The Trump/Russia Timeline is #1.
SUMMER READING SUGGESTIONS FROM POLITICO
1
These are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company overall Timeline relating to Trump and Russia. You can read the entire Timeline here. The Pence Timeline, Comey Firing Timeline, and Kushner Timeline have also been updated to include relevant entries.
***
***
Sater has an interesting history. Allegedly, Sater’s father, Mikhael Sheferovsky (aka Michael Sater) was a lieutenant for Russia’s most powerful mobster, Semion Mogilevich. After a 1991 barroom fight in which Felix Sater stabbed a man in the face with the broken stem of a large margarita glass, he received a prison sentence. In 1993, Sater then became part of a stock scheme that allegedly relied on four New York Mafia crime families for protection. He pled guilty and, in return for a reduced sentence, entered into a 1998 cooperation agreement with federal prosecutors pursuing members of organized crime. Reportedly, he also helped the CIA track down and purchase stinger missiles on the black market in Central Asia, thereby keeping them out of terrorists’ hands. In April 2002, Felix Sater is still cooperating with the Justice Department when the US attorney for the eastern district of New York requests a postponement of Sater’s sentencing to September. [Revised July 17, 2017]
***
***
***
***
***
***
[Added July 17, 2017]
[This post first appeared on Bill Moyers & Company on July 12, 2017]
Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway (JD, George Washington, ’92) has a new assignment. She has to explain away a smoking gun that Donald Trump Jr. has aimed at the 2016 election. For months, she and everyone else in the White House vehemently denied that the Trump campaign had any contacts with Russians about the election. With a tweet on July 11, 2017, Don Jr. destroyed that talking point forever.
Call the Question
On December 18, 2016, CBS News’ John Dickerson had asked Conway directly: “Did anyone involved in the Trump campaign have any contact with Russians trying to meddle with the election?”
“Absolutely not,” she replied. “And I discussed that with the president-elect just last night. Those conversations never happened. I hear people saying it like it’s a fact on television. That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous. And—and it does undermine our democracy.”
Conway was resolute, indignant, and wrong. Those conversations did happen. People are saying it’s a fact because it is. From June 3-8, 2016, Don Jr. received and wrote emails that prove it. But when Conway talks about undermining democracy, she knows whereof she speaks.
Dodging Bullets
Don Jr.’s Russia troubles began on Saturday, July 8, 2017, when The New York Times told him it was going run a story about a June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower involving him, Jared Kushner, then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties. He responded with the first of his conflicting statements about that meeting. The participants discussed a program about the “adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago,” Don Jr. asserted. (Putin had suspended the program in retaliation for a 2012 American law punishing Russians thought to be responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax attorney who had uncovered a $230 million fraud scheme involving Putin allies.) “It was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up,” he wrote of the June 9 session.
That was iteration number one. On Sunday, July 9, the Times informed Don Jr. that five White House advisers contradicted his statement. In truth, the Russian lawyer with whom three of Trump’s top officials met on June 9 had promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. The Times story prompted Don Jr. to issue a new statement: “After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”
Then came Tuesday, July 11. The Times told Don Jr. that it now had the content of his June 3-8 email exchanges with Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who first contacted Don Jr. to request the meeting on behalf of his client—the son of a wealthy real estate developer and Putin ally sometimes referred to as the “Trump of Russia.” The emails said that Don Jr., Kushner, and Manafort met with a “Russian government attorney” based on the promise of “some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful” to Trump. The Trump group thought it would receive “very high level and sensitive information [that] is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
To get ahead of the imminent Times story, Don Jr. released his email exchange with Goldstone, along with his third statement on the June 9 meeting. With a newfound desire to be “totally transparent,” he said that he thought the Russian lawyer was going to give him “Political Opposition Research” on Clinton, as if accepting any election assistance from a foreign government is somehow legal, much less acceptable.
“Don’t Facts Matter?”
Cue Kellyanne Conway. Even before her infamous post-inauguration one-liner about “alternative facts,” Conway was a leading promoter of Trump’s disinformation program. Representing a super PAC supporting Ted Cruz (R-TX), Conway on February 9, 2016 criticized Trump for insulting people, saying: “[D]o I want somebody who hurls personal insults or who goes and talks about philosophical differences?” But only six weeks after joining Trump’s campaign, she proclaimed, “He doesn’t hurl insults.”
On Aug. 24, 2016, just three days after Conway and former Fox News chief Roger Ailes attended Trump’s debate prep session, she told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that Ailes was “not a formal or informal adviser to the Trump campaign… He has no formal or informal role.”
On Sept. 16, 2016, when Trump retreated from his five-year lie about President Obama’s birthplace and floated a new falsehood—that Hillary Clinton had started the “birther” controversy—Conway backed him up on Sunday morning talk shows. “This started with Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” she said. “No question.” Of course, PolitiFact—along with FactCheck.org and The Washington Post Fact-Checker—reported that it had “debunked this zombie claim multiple times.”
On Nov. 6, 2016, CNN’s Anderson Cooper finally asked Conway: “Don’t facts matter?”
The answer was no.
On January 5, 2017, leaders of the U.S. intelligence community testified unanimously before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Russia had used hacking and leaks to influence the presidential election. John McCain called the cyberattack an “act of war.” But the next morning, Conway appeared on CNN, asserting that “conclusive evidence” of Russian election interference still didn’t exist. “The Russians didn’t want him elected,” she declared.
On February 2, 2017, Conway said Trump’s travel ban would prevent more events like the “Bowling Green Massacre”—which never happened.
On May 9, 2017—shortly after Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey—she led the charge in pushing the absurd White House cover-up that Comey’s pre-election statements about the Clinton email investigation led to his firing. Then Trump himself contradicted Conway’s story.
After that, she remained quiet for a few weeks. That is, until she returned to twist words for the newest and, perhaps, greatest scandal in American political history.
Conway’s Conundrum
Now that Don Jr. has revealed the falsity of Conway’s December 18, 2016 assurances that no one involved in the Trump campaign had any contact with Russians trying to meddle with the election, how will she respond? The new revelations about the June 9 meeting should be a breaking point. It doesn’t require Conway’s legal degree to realize that accepting help from an enemy state to win an American election undermines democracy.
But so far, the Russian assault on our republic hasn’t seemed to faze her. On Monday morning, July 10, she hit the airwaves to defend her boss’s son. After ABC’s George Stephanopoulos replayed Conway’s December 16 denial of any contacts between Trump campaign members and Russian election meddlers, he asked, “Who misled you, and why did Don Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort allow those public denials to stand for so many months?”
Conway ducked the first question and responded to the second with a non-answer: Some disclosure forms had been amended to include certain meetings. And everyone should believe her when she says, “No information was received that was meaningful or helpful and no action was taken.” Similarly, in a longer session with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, she displayed mastery of her subtle approach to attacking democracy’s central core, which is an informed electorate.
Long ago, Conway left the world in which facts, truth, and clarity matter. The future of the republic now depends on the answer to this question: How much of the country has she taken with her?
These are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company overall Timeline relating to Trump and Russia. You can read the entire Timeline here. The Pence Timeline, Comey Firing Timeline, and Kushner Timeline have also been updated to include relevant entries.
***
[Added July 11, 2017]
***
[Added July 11, 2017]
These are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company overall Timeline relating to Trump and Russia. You can read the entire Timeline here. The Pence Timeline, Comey Firing Timeline, and Kushner Timeline have also been updated to include relevant entries.
***
***
***
***
***
These are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company overall Timeline relating to Trump and Russia. You can read the entire Timeline here. The Pence Timeline, Comey Firing Timeline, and Kushner Timeline have also been updated to include relevant entries.
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
[Added June 26, 2017]
[Added June 26, 2017]
and
[Added June 26, 2017]
[This post first appeared on Bill Moyers & Company on June 22, 2017]
Eventually, Trump is likely to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. Trump’s repeated statements about the Russia “hoax” — along with his apparent attempts to influence the FBI’s investigation — warrant a close look at the process by which he could do so. Equally important are the limited ways to stop him. Whether by design, inadvertence or a combination of both, Trump and his minions — including Newt Gingrich and Trump’s lawyers — have been laying the groundwork for what could become America’s defining moment.
The Rules and the Players
To stop the investigation, Trump’s cleanest path requires that one of his loyalists occupy a Senate-confirmed position in the Justice Department’s chain of command. With Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal, the power to end the inquiry has now landed in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s lap. But Sessions’ recusal also gave Rosenstein the authority to appoint a special counsel. When he tapped Robert Mueller for the job, it was a game-changer.
Under the Justice Department’s special counsel regulations, Trump can’t fire Mueller directly. Only the attorney general can pull the trigger for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or for other good cause, including violation of departmental policies.” For now, that determination rests with Rosenstein. If he drops out, next in line are Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand and US Attorney Dana Boente. After that, things get murky, because the Senate has not confirmed any other Justice Department official. That’s important because without Senate confirmation, even temporary advancement to departmental leadership is problematic.
Step 1: Clearing the Board
As the FBI’s Russia investigation intensified, so would have Trump’s desire for DOJ loyalists whom he could direct to end it. That might explain Trump’s curious about-face involving Manhattan’s US Attorney Preet Bharara. In November, Trump had personally asked Bharara to remain on the job during his administration. But on March 10 — a week after Sessions’ recusal from the Russia investigation — Trump made a stunning reversal: He fired Bharara, along with every remaining US attorney in the country, except for Rod Rosenstein and Dana Boente. Overnight, the Justice Department was without any Senate-confirmed officials, except for the three who now remain: Sessions, Rosenstein and Boente.
Step 2: Removing Rosenstein
After Trump cleared the board, Rosenstein became a problem for the president, starting with his appointment of special counsel Mueller. Then Rosenstein testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 13 that he would not fire Mueller without the necessary “good cause” — and that he hadn’t seen any yet. After that performance, Trump couldn’t count on Rosenstein to fire Mueller, and the process for moving Rosenstein out began swiftly. Once reports surfaced that Mueller was investigating the possibility that Trump had obstructed justice by firing FBI Director Comey, it took only a tweet to put Rosenstein in the hot seat:
Then Trump’s personal attorney followed up on the Sunday morning talk show circuit — Face the Nation, Fox News Sunday, Meet the Press — reviving the false story that Rosenstein’s May 9 memo led Trump to fire Comey. Bottom line: If Mueller’s investigation includes the circumstances surrounding Comey’s firing, Rosenstein will likely become a witness and may feel compelled to recuse himself from supervising Mueller.
Step 3: But Trump Can’t Count on Brand or Bent
If Rosenstein drops out, Rachel Brand takes the stage. The Senate confirmed her as associate attorney general on May 18. A longtime Republican, she worked on Elizabeth Dole’s presidential campaign and in the office of legal policy for President George W. Bush’s Justice Department. But Brand’s solid Republican credentials are irrelevant to her personal and professional integrity. Benjamin Wittes, a friend in whom then-FBI Director James Comey confided some of his concerns about Trump, tweeted on June 16:
If Wittes’ assessment is correct, Brand would balk at executing an unlawful Trump order. At a minimum, Trump’s advisers gaming out the “fire Mueller” scenario have to assume that she would not fall in line.
Next up, Dana Boente, would be no sure thing for Trump, either. Regarded as tough but evenhanded, he’s a career prosecutor who has spent 33 years in the Justice Department.
Step 4: Find Allies
For three months after he fired every incumbent US attorney, Trump didn’t nominate any replacements. But on June 12 — the same day Trump’s longtime friend and chief executive of Newsmax Media, Chris Ruddy, visited the White House and then said on the PBS NewsHour that Trump was “considering, perhaps, terminating the special counsel” — Trump announced his first wave of nominees:
Once confirmed, each of these US attorneys becomes eligible for the Justice Department’s line of succession. The next step would be for Trump to issue another executive order. (It would be his third one resetting the departmental lineup.) He could list new US attorneys based on their fealty to him. When the time came to fire Mueller without satisfying the “cause” requirements of the governing regulations, Trump could proceed down that list until he got compliance.
Step 5: Move ‘Em Through the Senate
Regardless of Trump’s underlying motivations, the prior sequence of events raises the stakes in the otherwise routine task of confirming a president’s selections for US attorney. Perhaps it’s a coincidence, but three nominees hail from Jeff Sessions’ home state of Alabama. And Trump’s Ohio pick comes from White House counsel Don McGahn’s former law firm, Jones Day — which has supplied a dozen lawyers to the Trump administration. All eight nominees merit close scrutiny.
What Can Stop Trump?
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) could halt the confirmation hearing on Trump’s Ohio nominee by using the Senate’s traditional “blue slip” process to express disapproval. But except for the District of Columbia, which has only “shadow senators” who can’t vote, all other Trump nominees are from states with two Republican senators (Alabama, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah). Unless they break ranks, there’s no “blue slip” obstacle to Senate hearings on those nominees.
In the upcoming confirmation hearings, senators should ask each candidate a critical question that transcends party politics: Will you defy a presidential order to fire Robert Mueller?
The answer will reveal everything the country needs to know about the nominee’s respect for democracy and the rule of law. To assist concerned citizens who want to prod members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to do the right thing, here’s a list with links to individual contact information:
Republicans
Democrats
It’s possible that Trump won’t fire Mueller and precipitate a constitutional crisis. But that would require unprecedented Trump behavior: placing the country ahead of his personal self-interest.
Firing Mueller will mark a new low in Trump’s scorched-earth attack on established norms and the rule of law. When Mueller files suit to keep his job, it will become the most important litigation in American history. Every patriot should pray that he wins.
Since 2007, the federal student loan forgiveness (PSLF) program has been an escape hatch for law graduates (and others) saddled with overwhelming educational debt. The idea was that the graduate would take a public service job at low pay and reduced monthly loan requirements. After ten years of service, any remaining loan debt was forgiven. The well-known backstory is that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. They can follow a person to the grave.
There were and still are problems with PSLF, such as the resulting tax on the imputed income from the forgiven loan. And 10 years is a long time to toil in low wage positions. But the country and many recent graduates have been the better for it.
New Problems
Serious administrative issues surfaced when the ABA sued the Department of Education for retroactive denials to lawyers who thought they were employed in qualifying PSLF programs. After original approval, the suit alleged, the department then reneged and said, in effect, “No soup for you.”
According to one report, “The ABA, which views the program as an essential part of its recruiting and retention efforts, was only informed that it was no longer an eligible employer for PSLF purposes earlier this year – nine years into a 10 year program. The association has lost employees who were in the program and has been told by possible hires that the loss of qualification was an important factor in not joining the ABA.”
Problems Solved, Trump-Style
For young lawyers hoping that public service loan forgiveness was the answer to a lifetime of student debt burdens, Trump has some bad news. Rather than remedy the problems with a program that can provide enormous help to many recent grads and the organizations for which they work, he wants to eliminate it altogether. It’s analogous to his approach to the Affordable Care Act. Fixing something is more difficult than eliminating it altogether. So Trump proposes to eliminate it.
Amid the attention surrounding Trump’s scandals involving Russia, obstruction of justice, and business conflicts of interest, many important stories got lost. What’s happening in the U.S Department of Education is one of them. On May 17, The Washington Post reported, “Funding for college work-study programs would be cut in half, public-service loan forgiveness would end and hundreds of millions of dollars that public schools could use for mental health, advanced coursework and other services would vanish under a Trump administration plan to cut $10.6 billion from federal education initiatives.”
Why? Because Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ lifelong mission has been to promote private and religious schools. According the Post story, she seeks to put $400 million into expanding “charter schools and vouchers for private and religious schools, and another $1 billion to push public schools to adopt choice-friendly policies.”
Who’s Affected?
By the end of 2016, 550,00 people had been approved for the federal loan forgiveness program. The first beneficiaries of the program will receive their rewards this year. If Trump and DeVos have their way, they will become the vanguard of a dying breed. Trump and DeVos are not just throwing out the baby with the bathwater; they’re ripping out the tub and all of the plumbing, too.
These are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company overall Timeline relating to Trump and Russia. You can read the entire Timeline here. The Pence Timeline, Comey Firing Timeline, and Kushner Timeline have also been updated to include relevant entries.
***
[Added June 19, 2017]
and
and
and
[Added June 19, 2017]
and
and
[Added June 19, 2017]
This post first appeared on Bill Moyers & Company on June 14, 2017
The legal principles are straightforward. Anyone who corruptly endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede a federal investigation or judicial process commits a felony. And no person is above the law—not even the president. The simplicity of those notions has become lost.
Legal commentators’ competing views on whether Trump has obstructed justice haven’t helped. Rather than ascribe nefarious motives to either side of the debate, attentive citizens might consider this possibility: The experts are looking at the same problem from two different legal perspectives.
One perspective emphasizes the forest, where effective jury trial lawyers dwell rhetorically. The best of the lot are great storytellers. They chronicle facts in a compelling narrative, starting with the opening statement: “The story of this case begins on…” That gives jurors a way to think about the evidence as they hear it throughout the trial. Closing arguments become a final opportunity to reinforce the story with evidence.
Another perspective focuses on trees. In criminal cases, for example, a judicial ruling that a confession is inadmissible can gut the prosecution’s entire effort. A suppression hearing before a judge requires dissecting a particular episode—how the police interrogated the accused. But the larger question—whether a defendant is guilty of the underlying crime—is irrelevant to that exercise.
The two perspectives revealed themselves in the now infamous Senate Intelligence Committee hearing at which former FBI Director James Comey testified.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA, JD, Harvard, ’80) opened with his view of the forest:
“We’re here because a foreign adversary attacked us right here at home, plain and simple, not by guns or missiles, but by foreign operatives seeking to hijack our most important democratic process—our presidential election.”
Warner then set forth his brief summary:
The Forest
“This isn’t happening in isolation,” Warner concluded. “At the same time the president was engaged in these efforts with Director Comey, he was also, at least allegedly, asking senior leaders of the intelligence community to downplay the Russia investigation or to intervene with the director.”
A Tree
Republicans on the committee went after trees, starting with a single word—“hope”—in a single conversation between Trump and Comey the day after Flynn’s termination: “I hope you can let this go.”
“I took it as a direction,” Comey said to the committee, believing that Trump wanted him to drop the FBI’s investigation of Flynn. “I mean, the president of the United States, with me alone, saying, ‘I hope this—’ I took it as this is what he wants me to do.”
Fastening Trump’s fate to that word, Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) (JD, Idaho, ’68) tackled Comey as a criminal defense lawyer would. “You may have taken it as a direction,” Risch said, “but it’s not what he said.” Risch then volunteered that no one had ever been prosecuted based on saying, “I hope.” (Although Comey couldn’t think of an example at the time, when Collin McDonald robbed several banks in 2003, he received a longer sentence for obstructing justice because he told his girlfriend, “I hope and pray to God you didn’t say anything about that weapon.” There are plenty of other examples.)
Similarly, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX, JD, St. Mary’s Univ. ’77, LLM, UVA, ‘95), who was on the short list to replace Comey as FBI director, followed Risch’s line. “When you say ‘I hope you can see your way to letting this go,’ that’s not an order,” Cornyn told reporters.
Another Tree
Likewise, some commentators would exonerate Trump on a purely legal issue: The president’s power as head of the executive branch allows him to fire the FBI director for any reason. Generally speaking, that’s true, as Comey acknowledged. But applied too broadly in a constitutional republic that is a nation of laws—not individuals—it’s dubious.
Even President Richard Nixon’s most stalwart defenders conceded that a president was not above the law. In 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected his assertion of unlimited power with respect to federal criminal investigations involving him or his associates and the Watergate scandal. Subsequent articles of impeachment described his obstruction of justice in ways that could echo for Trump—“interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by…the Federal Bureau Investigation” and “endeavoring to misuse” the CIA by asking it to block the FBI probe.
Former US Attorney Preet Bharara illustrated the perils of focusing on Trump’s “executive branch omnipotence” tree. “[If] Michael Flynn offered a million dollars to Donald Trump and said, ‘I’m going to give you this million dollars and I’m giving it to you because I want you to fire Jim Comey,’ and then Donald Trump fired Jim Comey, which everyone agrees he has the absolute authorization and authority to do, that would be an open and shut federal criminal case,” Bharara said. “It’s a quid pro quo and he could be charged—the president of the United States. So this argument that you keep hearing on the TV shows that the mere fact that the president can fire an official at will doesn’t solve the problem.”
If Trump committed what would be a felony by any other citizen, such acts would, at a minimum, become a powerful basis for impeachment. And once out of office, the specter of criminal prosecution would move from theoretical to real. That’s why Richard Nixon accepted a pardon from President Ford.
The issue isn’t whether a president has enormous discretion to run the executive branch. The question is where the lawful limit of that discretion lies. That’s why the Trump/Russia and Comey Firing Timelines provide important context within which to evaluate Trump’s actions. As the saga unfolds, don’t believe those asserting that the facts prove Trump is already in the clear. Don’t let anyone sell you the dangerous proposition that the president is above the law.
And don’t let shiny objects in the trees distract your view of the forest.
These are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company overall Timeline relating to Trump and Russia. You can read the entire Timeline here. The Pence Timeline, Comey Firing Timeline, and Kushner Timeline have also been updated to include relevant entries.
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
[Added June 12, 2017]
[Added June 12, 2017]
[This post first appeared on Bill Moyers & Company on June 7, 2017.]
Jared Kushner (JD/MBA, NYU, ’07) has a law degree from one of the finest universities in the country. He understands the threat that Trump’s words and deeds pose to democracy and the rule of law, but he has been in close proximity to Trump scandals that threaten both. He is a man of few public words, but his policy portfolio for Trump is enormous. He is uniquely positioned to keep Trump from running amok, but he has joined the ranks of Trump’s enablers.
Kushner is also the administration’s Forrest Gump. When Trump met with business leaders on Jan. 23, Kushner attended. On Jan. 29, 2017 — three days after Acting Attorney General Sally Yates had told White House counsel Don McGahn that national security adviser Mike Flynn could be subject to Russian blackmail — Kushner was sitting in the Oval Office with Trump and Flynn. When Trump conferred with government cyber-security experts on Jan. 31, Kushner was with him. And on May 8, 2017, when Trump confided to a small group of advisers that he was going to fire FBI Director James Comey, Kushner was among the trusted few.
Our Kushner timeline, below, taps entries from our overall Trump-Russia timeline and adds others that are unique to him. As the facts unfold, this timeline will be updated. Eventually, the public will learn the full story of Jared Kushner’s role in the controversies enveloping the Trump White House — and to what extent he shares responsibility for them. Like many of the lawyers surrounding and enabling Trump, Kushner has retained a personal attorney to help him navigate the troubled waters engulfing the White House.
While reviewing the Kushner timeline and considering the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, recall Yates’ meeting with McGahn in late January. Regardless of whether Flynn’s actions were illegal, he was “compromised” and subject to Russian blackmail because the Russians knew more about what he’d done with them than the American people did. Robert Mueller, the Justice Department’s special counsel investigating the Trump-Russia affair, is charged with finding criminal actions. But sometimes even lawful conduct beyond the purview of any special counsel can present a clear and present danger to the nation’s vital interests.
Kushner, Conflicts, and China
June 16, 2015: Trump announces that he is running for president. His 34-year-old son-in-law, Jared Kushner, runs a real estate empire that his father created and ran until New Jersey’s then-federal prosecutor Chris Christie put Charles Kushner in prison. The Kushner Companies’ flagship building is a Manhattan skyscraper (666 Fifth Avenue) that it bought at the height of the real estate market in 2007 and that promptly plummeted in value. To stave off default, the company sold off pieces, but it’s still in trouble. The building has a 70 percent occupancy rate, revenue covers only two-thirds of its debt obligations and a $1.2 billion mortgage comes due in 2019. Kushner Companies is reportedly trying to assemble a $7 billion financing package to convert the building into condos.
Around June 2016: As Trump secures the Republican nomination for president, a Chinese financial giant, Anbang Insurance Group, begins talks with Kushner Companies about investing in the redevelopment of 666 Fifth Avenue.
Nov. 8, 2016: Election Day.
Nov. 16, 2016: Jared Kushner and a group of executives dine at the Waldorf Astoria with the chairman of China’s Anbang Insurance Group.
Nov. 28, 2016: As speculation grows that Kushner will become a top Trump White House adviser, reports surface that business conflicts of interest could pose problems for him. Among them is a Kushner project in New Jersey that attracted tens of millions of dollars from Chinese investors by marketing a controversial US immigration program (EB-5), which opens a speedy path to citizenship for investors who put more than $500,000 in projects located in economically disadvantaged “targeted employment areas.” The program has become controversial because gerrymandering of census tracts has allowed otherwise ineligible real estate developments to benefit from tenuous geographic connections to poor neighborhoods.
Dec. 2, 2016: Trump accepts a call from Taiwan’s president, thereby offending China’s president by violating America’s longstanding “one China” policy.
Jan. 31, 2017: A Kushner Companies spokesperson announces that Jared Kushner has sold his interest in 666 Fifth Avenue to a family trust of which he, Ivanka and their children are not beneficiaries.
Feb. 9, 2017: Jared Kushner reportedly orchestrates a fence-mending phone call between Trump and China’s president, during which Trump reaffirms the US “one China” policy that his earlier conduct had placed in doubt.
March 13, 2017: Bloomberg reports that the Kushner family may receive as much as $400 million from Chinese investor Anbang Insurance Group’s investment in 666 Fifth Avenue. On March 29, Anbang backs out of the deal.
May 5, 2017: Trump signs a bill extending the controversial EB-5 immigrant program. Concerns about “gerrymandering” that facilitates abuses of the program persist.
May 6, 2012: Jared Kushner’s sister, Nicole Meyer, touts Jared’s proximity to Trump, as well as the EB-5 citizenship program, as selling points to potential Chinese investors in Kushner Companies’ One Journal Square development in New Jersey. The project appears to benefit from the type of gerrymandering that generates criticism of the EB-5 program.
Kushner and Russia
April through November 2016: Mike Flynn and other advisers to the Trump campaign have at least 18 phone calls and emails with Russian officials, including six contacts involving Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. According to a later report by Reuters, Jared Kushner has at least two phone calls with Kislyak.
June 2016: Jared Kushner assumes control of all data-driven Trump campaign efforts, turning a nondescript building outside San Antonio, Texas into a 100-person data hub. Among the firms he retains is Cambridge Analytica, which reportedly has created “profiles” consisting of several thousand data points for 220 million Americans. Cambridge Analytica’s financial backers include hedge fund tycoon Robert Mercer, who also has a $10 million investment in Breitbart News, which, at the time, is run by Steve Bannon.
December 2016: At Kislyak’s request, Kushner meets secretly with Sergey Gorkov, chief of Russia’s state-owned bank VEB. US intelligence reportedly views Gorkov as a “Putin crony” and a graduate of a “finishing school” for spies. In 2010, VEB had been involved in a financial transaction that assisted the struggling Trump International Hotel and Tower project in Toronto. Since 2014, VEB has been subject to US sanctions over Russia’s annexation of Crimea and meddling in Ukraine. In December 2016, Kushner is still looking for more than $1 billion from investors to refinance Kushner Companies’ debt on its troubled 666 Fifth Avenue building. The public remains unaware of the Kushner/Gorkov meeting until March 2017, when The New York Times breaks the story. The White House characterizes it as a routine diplomatic encounter that went nowhere, but VEB says it was part of the bank’s ongoing business strategy. For months thereafter, the White House refuses to disclose the date of the meeting. On June 1, 2017, The Washington Post reports the results of its independent investigation: On Dec. 13, 2016, a private plane associated with VEB (and on which its executives travel) flew from Moscow to Newark airport outside New York City. The following day, the plane then flew to Japan, where Putin met with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Dec. 15.
Late December 2016: Steve Bannon joins Flynn and Kushner for a secret meeting with the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who made an undisclosed visit to New York later in December.
Dec. 29, 2016: On the same day President Obama announces sanctions against Russia in retaliation for its interference in the 2016 election, national security adviser-designate Lt. Gen. Flynn places five phone calls to the Russian ambassador.
Dec. 30, 2016: After Putin makes a surprise announcement that Russia would not retaliate for the new sanctions, Trump tweets:
On or around Jan. 11, 2017: Erik Prince — the founder of the Blackwater private security firm, $250,000 donor to the Trump campaign, and brother of Trump’s nomination for secretary of education Betsy DeVos — meets secretly in the Seychelles Islands with a Russian close to Putin. Russia’s goal is to establish a back-channel line of communication with the Trump administration. The meeting had been arranged by the United Arab Emirates, and came soon after a meeting between the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, Mike Flynn and Jared Kushner in December.
Jan. 15, 2017: Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation, Vice President Pence says Flynn’s call to the Russian ambassador on the same day President Obama announced new sanctions was “strictly coincidental,” explaining: “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure on Russia…. What I can confirm, having to spoken with [Flynn] about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.” Host John Dickerson asks Pence, “Just to button up one question, did any adviser or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?” Pence replies, “Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy.”
Jan. 18, 2017: On his application for national security clearance, Jared Kushner omits his December meetings with Russian Ambassador Kislyak and the chief of the Russian bank VEB.
During the week following the Jan. 20, 2017 inauguration: Trump administration officials are considering an executive order to lift unilaterally the US sanctions against Russia. Removing the sanctions also would have expanded greatly the Russian bank VEB’s ability to do business in the US, and allowed Americans to borrow from and provide financing to the bank. Five months later, Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff breaks the rest of the story: “Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.” State Department officials are so alarmed that they urge congressional leaders to pass legislation that would lock the sanctions in place. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) become involved.
Jan. 23, 2017: At Sean Spicer’s first press briefing, Spicer says that none of Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador touched on the Dec. 29 sanctions. That got the attention of FBI Director James Comey. According to The Wall Street Journal, Comey convinced acting Attorney General Sally Yates to delay informing the White House immediately about the discrepancy between Spicer’s characterization of Flynn’s calls and US intelligence intercepts showing that the two had, in fact, discussed sanctions. Comey reportedly asked Yates to wait a bit longer so that the FBI could develop more information and speak with Flynn himself. The FBI interviews Flynn shortly thereafter.
Jan. 24, 2017: According to a subsequent article in The Washington Post, Flynn reportedly denies to FBI agents that he had discussed US sanctions against Russia in his December 2016 calls with the Russian ambassador.
Jan. 26, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informs White House Counsel Don McGahn that, based on recent public statements of White House officials including Vice President Mike Pence, Flynn had lied to Pence and others about his late-December conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. According to Sean Spicer, Trump and a small group of White House advisers were “immediately informed of the situation.”
Jan. 27, 2017: McGahn asks Yates to return to the White House for another discussion about Flynn. He asks Yates, “Why does it matter to the Department of Justice if one White House official lies to another?” Yates explains that Flynn’s lies make him vulnerable to Russian blackmail because the Russians know that Flynn lied and could probably prove it.
Also on Jan. 27, 2017: In a one-on-one White House dinner that Trump had requested, he asks FBI Director Comey for a pledge of personal loyalty. Comey, who was uneasy about even accepting the dinner invitation, responds that he can’t do that, but he can pledge honesty. Afterward, Comey describes the dinner to several people on the condition that they not disclose it while he remains director of the FBI.
Jan. 29, 2017: TIME photographs Trump at his desk in the Oval Office. Sitting across from him are Kushner and Flynn, about whom Acting Attorney General Sally Yates warned the White House earlier that week. The caption indicates that Trump is speaking on the phone with King Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Feb. 7, 2017: Sens. Cardin and Graham introduce bipartisan legislation that would bar Trump from granting sanctions relief to Russia without congressional involvement.
Feb. 8, 2017: Flynn tells reporters at The Washington Post he did not discuss US sanctions in his December conversation with the Russian ambassador.
Feb. 9, 2017: Through a spokesman, Flynn changes his position: “While [Flynn] had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”
Feb. 10, 2017: Trump tells reporters he was unaware of reports surrounding Flynn’s December conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Feb. 13, 2017: The Washington Post breaks another story: Then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates had warned the White House in late January that Flynn had mischaracterized his December conversation with the Russian ambassador, and that it made him vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Later that evening, Flynn resigns.
Feb. 14, 2017: In a private Oval Office meeting, Trump asks FBI Director Comey to halt the investigation of former national security adviser Mike Flynn. According to Comey’s contemporaneous memorandum, Trump says, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” According to the memo, Trump tells Comey that Flynn had done nothing wrong. Comey does not say anything to Trump about halting the investigation, replying only: “I agree he is a good guy.”
March 2, 2017: The New York Times reports, and the White House confirms, a previously undisclosed meeting involving Mike Flynn, Jared Kushner and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. According to The Times, “Michael T. Flynn, then Donald J. Trump’s incoming national security adviser, had a previously undisclosed meeting with the Russian ambassador in December to ‘establish a line of communication’ between the new administration and the Russian government, the White House said on Thursday. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and now a senior adviser, also participated in the meeting at Trump Tower with Mr. Flynn and Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador.”
March 27, 2017: The New York Times reports the previously undisclosed December meeting between Kushner and Sergey Gorkov, head of the Russian bank VEB. On May 29, 2017, the White House says that Kushner met the banker “in his capacity as a transition official.” The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to question Kushner about both of Kushner’s December meetings with Kislyak and Gorkov.
April 6, 2017: The New York Times reports that Jared Kushner’s application for national security clearance had failed to disclose his December meetings at Trump Tower with Russian Ambassador Kislyak and the CEO of the Russian bank, VEB. In a statement, Kushner’s attorney says that after learning of the error, Mr. Kushner told the FBI: “During the presidential campaign and transition period, I served as a point-of-contact for foreign officials trying to reach the president-elect. I had numerous contacts with foreign officials in this capacity. … I would be happy to provide additional information about these contacts.”
May 15, 2017: Trump meets in the Oval Office with the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who had arranged the January 2017 meeting in the Seychelles Islands between Erik Prince and a Russian close to Putin.
May 18, 2017: TIME reports that congressional investigators are reviewing whether Cambridge Analytica or Breitbart News played any role in working with Russian efforts to help Trump win the election.
May 19, 2017: The Washington Post reports that federal investigators in the Trump/Russia matter have identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest. On May 25, news reports identify the official as Jared Kushner.
May 26, 2017: The Washington Post reports on Kushner’s Dec. 1 or 2 meeting with Russian Ambassador Kislyak at which, according to Kislyak, Kushner requested a secret and secure communication channel between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. In mid-December, an anonymous letter had tipped off The Post to what Kushner had supposedly said at the meeting. Former US intelligence officials described the idea of a back channel using a hostile foreign power’s facilities as “disturbing” and “dangerous.”
Also on May 26, 2017: The Washington Post reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee has demanded that the Trump campaign produce all Russia-related documents, emails and phone records dating to June 2015, when the campaign was launched.
May 27, 2017: Reuters reports that Jared Kushner had at least three previously undisclosed contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during and after the presidential campaign. Two were phone calls between April and November. His attorney says that Kushner “has no recollection of the calls as described” and asks Reuters for the dates that they allegedly occurred.
May 28, 2017: In three Sunday morning talk show appearances, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly says that if Kushner was trying to a create a back channel to communicate with the Russian government, it was a “good thing.” Veteran diplomatic and intelligence experts remain unconvinced.
May 31, 2017: The Washington Post reports that the Trump administration is moving toward returning two suspected espionage compounds to Russia. When President Obama issued new sanctions on Dec. 29, he said that the compounds — located in New York and Maryland — were being “used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes” and had given Russia 24 hours to vacate them.
Also on May 31, 2017: Sergey Gorkov, head of Russian bank VEB, refuses to comment in response to reporters’ questions about his December 2016 meeting with Jared Kushner.
Kushner and the Comey Cover-up
May 8, 2017: Trump informs a small group of his closest advisers, including Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner and White House counsel Don McGahn, that he plans to fire FBI Director James Comey. According to The New York Times, McGahn counsels Trump to delay dismissing Comey; Kushner urges him to proceed.
Also on May 8, 2017: Trump follows Kushner’s advice and, according to ABC News, Kushner, White House counsel Don McGahn, Vice President Pence and chief of staff Reince Priebus begin to prepare talking points about Comey’s planned firing. Meanwhile, Trump summons Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to the White House, where he instructs them provide a written justification for removing Comey. Before Rosenstein prepares the requested memo, he knows Trump intends to fire Comey.
To be continued…
These are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company overall Timeline relating to Trump and Russia. You can read the entire Timeline here. The Pence Timeline and Comey Firing Timeline have also been updated to include relevant entries.
***
***
***
***
[This post first appeared at Bill Moyers & Company on May 31, 2017.]
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (JD, Harvard, ’89) could have said no to a dangerous president, but he didn’t. Instead, he penned a two-and-a-half-page memo that the White House used to cover up Trump’s real reasons for firing FBI Director James Comey. As the cover-up imploded, Rosenstein became enveloped in the resulting firestorm. Since then, he has worsened his predicament.
By Rosenstein’s own account, the process of preparing his memo for the president involved none of the careful analysis that a lawyer typically would perform when advising a client about such a sensitive situation. Only once in history has a president fired an FBI director. And that was after the Justice Department produced a 161-page report documenting Director William Sessions’ improper use of government funds. The termination process was systematic, thorough, and took months.
At the outset, an attorney tries to learn relevant facts. But Rosenstein admits, “My memorandum is not a survey of FBI morale or performance.” Even the most minimal due diligence would have undermined one of his principal conclusions. If Rosenstein had asked, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe would have told him that Comey enjoyed “broad support within the FBI and still does to this day…. The majority, the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep, positive connection to Director Comey.”
An attorney then relies on the facts and the law to build a case. But Rosenstein acknowledges, “My memorandum is not a legal brief;… My memorandum is not a finding of official misconduct;… My memorandum is not a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination.” He understates the deficiencies. His memo reads like a college term paper reciting personal views and reporting results from a quick online search. It relies on previously published statements by former government officials criticizing Comey’s pre-election statements about the FBI’s Hillary Clinton investigation. And even they didn’t say Comey should be fired. Except as a public relations device, Rosenstein’s memo was meaningless.
So why did he write it?
The Interview
Rosenstein is a 27-year veteran of the Justice Department. In 2007, President George W. Bush nominated him for a federal appellate judgeship that he didn’t get. Shortly after the 2016 election, Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions (R-AL) interviewed him for the second-highest position in Trump’s Justice Department. For a seasoned prosecutor, Rosenstein’s admission about that encounter is remarkable.
“In one of my first meetings with then-Sen. Jeff Sessions last winter,” Rosenstein told Congress a week after the cover-up collapsed, “we discussed the need for new leadership at the FBI.”
His offhand remark glossed over an obvious question: As between Sessions (JD, Alabama, ’73) and Rosenstein, who raised that subject? The answer would have led to another question: Why? At the time, some dots were ripe for Rosenstein to connect, if he’d wanted to see them. Trump was deriding the conclusion of US intelligence that had Russia had interfered in the election to help him win. As dark investigative clouds hovered on the horizon, he regarded any ongoing investigation as the perpetuation of a “hoax.” He wanted it all to end.
Whatever test Sessions applied in that early meeting about new FBI leadership, Rosenstein passed with flying colors. On Jan. 31, the White House announced its intent to nominate him as deputy attorney general.
The Survivor
After admitting to lies about contact with Russia during the campaign, Sessions recused himself from the Trump/Russia investigation on March 2. As soon as the Senate confirmed Rosenstein — a prospect that seemed certain — the Trump/Russia investigation would land in his lap. Maybe Rosenstein didn’t realize it, but with Sessions’ recusal, Rosenstein became Trump’s new safety net, up to and including terminating Comey as FBI director.
Before long, it looked like Trump might need it. On March 20, Comey testified that since July 2016, the FBI had an ongoing investigation into Russian interference with the election, including “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”
A week later, according to Comey’s friend Benjamin Wittes, Comey expressed his reservations about Rosenstein becoming his new boss. While lunching with Wittes on March 27, Comey reportedly said, “Rod is a survivor. So I have concerns.”
The Survivor in Peril
Two weeks after Sessions had presided at Rosenstein’s April 26 swearing-in ceremony, both men were in the Oval Office with Trump. Rosenstein later described the meeting: “On May 8, I learned that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey and sought my advice and input. Notwithstanding my personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader. I wrote a brief memorandum to the attorney general summarizing my longstanding concerns about Director Comey’s public statements concerning the Secretary Clinton email investigation.”
Stated simply, Trump was firing Comey and he wanted a supporting memo from Rosenstein. Twenty-four hours later, he had it. It takes a failure of judgment, imagination or both not to have anticipated what would come next.
Before the day ended, Rosenstein had spoken by phone with White House counsel Don McGahn. According to The Wall Street Journal, Rosenstein insisted the White House correct the public misimpression that he had initiated Comey’s firing. The White House complied, releasing a new timeline of the events and reciting that the impetus for removing Comey came from Trump, not Rosenstein.
Survivor in Distress
The White House’s pivot didn’t get Rosenstein off the hook. The day after firing Comey, Russia’s Ambassador Kislyak and Foreign Minister Lavrov met with Trump, who boasted, “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
The next day, Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt, “Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it.” But then Trump added this: “And in fact, when I decided to do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story….”
As the cover-up disintegrated, Rosenstein’s job interview with then-Sen. Sessions began to look like an earlier bookend to its troubling counterpart. When Rosenstein confirmed the “need for new leadership at the FBI,” he had boarded Trump’s train bound for Comey’s dismissal. The only question was when it would arrive.
Perhaps Rosenstein felt a chill when he read The New York Times on May 11, reporting on their private dinner on Jan. 27 when Trump sought Comey’s personal loyalty. Likewise, the days following May 18 couldn’t have been pleasant for Rosenstein after Benjamin Wittes’ views hit the national airwaves. After Trump’s loyalty request of Comey, Wittes thought that Comey was wondering what Trump had asked of Rosenstein — and what Rosenstein might have agreed to give him.
So far, Rod Rosenstein seems unfazed by the destruction of his reputation and his unfortunate place in history. Based on his fervent defense to Congress of the May 9 memo, he strapped himself to the mast of Trump’s battered ship and he plans to stay there. Any other course would require him to acknowledge the magnitude of his original Trump sin last winter.
Survivor’s Delusions
Those who think Rosenstein redeemed himself by appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel should think again. Mueller is an excellent choice, but a special counsel investigates possible crimes. As David Frum explains, it’s not a mechanism for identifying all potential threats to American democracy that may arise from Trump’s various relationships with Russia. If such threats fail to reach the threshold of criminal wrongdoing, a special counsel is supposed to look away and the public may never know. And remember, Mueller reports to Rosenstein, so Trump’s Justice Department safety net may still be intact. That’s why only an independent bipartisan commission can unearth and disclose the whole truth about the Trump/Russia controversy.
Rosenstein now faces limited options: resign, remain in office as a diminished leader with questionable judgment and uncertain integrity, or wait for Trump to fire him. The second and third options are not mutually exclusive.
The New York Times wonders whether Rosenstein “allowed himself to be drawn into a highly politicized firing, either as a willing participant or an unwitting accomplice.” There’s another possibility: The survivor overestimated his ability to withstand assaults from people like Trump and Sessions. Now, like many attorneys who refused to stand up to Trump when they should have, Rosenstein may soon need a lawyer, too.
On May 22, 2017, The Wall Street Journal ran an article about the legal profession’s enduring problem: psychological distress. For decades, attorneys have led most occupations in the incidence of serious psychological afflictions — depression, substance abuse, even suicide. Now some law firms are “tackling a taboo,” namely, the mental health problems of their lawyers.
Some observers theorize that a special “lawyer personality” is the culprit. In other words, we have only ourselves to blame, so no one should feel sorry for us. Then again, no one ever feels sorry for lawyers anyway. But attorney psychological distress has become a sufficient problem that, as the Journal reports, some big law firms are now “offering on-site psychologists, training staff to spot problems, and incorporating mental health support alongside other wellness initiatives.”
Stated differently, law firms are following the unfortunate path that has become a dominant approach in the medical profession: treating symptoms rather than the disease. Perhaps that’s because law firm leaders know that curing it would cut into their personal annual incomes.
The Facts
Other workers have serious psychological challenges, too. But attorneys seem to suffer in disproportionately high numbers. The Journal article cites a 2016 study of US lawyers finding that 20.6 percent of those surveyed were heavy drinkers (compared to 15.4 percent for members of the American College of Surgeons). Likewise, 28 percent experienced symptoms of depression (compared with eight percent or less for the general population). According to a 2012 CDC study cited in the Journal, attorneys have the 11th-highest suicide rate.
Now add one more data point. According to an ABA survey in 2007, lawyers in big firms are the least satisfied with their jobs. Anyone familiar with the prevailing big firm environment knows that it has deteriorated dramatically since 1985.
The New World
What has changed? For starters, just getting a job at a big law firm is more difficult. Corporate clients have found cost-effective alternatives to young attorneys billing $300 an hour to review documents. At many firms, demand remains soft.
But the real psychological problems begin after a new associate enters the door. For most of them, promotion to equity partner has become a pipe dream. In 1985, 36 percent of all lawyers in The American Lawyer’s first survey of the nation’s fifty largest firms were equity partners. In 2016, the comparable number was under 22 percent. More than 40 percent of all AmLaw 100 partners are now non-equity partners. The leverage ratio of equity partners to all attorneys has doubled. Stated another way, it’s twice as difficult to become an equity partner today as it was in 1985. That’s what’s been happening at the financial pinnacle of the profession.
The Business Model
There is nothing inevitable about the underlying business model that produces these outcomes. It’s a choice. In 1985, average profits per partner for the Am Law 50 was $300,000 — or about $700,000 in 2017 dollars. Today’s it’s $1.7 million. And the gap within most equity partnerships reflects their eat-what-you-kill culture. Instead of 3-to-1 in 1985, the ratio of highest-to-lowest partner compensation within equity partnerships often exceeds 10-to-1. As the rich have become richer, annual equity partner earnings of many millions of dollars has become commonplace.
At what cost? The future. As law firm leaders rely upon short-term metrics — billings, billable hours, and leverage ratios — they’re pulling up the ladder on the next generation. Too many associates; too few equity slots. Let the contest begin!
But rather than revisit the wisdom of the model, some big firm leaders have made what the Journal characterizes as a daring move: bring in a psychologist. It’s better than nothing, but it’s a far cry from dealing with the core problem that starts with the billable hour, moves through metrics that managers use to maximize short-run partner profits, and ends in predictable psychological distress — even for the so-called winners. The Journal notes that a psychologist at one firm was offering this sad advice to its attorneys: Take a cellphone reprieve by turning off all electronic devices between 2:00 am and 6:00 am.
But even such input from mental health professionals seems anathema to some firm leaders. According to the Journal, Dentons’ chairman Joseph Andrew says that his fear of offering an on-site psychologist was that “competitors will say we have crazy lawyers.”
Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates recently told the New Yorker about her father, an attorney who suffered from depression and committed suicide. “Tragically,” Yates said, “the fear of stigma then associated with depression prevented him from getting the treatment he needed.”
For some firm leaders, “then” is still “now.” And that’s truly crazy.
These are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company overall Timeline relating to Trump and Russia. You can read the entire Timeline here.
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
These are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company overall Timeline relating to Trump and Russia. You can read the entire Timeline here.
***
***
***
[Added May 25, 2017]
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
[This post first appeared at Bill Moyers & Company on May 26, 2017.]
The Trump White House has produced what appear to be at least three cover-ups. They relate to:
1) former-national security adviser Mike Flynn’s questionable activities relating to Turkey;
2) Flynn’s role in the Trump/Russia controversy; and
3) the firing of former FBI Director James Comey.
Each is a piece of the larger picture depicted in our overall Trump-Russia timeline. But the complexity of the entire situation can render even the summary timeline overwhelming.
So as we continue to update our overall Trump-Russia timeline, we’re also putting together timelines that track key players and events. Our timeline of the Comey firing is the first example. By isolating the pertinent portions of relevant entries that share a common thread, important players have fewer places to hide. Facts, truth, and clarity are Trump’s adversaries.
This Pence edition of the timeline focuses on the vice president: What did he know, when did he know it, and at what points did his public statements diverge from what he knew or reasonably should have known? (The final phrase creates legal responsibility for presumed knowledge, even if the speaker in question denies it.)
Ultimately, the facts will produce answers, and we’ll be updating the Pence timeline, too.
Pre-Pence Primer on Flynn
Cover-up #1: Pence, Flynn, and Turkey
Cover-up #2: Pence, Flynn and Russia
Cover-up #3: The Comey Firing
On March 7, 2016, Sheri Dillon and William Nelson put their firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bcckius, on a slippery slope with their letter purporting to justify Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns. It’s been downhill ever since. Confirming that the IRS had closed its audits through 2008, they reinforced Trump’s “under audit” excuse for not releasing any returns at all. His returns for 2009 forward, they said, “are continuations of prior, closed examinations.” On January 22, Kellyanne Conway confirmed that Trump was never going to produce those returns. Period.
As I wrote on April 12, 2017, the descent continued with the Trump/Dillon press conference on January 11. “President-elect Trump wants there to be no doubt in the minds of the American public that he is completely isolating himself from his business interests,” Dillon explained amid a mountain of paper. Some of the documents appeared to be blank and some of the folders lacked labels. Why the esteemed Fred Fielding lent his name to the cause is a mystery. Substantively, attorneys knew immediately that the Dillon/Nelson/Fielding/Morgan Lewis plan was a joke.
Farce Turns to Tragedy
To recap the failures of the plan itself, Dillon said that Trump would put his business holdings in a revocable trust—meaningless window dressing. He would continue to own and benefit from every Trump asset in his portfolio. And he wasn’t selling any of the most valuable ones involving the family business. Still, she explained, no one should worry because his sons, Eric and Donald Jr., would run the company.
Six weeks later, Eric Trump told Forbes that he would continue to update his father on the family business: “’Yeah, on the bottom line, profitability reports and stuff like that, but you know, that’s about it.’ How often will those reports be, every quarter? ‘Depending, yeah, depending.’ Could be more, could be less? ‘Yeah, probably quarterly.’ One thing is clear: ‘My father and I are very close. I talk to him a lot. We’re pretty inseparable.’”
Meanwhile, Donald Jr. has been campaigning for Montana GOP congressional candidate Greg Gianforte—who stands accused of assaulting a reporter.
Fallout
Shortly after Dillon’s press conference, H. Scott Wallace, co-chair of the Wallace Global Fund, sent a blistering termination letter to Morgan Lewis chair Jami Wintz McKeon. My previous post reviewed it in detail. Suffice it to say that Wallace was not pleased with Morgan Lewis’ willingness to help Trump sell democracy in return for billable hours.
“We believe that the legal advice given to [Trump] by your partner Sheri Dillon, in the January 11 press conference and background ‘white paper,’ is not just simplistic and ill-founded,” Wallace wrote, “but that it empowers and even encourages impeachable offenses and undetectable conflicts of interest by America’s highest official, and thus is an unprecedented invitation to corruption and an assault on our democracy.”
“It is painfully obvious that Trump is using his office for personal gain,” Wallace continued. “And Morgan Lewis is enabling and legitimizing this… Americans deserve a president of undivided loyalty. Your firm has denied them that.”
From Mar-a-Lago initiation fees to the travel ban to China trademarks, Wallace observed that “the ethical carnage is mounting.” It still is.
Meanwhile, the Kushner family was trading on Trump ties to woo Chinese investors “into wealthy luxury developments” with $500,000 “investor visas.” So it’s not just the presidency that’s for sale, it’s America itself.
Bottoming Out
On May 12, the White House released another Dillon/Nelson letter that was supposed to take the heat off Trump’s financial connections to Russia. But it became fodder for another round of jokes—just as Dillon’s January 11 press conference had.
Then on May 20, the Associated Press reported that Dillon “initially wanted [Trump] to submit an updated financial disclosure without certifying the information as true” because he was filing voluntarily this year. After discussions with the director of the Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, Dillon evidently agreed that Trump would sign and file by mid-June. Let’s see if that happens.
On May 24, The New York Times reported on another January 11 promise that Dillon made and Trump isn’t keeping: to give the U.S. Treasury all profits from Trump hotels and similar businesses derived from foreign governments. In response to a House Oversight Committee request, the Trump Organization produced a slick brochure explaining why it was impractical to comply “fully and completely” with that promise.
Here is my next prediction: In corporate boardrooms and law school campuses, the damage to the Morgan Lewis brand will continue. Business leaders will act on the belief that preserving critical norms of democracy should outweigh a firm’s desire to do almost anything for a client’s billable hour. But the most discerning of general counsels will leave Morgan Lewis for an entirely different reason that has nothing to do with Trump, politics, the appropriate limits of a lawyer’s role as client advocate, or every attorney’s sworn duty to protect the U.S. Constitution. Substantively, the Trump conflicts plan and the related disasters that have followed constitute embarrassingly bad lawyering.
One more note of interest to leaders of big law firms obsessed with growth for the sake of growth: Sheri Dillon and William Nelson are recent lateral hires. Both were at Bingham McCutchen until a few months before it collapsed in 2014.
These are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company overall Timeline relating to Trump and Russia. You can read the entire Timeline here.
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
**
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
[This post appeared at Bill Moyers & Company on May 22, 2017]
The ongoing revelations in the Trump/Russia saga have been stunning. But the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the resulting cover-up have generated independent scandals of their own.
As we continue to update our Trump/Russia timeline, this new timeline collects separately (and will be updated with) events bearing most directly on the Trump/Comey chapter.
We will continue to update both timelines.

[This post first appeared on Bill Moyers & Company on May 17, 2017.]
In Part 3 of our series on President Trump and his lawyers, Harper examines the vice president’s role in affirming and defending Trump.
Trump’s disclosure of highly sensitive intelligence to the Russians and reported efforts to shut down the FBI’s investigation into former NSA Mike Flynn now shine a spotlight on the next person in line for the presidency. It should be withering because Vice President Mike Pence (JD, Indiana-Robert H. McKinney School of Law, ’86) is not a solution to Trump. His consistent dishonesty is a central part of the problem America faces. But compared to the boss whose dangerous tendencies he has enabled, Pence seems like a Boy Scout. That merely proves the depths to which the bar of acceptable behavior has fallen, if it even exists anymore.
Lies on the Campaign Trail
As an attorney, Mike Pence has a special awareness that a public servant’s lies can undermine democracy. But such knowledge seems secondary to his political ambitions. When Trump was looking for a running mate, Pence faced the serious prospect of losing re-election as governor because of his extreme positions on social issues. For example, in 2015, he signed Indiana’s Religious Freedom Act allowing businesses owners to act on their religious beliefs in refusing service to gay patrons. With Pence’s eroding popular support, the VP spot on the Republican ticket became his political lifeline, and he has repaid Trump handsomely.
Pence began to earn his Trump disinformation stripes during the first vice-presidential debate. Feigning shock at Tim Kaine’s suggestion (at the 36-minute mark) that Trump was waging an insult-driven campaign, Pence looked into the camera and said incredulously, “He says ours is an insult-driven campaign? Did you all just hear that? Ours is an insult-driven campaign?”
Trump’s actions as president make Pence’s lies during the debate even more striking, including these:
Defending Oval Office Lies
Winning the nation’s second highest office didn’t make Pence more honest with the American people he professes to serve. In December, Pence defended Trump’s false claim that millions of illegal Clinton voters deprived him of a popular vote victory. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed Pence repeatedly:
STEPHANOPOULUS: “[Trump] said he would have won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. That statement is false. Why is it responsible to make it?”
PENCE: “Well, I think the president-elect wants to call to attention the fact that there has been evidence over many years of…”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “That’s not what he said.”
PENCE: “…voter fraud. And expressing that reality Pew Research Center found evidence of that four years ago.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “That’s not the evidence…”
PENCE: “…that’s certainly his right. But, you know…”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “It’s his right to make false statements?”
PENCE: “Well, it’s his right to express his opinion as president-elect of the United States. I think one of the things that’s refreshing about our president-elect and one of the reasons why I think he made such an incredible connection with people all across this country is because he tells you what’s on his mind.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “But why is it refreshing to make false statements?”
PENCE: “Look, I don’t know that that is a false statement, George, and neither do you. The simple fact is that…”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “I know there’s no evidence for it.”
PENCE: “There is evidence, historic evidence from the Pew Research Center of voter fraud that’s taken place. We’re in the process of investigating irregularities in the state of Indiana that were leading up to this election. The fact that voter fraud exists is…”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “But can you provide any evidence—can you provide any evidence to back up that statement?”
PENCE: “Well, look, I think he’s expressed his opinion on that. And he’s entitled to express his opinion on that. And I think the American people—I think the American people find it very refreshing that they have a president who will tell them what’s on his mind. And I think the connection that he made in the course…”
STEPHANOPOULOS: “Whether it’s true or not?”
PENCE: “Well, they’re going to tell them—he’s going to say what he believes to be true and I know that he’s always going to speak in that way as president.”
Two months later, Pence said he would be proud to head a new Trump commission to investigate the bogus voter fraud claim. It was a solution in search of a non-existent problem, and it would almost certainly morph into a justification for future voter suppression efforts. On May 11, Trump signed an executive order creating that commission and naming Pence, who stood nearby, its chairman.
The Comey Cover-up
Pence’s willingness to lie for Trump knows no bounds. That became even clearer with reports about his central role in the cover-up relating to the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
On May 3, Comey told a Senate committee that the thought of his actions during the 2016 presidential campaign affecting the election outcome made him “mildly nauseous.” When Trump heard that, he reportedly burned with anger. According to The New York Times, Pence was there as Trump vented to a handful of confidants and talked about firing Comey.
According to The Washington Post, Mike Pence was there five days later when Trump reportedly told a few close aides that he’d made up his mind: Comey had to go. According to ABC News, Pence was part of a small group that prepared media talking points on the anticipated Comey firing.
On Tuesday, May 9 the White House released Trump’s letter firing Comey and put out a false story: Trump had simply acted decisively on recommendations that Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions had brought to him that day. In the ensuing uproar on Capitol Hill, Trump needed someone to quell the exploding crisis.
Mike Pence was there Wednesday morning May 10, visiting uneasy Congressional Republicans. During a seven-minute on-camera appearance, reporters asked him whether Trump had provided the impetus for Comey’s firing. As is his wont, Pence responded with a folksy story:
“The deputy attorney general…came to work, sat down, and made the recommendation that for the FBI to be able to do its job, that it would need new leadership. He brought that recommendation to the president. The attorney general concurred with that recommendation.”
Did the firing have anything to do with the FBI’s ongoing investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia? “That’s not what this is about,” Pence answered. It was about providing someone who could “lead that agency and all the outstanding men and women at the FBI” to greater heights.
We now know none of that was true.
The Unraveling
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein heard the Trump administration’s narrative and didn’t like it. He pressed White House counsel Don McGahn (JD, Widener ’94) to correct the inaccurate depiction of events leading up to Comey’s dismissal. According to The Wall Street Journal, Rosenstein suggested that he couldn’t work in an environment where facts weren’t reported accurately. Less than 36 hours later, Trump gave an interview to NBC’s Lester Holt that apparently satisfied Rosenstein:
“Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it. ”
And in his next sentence, Trump described how he had linked Comey’s firing to the FBI’s ongoing investigation of ties between Russia and the Trump campaign:
“And in fact, when I decided to do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story….”
Meanwhile, Trump’s false suggestion that he fired Comey “because he wasn’t doing a good job”—and Pence’s similar argument that the bureau needed new leadership—fell apart, too. As Holt was interviewing Trump, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe was testifying on that subject before the Senate Intelligence Committee:
“I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard,” McCabe said. “I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity, and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.”
The End Game
Conversations about impeaching Trump—or using the 25th amendment to remove him—are now moving from idle chatter to a more serious phase. Mike Pence wasn’t in the Oval Office with Trump and the Russians on May 10. Nor was Pence present on February 14—the day after Flynn’s firing—when Trump reportedly asked Comey to end the Flynn investigation. But as the discussions about shortening Trump’s tenure evolve, two points are worth remembering about what Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) calls Trump’s downward spiral:
In defending Trump, Mike Pence has sacrificed core principles of democracy. In the process, he has dishonored his profession and disserved the country. In the final analysis, he hasn’t served his president very well, either.
The next installment in this series will consider counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway (assuming she keeps her job until then).
Here are my latest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company Trump/Russia Timeline. But for context and a small taste of the job Robert Mueller now has, read the whole Timeline.
***
***
***


On May 17, 2017, I added two more items to the Bill Moyers & Company Timelines on firing of James Comey and Trump/Russia:
***
[This post first appeared on Bill Moyers & Company on May 15, 2017]
Editor’s Note
Last week’s firing of FBI Director James Comey was yet another shocking plot twist in our national reality show — Sweeps Week-worthy programming. As many of you know, every Monday we’re updating our multimedia timeline with new facts and revelations in the evolving Trump-Russia affair. This week, we thought we would lay out the new developments in a separate post because so much happened in one week. Here’s Harper’s update. You can view the whole timeline here.
–Bill Moyers
The speed and magnitude of last week’s developments relating to the Trump/Russia Timeline has been historic and stunning.
To summarize:
But an even more important story receiving far less attention might be percolating. The Treasury Department’s money-laundering investigators have agreed to cooperate with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Trump and Russia.
Here are my newest additions that have now been incorporated into the complete Bill Moyers & Company Timeline.
***
***
***
***
***
and:
[This post first appeared on Bill Moyers & Company on May 10, 2017.]
TRUMP’S LAWYERS AND THE RULE OF LAW – PART 2
On March 20, 2017, FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the bureau was investigating connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. Seven weeks later, Trump signed a bizarre letter firing him. Who wrote it? More precisely, where is White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II?
As the president’s lawyer, McGahn’s daunting task is to keep Trump out of trouble while preserving and protecting the U.S. Constitution. And from White House ethics compliance and the immigration travel ban to Mike Flynn and the Trump/Russia investigation, McGahn has served both his client and the country poorly.
Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, who worked in the George W. Bush administration, observes that McGahn is either incompetent or ineffectual. The result is the same. On a broad range of issues relating to the fate of American democracy, a question cries out:
Where is Don McGahn?
Conflicts of Interest
McGahn is a Washington insider who has thrived in “the swamp.” After graduating from Widener Law School in 1994, he got a job at a politically connected law firm. From 1999 to 2008, he was general counsel for the National Republican Congressional Committee. In the early 2000s, he represented then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), a one-man ethics scandal band. In July 2008, President Bush appointed McGahn to the Federal Election Commission, which McGahn then helped to paralyze. In 2013, he returned to private practice.
Now, all Trump conflict of interest roads run through McGahn. The White House counsel’s office is supposed to deal with ethical issues swirling around the president’s people. Perhaps Newt Gingrich’s December 2016 musings have become McGahn’s ultimate malpractice insurance policy.
“[The president] has, frankly, the power of the pardon,” Gingrich said of the burgeoning Trump administration conflicts of interest. “I mean, it is a totally open power, and he could simply say, ‘Look, I want them to be my advisors, I pardon them if anybody finds them to have behaved against the rules, period.’”
Since the creation of the independent Office of Government Ethics in 1978—in the aftermath of Watergate—presidential administrations have followed its rules and regulations. But in February 2017, deputy White House counsel Stefan C. Passantino wrote to OGE Director Walter Schaub that “many” of those regulations “do not apply to the Executive Office of the President.” Schaub responded that Passantino’s position was legally incorrect and troubling. To make matters worse, Trump has issued secret waivers exempting former corporate employees and lobbyists in the Trump administration from complying with ethics rules and eliminated public access to White House visitor logs.
Similarly, if McGahn is a restraining influence on the Trump family’s exploding business conflicts of interest, it’s not apparent. In a February 8 tweet, Trump blasted Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s fashion line:
The next morning, Kellyanne Conway – counselor to the president and herself a lawyer – followed up with a Fox & Friends appearance. “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff,” she urged. “I’m going to give it a free commercial here. Go buy it today everybody. You can find it online.” For that ethical violation, Conway received counseling from McGahn’s deputy, Passantino, as sales of Ivanka’s “stuff” soared to the “best performing weeks in the history of the brand.”
Like her father, Ivanka retains financial interest in her company, thereby creating a clear financial path for those seeking influence. Two months after the Nordstrom episode, she dined with China’s President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago as her company won three Chinese trademarks that “include monopoly rights to sell her distinct brand of jewelry, bags, and space services.” After that story broke, the outside lawyer advising Ivanka said that her client “will recuse herself from particular matters where she has a conflict of interest or where the White House counsel determines that her participation would present appearance or impropriety concerns.”
As for husband Jared Kushner’s conflicts, in late April, Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks assured the public that he “continues to work with the Office of White House counsel….” to resolve them. Meanwhile, on May 7, Kushner’s sister, Nicole Meyer, used Jared’s proximity to the president in pitching potential Chinese investors for Kushner real estate projects. She even touted a fringe benefit: for an investment of $500,000 or more a path to U.S. citizenship opened. A day earlier, Trump had signed a bill extending the controversial EB-5 visa program to which she referred.
Where is Don McGahn?
The Travel Ban
As federal courts declared the travel ban unconstitutional, Trump has repeatedly attacked the judges ruling against him. Harvard’s Jack Goldsmith observes that White House counsel is supposed to ensure inter-agency coordination on important legal policies, anticipate court challenges and, as necessary, persuade the president to refrain from actions that compromise the defense of those policies. After a chaotic rollout, the ban suffered decisive courtroom defeats and Trump’s rants worsened his litigation position. If McGahn didn’t anticipate the ban’s logistical and constitutional problems, Goldsmith writes, he’s incompetent. If he did anticipate them, but couldn’t persuade Trump to abandon a misguided course and subsequent tweets, he’s ineffectual. Based on the record so far, McGahn could be both.
No one with a legal degree and respect for the Constitution’s separation of powers could embrace the incendiary White House statement issued after Trump’s April 25, 2017 courtroom defeat on sanctuary cities, which included these passages:
“This San Francisco judge’s erroneous ruling is a gift to the criminal gang and cartel element in our country, empowering the worst kind of human trafficking and sex trafficking, and putting thousands of innocent lives at risk… Ultimately, this is a fight between sovereignty and open borders, between the rule of law and lawlessness, and between hardworking Americans and those who would undermine their safety and freedom.”
Nor should any attorney by silence or otherwise, condone Trump’s subsequent twitter-fit:
Where is Don McGahn?
The Flynn Affair
McGahn is at the center of the Mike Flynn scandals. On January 26, 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informed him that Trump’s national security adviser was “compromised.” Pence and others were telling the American public that Flynn’s late December 2016 calls with the Russian ambassador had not covered newly announced U.S. sanctions for Russia’s election interference. Yates told McGahn that such statements were not true. But for 18 more days, Flynn kept his NSA job – the most sensitive foreign policy position. Only after reporters uncovered the truth did Trump fire him a few days later.
According to Sean Spicer, McGahn took Yates’ report to Trump: “When the President heard the information as presented by White House counsel, he instinctively thought that General Flynn did not do anything wrong, and the White House counsel’s review corroborated that.” But Yates had told McGahn that it wasn’t just Flynn’s lies. His underlying conduct was “problematic in and of itself.”
In a second conversation about Flynn on January 27, 2017, McGahn asked Yates why it matters to the Department of Justice if one White House official lies to another White House official. Yates reiterated her concerns about Flynn’s underlying conduct and explained that Flynn’s lies made him vulnerable to Russian blackmail. The Russians knew that Flynn had lied and likely could prove it. With every new White House statement repeating the lie, Russia’s leverage over Flynn grew. Trump fired Yates four days after her first meeting with McGahn, but he kept Flynn as NSA for two more weeks.
It gets worse. McGahn had already dropped an earlier ball. Flynn’s attorneys claim that during the transition, they informed McGahn that their client – Trump’s NSA-designate – might have to register as a foreign agent for Turkey. When that news broke in March, Sean Spicer said that was “not the job of a transition attorney” to follow up. But it was McGahn’s job to protect the president-elect and the country from a would-be NSA who might be violating the law as an unregistered foreign agent. In March 2017, Flynn registered retroactively – long after Trump fired him over the earlier scandal.
As Yates prepared to testify before a Senate subcommittee about the Flynn affair, Trump tweeted himself into those proceedings:
Where is Don McGahn?
The Trump/Russia Scandal
As the Trump/Russia scandal got hotter, Trump tweeted a baseless diversion that he’d been “wire tapped” by President Obama.
Apparently, it became McGahn’s job to find supporting evidence where none existed.
Two weeks after Trump’s tweet, a McGahn underling (along with a former Mike Flynn protégé whom Trump had saved personally from reassignment by new NSA H.R. McMaster) supplied confidential documents to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee investigating the Trump/Russia connection. Nunes, who had also been on Trump’s transition team, rushed to the White House and briefed Trump on documents that Trump’s own staffers had shown him.
Nunes then hinted publicly about a non-existent bombshell, and Trump declared that Nunes’ revelation to him vindicated his false wiretapping allegation “somewhat.” A few days later, the press revealed that the entire episode had been a farce featuring a key player in McGahn’s office; Trump’s wiretapping claim was still bogus. Nunes recused himself as chairman of his committee’s Trump/Russia investigation.
When Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on May 9, his letter referred to conversations that supposedly exonerated Trump with respect to the bureau’s Russia investigation. That detour waived executive privilege. The stated reason for the firing was frivolous on its face, namely, that prior to the election, Comey had made inappropriate public statements about the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server – statements that Trump had praised as he exploited them to win the White House. It also relied on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had supposedly recused himself from the Trump/Russia and Clinton investigations.
Where is Don McGahn?
Someday in a setting he won’t enjoy, McGahn will probably have to answer that question – and many more – under oath. If so, he won’t be the first White House counsel to traverse that path. John Dean, his predecessor in the Nixon administration, knows how this could end: Sometimes it’s not the crime; it’s the cover up.
The next installment in the series will consider chief of staff Reince Priebus and Vice President Mike Pence.
Trump’s tweets immediately preceding FBI Director James Comey’s congressional testimony brought to mind one of the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon: “[I]nterfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;….” (Article 1, #4)
Here are my newest additions to the Bill Moyers & Company Timeline:
***
***
***
***
***
Does anyone remember Trump’s first post-election press conference in January. That’s when his tax lawyer, Sheri Dillon at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, assured everyone that Don Jr. would stay out of politics while he ran his father’s business. Do they think no one notices when Don Jr. shows up four months later at a campaign rally in Montana?
(Photo from 5/5 NYT).
That’s just a sample of the obvious stuff emanating from the charade that Dillon touted as the comprehensive solution to the Trump family’s ongoing conflicts of interest.
In the latest ethical failures, the State Department promoted Mar-a-Lago and Ivanka’s new book. And the Kushner family is trading on Trump ties to woo Chinese investors “into wealthy luxury developments” with $500,000 “investor visas.” So it’s not just the presidency that’s for sale, it’s America itself.
When will it end? Whenever the public starts to care. And even then, maybe not.
[This post first appeared on Bill Moyers & Company on May 4, 2017]
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
— Dick the Butcher, in Shakespeare’s Henry VI (1591)
Shakespeare’s famous line has drawn conflicting interpretations. To some, it’s a 16th century lawyer joke. But to others focused on the anarchist who spoke them, it’s a nod to the role of law in underpinning a civilized society. Upon admission to the bar, the lawyers surrounding Donald Trump swore fealty to the U.S. Constitution. When they assumed their current duties on behalf of all Americans, they reaffirmed that oath. When Trump attacks the rule of law, his advisers with legal degrees have a special responsibility to speak up. Whatever they’re saying to Trump privately, their public defense of his indefensible assault on the judiciary is no joke, and they know it.
Pattern and Practice of Misbehavior
A year ago, Trump went after an American-born federal judge of Mexican heritage who had ruled against him in the Trump University case. Previewing the way congressional Republicans would place party above country, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) – who received his law degree from the University of Kentucky – assured everyone that, as president, Trump would not endanger the rule of law:
“He’ll have a White House counsel. There will be others who point out there’s certain things you can do and you can’t do.”
So where are those people now? They’ve become his enablers. Three months ago, when a federal judge blocked Trump’s first unconstitutional travel ban, he launched an early morning attack. The target, the Honorable James L. Robart, was a respected George W. Bush appointee whom the Senate confirmed unanimously.
Rather than condemn Trump’s efforts to undermine the judicial branch, several attorneys closest to Trump took to the airwaves in his defense. On February 7, 2017, George Stephanopoulos asked Vice President Mike Pence (JD, Indiana ’86), “[I]s it right for the president to say, ‘so-called judge’?… Doesn’t that undermine the separation of powers in the Constitution?”
“Well,” Pence replied, “I don’t think it does. I think the American people are very accustomed to this president speaking his mind and speaking very straight with them…” That deflection wouldn’t earn a passing grade in any constitutional law course.
Four days, seven tweets, and a live appearance later, Trump finished his tantrum. In the meantime, he’d called the entire judicial branch politicized and blamed it pre-emptively for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Shortly after losing a unanimous appellate court decision affirming Judge Robart, Trump tweeted again:

Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway (JD, George Washington, ’92) defended Trump steadfastly: “I thought his tweet was perfect when he said, ‘We’ll see you in court.’” Later, she added, “If there are politics in any particular judicial decision, then the president and his spokespeople have a right to call that out.” But Conway knew that Trump’s losses hadn’t been political. Republican presidents had appointed Judge Robart and several others judges who had ruled against him.
A few days later, Trump’s senior adviser Stephen Miller – a non-lawyer – appeared on Sunday morning talk shows and offered these disturbing sound bites:
“There’s no such thing as judicial supremacy.”
“The judiciary is not supreme.”
“We have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government.”
Anyone with a law degree – and many without one – know that judicial review and the accompanying power of judges to invalidate legislative and executive action date to the early days of the republic. Where were Trump’s lawyers?
Afterward, Trump praised Miller:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions isn’t helping the U.S. Constitution, either. He expressed amazement “that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific” could “issue an order that stops the president of the United States….” He was referring to the state of Hawaii.
As with the travel ban defeats, Trump responded to an April 25, 2017 judicial setback of his executive order regarding sanctuary cities by grabbing his Android at five o’clock in the morning:
The official White House statement on Trump’s latest defeat was even more intemperate:
“Today, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation… This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge. Today’s ruling undermines faith in our legal system… Ultimately, this is a fight between sovereignty and open borders, between the rule of law and lawlessness, and between hardworking Americans and those who would undermine their safety and freedom.”
If White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II (JD, Widener ’94) was doing his job, he had a hand in drafting that call to arms. If he wasn’t involved, then he should resign for malfeasance or ineffectiveness. Chief of staff Reince Priebus (JD, Miami, ’98) ran with Trump’s baton, saying, “It’s another example of the how the Ninth Circuit went bananas.”
Trump is playing with fire and his lawyers are fanning the flames. In the end, the nation will suffer the burns. Pence, Conway, and Priebus aren’t Trump’s official lawyers; Don McGahn has that role. But all of them have law degrees. They understand the separation of powers and know that checks and balances preserve a fragile system. They know that public confidence in the judiciary is essential to American democracy. And they realize that no one with a legal degree should aid or abet a presidential effort to undermine the U.S. Constitution.
The stakes are high and have nothing to do with politics or party loyalty. They have everything to do with the fundamental role that the independent judiciary plays in restraining a renegade chief executive. History is rife with the tragic consequences of failure. Americans would do well to remember that no single person can create an autocracy; it requires help from others. Whether by sins of omission or commission, lawyers who encourage the systematic erosion of public trust in federal judges are a would-be autocrat’s allies.
Hopefully, historians will never have to write the story of how American democracy died. But if they do, the list of Trump advisers with law degrees will be a good place to start.
The next installment in this series will consider White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II.yet
Here’s the radio station promo for my Thursday, May 4 appearance on WMNF at 10:00 EDT (9:00 am CDT):
100 Days of Deconstruction with Steven Harper
The first 100 days have come and passed. What was your score?
We can at least be thankful there is no new war – at least not yet. I read and heard a lot of comparisons to other presidential records. Tell me, do you think we need a different score chart for Trump? Do you remember President Bush when he said, “ Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”? Only later did we realize that in the consistency of values of Bush’s government, Brownie was doing “a heck of a job.”
Drain the swamp… What does that mean? What is the overriding philosophy of Trump’s presidency? We’ve never seen such a cabinet – where all of them are dedicated to destroying the agency they head. Neil Gorsuch, his first Supreme Court appointment, has made a career of judicial decisions that undermine the administrative authority of government. Did you see the budget proposal by President Trump and Mick Mulvaney, his Budget Director? Luckily the exigencies of government shutdown postponed or prevented some of the measures from going through.
What is happening here? STEVEN J. HARPER blogs at The Belly of the Beast, is an adjunct professor at Northwestern University, and contributes regularly to The American Lawyer. He is the author of several books, including The Lawyer Bubble — A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa — A Teamster’s Story (a Chicago Tribune “Best Book of the Year”). Follow him on Twitter: @StevenJHarper1. He thinks that Trump’s efforts to deconstruct America’s governmental system is not only a challenge to the “status quo,” but is a challenge to the very fabric of America. We will talk with him about these issues.