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.
The Bul****: You’ve Gotta Pivot Like There’s Nobody Watching
Lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees: It seems to me likely Mueller will find there was collusion between Trump associates and Putin operatives; that Trump knew about it; and that Trump sought to cover it up and obstruct its investigation. What then? Good question. — Bill Kristol, August 9, 2018
Good question, indeed. The complementary question, of course, is: what if Mueller doesn’t find that there was collusion between Trump associates and Putin operatives? What then?
We have an answer: you pivot.
What the Mueller report says, per Attorney General Barr, is this:
[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
But pop over to The Bulwark and read Kim Wehle’s piece, Mueller Report: What We Can Learn From Barr’s Initial Letter to Congressional Leaders, and you’ll discover that the Barr letter, per Ms. Wehle,
contains no facts or substantive information—nothing about what Mueller did or did not find with respect to his investigative mandate from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
I’m confused. The letter seems to clearly state that Mueller did not find evidence to establish collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, which actually was a principal objective of Mueller’s mandate. How does this clear finding become “nothing about what Mueller did or did not find?”
Read the rest of the piece and you won’t come across this seemingly important tidbit of information: that the investigation launched to find evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia did not find evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
Ms. Wehle does, however, instruct us to drop the “witch hunt” talk.
The piece by Charles Sykes, No Collusion. No Exoneration at least mentions that no collusion was found. It mentions it in the title, and in the first paragraph.
That’s it. The rest of the article is about obstruction. See how the pivot works?
Oh, and Mr. Sykes also lays down the law for us: “There was no witch hunt.”
(It almost seems like a Bulwark theme, that last bit.)
As If you read the articles at The Bulwark, you’ll notice two things. First, the pivot, the effortless shift from collusion to obstruction, as if the threat to our democracy was never the intrusion of Russian influence (it wasn’t, but that was the drum they were beating), but rather the danger of the President being critical of an investigation he knew, by virtue of being its object, to be pointless.
Secondly, you’ll see a lot of whataboutism, particularly from Sykes and Last. How exactly one’s attitude about past misdeeds by prominent Democrats factors into the revelation that there was no Trump collusion with the Russians escapes me; it seems to impose a moral standard on a legal question, as if to say that anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton should probably go to jail for her supposed crimes is a hypocrite for acknowledging that there was no Trump collusion with the Russians.
In short, after having beaten the collusion narrative into the ground with the rest of the mainstream media, Sykes and Co. are doing exactly what every left-leaning media organization is going to do: overlook the negative finding on collusion, and pivot instantly to speculation about obstruction in the investigation of collusion that, we now know, didn’t occur.
I will revisit The Bulwark when someone informs me that Charles Sykes has posted a piece acknowledging his mistaken credulity, and pondering, however briefly, how so many fell for what seemed, even two years ago, a preposterous narrative.
Published in Politics
Martha Stewart would beg to differ with you. She went to prison for obstruction of justice for lying to the FBI about a non-crime.
Ruf,
Oh, I haven’t forgotten any of that. AG Barr will be moving inexorably forward. Perhaps we will see another ‘special prosecutor’. One that the Democrats won’t like.
We need a major victory in 2020. I think the first order of business is to kill vote harvesting. Surely it must be unconstitutional. Any ideas?
Regards,
Jim
Leaking the DNC emails was a great public service. What a bunch of ruling class creeps.
Exactly. Stop worrying about crazy witchhunts and worry about important things instead.
Everything goes left all of the time. It never stops.
If there was no crime committed, then logically, there’s no justice to obstruct. QED.
You enjoyed writing “kompromat.” That’s why you used the word so often.
Of course. Not sure why we’re still debating this.
I am proud to say that not once in my life have I written the word “kompromat.”
…
Aw, hell.
While it should be petty obvious I’m not lawyer and therefore not an legal expert I believe Martha Stewart was convicted of the same thing Michael Flynn was convicted: Making false statements to Federal Investigators
While it certainly appears to be in the same category as “obstructing justice” and can be used in obstruction of justice cases the making false statements statute is it’s own separate criminal statute the Feds can screw people to the wall with when they choose to pull out their notes 6 months after the original interview to revise their 302’s and “re- remember” the false statements without the benefit of a video of the interview.
Sorry, but I am going to go with, you know the former Chief Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York over some lawyer in Arizona.
No offense, but I think he knows better than you do.
Just the sort of thing you are all for, in the over two years of Muller’s investigation which found on collusion.
How many lives did he destroy to find nothing? I know, you are 100% OK with everything he did.
See Comment #91. Martha Stewart would beg to differ with you.
I will miss it.
I sometimes have that effect on people.
Yeah. I actually read that piece. She makes sure to note that she would be quite unhappy with a President Pence. So Trump and his version of populism are bad. So is a tradional Republican who is a Social Conservative.
In order to be conserving conservatism it might be nice to hear what actual Conservatives I am allowed to like. Cause basically every thing I read there (including Pence would be just as bad) I can also find at Slate or Salon
Trump brought this on himself by firing Comey. We now know that Trump, et.al. are not guilty of collusion, which is a relief that while Trump is many things, he is not a traitor. As a bonus, Manafort has gotten his just deserts for a lifetime of graft.
Hopefully in a matter of weeks we will read the Mueller report itself as to Obstruction of Justice.
Two things that I think are important –
If memory serves, the FBI went to the HRC campaign and told them they’d probably been hacked. The campaign took no action. Also, and I am just techie enough to get in trouble, it was a “dump”; not a hack. (Someone who remembers this better than me? Please fill in details )
Manafort nearly (or briefly) worked for John McCain’s presidential campaign. The FBI warned McCain of Manafort’s ties to Russia.
The FBI did not warn Trump about Manafort. Why?
I don’t know.
When the FBI and CIA found out that one of Senator Diane Feinstein’s most trusted aides for 20 years was a spy for China, they quietly let her know and she let him go. Oh, and during that time her husband made millions doing deals in China. But letting Trump know his campaign might be infiltrated – no way! It’s one of the issues Senator Graham said he will pursue in hearings when he calls DOJ and FBI to account
Reading the Mueller report on Obstruction does nothing but satisfy idle curiosity. From what we know from the Barr letter, 3 prosecutors looked at this (Mueller, Barr and Rosenstein) none of them recommend charges. Most of the stuff happened “in the public view” so there will unlikely be big surprises.
There will not be over 20 Republican Senators who will vote to impeach Trump without clear and convincing evidence of something awful.
there will be likely zero Republicans voting to impeach if all they have is a suggestion (not an order) to go easy on Flynn and the firing of Comey.
We knew that a long time ago. The only people who bought the collusion story were those who hoped our president was a traitor, so all their dire warnings wouldn’t look so stupid.
It’s a question I’d like to have answered. I have no illusions that the truth will Ever be known.
But I think it’s shameful – and a bit terrifying – that lives were destroyed and a President attempted to be removed over a dossier that was laughable on its face.
Hats off to Trump, and those that stood by him like Nunes. Some say that any republican could have won in 2016. But not a one would have survived these past two years.
That is exactly right. Manafort was under all kinds of surveillance in the mid 2000’s, but oh for some reason protect one campaign but not the other. I’m sure this makes sense to somebody.
And then FBI forensics didn’t get to see the WikiLeaks hack. Like that was legal.
Move along nothing to see here.
Be sure to vote.
So many people have no problem with this. It all makes perfect sense to them.
This stuff costs staggering money to defend. It’s outrageous.
Corsi, Papodopolus, Page, Flynn didn’t even have a lawyer when they tricked him, Caputo.
Don jr. testified 27 hours over a meeting that wasn’t even illegal and that didn’t even cover anything about the premise of the meeting. I remember for a couple of months everyone knew he was going to jail. What BS. Remember that secret phone number he supposedly talked to his dad on? They grilled him over and over and over before the government subpoenaed the phone company and it was just a casual acquaintance.
Clinton, Perkins Coui et. al. should be in jail and everyone involved in lying about that dossier should be in jail.
Be sure to watch The Death Of Stalin and be sure to vote. Your vote matters. Voting is important. Voting is your duty. Watch The Lives Of Others before and after you vote.
Also, mises.org is reportedly full of crazy people.
“Collusion” isn’t a legal term, either.
Precisely.
It’s outrageous.
Don’t talk to anyone in the government unless Harvey Silvergate is standing right there defending you.
Gary I found something you will like The Republican Party Should Not Re-Nominate Trump.
James Comey: ‘… Mr. Mueller, the special counsel essentially punted on the matter [obstruction], neither recommending that Mr. Trump (sic) be charged nor exonerating him … [he] put the decision in the hands of Attorney General William P. Barr.’
David Brooks: ‘… Trump is owed an apology.’
Careful. Remember the analogy about the Japanese soldiers living in caves when the war was over.
Rosenstein brought it on Trump by recommending the firing of Comey.
Good grief, the whole thing was a set-up. Rosenstein recommends the firing of Comey. The President (already frustrated with Comey for his repeated public lies that the President was being investigated) takes Rosenstein’s advice. Comey then uses his firing leaks his memos to the press with the deliberate and stated intention of getting a special investigator named, which Rosenstein does immediately.
A set-up obvious to everyone.