Fascism will be on our doorstep if we don’t act immediately: Yale historian
Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet 08 Apr 2018 at 11:07 ET
How close is President Donald Trump to following the path blazed by last century’s tyrants? Could American democracy be replaced with totalitarian rule? There’s enough resemblance that Yale historian Timothy Snyder, who studies fascist and communist regime change and totalitarian rule, has written a book warning about the threat and offering lessons for resistance and survival. The author of On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century talked to AlterNet’s Steven Rosenfeld. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/558051/on-tyranny-by-timothy-snyder/9780804190114/
Steven Rosenfeld: Three weeks ago, you said that the country has perhaps a year ‘to defend American democracy.’ You said what happens in the next few weeks is crucial. Are you more concerned than ever that our political culture and institutions are evolving toward fascism, resembling key aspects of the early 20th-century European regimes you’ve studied? Timothy Snyder: Let me answer you in three parts. The first thing is that the 20 lessons that I wrote, I wrote on November 15th. The book, On Tyranny, was done by Christmas. Which means if people read it now, and people are reading it, and it’s describing the world they are in, that means I’ve successfully made predictions based on history. We’re going to talk about what is going to come, but I want to point out that timeline—it was basically completely blind. But the book does describe what is going on now.
The year figure is there because we have to recognize that things move fast. Nazi Germany took about a year. Hungary took about two and a half years. Poland got rid of the top-level judiciary within a year. It’s a rough historical guess, but the point is because there is an outside limit, you therefore have to act now. You have to get started early. It’s just very practical advice. It’s the meta-advice of the past: That things slip out of reach for you, psychologically very quickly, and then legally almost as quickly. It’s hard for people to act when they feel other people won’t act. It’s hard for people to act when they feel like they have to break the law to do so. So it is important to get out in front before people face those psychological and legal barriers.
Am I more worried now? I realize that was your question. No, I’m exactly as worried as I was before, in November. I think that the people who inhabit the White House inhabit a different ideological world in which they would like for the United States not to be the constitutional system that it now is. I was concerned about that in November. I’m concerned about it now. Nothing that has happened since has changed the way I see things.
SR: Let’s talk about how this evolution takes place. You’ve written about how ‘post-truth is pre-fascism.’ You talk about leaders ignoring facts, law and history. How far along this progression are we? I’m wondering where you might see things going next.
TS: That’s tough because what history does is give you a whole bunch of cases where democratic republics become authoritarian regimes; sometimes fascist regimes, sometimes communist regimes. It doesn’t give you one storyline: A, B, C, D. It gives you a bunch of clusters of A, and a bunch of clusters of C. But factuality is really important and more important than people realize, because it’s the substructure of regime change.
We think about democracy, and that’s the word that Americans love to use, democracy, and that’s how we characterize our system. But if democracy just means going to vote, it’s pretty meaningless. Russia has democracy in that sense. Most authoritarian regimes have democracy in that sense. Nazi Germany had democracy in that sense, even after the system had fundamentally changed.
Democracy only has substance if there’s the rule of law. That is, if people believe that the votes are going to be counted and they are counted. If they believe that there’s a judiciary out there that will make sense of things if there’s some challenge. If there isn’t rule of law, people will be afraid to vote the way they want to vote. They’ll vote for their own safety as opposed to their convictions. So the thing we call democracy depends on the rule of law. And the things we call the rule of law depends upon trust. Law functions 99 percent of the time automatically. It functions because we think it’s out there. And that, in turn, depends on the sense of truth. So there’s a mechanism here. You can get right to heart of the matter if you can convince people that there is no truth. Which is why the stuff that we characterize as post-modern and might dismiss is actually really, really essential.
The second thing about ‘post-truth is pre-fascism’ is I’m trying to get people’s attention, because that is actually how fascism works. Fascism says, disregard the evidence of your senses, disregard observation, embolden deeds that can’t be proven, don’t have faith in god but have faith in leaders, take part in collective myth of an organic national unity, and so forth. Fascism was precisely about setting the whole Enlightenment aside and then selling what sort of myths emerged. Now those [national] myths are pretty unpredictable, and contingent on different nations and different leaders and so on, but to just set facts aside is actually the fastest catalyst. So that part concerns me a lot.
Where we’re going? The classic thing to watch out for is the shift from one governing strategy to another. In the U.S. system, the typical governing strategy is you more or less have to follow your constituents with legislation because of the election cycle. That’s one pulse of politics. The other pulse of politics is emergency. There’s some kind of terrorist attack and then the leader tries to suspend basic constitutional rights. And then we get on a different rhythm, where the rhythm is not one electoral cycle to the next but one emergency to the next. That’s how regime changes take place. It’s a classic way since the Reichstag fire [when the Nazis burned their nation’s capitol building and blamed communist arsonists].
So in terms of what might happen next, or what people could look out for, some kind of event that the government claims is a terrorist incident, would be something to be prepared for. That’s why it’s one of the lessons in the book.
SR: You have talked before about that kind of emergency justification—and even with Vladimir Putin in Russia. Is that what you think would happen here? Because with the exception of the judiciary, a lot of American institutions, like Congress, are not really resisting. They’re going along.
TS: They’re going along… but my own intuition would be the emergency situation arises because going along isn’t going to be enough. Paradoxically, Congress is going along and is going to pass a bunch of stuff, which is not actually very popular. Right? It’s not going to be so popular to have millions of people lose health insurance, which is what’s going to happen. The ironic things about the Republican Congress is now it has the ability to do everything it wants to do, but none of what it wants to do is that popular. Except with the few big lobbies, of course. The freedom the Republicans have is the freedom to impose their agenda on down.
The same thing goes with Mr. Trump. The things that he might do that some people would like, like building a wall or driving all the immigrants out, those things are going to be difficult or slow. In the case of the wall, I personally don’t believe it will ever happen. It’s going to be very slow. So my suspicion is that it is much easier to have a dramatic negative event, than have a dramatic positive event. That is one of the reasons I am concerned about the Reichstag fire scenario. The other reason is that we are being mentally prepared for it by all the talk about terrorism and by the Muslim ban. Very often when leaders repeat things over and over they are preparing you for when that meme actually emerges in reality.
SR: I want to change the topic slightly. You cite many examples from Germany in 1933, the year Hitler consolidated power. So what did ordinary Germans miss that’s relevant for ordinary Americans now? I know some of this is the blurring of facts. But when I have talked to Holocaust survivors, they often say, nobody ever thought things would be that bad, or nobody thought the Germans would go as far as they did.
TS: The German Jews then, and people now, don’t understand how quick their neighbors will change; don’t understand how quickly society can change. They don’t understand the fact that a life that’s been predictable for a long time, doesn’t mean that it will be predictable tomorrow. And people like to think that their experience is exceptional. German Jews might have thought, ‘Well, there were pogroms [ethnic cleansing] in Russia, but surely nothing like that could happen here.’ That’s what many German Jews thought. So one issue is people need to realize how quickly things can change.
The second thing that German Jews were not aware of, or Germans were not aware of, was how new media can quickly change conversations. In that way, it’s not exactly the same, but radio at that time often ended up being a channel for propaganda. There are parallels with the internet now, where there were hopes that it would be [primarily] enlightening. But in fact, it turns out that with presidential tweets, or with bots, or isolated habits of viewing, it isn’t necessarily enlightening. It’s the opposite. A lot of us were blindsided by the internet in much the same way that people could be blindsided by radio in the 1930s.
But here’s the other view. The one that we have that German Jews didn’t have in 1933 is we have their experience. That’s the premise of the whole book; the premise is that the 20th century showed us what can happen, and there’s lots of wonderful scholarship by German historians and others, which breaks down what can happen and how. And so, one of the first things that we should be doing is taking advantage of the one opportunity that we really have that they didn’t, which is to learn from that history. And that’s the premise of the book.
SR: All of your book’s lessons are very personal: Don’t obey in advance. Believe in truth. Stand out. Defend institutions. Be calm but as courageous as you can be. Yet the change or oppression that you are talking about is systemic and institutional. What do you say to people who say, ‘I’ll try, but I may not have the power here.’ There’s that cliche, tilting at windmills. …
TS: Well, if everyone tilted against a windmill, the windmill would fall down, right? Party of the tragedy of Don Quixote is he’s tilting against the wrong thing. So that’s not our problem. We’re pretty sure what the problem is. But he was also alone except for his faithful companion. We’re not really alone. There are millions and millions of people who are looking for that thing to do. Just by sheer math, if everyone does a little thing, it will make a difference. And much of what I am recommending is—you’re right, they are things that people can do, but they also involve some kind of engagement. Whether it’s the small talk [with those you disagree with] or whether it’s the corporeal politics. And that little bit of engagement helps you realize that what you are doing has a kind of sense, even if it doesn’t immediately change the order.
And finally, a lot of the political theory that I am calling upon, which comes from the anti-Nazis and the anti-communists, makes the point that even though you don’t realize it, your own example matters a whole lot, whether it’s positively or negatively. There are times, and this is one of those times, where small gestures, or their absence, can make a huge difference. So the things that might not have mattered a year ago do matter now. The basic thing is we are making a difference whether we realize it or not, and the basic question is whether it is positive or negative.
Let me put it a different way. Except for really dramatic moments, most of the time authoritarianism depends on some kind of cycle involving a popular consent of some form. It really does matter how we behave. The danger is [if] we say, ‘Well, we don’t see how it matters, and so therefore we are going to just table the whole question.’ If we do that, then we start to slide along and start doing the things that the authorities expect of us. Which is why lesson number one is: Don’t obey in advance. You have to set the table differently. You have to say, ‘This is a situation in which I need to think for myself about all of the things that I am going to do and not just punt. Not just wait. Nor just see how things seems to me. Because if you do that, then you change and you actually become part of the regime change toward authoritarianism.’
SR: You cite in the book something I read in high school: Eugene Ionesco’s existential play about fascism, Rhinoceros, where people talk about their colleagues at work, in academia, saying stuff like, ‘Come on, I don’t agree with everything, but give him a chance.’ Ionesco’s point is that people join an unthinking herd before they know it. What would you suggest people do, when they run into others who fall on this spectrum?
TS: There are a few questions here. One is how to keep yourself going. Another is how to energize other people who agree with you. And the third thing is not quite Rhinoceros stuff, but how to catch people who are slipping. Like that CNN coverage last week of the speech to Congress, where one of the CNN commentators said, ‘Oh, now this is presidential.’ That was a Rhinoceros moment, because there was nothing presidential—it was atrocious to parade the victims of crimes committed by one ethnicity. That was atrocious and there’s nothing presidential about it.
Catching Rhinoceros moments is one thing. I think it’s really important to think about. The example that Ionesco gives is people saying, ‘Yeah, on one hand, with the Jews, maybe they are right.’ With Trump, people will say something like, ‘Yeah, but on taxes, maybe he’s right.’ And the thing to catch is, ‘Yeah, but are you in favor of regime change? Are you in favor of the end of the American way of democracy and fair play?’ Because that’s what’s really at stake.
With people all the way over at the end of the spectrum who are now confident about Trump—that’s a different subject. I think it’s important to maintain impossible human relations across that divide, because some of those people are going to change their minds. It’s harsh. But some will change their minds, and if they have no one to talk to, it will be much harder for them to change their minds. At different points on the spectrum, you have to think in different ways. My own major concern right now is with self-confidence and the energy of the people who do have the deep—and, I think incorrect—conviction that something has gone wildly wrong.
SR: The people who have the conviction that something has gone wildly wrong—that can describe Trump supporters and Trump opponents.
TS: That’s a good point. So much of this is personal. In the book, I don’t actually mention anybody’s name, except the thinkers who I admire. So much of this is personal that people think, ‘Well, if you say anything critical, it is about you as a person, and how you don’t like anything about someone who likes Trump.’ That’s a way for there to be no political discussion.
I think it’s useful, even though you will never win the argument, when you are talking about people who support to the administration, to stay at the level of the Constitution. To stay at the level of freedom, or stay at the level of basic issues, like, is global warming really going to be so great, when the entire Pentagon says that it is a national security threat? Or, is it really such a good idea to treat Muslims like this? Or, is it really going to be so good when millions of people lose health insurance?
Keep it at the level of issues as much as possible, because what I’ve found is the pattern that people shift to is, ‘Why are you going to be so hard on this guy? Give him a chance.’ But the issues of what’s constitutional, what is actually American, and what’s going to be a policy that they are going to be proud of a year from now—keep the conversation closest to the Constitution. It’s easiest to be dismissed when it’s personal. And fundamentally, this is the trick. It isn’t personal. It doesn’t matter who’s in charge. What matters is the system, which people of very different convictions take for granted, is now under threat. SR: You have said that the Muslims are being targeted as the Jews were targeted in Germany. But out here in California, it also feels like the deportation machinery is getting ready for undocumented immigrants. On Monday, Reuters reported that Homeland Security officials said they might separate mothers from kids when making arrests. Germany did that as it rounded up Jews. Don’t they face just as grave a threat?
TS: With the Muslims, the resemblance to anti-Semitic policy in Germany in ’33 is that if you can pick some group and make them stand in for some international threat, then you can change domestic politics, because domestic politics then is no longer about compromises and competing interests, domestic politics is about who inside the society should actually be seen and outside the society. Once you get the wedge in with the first group, them you essentially win. It could be the Muslims. It could be somebody else, is the point. The political logic is basically the same.
With undocumented immigrants, I think the logic might be a little bit different. I think the goal might be to get us used to seeing a certain kind of police power. And getting us used to seeing things happening to people in public. And then if we get used to that, then we might be more willing for the dial to turn a little bit further. It’s too soon for me to speculate confidently about all of this.
I think you’re right though, it could be the Muslims, but it doesn’t have to be the Muslims. The crucial thing is to get some kind of in [political opening] where people go along with or accept stigmatization. And the logic is there’s always some kind of threat that comes from beyond the country. And that we can fix that threat on a group of people inside the country. And if you go along with this, what else are you agreeing to go along with?
SR: To go back to your book, what you’re saying is that people should be vigilant, should know their values and participate at some level with making those values known, because that is what ordinary people can do.
TS: Yes. The point of the book is [that] we are facing a real crisis and a real moment of choice. The possibilities are much darker than Americans are used to considering. But at the same time, what we can do is much more important than we realize. The regime will only change if the gamble of the people in the White House is right: That many of us despise many others of us and that most of us are indifferent. If it turns out that there are emotions and values that are more numerous and more vibrant than indifference and hatred, things are going to be okay. That depends on us. That depends on us making certain realizations. It depends on us acting fast. In that sense it’s a test, not just collectively. Maybe there’s no such thing as a collective test. But it is a test for us individually.
Most Americans who haven’t been abroad haven’t been faced by something like this. And hopefully they won’t be faced with it again. But we are faced with it as citizens and as individuals. And I think, five or 10 years from now, no matter how things turn out, we’ll ask ourselves—or our children will ask us—how we behaved in 2017.
Part 181, some of Russian meddling, and related, material from F6 big ones. These from a post Saturday, 04/07/18, covering March 14, 2018, and headed, Trump’s New CIA Nominee, Gina Haspel, Faces Possible Arrest Warrant in Germany over Torture https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=139869829
The first five
Trump’s New CIA Nominee, Gina Haspel, Faces Possible Arrest Warrant in Germany over Torture
Published on Mar 14, 2018 by Democracy Now! [ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzuqE7-t13O4NIDYJfakrhw / https://www.youtube.com/user/democracynow , https://www.youtube.com/user/democracynow/videos ] On Tuesday morning, President Trump fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson via Twitter. In the same tweet, the president announced CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who is a close ally of the Koch brothers, would be nominated to become the new secretary of state. Trump also tapped CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel to head the CIA. Haspel was directly involved in the CIA’s torture program under George W. Bush. She was responsible for running a secret CIA black site in Thailand in 2002 where one prisoner was waterboarded 83 times and tortured in other ways. Both Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel must now face Senate confirmations, but barring any Republican defections, both can be confirmed without any Democratic support. Last year, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights [ https://www.ecchr.eu/en/home.html ] asked German prosecutors to issue an arrest warrant for Haspel for her role in the torture program. For more, we speak with Wolfgang Kaleck, founder and general secretary of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. https://www.democracynow.org/2018/3/14/trumps_new_cia_nominee_gina_haspel [with embedded video, and transcript] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdQxSdJJ7gQ [with comments] [and see also in particular (linked in) https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39471610 and preceding and following]
*
“She Tortured Just for the Sake of Torture”: CIA Whistleblower on Trump’s New CIA Pick Gina Haspel
Published on Mar 14, 2018 by Democracy Now! Former CIA officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou personally knew CIA director nominee Gina Haspel when he worked at the CIA. But their careers have taken very different paths over the past decade. Haspel, who was directly involved in torture at a secret CIA prison in Thailand, has been promoted to head the agency. Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on the torture program, ended up being jailed for 23 months. For more, we speak with John Kiriakou, who spent 14 years at the CIA as an analyst and case officer. https://www.democracynow.org/2018/3/14/she_tortured_just_for_the_sake [with embedded video, and transcript] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpDc1hscfeQ [with comments] [id.]
*
Jeremy Scahill: Gina Haspel Should Be Answering for Her Torture Crimes, Not Heading the CIA
Published on Mar 14, 2018 by Democracy Now! Trump has tapped CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel to replace outgoing CIA Director Mike Pompeo, after Pompeo was named to succeed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state. Haspel was directly involved in the CIA’s torture program under George W. Bush. She was responsible for running a secret CIA black site in Thailand in 2002 where one prisoner was waterboarded 83 times and tortured in other ways. But she enjoys broad support, including from the intelligence community and Democrats in the Senate. For more, we speak with Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of The Intercept. https://www.democracynow.org/2018/3/14/jeremy_scahill_gina_haspel_should_be [with embedded video, and transcript] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTMCiKmABOQ [with comments] [id.]
*
Mike Pompeo, Christian Crusader & Koch Brothers Ally, Tapped to Be Trump’s Secretary of State
Published on Mar 14, 2018 by Democracy Now! On Tuesday, President Trump announced via Twitter he was firing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and tapping CIA Director Mike Pompeo to replace him. As a former Kansas Republican congressmember, Pompeo has a history of making Islamophobic statements. He’s also been a major ally to the billionaire right-wing Koch brothers. For more, we speak with Lee Fang, investigative reporter with The Intercept. His 2016 piece is “Trump CIA Pick Mike Pompeo Depicted War on Terror as Islamic Battle Against Christianity [ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/23/mike-pompeo-religious-war/ ].” https://www.democracynow.org/2018/3/14/mike_pompeo_christian_crusader_koch_brothers [with embedded video, and transcript] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axAuKoKDpLw [with comments]
*
Congresswoman Confirms Erik Prince Tied to Assassination Program Run Out of Dick Cheney’s Office
Andrew McCabe, a Symbol of Trump’s F.B.I. Ire, Faces Possible Firing WASHINGTON - Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reviewing a recommendation to fire the former F.B.I. deputy director, Andrew G. McCabe, just days before he is scheduled to retire on Sunday, people briefed on the matter said. Mr. McCabe was a frequent target of attack from President Trump, who taunted him both publicly and privately. Mr. McCabe is ensnared in an internal review that includes an examination of his decision in 2016 to allow F.B.I. officials to speak with reporters about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The Justice Department’s inspector general concluded that Mr. McCabe was not forthcoming during the review, according to the people briefed on the matter. That yet-to-be-released report triggered an F.B.I. disciplinary process that recommended his termination — leaving Mr. Sessions to either accept or reverse that decision. Lack of candor is a fireable offense, but like so much at the F.B.I., Mr. McCabe’s fate is also entangled in presidential politics and the special counsel investigation. He was involved from the beginning in the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. He is also a potential witness in the inquiry into whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct justice. Mr. Trump’s supporters have tried to cast Mr. McCabe as part of a “deep state” that operates in secret to undermine the administration. Mr. Trump has goaded Mr. Sessions into taking action against him. [...] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/us/politics/andrew-mccabe-fbi-firing-recommendation-justice-department.html
FBI disciplinary office recommends firing former deputy director Andrew McCabe The FBI office that handles employee discipline has recommended firing the bureau’s former deputy director over allegations that he authorized the disclosure of sensitive information to a reporter and misled investigators when asked about it — though Justice Department officials are still reviewing the matter and have not come to a final decision, a person familiar with the case said. The recommendation from the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility is likely to add fuel to the political fire surrounding former deputy director Andrew McCabe, who abruptly stepped down from his post earlier this year but technically remained an FBI employee. McCabe was hoping to retire in just days, when he becomes eligible for his full benefits. If he is fired, he could lose his retirement benefits. President Trump has long made McCabe a particular target of his ire, and the recommendation to fire the former No. 2 FBI official could give him new ammunition. Through a representative, McCabe declined to comment. A Justice Department spokeswoman said in a statement: “The Department follows a prescribed process by which an employee may be terminated. That process includes recommendations from career employees and no termination decision is final until the conclusion of that process. We have no personnel announcements at this time.” An FBI spokeswoman declined to comment. [...] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-disciplinary-office-recommends-firing-former-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe/2018/03/14/c1d0dc1a-208a-11e8-86f6-54bfff693d2b_story.html
Robert Mueller’s Russia Probe Just Got a Lot Weirder A mysterious Middle East fixer, the founder of Blackwater, an Emirati prince, and a secret meeting in the Seychelles are now under investigation as Robert Mueller uncovers a nexus of foreign influence on the Trump campaign. March 7, 2018 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/03/robert-mueller-george-nader-russia-investigation
Kushner Conflict Cloud Hovers Over Brooklyn Sale Linked to Japan - Maddow segment 3-14-18 Unit of telecom giant NTT bought stake with U.S. firm Kushner was helping oversee trade policy at the time Two months after Jared Kushner joined the White House as a senior adviser, his family firm sold [at a 60% premium] a stake in a Brooklyn building to a unit of a company whose largest shareholder is the government of Japan. [...] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-13/kushner-conflict-cloud-hovers-over-brooklyn-sale-linked-to-japan
BuzzFeed maneuver could free Stormy Daniels to speak on Trump BuzzFeed may have found a legal opening to allow the porn actress Stormy Daniels to discuss her alleged relationship with President Donald Trump and a $130,000 payment she received just before the 2016 election as part of a nondisclosure agreement she is now trying to void. The same Trump attorney who brokered the deal with Daniels, Michael Cohen, filed a libel suit in January against BuzzFeed and four of its staffers over publication of the so-called dossier compiling accurate, inaccurate and unproven allegations about Trump’s relationship with Russia. Now, BuzzFeed is using Cohen’s libel suit as a vehicle to demand that Daniels preserve all records relating to her relationship with Trump, as well as her dealings with Cohen and the payment he has acknowledged arranging in 2016. On Tuesday, BuzzFeed’s lawyer wrote to Daniels’ attorney asking that the adult film actress, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, preserve various categories of documents. Such preservation letters are often a prelude to a subpoena. If Daniels’ testimony is formally demanded in a deposition, the nondisclosure agreement would likely be no obstacle, legal experts said. [...] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/14/buzzfeed-stormy-daniels-trump-462261
Democrats issue rebuttal to GOP ‘capitulation’ report on Russia WASHINGTON - Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee vowed to carry on with their investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, accusing Republicans of prematurely shuttering the probe in a “capitulation” to the White House. One day after the GOP announced they had completed a draft report concluding that the Trump campaign had not colluded with Russians in an effort to defeat Hillary Clinton, Democrats issued a 22-page document specifying unresolved issues they said the committee needed to continue exploring — and that they would attempt to do so even without the GOP’s cooperation. Most, but not all of the items Democrats point to address collusion, and whether the Russian government had leverage on President Trump that could affect his decision-making. The report also lists key individuals that the committee’s Republicans refused to bring in for interviews, documents that should have been sought, and steps that should have been taken to compel answers from uncooperative witnesses like the attorney general, the president’s son and his son-in-law. “The work is too important to be left undone,” Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead Democrat on the committee, told reporters Tuesday night. “The American people need to know whether the Russians still have something they can hold over the president's head.” Even in the earliest hours of the Republican’s report circulating among members of the committee, the GOP appeared to back-pedal on some of their initial comments. Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas, who has been running the Russia probe, told reporters he misspoke Monday when he said that he in fact believed the Russian government had sought to help Clinton in the campaign and hurt Trump. And he seemed to step back from a key claim in the report, disputing the Intelligence Community’s January 2017 assessment that Russia had shown a “clear preference” for Trump in the campaign. “Nothing that they did remotely helped Hillary Clinton,” Conaway said. But asked if there was any distinction between attempting to harm Clinton and help Trump, Conaway said: “glass half full, glass half empty. You could pitch that either way." Schiff called the GOP report “little more than another Nunes memo in long form,” saying it cherry-picked intelligence while ignoring or mischaracterizing others. He said he had assumed that even despite clear differences of opinion about collusion, Democrats and Republicans could jointly validate the conclusion of intelligence agencies that Russia sought to elect Trump. “If this is where the GOP is coming from, it represents to me the completeness of their capitulation to the White House, and that leaves little common ground,” he said. Asked if he could say definitively whether he found evidence that Trump campaign aides or allies had colluded with Russians — just as the GOP insisted it had not — Schiff said he could. “What I cannot say, because I do not know what Bob Mueller knows, is whether that evidence rises to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy to violate U.S. election laws,” he said. Schiff has increasingly drawn attention to the question of financial leverage the Russians have on Trump. The Democratic status report says the committee had only begun to explore “credible allegations” about whether Russian oligarchs and others used Trump properties to launder money, and notes that Deutsche Bank, which has been fined before for involvement in Russian money-laundering, has been a regular source of financing for Trump’s businesses. Democrats also say the committee should probe whether the president sought to obstruct justice by impeding the Mueller probe — something Republicans have maintained is outside the committee’s agreed-upon scope of inquiry. The Democrats said they have “a good faith reason to believe” that the White House has documentation of Trump’s conversations with James Comey, which could corroborate the then-FBI director’s accounts that the president pressured him to drop an investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Among the key witnesses Democrats say the committee still needs to hear from are current and former administration officials including Trump’s first chief of staf, Reince Priebus, senior policy advisor Stephen Miller, former press secretary Sean Spicer and senior counselor and former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway. The list also includes names recently brought to light in relation to the Mueller probe like George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who the Washington Post and New York Times reported helped orchestrate the January 2017 meeting in the Seychelles involving a known Trump associate and a Russian banker with ties to the Kremlin. Committee Democrats say there should be new document requests, including bank records from Deutsche Bank, additional information from social media companies like Twitter, Facebook and Snapchat, and records from the Ritz Carlton Moscow related to Trump’s 2013 visit for the Miss Universe pageant. And Democrats fault Republicans for now taking further action to compel testimony from uncooperative witnesses including Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions and Corey Lewandoswki. All of these are issues that Schiff said Democrats could ultimately revisit if the party wins control of the House next year – and along with it control of the committee and subpoena power. “If the majority in the Congress changes hands we’ll have to evaluate where is the investigation at that point.,” he said. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-issue-rebuttal-gop-capitulation-report-russia-n856426
Trump Says a Democrat Won in Pennsylvania Because He’s ‘Like Trump’ In remarks delivered at a private fundraising event and obtained by The Atlantic, the president attributed Conor Lamb’s success to the fact that he “sounds like a Republican.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/trump-on-the-lamb/555668/
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
