May 3, 2019: No Smoking Gun, The Wrong Lesson Learned, Hansel And Gretel

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

_______________________

1. Drew, Elizabeth. “The Danger in Not Impeaching” The New York Times. Friday, April 26, 2019. Page A27
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. Ibid

January 19, 2019 Pride and Prejudice, Spite and Malice, The Lady Says No

The federal government has now been under a partial shut down for nearly a month. In what began as an act of pride and prejudice—an attempt to build, like some modern Hadrian, a monument to himself, and fund that enterprise by naked racist appeal; Disgustus now finds himself trembling before the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter while stories of families being evicted, workers unable to buy groceries or medicine haunt the news. The bastard 'president', finds himself alone performing unnatural acts upon his cheeseburger as he twits away his presidency.

Famously captured on tape telling Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that he would happily take the credit for closing down the government unless he got his wall, Disgustus now finds himself boxed into a corner, his support bleeding and, in his words, taking a beating.

Indeed according so a recent Gallup poll, Disgustus has now lost the support of a majority of white voters who do not have a college education. Confronted with the spectre of the loss of the 'great unwashed', Disgustus took to the airwaves earlier in the month addressing the nation from the oval office.

Many in the media, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC among them, openly questioned whether the networks should broadcast the speech, noting that little would be added to the discussion and much would be added to the level of misrepresentation by this White House. Some suggested taping the speech and then interrupting Disgustus on the replay with fact checks setting the record straight. Nevertheless, the networks broadcast the speech.

It was bad enough that the media gave Disgustus the national stage, but not content with presenting a shit-storm of lies Disgustus, taking to the internet before the speech made an appeal for campaign contributions. As reported by Lawrence O'Donnell in the aftermath of Disgustus' performance, Trump made an appeal for contributions to support the wall, but in the footnotes the money was to go to the re-election committee. So here we have our bastard 'president' using an oval office speech in order to solicit, by invidious means, campaign contributions. Another norm of decency shredded as this clown further defiles the office.

This dispute is ostensibly about building the wall. Disgustus presents it as a barrier holding back the brown hordes threatening our southern frontier. Those familiar with its origins speak of the wall as a means of reminding candidate Disgustus to mention immigration on the campaign trail. When he discovered that mentioning a wall brought a roar of approval, it became a stock item in his stump speech. Later he added the proviso “and Mexico will pay for it”, because he quite rightly ciphered that the Generation of Swine is not about to pay for anything.

The President of Mexico was having none of it, telling tRUMP and then the world that Mexico isn't about to pay for any 'fucking wall'. That left Disgustus trapped in a corner with his pants down.

Hemmed in by Mexico's obstinance on one side, Coulter, Limbaugh and his rabid base on the another, and the resistance and disgust of the Democrats and independents on another, Disgustus has become a cornered rat looking for some way out.

So he called the Democrats to the White House to 'negotiate', beginning the meeting declaring that he wants 5.7 billion dollars for this monument to himself. The lady said no. Disgustus, not familiar with such a rebuff, declared the meeting over and stormed out the room. Pelosi, emerging on the White House Lawn, told the nation that the 'president' behaved like a petulant child, having a temper tantrum and, reminding the nation that federal workers cannot simply call daddy to fund the household until this storm passes, suggested that perhaps the Disgustus intransigence had something to do with his inferior sense of masculinity.

A few days later, Disgustus, still searching for an exit, called together a delegation of House Democrats in representing conservative districts hoping to peel them away from the Speaker. It didn't work. The Lady said NO!

Then came the shot across the bow when early this week Speaker Pelosi sent a letter to Disgustus disinviting him from appearing in the House Chamber to deliver the State of the Union address.

“The Communique was at once excruciatingly polite and brutally dismissive, driving home how the power dynamic has shifted on Capitol Hill” wrote Michelle Cottle in The New York Times, “if anyone has the chops to manage Mr. Trump's brattiness, it is Ms. Pelosi.

In a tit for tat, Disgustus took away military aircraft in which members of Congress were to visit Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It was a transparent bit of retaliation for Ms. Pelosi's taking his big television moment away from him—not to mention a blatant attempt to drag the speaker down into the sort of cheap playground tussle at which the president excels.”

As Ms. Cottle notes, Speaker Pelosi is no stranger to the male ego; the chauvinist braggadocio and the insecurities it betrays. She was dismissed as an “airhead” by Democratic Leadership when she early in her career sought the leadership of the national party. She struggled with and finally transformed the 'boys club' that has been the United States Congress. She is nothing like the moronic neophyte presently occupying the Executive Mansion.

“This time around,” Observed Ms. Cottle, “Ms. Pelosi is aiming not merely to rein in the out-of-control president but, in the process, to deflate his cherished image as Master of the Universe. She has mocked Mr. Trump's obsession with what she terms his 'manhood' and gone all in with the grandmother-wrangling-an-unruly-child shtick. What he paints as strong leadership and holding his ground, she dismisses as a temper tantrum. Rather than outrage or disbelief, Ms. Pelosi's most common response to Mr. Trump amounts to one long, exasperated eye roll.” (1)

The adults have, like rats jumping ship, left the White House. But the adults have arrived in the people's chamber of Congress; and the adult in the House has spoken. The lady has seen a thing or two. The lady has been around the block. The lady knows how to read the wind. The lady knows how to count heads, and the lady demonstrates that she will not respond to intemperance; she will not respond to petulance; she will not respond the temper-tantrums. This isn't about the wall, it is about having tantrums when one doesn't get one's way. Lady said “No”.

Go ahead big boy, try and flog grandma. See what that gets you.

“An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

________________

1. Cottle, Michelle. “A Game of Spite and Malice”, The New York Times. Friday, January 18, 2019. Page A22