Protect Illinois from Fracking!

Protect Illinois from Fracking shared a post. 
March 28, 2019

“The Westmoreland project presented the state with a long list of possible pollution sources, including countywide shale gas drilling and fracking operations and a Penn Township landfill that has accepted thousands of tons of radioactive drill cuttings from gas well sites. The project’s report also makes a case for how pollution exposure could lead to Ewing sarcoma.”

About this website

 

POST-GAZETTE.COM
The investigation is focused on 18 cases of the rare Ewing sarcoma, a childhood bone cancer, in Washington and Westmoreland counties.

Iowa’s Grinnell Heritage Farm; farming against the odds.

One of Iowa’s largest community supported agriculture farms, which is built around numerous conservation practices, fights for survival amidst economic and climate pressures.

By Susan Futrell, Farmer Profiles       March 27, 2019

 

On a quiet day in early March, Andy and Melissa Dunham’s farm, just north of I-80 in east-central Iowa, is a place of unlikely intersections. A steamy greenhouse full of newly planted seed beds is half buried in ice and snow. An old-fashioned red barn looks out over a newly maturing grove of hardy kiwi vines and chestnuts. And in a few months, the couple’s rows of carrots, beets, and kale will be surrounded by vast corn and soybean fields that stretch to the horizon.

Grinnell Heritage Farm (GHF) once looked like the fields that surround it, which dominate most of Iowa’s landscape. But today, it’s home to one of the largest community supported agriculture (CSA) farms in the state. The Dunhams grow 40 to 60 types of certified organic vegetables, herbs, and flowers for their members and 10 to 12 wholesale crops including kale, cabbage, onions, carrots, parsnips, and beets. They pack up to 250 CSA boxes a week in summer, fall, and winter.  And a small herd of 15 cows, which they keep mostly to support soil fertility, also provides meat and feeder calves in the fall.

Steve Moen, a longtime customer and produce buyer for New Pioneer Coop, which has several stores throughout the state, raves about the quality of GHF root vegetables and cooking greens. “They set a high bar for quality, and they do everything right,” he says. “They are great to work with.”

Grinnell Heritage Farm from above. (Photo courtesy of Grinnell Heritage Farm)Grinnell Heritage Farm from above. (Photo courtesy of Grinnell Heritage Farm)

In providing for their devoted customers, the Dunhams employ an impressive array of soil-building, conservation, pollinator, and ecosystem practices—and, set in the middle of Big Ag country, they demonstrate how agriculture can benefit the land and the community. Organic certification gives them a way to talk with customers about their farming practices, but their philosophy extends well beyond the requirements.

“If you can name a conservation practice, we’re probably doing it,” says Andy, ticking off a list of just some of their efforts: no-till and minimal-till farming, pollinator habitat, hedgerows, rotational grazing, and more.

Even though the Dunhams have spent a lot of time building a resilient, environmentally focused operation, recent weather extremes and changes to the retail environment have put their farm (like many others) in a vulnerable place financially. While Grinnell Heritage Farm escaped the recent devastating floods that drowned fields and towns along both sides of the Missouri River in western Iowa and eastern Nebraska, a number of other climate- and industry-related challenges remain.

The Light-Bulb Moment

Grinnell Heritage Farm, in Andy’s family for five generations, started back in 1857. Like most farms in Iowa, it began as a diversified operation, with livestock, forage, fruit trees, vegetables, and grain, and over time it was converted to corn and soy. By the time Andy’s grandparents were ready for someone to take over, their 80 acres of commodity crops had become less and less profitable.

The farm has been around since 1857. (Photo courtesy of Grinnell Heritage Farm)(Photo courtesy of Grinnell Heritage Farm)

Andy grew up in the small town of Hopkinton in northeast Iowa, riding along on farm calls with his dad, a large animal veterinarian. Despite his family history, farming wasn’t something he considered doing until joining the Peace Corps as an agricultural extension officer in Tanzania. Soil fertility was a huge limitation for farmers there—people spent half of their yearly income on fertilizer. With an acre to tend, he began learning soil building, composting, and organic methods.

“I put a shovel in the ground, and a light bulb came on,” he says. “I realized this is what I wanted to do.”

After a year on an organic farm back in the States, he came home to his grandparents’ farm in 2006. He started growing vegetables on three acres, expanding production over time to 20 acres, with the rest in pasture, hay, fruit trees, and wildlife habitat.

Andy and Melissa, who both turn 40 this year, married in 2007. With her creative energy and background in accounting and his farming knowledge and experience, the farm is now their full-time livelihood; they’ve invested in a greenhouse, packing shed, loading dock, barns, and drip irrigation. They value the flexibility of the work and the time it grants them with their three children, Collin, 20, Emma, 10, and Leonora, 7.

Planting tomatoes and lettuce in the hoop house. (Photo courtesy of Grinnell Heritage Farm)Planting tomatoes and lettuce in the hoop house. (Photo courtesy of Grinnell Farm.)

In addition to Andy’s aunt Janet, the farm employs four people full-time, year-round, as well as two to three seasonal workers. Unfortunately, affording health insurance and providing for employees is difficult given that wages rise faster than produce prices, and Andy and Melissa are finding it increasingly hard to find help.

From ‘Moonscape’ to a Conservation-Focused Operation

Nevertheless, the Dunhams are continually learning and expanding their efforts to build soil and make the farm ecosystem more resilient. They grow cover crops on 85 percent of their acres, waiting as long as practical to maximize nutrients before plowing them in. They use a no-till drill for planting in some areas and minimal till elsewhere to avoid soil damage. In areas without good drainage, they use raised beds. Over 10 years, they say, their soil organic matter has more than tripled.

On a cold March day, the Dunham’s cattle and calves munch hay next to the barn. Andy estimates they’re standing atop a four-foot layer of manure and compost that will become fertilizer once the weather thaws and the cows move onto pasture.

“We started with basically a moonscape,” Andy notes. “Now we’re seeing that former prairies like this have unique potential to lock up carbon in the soil.”

They also devote a lot of energy to creating a habitat friendly to pollinators. “Beetle banks” are among the practices they’ve adopted as part of a collaboration with Bee Better Certification from Xerces Society of Invertebrate Conservation. The raised earthen berms, planted with native grasses and flowers, attract pollinators, and also provide habitat for nocturnal ground beetles that feed on potato beetles. Hedgerows provide shelter for bees and buffers against pesticide drift from neighboring cornfields.

Grinnell Heritage Farm carrots for sale at New Pioneer Coop, Iowa City. (Photo courtesy of Grinnell Heritage Farm)Grinnell Heritage Farm carrots for sale at New Pioneer Coop, Iowa City. (Photo courtesy of Grinnell Heritage Farm)

CSA memberships and wholesale accounts are their primary source of income.  Their most important wholesale buyer is FarmTable, a food hub based several hours west in Harlan, Iowa. The local food aggregator, which deals in fruits, vegetables, dairy, meat, eggs, honey, and other local products, picks up and distributes GHF produce to retail stores and restaurants in Omaha, Lincoln, Des Moines, and other urban markets.

FarmTable Owner and General Manager Ellen Walsh-Rosmann, a fellow farmer, says the Dunhams are one of the hub’s largest vegetable suppliers. Buying from GHF gives her a good variety of products and a long season, she says, and it’s especially important for stores that want organic produce.

In addition to the food hub, Whole Foods Market buys from GHF for their west Des Moines store and their regional distribution center, and GHF delivers directly to other accounts, including a dozen CSA drop sites across eastern Iowa.

Weathering the Challenges

Last year was a rough. A cold spring and hot, dry summer were followed by two months of drenching rain, flooding, and an early freeze.

After coaxing a good crop through the heat, two-thirds of an acre of carrots rotted in the field just before harvest, and they lost $150,000 in overall sales. Wholesale deliveries that usually last well into February ended in November. And for the first time ever, GHF cancelled one week’s CSA shares.

The losses forced the Dunhams to borrow more than usual to pay for seeds and other costs ahead of the 2019 season. In addition, they’re shifting their planting schedule to finish earlier in the season to reduce risk, and they asked CSA members to purchase 2019 shares early to help with up front costs.

Shoppers at New Pioneer missed the carrots, but Moen says many are aware of the devastating weather and are already looking forward to this year’s crop. The store found other suppliers to fill the gap, but local produce is a key distinction for the 35-year community-owned store. FarmTable sales were also hurt, according to Walsh-Rosmann; without the beets and carrots from GHF, some customers dropped orders for other local products as well.

In addition to climate-related issues, changes in the grocery industry are another concern, even when the weather cooperates. Long-time customers like New Pioneer and other regional grocers have lost sales to national chains like Aldi, Costco, and Trader Joe’s. The larger chains don’t carry local produce, so the lower sales affect not only the stores but also their local suppliers. One major chain, which used to allow individual stores flexibility to buy and set prices with local growers, now caps prices in a central buying office, cutting out most local farms.

“I think most people aren’t aware, or don’t think about the fact that none of the produce at those chains is local,” says Andy. “They don’t realize how much difference it makes to us.”

An Uncertain Future

The Dunhams are thoughtful and deliberate about the choices they’ve made for their land. Their mission is “to farm our land in a way that will leave it better for the next generation, giving our children, grandchildren, and beyond the opportunity to harvest the bounty we see on the farm today.” To share those values with their community, they’ve started holding regular gatherings, dubbed “HaPIZZAness,” that bring neighbors and families to the farm for wood-fired pizza, music, and wagon rides, creating connections that are about more than vegetables.

A HaPIZZAness flier. (Photo courtesy of Grinnell Heritage Farm)

A HaPIZZAness flier. (Photo courtesy of Grinnell Heritage Farm)

Still, the challenges of climate change and economics weigh heavily. As the arid/humid boundary at the 100th Meridian continues moving east, expanding the drier parts of the country, shifts in weather patterns and planting zones, as well as drought, flooding, and extreme weather events, are all predicted to increase. Crop damage and pest and disease pressures will be especially harsh in certain parts of the Midwest, and windows for planting and harvest in the region will grow shorter, according to reports from USDAAg business leaders, and climate scientists.

Additionally, a 2018 Cornell University-led study predicts that a 1-degree Celsius increase in summer temperatures could quadruple the frequency of crop losses and points out that with so much reliance on just two crops, corn and soybeans, the Midwest is especially vulnerable.

“We were at a farmer meeting on climate change [co-sponsored by Iowa Interfaith Power and Light] last week, and even the big conventional farmers with 5,000 acres or more say they feel trapped,” Andy said. “A lot of them would try different practices if they could afford it. With the right incentives and policies, they could change in one season.” But the current system doesn’t encourage farms to take risks and invest in practices to be more resilient; instead, Andy thinks, “we are rewarding the wrong players.”

For Walsh-Rosmann, the evidence of a changing climate is already here as the Midwest deals with the recent historic floods. The farms that supply her are all safe, but she’s been delivering relief supplies to nearby communities, and the destruction is heartbreaking. “Do we weather the storm and hope the local food system is more resilient than the rest of conventional ag?” she wonders.

The Dunhams worry that another year of weather extremes could force them to scale back or take on more debt than they are comfortable with. The web of community and economic support—grocery stores, small distributors, food processors, and restaurants—is interdependent, and farms like theirs are at risk across the U.S.

“If we can’t make a go of it, on some of the best soil in the world, with a pretty competent farmer, the lights are going to go out for a lot of people,” Melissa says.

“My life is what I make of it, and I can’t complain unless I do something about it,” adds Andy. “But at some point, just being a good example won’t be enough.”

The Many Problems With the Barr Letter

The New York Times – Opinion

The Many Problems With the Barr Letter

By unilaterally concluding that Mr. Trump did not obstruct justice, the attorney general has made it imperative that the public see the Mueller report.

By Neal K. Katyal      March 24, 2019

Neal K. Katyal was an acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama and is a law professor at Georgetown. He drafted the special counsel regulations under which Robert Mueller was appointed.

Attorney General William Barr said that Robert Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether President Trump illegally obstructed justice. Credit: T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

 

On Sunday afternoon, soon after Attorney General Bill Barr released a letter outlining the Mueller investigation report, President Trump tweeted “Total EXONERATION!” But there are any number of reasons the president should not be taking a victory lap.

First, obviously, he still faces the New York investigations into campaign finance violations by the Trump team and the various investigations into the Trump organization. And Mr. Barr, in his letter, acknowledges that the Mueller report “does not exonerate” Mr. Trump on the issue of obstruction, even if it does not recommend an indictment.

But the critical part of the letter is that it now creates a whole new mess. After laying out the scope of the investigation and noting that Mr. Mueller’s report does not offer any legal recommendations, Mr. Barr declares that it therefore “leaves it to the attorney general to decide whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” He then concludes the president did not obstruct justice when he fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey.

Such a conclusion would be momentous in any event. But to do so within 48 hours of receiving the report (which pointedly did not reach that conclusion) should be deeply concerning to every American.

Mr. Barr’s letter raises far more questions than it answers, both on the facts and the law.

His letter says Mr. Mueller set “out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.” Yet we don’t know what those “difficult issues” were, because Mr. Barr doesn’t say, or why Mr. Mueller, after deciding not to charge on conspiracy, let Mr. Barr make the decision on obstruction.

On the facts, Mr. Barr says that the government would need to prove that Mr. Trump acted with “corrupt intent” and there were no such actions. But how would Mr. Barr know? Did he even attempt to interview Mr. Trump about his intentions?

What kind of prosecutor would make a decision about someone’s intent without even trying to talk to him? Particularly in light of Mr. Mueller’s pointed statement that his report does not “exonerate” Mr. Trump. Mr. Mueller didn’t have to say anything like that. He did so for a reason. And that reason may well be that there is troubling evidence in the substantial record that he compiled.

Furthermore, we do not know why Mr. Mueller did not try to force an interview with the president. The reason matters greatly. Mr. Mueller could have concluded that interviews of sitting presidents for obstruction matters are better done within the context of a congressional impeachment investigation (perhaps because a sitting president cannot be indicted, the Barr letter says this legal argument didn’t influence Mr. Barr’s conclusion but again is pointedly silent as to Mr. Mueller).

Or Mr. Barr could have concluded that the attorney general, not a special counsel, should carry out such an interview. The fact that Mr. Barr rushed to judgment, within 48 hours, after a 22-month investigation, is deeply worrisome.

The opening lines of the obstruction section of Mr. Barr’s letter are even more concerning. It says that the special counsel investigated “a number of actions by the president — most of which have been the subject of public reporting.” That suggests that at least some of the foundation for an obstruction of justice charge has not yet been made public. There will be no way to have confidence in such a quick judgment about previously unreported actions without knowing what those actions were.

On the law, Mr. Barr’s letter also obliquely suggests that he consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department office that interprets federal statutes. This raises the serious question of whether Mr. Barr’s decision on Sunday was based on the bizarre legal views that he set out in an unsolicited 19-page memo last year.

That memo made the argument that the obstruction of justice statute does not apply to the president because the text of the statute doesn’t specifically mention the president. Of course, the murder statute doesn’t mention the president either, but no one thinks the president can’t commit murder. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel had previously concluded that such an argument to interpret another criminal statute, the bribery law, was wrong.

As such, Mr. Barr’s reference to the office raises the question of whether he tried to enshrine his idiosyncratic view into the law and bar Mr. Trump’s prosecution. His unsolicited memo should be understood for what it is, a badly argued attempt to put presidents above the law. If he used that legal fiction to let President Trump off the hook, Congress would have to begin an impeachment investigation to vindicate the rule of law.

Sometimes momentous government action leaves everyone uncertain about the next move. This is not one of those times. Congress now has a clear path of action. It must first demand the release of the Mueller report, so that Americans can see the evidence for themselves. Then, it must call Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller to testify. Mr. Barr in particular must explain his rationale for reaching the obstruction judgment he made.

No one wants a president to be guilty of obstruction of justice. The only thing worse than that is a guilty president who goes without punishment. The Barr letter raises the specter that we are living in such times.

William Barr Has Some Explaining to Do

Attorney General William Barr
Alex Wong/Getty Images.

 

After almost two years, the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller has come to an end. Instead of getting to read Mueller’s findings, we received a letter from Attorney General Bill Barr that summarizes what Barr called Mueller’s “principal conclusions.”

Yet in one notable instance where Mueller reached no conclusion after years of investigation—about whether the president obstructed justice—Barr rushed to reach a conclusion in just two days. Barr’s decision to reach his own conclusion on this matter was poor judgment and ensures that Congress will fight tooth and nail to gain access to Mueller’s full report and the evidence underlying it.

Mueller did reach a conclusion regarding what is commonly called “collusion,” if Barr’s letter is accurate. He quoted Mueller as stating that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

If true, that means that Mueller lacked sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government. This is not altogether surprising, given that there was not sufficient public evidence to establish a conspiracy. Even former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s delivery of internal polling data, while shady, is not itself a crime.

Mueller’s inability to prove conspiracy does not mean, however, that he failed to uncover evidence that would be troubling to many Americans. When I declined to pursue charges as a federal prosecutor, I often did so in the face of very incriminating evidence, due to an inability to prove a key element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The public may be shocked by Mueller’s evidence but should respect his investigation and the conclusions he reached after interviewing 500 people and issuing over 2,800 subpoenas.

But on one important question, obstruction of justice, Mueller did not reach any conclusion. According to Barr, Mueller “ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” regarding obstruction and “did not draw a conclusion—one way or the other” regarding obstruction. Mueller stated, according to Barr, that his report does not conclude that Trump “committed a crime” but “also does not exonerate him.”

That is a very unusual decision by Mueller. Federal prosecutors are expected to reach a conclusion, one way or the other, regarding whether an individual should be charged. I always did so when I was a prosecutor, and that is what prosecutors do on a regular basis. Perhaps the greatest question raised by Barr’s letter is why Mueller declined to do so here.

It appears that Mueller approached his role with an admirable sense of humility and caution, with the understanding that whatever conclusion he reached would have an immense impact on the nation. While he essentially punted on the issue, I understand why Mueller may have felt the obstruction of justice decision was one for the American people and their elected representatives to make.

What I don’t understand is why Barr decided to take it upon himself to make a decision hastily based on “discussions with certain [DOJ] officials” when Mueller, after spending almost two years interviewing countless witnesses and reviewing many thousands of documents, had amassed evidence on both sides.

Barr’s speedy decision that Trump did not obstruct justice perhaps is not surprising. Barr wrote a 19-page single-spaced memorandum to the Deputy Attorney General and Trump’s attorneys explaining why Trump did not obstruct justice long before he become Attorney General.

As a practicing lawyer, it would take me dozens of hours to create a 19-page single-spaced memorandum containing nuanced legal analysis on any subject. I would not do so for free unless I felt very strongly about the issue. Although Barr claims otherwise in his letter, it is hard to escape the conclusion that he prejudged the matter and let his strong feelings about the subject influence his judgment.

Barr’s poor reasoning in the four-page summary will reinforce the conclusion that he prejudged the matter. For example, he claimed that because Mueller was unable to establish that Trump was “involved in an underlying crime,” that suggested that he lacked the intent to obstruct justice. That will come as a surprise to Martha Stewart and many other defendants who were convicted of obstruction of justice but not of any underlying crime. Simply put, that is a fragile reed upon which to support a finding that there was no obstruction.

Barr’s poor judgment means that Congress will have to take steps to find out what is in Mueller’s report and what underlying evidence Mueller found. While many have suggested that the full report be made public, that is likely not possible under existing law unless Congress and the President take action. But there is no reason why House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler cannot see the full report, or why his committee could not subpoena Barr or even Mueller.

There can be no serious question that obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice, and Richard Nixon would have been if he had not resigned. The stakes are high, and regardless of the outcome, the American people deserve to know what Mueller found without Barr’s unwise interference.

Today marks the 108th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

United Steelworkers shared a video. 

March 25, 2019

Today marks the 108th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. 104 years ago, 146 people died in the fire because of unsafe working conditions. Today we stay steadfast in our fight against the race to the bottom in the United States and around the world.

104 years ago, 146 people died in the #TriangleShirtwaist fire because of unsafe working conditions. Today we stay steadfast in our fight against the race to the bottom in the United States and around the world. #USWWorks

Posted by United Steelworkers on Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Gun Massacres and Their Lasting Effects on Survivors!

Occupy Democrats

March 25, 2019

America, we have a problem a wall WON’T fix.

Follow Occupy Democrats

Image may contain: 3 people, people smiling, text

Everything lawmakers needed to know about Trump and Russia was in the public record!

Robert Mueller
YURI GRIPAS / REUTERS

No matter what Attorney General William Barr reveals—or doesn’t—about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, everything Congress needed to know about Donald Trump and Russia was already clear.

October 7, 2016, was the near-death experience of the Trump campaign. That Friday afternoon, David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post reported on an Access Hollywood tape in which Trump boasts of grabbing women. The shock battered the campaign. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan declared publicly that he was “sickened” by Trump, canceled a joint appearance with him, and declined to answer whether he still supported the Trump candidacy.

Less than one hour later, WikiLeaks dumped its largest and most damaging trove of hacked emails to and from Democratic operatives. It included two emails sent years before to the future Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The messages criticized the teachings of the Catholic Church on women and sexuality. The Trump campaign instantly seized on them as proof of the Clinton campaign’s supposed anti-Catholic animus—a useful weapon to help erase memories of Trump’s Twitter attacks on the pope earlier in 2016.

The huge dump took a while to be analyzed and absorbed. It did not immediately displace the salacious Access Hollywood story from the top of the news.

But by the second week of October, WikiLeaks was profoundly engaging the U.S. voting public. Using the Google Trends tool, the website Five Thirty Eight tracked how public interest in the hacked emails surged. Not coincidentally, it seems, Clinton’s poll lead over Trump peaked on October 17, and steadily shrank thereafter. FBI Director James Comey’s October 28 letter reopening the Clinton email case delivered the final blow to the reeling Clinton campaign.

This timeline is one thing to keep in mind as details emerge from the Mueller report.

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that agents purporting to represent Putin’s Russia approached the Trump campaign to ask whether help would be welcome, to which Donald Trump Jr. replied, “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Donald Trump publicly welcomed this help: “I love WikiLeaks!”

It’s solid political science that this help from Russia via WikiLeaks was crucial, possibly decisive, to Trump’s success in the Electoral College in November 2016.

Mueller was asked to investigate how much the Trump campaign knew in advance about this Russian help. Along the way, the special counsel also apparently became interested in the question of why Putin was so eager for a Trump presidency. Did Putin have some kind of prior hold over Trump, financial or otherwise?

For two years, Americans and the world have speculated and argued about the inquiry. But along the way, we have often lost sight of the core truth of the Trump presidency: For all its many dark secrets, there have never been any real mysteries about the Trump-Russia story.

The president of the United States was helped into his job by clandestine Russian attacks on the American political process. That core truth is surrounded by other disturbing probabilities, such as the likelihood that Putin even now is exerting leverage over Trump in some way.

Along the way, we have also lost sight of something that I warned about here in The Atlantic in May 2017: It’s very possible that Trump himself broke no criminal law in accepting campaign help from Putin. This ultra-legalistic nation expects wrongdoing to take the form of prosecutable crimes—and justice to occur in a courtroom.

But many wrongs are not crimes. And many things that are crimes are not prosecutable for one reason or another—for instance, when a statute of limitations expires.

Mueller served his country by advancing the inquiry into Trump-Russia at a time when Trump’s enablers in Congress sought to cover up for the president. Since the midterm elections, Congress has regained its independence and can recover its integrity. Mueller’s full report will surely inform and enlighten Americans about many details of what exactly happened in 2016. But the lack of further indictments by Mueller underscores that the job of protecting the country against the Russia-compromised Trump presidency belongs to Congress. It always did.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

David Frum is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic. In 2001 and 2002, he was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

The Case For Obstruction of Justice Against Trump!

Robert Reich
March 24, 2019

Despite what Trump and his enablers claim, there’s strong evidence that he obstructed justice in the Russia investigation. Here are the facts.

The Case For Obstruction of Justice Against Trump

Despite what Trump and his enablers claim, there's strong evidence that he obstructed justice in the Russia investigation. Here are the facts.

Posted by Robert Reich on Sunday, March 24, 2019