My apologies in advance if this is considered a thread creep. I only mention this to underscore the importance of the Mueller investigation, because it’s increasingly clear that Putin’s Russia is waging an offensive war against the West - not just America, not just Europe, but other allies like Canada, and probably Australia and New Zealand as well. Not to suggest that they’re targets of Putin’s animosity, but he’s going full on after the American-led Western geopolitical system. He’s trying to tear it the fuck down, and for the Congressional leadership to turn a blind eye to this and aid and abet this kleptocratic dictator’s rise to global power would be a dereliction of duty for the ages.
The fact that so many people serving in Congress are actively working to further the interests of themselves and their paymasters, in conscious opposition to the best interests of the United States, is completely without precedent in American history. For the first time I really think there’s a chance the United States as we know it is doomed. Just a chance, not a certainty, but it’s possible.
In my view, this is the greatest scandal of them all. The Russian collusion scandal is embarrassing but it’s quite possible that much of it, ethical or not, is entirely legal. But that’s one candidate’s campaign for presidency. What’s happening now is that one of our two major political parties is colluding with a known adversary, most likely with an understanding of some sort of quid pro quo. The further the Republican party goes down this road, the more likely it is that it will go down in history as this country’s answer to Vichy France.
I’ve not suggested that Yates didn’t know. Only that McGahn didn’t know. And that’s not my claim, that’s what Yates is saying.
I think even the possibility that a NSA head might have lied to the FBI would be close to the top of the list. YMMV.
I disagree. And even if you dispute this, that doesn’t mean that everyone else agrees with you. It takes a lot to charge a president with obstruction. It’s not like charging some random guy.
No, but I don’t think those cases are close to being slam dunks, which is your claim here.
There are men and women of principle in the Republican Party but fewer every day. When you consider the political preferences of increasingly older age groupings the matter is clear. Young people prefer Democratic ideas and principles, and with each step up the age ladder, more people prefer Republican ideals. Every day, though, truly moral and idealistic Republicans are being hounded and primaried and starved for campaign cash.
The truly terrible thing for us is that when the Democratic wave hits the 2018 election, far more moderate Republicans than their Bannonite Partymates will be defeated and replaced with more Liberal Democrats. Polarization will be even more extreme, and, since the extremists in the R party have shown a willingness to collude with any supporter, even Russia, a major collision, even a violent one will occur.
Are you making a claim, here, that presidents are above the law?
Of course not.
But charging a president with a crime is a high-impact political act. So the bar is going to be higher than charging some random shmo.
So if you have a he-said-she-said situation, and you personally believe the guy alleging guilt, you might be quicker to charge the guy if it’s someone who is not president, as compared to possibly unsettling the nation by charging a president.
No difference at all legally, but prosecutors have discretion to consider extra-legal considerations especially if the situation is itself somewhat ambiguous.
[ETA: Democrats were very big into this argument when it was Bill Clinton’s neck out there. Though they may have changed their tune about it lately.]
A “he-said-she-said” situation is unlikely to result in charges no matter who the alleged offender may be. Evidence would be required; I’ll quote this summary of the elements of an OoJ charge:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/obstruction-of-justice.html
I agree with you that there’s no difference legally between building a case against a president and building a case against someone else. Because the question of whether or not a sitting president can be charged criminally is not definitively settled, politics does play a role.
But if the elements of the crime are present and well-enough documented, then the question of charging a sitting president might have to be brought before the Supreme Court (and settled one way or another). Of course that may be short-circuited if the House of Representatives, as constituted at that time, chooses to begin impeachment proceedings, and/or if the President chooses to resign.
This is one of the better pieces I have read on Obstruction. Written by a former Federal Judge and Prosecutor.
I see a story today that Kushner’s lawyer has gone shopping around for a “crisis public relations firm to handle press inquiries” although I assume this is because he’s about to solve the problems in the middle east and no other possible reason.
Source:
How did the Russia investigation start? Was it the dossier that the GOP now pretends was the initiating event? Nope. Turns out it was Papadopoulos, the coffee boy, drunkenly running his mouth to an Australian diplomat.
One of the best commentary about that comes from Digby at Hullabaloo:
Huh, I guess loose lips sink shits after all!
I think Congressman Lieu has it right:
“Important story below. Keep in mind no one was really aware of George Papadopoulos until his guilty plea was revealed. That tells us Special Counsel Mueller knows far more than people think. And Papadopoulos is cooperating with Mueller. The White House should be scared.”
They may have been duped, at least in one regard. A Russian front outfit, lets call them True Blue Americans for Trump. Who checks? Who’s job is it to verify that these really are true blue Americans? Even if they did, how hard would it be to find some genuine Trumptards to be the front?
OK, so the Russians got a front group, a PAC. This group is well versed in modern techniques in social media, how to focus on specific targets for maximum impact. Suppose your target, or perhaps just one of your targets…suppose they are Bernie people, that you would like to encourage. Foster conversations and “news” to underscore a determination to never, ever vote for anybody but Bernie.
Or suppose you want to reach blue-collar Democrats, let them know that Hillary will help black folks steal their jobs. Modern advertising is scattershot and diffuse, a shotgun brought to a sniper fight. Targeting social media not only spreads the word, it uses people to carry the message to others. You see your brother in law who has cited an article from True Blue American News about how Hillary has kidnapped Bernie’s grandkids and sold them to a Pizza Sex Shop. You pass it along to Fred from Accounts Receivable.
Its kinda like a “self selecting sample”, but it select people prone to believe the message and spread it to others as well, a force multiplier like a sumbitch! But where do you get that first step, the data that will help you focus?
True Blue Americans for Trump could approach a sympathetic source, some outfit that specializes in data, that could be relied upon to help you out. Some outfit, probably best if it had a toney academic sounding name, like Cambridge Data or Oxford Analytica. Something like that. And they smile heartily and hand over the info, how to reach disgruntled blue collar Dems in Wisconsin.
So, then, the innocent lambs at Cambridge Data have supplied aid and assistance to a Russian enterprise. “Hey, they’re Americans, for Trump, what could possibly be wrong with that?”
Ah, well, probably couldn’t have affected more than a few hundred thousands of voters across the Midwest. Not enough to make a big hairy ass deal out of it. Usually.
(If they stole/hacked it from Facebook, I want somebody fined and scolded. If Facebook gave it to them and helped them use it, I want somebody hanged.)
That’s pretty much the conclusion I come to - I mean okay, sure, what political party wouldn’t be concerned about this investigation, but the panic that has set in now is beyond the pale. Why are some Republicans in Congress and a few more in the right wing media howling like someone just threw fire ants on their crotches? As I put it on another thread: It’s because what was supposed to be a simple bank robbery has now turned into a homicide. And they’re the ones driving the getaway car. And Mueller’s probably got mountains of evidence, and they’re just starting to figure this out. That’s why they’re going to try to pull out all the stops to shut this down, and this won’t stop at just the investigation. They’re going to try to rock democracy next. Mueller’s team, career bureaucrats, and concerned citizens are now in a fight to protect our institutions and our political system.
Working off the fact that we now know that the Trump campaign was well aware of the fact that Russians were the ones responsible for meddling in the election, what possible reason would there be for Trump to deny the Russian involvement if he himself had no involvement in it? If he was totally innocent, why invoke the 400 pound guy in his basement?
He started out denying everything, he can’t stop now.
That’s my point. Why did he start denying in the first place? We now know that his campaign had advance information that the Russians intended to meddle in the election. If I read that as entirely innocent, and that there was no collusion and no involvement with the campaign, then why bother to deny it? It wouldn’t be the campaign’s fault that the Russians decided to meddle.
(My point being that I doubt that it was innocent.)
The FBI went to them as said “Russia is going to try to penetrate your campaign, let us know if you see anything” and then their campaign asked Russia for help. That is not what innocent people do.