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
The IG did investigate, that is why some lost their jobs.
What other interpretation is there for what Trump said? Does the Russia investigation not relate to his preceding statement regarding his decision to fire Comey?
And my recollection is that Sessions explained why he didn’t mention the meetings. Maybe the question should have been, ‘Have you been in proximity to any Russian during the period of the election campaign?’.
And if there were evidence to support such an allegation, why has the Dept of Justice, led by Trump appointees not indicted anyone for doing so?
No, I think both are off the mark.
Yes, not answering fully is technically wihholding information. But it’s a technicality in this case because the withheld information is so immaterial; it’s not a cause to recuse oneself from the biggest job facing the department and the country.
We do not know what the CI portion of the investigation had turned up before or since Mueller was appointed. My statement however, was conditional on a normal CI investigation turning up information implicating Trump or associates.
How do you interpret it?
The Russia investigation was not a barrier to firing Comey. Stating the firing was because of the Russia investigation necessitated a special counsel.
I’ll admit I don’t know everything on these points so I won’t argue them further. You could be correct. I don’t think either changes my point.
Yes there is evidence. We know it happened. The question is how it’s being spun. Some still claim that the peepee dossier was sufficient basis. More and more that assertion is turning out to be obviously false.
Not sure why there are no indictments other than the fact that it’s hard to play offense when you’re on defense. There is no political support for such a move, and politics matter more than I’d like to admit.
Perhaps also there are no indictments from Trump appointees for the same reason that Trump appointees enabled this mess: being an appointee is no guarantee of competence. Neither is being a Republican congressman on the appropriate commitees.
That was the question, he replied he had not when he had.
It’s been fun, but I have to go. I have some work to finish up before I go home.
There was nothing immaterial about having met Russian officials when you testified you had not.
My interpretation is right there in my comment that you quoted.
And again, just because you repeat it does not make it true: Trump did not state that “the firing was because of the Russia investigation”. You’re choosing to interpret it that way.
Alright, I do really need to go. For real this time.
No, there is speculation.
I do love the idea Justice Department leadership can be completely incompetent when it comes to pursuing “real crimes” but regular Machiavelli’s when it comes to Trump.
Trump’s biggest mistake was not firing Comey on Jan 20. Next was his careless language when he did fire Comey. Third was the Sessions decision to recuse himself. Of course, both Rosenstein and Mueller should have also recused themselves but that would not have allowed the collusion investigation to proceed in the right hands.
No, there is evidence. Read Mollie Hemingway, VDH, and a few others. Several have laid out the facts of the case. The total breakdown and lowering of the mask by the MSN just makes it seem as if there is no evidence. That’s partly why I’m so frustrated and disappointed by the R’s; they should recognized this as the monumentally big deal that it was and championed the resolution of this mess one way or the other. Either the charges against Trump are valid or the people pushing those charges have weaponizized the government in a new and broader way and they should be punished for it.
As far as the leadership of the DOJ, it depends who we’re talking about. In general I don’t think any of them are either Machiavelli or wholly incompetent. I think some are complicit, I think some are engaged in CYA, I think some are biased. I think Sessions was weak for folding so quickly over what I consider to be much ado about nothing.
Is it your view that a number of officials have been fired or forced to leave high level DoJ and FBI positions without there being a legitimate cause for action against them?
I don’t get this part of modern times. Perhaps that one isolated quote was careless (I don’t think it was, but reasonable people can differ). Why then do we take that as the only or definitive quote? Sure it’s cause for followup and clarification. And we received followup and clarification. Why do we treat that isolated quote as still controlling ?
Aside from that, I really don’t see how such a quote can justify a special counsel. I think people who wanted to see President Trump hurt were always going to see whatever it is that got them their weapons whether it was valid or not. Yes there was Bush Derangement syndrome, but TDS is ebola compared to BDS common cold.
Rod Rosenstein did a followup and clarification of his reported remarks to Andy McCabe and others regarding wearing a wire when talking to Trump. I don’t think, under the circumstances, Rosenstein’s explanation should be accepted.
I don’t mean to say that followup comments must always be accepted either. Its just that at best that one isolated comment from Trump is unclear (never mind any of the other comments he made before or after). Facts and circumstances matter. But even with Rosenstein’s comment the response is followup not necessarily a literal federal case. Did he actually wear a wire? No? Alright, I suppose the suggestion to wear one is still interesting but dwelling on it is fruitless.
I have read Mollie and VDH and they both do a great job speculating and drawing conclusions from a very limited amount of information.
There is a vast chasm between the two extremes you posit, that chasm is filled with innumerable possible interpretations of available information colored to one extent or another by conscious or subconscious biases on the part of those doing the interpreting. It is completely possible there were/are legitimate counterintelligence concerns with people in the Trump orbit (Stone, Manafort, & others) justifying an investigation that touched on the campaign. Manafort was the manager of the campaign! Those legitimate concerns, coupled with the known Russian efforts to interfere in our elections could well have led to a good faith conclusion that Trump’s team might play a knowing or unknowing role in that effort.
All of this could be true with Trump having any knowledge of the Russian effort and the charges of collusion to be false.
You are asserting a false dichotomy.
Which DOJ or FBI officials were fired for politically weaponizing the department?
I was being facetious. Sorry.
McCabe was fired for lying about political leaking and Comey actually engaged in political weaponizing and there are others.
“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,”
Is it your assertion the text in bold is not related to the preceding text?
Leaking is not weaponizing the department and Comey probably won the election for Trump. If he weaponizing the FBI it was against Hillary.
Yes, Mollie and VDH include some speculation. But that speculation is based on known evidence and testimony which itself is far more concrete than you seem to allow.
I’m not asserting any dichotomy whether true or false.
Sure there are legitimate concerns and questions surrounding people like Manafort. But if those concerns are legitimate then we have equivalent and even more solid concerns pointing at the other side that are not being pursued with the same vigor or even at all. I’m not ok with that kind of weaponization of the federal government. I’m ok with investigating Manafort and all corruption. I’m not ok with selective or weaponized prisecution. I’m not ok with flimsy pretexts for prosecution (e.g. Flynn).
I already told you how I interpret that quote. It wasn’t a cause. That quote was explaining that he had to fire Comey despite the existence of the Russia farce and the risk of people calling it obstruction followed by Trump’s assessment of the farce as a farce. Statements before, during, and after that isolated quote support my interpretation, IMO.
Even without my interpretation and even with all parts of that quote relating each ither, there is still no cause and effect or predicate and result in that sentence. There is no because in there. You are adding that all on your own.
“Either the charges against Trump are valid or the people pushing those charges have weaponizized the government in a new and broader way…”
There is your dichotomy, it is false because there are scores of other possibilities.
How do you competently conduct a counterintelligence investigation of Manafort without touching on the campaign he is managing? If the concerns about Manafort are legitimate, and you acknowledge they are, how is such an investigation the weaponization of government? The investigation is legitimate irrespective of any other investigations you think are warranted.
Again, any blame for the lack of investigations you think should be pursued falls on Trump and his administration. Perhaps Sessions, Rosenstein, Whitaker, and the professional prosecutors at DOJ know a bit more than Mollie & VDH regarding what warrants a criminal investigation and what does not?
If the two clauses of the same sentence are unrelated, the President suffers from Tourette’s.