Legitimate Investigation or Boodless Coup?

"I am being investigated for firing the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director?" -- President Trump, June 1.

In my May 17 op-ed, I detailed deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein's recommendations to the attorney general suggesting FBI Director James Comey be fired.

"Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice.

"I cannot defend the Director's (Comey's) handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary (Hillary) Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.

"The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them.

"Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions."

Now on June 14, the Trump-hating Washington Post writes, "Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, [unnamed leaking] officials say."

Now, let's look at the timeline.

On February 14, at a private White House meeting, the president said to Director Comey, "I hope you can see your way clear ... to letting Flynn go. ... He is a good guy."

From February 14 until June 8, Comey made no complaint that the president attempted to "pressure him for any inappropriate reason."

On May 3, Comey testified under oath that no superior had tried to shut down the FBI's Russian meddling investigation.

"Not in my experience. ... it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something ... without an appropriate purpose. ... It’s not happened in my experience.”

On May 9, Rosenstein sent his letter to the attorney general suggesting Comey be replaced to "restore Public Confidence in the FBI."

On May 9, President Trump fired Comey, saying he acted at the suggestion of D.A.G. Rosenstein.

Then, on May 16, The New York Times wrote, "Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation."

The same day, deputy attorney general Rosenstein appoints former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to take over the investigation into Russian meddling.

On June 8, Comey swore before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the president said, "I hope you can see your way clear ... to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy." Then, for the first time, Comey said he felt the president WAS trying to pressure him. Comey, added however, that President Trump did NOT ask him to drop the FBI's broader investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election.

Comey also claimed the "President lied about why he fired me -- saying the FBI was in disarray and that it was poorly led." (Sour grapes? See Rosenstein's reason for firing Comey.)

Something very strange is going on here.

1. After his February 14 meeting with the president, Comey made no complaint of "inappropriate pressure." On May 3, before a Senate Committee, he told Sen. Mazie Hirono that "inappropriate pressure" has "not happened in his experience." Then on June 8, Comey, after being fired, flip-flops, claiming maybe he was pressured after all.

2. Next, on May 9, Rosenstein suggests Comey be replaced. President Trump then fires Comey. A week later, after Comey leaks his memo re the February 14 meeting --- which as paraphrased by the Times is contrary to Comey's May 3 sworn testimony -- Rosenstein abruptly appoints former FBI director Mueller special counsel to handle the "Russian Investigation."

3. Mueller and Comey are close friends, yet rather than recusing himself, Mueller expands the investigation to inquire if his buddy Comey was fired for "inappropriate reasons." Did Mueller's "expansion" create ethical problems? "No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person ... substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome."

4. Now CNN writes, "Three (of the 5 known) members of Mueller's team have donated (thousands of dollars) to Democrats." A fourth, Aaron Zebley, once represented former Hillary Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped manage her private email server.

So, are we watching the beginnings of a bloodless coup d'etat? Pro-Clinton lawyers investigating President Trump?

What if President Obama were still president? What if to investigate him, Rush Limbaugh's good buddy was named special counsel? What if he appointed three major GOP donors as his assistant prosecutors? What happened when a conservative recently tried to speak at Berkeley?


Posted: QCOline.com June 22, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Single-payer fan? Consider Illinois pension mess

Do you want single-payer health insurance? Have you considered the unintended consequences? If not, consider the ghastly mess that Illinois finds itself in as the result of creating five employee pension systems.

Illinois' Comptroller, Susana A. Mendoza, in her "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016," paints a dire picture.

"The State’s largest liability is its net pension liability. The State sponsors five public employee retirement systems that are included in the State’s financial statements as pension trust funds.



"The State is statutorily required to make contributions to these retirement systems. ... During fiscal year 2016, the net pension liability ... totaled $116.024 billion, an increase of $7.359 billion from the fiscal year 2015 balance of $108.665 billion.

"During fiscal year 2016, all of the State systems were substantially funded in accordance with the statutory funding requirement. ... However, the State’s 50-year funding plan does not conform to the Actuarial Standards of Practice, and although the statutory contribution requirements were met, the statutory funding method generates a contribution requirement that is less than a reasonable actuarial determined contribution."

The Institute for Illinois' Fiscal Sustainability at the Civic Federation writes that for FY2016, the taxpayers of Illinois contributed $7,537,200,000 to the five funds:

1. $3,742,700,000 to the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS);

2. $2,044,900,000 to the State Employees' Retirement System (SERS);

3. $1,601,500,000 to the State Universities' Retirement System (SURS);

4. $132,100,000 to the Judges' Retirement System (JRS);

5. $16,100,000 to the General Assembly Retirement System (GARS).

For Illinois to make its $7.537 billion contribution to the five retirement funds means that a lot of Illinois taxpayers had to pay a lot of money so that retired state employees could have comfortable retirements. But as Comptroller Mendoza says, even with that $7.537 billion contribution, during fiscal year 2016, the net pension liability increased by $7.359, so as to stand at $116.024 billion at the end of FY 2016. Bottom line: The $7.537 billion contributed was about half of what was needed to keep the net pension liability from increasing.

So, how did Illinois get in this mess? It began with the best of intentions: "Illinois should provide a comfortable retirement for its loyal employees." Unforeseen factors then intervened. For example, the legislature found other "worthier programs" and began making reduced contribution" to the pension systems. By the end of FY2016, the underfunding created a "net pension liability" of $116.024 billion.

Then, of course, salaries increased. When I was sworn in as a judge in December 1974, circuit judges were paid $30,000 per annum. By the time I retired, at the end of 1999, $122,000. Judges who served 20 years earned a pension of 85 percent of their last day's salary. Did the legislators, who created the systems, envision that judges would be paid pensions on about $30,000? $122,000? It makes quite a difference.


To pay the 2016 state contribution of $7.537 billion to the five pension funds, the state has to tax $200 billion (at a tax rate of 3.75 percent) worth of income, earned by Illinois individuals and corporations.

If a retiree's pension is $170,000, his neighbors have to earn $4,533,333 (taxed at a tax rate of 3.75 percent) to pay that pension for one year. If a retiree's annual pension is $52,000, the neighbors have to earn $1,386,666 to pay that pension for one year.

I am forever grateful to my neighbors for paying my judicial pension. I have no doubt everybody who is receiving an Illinois pension feels the same.

At the same time, it is very clear that funding these five systems has created substantial unanticipated burdens on every Illinois taxpayer today -- and probably on their children for years to come, as well as on every Illinois Corporation.

So before you clamor for single-payer health insurance, or any other government program, think about the Illinois pension mess. Beware of unintended consequences.

Has Obamacare kept all its promises?

The idea of the omniscient state taking care of citizens' every need isn't new. The USSR tried it for 70 years, before collapsing. Oil-rich Venezuela embarked on a similar course in 1998. Today, the country is in utter turmoil.

Posted: QCOline.com June 11, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

NY Times Story Shows Trouble with Trusting Leaks

On May 16, The New York Times published a piece captioned, "Comey memo says Trump asked him to end Flynn investigation."

The Times writes that "it has not viewed a copy of the memo ... but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter."

According to the Times, the memo says President Trump said to Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go ... He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

The Times ballyhoos this as the "clearest evidence yet that Mr. Trump tried to influence the government’s inquiry into possible links between his associates and Russia."

Evidence? Really?

What the Times labels as evidence is not competent evidence. It is hearsay -- indeed, double hearsay, and perhaps triple hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, not subject to cross-examination, and not made under oath so as to render the alleged declarant liable to penalties of perjury. Without some guarantee of trustworthiness, hearsay is inadmissible in court.

What the Times has done is very similar to a police officer coming before a judge, and presenting his affidavit which says only "a reliable informant told me that he has seen President Trump unlawfully taking Russian rubles from the Russian Ambassador," and asking for a warrant to search the president's wallet for said rubles.

The Fourth Amendment requires that an affidavit for a search warrant must show probable cause to believe that the contraband is on the person or at the place to be searched. "Probable cause is determined from the "totality of the circumstances" (facts) stated in the affidavit."

Where, however, an informant's statement is used to secure the warrant, the unsworn statement is not subject to the penalties of perjury. As such, other compensating "guarantees of trustworthiness" must be presented.

Sufficient "facts" -- not "conclusions" -- must be presented to the judge so he can make his independent determination that what the informant told the officer is more probably reliable than not.

In this example, as well as in the Times' account, no facts are set out to allow the reader to reasonably find the source is reliable.

If the memo exists, it is hearsay. If it exists, what guarantees it is truthful?

What Comey's associate allegedly told the Times' reporter is also hearsay.

He read parts. Accurately? All relevant parts? Only the most damaging parts? What guarantees the associate is truthful?

Finally, there is no guarantee the reporter's account is a fair summary.

Even if the memo, and the two accounts are accurate, what's wrong with the president saying "Flynn's a good guy. I hope you can let him go."

Did Comey really think the president was pressuring him to do something wrong? Not if you read Comey's May 3 sworn testimony.

Sen. Hirono: “So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?

Comey: “In theory, yes.”

Hirono: “Has it happened?”

Comey: “Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that 'we don’t see a case there, and so you ought to stop investing resources in it.' But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”

That version of the facts is entirely consistent with the May 11 sworn testimony of acting FBI director Andrew McCabe before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Sen. Rubio: "Has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped, or negatively impacted any of the work, any of the investigations or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?"

McCabe: "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. ... Quite simply put, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution."

If it would be a "very big deal" for somebody at the FBI to "stop something for a political reason," wouldn't it be an even bigger deal for someone in the White House to do the same?

If it happened, why didn't Comey mention it when he was sworn to tell the whole truth? Did he just forget?


Posted: QCOline.com June 4, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea