How to Remember What You Read | How I Digest Books (Tim Ferris)

Tim Ferriss’s process and strategies for reading books and note-taking.

On Freedom

07:51
in writing so here we have the piece I
07:53
found interesting there’s freedom and
07:55
being a writer and writing it is
07:57
fulfilling your function I used to think
07:59
freedom meant doing whatever you want
08:01
and then I would say in parentheses but
08:04
instead it means knowing who you are
08:05
what you were supposed to be doing on
08:07
this earth and then simply doing it but
08:09

An annotated guide to the redacted Mueller report

Here’s POLITICO’s rolling analysis of the hotly anticipated document.

Trump’s former staff secretary Rob Porter spoke with Mueller — and he revealed that Trump mused about installing other senior DOJ officials like Rachel Brand to supervise Mueller.

.. Trump went to great lengths to encourage Sessions to investigate a political enemy: Hillary Clinton. But Sessions routinely did not commit to honoring such requests, which clearly irked the president. Mueller notes that Trump’s tweets in the following days reflected his ire.

This is also the first we’re learning that Porter took contemporaneous notes about things the president said in private. But he notes that Trump specifically told Sessions he wasn’t “telling you to do anything” — which might have given Barr and Rosenstein a reason to question whether Trump had corrupt intent to obstruct an investigation. 

.. Contra Trump’s claims of no obstruction, Mueller is again saying that he found evidence of obstruction. Specifically, Mueller says here that Trump sought to influence the investigation in a way that would “restrict its scope.”

.. Here, Mueller reveals that Trump tried to get ex-White House Counsel Don McGahn to deny the New York Times story that Trump directed McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn refused because he knew that the story was true. Meanwhile, Trump was publicly deriding the Times story as “fake news.”

.. In trying to determine Trump’s intent in directing McGahn to deny that he had sought to fire the special counsel, Mueller said Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it.” In other words, Trump knew that the Times story could be part of an obstruction investigation when he tried to create a “record” stating that the Times story wasn’t true.

.. This section tells us that McGahn viewed Trump’s threats to fire him as completely empty. According to Porter, McGahn said the optics of a firing would be terrible, and he therefore refused to write such a letter denying the Times story.

.. Trump was clearly livid when he found out that his aides were taking notes to memorialize their conversations. The president also routinely referred to Roy Cohn as an example of someone who would protect him.

.. This section deals with the potential dangling of pardons, and the idea that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation by preventing Manafort and others from cooperating. According to Mueller, Manafort spoke with Trump’s attorneys and relayed to Gates that “we’ll be taken care of” — but Manafort said the word “pardons” was not used.

.. Mueller concluded that Trump sought to “encourage” Manafort not to cooperate with prosecutors through both public and private statements. Additionally, Mueller said Trump “intended Manafort to believe that he could receive a pardon,” which would make Manafort less likely to cooperate with the government.

..Mueller revealed that he did consider the Justice Department guidelines that indicated a sitting president may not be prosecuted, but he said the guidance does not preclude a thorough criminal investigation from taking place. Mueller noted that a sitting president may be indicted after he leaves office, so he opted to pursue a “thorough factual investigation.”

.. Cohen admitted to prosecutors and to Congress that he lied about the timing of the negotiations surrounding the Trump Tower Moscow project — in an effort to “minimize the president’s connections to Russia.” Mueller goes into detail about the extent to which Trump was briefed about the negotiations during the 2016 presidential campaign, including this key note: “Cohen recalled that Trump wanted to be updated on any developments with Trump Tower Moscow…” Trump repeatedly claimed while campaigning for president that he had “nothing to do” with Russia. Meanwhile, Cohen sought to adhere to a “party line” in which Trump’s allies would deny connections to Russia.

.. Muller could not establish that Trump directed or aided Cohen’s false testimony about Trump Tower Moscow. BuzzFeed had reported that Trump directed Cohen to lie, and the special counsel’s office issued a rare denial at the time. We now know that the BuzzFeed story was inaccurate.

 .. Here, Mueller is summarizing what his team established as “acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence” over various investigations. But many of these actions were “unsuccessful” in obstructing the investigation, Mueller notes, because Trump’s aides refused to carry out his directives. We also find out for the first time that Trump’s posture began to change when he found out that there was an ongoing investigation into whether he personally sought to obstruct justice.
.. Mueller used a separation-of-powers argument to reach the conclusion that Congress has the authority to evaluate presidential conduct that could be construed as obstruction of justice. This is yet another data point Democrats can use to support their own obstruction investigation in the House Judiciary Committee.

.. The special counsel says there’s a “demanding standard” to determine whether Trump acted with a corrupt intent to obstruct justice. This could explain in part why Mueller was hesitant to bring charges against Trump.

.. From the beginning, Mueller and his team decided that it would not make a “traditional” judgment on obstruction of justice. But prosecutors said they could not say with confidence that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice. Much of this paragraph was summarized in Barr’s controversial four-page memo from last month.

.. Mueller indicates here that the special counsel’s team did not have confidence the president was innocent of obstruction.

.. The president reacted to news that a special counsel had been appointed by telling advisors that it was “the end of his presidency” and demanding that Sessions resign. It’s another window into the president’s state of mind when Mueller was appointed — and Mueller posits that it could have been because of the investigation’s effect on his ability to govern.

.. Here’s an example of Barr disagreeing with Mueller on theories about obstruction of justice. Mueller indicates that he doesn’t believe obstruction requires proof of an underlying crime. Mueller also indicates here that Trump had been “suggesting possible future pardons” to witnesses. He said typically these acts are done in secret but Trump’s case was unusual because they were done out in the open. But Mueller said that doesn’t diminish his exposure to an obstruction charge if it had the effect of altering witness testimony of degrading the integrity of the process.

.. This appears to contradict Barr’s claim that Mueller did not defer any decisions on obstruction of justice to Congress. Barr said previously that Mueller “did not indicate” he intended to leave the decision to Congress.

.. Former FBI Director James Comey said Trump asked him for a loyalty pledge during a private dinner in February 2017. Trump officials denied it but Mueller’s team seemed to credit Comey’s version of events, citing his contemporaneous memos and testimony from numerous officials who recalled speaking with Comey at the time.

.. Top White House officials lost faith in Flynn’s honesty and concluded he couldn’t have forgotten whether he discussed sanctions in his phone call with the Russian ambassador. Then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and McGahn recommended that he be fired. After Flynn announced his resignation, Priebus told Mueller that Trump hugged Flynn in the Oval Office and promised to take care of him.

.. K.T. MacFarland told Mueller that Trump asked her to send a message to Flynn, who had just been ousted, telling him to “stay strong.”

 ..Trump personally pushed Sessions to “unrecuse” himself from the Russia probe after repeatedly expressing to advisers he wanted Sessions to help protect him from the investigation. But Sessions testified to Mueller that he believed Trump wanted Sessions to exert control to prevent the Russia probe from disrupting his ability to govern.
.. Mueller reveals that he interviewed deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein on May 23, 2017, just six days after Mueller was appointed. Legal experts have questioned Rosenstein’s ability to oversee Mueller’s probe while also acting as a witness in the matter. Mueller indicated Rosenstein testified about his role in the firing of FBI Director Comey.
.. Sanders acknowledged that she gave a false explanation for Comey’s firing in May 2017, when she told reporters that “the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their director. Accordingly, the President accepted the recommendation of his Deputy Attorney General to remove James Corney from his position.” It’s a rare example of a senior Trump administration official admitting an inaccuracy, and could undermine her credibility with reporters.
.. Trump’s initial reaction to the appointment of Mueller as special counsel was one of fury. Mueller, attempting to establish Trump’s state of mind, learned that Trump told allies “I’m fucked” after learning of Mueller’s appointment. He then told aides that a special counsel would affect his ability to govern.
.. Senior White House advisers, including Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus, told the special counsel they were worried that Trump would use Sessions’ resignation letter to influence the Justice Department. “Priebus told Sessions it was not good for the President to have the letter because it would function as a kind of ‘shock collar’ that the President could use any time he wanted; Priebus said the President had “DOJ by the throat.” Trump eventually returned the letter almost two weeks later.

.. Next: White House aides worried Trump would try to control DOJ

The Trump Lawyers’ Confidential Memo to Mueller, Explained

DELEGITIMIZING THE INVESTIGATION

The letter briefly shifts in tone to an attack on law enforcement institutions and the legitimacy of the investigation. The president and his allies routinely use such language in the public relations arena. But his lawyers’ use of it in a private missive to Mr. Mueller is striking: a reminder to the special counsel that he will face more than legal pushback if he subpoenas the president or accuses him of wrongdoing.

.. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

This is why defense lawyers have been so confident in saying that Mr. Mueller is not investigating Mr. Trump’s personal finances or his family’s real estate dealings.

 

.. LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

The president’s lawyers are arguing that because they have turned over so many documents and made other witnesses available for depositions, Mr. Mueller has already obtained the same information he would get from an interview with Mr. Trump. But if a subpoena fight does arise, Mr. Mueller will almost certainly argue that only by questioning Mr. Trump directly about what he was thinking can investigators determine his intent.

.. FULL COOPERATION MODE

The White House has been saying for months that it is in “full cooperation mode” with the special counsel. This is the payoff for that strategy. The president’s lawyers are signaling here that, if subpoenaed, Mr. Trump would argue that the many documents the White House has turned over and the hours of interviews with staff members have made his testimony unnecessary.

.. AN OUTDATED UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW

Mr. Trump’s lawyers are making a legalistic argument that he could not have violated an obstruction statute because F.B.I. investigations are not considered to be covered by it. But a different obstruction statute is relevant here, legal experts say. Enacted in 2002, it criminalizes the corrupt impeding of proceedings even if they have not yet started — like the potential grand jury investigation an F.B.I. case can prompt. The president’s lawyers do not mention this statute, whose existence appears to render several of their arguments beside the point.

.. FLYNN’S INVESTIGATION

We learn here for the first time that Mr. Flynn told top White House officials that the F.B.I. investigation into him was nearly complete. Mr. Trump’s lawyers go on to say this is important because the president could not have tried to obstruct an investigation he believed was over.

.. DON’T THANK ME

Mr. Trump’s lawyers say he should get credit for his handling of Mr. Flynn’s case because he ultimately fired him.

.. MORE SHOTS AT COMEY

Mr. Comey’s contemporaneous memos paint an unflattering portrait of Mr. Trump and are key evidence in the case. Here, Mr. Trump’s lawyers assail their credibility, saying perhaps Mr. Comey misunderstood the president’s comments.

.. A HIGHER LOYALTY

Mr. Comey relishes his reputation as a fiercely independent lawman. But in this instance, he might have benefited from sharing his concerns about Mr. Trump with someone at the Justice Department.

.. WHAT ABOUT A BAD REASON?

For the most part, executive branch officials serve at the pleasure of the president, who can fire them at his discretion. But the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can create limits, upholding statutes that forbid the firing of certain officials without good cause. The novel legal question, which this statement evades, is whether statutes outlawing obstruction of justice implicitly constitute such a limit on when a president can fire an F.B.I. director. If so, it would be unlawful to fire an F.B.I. director for a corrupt reason — even though it would still be legal to fire him or her for a good reason or even for no particular reason..

.. EVERYTHING IS UNPRECEDENTED

No president has ever faced criminal charges about anything. Under Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, the Justice Department opined that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office, and neither was prosecuted afterward because Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon and Mr. Clinton struck a deal with prosecutors on his last day in office. This is one of many ways that the Trump era is potentially taking the country into uncharted waters.

.. A BROAD VIEW OF POWER

This is the most sweeping legal claim in the letter: Even if Mr. Trump did order an investigation shut down and fire the F.B.I. director as part of a cover-up of wrongdoing, his lawyers say he still did not violate the law because he was exercising powers the Constitution has granted exclusively to him. Under this view, it would be unconstitutional to apply obstruction-of-justice statutes enacted by Congress to limit how a president chooses to use his power to supervise the executive branch.

.. ATTACKING COMEY’S CREDIBILITY

The president’s lawyers devote much of the letter to attacking Mr. Comey as a potential witness, suggesting here that his memo documenting his conversation with Mr. Trump about Mr. Flynn may not exist. Three months after this letter was written, the memo was made public. They also appear to suggest that Mr. Comey may have written the memo after Mr. Trump fired him, rather than documenting the conversation immediately after it happened, as Mr. Comey has said he did; there is no evidence no support that insinuation.

 

THE LESTER HOLT INTERVIEW

Mr. Trump’s lawyers are arguing that this excerpt from the interview has been misunderstood because of his meandering, stream-of-consciousness speaking style, and that the president got diverted but eventually came back to what he meant: not that he fired Mr. Comey because of the Russia investigation, but that he did so despite knowing that it would probably prolong the investigation.

.. PRESSURE’S OFF

Mr. Trump’s lawyers do not concede that he said this — though the Times’ account was based on an official document summarizing the meeting — but they say it does not matter even if he did. Most interesting is the reference to a confidential memo, suggesting a more expansive response could not be made in this letter without compromising classified information.

.. TRUMP’S CENTRAL ROLE IN A MISLEADING STATEMENT

This is the first time that representatives of Mr. Trump concede that he dictated a “short but accurate” statement issued by his son to The New York Times about a meeting in June 2016 the younger Mr. Trump had with a Russian lawyer who an intermediary claimed had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump’s advisers have tried to muddy this point, suggesting several people were involved, so the clarity of the sentence is striking. The response about the statement from Mr. Trump’s lawyers also quickly shifts to Mr. Trump’s son, saying he soon after made a “full public disclosure” about how the meeting was arranged.

.. LYING TO THE MEDIA IS NOT A CRIME

It is not a crime for a politician to lie to The Times and, by extension, to the public. But there are at least two reasons that Mr. Trump’s role in drafting a misleading statement may be of interest. First, it could be evidence of his mind-set when he undertook other actions that may have impeded the investigation. Secondly, a Watergate-era precedent exists for Congress to consider lies to the public to be obstruction of justice in the looser context of impeachment proceedings. An article of impeachment that lawmakers approved against Nixon before he resigned included “making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing” there had been no misconduct.

.. HAPPY TO HELP

The president’s lawyers say they will answer questions on the president’s behalf, a strategy that allows Mr. Trump the ability to say he has offered answers to every question — without the risk of actually having to sit for an interview. While prosecutors often take information (known as a proffer) from defense lawyers, most experienced investigators would say there is no substitute for having someone in the witness chair.

.. OUTDATED THEORIES

This footnote cites theories already debunked by the time this letter was sent. For example, the footnote cites a claim made on Jan. 23 by Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, that the F.B.I. had a “secret society” devoted to bringing Mr. Trump down, as an excerpt from a F.B.I. text message suggested. But by Jan. 25 — four days before Mr. Trump’s legal team sent the letter — it had become clear that phrase was a joke, and Mr. Johnson walked back his alarmist assertion. Similarly, the letter claims that the F.B.I. opened the investigation based on a politically funded dossier of alleged Trump-Russia ties. But The Times had reported in December that the F.B.I. instead opened the investigation based on information from an Australian diplomat.