On the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Germany last month, President Trump’s advisers discussed how to respond to a new revelation that Trump’s oldest son had met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign — a disclosure the advisers knew carried political and potentially legal peril.
The strategy, the advisers agreed, should be for Donald Trump Jr. to release a statement to get ahead of the story. They wanted to be truthful, so their account couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged.
But within hours, at the president’s direction, the plan changed.
Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said that he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations. The statement, issued to the New York Times as it prepared an article, emphasized that the subject of the meeting was “not a campaign issue at the time.”
.. The extent of the president’s personal intervention in his son’s response, the details of which have not previously been reported, adds to a series of actions that Trump has taken that some advisers fear could place him and some members of his inner circle in legal jeopardy.
.. Although misleading the public or the news media is not a crime, advisers to Trump and his family told The Washington Post that they fear any indication that Trump was seeking to hide information about contacts between his campaign and Russians almost inevitably would draw additional scrutiny from Mueller.
.. Trump, they say, is increasingly acting as his own lawyer, strategist and publicist, often disregarding the recommendations of the professionals he has hired.
“He refuses to sit still,” the presidential adviser said. “He doesn’t think he’s in any legal jeopardy, so he really views this as a political problem he is going to solve by himself.”
.. Prosecutors typically assume that any misleading statement is an effort to throw investigators off the track, Zeidenberg said.
.. “They are still treating this like a family-run business and they have a PR problem. . . . What they don’t seem to understand is this is a criminal investigation involving all of them.”
.. Hope Hicks, the White House director of strategic communications and one of the president’s most trusted and loyal aides, and Josh Raffel, a White House spokesman who works closely with Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, huddled with Kushner’s lawyers, and they advocated for a more transparent approach, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.
.. The president’s outside legal team, led by Marc Kasowitz, had suggested that the details be given to Circa, an online news organization that the Kasowitz team thought would be friendly to Trump. Circa had inquired in previous days about the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The president’s legal team planned to cast the June 2016 meeting as a potential setup by Democratic operatives hoping to entrap Trump Jr. and, by extension, the presumptive Republican nominee, according to people familiar with discussions.
.. But before everyone boarded the plane, Trump had overruled the consensus, according to people with knowledge of the events.
.. Air Force One took off from Germany shortly after 6 p.m. — about noon in Washington. In a forward cabin, Trump was busy working on his son’s statement, according to people with knowledge of events. The president dictated the statement to Hicks, who served as a go-between with Trump Jr., who was not on the plane, sharing edits between the two men, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.
In the early afternoon, Eastern time, Trump Jr.’s team put out the statement to the Times. It was four sentences long, describing the encounter as a “short, introductory meeting.”
“We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up,” the statement read.
.. Trump Jr. went on to say: “I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.”
Jared Kushner Letting Donald Trump Jr. Take The Fall
Lawrence O’Donnell explains why Jared Kushner could be in serious legal trouble for not disclosing the Russian lawyer meeting on his security clearance form and why Trump’s lawyers are right for trying to build a wall between the President and his son-in-law.
The New York Times story was based on White House sources.
Jared Kushner’s lawyers found the email and did their best to manage the legal fallout.
Who would do that to their brother in law? Jared Kushner’s father engaged in witness-tampering. Jared Kushner’s father sent video of prostitution entrapment to his sister.
Jared Kushner gave Trump the worst possible advice on Russia — to fire James Comey.
The Heritage of Natural Law: Mark Levin on Rediscovering Americanism
The Constitution safeguards the liberties that the Declaration of Independence represents but did not create.
.. The foundation of Americanism, he posits, is natural law. That does not just spontaneously appear, nor passively persevere. Understanding our natural-law roots, reaffirming our attachment to them in the teeth of the progressive project to supersede them — this is hard work.
.. right reason, “certain definite principles of action from which spring all virtues and whatever is necessary for the proper molding of morals.”
.. “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting.” It is reason that learning has cultivated for the pursuit of happiness.
.. Natural law is the basis for our conceit that no one may rule over another without his consent.
.. In the absence of natural law, we would be left to the tyranny of will — arbitrary morality and rights, dictated by those who had muscled their way to dominance.
.. For Levin, rationalizing such a muscular state is the 20th-century progressive project spearheaded by
- Herbert Croly,
- Theodore Roosevelt,
- Woodrow Wilson,
- John Dewey, and their progeny.
They built on the utopian foundation of the “philosopher-kings”:
- Rousseau’s radical egalitarianism,
- Hegel’s historicism,
- Marx’s economic determinism and class struggle, and so on.
The rights of self-determination, self-governance, and private property — the blessings of liberty that are the heritage of natural law — are in peril, if not of extinction, at least of irreversible atrophy.
.. Mark Levin has not been content to inveigh against statism. In the last few years, he has offered concrete plans to roll it back, including a campaign for a convention of the states under Article V of the Constitution, aimed at stripping down Washington from without, since it will never reform itself from within.
Have We Lost A Constitutional Right In The Fine Print?
The right to require arbitration was ratified in a series of battles in the Supreme Court, which, Silver-Greenberg says, was engineered by a Wall Street coalition of credit card companies and retailers.
.. Arbitration was designed – in its ideal form, it was designed to really be a system where companies of equal bargaining power went to work out their disputes.
.. What we have in the consumer context and the employment context is far different.
.. It is binding. So one of the tricky things about arbitration – one of the things that came up a lot in our reporting – was that, regardless of how the process has gone, the decisions in arbitration – the decisions of the arbitrators – are virtually impossible to appeal. So judges have said when plaintiffs have gone in and asked them to overturn a decision they say is unfair by an arbitrator, they have said their hands are tied. And even in instances where an arbitrator’s decision resulted in substantial injustice, they would still – a court said they would still be unable to overturn or revoke the arbitrator’s decision.
.. Class action lawsuits, because they enable large groups of people that might be similarly affected to pool their resources, are really the only way that an individual can afford to go up against a deep-pocketed company with vast resources. It allows people to join together to prove their case. And these are cases that require often a lot of expert testimony, a lot of evidence, and so they would otherwise be prohibitively expensive to bring.
.. The lawsuits are also really important when you were dealing with systemic issues, like wage theft, that affects many people in the same way. So we’re not just talking about disputed fees or a checking account problem. We’re also talking about discrimination that impacts, you know, hundreds of thousands of people and is a practice that can be changed because of a successful class action.
.. So these were a group of class action lawsuits that were brought around 2009 against more than a dozen banks for allegations of reordering transactions. So what that looked like was – say I made two purchases. I bought a $500 stereo system and a $2 cup of coffee. The banks were accused of processing the most expensive – the largest transaction – that stereo system – first, even if I bought it after I bought the cup of coffee, and then withdrawing money to cover the cup of coffee.
.. And so the banks were accused of reordering all these transactions to maximize the amount of fees that they could get from overdraft.
.. And the class actions resulted in, I think, more than a billion dollars in relief for customers. And so those are, I think, a particularly poignant example because if I have a $35 overdraft fee, I’m probably not going to take the time to file a lawsuit about it.
.. it wasn’t just about the money they got back. It was about changing the practices.
.. And in the – and if those disputes are instead confined to arbitration, all of the parties who might be affected by the practice, whether it’s an employment practice or consumer practice – they don’t even know because the arbitration is limited to a single individual.
.. So for years, what would happen was companies that tried to put arbitration clauses with class-action bans in them – in the fine print of their contracts – were told by judges that that just was not going to fly. So judges refused to routinely uphold these clauses because they said that they amounted to – one judge in California put it very starkly – a get out of jail free card. And the reason they said that was because…
.. And the reason they said that is because realistically, you need a class action in order to mount a legal challenge as an individual against a deep-pocketed company. So when these companies were putting in their arbitration clauses, hey, you guys can’t file a class, you know, you can’t join together as a group, judges said that that was the equivalent of saying, you can’t bring a lawsuit at all.
.. And for that group, their victory, their real kind of coup, came in 2010
.. One of the lawyers apparently involved in this was John Roberts, the current Chief Justice of the Court. But he was involved in this effort, you say, as an attorney. What was his role?
.. Yes, so he was working for Discover Bank in a case that Discover was trying to get the Supreme Court involved in. So what the cases was is Discover Bank was accused of charging unfair fees.
.. They said that Discover was trying to grant itself – and the quote is – “a license to push the boundaries of good business practices to their furthest limits,”
.. And he said that allowing consumers to bring a case as a class would violate the core purpose of this Federal Arbitration Act.
.. They win because the Supreme Court in 2010 – so now, you know, John Roberts is now Chief Justice – and they take up this case that involves AT&T.
.. And the California courts in this case involving AT&T that the Supreme Court is hearing had said class-action bans are unfair. They’re unconscionable. And the Supreme Court in their decision basically said the Federal Arbitration Act, it beats out state law.
So all the state court judges that were using state contract law to invalidate these arbitration clauses with class-action waivers, they suddenly lost that power. They lost the ability to use state law to do that because the Supreme Court said, no, the federal law wins out.
DAVIES: And a big difference was the Supreme Court had changed by then, right?
SILVER-GREENBERG: Yes. Yes, I mean, that’s a huge difference in that John Roberts, when he was petitioning the court as a private lawyer in 2002, he was not there yet, right? He was not the Chief Justice. Then fast-forward to 2010 when they take on this AT&T case and he is. So that did change things.
.. Tell us how the arbitrators themselves are chosen, and are they genuinely impartial?
SILVER-GREENBERG: So when I began an arbitration there’s a firm, an arbitration firm, that kind of oversees the whole thing. And they provide to both sides a list of potential arbitrators. And they are made up of retired judges and many, many, many, many, many corporate lawyers. And so each side gets a list of say five people and they can go through and cross out the people that they would object to hearing their cases. So that creates an incentive, a kind of skewed incentive as described by the arbitrators, where if they want to be picked to hear future cases, if they want to continue having business they say and said in interviews that they feel they need to be friendlier towards the companies because the companies are the ones that can offer them future cases, whereas the plaintiffs can’t. The plaintiffs are going to be there probably once in their lives. Whereas the companies offer a repeat stream of cases. And they talk about arbitrators who had very plaintiff-friendly rulings. And the nightmare scenario, in one they said, was an arbitrator who ruled in favor of an employee and forced the employer to pay more than a million dollars in damages. And that arbitrator, the story goes, was never given another case again.
.. And the arbitrator said to Debbie and the other students he said – he chastised them for not being savvier shoppers. He basically said you exercised about as much discretion as if – I think his quote was buying a Snickers bar at the local market. And he ruled against them, and because of the hardship that he said they inflicted on the school he forced them – he ruled that they would have to pay the school’s attorney’s fees. So that was the, you know, $300,000 – a little over that, that they had to pay – that they were ordered to pay to cover the school’s attorneys.
.. one case in your story where customers with televisions that had fuzzy pictures were part of a class-action lawsuit. They ended up getting coupons for $25 or $50 apiece for the merchant and the lawyers in the question got $22 million for the effort. Do these folks have a point?
.. So any plaintiffs lawyers fees have to be – they don’t happen in a vacuum. They have to be approved by a judge.
.. conservative legal scholars, including one who clerked for Justice Scalia, and what he said, this one professor, he said that attacking class actions for yielding small individual amounts is beside the point because class actions help lots of people get back a little bit of money. But they serve another function as well, which is they help address practices. So they help get rid of and change business practices that would otherwise go unchecked.
.. I think people are surprised. I mean, I think there’s been a lot of surprise that they signed away this right and people are signing away a constitutional right when they sign these clauses.