Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Is Not a Second-Class President
There is a lot of breathless pearl-clutching going on because Trump just ordered an investigation into the allegedly bogus surveillance of his campaign allegedly for national security reasons (but possibly for political reasons).
They say that Trump is interfering with an investigation by targeting those who started the investigation. But all prosecutions are subject to scrutiny. We do not allow prosecutors in this country to act with impunity – they are constrained by the law and must operate under appropriate oversight.
But, but … Trump is interfering in an investigation in which he is a target. No. He is not the target of a criminal investigation. The initial investigation (which might have been an inappropriate abuse of gov’t power to aid Hillary and stop Trump) was a counter-intelligence investigation. The subsequent Mueller probe was also started as a counter-intelligence probe. Now that it has morphed into a criminal investigation, Trump is still not the target.
But, but … Trump does not have the right to interfere in an ongoing investigation. Wrong. Trump is not a second-class President, stricken of his Article II powers under the Constitution. He can order an investigation of anyone. Presidents do that. There just has to be probable cause. The NY Times published the evidence of probable cause this week.
But, but … he is demanding that the FBI expose classified information to Congress. Yeah, and that is something all Presidents can do. He can classify or declassify any document and he can direct who sees any document.
Moreover, even if Trump were a defendant in a criminal case (and he is not), we allow defendants to see all evidence against them and, more importantly, they can see exculpatory evidence that a prosecutor would like to keep secret. The exception to that rule is national security – but again Trump is President. He can determine who sees what as far as national security is concerned. The FBI is not allowed to keep secrets from the President.
But, but … he is subjecting the sacred FBI to a criminal investigation. No, he has asked the Office of the Inspector General to look into this. They do not have prosecutorial power. They may find crimes and refer people for later prosecution, but they cannot compel non-employees to testify (as I understand it). They gather facts. This investigation is gathering facts — not prosecuting anybody.
Only if the Obama administration illegally surveilled his political opposition (which is not a big stretch of the imagination, given what his IRS did to the Tea Party groups who opposed him in 2012) will anyone be prosecuted.
And if that happens, only selected individuals will be prosecuted and only if there is sufficient evidence to support a prosecution. They are not investigating all 10,000 employees of the FBI. Some people should avail themselves of a dictionary and learn about synecdoche. Sometimes we refer to a group to mean selected members of that group. When we say “the FBI is under investigation now” we mean Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Weissman and Lisa Page. Maybe more, but we’ll start there. They ran a very curious investigation that began without much if any, judicial oversight — one that seems particularly political in nature.
And they reported back to their boss, Obama.
Published in Politics
Whitewater and Watergate probes got results (e.g. damning testimony) early on and indictments in less than a year. Whitewater, Iran-contra and Valerie Plame leak investigations are examples of what not to do. Other independent counsels tied up their work faster. Longer is not necessarily better, perhaps not even necessary.
Not at all. Two weeks after Archibald Cox was appointed, John Dean was testifying against Nixon. Cox was appointed in May 73. Fired. Replaced by Jaworski in Nov 73 (after some weeks hiatus after Saturday Night Massacre in October 73). In about 5 months, Cox was able to take testimony implicating Nixon in the cover up and discovered that there were tapes of conversations available – and the public knew about this. Not all secrets – not all mystery. By March 74, there were indictments and by Aug 74, Nixon had resigned. This came just 15 months after Cox was appointed.
And Jaworski resigned in Nov 74 – about a year after he was appointed.
Mueller is emulating Iran-Contra, Whitewater (which in all fairness was forced to take on a whale of a lot of probes of separate, distinct issues) and Plame investigations. The strategy of these prosecutors was to emulate Beria – open a vein and bleed the target administration to weakness.
A prosector’s success in compelling testimony from a witness is contingent on a judge or grand jury being convinced that a crime has taken place and that the witness can provide relevant testimony.
In Klinton’s case, there was videotape of his perjurious refusal to respond to a legitimate question in the Paula Jones case.
There is nothing close to that implicating Trump or tying him to a known crime.
“We don’t want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants. The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power.”
District Judge T.S. Ellis, presiding over Paul Manafort case
In Watergate, there was the Senate Watergate Committee where a great deal of testimony was elicited without a grant of immunity.
If memory serves, in Iran-Contra, because Ollie North testified after a grant of immunity, this negatively impacted on his prosecution.
It appears to me that the Senate Intelligence Committee has not granted immunity and therefore there has been limited information. But Mueller has a bunch of indictments, and five convictions. The process is working itself out. Reagan, Clinton and Bush were all interviewed. I agree with Chris Christie, the quickest way for Trump to resolve this is to testify, if he is innocent. If Trump is guilty he is doing a great job of acting like it.
While the Virginia Federal Judge questioned Mueller’s jurisdiction in oral argument in the Montfort prosecution, if memory serves, he has not done so after reading the Rod Rosenstein memorandum granting authority in camera. On the other hand the DC Federal District Judge dismissed that argument, and we haven’t seen Montfort appeal her ruling to the DC Circuit.
The indictments are just about the only legitimate targets of the investigation (and, of these, one was not in business during the campaign period).
While it makes sense to interview the president when there is a crime, it is crazy to allow this prosecutor to do so. His only convictions (so far) are for process crimes. In this regard, he is like Patrick Fitzgerald whose Plame witchhunt wrongly convicted Scooter Libby (now rightfully pardoned) by withholding exonerating evidence from a key witness. If the only convictions one gets from a pervasive ongoing investigation and prosecution are for process violations that could not have occurred absent the investigation, then we have a Special Persecutor, not a Special Prosecutor. He could very well hang Trump for saying something stupid in an investigation where no underlying crime was committed. Reagan, Klinton and Bush could testify because they tend not to rashly blurt out falsehoods.
We now know that Fitzgerald knew who leaked Plame’s covert status within two weeks after his investigation began. The perp confessed to it. And yet Fitzgerald tortuously dragged the whole thing on for years… because he could. Nice work if you can get it. No. Sorry. It is the opposite of nice. It was in Fitzgerald’s self-interest and that of his team. It was wrong for the people of the United States. It was a miscarriage of justice.
And if we eventually discover, as now seems possible, that malefactors in the Obama administration were gunning for Mueller’s victims and basically set them up, it is they who should suffer and not Trump’s aides. Then Mueller’s ruthless, partisan investigation will be exposed as malicious.
It is hard to take someone seriously when they refer to Bill Clinton as ”Klinton.” Do you call Hillary “Killary”?
I am not fond of Trump” but I cringe when liberals call him “tRUMP”.
Should be a prosecutable crime. Defending someone you know is guilty is one thing; prosecuting someone you know to be innocent is immoral, evil, and an enumerated sin.
It is a sign of disrespect. You don’t honestly believe he deserves respect, do you? After the Marc Rich pardon, he should hide his head in shame.