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 and a “Man For All Seasons”
To my never-Trump friends: This National Review piece by Bradley Smith is important. He outlines the reasons why there is no campaign finance violation to which Cohen is, nonetheless, pleading guilty. It is an instructive read in toto, but please also focus on this cautionary summary:
In short, Michael Cohen is pleading guilty to something that isn’t a crime. Of course, people will do that when a zealous prosecutor is threatening them with decades in prison. But his admissions are not binding on President Trump, and Trump should fight these charges ferociously.
Many Americans have convinced themselves that Trump is a uniquely dangerous and bad man, such that any available tool should be used to expel him from office. But in that way lies the bigger threat to our democracy and rule of law.
In A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More’s future son-in-law, Roper, states that he would “cut down every law in England” if it would enable him to catch the devil. To which More responds,
And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
We do ourselves no service by distorting and misapplying our campaign-finance laws in the hope of bagging Donald Trump.
When those of us who are railing against the Mueller investigation post it is too often regarded as “Trump lovers” protecting “their guy”. That is not true of me. I want to protect the constitutional system that, it appears, too many are willing to jettison just to get Trump.
Published in General
And I related that dysfunction directly to Cohen’s case.
Reasonable men can differ on what’s reasonable and I think we do differ. But it wasn’t necessary to either resign or recuse over that.
I didn’t deny that Rosenstein was nominated to his position by President Trump. And signing a FISA application based on unconfirmed oppo research (itself supposedly obtained from a foreign agent who himself supposedly obtained the information from Russian officials) certainly isn’t passive.
I don’t know what TFW means. I’m not interested in hiding my ignorance – I admit to it regularly.
Yes, but since you brought it up I don’t have to take your premise as a given.
“I was going to fire Comey knowing, there was no good time to do it. And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won,” (Emphasis mine)
Or, it could have been a basic counterintelligence investigation which could have run its course and if there was reason to initiate a special counsel after it concluded, that would have been a separate issue.
@klaatu, I think that is the seminal question.
Not in this case. The problem is those in Congress like Jeff Flake who propose that the Congress proceed in an unconstitutional manner to prevent the POTUS from exercising his constitutional prerogatives. You didn’t indicate whether or not names are needed for the true crimes. I think James Comey will get his quickly since he doesn’t know when to shut his trap. He’s worse than Trump.
Comey did.
Now I see how that’s Trump’s fault. Everything is Trump’s fault. Always. He’s a dangerous, racist, mysogynistic, orange authoritarian dontcha know. Must be eliminated, there’s no reasonable alternative really. Orange Man Bad.
It was necessary to recuse himself from issues on which he withheld information from the Senate.
As for Rosenstein, you wrote:
That is simply incorrect as a matter of fact. What the FISA application Rosenstein sign off on was based on is not publicly known.
I think Mueller might just be addicted to that civil service salary.
That quote does not say that Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation. Trump has since explicitly rejected that interpretation while offering all kinds of other valid reasons for firing Comey.
That’s the way one behaves in the swamp. You know he got a lot of advice from his fellow senators and congressmen. It was early in the administration (just ask Comey, he knows) and Sessions didn’t know for sure how well Trump would perform. Sessions had the post he wanted, that says it all. He recused himself because his Senate cohort wanted him recused not because it was indicated.
Has Flake been able to get his bill passed?
Absent Trump opening his mouth to Lester Holt, there is no special counsel.
No special counsel necessary if you have a strong, active, non-involved, non-recused AG. Besides, if it were a basic uninteresting unimportant counterintelligence investigation – doesn’t that require some basis of actual wrongful action other than unverified oppo research obtained by foreign agents? When they decided to use the Clinton bought peepee dossier to activate the federal IC and DOJ to spy on a political rival during a presidential campiagn then it became a big deal. At least to me. I don’t understand why it never seemed to be a big deal to others including most of Congress.
He recused himself because he failed to answer senators fully on a matter before the department. No one is responsible for the incompetence of Trump WH in the early days but Trump.
Again, not “necessary”. Just desired. And “withholding information” is one interpretation.
That quote explicitly says he was going to fire Comey because of the Russia investigation. There in no other reasonable interpretation of it.
Which? That Rosenstein was a careerist? Or that Trump’s hands were tied?
Regarding the FISA application – we do know! It was the peepee dossier backed up by a news story which was itself based on the leaked peepee dossier. Without the peepee dossier there would have been no FISA approval.
It quite an episode for so many career officials to lose their jobs and their reputations, and we don’t know what is yet to come. All this with an AG and a Deputy AG not even involved. That really says a lot since the actual investigation related to why these officials are gone has not even commenced.
A special counsel would be necessary if the CI investigation turned up credible information implicating the President, his campaign, or his staff.
No, a counterintelligence investigation does not require any actual wrongful act.
The quote you provided does not say that Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation. That is a poor basis for launching phase two.
Speaking of necessary predicates, though, this farce wouldn’t have had to be ginned up in teh first place if Trump had decided to stay out of politics altogether. I mean, I imagine none of them really wanted to weaponize the IC , FBI, and DOJ but he just wouldn’t stop winning and running his dumb orange mouth.
No it isn’t “explicit”. It’s you’re interpretation. “Explicit” would be something like
“I fired Comey because I wanted him to stop investigating me and Russia”.
But spying on a political opponent’s campaign sure would.
There was no such evidence. And, again, it would not have been “necessary”. You keep trying to paint this as blase on one hand and automatic on another. It’s neither.
Of course not, that show how bad he is. Flake has drawn a lot of negative attention for the last months of his career as a politician and in the process has wasted the time of a number of people Thankfully, he’ll be gone..
Also, I do interpret it a different way. The Russia farce should not be a barrier to firing Comey for the multitude of good reasons to fire him. Even though people will try to make it look like this was the only reason.
That Rosenstein was “next in line or close to it.”
We know some of the basis for the initial application, we do not know what further information may have been obtained prior to the last application, the one Rosenstein signed.
Do you prefer “prudent” to “necessary?”
Not answering a question fully is withholding information.