.

But all this is intriguing because the central question at the heart of the Mueller investigation is whether the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russian government actors to interfere with the election. And the most high-profile way Russia interfered was with those email hacks and leaks.

No Trump associate has yet been charged with conspiring with Russia or criminal involvement in the email leaks. But there’s been much speculation that such charges could be coming. And now, Mueller’s team is on the record saying they found “relevant” evidence about Stone during their Russian hacker investigation. So the question of just how connected these cases are could be important.

Amy Berman Jackson has overseen a lot of Mueller cases
Mueller’s grand jury is in Washington, DC, and accordingly, most of his indictments and plea deals so far have been filed there and assigned to judges on the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Usually, when a new case is filed, it’s assigned at random to a judge on the court. And several different DC District Court judges have drawn Mueller cases so far.

But one judge in particular, Amy Berman Jackson — an Obama appointee confirmed to the court in 2011 — had a lucky draw.

First, she was assigned Mueller’s initial indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates in October 2017. With that case, eventually, came several more — Alex van der Zwaan’s guilty plea, Gates’s plea deal, Konstantin Kilimnik’s indictment, and Sam Patten’s plea deal were all filed and assigned to her, since they all related to Manafort’s case.

Then, last July, Jackson was coincidentally assigned Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for crimes related to the hacking and leaking of Democrats’ emails. (Special counsel’s office spokesperson Peter Carr confirmed to me that this case was randomly assigned to Jackson, not designated as related to Manafort’s case.)

Now, the hacker case brought Jackson Stone’s indictment, too.

Why Mueller said Stone’s case is related to the Russian hacking case
When the special counsel’s team filed Stone’s indictment in January, the group also filed a court form designating it as a related case — making sure it would be assigned to Jackson.

On the form, Mueller officials checked two boxes about how Stone’s case was related to the hacker case — because it had a “common search warrant” and because there were “activities which are a part of the same alleged criminal event or transaction.” They also added a note explaining their reasoning at more length.

Mueller’s team makes two specific points here:

Search warrants: “In particular, certain evidence that is relevant to [Stone’s] case was derived from search warrants executed in Netyksho et al.”
The same stolen documents: The special counsel adds that “the alleged obstructive conduct” in Stone’s case is about his knowledge of “the dissemination of stolen documents during the 2016 presidential campaign” — namely, John Podesta’s hacked emails. The Netyksho indictment was, in part, about the hacking of those emails.
Now, perhaps the “related case” designation is a simple legal formality that Mueller was required to do. The DC federal district court’s local rules state that cases “are deemed related” when there’s, for instance, a common search warrant.

But there are some potential strategic reasons Mueller might be happy to have the Stone case before Judge Jackson in particular.

As mentioned, she’s already handled several Mueller cases, and has generally been viewed as professional and fair. She also oversaw months of pretrial wrangling for Manafort’s case (before he struck a plea deal), handing down rulings on topics such as whether Mueller had the authority to indict Manafort — topics that will likely come up again with regards to Stone.

Finally, there’s the possibility that more charges will be filed against Stone — and that those charges will be more directly connected to the Russian hacker charges. Mueller may not be ready for that yet or even sure about whether that will happen, but if it were to happen, he’s already gotten both cases before the same judge (the judge who is coincidentally also handling Manafort’s case).

What Stone is arguing
But Roger Stone’s attorneys filed a motion last week objecting to the “related case” designation, and requesting reassignment to a different judge.

The defense’s argument is essentially that the cases don’t really seem related. “At first blush and without the benefit of discovery, there is nothing about these cases that suggests they are suitably related,” Stone’s team writes. “These two cases are not likely to arise from a common wiretap, search warrant, or activities that are part of the same alleged criminal event or transaction.”

The problem with that, of course, is that Mueller says there is a common search warrant. In fairness, Stone’s team may not have this documentation yet, so it’s difficult for them to address that directly. But unless Mueller is misleading about this, the “related case” designation would seem to be appropriate.

Yet Stone’s true purpose in filing this motion may well be to try and quickly surface evidence Mueller has on him and others. Independent journalist Marcy Wheeler makes this case at her site EmptyWheel, theorizing that Stone is “trying to figure out what kind of evidence Mueller has to indict WikiLeaks” and “whether Mueller has the goods to name him as a co-conspirator.”

That’s because, now that Stone has filed this motion, Mueller has to respond. And while the publicly released details of his response may be redacted, the special counsel will likely have to reveal at least some sort of information about what warrants he’s referring to. That could tell us — and Stone — more about any larger case Mueller may (or may not) be planning. His deadline for this response is Friday.

For more on the Mueller probe, follow Andrew Prokop on Twitter and check out Vox’s guide to the Trump-Russia investigation.

NEXT UP IN EXPLAINERS
.... One of film’s greatest epics is a 7-hour adaptation of War and Peace. Really.
.... Trump’s wall won’t do anything about drugs
.... Why Trump thinks a national emergency will get him his border wall
.... The ongoing saga of Jeff Bezos’s sexts, explained
.... The fight between Ilhan Omar and Elliott Abrams, Trump’s Venezuela envoy, explained
.... California has 149 million dead trees ready to ignite like a matchbook


SECRET STATISTICS – SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER TRUMPIAN FANTASY TO ME, AND A WHOPPING BIG ONE. DO ANY OF YOU REMEMBER THE WONDERFUL OLD NEWSPAPER CARTOON STRIP CALLED “THE STRANGE WORLD OF MR. MUM?” THIS IS THE STRANGE WORLD OF MR. TRUMP. FOR MR. MUM, GO TO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Phillips.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/15/18226375/trump-national-emergency-event-secret-statistics-immigrant-crime
Trump suggests he’s privy to secret stats proving immigrants are violent criminals
“You have stats that are far worse than the ones I use.”
By Aaron Rupar@atrupar Feb 15, 2019, 1:20pm EST

PHOTOGRAPH -- President Trump declared a national emergency in order to build a barrier on the US-Mexico border without funding from Congress, on February 15, 2019. Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. The vast majority of drugs smuggled into the country through the southern border come through ports of entry. The construction of a border wall in El Paso did not reduce violent crime.

But all those facts — which come from federal government crime statistics — cut against the narrative that President Donald Trump is pushing. So during the South Lawn event on Friday in which he announced he’ll sign a national emergency declaration pertaining to the southern border, Trump simply denied them.

Instead of backing his claims with numbers, Trump sensationalized individual instances of immigrant crime, resorted to suggesting he’s privy to secret statistics, and made an evidence-free case that a wall is needed to stop human traffickers from taking “three women with tape on their mouth or three women whose hands are tied” across the border in remote areas between ports of entry.

Trump gaslights about the impact a wall would have on stopping the inflow of drugs

First, Trump denied the Drug Enforcement Agency’s finding that smuggled drugs largely come through the southern border, citing the response he received at a political rally earlier this week in El Paso, Texas, when he asked his audience about the impact a border wall had there.

“You listen to politicians, in particular certain Democrats, they say [drugs] all come through the ports of entry. It’s wrong, it’s wrong. It’s just a lie. It’s all a lie,” Trump said.

“The other night I was in El Paso, we had a tremendous crowd, and I asked the people — many of whom were from El Paso, but they came from all over Texas — and I asked them, I said, ‘Let me ask you as a crowd, when the wall went up, was it better?’ ... It was not only better, it was, like, 100 percent better.”

Embedded video

Aaron Rupar
✔
@atrupar
Replying to @atrupar
Trump explains that he doesn't believe government data about smuggled drugs coming through the southern border, because the crowd at his rally in El Paso the other night cheered when he asked them if the wall there reduced crime. #CheckmateLibs

503
10:49 AM - Feb 15, 2019
221 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
But as is the case in most other American cities, violent crime in El Paso has been falling steadily for about 25 years, and actually went up slightly after border fencing was installed there in 2008 and 2009.


CNN recently depicted this in a graph:


CNN
And despite what Trump would have you believe, these numbers come from the FBI — not Democrats.

Trump called immigrant crime statistics “fake news”
Later, CNN’s Jim Acosta asked Trump what he thinks about a number of studies rooted in crime statistics compiled by the federal government that indicate immigrants — both documented and undocumented — commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans.

Trump flatly denied that the studies are accurate, and instead pointed at “Angel Moms” — mothers of children murdered by undocumented immigrants — who were in attendance.

“You don’t believe that stat, do you? Do you really believe that stat?” Trump said, suggesting Acosta is gullible. “Ask the Angel Moms. What do you think? Am I creating something? ... Your question is a very political question. You’re CNN, you’re fake news, you have an agenda ... the numbers you gave are wrong.”

Embedded video

Aaron Rupar
✔
@atrupar
Replying to @atrupar
Trump dismisses @Acosta's question about what he thinks of data showing that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans, instead points to mothers whose kids were killed by immigrants

380
11:24 AM - Feb 15, 2019
178 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
But Trump’s suggestion that undocumented immigrants are more prone to committing acts of violence is false. For instance, a 2018 Cato Institute study that looked at crime in Texas found, “As a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56 percent fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015.”

“The criminal conviction rate for legal immigrants was about 85 percent below the native-born rate,” it adds.

In an overview of the relevant social science research published last year, the Washington Post concluded, “Undocumented immigrants are considerably less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens, with immigrants legally in the United States even less likely to do so.”

Trump claims he has access to secret statistics
Playboy’s Brian Karem pressed Trump about data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) showing the number of being arrested trying to cross the southern border has steadily declined over the past 20 years, to 396,579 last year from 1,643,679 in 2000 — numbers cutting against Trump’s case that the situation at the southern border is an emergency.

Trump quickly got angry with Karem, telling him to “sit down.” He then suggested his position is based on statistics that aren’t publicly available.

“You have stats that are far worse than the ones I use,” Trump told Karem.

Embedded video

Aaron Rupar
✔
@atrupar
Replying to @atrupar
Trump claims he has secret stats indicating undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than is publicly known

1,640
11:26 AM - Feb 15, 2019
993 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Trump’s willingness to flat-out deny reality when it doesn’t suit his purposes highlights one of the dangers of his presidency: He is shameless about not just contradicting the findings of his own government agencies but constructing a fact-free alternate reality where immigrants are violent criminals, drugs and tied-up women are pouring across the southern border, and the number of people making a dangerous trek through remote regions to enter the United States presents an existential threat.

But in a moment of accidental candor, Trump admitted his emergency declaration is unnecessary.

“I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster,” Trump said.

That admission could come back to haunt him when his emergency declaration is challenged in court. Trump acknowledged that such a challenge is likely during Friday’s event but expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will ultimately rule in his favor.

The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.

NEXT UP IN POLITICS & POLICY
Why Mueller said Roger Stone’s case is “related” to his Russian hacker indictment
Illinois and New Jersey passed a $15 minimum wage. That means 1.8 million workers get a raise.
5 ways Trump’s national emergency declaration could be stopped


FRICTION ON THE RIGHT

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/14/18225324/grassley-mcconnell-trump-emergency-declaration-border-wall
Watch Grassley get angry when McConnell interrupts him to announce Trump’s emergency declaration
“I hope the next time I get a chance to have the floor, I won’t be interrupted!”
By Aaron Rupar@atrupar Feb 14, 2019, 3:50pm EST

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) began shouting when he was asked to yield in the middle of giving a speech about renewable energy on the Senate floor on Thursday afternoon.

“I hope the next time I get a chance to have the floor, I won’t be interrupted!” Grassley said.

But it turns out Grassley was interrupted for an important reason. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor to announce that President Donald Trump plans to sign a bipartisan border security bill that will keep the government open, but will also declare a national emergency in hopes of bypassing Congress to get more money for his border wall.

Embedded video

Aaron Rupar
✔
@atrupar
Chuck Grassley gets extremely angry & starts yelling when he's asked to yield the Senate floor in the middle of his speech. @senatemajldr McConnell then announces that Trump plans to sign the government funding bill and declare a national emergency at the same time.

694
3:11 PM - Feb 14, 2019
563 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Though you can’t hear it on the video, Grassley reportedly told McConnell, “You’re rude. You’re just simply rude.” But within minutes McConnell apologized and the two shook hands.


Jake Sherman
✔
@JakeSherman
Replying to @JakeSherman
UPDATE: grassley and McConnell just laughed and shook hands. McConnell said I’m sorry.

1,424
3:38 PM - Feb 14, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
501 people are talking about this
McConnell reportedly privately counseled Trump against declaring a national emergency a few weeks back, but he announced on Thursday that he’s “going to support the national emergency declaration.”

Trump made clear earlier this week that he’s not happy about the fact that the border security deal only allocates $1.375 billion for border barriers. But an emergency declaration is sure to face legal challenges, and Trump has done himself no favors by publicly admitting his deliberations about whether to declare one hinged on politics, not conditions at the southern border.

RELATED

Why Trump is signing a border security deal and declaring a national emergency at the same time
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.

IN THIS STORYSTREAM
.... Government shutdown 2019: what you need to know about the border wall spending fight
.... Why Trump thinks a national emergency will get him his border wall
.... Watch Grassley get angry when McConnell interrupts him to announce Trump’s emergency declaration
.... Democrats are pushing for back pay for federal contractors in a border security deal


FOR MORE ON THIS TRUMPIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, GO TO SPECIAL BLOG FOR TODAY CALLED “TIME FOR THAT LEGAL UPDATE, DONTCHA THINK?”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/15/18226315/trump-emergency-national-wall-border-illegal
“This is a constitutional crisis”: a legal expert on Trump’s emergency declaration
Seems bad!
By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchampzack@vox.com Feb 15, 2019, 11:50am EST

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump announced that he would be declaring a state of emergency on the US-Mexico border and unilaterally appropriating funds to pay for his border wall.

It’s not clear if he can actually do that: The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the ultimate power to appropriate money. The president legally has the power to declare emergencies and respond, but can he do that in a situation where Congress has explicitly declined to fund the president’s wall?

According to Elizabeth Goitein, an expert on national security law, the answer is that he can’t — and Trump’s attempt to do so constitutes a “constitutional crisis.”

Goitein is the co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan but liberal-leaning legal nonprofit. Her research focuses on balancing national security and constitutional rights, which makes her pretty well-positioned to evaluate the president’s claim. In a series of tweets, she made the case that declaring an emergency on the border constitutes a power grab that directly threatens the constitutional order.

Here’s the argument, which focuses not only on Trump but on the underlying laws that enable him to declare an emergency in the first place:


Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Today, the President of the United States will declare a fictitious national emergency for the sole purpose of giving himself powers Congress explicitly refused to provide. 1/13

204
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
160 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
This is a constitutional crisis. Article I expressly forbids spending money except as appropriated by Congress. Congress had repeatedly refused to provide funds to build the wall. 2/13

135
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
65 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
As I wrote in @TheAtlantic, emergency powers are not, and were never intended to be, a constitutional workaround for a president who cannot bend Congress to his will. 3/13 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-has-no-case-national-emergency/581356/?utm_source=twb …

283
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Trump Is Destroying His Own Case for a National Emergency
By waiting for Congress to act, the president is undermining the legal basis for any declaration.

theatlantic.com
132 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
Emergency powers are designed to give the president access to standby authorities, passed by Congress in advance, in situations where Congress has no time to act. 4/13

54
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
25 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
If Congress *does* have time to act, then there’s no justification for bypassing the ordinary legislative process. And when that legislative process yields a clear answer, as it did here, the Constitution commands the president to respect that answer. 5/13

90
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
42 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
I hope the courts do the right thing and put an end to this abuse of power. But whether they do or not, it’s time for Congress to revisit the current legal system for emergency powers. 6/13

70
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
20 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
Under the National Emergencies Act, it’s far too easy for a president to declare emergencies where none exist—and far too difficult for Congress to put a stop to them. There’s no definition of “national emergency” and no limits on how many times a president can renew them. 7/13

64
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
23 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
If Congress believes the president is misusing emergency powers, its only remedy is to pass a law that the president has to sign. In practice, that means Congress needs a veto-proof majority. 8/13

54
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
23 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
Once an emergency is declared, the president has access to 123 special provisions of law that give him extraordinary powers—as we found in our research, available here: http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/emergency-powers … @BrennanCenter 9/13

58
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use
A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use

brennancenter.org* [-- SEE BELOW]
57 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
This system invites abuse. Presidents need broad discretion to decide what constitutes an emergency, but that discretion shouldn’t be unlimited. Some basic, common-sense criteria are needed. 10/13
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
19 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
At a minimum, an “emergency” should involve a significant change in factual circumstances that poses an imminent threat to public safety or other important national interests. That would still give the president plenty of wiggle room, without allowing fake emergencies. 11/13
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
27 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
And the president should not be able to renew states of emergency indefinitely. After a short period (I agree with @steve_vladeck that 30 days should be sufficient), the emergency should expire unless *Congress* renews it. 12/13
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
20 people are talking about this

Elizabeth Goitein
@LizaGoitein
Replying to @LizaGoitein
Congress should act *now* to try to block this abuse of power, and the courts should play their constitutional role. But unless we want to see more of this kind of abuse in the future, we need to get serious about National Emergencies Act reform. 13/13
11:11 AM - Feb 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
139 people are talking about this

One thing is practically certain: Goitein’s arguments will be tested in court. Someone will try to sue Trump to stop the emergency declaration; House Democrats already have a plan for a legal challenge, per the Washington Post. Then it’ll be up to the courts to decide if she’s right.


COULD THIS BE A SIGN FROM GOD?

Toxic black snow covers streets in Siberia - video

Residents of a coalmining region in Siberia have been posting online videos showing entire streets and districts covered in toxic black snow that critics say highlight a man-made ecological catastrophe in which British industry is compliant.