So there is no “smoking gun.” At least
according to Robert Mueller. A careful reading of his report, even
the summary suggests otherwise, but that's not the way it is being
presented to the country. So what you say? Much ado about nothing?
Not quite.
A careful reading of the Mueller report reveals that the
Special Council didn't cite Disgustus and his minions for conspiracy
against the United States—so called “collusion” with the
Russians—because the evidence wasn't, in his opinion, sufficient to
rise to that level. The report tells us that the reasons he reached
that conclusion were that witnesses have lied to authorities, many of
their communications were in encrypted messages, many destroyed, many
witnesses plead the fifth amendment, and many witnesses are foreign
nationals beyond the reach of federal authority. Additionally,
Mueller tells us that his office did not pursue all reported leads
relating to Russian connection.
One suspects that the Special Council, himself a
life-long employee of the F.B.I, as well as Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein, were more interested in protecting the agency than
dealing with the more pressing national emergency that is the tRUMP
'presidency'.
Anyone viewing this from the outside would use the
standard established by the late Senator Sam Irvin at the Watergate
hearings. “If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, walks
like a horse, and eats hay then we can reasonably reach the
conclusion that it's a horse.” So it is here.
Many have commented that another prosecutor could reach
other conclusions based on the evidence. Mueller chose to apply the
most stringent standards. The 'smoking gun'. In this case, a
record of conversation or written understanding between the Russians
and tRUMP establishing conspiracy, the absence of which
leads to no charges.
But do we need a smoking gun?
Elizabeth Drew, long a reporter for The New Yorker
who reported on the Watergate Scandal as it unfolded and who has
written a book about it, tells us that our collective memory is
faulty.
“Many people are getting their history and their
definition of impeachment wrong by asserting that what forced Nixon
to resign was the revelation in August, 1974, very late in the
process, of a recording of his trying to obstruct Justice. This
leads them to the erroneous conclusion that it's essential to find a
'smoking gun' to impeach a president.
“In fact, even before that tape was released, the
House Judiciary Committee had already approved three articles of
impeachment against Nixon. It was widely understood that opinion had
moved so strongly against him that the House would approve those
articles and the Senate would vote to convict Nixon on those grounds.
The tape simply hastened the finale
“By far the most important article of impeachment
approved by the House committee on a bipartisan basis was Article II,
which called for the punishment of Nixon for abusing presidential
power by using executive agencies (such as the Internal Revenue
Service) to punish his enemies and for failing to uphold the oat of
office to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' It also
said, significantly, that a president could be held accountable for a
pattern of abusive or even illegal behavior by his aides.” (1)
Then there is obstruction of justice. Mueller cites at
least ten instances of obstruction but did not indict Disgustus
because of Department of Justice guidelines barring the indictment of
a sitting president.
Disgustus is, of course, doing a victory dance, claiming
“no collusion, no obstruction” citing attorney general Barr's
summary of 'no collusion' and making the completely bogus claim that
since where was no 'crime' there can be no obstruction. But that's
not what the report says.
Mueller has, like
Hansel and Gretel, left many bread-crumbs to follow, in effect
begging the Congress to act. “Mr. Mueller did not say
that there had been no collusion, or conspiracy, or whatever between
the Russian oligarchs and intelligence agents with ties to the
Kremlin and members of the Trump campaign”, writes
Drew, “in fact he traced considerable traffic, or what he
called 'links' and 'contacts,' between them in some detail.” (2)
Mueller simply hadn't found “some sort of specific agreement”
between them. (3) The so-called smoking gun.
Mueller has yet to speak publicly about his report, but
one suspects that he concluded that for legal action to be taken it
must be preceded by the political remedy of impeachment. That was
certainly the case when it came to obstruction of justice and,
lacking the 'smoking gun' Mueller more than likely concluded
that the evidence, such as it has been developed, is sufficient to
warrant, at a minimum, a thorough congressional investigation.
There are many question hanging in the air. Why did he
not follow Leon Jaworski's example of naming tRUMP and “unindicted
co-conspirator”. Why did he not cite the tRUMP larvae for lying to
Congress? These and other considerations beg the question: was he
protecting his agency from the sure to follow wrath of Disgustus and
his congressional enablers?
What is certain is that Disgustus has long since me the
standards of impeachment and removal from office. What Drew is
reminding us is that we need no smoking gun, no universally
demonstrable 'proof' that he committed some heinous felony. As noted
in many previous posts, impeachment is a political remedy to
political crime—indeed the worst form of crime—assault
against the greater society, the nation, the polis.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been working hard to keep
her caucus in line, saying that talk of impeachment is premature and
that, in any case, an election is around the corner. Then there is
the “precedent” that to impeach and fail to convict in the Senate
would set a terrible precedent.
But, as Elizabeth Drew points out, “Madison and
Hamilton didn't say anything about holding off on impeachment because
it would be politically risky. It's hard to imagine they'd put
political convenience on the same footing as the security of the
constitution. And the Democrats who prefer to substitute the 2020
election for an impeachment fight don't appear to have considered the
implications if Mr. Trump were to win:Would that not condone his
constitutional abuses and encourage his authoritarian instincts?”
(4)
More than that, would not failure to impeach whether
Disgustus wins or loses the next election, not set the awful
precedent that there indeed must be some smoking gun in order
to act?
We already have an attorney general who tells the House
Judiciary Committee with a straight face that if the president thinks
he is innocent that he can then close down any investigation, no
matter what the evidence to the contrary may be, into his conduct.
“An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”
Impeach and Imprison
_______________________
- Drew, Elizabeth. “The Danger in Not Impeaching” The New York Times. Friday, April 26, 2019. Page A27
- Ibid
- Ibid
- Ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment