As An Administrative Officer Executive Officer Ii Assistant Trade Officer Ii T: Fill & Download for Free

Well since you asked, let me list the various points of credit for which Mr. Trump is so most deserving.Trump is claiming an economy that Obama delivered, (chart follows) and has been able to ride on Obama’s economic success until his own “economic policies’ bit with disastrous effect. Now the USA is facing the real possibility of a recession in spite of the fact that he was handed a large and growing economy.U.S. posts a record trade deficit in goods despite ‘America First’ policies The 2018 figure shows that President Trump’s tariffs and tough policies have failed to shrink a trade gap that he argues represents a massive transfer of wealth from Americans to foreigners. Source Washington PostTrump promised he would get rid of the national debt in 8 years but now it’s at an all-time high with Trump actually adding $8.3 trillion in additional debt. Source: Trump and the National Debt Trump Pledged to Eliminate the Debt. Instead He Will Add $8.3 TrillionThe VA is in shambles and he fired the only man that vets trusted. Trump and the Republicans pulled support for the Vets while the Dems supported a number of bills to help them. And it was Trump who fired the only Vet Director that the vets had any faith in and put in place a lackey that has done nothing but undermine the advances the prior director had made. “According to Military Times: “Vets still face long waits with the fraudulent VA Choice program. Dems up to saving taxpayers from another GOP fraud.According to Stars and Stripes, veterans using VA Choice program could get stuck with a $30,000 medical bill. GOP up to no good. If Dems don't stop con fraud, who will?”Trump’s Budget Proposal Cut Support for Disabled Veterans?The president's plan did call for changes that would have had a significant financial effect on some disabled veterans. Source Military timesHow often do Republicans undermine veterans?When you hear Republicans praising veterans, do not believe it for a minute. Congressional Republicans blocked or filibustered bill after bill that would have aided veterans, all in an attempt to undermine President Barack Obama while cutting taxes for the wealthy are still at with Trump as leader.Mitch McConnell and his cohorts filibustered a stopped a total of $21 billion in funds that would have expanded veteran benefits and saved expansions.Trump and the GOP claim they love the military, maybe so, but the sure as hell have no use for them when they have done their duty for their country and come home!Here’s a partial list of what the Republicans “did” for the Vets:• blocked a $1 billion jobs bill that would have helped millions of vets• blocked a bill that would have kept benefits on par with the cost of living• killed the Wounded Veteran Job Security Act• killed the Veterans Retraining Act• killed the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Act• killed the Disabled Veterans Home Improvement Act• killed the Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship ActHere Is just another few examples of what Trump is planning for the Vets:1.Source: The Stars and Stripeshttps://www.stripes.com/news/group-urges-white-house-va-to-reject-resurfaced-proposal-cutting-disabled-unemployed-veterans-benefits-1.561091“WASHINGTON — A cost-saving proposal has resurfaced in a new Congressional Budget Office report as an option to help reduce the federal budget deficit.The report suggests removing approximately 235,000 disabled veterans from a Department of Veterans Affairs program called Individual Unemployability in 2020, projecting it could save $47.6 billion in the next 10 years. Veterans removed from the program would see their monthly incomes decrease by an average of $1,300, according to CBO estimates.“We want the White House to immediately make a statement saying Trump’s recommendation is out of line and will not be considered,” said Joe Chenelly, director of Veteran Affairs.The program applies to veterans who have disability ratings through the VA of between 60 percent and 100 percent and are unable to secure jobs because of their disabilities. It allows them to receive the highest compensation rate.The CBO suggested removing veterans from Individual Unemployability once they reach age 67, claiming those veterans would be eligible for Social Security by that time.The cut was one of 121 cost-saving proposals included in the CBO report, titled “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2019 to 2028.” The CBO periodically compiles the list of policy options to help inform lawmakers.2.Trump 2020 budget: Which department budgets would be cut ...https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-budget-2020/Mar 11, 2019 - The Trump administration released its 2020 budget request on Monday, Veterans Affairs ...Also Cuts $845 billion over the next 10 years from Medicare, the federal program that provides health insurance to older Americans.3. White House has no answer for 7 million veterans who stand to lose health care"In their desperation to gain votes for their unpopular plan to repeal Obamacare, House Republicans inserted a raft of “improvements” to the bill, including one that could harm up to 7 million veterans by making them ineligible for the bill’s tax credits.The most recent estimates suggest about 9.1 million individuals are enrolled in VA health programs. However, a 2014 Congressional Budget Office score of veterans’ choice legislation concluded that “about 8 million [veterans] qualify to enroll in VA’s health system but have not enrolled.” Subtracting for VA enrollment gains since that CBO score leaves approximately seven million veterans eligible for, but not enrolled in, VA health programs, and thus potentially affected by the House’s “technical” change.”Source: https://defendingthetruth.com/threads/7-million-vets-could-lose-health-care.60726/4.Veterans are losing 6 different ways right now’The implosion of Ronny Jackson’s nomination to lead the Veterans Affairs Department may look like the Trump administration’s drama of the moment, but it carries big consequences for 9 million veterans in a sprawling health care system with uneven results and a precarious future.Not only does the VA have no leader, but the veteran health care community is also divided between conservatives inclined to privatize much of veterans’ care and those who want to invest more in fixing the current system. The impact can be seen across 170 medical centers and hundreds of clinics of varying quality that treat veterans who served in the U.S. military in every conflict since World War II.5. Did Congress Just Screw 7 Million Vets Out Of Their Tax Credits?Source: https://taskandpurpose.com/congress-veterans-ahca-trumpcareTrump has appointed cabinet heads all intent on reversing the very oversight, rules, and regulations in favor of big business, but which were originally put in place by both sides of the aisle to protect consumers and the environment. Toxic chemicals threaten water supply Source Washington PostE.P.A. Plans to Get Thousands of Pollution Deaths Off the Books by Changing Its Math“The Environmental Protection Agency plans to change the way it calculates the health risks of air pollution, a shift that would make it easier to roll back a key climate change rule because it would result in far fewer predicted deaths from pollution, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.”The E.P.A. had originally forecast that eliminating the Obama-era rule, the Clean Power Plan, and replacing it with a new measure would have resulted in an additional 1,400 premature deaths per year.Source: E.P.A. Plans to Get Thousands of Pollution Deaths Off the Books by Changing Its MathThe EPA is also cutting off funding for several research centers that study the effects of pollution on childhood development. Greenwire’s Corbin Hiar and Ariel Wittenberg report: “The move, critics say, is part of a broader effort by [Trump] to downplay science that could lead to stricter regulations on polluting industries. At issue are 13 Children’s Environmental Health and Disease “Prevention Research Centers located at institutions across the country.” Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/category/the-daily-202/?utm_term=.1d89f15bad9b&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1Trump has 17 investigations and criminal charges against his companies, family and his presidency, all of which undermines the presidency as well as America’s standing on the world stage. The direct result, it is taking time and serious attention away from the very issues that need fixing.The $1.5 trillion in tax breaks that he promised the middle class, didn’t go to the working poor or the middle class, but instead directly benefited him, his family, the richest 1% and the most profitable corporations on the planet. The same CEO’s and top executives gave themselves major bonuses and then bought back their own stock that gave the markets a temporary surge, only to collapse as investors lost confidence in Trump and his looney policies and tariffs. “The tax cut has utterly failed to deliver the promised investment boom. Companies didn’t use their giant windfall to build new plants and raise productivity, they used it to buy back a lot of stock, passing the gains on to wealthy investors.” Source: New York TimesAT&T pocketed Trump’s tax cuts after promising 7,000 new jobs — but slashed 23,000 jobs instead while pocketing the tax cuts. Source: AT&T promised 7,000 new jobs to get tax break—it cut 23,000 jobs insteadThese unfair and misdirected tax cuts resulted in a double whammy adding to already serious fiscal deficiencies by reducing taxes overall while increasing the burgeoning deficit problem. Not only has America been ‘robbed’ of those taxes now and going forward, but these are taxes that should in all fairness be paid by the very rich, and highly profitable corporations. “Trump’s twin deficits show that his party has been lying about its policy priorities and that he is completely clueless about his signature policy issue”. Source: New York Times. This unwarranted tax cut for the rich has increased the deficit by an additional $1 trillion dollars, now estimated to actually come in at close to $2 trillion. And guess who is going to pay for it… one guess.Both Rubio and McConnell have both stated very clearly on a number of occasions that the deficit will have to be reduced with cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and wait for it…. your own hard-earned Social Security benefits. You know, the fund you have been paying into all your working life, the one, that you counted on to supplement and assuage your retirement when the time comes! Well, thanks to Trump and the Republicans, that is now up for grabs and is imperiled. And this is just in: Trump’s recent budget proposal included billions of dollars in Social Security cuts. The proposed cuts were a huge betrayal of his campaign promise to protect our Social Security system. Source: Trump is employing this insidious strategy to attack Social Security — and avoid a massive 2020 backlashCuts in Medicare and your Social Security is just part of the Trump agenda, as are his tariffs which are adding additional tax on those imported consumer items you are buying, and speaking of his infamous tariffs, based on his, “I know what is best” claim when he decided to instigate his tariff plan against the advice of both Democratic and Republican economists and CEOs, the results have been disastrous. “As many people have pointed out to no avail, Trump is all wrong about what trade deficits do. “ Source: New York Times“Tariff Man Has Become Deficit Man - Donald Trump focused his ire mainly on trade deficits, insisting that “our jobs and wealth are being given to other countries that have taken advantage of us.” But over two years of unified G.O.P. control of government, a funny thing happened: Both deficits surged. The budget deficit has hit a level unprecedented except during wars and in the immediate aftermath of major economic crises; the trade deficit in goods has set a record. Trump really has no idea how international trade works.” Source: New York TimesTrump’s tariffs have meant nothing more than an added extra tax on Americans and have cost taxpayers an additional $12 billion that Trump had to dole out to soybean farmers alone for lost crops, and he is now promising the same farmers $15 billion as they face even greater losses than estimated. To cover for his stupidity and wrong-headed Tariffs, “Tariff man” Trump, as he likes to call himself, lies to the American public by telling them that the tariffs are making America richer as they are filling the American treasury, when in fact they are an added tax on consumers, now estimated to cost an American family between $500 and $800. “Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports hurt American businesses; “Over the past year, the US has placed about $200 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods, in part to make Chinese products more expensive so Americans don’t buy them. The administration has also placed steep tariffs on all imported steel, angering other major US trade partners. Source: Farmers are losing patience with Trump’s trade warAs for those coal mining jobs he promised, nothing, zilch, an nothing either in terms of companies being brought back. Try and name even one that hadn’t been in the planning stages prior to Trump being elected. Of course, there have been jobs still fleeing as evident by Harley Davison closed a factory and moved the jobs to Europe to avoid Trump’s job-killing Tariff program of terror. Western Farmers are not only seeing their crops rot in the fields for lack of markets due to Trump’s tariff war, but they are now losing hope and farms as bankruptcies are on the rise. Farm bankruptcies are on the rise. “A total of 84 farms in the upper Midwest filed for bankruptcy between July 2017 and June 2018, according to the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis. That’s more than double the number of Chapter 12 filings during the same period in 2013 and 2014 in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana.” Source: Farmers are losing patience with Trump’s trade war “ farmers are freaking out. Some are facing financial ruin now that millions of Chinese consumers, who once bought about 60 percent of American agriculture exports, have stopped buying their products. Exports to China from Minnesota dropped about 25 percent after the first round of tariffs went into effect last year” Trump created a $12 billion bailout program for farmers, and on May 17th, he outlined another plan to give them an additional $15 billion. Farmers are far from happy with this approach “it’s not clear if those bailouts will be enough to keep farmers happy. “We don’t want another check from the government,” Isane said. “People don’t realize that once you lose a market, it’s hard to get it back.” Source: Farmers are losing patience with Trump’s trade war“Net farm income has fallen by 50% since 2013 and the trade war has pushed commodity prices down even further. Many farmers and ranchers are on the verge of financial collapse.”…the resolving the trade war with China should be the administration’s “top priority” the Agriculture Department was told…farmers were disappointed to see tensions between the two countries escalate in recent days….the Agriculture Department was told that the president’s proposed bailout package for American farmers would not do nearly enough to stop the bleeding — it “will not make up for lost export markets and long term implications of trade disputes.” “Farmers are hurting,” he said. “It is critical the upcoming trade assistance be structured in a manner that does maximum good for our farmers and ranchers.” Source: Kansas GOP senator writes desperate letter to end Trump’s trade war: Farmers ‘on the verge of financial collapse’GM had to fire 14,000 workers in large part due to tariffs on aluminum and steel, making their cars much more expensive and Ford’s CEO has reported that the tariffs have cost the company an additional $1 billion as of the end of Nov. These costs have to be passed onto customers or absorbed by the company by cutting staff and workers, and it just keeps getting worse day in and day out.. yet this fool has no clue… “Trump’s Trade Grade- We get a look at his transcript on trade policy. It’s not pretty. President Trump’s economic policy: He picks a yardstick to measure the American economy — the trade deficit — that’s mostly meaningless. He spends years criticizing it as too high and promising to reduce it. And under his administration, it surges.” “By just about any measure you pick,” Slate’s Jordan Weissmann writes, “his effort appears to have been an absolute flop.”“He set out to fix a non-problem (a trade deficit) and created real ones including international conflict, higher consumer prices and gross inefficiency in our economy,” The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin writes.The vice president of the National Farmers Union, appeared May 16th, 2019 on Fox News to discuss President Donald Trump’s ongoing trade war with China.“It has been insane,” Edelburg said. “We’ve had a lot of farmers — a lot more bankruptcies going on, a lot more farmer suicides.”“We have more commodities, more grain sitting on the ground now because we lost huge export markets. We’ve lost export markets that we’ve had for 30 years that we’ll never get a chance to get back again. Farmers are hopeful to get their crops in the ground this year but really hope we have a place to sell it come fall.” Source: FOX NEWS May 16th, 2019Edelburg said the Trump administration’s plan to provide up to $20 billion in federal aid to farmers would help, but wouldn’t be a solution to the problem.“We don’t need band-aids. We need long-term fixes to make sure farmers are able to survive. …the way (Trump ) is going about it may not be the right fix.”He was just found guilty of using his charity fund as a private piggy bank and was fined $25 million for defrauding idiots for being suckered into this get rich quick “Trump University” scheme...this and these continuing malfeasances have taken their toll in misdirecting attention, time and required action away from the serious issues that face all Americans.All of this In less than two years, and yet he has also managed to:. Divide the country like no politician ever before, by doing so the worst way possible, along racist and economic lines.. He has marginalized the rights of women, minorities and those of non-traditional sexual preferences.. He has normalized hatred, racism, and misogyny. “We’re a nation coming apart at the seams, a nation in which each tribe has its own narrative and the narratives are generally resentment narratives. The African-American experience is somehow at the core of this fragmentation — the original sin that hardens the heart, separates Americans from one another and serves as model and fuel for other injustices.” Source: New York Times. He has made America and the planet dirtier for years to come through egregious environmental deregulation. Here’s what Obama’s EPA reported: “fracking contaminates water. For instance, they state that "Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources" causes contamination. ... The EPA also notes that disposing of fracking wastewater directly into surface water contaminates drinking water.” This under Obama’s administration. But under Trump’s crooked EPA appointment of Pruit, who has been forced out of office for personal spending of Government monies,Trump and his EPA lied to the America public and had this to say "Data gaps and uncertainties limited EPA’s ability to fully assess the potential impacts on drinking water resources locally and nationally. Because of these data gaps and uncertainties, it was not possible to fully characterize the severity of impacts, nor was it possible to calculate or estimate the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle.". He has profited illegally from his position, as have his children and son-in-law.. He’s lowered the level of discourse throughout America where simple bumper sticker bromides pass for intelligent thought.. He has destroyed the country’s relationships with our best and most loyal allies and cuddled up to the world’s most disgraceful authoritarians.. He made truth and facts irrelevant for his base while making intellectuals and the media the enemy of the people. And has told close to 10,000 verifiable lies Back on Jan 21 he was up to 8,158 false or misleading claims. but now it is more than 10,000 Source Washington Post:https://www.washingtonpost.com. He has crushed regulations meant to level the market so that small businesses had at least a small chance of competing against large corporations.. He has overturned financial regulations, making it now virtually impossible for consumers to protect themselves against the practices of shady banks… allowing for another probable meltdown. John Taylor, president of the nonprofit National Community Reinvestment Coalition had warned of the last crash and says "We got into that mess because of the lack of regulation, and now we're talking about making banks less accountable. It makes no sense whatsoever." Source:10 years after the financial crisis, have we learned anything?. He’s made the USA a global embarrassment.. For many businesses and farmers international trade is infinitely more difficult than it was just a few years ago.. He has driven the country to the brink of a constitutional crisis since he refuses to accept or simply breaks the laws of the land at will.. He’s ripped up numerous trade deals and replaced them with either nothing or moved the deck chairs slightly around the deck so that he could proclaim victory when in fact all he really did was to justify another so-called win. A good case in point was the needless drama, cost, and loss of goodwill caused in settling the NAFTA dispute with both Mexico and Canada. With a simple inclusion that didn’t materially alter the plan from the original, Trump then changed the name and claimed victory.. While the Supreme Court has long been known as non-partisan, Trump and the GOP pushed through two hard leaning rightwing justices, and is already been pushing cases through the lower courts in order to overturn numerous civil rights that are favored by 70% of the country and which had been considered untouchable, (established laws can be reviewed and altered as a precedent as Kavanaugh referred to existing laws while lying to ensure his appointment as a Trump surrogate and protector ). Trump is constantly spreading fear and paranoia regarding everything from border protection, threats of nuclear war, murderous gangs, allies raping America economically, and white people being victimized and marginalized by a country made vulnerable by left-leaning Democrats, none of which is true. Trump employs hateful rhetoric for no other reason than to keep his rabble at a constant boil, all to the detriment of civil discourse, fairness, and honesty.. And of course, there is Trump’s magically wall that the Mexicans are going to pay for while claiming that the Democrats are against border security.. when in fact all sane people, no matter the party, don’t support Trump and his magic beans that will somehow grow the wall that the Mexicans have clearly stated for which they certainly will not pay.. Trump colluded with Russia to influence his election and has spent over two years obstructing justice in broad daylight as a cover-up. Now there is evidence that the NRA received monies from Russia to pass along to Trump’s campaign and there is some discussion that even Saudi Arabia may have helped out trump get elected with more foreign contributions, a crime of its own. In order to cover up his deals with Russia, Trump fired Comey, then the head of the FBI, discredited the Justice Department, and then, the heads of the FBI while calling main news media fake and putting forth the claim that the “Deep State,” in fact his own government, were all out to get him.. Trump has attacked the free press time and time again because they have the tenacity to point out the hypocrisy and wrong-headedness of his policies and knee-jerk decisions that are detrimental to America and in direct violation of America’s number 1 constitutional right, freedom of speech.· Trump has undermined and demonized international alliances that have loyally stood with and have gone to war in support of America for decades· He endangered the entire world economy with his tariffs and isolationism· He prompted many countries to seriously look to find alternatives to US’s vaunted support and stability while allowing both Russia and China an upper hand in gaining influence and control of countries that had previously favored the USA.. Trump decided against entering the Trans-Pacific Strategic EconomicPartnership Agreement that would have given America an upper hand and a controlling interest in trade agreements with all the Pacific Rim countries in one fell swoop.. Trump actually turned down the TPP agreement because Obama was for it, and this in the face of the only one thing that Republicans supported Obama on. They, like Obama, saw this as a next to a perfect opportunity for freezing China out of the Partnership while gaining the advantage of winning a free trade agreement with all countries across the entire and the important economically growing Pacific Rim.. Trump mistakenly believed that CHINA was the main partner in the TPP agreement, but it was not until the USA pulled out, that the rest of the Rim countries decided to allow China entry; they had been counting on America to be the go-to leading partner for the entire partnership. Trump was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of an easy victory!. Trump has decided to go it alone and has hit China as well as a number of favored counties with tariffs, a move from which neither the USA or these countries will benefit. The tariffs have already decidedly increased hostilities, bad will, and has already meant countervailing restrictions as both China and friendly countries have raised tariffs on the importation of American Goods and services.. American soybean farmers are already looking at loses of $3.2 billion against next year crops and the risk of possibly losing the very markets that Trump has attacked with unwanted tariffs, as these importers become conditioned to stay with their new source of supply once tariffs are inevitability withdrawn. With $16 billion worth of Chinese imports, global trade relationships are changing in ways that could eventually leave American farmers out in the cold.. Where farmers have worked tirelessly to build relationships with importers worldwide, they find that these hard-won markets are now being taken over by Brazil, Canada, Argentina, or Russia – among other competitors. No aid or financial support will bring back those markets. And even if the trade war ended tomorrow, the damage to important and lucrative relationships with buyers has been done.. Trump consistently oversimplifies the complexities of policy issues to the detriment of those who elected him. As an international senior executive of a major Fortune 500 company, I have seen it close up and visited markets where America had a solid lock on goods and services and I can vouch for the fact that global trade is about more than tariffs. It includes a complex, interconnected network of suppliers, regulators, inspectors, shipping routes, and value chains. It’s built on relationships, cost, and reliability. Unfortunately, Trump only determines policies and makes decisions on one thing, dollars, and cents.. Most importantly, competition is fierce and growing. While tariffs can be turned on and off quickly, building – or reclaiming – trade relationships can take decades. This is what’s really at stake here. Unfortunately Trump, who is looking for an easy win, either doesn’t get it or doesn’t care. Either way, the USA is the loser for Trump’s lack of leadership, interest, care, and understanding.As it stands America” families will be paying an additional $500 to $800 because of the tariffs which, in spite of Trump’s lies that they are being added to the USA treasury, are in fact a tax on families.The May 10th. tariff hike to 25% on a bulk of U.S. imports from China will cost the American economy $62 billion by next year, according to data from Oxford Economics.That total translates to $490 per household. More extreme protectionist policies would cost $800 per household.“While negotiations are ongoing, and the possibility of a deal remains significant, a further escalation of trade tensions would have dire consequences for both protagonists and the rest of the world, says Gregory Daco, Oxford Economics chief U.S. economist” Source: Trump's new tariffs will cost Americans about $500 per household, by one estimate. This is a guy who is becoming more and more isolated and convinced that he doesn’t need counsel or advice as he has supreme confidence in his own ability. This means certain disaster for the country, a definite certainty if there is an emergency whether domestic or international in nature.. Trump is fixated on the mistaken notion that trading partners are responsible for screwing America by holding fast to the notion that both allies and foes are accountable for America’s economic decline because of America’s imbalance of trade. Trump bases this false notion on his take that America is losing economic advantage and by extension, respect for him as president. This is manifested in his rants about reciprocal trade. In turn, he has gone ahead with fights with virtually the world and put in place self-defeating tariffs in order to address the deficit, specifically caused, according to him, by an” imbalance of trade.”And he has failed miserably: WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. trade deficit reached its highest sum ever last year, defying President Donald Trump's efforts and promises to shrink it through his economic policies. ... The government said Wednesday that the U.S. trade gap in goods and services reached $621 billion last year, its highest total since 2008. Source: Associated Press. Trump fails to understand that an American trade deficit with another country doesn’t mean that that country is taking advantage of the USA, it means that Americans want and purchase goods and services equal to the amount of that deficit. in other words, they are getting goods that they want and for which they pay, choosing Chinese over American produced goods. It is called free trade, a position that Republicans held as sacrosanct and inviolable down through the last 70 years.WHAT IS THE TRADE GAP?“Trump often misrepresents the trade deficit. He has frequently labeled it an outright economic loss. “We’ve been losing, on average, $375 billion a year with China,” the president said in February, referring to the 2017 deficit in goods between the United States and China. That imbalance surged to $419.2 billion in 2018 under Trump’s watch. Yet the trade gap isn’t an outright loss. It simply reflects the greater value of what the United States imports compared to what it exports. And it’s not necessarily a cause for concern.” Source: Associated Press.Trump is fixating on the wrong data and drawing the wrong conclusions. This is not in any way to suggest that China is not a problem, they are. But going it alone and shunning the assistance of America’s allies who have the same issues with China while failing to call on the WTO ( World Trade Organization that rules on unfair trade practices) is just another example of Trump’s bull-headed stupidity and his claim that “ only he can fix it”.Americans want and are willing to buy cheap stuff rather than support more expensive American manufacturers. They have a choice and they choose the cheaper goods. For all his misplaced promises and bluster, Trump’s trade policies are a complete bust. “ U.S. deficits in goods with China and Mexico surged to record highs. As president, Trump’s signature effort to stimulate U.S. growth — deficit-funded tax cuts — likely helped fuel the willingness of American corporations and households to spend, including on imported goods. That is especially true at a time when much of the rest of the economic world has weakened and is less likely to buy U.S. goods. The result has been more imports than exports.What’s more, the tariffs Trump imposed on steel, aluminum and hundreds of billions’ worth of Chinese goods likely contributed to the trend: During 2018, American companies that import goods from China appeared to accelerate their spending on them to avoid Trump’s future import taxes. Source: The Associated Press. The turbulence and uncertainty caused by Trump’s trade war have created a geo-economic feeding frenzy. U.S. competitors from Argentina to Ukraine are aggressively working to eat into markets once dominated by American farmers. But according to Trump “Only he can get it done”, “ only he alone can fix it” and fix it he has!!!, Perhaps without repair or at the very best, chances are that it will take years of hard slogging and lower selling prices resulting in lost profits to win back what had been exclusively America’s to lose.· Trump has relentlessly sought to take down or cripple organizations like NATO and the WTO and the UN; institutions that have presented the world with both stability and a bulwark against aggressive and hostile rogue nations· Trump furiously worked at alienating the US’s closest and strongest allies with the mistaken notion that they were screwing America, when in fact America is going through as is the world, a period of transformation where automation and lack of skills have caused high paying manufacturing jobs to disappear or for greedy companies that Trump has supported to move offshore.. With AI ( artificial intelligence) on the horizon and China and Russia spending heavily on research and emerging technology, Trump has no plan and no clue.· Trump has cozied up to dictators and expressed admiration for their strong arm anti-democratic leadership that has emboldened them to become more aggressive without what previously had been the USA’s moral authority that had previously held them in check.. He made his presidency a laughing stock around the world causing damage to America’s standing, moral authority, and leadership position.· He gutted the government and put in place a cabinet charged with tearing down the very Departments for which they were put in charge. This resulted in weakening consumer, environmental, safety and underlying health standards at home while causing a detrimental effect on America’s standing abroad· Trump single-handedly made the USA a country where children are ripped from their families, put in cages and traumatized for life. Because of the lack of planning or care in handling what Trump has labeled “rapists and murderers” from “shit hole countries”, kids have been separated never to be reunited with their parents and now at last count, two young children have died in Trump’s administrative so-called “care’.. These and other anti-immigration atrocities have become so normalized that ordinary people are actually arguing about whether or not it’s acceptable· Trump has created a safe atmosphere for racists and violent nationalists to voice their views and come out of the closet for the first time in 50 years. The result, Hate, and Race crimes are at an all-time high under the Trump presidency.· He has cast doubt as to the trustworthiness of societal and governmental institutions, thereby weakening the very fabric of American democracy.· Trump and his administration have transformed the very concept of truth into a post-modern quagmire of double speak and “alternate facts” worthy of Stalin’s communist rule or Hitler’s propaganda machine, undermining (if not completely destroying) the democratic principles on which the USA was founded· He has upset world order by taking an isolationist approach that previously led to the great depression of 1929. As it stands, America’s isolation position has already had a detrimental effect on the world economy, with many economists pointing to the inevitability of a recession. ‘Not my fault’: Trump struggles to defend his record amid setbacks on immigration, trade, North Korea More than halfway through his term, the president has failed to make progress on a number of his top priorities. Source Washington Post· Trump has overturned not only Obama’s policies but arguably the entire Civil Rights movement and the various progressive cultural, economic and societal gains of the twentieth century, including equal pay for equal work, and the protection of unions for the working man· He has encouraged dissent and destabilizing dialogue among staunch US allies, turning allies and friendly nations into enemies· Trump has used the power of his position to enrich himself, his friends and his family, and now has 17 criminal investigations and two guilty findings, all of which is debasing the presidency and is taking time, energy and effort away from the vexing social and economic issues facing the USA.· He has validated the punitive inhumane actions of oppressive governments all over the world· He has single-handedly relinquished any moral high ground that the US still held· Trump managed to get millions to focus on bullshit Trump instigated dramas and Trump made problems instead of policies and issues that actually affected peoples’ lives and that of their family and friends.. Instead of addressing real issues of concern to all Americans, Trump offered empty promises like, having a massive cement wall built across the southern border and having Mexico pay for it, promising health care for all that would be better and cheaper but with no idea or plan on how to accomplish it while at the same time, killing a health plan that Americans have come to love.. There is no end to his lies now approaching 10,000 Know major lies, all given to distract and confuse a concerned public for no other reason than to cover his malpractices, lack of leadership and personal failings.. And as this writing, he has held 800.000 Government workers ransom without pay for a month in order to get his way to put up a wall on the southern border that the majority of people don’t want, experts have told him won’t be effective, and have advised that electronic devices and an increase in border personnel would be a far superior approach, yet Trump believes he is right and they are wrong..Trump claims there is an emergency situation at the southern border that needs to be addressed by a wall, but doesn’t take into account the fact that experts say the wall if built, would take anywhere from 3 to 5 years to complete. So much for responding to what he calls an immediate and pressing emergency.. Trump keeps lying that there is a crisis at the border even though the number of illegal crossings is the lowest it has been in 30 years. Source: NYTimes: “Border Crossings Have Been Declining for Years, Despite Claims of a ‘Crisis of Illegal Immigration’. Once again, Trump uses lies to make a case that no one other than the most gullible believe, and yet he persists with his lies, threats, and bullying for no other reason other than to get his way for a wall that he considered a joke when told to first use it as a rallying call during his campaign. It was initially intended as a mnemonic device to remind him to mention immigration. And interesting enough, when he was elected and placed a call to the President of Mexico, he virtually begged him to go along with the charade for “ political” purposes… LOL. Trump claims there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, and yes there is, but not the one of which he speaks, there is the one created by Trump himself by locking children up in cages and separating literally 1000’s of kids from their parents never to be found again. Neither Trump or his administration have any idea as to who they are or where they went once they were in the USA.. Trump is currently being investigated as a possible Russian Agent by the FBI… wow, now that is a distinction that Obama nor any other former president can claim.. Trump’s public war on the Mueller inquiry has gone on long enough that it is no longer shocking. Trump rages almost daily to his 58 million Twitter followers that Mr. Mueller is on a “witch hunt” and has adopted the language of Mafia bosses by calling those who cooperate with the special counsel “rats.” His lawyer talks openly about a strategy to smear and discredit the special counsel investigation.. The New York Times reveals the extent of an even more sustained, more secretive assault by Mr. Trump on the machinery of federal law enforcement. Interviews with dozens of current and former government officials and others close to Mr. Trump, as well as a review of confidential White House documents, reveal numerous unreported episodes in a two-year drama.. Matthew G. Whitaker, the former acting attorney general, was put under scrutiny by the House for possible perjury. But Whitaker was just the warm act now that Trump appointed W. Barr as his permanent Attorney General.. Barr has proven himself to be no more than a toady for Trump by acting as his personal lawyer while denying any neutrality and supporting Trump in his every attempt to thwart the House of Commons in their oversight efforts to investigate Trump, his Cabinet and their work in order to prevent the Russians from once again interfering in the upcoming elections by supporting Trump in his 2020 re-election run.. Trump has spent much of his time venting publicly about there being “no collusion” with Russia before the 2016 election, which has diverted attention from a growing body of evidence that he has tried to impede the various investigations. Yet the Mueller report shows at least 185 cases where the Trump campaign interacted with Russians in order to gain an advantage for Trump in the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election.. This is death by a million cuts. The public is exhausted and overwhelmed by the transgressions, lies, larceny, and the illegal activity of this President and his corrupt family. Copious like pebbles on a beach, any one of these misdeeds would have created a volcanic eruption for any other President. Trump has always felt that being outrageous in public is a defense like hiding in plain sight ..thankfully the law does not work that way. The public needs relief.. The facts show that Trump sold out to Putin and the Russians for financial gain and is a traitor to his own country. Do I need to say more?All of the foregoing is what I consider what Trump is “ good at” and the main points of credit that can be honestly listed in praise of this carbuncle on humanity, this open sore called the Trump “presidency”.

THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT ABOUT A POSSIBLE AMERICAN MILITARY COUP EVER WRITTEN ~ READ IT AND WONDER . . .The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012Maj. Gen. (retired) Charles J. Dunlap Jr.This article was first published in the Winter 1992-93 issue of Parameters. The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States—the year is 2012 [but it could be 2016 or 2018 or . . . ]—and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary.His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway. A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup. Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the “Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.”In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992. These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community. His letter survives and is here presented verbatim. It goes without saying (I hope) that the coup scenario above is purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction. —The Author~~~~~~~~Dear Old Friend,It’s hard to believe that 20 years have passed since we graduated from the War College! Remember the great discussions, the trips, the parties, the people? Those were the days!!! I’m not having quite as much fun anymore.You’ve heard about the Sedition Trials? Yeah, I was one of those arrested—convicted of “disloyal statements,” and “using contemptuous language towards officials.”Disloyal? No. Contemptuous? You bet! With General Brutus in charge it’s not hard to be contemptuous. I’ve got to hand it to Brutus, he’s ingenious. After the President died he somehow “persuaded” the Vice President not to take the oath of office. Did we then have a President or not?A real “Constitutional Conundrum” the papers called it.Brutus created just enough ambiguity to convince everyone that as the senior military officer, he could—and should— declare himself Commanderin-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces. Remember what he said?“Had to fill the power vacuum.”~~~And Brutus showed he really knew how to use power: he declared martial law, “postponed” the elections, got the Vice President to “retire,” and even moved into the White House! “More efficient to work from there,” he said. Remember that? When Congress convened that last time and managed to pass the Referendum Act, I really got my hopes up. But when the Referendum approved Brutus’s takeover, I knew we were in serious trouble.I caused a ruckus, you know, trying to organize a protest. Then the Security Forces picked me up. My quickie “trial” was a joke.The sentence? Well, let’s just say you won’t have to save any beer for me at next year’s reunion. Since it doesn’t look like I’ll be seeing you again, I thought I’d write everything down and try to get it to you. I am calling my paper the “Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.”I think it’s important to get the truth recorded before they rewrite history. If we’re ever going to get our freedom back, we’ve got to understand how we got into this mess. People need to understand that armed forces exist to support and defend government, not to be the government. Faced with intractable national problems on one hand, and an energetic and capable military on the other, it can be all too seductive to start viewing the military as a cost-effective solution.We made a terrible mistake when we allowed the armed forces to be diverted from their original purpose. I found a box of my notes and clippings from our War College days— told my keepers I needed them to write the confession they want.It’s amazing; looking through these old papers makes me realize that even back in 1992 we should have seen this coming. The seeds of this outrage were all there; we just didn’t realize how they would grow. But isn’t that always the way with things like this? Somebody once said that “the true watersheds in human affairs are seldom spotted amid the tumult of headlines broadcast on the hour.”And we had a lot of headlines back in the ‘90s to distract us: The economy was in the dumps, crime was rising, schools were deteriorating, drug use was rampant, the environment was in trouble, and political scandals were occurring almost daily. Still, there was some good news: the end of the Cold War as well as America’s recent victory over Iraq.All of this and more contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves today: a military that controls government and one that, ironically, can’t fight. It wasn’t any single cause that led us to this point. Instead, it was a combination of several different developments, the beginnings of which were evident in 1992.Here’s what I think happened: Americans became exasperated with democracy. We were disillusioned with the apparent inability of elected government to solve the nation’s dilemmas. We were looking for someone or something that could produce workable answers. The one institution of government in which the people retained faith was the military.Buoyed by the military’s obvious competence in the First Gulf War, the public increasingly turned to it for solutions to the country’s problems. Americans called for an acceleration of trends begun in the 1980s: tasking the military with a variety of new, non-traditional missions, and vastly escalating its commitment to formerly ancillary duties. Though not obvious at the time, the cumulative effect of these new responsibilities was to incorporate the military into the political process to an unprecedented degree.These additional assignments also had the perverse effect of diverting focus and resources from the military’s central mission of combat training and warfighting. Finally, organizational, political, and societal changes served to alter the American military’s culture. Today’s military is not the one we knew when we graduated from the War College.Let me explain how I came to these conclusions.In 1992 not very many people would’ve thought a military coup d’état could ever happen here. Sure, there were eccentric conspiracy theorists who saw the Pentagon’s hand in the assassination of President Kennedy, President Nixon’s downfall,and similar events.But even the most avid believers had to admit that no outright military takeover had ever occurred before now. Heeding Washington’s admonitions in his farewell address about the dangers of overgrown military establishments, Americans generally viewed their armed forces with a judicious mixture of respect and wariness.For over two centuries that vigilance was rewarded, and most Americans came to consider the very notion of a military coup preposterous. Historian Andrew Janos captured the conventional view of the latter half of the 20th century in this clipping I saved: A coup d’état in the United States would be too fantastic to contem- plate, not only because few would actually entertain the idea, but also because the bulk of the people are strongly attached to the prevail- ing political system and would rise in defense of a political leader even though they might not like him. The environment most hospi- table to coups d’état is one in which political apathy prevails as the dominant style.However, when Janos wrote that back in 1964, 61.9 percent of the electorate voted. Since then voter participation has steadily declined. By 1988 only 50.1 percent of the eligible voters cast a ballot.Simple extrapolation of those numbers to last spring’s Referendum would have predicted almost exactly the turnout. It was precisely reversed from that of 1964: 61.9 percent of the electorate did not vote. America’s societal malaise was readily apparent in 1992. Seventy-eight percent of Americans believed the country was on the “wrong track.” One researcher declared that social indicators were at their lowest level in 20 years Charles J. Dunlap Jr. 110 Parameters and insisted “something [was] coming loose in the social infrastructure.” The nation was frustrated and angry about its problems.America wanted solutions and democratically elected government wasn’t providing them.The country suffered from a “deep pessimism about politicians and government after years of broken promises.” David Finkle observed in the Washington Post Magazine that for most Americans “the perception of government is that it has evolved from something that provides democracy’s framework into something that provides obstacles, from something to celebrate into something to ignore.”Likewise, politicians and their proposals seemed stale and repetitive. Millions of voters gave up hope of finding answers.The “environment of apathy” Janos characterized as a precursor to a coup had arrived. Unlike the rest of government the military enjoyed a remarkably steady climb in popularity throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.And indeed it had earned the admiration of the public. Debilitated by the Vietnam War, the US military set about reinventing itself. As early as 1988 U.S. News & World Report heralded the result: “In contrast to the dispirited, drug-ravaged, doyour-own-thing armed services of the ‘70s and early ‘80s the US military has been transformed into a fighting force of gung-ho attitude, spit-shined discipline, and ten-hut morale.”After the US military dealt Iraq a crushing defeat in the First Gulf War, the ignominy of Vietnam evaporated. When we graduated from the War College in 1992, the armed forces were the smartest, best educated, and best disciplined force in history.While polls showed that the public invariably gave Congress low marks, a February 1991 survey disclosed that “public confidence in the military soar[ed] to 85 percent, far surpassing every other institution in our society.” The armed forces had become America’s most—and perhaps only— trusted arm of government.Assumptions about the role of the military in society also began to change. Twenty years before we graduated, the Supreme Court confidently declared in Laird v. Tatum that Americans had a “traditional and strong resistance to any military intrusion into civilian affairs.”But Americans were now rethinking the desirability and necessity of that resistance. They compared the military’s principled competence with the chicanery and ineptitude of many elected officials, and found the latter wanting.Commentator James Fallows expressed the new thinking in an August 1991 article in Atlantic magazine. Musing on the contributions of the military to American society, Fallows wrote: I am beginning to think that the only way the national government can do anything worthwhile is to invent a security threat and turn the job over to the military.” He elaborated on his reasoning: According to our economic and political theories, most agencies of the government have no special standing to speak about the general national welfare. Each represents a certain constituency; the interest groups fight it out. The military, strangely, is the one government institution that has been assigned legitimacy to act on its notion of the collective good. “National defense” can make us do things—train engineers, build highways—that long-term good of the nation or common sense cannot.About a decade before Fallows’ article appeared, Congress initiated the use of “national defense” as a rationale to boost military participation in an activity historically the exclusive domain of civilian government: law enforcement. Congress concluded that the “rising tide of drugs being smuggled into the United States . . . present[ed] a grave threat to all Americans.” Finding the performance of civilian law enforcement agencies in counteracting that threat unsatisfactory, Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981.In doing so Congress specifically intended to force reluctant military commanders to actively collaborate in police work.This was a historic change of policy. Since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, the military had distanced itself from law enforcement activities.While the 1987 law did retain certain limits on the legal authority of military personnel, its net effect was to dramatically expand military participation in anti-drug efforts.By 1991 the Department of Defense was spending $1.2 billion on counternarcotics crusades. Air Force surveillance aircraft were sent to track airborne smugglers; Navy ships patrolled the Caribbean looking for drug-laden vessels; and National Guardsmen were searching for marijuana caches near the borders.By 1992 “combatting” drug trafficking was formally declared a “high national security mission.”It wasn’t too long before 21st-century legislators were calling for more military involvement in police work.Crime seemed out of control. Most disturbing, the incidence of violent crime continued to climb.Americans were horrified and desperate: a third even believed vigilantism could be justified.Rising lawlessness was seen as but another example of the civilian political leadership’s inability to fulfill government’s most basic duty to ensure public safety.People once again wanted the military to help. Hints of an expanded police function were starting to surface while we were still at the War College. For example, District of Columbia National Guardsmen established a regular military presence in high-crime areas.Eventually, people became acclimated to seeing uniformed military personnel patrolling their neighborhood.Now troops are an adjunct to almost all police forces in the country. In many of the areas where much of our burgeoning population of elderly Americans live—Brutus calls them “National Security Zones”— the military is often the only law enforcement agency. Consequently, the military was ideally positioned in thousands of communities to support the coup. Concern about crime was a major reason why General Brutus’s actions were approved in the Referendum. Although voter participation by the general public was low, older Americans voted at a much higher rate.Furthermore, with the aging of the baby boom generation, the block of American voters over 45 grew to almost 53 percent of the voters by 2010.This wealthy, older electorate welcomed an organization which could ensure their physical security.When it counted, they backed Brutus in the Referendum—probably the last votes they’ll ever cast.The military’s constituency was larger than just the aged. Poor Americans of all ages became dependent upon the military not only for protection against crime, but also for medical care. Again we saw the roots of this back in 1992. First it was the barely defeated proposal to use veterans’ hospitals to provide care for the non-veteran poor.Next were calls to deploy military medical assets to relieve hard-pressed urban hospitals.As the number of uninsured and underinsured grew, the pressure to provide care became inexorable. Now military hospitals serve millions of new, non-military patients. Similarly, a proposal to use so-called “underutilized” military bases as drug rehabilitation centers was implemented on a massive scale.Even the youngest citizens were co-opted. During the 1990s the public became aware that military officers had the math and science backgrounds desperately needed to revitalize US education.In fact, programs involving military personnel were already underway while we were at the War College.We now have an entire generation of young people who have grown up comfortable with the sight of military personnel patrolling their streets and teaching in their classrooms. As you know, it wasn’t just crises in public safety, medical care, and education that the military was tasked to mend. The military was also called upon to manage the cleanup of the nation’s environmental hazards. By 1992 the armed services were deeply involved in this arena, and that involvement mushroomed. Once the military demonstrated its expertise, it wasn’t long before environmental problems were declared “national security threats” and full responsibility devolved to the armed forces.Other problems were transformed into “national security” issues. As more commercial airlines went bankrupt and unprofitable air routes dropped, the military was called upon to provide “essential” air transport to the affected regions. In the name of national defense, the military next found itself in the sealift business. Ships purchased by the military for contingencies were leased, complete with military crews, at low rates to US exporters to help solve the trade deficit.The nation’s crumbling infrastructure was also declared a “national security threat.” As was proposed back in 1991, troops rehabilitated public housing, rebuilt bridges and roads, and constructed new government buildings. By late 1992, voices in both Congress and the military had reached a crescendo calling for military involvement across a broad spectrum of heretofore purely civilian activities.Soon, it became common in practically every community to see crews of soldiers working on local projects.Military attire drew no stares. The revised charter for the armed forces was not confined to domestic enterprises. Overseas humanitarian and nation-building assignments proliferated.Though these projects have always been performed by the military on an ad hoc basis, in 1986 Congress formalized that process. It declared overseas humanitarian and civic assistance activities to be “valid military missions” and specifically authorized them by law.Fueled by favorable press for operations in Iraq, Bangladesh, and the Philippines during the early 1990s, humanitarian missions were touted as the military’s “model for the future.”That prediction came true. When several African governments collapsed under AIDS epidemics and famines around the turn of the century, US troops—first introduced to the continent in the 1990s—were called upon to restore basic services. They never The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 Winter 2010-11 113 left.Now the US military constitutes the de facto government in many of those areas. Once again, the first whisperings of such duties could be heard in 1992.By the year 2000 the armed forces had penetrated many vital aspects of American society. More and more military officers sought the kind of autonomy in these civilian affairs that they would expect from their military superiors in the execution of traditional combat operations. Thus began the inevitable politicization of the military. With so much responsibility for virtually everything government was expected to do, the military increasingly demanded a larger role in policymaking. but in a democracy policymaking is a task best left to those accountable to the electorate. Nonetheless, well-intentioned military officers, accustomed to the ordered, hierarchial structure of military society, became impatient with the delays and inefficiencies inherent in the democratic process.Consequently, they increasingly sought to avoid it. They convinced themselves that they could more productively serve the nation in carrying out their new assignments if they accrued to themselves unfettered power to implement their programs. They forgot Lord Acton’s warning that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”Congress became their unwitting ally. Because of the popularity of the new military programs—and the growing dependence upon them—Congress passed the Military Plenipotentiary Act of 2005. This legislation was the legacy of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Among many revisions, Goldwater-Nchols strengthened the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and mandated numerous changes intended to increase “jointness” in the armed services.Supporters of the Military Plenipotentiary Act argued that unity of command was critical to the successful management of the numerous activities now considered “military” operations. Moreover, many Congressmen mistakenly believed that Goldwater-Nichols was one of the main reasons for the military’s success in the First Gulf War.They viewed the Military Plenipotentiary Act as an enhancement of the strengths of Goldwater-Nichols. In passing this legislation Congress added greater authority to the military’s top leadership position. Lulled by favorable experiences with Chairmen like General Colin Powell,Congress saw little danger in converting the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff into the even more powerful Military Plenipotentiary. No longer merely an advisor, the Military Plenipotentiary became a true commander of all US services, purportedly because that status could better ameliorate the effects of perceived interservice squabbling. Despite warnings found in the legislative history of Goldwater-Nichols and elsewhere, enormous power was concentrated in the hands of a single, unelected official.Unfortunately, Congress presumed that principled people would always occupy the office.No one expected a General Brutus would arise. The Military Plenipotentiary was not Congress’s only structural change in military governance. By 2007 the services were combined to form the Unified Armed Forces. Recall that when we graduated from the War College greater unification was being seriously suggested as an economy measure.Eventually that consideration, and the conviction that “jointness” was an unqualified military virtue and led to unification. But unification ended the creative tension between the services.Besides rejecting the operational logic of separate services, no one seemed to recognize the checks-and-balances function that service separatism provided a democracy obliged to maintain a large, professional military establishment. The Founding Fathers knew the importance of checks and balances in controlling the agencies of government: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. . . . Experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary controls . . .[including] supplying opposite and rival interests.”Ambition is a natural trait of military organizations and their leaders.Whatever might have been the inefficiencies of separate military services, their very existence served to counteract the untoward desires of any single service. The roles and missions debates and other arguments, once seen as petty military infighting, also provided an invaluable forum for competitive analysis of military doctrine. Additionally, they served to ensure that unscrupulous designs by a segment of the military establishment were ruthlessly exposed. Once the services were unified, the impetus to do so vanished, and the authority of the military in relation to the other institutions of government rose.Distended by its pervasive new duties, monolithic militarism came to dominate the Darwinian political environment of 21st-century America. Why did the uniformed leadership of our day acquiesce to this transformation of the military? Much of the answer can be traced to the budget showdowns of the early 1990s. The collapse of the Soviet Union left the US military without an easily articulated rationale for large defense budgets. Billions in cuts were sought. Journalist Bruce Auster put it bluntly: “Winning a share of the budget wars . . . require[s] that the military find new missions for a post-Cold War world that is devoid of clear military threats.”Capitulating, military leaders embraced formerly disdained assignments. As one commentator cynically observed, “the services are eager to talk up nontraditional, budget-justifying roles.”The Vietnam-era aphorism, “It’s a lousy war, but it’s the only one we’ve got,” was resuscitated. Still, that doesn’t completely explain why in 2012 the military leadership would succumb to a coup.To answer that question fully requires examination of what was happening to the officer corps as the military drew down in the 1980s and 1990s. Ever since large peacetime military establishments became permanent features after World War II, the great leveler of the officer corps was the constant influx of officers from the Reserve Officers Training Corps program. The product of diverse colleges and universities throughout the United States, these officers were a vital source of liberalism in the military services.By the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, that was changing. Force reductions decreased the number of ROTC graduates the services accepted.Although General Powell called ROTC “vital to democracy,” 62 ROTC programs were closed in 1991 and another 350 were considered for closure.The numbers of officers produced by the service academies also fell, but at a significantly slower pace. Consequently, the proportion of academy graduates in the officer corps climbed.Academy graduates, along with graduates of such military schools as the Citadel, Virginia Military Institute, and Norwich University, tended to feel a greater homogeneity of outlook than, say, the pool of ROTC graduates at large, with the result that as the proportion of such graduates grew, diversity of outlook overall diminished to some degree.Moreover, the ROTC officers that did remain increasingly came from a narrower range of schools. Focusing on the military’s policy to exclude homosexuals from service, advocates of “political correctness” succeeded in driving ROTC from the campuses of some of our best universities.In many instances they also prevailed in barring military recruiters from campus.Little thought was given the long-term consequences of limiting the pool from which our military leadership was drawn. The result was a much more uniformly oriented military elite whose outlook was progressively conservative. Furthermore, well-meaning attempts at improving service life led to the unintended insularity of military society, representing a return to the cloistered life of the pre-World War II armed forces. Military bases, complete with schools, churches, stores, child care centers, and recreational areas, became never-to-be-left islands of tranquility removed from the chaotic, crime-ridden environment outside the gates.As one reporter put it in 1991: “Increasingly isolated from mainstream America, today’s troops tend to view the civilian world with suspicion and sometimes hostility.”Thus, a physically isolated and intellectually alienated officer corps was paired with an enlisted force likewise distanced from the society it was supposed to serve. In short, the military evolved into a force susceptible to manipulation by an authoritarian leader from its own select ranks. What made this all the more disheartening was the wretched performance of our forces in the Second Gulf War.Consumed with ancillary and nontraditional missions, the military neglected its fundamental raison d’être. As the Supreme Court succinctly put it more than a half century ago, the “primary business of armies and navies [is] to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise.”When Iranian armies started pouring into the lower Gulf states in 2010, the US armed forces were ready to do anything but fight. Preoccupation with humanitarian duties, narcotics interdiction, and all the rest of the peripheral missions left the military unfit to engage an authentic military opponent.Performing the new missions sapped resources from what most experts agree was one of the vital ingredients to victory in the First Gulf War: training. Training is, quite literally, a zero-sum game. Each moment spent performing a nontraditional mission is one unavailable for orthodox military exercises. We should have recognized the grave risk. In 1991 the Washington Post reported that in “interview after interview across the services, senior leaders and noncommissioned officers stressed that they cannot be ready to fight without frequent rehearsals of perishable skills.”The military’s anti-drug activities were a big part of the problem. Oh sure, I remember the facile claims of exponents of the military’s counternarcotics involvement as to what “valuable” training it provided.Did anyone really think that crew members of an AWACS—an aircraft designed to track high-performance military aircraft in combat—significantly improved their skills by hours of tracking slow-moving light planes? Did they seriously imagine that troops enhanced combat skills by looking for marijuana under car seats? Did they truly believe that crews of the Navy’s sophisticated anti-air and anti-submarine ships received meaningful training by following lumbering trawlers around the Caribbean?Tragically, they did.The problem was exacerbated when political pressures exempted the Guard and the Reserves from the harshest effects of the budgetary cutbacks of the early 1990s.The First Gulf War demonstrated that modern weapons and tactics were simply too complex for part-time soldiers to master during their allotted drill periods, however well motivated.Still, creative Guard and Reserve defenders contrived numerous civic-action and humanitarian assignments and sold them as “training.” Left unexplained was how such training was supposed to fit with the military strategies that contemplated short, violent, come-as-you-are expeditionary wars.Nice-to-have Guard and Reserve support-oriented programs prevailed at the expense of critical activeduty combat capabilities.Perhaps even more damaging than the diversion of resources was the assault on the very ethos of military service. Rather than bearing in mind the Supreme Court’s admonition to focus on warfighting, the military was told to alter its purpose. Former Secretary of State James Baker typified the trendy new tone in remarks about the military’s airlift of food and medicine to the former Soviet republics in early 1992. He said the airlift would “vividly show the peoples of the former Soviet Union that those that once prepared for war with them now have the courage and the conviction to use their militaries to say, ‘We will wage a new peace.’”In truth militaries ought to “prepare for war” and leave the “peace waging” to those agencies of government whose mission is just that. Nevertheless, such pronouncements—seconded by military leaders—became the fashionable philosophy. The result? People in the military no longer considered themselves warriors. Instead, they perceived themselves as policemen, relief workers, educators, builders, health care providers, politicians—everything but warfighters. When these philanthropists met the Iranian 10th Armored Corps near Daharan during the Second Gulf War, they were brutally slaughtered by a military which had not forgotten what militaries were supposed to do or what war is really all about.The devastation of the military’s martial spirit was exemplified by its involvement in police activities. Inexplicably, we ignored the deleterious effect on combat motivation suffered by the Israeli Defense Forces as a result of their efforts to police the West Bank and Gaza. Few seemed to appreciate the fundamental difference between the police profession and the profession of arms. As Richard J. Barnet observed in the New Yorker, “The line between police action and the military operation is real. Police derive their power from their acceptance as ‘officers of the law’; legitimate authority, not firepower, is the essential element.”Police organizations are understandably oriented toward the studied restraint necessary for the end sought: a judicial conviction. As one Drug Enforcement Administration agent noted: “The military can kill people better than we can [but] when we go to a jungle lab, we’re not there to move onto the target by fire and maneuver to destroy the enemy. We’re there to arrest suspects and seize evidence.”If military forces are inculcated with the same spirit The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 Winter 2010-11 117 of restraint, combat performance is threatened.Moreover, law enforcement is also not just a form of low-intensity conflict. In low-intensity conflict, the military aim is to win the will of the people, a virtually impossible task with criminals “motivated by money, not ideology.”Humanitarian missions likewise undermined the military’s sense of itself. As one Navy officer gushed during the 1991 Bangladesh relief operation, “It’s great to be here doing the opposite of a soldier.”While no true soldier relishes war, the fact remains that the essence of the military is warfighting and preparation for the same. What journalist Barton Gellman has said of the Army can be extrapolated to the military as a whole: it is an “organization whose fighting spirit depends . . . heavily on tradition.”If that tradition becomes imbued with a preference for “doing the opposite of a soldier,” fighting spirit is bound to suffer. When we first heard editorial calls to “pacify the military” by involving it in civic projects, we should have given them the forceful rebuke they deserved. Military analyst Harry Summers warned back in ‘91 that when militaries lose sight of their purpose, catastrophe results.Citing a study of pre-World War II Canadian military policy as it related to the subsequent battlefield disasters, he observed that: instead of using the peacetime interregnum to hone their military skills, senior Canadian military officers sought out civilian missions to justify their existence.When war came they were woefully unprepared. Instead of protecting their soldiers’ lives they led them to their deaths. In today’s post-Cold War peacetime environment, this trap again looms large. . . . Some today within the US military are also searching for relevance, with draft doctrinal manuals giving touchy-freely prewar and postwar civil operations equal weight with warfighting. This is an insidious mistake.We must remember that America’s position at the end of the Cold War had no historical precedent. For the first time the nation—in peacetime—found itself with a still-sizable, professional military establishment that was not preoccupied with an overarching external threat.Yet the uncertainties in the aftermath of the Cold War limited the extent to which those forces could be safely downsized. When the military was then obliged to engage in a bewildering array of nontraditional duties to further justify its existence, it is little wonder that its traditional apolitical professionalism eventually eroded.Clearly, the curious tapestry of military authoritarianism and combat ineffectiveness that we see today was not yet woven in 1992. But the threads were there. Knowing what I know now, here’s the advice I would have given the War College Class of 1992 had I been their graduation speaker: • Demand that the armed forces focus exclusively on indisputably military duties.We must not diffuse our energies away from our fundamental responsibility for warfighting. To send ill-trained troops into combat makes us accomplices to murder. • Acknowledge that national security does have economic, social, educational, and environmental dimensions, but insist that this doesn’t necessarily mean the problems in those areas are the responsibility of the military to correct. Stylishly designating efforts to solve national ills as “wars” doesn’t convert them into something appropriate for the employment of military forces. • Readily cede budgetary resources to those agencies whose business it is to address the non-military issues the armed forces are presently asked to fix.We are not the DEA, EPA, Peace Corps, Department of Education, or Red Cross— nor should we be. It has never been easy to give up resources, but in the long term we—and the nation—will be better served by a smaller but appropriately focused military. • Divest the defense budget of perception-skewing expenses.Narcotics interdiction, environmental cleanup, humanitarian relief, and other costs tangential to actual combat capability should be assigned to the budgets of DEA, EPA, State, and so forth. As long as these expensive programs are hidden in the defense budget, the taxpayer understandably—but mistakenly—will continue to believe he’s buying military readiness. • Continue to press for the elimination of superfluous, resource-draining Guard and Reserve units. Increase the training tempo, responsibilities, and compensation of those that remain. • Educate the public to the sophisticated training requirements occasioned by the complexities of modern warfare. It’s imperative we rid the public of the misperception that soldiers in peacetime are essentially unemployed and therefore free to assume new missions. • Resist unification of the services not only on operational grounds, but also because unification would be inimical to the checks and balances that underpin democratic government. Slow the pace of fiscally driven consolidation so that the impact on less quantifiable aspects of military effectiveness can be scrutinized. • Assure that officer accessions from the service academies correspond with overall force reductions (but maintain separate service academies) and keep ROTC on a wide diversity of campuses. If necessary, resort to litigation to maintain ROTC campus diversity. • Orient recruiting resources and campaigns toward ensuring that all echelons of society are represented in the military, without compromising standards.Accept that this kind of recruiting may increase costs. It’s worth it. • Work to moderate the base-as-an-island syndrome by providing improved incentives for military members and families to assimilate into civilian communities. Within the information programs for our force of all-volunteer professionals (increasingly US-based), strengthen the emphasis upon such themes as the inviolability of the Constitution, ascendancy of our civilian leadership over the military, and citizens’ responsibilities. Finally, I would tell our classmates that democracy is a fragile institution that must be continuously nurtured and scrupulously protected. I would also tell them that they must speak out when they see the institution threatened; indeed, it is their duty to do so.Richard Gabriel aptly observed in his took To Serve with Honor that: when one discusses dissent, loyalty, and the limits of military obliga- tions, the central problem is that the military represents a threat to civil order not because it will usurp authority, but because it does not speak out on critical policy decisions.The soldier fails to live up to his oath to serve the country if he does not speak out when he sees his civilian or military superiors executing policies he feels to be wrong.Gabriel was wrong when he dismissed the military’s potential to threaten civil order, but he was right when he described our responsibilities.The catastrophe that occurred on our watch took place because we failed to speak out against policies we knew were wrong. It’s too late for me to do any more. But it’s not for you.Best regards,Prisoner 222305759~~~~~~~~~Maj. Gen. Dunlap was commissioned through the AFROTC program at St. Joseph's University in May 1972, and was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1975. He has deployed to support various operations in the Middle East and Africa, including Provide Relief, Restore Hope, Vigilant Warrior, Desert Fox, Bright Star, and Enduring Freedom. He has led military-to-military delegations to Uruguay, the Czech Republic, South Africa and Colombia.Dunlap speaks widely on legal and national security issues, and he is published in Air and Space Power Journal, Peacekeeping & International Relations, Parameters, Proceedings, Military Review, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Air Force Times, the Wake Forest Law Review, the Air Force Law Review, the Tennessee Law Review, and the Strategic Review, among others. Prior to assuming his current position, General Dunlap served as the Staff Judge Advocate at Headquarters Air Combat Command.Dunlap is currently a professor at Duke University School of Law, where he teaches courses on national securitylaw and the use of force in international law, among other topics.[2]

Original question:All that can be done in trying to answer your question is to go off of what we know and to make an educated guess.Your suggestion that Trump fired Comey void of any ulterior motives is possible but it is not probable.TL;DR, I do not think that Trump fired Comey regarding Comey breaking the “long standing tradition of not interfering in politics” - Since when has Trump ever cared about “tradition”?I think Trump fired Comey because Trump is trying to interfere and/or end the investigation into Russia.To be completely honest, Trump has shown time and time again that he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. It is foolish in my opinion to give it to him.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<I. So far, Trump has fired the following significant people:Sally Yates was fired on January 30th, 2017.Preet Bharara was fired on March 10th, 2017.James Comey was fired on May 9th, 2017.All three of the people listed above (Bharara, Yates and Comey) were some of the most powerful people that would have been the best watch dogs for potential corruption in the White House.Events that led up to the firing of Yates:Sally Yates - Acting Attorney GeneralYates was fired after she refused to enforce Trump’s travel ban (that the courts later found unconstitutional) and instructed the DOJ to do the same.Here is Yates’s statement regarding the travel ban:Acting attorney general orders DOJ not to defend Trump's travel banTrump’s administration said that Yates:“betrayed” TrumpIs “weak” on bordersIs “weak” on immigrationHere is the statement from the White House, firing Yates:Donald Trump firing Sally Yates isn’t the big story. How he did it is.Yates was fired four days after warning the White House about Flynn (when she refused to enforce Trump’s travel ban)18 days after Yates warned the White House, Flynn resigned (pushed by Trump) - after an article, written by the Washington Post, said Flynn had lied about what he discussed with KislyakEvents leading up to the firing of Bharara:Preet Bharara - U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New YorkTrump had told Bharara that his job was safe during a meeting a Trump tower[November 30th, 2016]Trump opts to keep Preet Bharara as U.S. attorney for ManhattanBharara got numerous calls from Trump after Trump’s inauguration, which made him uncomfortable because Bharara felt that Trump was trying to cultivate a relationship with him22 hours after one of the calls from Trump, Bharara was firedBharara Said Calls from Trump Made Him Feel UncomfortableBharara was investigating the following when Trump fired him:Tom Price, a member of Trump’s cabinet (head of the Department of Health and Human Services) for his stock tradesFired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara Said to Have Been Investigating HHS Secretary Tom PriceFox News for failing to disclose settlements to shareholders that were made to female employees who had accused Roger Ailes (a political advisor for Trump) of sexual harassmentU.S. Attorney Preet Bharara Says He Was Fired After Refusing to QuitTrump’s wiretapping accusations where him claimed that Obama had wiretapped himDonald Trump has now fired three of the people investigating himDeutsche Bank (a German bank that has loaned Trump at least $300 million) and its possible Russian money launderingTrump’s Personal Lawyer Boasted That He Got Preet Bharara FiredEvents leading up to Comey’s firing:James Comey - FBI DirectorTrump fired Comey in the midst of FBI investigations into Russia, which make the reactions that are blaming Trump for possibly trying to influence the investigations into Russia rationalHours before Comey was fired [on May 9th, 2017], Federal prosecutors had issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of Flynn (former National Security Advisor), seeking business recordsThese subpoenas were signs that the FBI is taking legal actions regarding the probe into RussiaA day before Comey was fired, Yates, former acting Attorney General, told a Senate panel that she had warned the White House on three separate occasions that Flynn might be compromised - the number of times Yates warned the White House was not previously known[Yates’s testimony occurred on May 8th, 2017]Former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified along with Yates to the Senate Panel the day before Comey was firedClapper said that Trump and his administration could be helping Russia by continuing to deny and/or obstruct Russia’s involvement>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<II. Those originally involved with Trump’s decision to fire Comey:Trump said he fired Comey based on suggestions from Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general and Jeff Sessions, the attorney general - both wrote Trump letters outlining their thoughts the day before Comey was fired[May 8th, 2017]This is only the second time the Head of the FBI has been firedThis is the first time the Head of the FBI has been fired as an investigation into the White House is happeningExert from Rosenstein’s letter:"cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken."Exert from Sessions’s letter:"It is essential that this Department of Justice clearly reaffirm its commitment to longstanding principles that ensure the integrity and fairness of federal investigations and prosecutions. The Director of the FBI must be someone who follows faithfully the rules and principles of the Department of Justice and who sets the right example for our law enforcement officials and others in the Department,"FBI Director James Comey has been fired>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<III. Sessions’s reason for firing Comey & his involvement in the firing:It is inappropriate that Sessions was involved in firing Comey for the following reasons:Comey is head of the current investigations occurring at the FBI regarding Trump, Trump’s administration and the possible ties/collusion that may have taken place during Trump’s campaignSessions recused himself from investigations into Russia when information came to light regarding his undisclosed meetings with a Russian ambassador[Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation on March 2nd, 2017]Both Session and Rosenstein wrote that the treatment of Clinton and the investigation into her emails was a reason Comey should be fired.The treatment of the Clinton investigation is a absurd reason to cite in firing Comey because:And let's not forget Sessions praise of Comey regarding how he handled his investigation into Clinton:Trump’s letter to Comey in which Comey was fired never referenced the investigation of Clinton:The above termination letter Trump wrote to Comey only specifically mentions the Russia investigations and claims where Trump alleges he is not under investigation, showing Trump’s mind was clearly on Russia when he fired ComeyTrump sent a trusted security guard to hand deliver a termination letter to Comey…who wasn’t there.Comey learned of his firing by seeing it on T.V. in L.A., as he was speaking at a FBI recruiting event>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<IV. Leaks from the White House regarding Comey:Top aides at the White House said Trump was getting more and more enraged about the Russia probe“He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe”Another White House top advisor told Politico that Comey’s firing shocked them as well, “"Nobody really knew. Our phones all buzzed and people said, What?"Behind Comey’s firing: An enraged Trump, fuming about RussiaOther leaks from the White House have said the Trump and Sessions pressured the FBI to prioritize leaks of classified information over the probe into RussiaBehind the scenes of James Comey's epic firing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<V. Why Trump’s firing of Comey is questionable:According to Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent who led the U.S.S. Cole investigation, this is why:“An FBI director can kill any investigation. It does not look good when the White House fires an FBI director who is investigating the White House. It is a tenured job to insulate the director from politics.”Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<VI. Known people that are/were under investigation by the FBI that are/were in Trump’s inner circle regarding his campaign and/or presidency:Michael Flynn:former national security advisor to Trumpdid not properly disclose payments from Russiatalked to a Russian Ambassador about sanctions Obama placed on Russia[Flynn started to be investigated for his work as a foreign agent on November 30th, 2016. Flynn officially told the Trump administration that he was under federal investigation on January 4th, 2017. Trump did not ask Flynn to resign until February 13th, 2017.]Michael Flynn Resigns as National Security AdviserTrump Team Knew Flynn Was Under Investigation Before He Came to White HousePaul Manafort:Trump's former campaign chairmanManafort has been tied to foreign dictators and oligarchs for decadesPreviously worked for Viktor Yanukovych (pro-Russian former prime minister of Ukraine who is responsible for murdering his people in the streets after going back on a promise to join the EU)Manafort is also being investigated for his work to push Russian interests in the U.S. “for years”There are ledgers from an anti-corruption center in Kiev that show undisclosed payments to Manafort from Yanukovych's pro-Russia Party from 2007–2012A Putin alley, Oleg Deripaska, paid Manafort $10 million from 2006–2009 to lobby on behalf of RussiaDeripaska sued Manafort for “disappearing” with $19 million that was intended to be used as investments in 2014Lawyers from Ukraine have been trying to get Manafort to provide information on his role regarding protesters in Ukraine being killed by police and have gotten no responsePaul Manafort is now at the center of the Trump-Russia investigation — here's what you need to know about himHacked text messages allegedly sent by Paul Manafort's daughter discuss 'blood money' and killings, and a Ukrainian lawyer wants him to explainManafort is currently being investigated by the FBI for his ties to Russia as well as intercepted phone calls between Manafort and Russians who are under surveillanceIntercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates[The investigations into Manafort’s ties to Russia began in August of 2016; he resigned on August 19th, 2016 as Trump’s campaign manager shortly after this information came to light]The definitive Trump-Russia timeline of eventsWhat we know about U.S. investigations into Russia and possible ties to Trump's campaignRoger Stone:tweeted about Wikileaks and Hillary before the next release of emails would happentold NBC News in October he had "back channel communications" with the DNC hackers. Also tweeted about a DNC hackerIn fact, Stone also talked with a Russian hacker over private twitter messagesRoger Stone Admits Contact-with Guccifer 2.0 During CampaignStone’s alleged communications with Guccifer and Julian Assange (WikiLeaks Founder) is currently being investigated by the FBI[News that Stone was being investigated by the FBI regarding Russia was first reported on March 21st, 2017]Roger Stone, the ‘Trickster’ on Trump’s Side, Is Under F.B.I. ScrutinyMeet Roger Stone: One of Donald Trump's most loyal supporters who is now being investigated by FBICarter Page:Former foreign policy adviserhad business connections to Russia.The FBI received a FISA warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in the summer of 2016 to surveil Page:“The government’s application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy declaration that laid out investigators’ basis for believing that Page was an agent of the Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of Moscow.”The context in which FISA warrants are issued:In Christopher Steele’s infamous dossier, he alleged that Page meet with an alley of Putin in July of 2016:According to a so-called “dirty dossier” a former MI5 official compiled into Trump’s connections with Russia, Page allegedly met with Igor Sechin, chief executive of Rosneft and a close ally of Putin’s, in July 2016. The Washington Post suggests that this meeting, if it happened, might have interested the FBI, not least because Sechin is subject to U.S. sanctions.What to know about Carter Page, the former Trump adviser under FBI surveillance for months[The exact start of the FBI investigation into Page is hard to pin point, but an estimate would be when the date that the FISA warrant for surveilling Page was issued - which happened in the summer of 2016]Jared Kushner:Kushner’s meeting with Sergey Gorkov (CEO of Russia's state-owned Vnesheconombank) is allegedly being investigated by Mueller and his teamApparently, Gorkov offered Kushner financing from Russian banks if the sanctions against Russia were liftedThere's a theme emerging in Mueller's Russia probe that could prove damning for TrumpKushner’s meeting with Gorkov happened right after his meeting with Sergey Kislyak, ambassador to RussiaKushner allegedly sought creating a “backchannel” so that Trump’s transition team could communicate with Russia'This is serious': Jared Kushner reportedly tried to set up a secret Trump-Russia back channelKislyak allegedly set up the meeting with Kushner and GorkovSenate Committee to Question Jared Kushner Over Meetings With Russians[The investigation into Kushner was originally reported on May 25th, 2017]Donald Trump:Robert Mueller, the special counsel named by the Justice Department to investigate the Russia matter, is now examining whether Trump or others sought to obstruct the probe, a person familiar with Mueller's inquiry said on Thursday.[The investigation into Trump was first reported on June 14th, 2017]Trump acknowledges he is under investigation in Russia probeVII. Chart that shows known connections between Trump’s team and Russia (this does not depict investigations or illegal actions, just ties):Trump campaign’s Russia ties: Who’s involved>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<VIII. Update #1:[First reported on May 10th, 2017, day after Comey was fired {May 9th, 2017}]The New York Times reported that Comey asked the DOJ for more resources a couple of days before being fired:Days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in resources for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election, according to four congressional officials, including Senator Richard J. Durbin.Mr. Comey made his appeal to Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who also wrote the Justice Department’s memo that was used to justify the firing of Mr. Comey this week, the officials said.“I’m told that as soon as Rosenstein arrived, there was a request for additional resources for the investigation and that a few days afterwards, he was sacked,” said Mr. Durbin, a Democrat of Illinois. “I think the Comey operation was breathing down the neck of the Trump campaign and their operatives, and this was an effort to slow down the investigation.”Days Before Firing, Comey Asked for More Resources for Russia Inquiry>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<IX. Update #2:[First reported on May 10th, 2017]According to the New York Times, Roger Stone is said to have been an influencer in Trump’s decision to fire Comey.Why is that relevant? Because Stone is under investigation by the FBI regarding the Russia probe:Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime informal adviser to Mr. Trump who has been under F.B.I. scrutiny as part of the Russia inquiry, was among those who urged the president to fire Mr. Comey, people briefed on the discussions said.Mr. Trump denied on Twitter on Wednesday morning that he had spoken to Mr. Stone about the F.B.I. director, and Mr. Stone declined to describe his interactions with the president in an interview.But two longtime Trump associates with knowledge of the matter said the two had recently discussed their dissatisfaction with Mr. Comey and his inquiry.Whatever the specifics, Mr. Stone ultimately reflected the president’s view of Mr. Comey. As Mr. Stone put it shortly after the dismissal became public on Tuesday, “There was a sense in the White House, I believe, that enough was enough when it came to this guy.”‘Enough Was Enough’: How Festering Anger at Comey Ended in His Firing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<X. Update #3:[Letter was written on May 10th, 2017]Comey wrote a farewell letter to his FBI colleagues:READ: James Comey's farewell letter to friends and agents>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XI. Update #4:[Allegations that Rosenstein threatened to resign were first reported on May 11th, 2017]First reported by The Washington Post, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein threatened to resign after being thrown under the bus by Trump regarding the firing of Comey:Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who wrote a three-page memorandum detailing the reasons behind his recommendation for Comey's dismissal on Monday, was painted as the main arbiter of the decision.Trump had asserted that he acted based on Rosenstein's and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recommendations.Trump's deputy attorney general reportedly threatened to resign after being painted as the mastermind behind Comey's firingInside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XII. Update #5:[McCabe’s testimony took place on May 11th, 2017]Acting FBI Director, Andrew McCabe, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee and said the following according to the New York Times:Mr. McCabe rejected the White House’s assertion that Mr. Comey had lost the backing of rank-and-file F.B.I. agents, a pointed rebuke of what had been one of the president’s main defenses for the move…Mr. McCabe also said that the Justice Department’s investigation into whether any Trump associates colluded with Russia in the presidential election was “highly significant,” another direct contradiction of the White House.A day earlier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, trying to parry accusations that Mr. Comey’s firing was related to the Russia inquiry, called it “probably one of the smallest things that they’ve got going on their plate” at the F.B.I.Latest Developments on Comey: Acting F.B.I. Chief Contradicts White House>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XIII. Update #6:[These reasons from the White House were given from the day Comey was fired until Trump had has interview with Lester Holt: May 9th - May 11th]So far, here is a list of reasons the White House has given for firing Comey:Comey’s handling of the investigation into Clinton’s emailsComey had “lost the public’s trust”Comey had lost the confidence of those working at the FBITrump took the advice of Deputy Attorney General RosensteinComey was a “showboater” & a “grandstander”Leaks continued coming out of the FBIComey had to correct his statements regarding Huma Abedin and how her emails were synced onto her husband’s computerThe FBI is in chaos>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XIV. Update #7:[Interview with Lester Holt took place on May 11th, 2017]Lester Holt interviews Trump, Trump contradicts his administration:President Trump on Thursday said he was thinking of “this Russia thing with Trump” when he decided to fire FBI Director James B. Comey, who had been leading the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.Recounting his decision to dismiss Comey, Trump told NBC News, “In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”Trump’s account flatly contradicts the White House’s initial account of how the president arrived at his decision, undercutting public denials by his aides that the move was influenced in any way by his growing fury with the ongoing Russia probe.Initially, Trump aides had said the president fired Comey simply at the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who wrote a memorandum detailing what he considered to be Comey’s flawed handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.Officials insisted that Trump’s decision was not shaped in any way by his growing fury with the Russia controversy.Trump has publicly called the ongoing probes by the FBI, as well as the Senate and House, “a total hoax” and “a taxpayer charade.”But Trump made clear in Thursday’s interview that Russia indeed was on his mind.…Said Sessions and Rosenstein’s recommendations did not prompt his decision.“I was going to fire Comey,” Trump told Holt. “Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.”Trump Said He Was Thinking of the Russian Controversy When He Decided to Fire Comey>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XV. Update #8:[on May 12th, 2017, Trump suggests he has tapes of conversations he had with Comey]Trump tweeted this, three days after firing Comey:James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017Trump’s intentions in tweeting this seem to stem from efforts to discourage Comey from revealing personal conversations he had with Trump:President Trump suggested on Twitter Friday morning there might be recordings of his private conversations with former FBI Director James Comey, whom he fired earlier this week, in an apparent attempt to caution Comey against "leaking to the press."Since this tweet, Trump and the White House have refused to answer whether or not these “tapes” exist:At the White House briefing in the afternoon, press secretary Sean Spicer refused multiple times to confirm or deny whether there is a secret recording device in the Oval Office."I've talked to the president, and the president has nothing further to add on that," Spicer said, adding his oft-used statement that "the tweet speaks for itself."Trump Tweet Suggests His Conversations With Comey Might Have Been Recorded>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XVI. Update #9:[The existence of Comey’s memos were first reported on May 16th, 2017 {a week after Trump fired Comey}, and the New York Times published some of Comey’s memos later that day]Comey’s Memos:Comey had his friend release memos that reflect conversations he had with Trump 3 days after Trump tweeted about having “tapes”.Friend confirms he leaked Comey memo to NYT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XVII. Update #10:[Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel on May 17th, 2017 {the day after the New York Times published some of Comey's memos}]Robert S. Mueller III, former head of the FBI, appointed as special counsel by Rod Rosenstein:The Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as special counsel on Wednesday to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officialsThe decision by the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, came after a cascade of damaging developments for Mr. Trump in recent days, including:his abrupt dismissal of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comeythe subsequent disclosure that Mr. Trump asked Mr. Comey to drop the investigation of his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement that he concluded that “it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authorities and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter.”As a special counsel, Mr. Mueller can choose whether to consult with or inform the Justice Department about his investigation.He is authorized to investigate:“any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,”as well as other matters that “may arise directly from the investigation.”He is empowered to press criminal charges, and he can request additional resources subject to the review of an assistant attorney general.Mr. Trump was notified only after Mr. Rosenstein signed the order, when the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, walked into the Oval Office around 5:35 p.m. to tell him.Mr. Trump reacted calmly but defiantly, according to two people familiar with the situation, saying he wanted to “fight back.”He quickly summoned his top advisers, most of whom recommended that he adopt a conciliatory stance.But his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who had pushed Mr. Trump to fire Mr. Comey, urged the president to counterattack, according to two senior administration officials.Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XVIII. Update #11:[Reported by the New York Times on May 19th {happened on May 10th, 2017}]Trump tells Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak in the Oval Office that firing Comey means the “pressure is off”:President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that the president dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives.Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting.Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XIX. Update #12:[Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee after he was fired took place on June 8th, 2017]Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his memos:Comey’s intentions were:to push Trump to release the tapes that Trump threatened may exist (they would collaborate Comey’s memos)to cause a special counsel to be appointed:"I've seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes," Comey said Thursday when discussing a February 14 meeting at the White House…"It never occurred to me before the president's tweet," he said. "I'm not being facetious. I hope there are, and I'll consent to the release of them ... All I can do is hope. The president knows if he taped me, and if he did, my feelings aren't hurt. Release all the tapes. I'm good with it."Comey calls for release of memos, any recordings of White House conversations"I asked a friend of mine to share the content of a memo with the reporter, I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey said.Comey: I Leaked My Memos in Hopes of a Special CounselKey aspects revealed during Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee:1. Believes he was fired because of the Russia probe:“It’s my judgment that I was fired because of the Russia investigation,” Comey said.“I was fired in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change, the way the Russia investigation was being conducted.”During an earlier round of questioning, Comey acknowledged that he did not know for sure but pointed out that he was taking Trump “at his word.”After Comey was fired, Trump’s White House claimed the dismissal was due to his handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, based on the recommendation of top Justice Department officials and needed because the FBI was in disarray.But in an interview with NBC News that week, Trump threw those reasons aside, saying he had the Russia probe in his mind when firing Comey.2. Comey documented conversations he had with Trump because Comey believed Trump would lie about them later on:Comey had served for more than three years as FBI director under President Barack Obama.During that time, he and Obama privately talked twice, but Comey never took notes on those interactions.However, during his brief time leading the FBI during the Trump administration, Comey said he had nine interactions with Trump and began taking detailed notes after their first meeting in January.Comey said his reason was simple: He was worried Trump would lie about their meetings.“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting,” Comey said.3. The White House and Trump ‘defamed’ him:At the opening of the hearing, Comey immediately pushed back against statements by the White House and President Trump suggesting that the he was fired because of poor morale or turmoil at the FBI.Comey said he was “increasingly concerned” about the shifting explanations the White House offered for his firing, but in particular he lashed out at suggestions of the FBI being in a state of chaos.“The administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led,” Comey said. “Those were lies, plain and simple.”During his NBC News interview not long after firing Comey, Trump said that “the FBI has been in turmoil.”“You know that. I know that,” Trump said. “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.”4. Comey wanted “to get a special counsel appointed”, which is why he worked with a friend to get his memos released:After Comey was fired, news articles began to appear with details of his discussions with Trump, and in some cases the stories cited notes the former FBI director kept of those interactions.On Thursday, Comey admitted he helped arrange at least one of these reports, alluding to a New York Times story published on May 16 discussing Comey’s recollection that Trump asked him to abandon the investigation into Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser.Comey said, in response to questioning, that he was prompted to leak the memo after Trump tweeted on May 12 a suggestion that recordings may exist of their meetings.“As a private citizen, I felt free to share that,” Comey said. “I thought it was very important to get it out.”In an extraordinary admission, Comey said his decision to release the memo was aimed at getting a special prosecutor appointed.5. Comey mentioned Sessions, saying that he didn’t feel comfortable confiding in Sessions as well as alluding to more information about Sessions not yet known:In a cryptic note, Comey mentioned in his prepared statement and his testimony Thursday that the FBI expected Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the Russia-related investigation.This turned out to be correct, as Sessions would later do just that, but Comey would not specifically say why he thought the attorney general would recuse himself.The now-fired FBI director wrote that he decided not to tell Sessions about Trump’s request that he hoped he would let go of the Flynn investigation, because he and the bureau leadership felt “it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations.”When asked about this Thursday by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Comey suggested that there were reasons Sessions could not remain involved in the probe but that those reasons involved classified information.James Comey’s Testimony6. Trump didn’t ask about other FBI investigations, including Russia’s attempts to interfere with the election, which is concerning and shows indifference from Trump:Full text: James Comey testimony transcript on Trump and Russia>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XX. Update #13:[First reported on June 8th, 2017]Deutsche Bank, a bank in Germany that has loaned Trump millions, denied requests from members of Congress to turn over any information regarding its business with Trump:Deutsche Bank AG said it can’t comply with a request to hand over information related to its relationship with Donald Trump and trades from the bank’s Moscow operation as political opponents seek to probe the U.S. President’s links with Russia.Democrats demanded in March that Representative Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the committee, hold a hearing to explore the bank’s conduct in the Russian mirror-trading scandal, as part of an effort to ensure that the Justice Department investigation wasn’t influenced by the lender’s relationship with Trump.“President Trump’s conflict of interest with Deutsche Bank...may undermine the independence and impartiality of the Department’s ongoing investigation and diminish the likelihood that Deutsche Bank and its senior leadership will be brought to justice,” the lawmakers wrote in March.The mirror-trading scheme allowed some of the bank’s wealthy clients in Moscow to convert rubles into western currency through the simultaneous purchase and sale of publicly traded shares, investigators have found.While Deutsche Bank has reached settlements on the Russia deals with several financial watchdogs, it has yet to conclude the probe that is being conducted by the DOJ.Deutsche Bank’s lending to Trump before he was elected amounted to more than $300 million, including loans for the Doral golf resort in Florida, a Washington, D.C., hotel and a Chicago tower, according to a Bloomberg analysis.Deutsche Bank Won’t Disclose Trump Dealings Citing Privacy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXI. Update #14:[First reported on June 13th, 2017]Trump considered firing Mueller:Last month’s appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as a special counsel to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia enraged President Trump.behind the scenes, the president soon began entertaining the idea of firing Mr. Mueller even as his staff tried to discourage him from something they believed would turn a bad situation into a catastropheA longtime friend, Christopher Ruddy, surfaced the president’s thinking in a television interview Monday night, setting off a frenzied day of speculation that he would go through with it.But people close to Mr. Trump say he is so volatile they cannot be sure that he will not change his mind about Mr. Mueller…Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mr. Mueller, sought to assure a Senate committee on Tuesday that he would not permit Mr. Mueller to be dismissed without legitimate reason, though Mr. Trump could order him to roll back rules that protect the special counsel or fire him if he will not comply.“As long as I’m in this position, he’s not going to be fired without good cause,” Mr. Rosenstein said. “I’m not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful and appropriate orders,” he added, emphasizing that the attorney general “actually does not know what we’re investigating.”He said, “Director Mueller is going to have the full independence he needs to conduct that investigation appropriately.”In his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee later in the day, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to answer what he said was a hypothetical question of whether he would support Mr. Mueller.The president was pleased by the ambiguity of his position on Mr. Mueller, and thinks the possibility of being fired will focus the veteran prosecutor on delivering what the president desires most: a blanket public exoneration.Angered by reports in Breitbart News and other conservative news outlets that Mr. Mueller was close to Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump in recent days has repeatedly brought up the political and legal implications of firing someone he now views as incapable of an impartial investigation.He has told his staff, his visitors and his outside advisers that he was increasingly convinced that Mr. Mueller, like Mr. Comey, his successor as director of the F.B.I., was part of a “witch hunt” by partisans who wanted to see him weakened or forced from office.But while the president is deeply suspicious of Mr. Mueller, his anger is reserved for Mr. Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia inquiry, and especially for Mr. Comey.Mr. Trump was especially outraged by Mr. Comey’s admission last week that he had leaked a memo with details of his interactions with the president in hopes of spurring the appointment of a special counsel.Trump Stews, Staff Steps in, Robert Mueller is Safe for Now>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXII. Update #15:[First reported on June 14th, 2017]Trump is officially being investigated by the special counsel regarding possible obstruction of justice:The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on:Russian meddling during the presidential campaignwhether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9Mueller’s office has taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate that his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.Investigators will also look for any statements the president may have made publicly and privately to people outside the government about his reasons for firing Comey and his concerns about the Russia probe and other related investigationsSpecial Counsel is Investigating Trump for Possible Obstruction of Justice>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXIII. Update #16:[First reported on June 15th, 2017]Mueller is looking at possible money laundering involving Trump associates:A former senior official said Mr. Mueller’s investigation was looking at money laundering by Trump associates.The suspicion is that any cooperation with Russian officials would most likely have been in exchange for some kind of financial payoff, and that there would have been an effort to hide the payments, probably by routing them through offshore banking centers.Mueller Seeks to Talk to Intelligence Officials Hinting at Inquiry into Trump>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXIV. Update #17:[First allegations of this occurred on May 22nd, 2017 - document that recorded this was revealed on June 16th, 2017]Trump asked the NSA chief to announce publicly that he wasn’t under investigation:A recent National Security Agency memo documents a phone call…:Donald Trump pressures agency chief Admiral Mike Rogers to state publicly that there is no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia, say reports.The memo was written by Rick Ledgett, the former deputy director of the NSA, sources familiar with the memo told The Wall Street Journal.The memo said Trump questioned the American intelligence community findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.Memo says Trump pressed NSA chief to absolve him>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXV. Update #18:[Reported on June 15th, 2017]Mike Pence hires a lawyer:U.S. Vice President Mike Pence has hired a lawyer known for defending government officials in high-profile investigations to help him with probes into whether there were ties between the election campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia…Pence hired Richard Cullen, chairman of law firm McGuireWoods, to help him respond to inquiries from special counsel Robert Mueller…Pence had been looking at hiring his own counsel for several weeks, and made his decision earlier this week after interviewing several candidates…Pence hires his own lawyer for Russia probes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXVI. Update #19:[Originally reported on June 16th, 2017]Trump aides were instructed to save all documentation related to the current investigations regarding the Russian probe:Aides and volunteers on Donald Trump’s presidential transition were instructed Thursday to save any records related to “several pending investigations into potential attempts by Russia interests to influence the 2016 election”…In the memo from a transition lawyer, campaign officials were told to preserve all documents related to:the Russian FederationUkrainea number of campaign advisers and officials, including:former campaign manager Paul Manafortadvisers Carter PageRick GatesRoger Stoneformer national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn.“In order to assist these investigations, the Presidential Transition Team and its current and former personnel have a responsibility to ensure that, to the extent potentially relevant documents exist, they are properly preserved,” the memo stated.The request…also told aides and volunteers on the transition to save all foreign travel records.The records included:“emailsvoicemailstext messagesinstant messagessocial media postsWord or WordPerfect documentsspreadsheetsdatabasestelephone logsaudio recordingsvideosphotographs or imagesinformation contained on:desktopslaptopstablet computerssmartphonesor other portable devicescalendar recordsdiary data.”The memo warned that “failure to follow these protocols could result in criminal or civil penalties, and could form the basis of legal claims, legal presumptions, or jury instructions relating to spoliation of evidence.”Trump transition officials ordered to save Russia documents>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXVII. Update #20:[A subpoena was approved by the House Committee on May 31st, 2017 over information Cohen may have regarding Russia as well as asking him to testify before the House Intelligence Committee. On June 16th, Cohen hired his own lawyer.]Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, hires attorney regarding Russia probe:President Donald Trump's longtime attorney and adviser Michael Cohen has hired a lawyer to represent him in the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election…News of the hire comes two weeks after Cohen was subpoenaed by the House intelligence committee as part of the committee's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.Cohen told CNN earlier this week that he is "committed to complying with the subpoena."He has also agreed to testify before the committee…He declined to say whether he is fielding additional investigative inquiries…Cohen served as executive vice president and special counsel at the Trump Organization during Trump's presidential campaign and did not hold a formal title in the campaign.he was a prominent TV surrogate for Trump during the campaign and led the National Diversity Coalition in support of it.Longtime Trump attorney hires lawyer in Russia probe>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXVIII. Update #21:[Trump’s tweet on June 16th, 2017 seems to be about Rosenstein {possibly in regards to rumors that he is considering recusing himself from the investigation into Russia}]Trump’s cryptic tweet that seems to be aimed at Rosenstein:After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my "collusion with the Russians," nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017Because of this tweet, among other concerns, Rosenstein is allegedly considering recusing himself from the Russia Investigation:The president’s attack renewed concerns that Trump could move to oust Mueller from the investigation, which would require Rosenstein’s assent under Justice Department rules.Rosenstein told Congress on Wednesday he would not fire Mueller without the legally required “good cause,” potentially setting up a situation where Trump could fire Rosenstein for refusing to fire the special counsel.Richard Nixon attempted a similar purge of the Watergate special prosecutor’s office in 1973 that was dubbed the Saturday Night Massacre; it ultimately hastened his downfall.News of the obstruction investigation now raises questions about whether Rosenstein will have to recuse himself from the Russia investigation because of his direct involvement in Comey’s firing—a decision ABC reported he is mulling over.If he does step aside, ultimate oversight of Mueller’s probe would fall to Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, the Justice Department’s third-in-command.Rosenstein recently discussed his potential recusal, indicating his decision would depend on how the probe unfolded.“He’s going to make the appropriate decisions, and if anything that I did winds up being relevant to his investigation then, as Director Mueller and I discussed, if there’s a need from me to recuse, I will.”While Rosenstein does not exert day-to-day control over Mueller’s probe, he established its parameters and has the ultimate say on any prosecutions that spring from it.Under Justice Department rules, he would also have to notify Congress in writing if he constrains Mueller in any significant way.Rosenstein’s central role in the drama could make him a key witness in an investigation he now oversees, placing him in a troubling ethical spot.Analysis | Did Trump just lay the groundwork to fire the special counsel?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXIX. Update #22:Ways Trump could hypothetically fire Mueller:Chain of command at the DOJ:Here is a quick analysis on how Trump could possibly fire Mueller:Goldsmith’s analysis points to an argument that Trump could simply say that the mandates of those regulations violate his constitutional powers and fire Mueller directly. (An assessment from Marty Lederman at the Just Security blog rejects this idea outright.)Such a move would be challenged, understandably, but if it were somehow upheld by the courts, Mueller would be out.If it weren’t, or if Trump didn’t take this unusual step? We continue.Another question is whether Sessions tries to find some loophole allowing himself to no longer be bound by the recusal he announced in March.He didn’t consider himself bound by that recusal when drafting a letter to Trump advocating Comey’s firing, even though he was actively investigating the Russian meddling, but it’s harder to see how he could simply re-inject himself in the special counsel decision.That said, there doesn’t appear to be anything preventing him from doing so — with the exception of political repercussions that would almost certainly include impeachment.Let’s assume that we go through the normal process. As in the first diagram, the firing of Mueller falls to Rosenstein.It’s highly unlikely that Rosenstein would agree with Trump that Mueller needs to be removed, for reasons we’ll get to in a second.If he didn’t agree, he could reject Trump’s request — and risk being fired.Or he could follow the tradition established in 1973 when the attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned rather than comply with President Richard Nixon’s demand that the special investigator looking at Watergate be fired.If, on the other hand, Rosenstein (or any of the other people in the chain of command that follows below) decided to comply with Trump, they would have one of two options for doing so, according to Goldsmith.Either they’d have to throw out the regulations binding the firing of Mueller (see Goldsmith’s post for a lot of detail on this)or they’d have to establish cause for firing him.If either of those things is done, Mueller is fired.But the former would be exceptional and, given the bounds of the possible causes for firing special counsel — “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies” — it’s unlikely that a viable case for firing Mueller could be made in good faith at this point.If a cause can’t be found by Rosenstein, it’s hard to see how he could continue in that position.With Rosenstein and Sessions out of the picture, the decision falls to Rachel Brand, who faces the same decisions as Rosenstein.If she ends up leaving the picture, it falls to Dana Boente, acting assistant attorney general for national security.If he demurs or won’t dump the regulations/can’t find cause, we keep going.In 1973, the third person in line was the solicitor general, Robert Bork, who agreed with Nixon’s decision.It’s not clear if the acting solicitor general, Jeffrey B. Wall, would be part of this line of succession.If any other Justice officials are confirmed in the period between our writing this and Trump’s decision to fire Mueller, those officials could be slotted in here.At this point, Goldsmith writes, an executive order signed by Trump in March comes into play.It outlines the order of succession in the Department of Justice, running through three U.S. attorneys as next-in-line to leadership.As acting heads of the department, they’d be faced with the same choice as Rosenstein.If each of them demurred, it’s not really clear what would happenthis might prompt Trump to appeal to the option in step one, ignoring the regulations entirely.What’s outlined above is simply the process by which Mueller could legally be removed from his position. What’s not considered (beyond that aside for Sessions) are the political repercussions…Trump’s explicitly removing the person leading an outside inquiry would almost certainly significantly heighten the political pressure he faces.Analysis | How Trump could fire the special counsel (if he were foolish enough to try)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXX. Update #23:[The executive orders referred to below were first reported on June 16th, 2017]Trump may change the rules of succession at the DOJ:An abstract, in-case-of-emergency-break-glass executive order drafted by the Trump administration in March may become real-world applicable as the president, raging publicly at his Justice Department, mulls firing special counsel Robert Mueller.Since taking office, the Trump administration has twice rewritten an executive order that outlines the order of succession at the Justice Department —once after President Donald Trump fired the acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to defend his travel ban, and then again two months later.The executive order outlines a list of who would be elevated to the position of acting attorney general if the person up the food chain recuses himself, resigns, gets fired, or is no longer in a position to serve.In the past, former Justice Department officials and legal experts said, the order of succession is no more than an academic exercise — a chain of command applicable only in the event of an attack or crisis when government officials are killed and it is not clear who should be in charge.But Trump and the Russia investigation that is tightening around him have changed the game.Trump threatens to break the glass on DOJ succession plan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXXI. Update #24:[Tweeted on June 22nd, 2017]Trump tweeted that he did not have tapes of his conversations with Comey a day before the House Intelligence Committee’s deadline for the White House to hand over recordings (if they existed) of conversations between Trump and Comey (the House Intelligence Committee sought alleged recordings due to Trump’s tweet about them, which I discussed earlier in Update #8):...whether there are "tapes" or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 22, 2017This shows that Trump continues to prove that he has no regard for transparency or truth. Trump also seems to be implicating himself:But if few people believed that Mr. Trump actually possessed recordings, his motives in warning Mr. Comey that he might have taped him remain a mystery, particularly since it set off a chain of events that accelerated, rather than slowed, the investigation into Mr. Trump and Russia.…the possibility that the conversations were taped without his knowledge, even by the F.B.I. or intelligence agencies, which eavesdrop and intercept calls. Asked whether Mr. Trump believed he was currently under surveillance in the Oval Office, the deputy press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said, “Not that I’m aware of.”The decision to confirm there were no recordings was made by last weekend, when Mr. Trump and his family made their first getaway to Camp David, according to people briefed on the discussions. The White House counsel’s office reviewed the language in the tweet, these people said, and Mr. Trump’s personal legal team was aware of it. The wording did not change significantly over the past few days.But by giving the president some room to claim he might have been referring to someone other than himself doing the taping, his wording could diminish the possibility that his original tweet could have been interpreted as pressure on Mr. Comey before his testimony to the Senate.Yet when shorn of their extraneous details, the tweets essentially confirmed that Mr. Trump had been leveling a baseless threat when he wrote on May 12, “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”…Some legal experts have said the president’s threat could be used in an obstruction of justice case against him, since it could be interpreted as putting pressure on Mr. Comey not to share details of their conversations about the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation…“If the president had no tapes, why did he suggest otherwise?” said Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “Did he seek to mislead the public? Was he trying to intimidate or silence James Comey?”…Ms. Sanders said that Mr. Trump had promised to answer that question by the end of the week, and that he had delivered on that promise…The episode was yet another example of Mr. Trump’s predilection for sowing confusion and uncertainty. It also, at least temporarily, threw the news media off the trail of the Russia investigation…At times, he has told reporters that he was taping an interview or a phone call, but then declined to produce one. Other times, according to former aides, Mr. Trump was believed to have taped calls or conversations in his office at Trump Tower. That made it harder to discern the truth when the president raised the prospect that he had recorded Mr. Comey.Trump Says He Did Not Tape Comey Conversations>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<XXXII. Update #25:[Occurred on June 30th, 2017]One of the reasons the White House originally gave regarding Comey’s firing was that “Comey had lost the confidence of those working at the FBI” (I covered this is Update #6).At the FBI, Family Day showed that the accusation above from the White House is faulty. Family Day at the FBI:…is for FBI employees, friends and families to visit the US intelligence service and take part in activities including SWAT demonstrations.During Family Day, FBI employees showed up donning “#ComeyIsMyHomey” t-shirts:These t-shirts reflect support towards Comey from many FBI employees - that contradicts what the White House tried to claim as basis for firing him:Many within the bureau were alarmed at Mr Trump’s dismissal of Mr Comey. Bobby Chacon, a former FBI agent, said the decision was like a “punch in the stomach to agents”…Other former agents said the way Mr Comey was fired was an “outrage” and said that the Trump administration’s approach “besmirches the reputation of the FBI”.FBI employees wearing 'Comey is my homey' t-shirts in support for sacked boss>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<So, regarding the outline above, this is what I think:If Trump wanted to fire Comey regarding Comey’s handling of Clinton’s email investigation, he should have done this months ago.Trump firing Comey, who is investigating potential ties between Trump, Trump’s officials and Russian interference, looks like the obstruction of an investigation since Comey could end up being a threat to Trump’s presidency.In conclusion, I think Trump fired Comey based on an effort to cover up possible evidence regarding the probe into Russia.Given all the updates I’ve added since I first wrote this answer, I think my conclusion has become more valid.