Unless Congressional Republicans
challenge Trump's conduct, Democrats winning back the House might now
be a matter of national security.
U.S. intelligence services unanimously
say Russia interfered in our 2016 elections and plans the same for
2018. Twelve Russian military officers are under indictment; and the
29-page indictment is incredibly specific on what they did.
Monday Donald Trump stood beside
Vladimir Putin and made clear he believed Putin's denial of any
interference. Remarkably, Trump said he couldn't “see any reason
why” Russia would interfere in our election. A huge outcry (even
from Republicans) forced a fatuous cleanup effort, but Trump added
that it could actually be others. Trump's handpicked Director of
Intelligence, Dan Coats, commented that the intelligence conclusion
is “extremely clear” and that the Russian interference is
“persistent,” “pervasive,” and “meant to undermine American
democracy.”
I've had serious questions about how
badly Trump was compromised, and whether Putin had undue influence.
Trump has undermined NATO but hasn't criticized Russia for
international bad acts.
Now he is openly acting more in
Russia's interest than in ours – and sees Russia acting in his
interest. Russia helped elect Trump. Trump is an obvious asset to
Russia. Russia will try to induce Americans to elect more
Congressional “yes-persons” for Trump this year. Can anyone
doubt that, alone with Putin, Trump winked and said, “Have at it,
Vlad!”? (Have morals, ethics, or laws ever kept Trump from doing
what's best for Donald? )
The evidence should make any patriot
demand further investigation. Trump and Putin want to end Mueller's
investigation.
Democracy is central to who we are.
Massive interference by a foreign power in a close election could be
fatal to our country.
Trump says and does nothing. His
minions argue that it would have been impolite to say anything to
Putin; but Trump insulted German, French, and English leaders
publicly in person.
Trump continues to attack the press.
The press didn't utter Trump's words, adopt his submissive manner
around Putin, or paint that “cat-ate-the-canary” grin on Putin's
face.
If Putin and Trump can stop the
special prosecutor's investigation prematurely, and convince the
average voter that it's all unfair press coverage, what will be left
of constitutional and other “checks and balances” on the
President's power? No prosecutor. No Supreme Court, with two new
Trump appointees. (And what if Justice Ruth Ginsberg dies or is
forced to retire?)
Patriots must ask themselves: what
would stop Trump from seriously weakening the U.S. – and/or
destroying our civil liberties? Not this Republican Senate. Surely
not the House Republicans trying to tear the FBI apart. Would the
military interfere if Trump took unconstitutional actions clearly
dangerous to our security? Unlikely. With the Supreme Court and
Republican Senators applauding Trump's every move, how would such a
thing ever get organized? And what a terrible thing to wish for!
Dasvidanya, constitutional government.
Many Republicans have spoken up; but
few in Congress have, and so far we haven't seen action. (Republican
Rep. Will Hurd, a former CIA operative from a swing district in
Texas, tweeted, "I've seen Russian intelligence manipulate many
people over my professional career and I never would have thought
that the US President would become one of the ones getting played by
old KGB hands.") They rejected additional funds for protecting
elections – perhaps because Putin will backing them, not Democrats.
Now Trump wants a second “summit”
--- at which Putin likely will help Trump look strong.
-30-
[The column above appeared Sunday, 22 July 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website. A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and alto on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (streaming at www.lcccommunityradio.org.]
[We should neither pre-judge the ultimate results of Mueller's investigation nor allow political considerations to hinder or terminate it. Our elections matter. Having an unsavory government like Russia's affecting their results is obviously undesirable to the great majority of us -- neo-Nazi's, perhaps, excepted. Whether our highest elected official is acting solely in our interest or has mixed loyalties is important. Given the near-certainty that Russia interfered in 2016 and 2018, and that its interference this year would benefit Republican Congressional candidates, their conduct bears watching. It's interesting that some of them see ending any investigation as an important goal; and they recently voted down a proposal for additional funding to protect against the real cyberthreat while continuing to cite purity of our elections when using the "Voter ID" and "purge the voter rolls" campaigns to diminish votes by poor folks and minorities. ]
[Talk of "treason," while not unreasonable, is probably unhelpful and legally legally inaccurate. The key legal issue is whether the meaning of "enemies" in the Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is limited to enemies in a declared war:
[Talk of "treason," while not unreasonable, is probably unhelpful and legally legally inaccurate. The key legal issue is whether the meaning of "enemies" in the Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is limited to enemies in a declared war:
"Treason against the United States,
shall consist only
in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall
be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court."
in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall
be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court."
Whether “Enemies”
means solely enemies in a declared war has never been decided; but (a)
the majority view probably is that it does; (b) the Constitution intentionally defined "treason" narrowly, to avoid abuse of the term in political prosecutions, and (c) in a close case, Trump's Supreme Court will
likely help Trump.
However, if Trump consciously colluded with a foreign power to swing a U.S. election, that would seem to be an impeachable "high crime and misdemeanor," whether or not it constitutes treason.]
However, if Trump consciously colluded with a foreign power to swing a U.S. election, that would seem to be an impeachable "high crime and misdemeanor," whether or not it constitutes treason.]
[Meanwhile, a key story remains the 29-page indictment, which you can read in full here. It lays out in exceptional detail exactly what each of the dozen high-ranking Russian military intelligence officers did. I've read it, and will likely post a detailed summary this week, for folks who haven't time to read it for themselves. But no reasonable person could read it and call the investigation "a witch hunt" without concluding that high officials in the FBI and the Justice Department, many of them Republicans, had formed a pretty weird conspiracy.]
[Couple of other random quick points:
(1) timing of indictments wasn't to sabotage "summit" -- Mueller's people gave Trump's people the choice, indictments before summit or after summit, Trump or his people made choice;
(2) if Putin outright owned Trump, you'd think Putin would have instructed Trump to be a bit less of a lackey -- maybe give Putin a hard time over election meddling, just for show; but
(3) there's gotta be something Trump fears that Putin controls.
It's worth stressing that when conventional banks had little faith in Mr. Trump, Russian and Ukrainian money appears to have kept him afloat. In a video, his son was quite open about the heavy flow of money, although I don't recall him admitting it kept them afloat.]
[Trump has been fooling a
lot of good people. I hope patriots who've tried to tell themselves
this guy was all right will put our country first. We know Trump
won't.]
No comments:
Post a Comment