Obstruction of Justice: Today's News for May 17th

New York Times:

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.

The documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia. Late Tuesday, Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, demanded that the F.B.I. turn over all “memoranda, notes, summaries and recordings” of discussions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey.

Such documents, Mr. Chaffetz wrote, would “raise questions as to whether the president attempted to influence or impede” the F.B.I.

...Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” 

If this is true, then it is a possible case of obstruction of justice. This could be an impeachable offense.

There are still a lot of things unconfirmed here. First, the memo has not been made public. Second, Comey has not confirmed the information in the memo. Third, if Trump denies it, it becomes a question of Trump's word versus Comey's word. This is confirmed by the CNN lede:

CNN:

Trump vs. Comey: Who will America trust?

America faces a fateful choice: Does it believe Donald Trump or James Comey?

A theatrical showdown is now looming between the President with a hazy relationship with the truth and the FBI director he fired, whose finely tuned sense of his own integrity has often steered him into rocky political waters.

The FBI director who was glaringly honest about Hillary Clinton's transgressions, even as he said any other government employee would be prosecuted for the same ones? Comey's credibility is impeccable, in spite of what CNN might want to think.

But even if we reach the point of impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice, there is no guaranty the Congress will vote to remove him from office. It is still a Republican-controlled Congress.

Also, there is no telling what the public reaction will be to an impeachment. If the public perceives it as a witch hunt against Trump, much like they did with Bill Clinton's impeachment, then the Congress may have to retreat. Remember, there was a solid case against Clinton for perjury, yet he was not removed from office for it.

Regardless, the Right-leaning media looks downright weak in their lede this morning:

Fox News:

White House disputes explosive report that Trump asked Comey to end Flynn probe

The White House grappled late Tuesday with the political ghost of James Comey, as an explosive new report said a memo written by the ousted FBI chief claimed President Trump once asked him to end the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The White House sharply disputed the report, as Democrats seized on it as potential proof of "obstruction" of justice.

According to The New York Times the memo quoted Trump as saying he hoped Comey could "let this go" with regard to Flynn.

This is called "burying the lede", and is a sure sign of biased reporting. Starting with the White House denial places more value on that than the accusation of criminal behavior found in the memo.

Trump Declassifies: Today's News for May 16th

Washington Post:

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

That last part is the true controversy in this story, because:

For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.

By the way, allegedly, no sources were endangered:

White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about terrorism.

“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”

In summary, Trump revealed a terrorist threat to the Russians. By revealing it, this could save lives. But because this story involves Trump and the Russians, the media considers it to be proof of something nefarious.

Needless to say, the Left is all over this story, and it was the lede on CNN too. Regardless of the framing of this story, it is a story, and should be a lede. Anytime a president reveals classified information, right or wrong, it should be reported.

Unfortunately, the Right seems to be missing this story. Don't look for it on Fox News. However, there is an equally intriguing story which the Left seems to be ignoring today:

Fox 5 DC:

Family's private investigator: 

There is evidence Seth Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to death

It has been almost a year since Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was murdered in the nation's capital. There have been no solid answers about why he was killed until now.

Rich was shot and killed last July in Northwest D.C and police have suggested the killing in the District's Bloomingdale neighborhood was a botched robbery. However, online conspiracy theories have tied the murder to Rich's work at the DNC.

Just two months shy of the one-year anniversary of Rich's death, FOX 5 has learned there is new information that could prove these theorists right.

Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the Rich family, suggests there is tangible evidence on Rich's laptop that confirms he was communicating with WikiLeaks prior to his death.

Now, questions have been raised on why D.C. police, the lead agency on this murder investigation for the past ten months, have insisted this was a robbery gone bad when there appears to be no evidence to suggest that.

Wheeler, a former D.C. police homicide detective, is running a parallel investigation into Rich’s murder. He said he believes there is a cover-up and the police department has been told to back down from the investigation.

"The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,” said Wheeler. “They haven't been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.”

When we asked Wheeler if his sources have told him there is information that links Rich to Wikileaks, he said, “Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed."

Wheeler also told us, "I have a source inside the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said, ‘Rod, we were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you.’ Now, that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department. Again, I don’t think it comes from the chief’s office, but I do believe there is a correlation between the mayor's office and the DNC and that is the information that will come out [Tuesday].

The mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, is a Democrat. So the conspiracy theory is possible.

However, let's assume for a moment that Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks, and he released the DNC emails to Wikileaks and was later killed by the Democrats who discovered it. Even in those circumstances, it is hard to believe there was a wide-ranging conspiracy by the Democrats, known all the way from the DNC to the mayor of Washington, and not a single person talked? A more likely story is the officer in charge of the investigation decided a robbery gone bad was the best explanation, and ordered his homicide investigators to concentrate on other unsolved murders. Bureaucracy is a more likely explanation than conspiracy.

If Rich were killed by the Democrats, it would have been a small operation. However, even that is doubtful. Politicians are generally far too gutless to arrange a murder. These are people who cannot even balance a budget.

But at the end of the day, even without the conspiracy theory, it is entirely possible that Rich could have been the mole who leaked the emails to Wikileaks.

There is your full news today from both sides of the media's political divide.

Thought for Today: H.L. Mencken

"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."--H.L. Mencken

The Monday Awards: Today's News for May 15th

Welcome to the Monday Awards Show! We have a lot of trophies to hand out...

The Hill:

Global ransomware attack using stolen NSA tool hits 74 countries

A massive international ransomware campaign apparently using hacking tools stolen from the NSA struck computers across the world Friday, shuttering British hospitals and hobbling a Spanish telecom.

As many as 74 countries in all were hit by the attack.

The ransomware, named "WanaCrypt0r 2.0," appears to use the stolen NSA Windows hacking tool "Eternal Blue." Ransomware makes computers or files unusable until a victim pays a ransom.

If this software had been Russian, we would be discussing sanctions at this point.

Continuing:

One antivirus company alone reported capturing tens of thousands of instances of the apparently enormous ransomware attack.

“We have observed a massive peak in WanaCrypt0r 2.0 attacks today, with more than 36,000 detections, so far," Avast Threat Lab Team Lead Jakub Kroustek said in a statement.

According to Kroustek, most of the targets are in Russia, Ukraine, and Taiwan. But some of the most damaging attacks have taken place in western Europe.

British hospitals were forced to refuse patients after coming under the cyberattack, Reuters reported. The British National Health Service said in a statement that 16 NHS organizations were affected by the attacks.

On a side note, HUH?! A doctor suddenly becomes unable to treat a patient because the computer is down? News flash: 50 years ago, most doctor's offices did not have computers.

This reminds me of a story that happened to my daughter over the weekend. She had her prom Saturday night. Afterwards, they went to IHOP. After being served, they waited an hour for their bill. So they went to the cashier and asked about their bill, and were told their computer system was down so they couldn't process any bills.

At this point, this is where I would demand to see the manager, and demand I get a free meal or a manual bill (you know, handwritten like in the good old days). But what did my millennial daughter and her friends do? They went back to their table and waited for another hour, until the systems came back up.

To my daughter and all the millennials and the rest of the world waiting around while their computers are down:

On top of this stupidity, any wagers on whether the media or anyone else questions why the U.S. government needed to make such tools in the first place? Of course, with the computers down, I doubt anyone will have the brain power to come up with such a question.

But I bring up this old piece of news because:

New York Times:

Ransomware’s Aftershocks Feared as U.S. Warns of Complexity

The components of the global cyberattack that seized hundreds of thousands of computer systems last week may be more complex than originally believed, a Trump administration official said Sunday, and experts warned that the effects of the malicious software could linger for some time.

As a new workweek started Monday in Asia, there were concerns the malicious software could spread further and in different forms, with new types of ransomware afflicting computers around the globe.

There were initial reports of new cases found over the weekend in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

President Trump has ordered his homeland security adviser, Thomas P. Bossert, who has a background in cyberissues, to coordinate the government’s response to the spread of the malware and help organize the search for who was responsible, an administration official said Sunday.

This article even provides the answer for Trump:

The source of the attack is a delicate issue for the United States because the vulnerability on which the malicious software is based was published by a group called the Shadow Brokers, which last summer began publishing cybertools developed by the National Security Agency.

President Trump and the rest of the U.S. government gets the Pogo Award for their response:

Of course, none of the news of this mass stupidity seems to have penetrated the media's Right or Left, as they have ledes of questionable importance:

Fox News:

Trump's travel ban lands in Seattle appellate court

The latest legal showdown over President Trump’s revised executive order targeting refugees and nationals from six predominately Muslim countries hits a Seattle appellate courtroom Monday morning.

The key issue before a three-judge panel is whether the president’s comments before he took office – suggesting he would ban Muslims from entering the country -- provides sufficient legal grounds to rule his order unconstitutional. 

And the big news on the Left:

CNN:

No clear path for Trump to quell uproar over Comey

A reeling White House has no obvious path out of one of the most intense self-imposed crises in modern political history, as the shockwaves of President Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey intensify.

Six days on, the administration is dealing with damaging consequences of that decision. The White House staff faces a credibility crisis following their shifting explanations for Comey's dismissal. Republican leaders in Congress are dealing with another unwelcome controversy ignited by their President. And Democrats are on offense, sensing an opening ahead of midterm elections next year.

So while the world's computers come under a ransomware attack which was created by the U.S. government in an attempt to spy on the world, the media's Right is worried about Muslims entering the country, while ignoring the perpetual war on Islam which created the Muslim problem in the first place. On the other side, the Left is running with last week's news because they don't like Trump and harping on what they perceive to be his error seems like a good thing to report.

The final award of the day goes to the mainstream media, of both Right and Left varieties:

Weekly Finale: Ring of Fire

For this week's musical finale, I am looking at the 1963 Johnny Cash song, "Ring of Fire".



"Ring" was written by June Carter Cash and Merle Kilgore. Although June later married Johnny Cash, she was allegedly having an affair with him at the time she wrote (and he recorded) the song. She was married to Edwin "Rip" Nix at the time she wrote the song.

According to Wikipedia, the song actually is about love:

Although "Ring of Fire" sounds ominous, the term refers to falling in love – which is what June Carter was experiencing with Johnny Cash at the time [she wrote it]...She worked with Kilgore on writing a song inspired by this phrase as she had seen her uncle do in the past. She had written: "There is no way to be in that kind of hell, no way to extinguish a flame that burns, burns, burns".

But there is another account of the song's writing:

Cash's first wife, Vivian Liberto, offers a different conception of "Ring of Fire" in her book ["I Walked the Line"]. She contends that June Carter Cash was not a co-writer of the song: "To this day, it confounds me to hear the elaborate details June told of writing that song for Johnny. She didn't write that song any more than I did. The truth is, Johnny wrote that song, while pilled up and drunk, about a certain private female body part. All those years of her claiming she wrote it herself, and she probably never knew what the song was really about." Liberto claims that Cash decided to give Carter co-writer status because "She needs the money". 

Even though Johnny Cash is most closely associated with "Ring", June's sister Anita was the first to record it. Anita's version is cringe-inducing.

"Ring" has been covered multiple times over the years, ranging from the also cringe-inducing cover by Eric Burden and the Animals, to the more normal country version by artists such as Alan Jackson:



However, the best cover was by the punk band Social Distortion in 1990:



The beauty of Social Distortion's cover is they brought the song to a different musical style, and played it perfectly in that style.

That is the end of this week's blogging. Try to stay cool over the weekend. I will return Monday with more hot blogging.

Trump's NBC Interview: Today's News for May 12th

President Donald Trump's interview with NBC News, which aired Thursday, provides a good example of biased media reporting:

Fox News:

Trump: Comey a 'grandstander,' 'showboat'

President Trump on Thursday called fired FBI Director James Comey a “showboat” and “grandstander” who Trump intended to fire regardless of any recommendation from the Justice Department.

Trump, speaking to NBC News, gave his first in-depth remarks since the stunning ousting of Comey on Tuesday evening.

“Look he’s a showboat, he’s a grandstander,” Trump said. “The FBI has been in turmoil. You know that, I know that. Everybody knows that. You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil – less than a year ago. It hasn’t recovered from that.”

Trump said he had planned to fire Comey for some time, but “there’s no good time to do it by the way.”

Comey was terminated after Trump received a written recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Comey’s direct superior. That memo cited Comey’s mishandling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s secret email server as the primary cause for a loss of confidence. But Trump said Thursday that Rosenstein’s document wasn’t what weighted the scale against Comey.

“I was going to fire regardless of recommendation,” Trump said.

Why? The New York Times offers an answer:

New York Times:

In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.

Only seven days after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as president, James B. Comey has told associates, the F.B.I. director was summoned to the White House for a one-on-one dinner with the new commander in chief.

The conversation that night in January, Mr. Comey now believes, was a harbinger of his downfall this week as head of the F.B.I., according to two people who have heard his account of the dinner.

As they ate, the president and Mr. Comey made small talk about the election and the crowd sizes at Mr. Trump’s rallies. The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him.

Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense.

...By Mr. Comey’s account, his answer to Mr. Trump’s initial question apparently did not satisfy the president, the associates said. Later in the dinner, Mr. Trump again said to Mr. Comey that he needed his loyalty.

Mr. Comey again replied that he would give him “honesty” and did not pledge his loyalty, according to the account of the conversation.

But Mr. Trump pressed him on whether it would be “honest loyalty.”

“You will have that,” Mr. Comey told his associates he responded.

Throughout his career, Mr. Trump has made loyalty from the people who work for him a key priority, often discharging employees he considers insufficiently reliable.

Unfortunately, the New York Times article fails to support that last statement with any examples, or even quotes from unnamed sources. It is just laid out there as a fact. While it may be true, the reporting doesn't show it.

Is news story editing a lost art form? Or is it that political editors give a lot more leeway when the story tells them what they want to hear?

Speaking of bias, back to the Left side of the NBC News interview story:

CNN:

Trump's anger could lead down a dangerous road

Presidents often get angry, but most go to great lengths to hide their fits of rage and the impression that red faced fury rules their actions.

Not Donald Trump.

In three-and-a-half months in office, the 45th President has shown that indignation, impulsiveness and a prickly desire to protect his own self image are at the core of his governing philosophy.

The latest example of the President's simmering fury has emerged in the aftermath of his firing of James Comey this week, apparently the culmination of long-brewing animosity towards the FBI director.

Trump gave a glimpse of his irritation and impatience with Comey during an interview with NBC News on Thursday.

So CNN's lede is that Trump goes into "fits of rage" and lets "red faced fury" rule his actions. While this may be a true accusation, it is also possible that Trump just played them.

Consider one of the Left's favorite meme's: Trump's Russian connection. Hypothetical question: If Trump was actually some kind of Russian spy/dupe, and covering up that fact was his motivation for firing Comey, wouldn't the impression that he did the firing on an irrational impulse go against that theory?

The cognitive dissonance is getting a little nuts here.

CNN is forgetting that Trump is an experienced tv personality, who knows how to act. His "red faced fury" is played for public consumption.

Overall, Fox News gets the story right by just reporting what was said during the NBC interview. However, for biased analysis from the Left, I suspect the New York Times' story was much more plausible than CNN's story.

By the way, how did NBC lede with this story?

NBC News:

Trump Interview With Lester Holt: President Asked Comey If He Was Under Investigation

President Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview Thursday with NBC News' Lester Holt, called ousted FBI chief James Comey a "showboat" and revealed he asked Comey whether he was under investigation for alleged ties to Russia.

"I actually asked him" if I were under investigation, Trump said, noting that he spoke with Comey once over dinner and twice by phone.

"I said, if it's possible would you let me know, am I under investigation? He said, 'You are not under investigation.'"

"I know I'm not under investigation," Trump told Holt during the 31-minute White House interview.

The president also said he supports a full investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election last year, saying he wants the probe to be done "absolutely properly." 

Strangely, on NBC News' front page, they led with that buried piece of information: "Trump Backs Full Investigation Into Russian Meddling in Election".

Regardless, kudos to both NBC and Fox for leading with the news of what was said, rather than their interpretation of it.

The Jefferson Davis Statue

(hat tip to Wikipedia for the pic)

From CNN:

Under heavy police presence, crews began to take down the statue of former Confederate President Jefferson Davis in New Orleans early Thursday morning.

It's the second Confederate monument to be removed after the New Orleans city council voted to remove four such landmarks back in 2015. After years of heated public debate and legal battles, recent court decisions paved the way for the city to relocate the four monuments.

Early Thursday, pro-monument supporters held vigil at the Davis statue and hoisted Confederate flags.

People who want to see the monuments removed also gathered at the site and cheered at the sight of heavy trucks and a crane moving into place. They chanted, "Take 'em down" and "White supremacy's got to go."

The opposing sides screamed insults and threats at one another as police separated them using barriers.

I have no issue with the statue's removal, as long as it is at least stored somewhere. But even if the statue never sees the light of day again, it should never be destroyed.

Regardless of what you think of Jefferson Davis, he is an important figure in American history. Centuries from now, the statue may be appreciated by future historians for its cultural significance, even if people today want to censor every element of racism from existence. It is one thing to refuse to honor Davis, but it is another to remove him from history.

For historical reference, I am reminded of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, which the Taliban destroyed in Afghanistan back in 2001. Here is the tallest one, both before and after:

This 1700-year old statue was destroyed because it wasn't politically correct in the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

History should be protected, even if we don't personally like it, or if the winds of politics blow against it. History may be written by the victors, but it should never be censored by them.