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.

Yesterday, on the White House lawn, Trump briefly spoke to reporters about his old -- well, for now, let's call him "acquaintance," since it's other more repulsive terms are premature -- Jeffrey Epstein who was arrested the other day on sex trafficking charges with minors.

“I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him," Trump said. "People in Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture in Palm Beach. I had a falling out with him a long time ago. I don’t think I’ve spoken to him for 15 years. I was not a fan,”

Putting aside for the moment that Trump is the guy who said he didn't really know Felix Sater, a recent business partner with whom there are photos of them together.  And who said he didn't know writer E. Jean Carroll who accused him of sexual assault, despite there being photos of them laughing together.

And let's put aside too that they haven't spoken for 15 years because of a falling out.  Just to fill in the gaps, reports are that their falling out was that Epstein hit on the daughter of a Mar a Lago member, which is apparently going one step too far in Trump World.  And so Trump had him kicked out of the club.

No, rather, let's look at that last sentence in his quote.  "I was not a fan."

Now, I think it's far to say that Trump was not a fan when he kicked Epstein out of the club.  But that's not the distance Trump is trying to put between himself and his long time "acquaintance."  Because if Trump was only referring to the last moments of his friendship when it finally soured, that would be meaningless to say when trying to put miles between you and a convicted sexual predator of underage girls.  (And even miles is not far enough.)  No, Trump is clearly trying to make a definitive statement to block any relationship at all between the two.  "I was not a fan" is his way of saying that.

Mind you, "I hated the guy, he was a low-life, really scummy, there was something seriously wrong and depraved about the guy" would seem to be more along the lines of what you're looking for, but this is Trump, so we're stuck with "I was not a fan."

The problem is -- and it's a really big problem -- is that in 2002, Trump told New York magazine that he'd known Epstein for 15 years and added:  

“Terrific guy.  He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

So, no, "I was not a fan" really doesn't hold much water here.  (Note: "much water" shall herein be defined as "none.")

Very clearly, Trump was a fan.  And a very big one.  And even admired how much Epstein had quite the eye for the ladies "on the younger side."  No doubt about it.

No, one is not guilty by association.  One is guilty by participation.  And the problem for Trump is that from past stories, there does appear to be a lot of participation.  And Trump's own words yesterday seem to support that.  When the best you can offer about a convicted sex offender who was just arrested on similar charges by your own Justice Department is "I was not a fan" when you are already on record saying what a huge fan you are of the guy and why -- it's a very bad look.

​Looking forward to seeing how Lindsey Graham and the rest of the GOP in Congress continue to defend him.  No doubt about it.

And the new Al Franken podcast keeps rolling along.  Here's a latest -- A conversation with Dahlia Lithwick and Matt Miller.

Dahlia Lithwick was a guest who Franken had on his show regularly when he was broadcasting for Air America before running for the Senate. As his site describes this week's show --

"Dahlia Lithwick, brilliant writer for Slate on all things jurisprudential, and Matt Miller, former spokesman for Attorney General Eric Holder, have a lively discussion with an impassioned Al who argues that it’s time for the House to go to an impeachment inquiry or get off the pot."

Whether you are against the death penalty or support it, I think you will find last night's main story on John Oliver's show worthwhile.  It's about the current standard, lethal injections, and however you feel about death penalty this does not appear to be the most humane way to go about it, and may well be more "cruel and unusual" than even the electric chair was.  And remarkable, Oliver and his staff have found a way to make at least some of this bleak story very funny.

And so, Attorney General William Barr backtracked a bit from his outrageous and wildly-vilified statement about spying by U.S. intelligence services on the Trump campaign, now trying to say that, no, he wasn't saying that anything illegal was done, just that things should be looked into.

I don't buy his clarification.  That's because this is the second time in weeks that he's done this, and it's not only insidious, but also he's a smart man and knows what he's doing.

The first time was when he wrote his summary of the Mueller Report and largely let Trump off the hook, saying that he was exonerated of his deeds, only later after the outrage backtracking by "clarifying" that he wasn't making a summary of the Mueller Report, it was just a letter with his own observations about the report.

And in both instances, not only were the "clarifications" minimal -- though important -- but the damage was already done.  In the first case, Trump immediately went on his "Victory Tour" claiming total vindication and setting that as the standard for his base to use.  In the second, Trump immediately claimed that his earlier charges of a "witch hunt" were vindicated and that he was glad to see the Attorney General talk about an investigation -- once again allowing his base to again raise the mantel of conspiracies.

And so, the subsequent Barr "clarifications" were close to lost in the morass.  Which I'm sure was the intent.  Those those "clarifications" were minor, if he had made both those statements in the first place, even the slight difference would have removed any opportunity for Trump to send out marching orders to his base.

I'm not saying that everything Barr did was specifically planned, that he knew there would be outrage and he could count on that to help obfuscate the issue.  But I do think that he absolutely knew his initial comments were exactly what Trump wanted to hear and could use, and Barr probably hoped his position of authority would be accepted.  But when the widespread reaction from people he himself respected was so livid at how irresponsible and dangerous his comments were, in both instances, he felt obligated to dial them back a bit.  But comfortable nonetheless that he'd accomplished what he set out to do. 

Which is why I don't buy his "clarifications"  Because they are secondary to the acts he intentionally committed, because they are merely part of protecting his own tarnished reputation, not intended to have any political impact.  The political impact was already accomplished.

Happily, the reaction to both statements in the legal community and even much of the political arena (even to a slight degree on both sides) was so profound that it did tarnish Barr's reputation, and any words from his pie hole at this point will be met with utter reticence and the kind of scorn reserved for an irresponsible political hack.

And to any who say they are surprised now by Barr, who they thought at least honored the rule of law, I say you were only fooling yourself, because this was a man who helped bury damning evidence of crimes by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in the Iran-Contra Scandal.  He did it before, and then he wrote a 19-page job application decrying the Special Counsel's investigation.  Why on earth was anyone surprised??  Other than blind wishful thinking and unprovoked sunny optimism.

"But he'd been Attorney General before...", people try to suggest, dearly hoping that will give them cover.  Yes, he had been Attorney General before -- and look what he did when he was!!!  He -- did -- the -- same -- thing -- that -- he's -- doing -- now.  ANNNNDDD, on top of that, he then wrote a 19-page treatise telling us he'd do it again.

Color me shocked...

And so...no, I really don't buy his "clarifications."  Any of them.  And when it happens in the future, all of them.