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.
Collusion and Obstruction: Two Different Kinds of Crime
If the President had been found guilty of Russian collusion — that is, of participating in a criminal conspiracy with the Russians to undermine our election — then it would have indicated that he was a particular kind of villain. It takes a particular kind of villain to knowingly work with our enemies to subvert the democratic process. That represents a treasonous betrayal of our country.
On the other hand, being oafish and ignorant of the nuances of executive authority in the context of a legal investigation, while it may arguably appear to meet the legal definition for a charge of obstruction of justice, need not suggest that the President is a villain. Rather, it may simply indicate that he is an amateur on matters of law and politics, and that he is accustomed to speaking his mind without considering the unique legal implications of doing so while being the head of federal law enforcement.
I never thought the collusion charges made much sense, and Mueller’s finding that no collusion occurred surprises me not at all.
As to obstruction, I find it much more plausible that the President expressed his frustration at what he rightly considered a relentless and unjustified witch hunt that was undermining his administration, and that he explored various avenues to put an end to it — but that, finally, he both allowed the investigation to continue and cooperated with it. We know that he resisted the temptation to invoke executive privilege, even when he might plausibly have done so.
I understand his frustration. I appreciate his transparency. I particularly appreciate the people who counseled him to let the investigation run its course.
I think it’s time his critics stepped back and considered the possibility that they’re trying to trap a normal person in a web of legal technicalities in an effort to undo, by hook or by crook, the outcome of a legitimate election that happens to have led to an outcome they find offensive.
Published in Elections
After all this time, and after all the critiquing of President Trump’s supposed shortcomings , and after all of his winning, perhaps it’s time to start giving him some credit for knowing what he is doing when it comes to communication, persuasion, and making his case.
He has that reputation; as for a legacy (i.e. an evidenced track record of solid decision making), people keep refusing to provide evidence of that.
I’m not sure if you’ve taken in everything John Yoo has said on the matter:
Ok, so how about on behalf of the Constitution? Any system where a President can be investigated by his own subordinates and conceivably criminally charged for firing one of them makes a mockery of the original constitutional settlement. We have impeachment. If Congress doesn’t have the will to use it when necessary, then damn them; there is no other way provided. Whether or not Trump is the devil, I suspect that you, Mitt Romney, and Bob Mueller would metaphorically tear down all the laws in England to get at him.
Good point – Sorry Bob, who said that? Oh wait, it was you.- and Mic Drop too!
It is also true that in order for a legal charge of obstruction to come about against any individual, that individual or some perceived accomplice must be charged with a crime. The Mueller witch hunt team spent two and a half years attempting to entrap various members of Trump’s campaign team. In some cases, it was the Dems themselves that handled various entrapments or entanglements.
For instance, Obama or one of his staff arranged one of Jeff Sessions’ meeting with Russians. (“It would be good for you to meet with Russian officials you might need to deal with, Jeffie Boy, prior to being sworn in as Attorney General… Why don’t you let us set up the meeting for you?”)
Yes the Mueller team did manage to indict, prosecute and convict some of Trump’s people. But the charges those folks were convicted of did not have anything to do with the Russian collusion angle. And Trump himself was never charged with anything!
I cringed reading that Woodward claimed that Trump’s own attorney Sekulow called Trump a pathological liar. Especially given that Woodward bends the truth whenever it serves the needs of his masters. Would Sekulow think it a good thing for Trump to be interviewed? No, and he has stated that much on Fox TV.
The Woodward remarks here remind me of Kitty Kelly’s book on Jacqueline Kennedy. Kelly made the newly widowed Jacqueline out to be a vapid glamor puss intrigued and excited over the happy fact that she got to design and carry out her husband’s public wake and funeral arrangements.
The Democrats interrogating any and everyone is a viscious affair. Shelia Jackson Lee made a particularly witch-ee kind of performance when she went after Diamond of Diamond and Silk. Note how she tries to trip the woman up, inserting a different date into her questions just as Diamond is about to reply, while pretending that Hardaway has lied when she had not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwIclOxotfc
Trump most likely would not have kept it together as well as Hardaway did. He may well have come across as a “pathological liar” without being one – just as Lee insists that Hardaway has lied.
After listening to Yoo on one of the pods, I think the characterization of what he said is incorrect.
In order to charge, you’d have to show intent, which would likely mean an interview. A state of mind at the time the obstruction happened, or enough testimony or evidence around it. That’s almost impossible to prove, and putting him on the stand or interviewing him would likely be a disaster.
But they had no evidence of obstruction, which is why the 2nd half of the report basically tries to paint Trump as unstable, so that 2-year effort that failed to find obstruction or collusion could be used for impeachment.
Which is really the only vehicle for this, if you want to remove someone who’s unfit. Swearing and not knowing the laws doesn’t mean one is unfit, if that were true every president for the last half-century would be deemed unfit and subject to impeachment.
What it really shows is how lazy Congress is, where they’d much rather make political hay, and garner votes, through an investigation. The hard work required for impeachment, with its attendant political risk, is too much for these gallant truth-warriors to bear, so they spend tens of millions of your dollars, distract the country for 2 years, and bupkis.
Your American leadership, America! Sit back and enjoy them, in their full spectacle.
This will not happen.
His critics are much too invested in the Trump as villain model to see him as a normal person. He has come to embody everything they’ve always suspected, or wished to believe, about mouth-breathing, cross-burning far-right Republicans. Ask Jimmy Fallon if “normalizing” Donald Trump is acceptable to Trump’s critics.
My comment was, as they say, aspirational.
I know you’re not that naive.