For this week’s Al Franken podcast, I had planned to post a different one of his conversations, however given that Attorney General William Barr popped up in the news the other day when Judge Reggie Walton issued a ruling that said Barr "distorted" and  was "misleading" in his public statements about the Mueller Report, I thought we'd go with this one instead.  (Side note: Judge Walton was a Republican appointee by George W. Bush.) 

Anyway, today, Frank has a bit of a roundtable discussion, though it’s a small table with three people.  Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, Ian Bassin of Protect Democracy and Franken discuss (as he puts it) “Trump’s sickening lurch toward autocracy post-impeachment with the cooperation of Bill Barr.”

This will be really basic.  Because it's easy to follow the bouncing ball.

Ever since news broke about Trump's phone call extorting the president of Ukraine throughout the House Impeachment Hearing through the Senate Trial, Trump and his defenders have claimed that the whole "reason" behind him withholding funds mandated for the country was because of his "concern" about corruption.

Others have noted that it's impossible to find one other instance of Trump being even remotely "concerned" about corruption anywhere in the world, rendering the "reason" for withholding funds meaningless at best and infantile at worst.

But yesterday, the evidence against him got even more pointed and far-more blunt.

That's because on his Day of Many Pardons, Trump went around pardoning convicted felon after convicted felon who had been found guilty by impartial juries of...corruption.

Rod Blagojevich.  Convicted of corruption, attempting to sell a seat to the U.S. Senate to the highest bidder, literally caught on tape making his sales pitch.

Bernard Kerik, Convicted of corruption, having plead guilty to charges of tax fraud and lying under oath to Congress.

Michael Milken.  Convicted of corruption, having plead guilty racketeering and securities fraud charges, not only sentenced to prison but fined $600 million 

Judith Negron.  Convicted of corruption, sentenced to 35 years in prison for helping set up a $205 million Medicare fraud scheme while the owner of a mental health care company. 

Paul Pogue.  Convicted of corruption, found guilty of filing false income tax statements.  Trump singled out Pogue's charitable work in explaining the pardon.  Note:  The Pogue family's charitable work includes an $85,000 donation to Trump Victory, a joint fundraising committee for the president’s reelection campaign and Republican National Committee.

Angela Stanton.  Convicted of -- wait, hey!  Not corruption.  How about that?!!  Convicted of participating in a stole-car ring.  In recent years she has shown her efforts to better society by giving interviews about her support of Trump.

All of these people pardoned or had their prison sentences commuted...yesterday -- yesterday!!! -- by Trump, that tireless international champion against "corruption."  

That Trump spent so much intense, convoluted effort going after Hunter Biden for supposedly corrupt actions -- effort, to be clear, for which Trump himself committed a crime by withholding mandated funds, according to a report by the Office of Management and Budget -- is not only beyond insanely ludicrous, but by Trump standards you wonder why he didn't put Hunter Biden up for a Presidential Medal of Freedom instead!  Indeed, the only reason I can think of why he didn't is because, in the end, Hunter Biden didn't do anything actually corrupt.

And that in Trump World appears to be the biggest sin of all.

Today's comes from the eminent Constitutional scholar, Laurence Tribe --

For those new to these pages, Newton Minow is best known as the former patient and poker-playing buddy of my doctor father, Edward.  Among his other credentials, he was the FCC Chairman under President Kennedy, recipient of the Medal of Freedom from President Obama, and -- perhaps most important of all -- father of three daughters including the oft-mentioned around these parts, Nell.

He also hired Barack Obama to work at his Sidley Austin law firm in Chicago, where Michelle Robinson was also employed.

If you want to read the article by Newt that Tribe refers to, you can find it here.  It's very short and exellent.  But the quick summary is that he suggests Judge Amy Berman require all the prosecution lawyers in the Roger Stone case explain why their sentencing recommendation got changed in order to get to the bottom of the truth before making her decision -- and if she doesn't get a satisfactory answer, that she call Attorney General William Barr.

Gut-wrenching testimony on Tuesday to the Ohio state legislature by former Ohio State University wrestling captain Adam DeSabato telling of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) begging and crying for a half-hour that he deny his sex abuse charges, just like Jordan got others to drop theirs, and repeatedly calling Jordan a "coward."

The charges that Jordan wanted Adam DiSabato to drop included allegations that DiSabato's own brother had been sexually abused during the time Jordan was a coach and helped cover things up. I haven't found video that I can embed, but you can view the the Ohio Channel video of his testimony here, starting at the 17:15 mark.

I recommend it because it's so moving and raw, and also because the setting of him testifying in the state legislature is especially meaningful, but if you prefer to stick around these pages , this is a more low-key, 8-minute appearance by Mr. DiSabato this morning on CNN, in which (among many things) he says about Jim Jordan's denials knowing nothing about the abuse --

"I think it’s a boldface lie, because someone went to him and told him about an exam to his face and it’s been documented. There were several people that went up to him, we all complained. It was an open discussion in the locker room around anywhere we were at. But mostly when the physicals came around every year because, you know, it was a problem."

Amid all the controversy of Trump's involvement with the Justice Department trying to lesson the sentence for Roger Stone who was convicted on seven felony counts, Attorney General William Barr gave an interview with ABC News trying to explain that this was all normal.

A few things, but one very important point to keep in mind.

First, if all this was just normal process and Standard Operating Procedure, I wish the reporter had asked him (or any subsequent reporter asks him) to please name the last time he -- or anyone in the Justice Department -- overruled federal prosecutors to lower a sentencing recommendation.

Second, as former U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman pointed out last night, by the Justice Department returning to court with their lessened sentencing recommendation, the federal prosecutors have laid the foundation as precedent for all defense attorneys to use this argument for lowering sentences of their clients, not just because it is now stated Justice Department policy, but specifically as ordered by the United States Attorney General.  The unintended consequence of this aside, it would seem to be an appropriate issue for Trump's opponent to raise as to why his administration is soft on crime.

But there is also a very Important fact to keep in mind about this whole issue surrounding Roger Stone --

I think it's generally assume that Roger Stone will be pardoned by Trump.  What's important to remember is that this is the equivalent of pleading guilty.-- but even more to the point, someone who has accepted a pardon is required by law to answer truthfully ANY and all questions asked him under oath. Any question, since he cannot plead the 5th Amendment because there is no jeopardy attached.  Or he can go to jail for obstruction of justice.

If (or when) Stone is pardoned, that could actually turn out to be terrible for Trump.  The House is continuing its investigations of Trump and oversight of the administration.  It seems highly reasonable to think that Stone will be subpoenaed.  It's possible that Trump could pardon him on his last day in office.  But assuming Democrats retain control of the House, investigations won't stop.  Certainly Roger Stone could decide to obfuscate or not answer, and no new evidence will come to light -- that's his choice, and if he does so, he might well go back to prison.

I absolutely love watching political news, endlessly. But when there's NO actual news to report (at any time, but especially on Primary Days until the polls close), I hate endless repetition of nothingness instead of not covering important news around the country and the world.

And "nothingness" is not hyperbole.  When it's Election Day, there's no story until the polls close, and the votes start to get counted.  Reports about the weather and turnout and last-minute campaigning are fine.  But 12 hours of "Breaking news: People continue to vote in New Hampshire" is irresponsible, most especially when there actual is actual news that is actually important.

For instance, the Republican Senate under Mitch McConnell just blocked three bills that would provided election security.  Two of the bills would have required campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission in case of foreign offers of assistance -- something one wouldn't think was terribly controversial, since accepting assistance from a foreign government is against the law (unless, apparently, you're a Republican president under impachment).  The other bill would have provide additional election funding and banned voting machines from being connected to the internet.  All blocked by the Republican Senate, not even voted down.  And none of it covered by the TV news media, as far as I can tell.

And then there's the story of Trump chastising the Department of Justice's sentencing recommendation for the convicted Roger Stone, which the DOJ subsequently overruled the lawyers on the case and said they'd be lowering the recommendation -- upon which four Department lawyers resigned from the case, one of whom resigned from the Department of Justice entirely.

Happily, this story was not ignored.  Unhappily, not by much.  This is a major, significant story.  Former DOJ lawyers have said that they're unaware of anything like this happening at the agency before.  It speaks to more than just this one case (which is substantive on its own), but also a breakdown of the Department of Justice, inappropriate interference by the president, and a crisis of confidence.  And being short shrift in an "Oh, by the way" kind of effort doesn't cut it -- most especially when for 12 hours you're covering the Breaking Story that "People are voting in New Hampshire."

One other thing of note about this story which I haven't heard mentioned today.  And that's how as big as its impact is on the Department of Justice as a government agency, it may conceivably have zero impact on the Roger Stone case.  

The DOJ sentencing recommendation is just that and nothing more.  It's a recommendation to the judge.  And the judge is under no obligation to follow it.  Keep in mind that when the lawyers recommended a long sentence for Paul Manafort, the judge gave him much less.  That could always be the case here with Roger Stone.  In fact, it could also be the opposite -- if the DOJ now recommends a short sentence for Stone, the judge could ignore that and give him a much longer one.

And all this, along with the witness firings, by Trump within just a week of his acquittal.

And all I could think of was -- rest easy, this time it's not about the GOP enabling Trump and being complicit -- that the question to ask is not about Trump but whether Susan Collins (R-ME) has finally learned her lesson.

History suggests probably not, and it's too little too late if she has, but it's still the more interesting question, since almost no one but her thought the question was ever if Trump had.  Or will.

I decided to make this a Trump Free Day, and thought I'd post this video.  But I realized that -- though it has nothing to do with politics -- it does center around decency, compassion and the rule of law, something that seems very appropriate the day after Article of Impeachment were filed.

That image below is a member of the victim's family, not the "mom" in the description.  Other than that, the description in this tweet says it all.  And to be clear, this wasn't an overnight slap on the wrist.   Rather, the woman got 93 days in jail for direct criminal contempt.

"Not in Courtroom 502.  Not today, and not any other other day."

Yesterday's Last Night Tonight with John Oliver is an absolute Must Watch.  It's long -- he had two stories that they blended together -- about 26 minutes, but it's worth every moment.

You may recall that two years ago, the show did a long, terrific story about the litigious Bob Murray who owns a problematic coal mining company in West Virginia.  (If you missed it, you can see the full video here.)  Murray sued the show, and eventually it got dismissed in court.  Then, a couple of weeks ago, Murray's coal mining company declared bankruptcy.  So, there's been a curiosity what John Oliver and his program would say about it.  Well, tonight you find out...!

Following this, the show's main story is about SLAPP lawsuits, the kind of suit where the intent is not to win, but to harass someone and keep a subject matter from being discussed in public.  (SLAPP stands for "Strategic lawsuit against public participation.)  They are illegal in most states, but not all.  Not only is the story terrific and extremely funny, but they weave the two stories together.

All that is so good good that it's Must Watch all on it's own.  But that's not why this is a Must Watch.

As you may know, if you're a regular viewer of the show, every once in a while after doing reporting on a particularly egregious topic, Last Week Tonight occasionally throws in a very funny twist at the end -- like after they did a report about debt collecting companies who buy up debt agencies' debts for penalties on the dollar, the show announced that for just $60,000 they bought up $15 million of debt from 9,000 people from a debt agency -- and transferred to a non-profit company to forgive it all.  (You can see that here.  It starts around the 17-minute mark.)  The point of all this is that you should stick around to the very end because they have another of their fun twists.  And without an ounce of hyperbole, it is not only their greatest twist ending, but it is the Mount Olympus of twist endings.

​Trust me.

If you don't have 26 minutes to spare -- fight that off and find the time.  It flies by. But if you just can't, then jump to the 20-minute mark to give yourself a bit of a lead-in.  One caveat: there are some things in it that are not G-rated, nor for those with tender ears.

(By the way, the actor who pops in to briefly interrupt as HBO's lawyer is Broadway star Brian D'Arrcy James who created the role of King George III in the original off-Broadway production of Hamilton and starred as Shrek in the Broadway musical production.  Yes, that is meaningless information, but it's the kind I like to add for context, especially because he went to the beloved Northwestern.).

That aside, you can forget all the folderol and just watch the full 26-minute tour-de-force.  ​Much as I don't like to oversell anything -- I'm not.  Trust me.

The other day, the New York Times published a story on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, giving more details about a previously-mentioned woman, Deborah Ramirez, who claimed a sexual abuse encounter with him at Yale, and also reported on another classmate Max Steir who said he was present at another similar incident. The article further uncovered how even-more limited the FBI investigation was the earlier believed

Many Democratic candidates for president and others in the Senate have called for Justice Kavanaugh to be impeached, while some have said this shows there should be additional investigation..  However, all that are separate from two related issues that struck me.

The first is the dilemma this causes for Republicans.  No doubt all Republican senators are going to dismiss such talk of impeachment.  Or even resignation, should it come up.  And that's understandable.  However -- if Democrats take control of the Senate in the 2020 elections, and hold the House and win the presidency (all of which is very reasonably possible, though hardly certain), then as more evidence comes to the surface, Kavanaugh could conceivably be impeached (or resign) when a Democratic president would be in position to nominate his replacement.  On the other hand, if Mr. Kavanaugh is impeached now (or resigns), Trump would still be able to nominate his successor.

So, what to do?  Oh, my, what to do?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting what will happen, or won't.  I'm just noting the dilemma that has been caused for the Republican Party.

(There's a bit of "whimsy" here, since the new McConnell Rule is to not confirm a Supreme Court nominee during the last year of a presidency, as is what happened with Merrick Garland with President Obama.  Though, a few months back, Mitch McConnell laughingly said he'd have no problem confirming a Republican nominee under the same conditions.  O the fun of galling anti-Democratic hypocrisy...)

The other thing that struck me is a comment Trump made about all of this, offering the cracker jack advice in a tweet that Brett Kavanaugh should sue for libel.  (Since libel is a media matter, as opposed to slander, that can only mean he's suggesting a lawsuit against the New York Times.)

As you know, Trump is always fond of saying he is his own adviser.  So, if this is the kind of "advice" he gives himself to make, no wonder things in his administration are so profoundly screwed up.

Sue the New York Times for libel???  (And yes, I know that his original tweet said, "liable," which has caused great ridicule in social media, but if a man can tweet out "kofeve," he can mistype "libel"  And even if it wasn't a typo and he thought the word was actually "liable," there are far, far more damaging actions he's taken against society for me to get too bothered by how he spelled a word, funny though it may be.)

Putting the Second Amendment issue aside, the hurdle of proving malicious intent is profoundly high.  And it's raised all the higher when all the New York Times did was add details to a story that already existed and investigated by the FBI -- and reported a charge made by a named individual.  Even if this latter charge was wrong, then Kavanaugh's complaint would be against the person who made it, not the New York Times for reporting what they honestly and journalistically believed to be his words.  And of course, if both stories are true, then that's not only the greatest defense against "libel" -- but suing over something that could be actually proven as true in court is a really, really lamebrain suggestion.

And that's what leads to the worst thing about the Trump "advice."  The moment a lawsuit for libel was entered, the defense would be able to dive into the discovery phase of the trial.  They could gather records, do more investigating for other information and, worst of all, subpoena witnesses to testify who were never allowed to be called during Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination hearing -- most notably Ms. Ramirez and (even worse) Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge who wrote a memoir 22 years ago that told damning stories about a similarly-named, thinly-disguised person.  For that matter, all of Kavanaugh's high school friends could be subpoenaed.  And by "could be" I mean "would.be."

Ultimately, the details of all this are meaningless in terms of what might happen if Brett Kavanaugh actually sued for "libel."  He won't.  Because it was an incredibly idiotic piece of advice by Trump.  And in the end, that's the point.  This is what Trump thinks is Good Advice.  Smart Advice.  Wise Advice.  And it's as stupid as you could get.  And if any one thing (out of all the many hundreds available) defines the total lunk-headedness of the Trump administration, Trump advising Brett Kavanaugh to sue the New York Times for libel is right there at the top.

And that's today's Very Stable Genius Report.

I'm a little annoyed that Robert Mueller's testimony in the House has been delayed a week from July 17.  But I'm annoyed for a reason different from most.  I decided to get the Mueller Report and read it before he testified.  So, I barreled though the 688 pages faster than I read most books and got if finished the other day!!  Only to find out I had another week to spare...

I'm not going to analyze the Mueller Report in depth, but here are a few observations that leap out.

It's pretty easy to read.  Though 688 pages, there is a lot that's redacted, and there are a great many footnotes that you don't need to read.  Also, though the portions explaining the laws which governed the "Office's" actions are often a bit convoluted, they're actually fairly interesting and you can skim them to get the gist.  As for the rest, it reads like a novel.

Regardless of whether you love Trump and think he can do no wrong, or if you hate him and cringe at the thought of him, it is near-impossible to read the first 90 pages and not easily grasp that the United States was attacked by Russia.  They didn't "meddle in the election," Russia attacked the U.S.  And it is repeated documented in minute and relentless detail.  Whatever your political view, you should be against a foreign adversary attacking the United States.  And it transcends shameful that the Republican Party is not outraged by this.  They literally are putting us all at risk.

If one doesn't want to read the full report -- and most any of it -- and just want to jump to the very end to see how Mueller summarizes it all, that summary is only a fairly-brief single paragraph.  Just five sentences.  And if you don't even want to all that -- a whole five sentences -- you just read the very last one sentence.  I reads, in full:  "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also doesn't not exonerate him."

So, when Trump keeps saying that the Report exonerates him, it's pretty black-and-white that this is a lie.  And it's just as untrue when other Republicans say that the Report exonerates Trump.  Because that sentence that ends the Report couldn't be more clear -- and is repeated several times throughout the report.

What's also a lie -- or untrue, if people haven't read the report or summaries and choose to ignore it -- is that the Report also doesn't exonerate Trump from colluding with Russia.  Volume One is relentlessly filled with collusion by the Trump campaign.  What Mueller explains very clearly is that he did not investigate whether collusion occurred, since "collusion" is not a crime.  He only looked into conspiracy -- and he explains in great detail the very narrow definition of what constitutes "conspiracy."  The short version is that for there to be criminal conspiracy, two or more parties must have an actual agreement between themselves to take actions and reciprocate.  Further, Mueller doesn't say that such an actual agreement doesn't exist, just that the "Office" couldn't establish that it existed -- in part because there was obstruction.

However, he presents extensive detailed evidence of collusion that they came across while investigating Russia's attacks and while looking for a conspiracy agreement.  There is a wide range of evidence of people in the Trump campaign, Trump included, who were not only aware of actions that Russia took in attacking the U.S., but often welcomed it and were happy to accept the benefits of that without pushing back or calling in security services.  However, since there was no actual agreement about any of this, then that's not legally a "conspiracy."  But it is most-definitely collusion.

Somewhat in that regard, Mueller also lets some people off -- like Don Jr. -- for actions that could be seen as conspiring with Russia (as in the Trump Tower meeting), basically because he was too stupid to know that it was illegal to do what he was doing, and "intent" is a critical component of a crime.  So, if Don Jr. didn't know he was committing a crime, Mueller didn't pursue charges.  There are several other instances like that by others -- where the actions would be criminal, but "intent" could not be proven.

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the Report repeatedly explains with great clarity that the Justice Department has a policy that says a sitting-president cannot be charged with a crime while in office, and so there was no need for the investigation to consider against him.  Yet it also regularly goes out of its way to point out that there is nothing in the law that says a president can't be charged with crimes after he leaves office.

What's also fascinating is that the final 50 pages of the Report deal with answering claims by the White House legal team challenging the right of the Special Counsel to look into whether or not a president can commit obstruction of justice -- which is the subject of Volume Two.  So, for 50 pages, the Mueller Report goes into great legal detail explaining very clearly why every challenge by White House lawyers is incorrect, showing how each instance of obstruction by the president is in fact properly and appropriately covered by the law.  For 50 pages.  One would think that if the Mueller Team didn't find any obstruction of justice by the president, then they wouldn't feel it remotely necessary to refute claims that the president can't commit obstruction.  It would be a moot point.  But they not only do refute the claims...they take detailed pains to do for for (again)...50 pages!!!

And then after they've done so, they follow that immediately with a one-paragraph summary, which ends with the sentence -- "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also doesn't not exonerate him."

Two takeaways -- 1) Russia attacked the United States repeatedly, there was extensive obstruction of justice, and there was also much collusion between the campaign and Russia.  And 2) Attorney General William Barr grievously lied about the conclusions of the Mueller Report and that the Report left it to him to make those conclusions.

One final comment.

The Report also makes clear that there are many matters that they did not investigate because they did not fall under the very narrow purview of their mandate of what to investigate (which was solely Russian efforts to impact the election, and any obstruction of justice), so they passed those off to other federal districts.  As such, the Mueller Report should not be taken as the sole investigation into crimes by the White House -- let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, of which "collusion" could well be such an issue.  Among other abuses.

I don't know how many elected officials in the House and Senate have read the Report -- or at least been given a detailed summary by a member of their legal staff.  It should be 100%, this is much too important to ignore.  But I get the sense from public comments that far too many elected Republicans have done neither, most likely because they don't want to know.  They want to have "plausible deniability" in their defense of Trump.  But that is not plausible.  And it is indefensible.  This is simply much, too much important -- this is not just about Trump, it is about Russia attacking the United States.  And all these elected officials of the Republican Party have sworn an oath to preserve, protect and defend the United States of America.  And almost all of them are silent and complacent about that.

And this is why, again, this is not about Trump -- we know who he is.  This is about the elected officials of the Republican Party who enable and are complicit in it all.