So, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office has said that it’s investigating the Trump Organization for for possible fraud and for bank fraud.  I have no idea if they have the evidence or can prove the case.  I do feel near-certain that from the first this has been Trump's biggest nightmare, as I've written about here for a while.

This isn't even New York State, but a city D.A. (which must be even mortifying to Trump -- the most powerful man in the world).  It means that he can't be protected by his consigliere Attorney General William Barr, or by the Department of Justice.  It also means that if that if others in his organization -- especially his children -- are under threat, he can't dangle a pardon in front of them.  Worse, it means that if he himself is found guilty, he can't be pardoned.

Also, not knowing whether there is evidence here, or whether it can be proven, I would suggest that it is believably likely that the charge Trump exaggerated his assets to qualify for high loans at lower rates and diminished his assets on his IRS tax returns to pay lower taxes.  Why do I think it's believably likely?  Because his former lawyer Michael Cohen said so under oath.  Because we've seen how Trump operates for the past 3-1/2 years (actually decades longer).  Because Trump has judgments against him for fraud.  And because he's been fighting like a wounded lion to keep from releasing his tax returns ever since promising in 2015 that he'd release them soon, when his supposed "audit" was finished, even though it's perfectly fine to release the information at any time.  No, none of this is proof that he did lie about those two things.  But it's why presuming so is believably likely.

And this doesn't include all the other charges the Manhattan D.A. might be persuing.

Even better, what a lawyer friend said is that oral arguments have to be completed by mid-August, and documents that are needed to support their positions should all be public.  Whether the deadline for those documents are the oral arguments in two weeks, or written arguments that are later, I don’t recall.  But I’m pretty sure he said the oral arguments.
 
In the Be Careful What You Wish For Department, Trump’s lawyers had complained that the Manhattan A.D. subpoena several weeks back wasn’t specific enough.  So…oops, okay -- they got specific.
 
Also important news yesterday– Deutsche Bank announced that it was starting an internal investigation into Trump's the longtime personal banker and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.. The bank is looking into their own employee Rosemary Vrablic after she and two colleagues bought an $1.5 million apartment in 2013 from the same company that Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump have a partial ownership in.  

Further, Kusher and Trump were both clients of Ms. Vrablic and got $190 million in loans from Deutsche Bank the same year she bought the $1.5 million condo -- and later got several hundred million in loans from the bank.

None of this may be illegal.  The apartment purchase could have totally above board.  Jared Kushner could have nothing to do with decisions made by the company.  But Trump family history seems that's a thin wire to dance on, and it seems reasonable to think that if a bank employee was facing jail time, that person might be willing provide evidence to prosecutors that would be helpful in this and in other cases.  Or not.  Who knows? 

​But it certainly is the wrong time to overlap with the Manhattan D.A. if you're the one dancing on the wire.

Which, it only follows, brings us to Rodgers & Hart, and a few updated lyrics for Ella Fitzgerald.

No, I didn't watch much -- almost none -- of William Barr's testimony yesterday.  But I admire though who did and reported on it.  I have my limits and spending hours watching the Attorney General of the United States lie to the House of Representatives for a few hours does not make it over my otherwise very low standards.

I did put the coverage on for a while, but kept the sound off.  When it looked like there was good questioning, I did turn up the volume, but it was rare.  Mainly, I knew that there would be analysis throughout the breaks and later in the day, with clips illustrating events.  But seriously, why would I put myself through watching the top law official in the country say to the nation's representatives things like, no, he never reads any of Trump's tweets?  His "answer" implies that he also doesn't watch or read the news, since those are plastered with Trump's tweets every day.-- not just quoting them, but generally showing graphics of them.  This is something I wish one of the people questioning him would have brought up.  Similarly, I would have liked someone to bring up that, while AG Barr said to Rep. Eric Swalwell with a straight, albeit dour face, that he's never seen a particular, notable tweet by Trump about Roger Stone, whose prison sentence he just commuted -- I would have liked Rep. Swalwell (who otherwise did a terrific job questioning) or someone to point out to Barr that the Trump/Stone tweet was so noteworthy that...it was included in the Mueller Report that Barr did, allegedly read!

The general reaction seems to be that Democrats didn't do an especially good job questioning Barr in the morning session.  In fact, someone tweeted that they thought the questioning was so bad they believed Trump's approval numbers would go up -- and this received several hundred likes and retweets.

Let me state that there is is no way on earth that Trump's approval will go up because of poor Democratic questioning.  Trump's approval has plummeted because of mismanaging the pandemic, 152,306 deaths, recommending taking bleach, 54 million new Americans on unemployment, mishandling the racial divide and Black Lives Matter, using paramilitary forces in U.S. cities on American citizens and 80% of the public saying that they think the country is going in the wrong direction -- and more.  They are not going to say, "Gee, y'know, I think that Democrats did a lousy job questioning William Barr, so I'm okay with Trump now."  And that's even if all that many people even watched.

I mean, seriously, folks, get a grip.

Happily, from what little I saw live and from analysis later, it seems like Democrats did a much more solid, aggressive and pointed job questioning AG Barr.  So, that ought to counteract all those people on the verge of switching the support to Trump...

By the way, one of the lines of questioning was the added paramilitary focus that AG Barr has given to Black Lives Matter protesters compared to other protests, like those anti-shelter protests wanting to open business in Michigan that called for the death and beheading of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.  The Attorney General tried to claim that he was totally unaware of this.  When the congressman questioning him was stunned and couldn't believe this, Barr tried to explain it away by saying "There were a lot of protests."  Yeah, right -- but then, a) there are a whole lot of Black Lives Matter protests, and b) none of the other "open up business" protests involved calling for the death of a governor.

All of which calls to mind Trump's ranting about needing these paramilitary forces attacking Americans in order to defend federal property.  Like this tweet this week --

We end with this reminder as a public service, something which has pretty much slipped under the wire in all of Trump's cries like this above, to protect federal property and federal statues.

For the record:  This is the same man who pardoned the Hammonds who were convicted of arson on federal property.

I've been a big admirer of tax expert David Cay Johnston for years, starting when he was still with the NY Times.  Indeed, he won the Putlizer Prize in 2001 for his  "penetrating and enterprising reporting" that exposed loopholes and inequities in the U.S. tax code.  What I think sets him apart from most people who write on the subject is how he makes something so arcane to be understandable.  Among many things, his explanation of why deficit financing can be a good thing was a thing of exquisite simplicity. 

(Short version: Let's say you were out of work and no money.  You get a great job offer that will pay a great deal of money -- but it's two hours away and you have no way of getting to it.  However, if you got a loan and went into debt so that you could buy a car, then that would allow you to accept the job, earn enough money to pay back the loan, get out of debt and start earning money.  Or you could not go into debt, turn down the job, stay unemployed and have no money.)

He's also long been an excellent investigative reporter and now has his own non-profit journalism organization, DC Report.  And has long been reporting on Trump well-before the White House back in his New York business days, including two books on him, notably The Making of Donald Trump.

Johnston was on A.M. Joy this past Saturday, and what he said will make many people's heart sing, as he discussed the possibility of criminal indictments against Trump.  It was all interesting, but it was the very end that put his predictions on a completely different level from most commentators.

The discussion began because of the recent Supreme Court rulings that allowed subpoenas for Trump to go forward, in particular the one from the Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance. 

​“What do you think might be out there?” host Joy Reid asked him.

“Well, Donald Trump has already had two income tax fraud trials by the state of New York and the city of New York,” said Johnston. “They were civil fraud, not criminal fraud. The New York Times in October of 2018, in this brilliant project on Trump’s taxes based on records we know came from his niece — without question, he and his siblings are major-league tax cheats."

He added, ​“What the district attorney is seeking is the business records, the accounting records, the banking records to 2011,” said Johnston. “If those deviate from what Donald trump put on the tax returns, I expect they’ll indict Donald Trump for criminal tax fraud. How quickly it comes depends on how successful Trump’s lawyers are in delaying and using procedure and interlocutory appeals if they don’t like the federal judge overseeing the case — his rulings.”

Joy Reid mentioned that although Trump currently has immunity from prosecution, that will end on January 20, 2021, if he doesn't win.  And she noted that even if the federal government doesn't continue any investigations into prosecuting a former president, that has nothing to do with Vance and New York.

“Right," Johnston replied. "Let’s assume Donald Trump has the audacity to resign as president, Mike Pence sworn in, and Pence pardons [him].  The state charges are completely different. The only involvement in the federal government is challenging to seek his remedies in federal court."  And here is where Johnston added one final comment that few other analysts can make --

"Donald Trump is going to be indicted if the business records do not match up. They won’t match up. Trust me. I have a lot of his records. They won’t match up.”

If you watched The Rachel Maddow Show a couple nights ago, you saw her do a story about Jack Abramoff.  He was the lobbyist who concocted a scheme with Grover Norquest and Ralph Reed and others that defrauded American Indian groups he was supposedly representing.  Abramoff not only went to prison for his crimes, but his acts were so egregious that an Abramoff law was passed, specifically named for him -- and as Maddow pointed out with a sort of bemused relished, the first person ever found guilty of that law was just sentenced the other day.  And that person was -- yes, really -- Jack Abramoff.

I mention this because I actually sort of cross paths with Abramoff about 30 years ago.  That was when he was producing some movies in Hollywood.  In 1989, a friend of mine, Philippa Salisbury (who I wrote about here) had been in contact with him for some inexplicable reason -- but then, that was Philippa who was often in contact with totally-unexpected people for some inexplicable reason.  It was about a project, Three Men in Malacca, and she needed a treatment based on a one-page idea Abramoff had.  (A treatment is basically a short story version of a movie, before developing the actual screenplay.)

I wrote a 20-page treatment that had to do with old army buddies going back to Malaysia where they'd fought in World War II and got involved with an adventure about a buried treasure.  (Oddly, as I think about it, this is somewhat the premise of the new Netflix movie from Spike Lee, Da Five Bloods, which is quite good.  I'm not even remotely suggesting any overlap -- the movies are totally different -- just noting the whimsy of similarities as I tell this tale.)  I remember the subtext I added to the plot -- making it a bit of an twist of The Wizard of Oz, including that one of the old buddies had been a coward during the war, another was somewhat cold and imperious, and with the passing of years the third had become a bit feeble-minded, as they headed off onto their journey.

I was paid next to nothing for it. (Not hyperbole -- i could say it was three figures, which is true, but that would be giving it visions of grandeur because it had a kinship so close to two figures that if it got drunk and toppled over, there stood a good chance of it landing in that district...) This was on the hope that if it moved forward I'd get to write the screenplay.  It was a foolish thought, but it was earlier in my writing career days where such foolish, naive thoughts take residence, though not so early that I should have known better how foolhardy it was.  To be clear, it wasn't foolish so much because I was paid so little, but that I didn't own the property, so if nothing happened with the project, I couldn't ever do anything with it.  And nothing happened with the project.

And I liked the story a lot.  It was really a fun adventure that had other layers to it, along with a family relationship mixed in.  So, knowing that the project was pretty much dead, I wrote to the company that developed it and asked -- since the project was going nowhere and was based on a one-paragraph idea -- if I could return what I had been paid and perhaps get or buy the rights to it for a reasonable fee.  And the head of that company I wrote to was...Jack Abramoff.

I eventually received a letter back.  And he said, no.  In fairness to him, it was a very polite correspondence, and he had every right to say no.  And certainly, maybe some day he could develop it again.  I just didn't think he ever would -- that rarely happens in Hollywood.  Projects based on just a one-page idea that die are generally put in the bin and buried, and people move on  to something new and fresh.  And indeed, in the 30 years that have passed since then, not only has nothing come of the project since that letter, but Abramoff moved from Hollywood into political lobbying.  And has been to prison.  Twice. 

That was my only annoyance at the letter.  He had every right to say no, and was polite -- but I was certain the project would die, and I liked it so much and would have loved to pursue it.  So be it.  In the end, I'm at my desk typing...and he's in prison. 

Again.

And here below with the signature from Page 2 is the evidence.  A word that Jack Abramoff has probably grown to loathe...

Normally, I would be loathe to post this video, since it's pretty violently brutal -- but as far as I can tell from watching it and from all that I've read about it, including the police write-up (from which this video comes), nobody was hurt -- remarkable as that may seem.  Especially with the lesser-known addendum.

It took place four weeks ago, on June 1, in Riverside, California, which is about an hour east of Los Angeles.  There were social protests going on there, and in middle of them a car drove up, stopped and the driver got out to throw a firecracker.

From the video released by the police, here's what happened next.  If you've seen it, stick around anyway for some additional comment which I haven't seen.

​As I said, I wouldn't have posted this if I was aware that anyone had gotten hurt.  And I don't believe that's the case.  But this falls under the heading of "Getting Your Comeuppance."

This video has gotten a little bit of attention, and where that's occurred, it usually notes that the driver was able to run off without getting hurt.  And also the person in the passenger seat was able to get out of of the car before the big kaboom. 

Fine.  But what I haven't seen mentioned -- and I only noticed by playing the video over several times and pausing it is...there is someone is the passenger-side back seat who didn't get out!!  And is in the car when the firecracker explosion goes off.  I am absolutely certain of this.  (You can check it out yourself.)  And that never gets mentioned, as far as I have seen.  Fortunately for the person, what I suspect happened that keeps them safe is that the firecracker is thrown into the front seat, and since the passenger is in the back, the seats protect the person from getting hurt by any flying debris and flames.

By the way, as you can see in the heading on the video -- with police badge logos embedded -- there was an arrest made of the driver last Tuesday, June 23rd.  Here's the official police posting with the video. 

I don't know exactly everything that happened prior to the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta.  I don't know what all was said when the police were called about a black man asleep in his car.  I don't know what the police said when they first approached the car.  I don't know how drunk he was or if he was actually drunk.  I don't know the full specifics of what happened when the police tried to handcuff him.  I don't know why he ran.  I can make guesses -- most-especially about why he ran, but I don't know.

I do know that, taking the absolute worst into consideration for the sake of argument, that assaulting the police when drunk and shooting a Taser at them is not a crime punishable by death.

Further, even again assuming all the worst for the sake of argument, I also know that a Taser only has a range of about 15 feet (which I'm certain the police, being trained, know), so not only was there no lethal danger to the police from it, but as long as they stayed a whole five yards away, there was no physical danger to them of any kind whatsoever.  And because they had already searched Mr. Brooks, they knew that he didn't have any other weapon.  So, there was no physical danger from that either.

It would seem (once more, always assuming the worst -- even if "the worst" doesn't come to play here, but let's assume it does for the sake of argument) that if someone has committed a crime for which the penalty is not death and maybe a few weeks in jail, and if that person is running away from you, and you have the choice of shooting him to death or letting him go, the sane, humane, and legal response would be to let the person go.

And to be very clear, when I say "let the person go"...I mean only at that exact moment.  Because the police have several other options, the two of which seem most basic and easy are --

1) Walk back to your patrol car, put out an APB that a drunk man by the name of Rayshard Brooks and with his description is on foot, running in a certain directions and police cars should converge on that area.

And 2) Go back to his car, write down the license plate, get his registration from the Motor Vehicle Division (you're the police, after all, and can find that sort of thing out), and then send as many patrol cars as you want to his residence and wait for him to come home.

And then you don't have to kill him! 

For running away when drunk, with no lethal weapon in his possession. 

Which in every civilized country around the world, most-especially including the United States, is not considered to be a capital crime.

And this is assuming the very worst possible.  When you start going up the scale in increments of "not the very worst possible," the ghastly situation gets even worse.

Including answering the question, "Why did he run?"  Because it's getting to the point where it tragically seems like the answer to that is far too often, "My God, why in the world wouldn't he?"

When the worst possible punishment for someone's action is not the death penalty, then it would seem like there is no reason -- not even to shoot someone -- but to simply take out your gun.

Keep in mind, this wasn't a totally unexpected situation that suddenly went haywire and got completely out of control.  The police are actually trained for situations exactly like this.  Rayshard Brooks is not the first person to resist arrest and try to run away from an officer.  No, really.

And even more, this didn't occur in a vacuum. Seriously, given the international sea change in society happening in mass outrage around the globe, what on earth was the police officer thinking when he shot Rayshard Brooks to death for running away from him with no lethal weapon?  Has he not seen the news during the past three weeks??  It's tragic enough under any circumstance, but to ignore literally the entire world around him, it suggests his only immediate instinct was, "There is a black man running away, shoot him to death."

I am sure there is a defense and argument for the policeman who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks.  To be clear, that doesn't mean it's a good one.

Oh, dear God – it wasn't just a lunatic "threat," but Trump actually, really, truly did have his re-election campaign lawyers send a cease-and-desist letter to CNN for having published their poll results.  And apparently they did have an outside firm, the not-especially well-regarded McLaughlin Associates, analyze the results.
 
What a whiny little petulant child Trump is.  It's almost a miracle he hasn't threatened to sue every pollster, since after all every one of them have him behind Joe Biden -- by a lot.  Maybe he thinks this was a good idea for his base, but it was a brain-dead idea.  What a shock Trump is lost with the pandemic & Black Lives Matter.
 
But best of all is the response from CNN.  At first I thought maybe it was from The Onion.  But it was tweeted on the CNN account, and I found it on the CNN website.
 
And you have to love the CNN lawyer’s name – David Vigilante.  And no, again, this is not The Onion.

I have almost nothing to add to this.  Some things are just right and say all that needs to be said.  I do feel compelled to note a couple of thoughts about why the Trump cease-and-decease letter is so idiotic, beyond the obvious.  First is that there are two other polls with almost the same results -- showing Trump behind by 10/11 points, which is within the margin of error -- and there was no cease-and-desist letter sent to them.  This not only shows the letter to be childish and empty, but if the threat ever wet to court is probably all the evidence CNN would need to get it thrown out.  And second, since CNN was never going to retract its poll, and since a lawsuit could never go anywhere for the reason stated and more, the only reasonable outcome from sending the letter is ridicule and humiliation, pretty much the exact opposite of looking tough to anybody.

I can only keep repeating -- no, this is not The Onion.  

​I've embedded the text at the end in case the graphic of the original letter isn't sharp enough, though I think it should be.

If you have a hard time reading the graphic of the original letter, here's the text below --

​Dear Ms. Ellis,
 
This responds to your letter dated lune 9, 2020.
 
To my knowledge, this is the first time in is 40 year history that CNN
had been threatened with legal action because an American politician or
campaign did not like CNN's polling results.
 
To the extent we have received legal threat from political leaders in
the past, they have typically come from countries like Venezuela or other
regimes where there is little or no respect for a free and independent
media.
 
CNN is well aware of the reputation John McLaughlin and McLaughlin
Associates. In 2014 his firm famously reported that Eric Cantor was
leading his primary challenger Dave Brat by 34 points only to lose by 11
points -- a 45 point swing. The firm currently has a rating from
FiveThirtyEight.
 
In any event, McLaughlin was able to evaluate and criticize CNN's most
recent poll because CNN is transparent and publishes its methodology
along with its polling results. Because of this, McLaughlin was free to
publish his own critique of CNN's analysis and share his criticisms
across the U.S. media landscape. That's how free speech works. It's the
American way.
 
Your letter is factually and legally baseless. It is yet another bad
faith attempt by the campaign to threaten litigation to muzzle speech it
does not want voters to read or hear. Your allegations and demands are
rejected in their entirety.
 
 
Very Truly Yours,
 
David C. Vigilante

Some stories speak for themselves and don't need much comment to make the point.  One such is Attorney General William Barr having the Justice Department withdraw charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn who plead guilty to a felony and was fired by Trump for lying to Vice President Pence and to the FBI.  So, yeah, ho-hum, Barr and Trump wanted the case dropped because.  

All I'll add are two points that suggest the situation for Flynn might not be over.

The first is that Judge Emmet Sullivan has to accept the Justice Department's decision to drop the case.  One reason that's in question is that the reason the Department has given for dropping the case is that Flynn's lies (or indirect equivocations, they're now calling it...) were not relevant to the underlying investigation.  The problem for Flynn is that Judge Sullivan has already ruled on that very issue when Flynn's previous lawyers raised it, and ruled the opposite, that they were indeed relevant.  So, the judge may require to the Justice Department to explain their reasoning, and if he doesn't think they're valid could keep the case going.

The second is that in Flynn's plea deal, he admitted under oath to several other crimes.  So, even if the case is thrown out, those other crimes -- which, again, Flynn has admitted to under oath -- are actions that he could now be prosecuted for.  Clearly, the current Department of Justice is not going to file charge on them.  However, the statute of limitations won't run out until 2022.  So, if there is a new Administration under a new Attorney General, new charges against Flynn for crimes he has admitted to under oath could be filed.  Of course, that requires a new Administration, and also a willingness to pursue the matter and not have it been seen as political retribution.  But then, given that Flynn did admit to the crimes under oath, that might make a prosecution far more reasonable and, even perhaps, seen as justified.

I don't know what will happen.  I don't expect Flynn to end up going to prison now, just because that's the Trump World we live in, but -- that means nothing.  Because there's a larger world and there is also an outrage at this egregious miscarriage of justice.  So...we'll see. Operators are standing by.

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.”