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.

In a manner of speaking, I think we got the proof yesterday that Trump has major tax fraud in his past.  It may be beyond the statute of limitations, but it's unlikely that it stopped there.  And the SDNY is investigating it all -- and I suspect Trump is terrified.

The evidence is his sister.

Maryanne Trump Barry has long been a federal judge.  But not long ago, there was a charge of judicial misconduct made against her, which came as a result of a major New York Times article that went into great detail about tax fraud the Trump family used in connection with the inheritance from their father.  As a result of that charge, an internal judicial investigation was opened.  And 10 days later she resigned.  Which ended the investigation.  

(The charge made wasn't for a federal crime, but dealt with legal ethics.  That's why, with her no longer being a judge, there was no reason to investigate her.)

Either that is wildly coincidental and she just happened to resign from a lifetime appointment to the federal bench for no known reasons, or It appears pretty clear that she resigned because she didn't want an investigation into family business over the inheritance, which seemingly dealt with tax fraud.  And given that it was likely all a part of the same scheme -- since it not being part of the same fraudulent scheme makes no sense -- then her brother was involved with it all, as well.

As I said, any fraud over the family inheritance is most-probably beyond the statute of limitations.  Though I don't know if that fraud has had to be continually perpetuated through the years to the present day.  At the very least, people who commit such major fraud for such huge amounts are...well, fraudulent, and what we know publicly about his dealings shows it was only beginning.

What we also now know is that -- remarkably amazing coincidences aside -- that original inheritance fraud was massive enough to get a federal judge to retire to shut down an internal investigation.

Here's the thing --

The SDNY probably noticed.  And if they didn't start investigating it themselves after the New York Times report, they probably are now...

There are many things that not only bother me about the Barr Report Summary -- and keep bothering me even more the more I think about them.  But at the center of them all is one thing that strikes me as foundational to the problems.

It's when Attorney General William Barr (R-Trump Towers) writes in his summary that a person can't commit Obstruction of Justice if there's no underlying crime.  Now, I'm not only not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV or in print -- and the moment I hear that it immediately struck that it couldn't be right, that it made no sense.  A person can lie or cover-up and obstruct prosecutors if he or she doesn't want to talk about something that's perfectly legal (like having an affair, for instance, or It hurts their reputation, or they want to protect someone).  So, I couldn't believe that the law the Attorney General said was true --  even though he's the Attorney General, and I type my various thoughts. 

So, it was a great comfort to me and my non-existent legal degree that federal prosecutor after federal prosecutor all day yesterday came saying the same thing all day -- that Attorney General Barr was wrong, that there was no such legal principle.  That anyone can obstruct justice for any reason, whether there is an underlying crime or not.  The most innocent person, they all said, can obstruct justice.  (Interestingly, many of these federal prosecutors used the same, famous example -- that Martha Stewart had actually committed no crime, but lied to federal prosecutors about her actions, committing obstruction of justice and going to jail for five months because of it.)  That what Attorney General William Barr said is not the law, and he made the chimera up out of thin air and a large dose of obfuscation.

What bothers me so much about this and why I find it almost more problematic than any of the other transgressions in his summary (though it's a close race for #1) is not only because it's not just deceptive, but because he's the Attorney General of the United States and knows it's deceptive, and knows that every lawyer listening knows it's non-existent and deceptive (as well as many non-lawyers, including all those people who went to jail for lying and obstructing justice even though they hadn't committed an underlying crime) but also since the point Barr is making up is so central to the whole investigation.  Obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice is no small matter here.  Trump is on record for firing FBI Director James Comey -- the man in charge of the investigation -- specifically because of "the Russia thing."  He fired most of the people he could who had subsequently been in charge at the FBI or had significant positions in the investigation.  And when you fire the people who are investigating you, even if you haven't been convicted or just indicted for a crime, you are not only obstructing justice...but your obstruction might be the very reason that the people investigating you have been blocked and unable to conduct a proper investigation and get the actual evidence needed to indict you.

Indeed, obstruction of justice is perhaps the very reason William Barr is currently Attorney General, since he is the man who wrote a 19-page, unsolicited letter in an effort to get his job as Attorney General that argued it was not Constitutionally possible for a president to commit...(let's say it all together now...) obstruction of justice.

And there's the Attorney General lying, making up the most childish, non-existent legal doctrine that if you haven't been convicted of a crime, it's therefore not illegal to lie about it and obstruct justice to keep officers of the law from asking questions.

And it was from that core whitewash lie that Barr's entire manifest summary to protect Trump was built. 

If only Martha Stewart's attorneys had known this legal principle at the time!! All her fellow inmates would have been spared the hell having to eat on doilies at every meal for the five months she was in prison.