Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRenato Mariotti: Obstruction is Collusion
From Politico Magazine: Obstruction Is Collusion
The revelation that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation to determine whether President Donald Trump is compromised by or working for the Russian government is beyond disturbing. To deepen the unease, another report disclosed that Trump went to extraordinary lengths to conceal what he discussed with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The unsettling news should concern all Americans. But, as we await the discoveries of special counsel Robert Mueller, we must distinguish between a counterintelligence nightmare and a criminal violation.
It is possible that Trump was compromised by the Russians but that there is insufficient evidence to prove that he committed a crime resembling what the public has been calling collusion. The recent revelations, moreover, may have changed our understanding of collusion as well as another word weve heard a lot of since Mueller started his investigation: obstruction.
To put it mildly, it is highly unusual to be discussing a sitting presidents possibly being compromised by a country commonly seen as an enemy. Being compromised by the Russians is not a crime in and of itself, though it could cause someone to commit any number of crimes. Trumps being compromised might, for instance, have caused him to lie under penalty of perjury, to trade official acts in exchange for something of value, or to accept foreign contributions in connection with an election.
Its true, though, that we appear to be closer to prosecutors making a case that a key Trump associate committed a crime resembling collusion. The recent revelation that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort shared the Trump campaigns private polling data with alleged Russian intelligence operative Konstantin Kilimnik was the most important evidence of potential collusion revealed publicly thus far.
This evidence strongly suggests that Manafort sought aid from the Kremlin. Why else would the campaign chair of a major party presidential candidate provide internal polling data to a Russian intelligence operative? While it is not illegal in and of itself to prove internal polling data to a Russian operative, neither is wearing a ski mask while walking into a bank.
Both actions strongly suggest a crime was committed.
The most obvious potential liability for Manafort stems from Muellers indictment of Russian operatives for defrauding the United States by interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016. To prove that Manafort committed a crime, as in any conspiracy charge, Mueller would need to prove that Manafort knew of the criminal conspiracy and helped make it succeed. So far, theres no public evidence that proves Manaforts knowledge.
Still, Mueller knows far more than we do, and its very possible he can prove that Manafort committed a crime when he provided polling data to Kilimnik. Yet even proof that Manafort committed a crime resembling collusion would not prove that Trump was implicated in the crime.
But with the new revelations about Trump, that matters much less than it did even last week. We now know that the FBI counterintelligence investigation into Trump began with events surrounding the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
In that context, obstruction takes on a different, graver meaning. You might say it takes on the same meaning as collusion. And if Mueller can prove that Trump obstructed justice, does it even matter whether he can prove that Trump committed other crimes? After all, the FBI saw Trumps attempt to obstruct the FBI investigation by firing Comey as evidence that Trump was trying to aid Russia by undermining the investigation of Russian efforts to interfere with our election. The FBI saw Trumps obstruction as a form of collusion, aiding the Russian government by undermining our own.
Even based on public knowledge, the obstruction case against the president is very strong. Its so strong, in fact, that even a year ago, I concluded that Mueller would find that Trump obstructed justice. Since then, the evidence against Trump has grown, as Trump has publicly revealed his desire to obstruct justice on multiple occasions. On its own, the evidence will establish that Trump obstructed justice. Even Trumps ardent defenders, like Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani or Professor Alan Dershowitz, argue that Trump couldnt obstruct justice as a technical legal matter. They dont argue that the facts wont show he tried to do so, because they cant.
But Mueller is extremely unlikely to indict Trump for obstructing justice, because the Justice Department has determined that a sitting president cant be indicted. What really matters, then, is whether Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of impeachment. If Mueller proves that Trump obstructed the FBI and Justice Department investigation into the Russian attack on our democracy because he was compromised by the Kremlin, would that be worthy of impeachment? It should be, but thats a question for the American peoplethrough their elected representatives in Congressto decide.
The unsettling news should concern all Americans. But, as we await the discoveries of special counsel Robert Mueller, we must distinguish between a counterintelligence nightmare and a criminal violation.
It is possible that Trump was compromised by the Russians but that there is insufficient evidence to prove that he committed a crime resembling what the public has been calling collusion. The recent revelations, moreover, may have changed our understanding of collusion as well as another word weve heard a lot of since Mueller started his investigation: obstruction.
To put it mildly, it is highly unusual to be discussing a sitting presidents possibly being compromised by a country commonly seen as an enemy. Being compromised by the Russians is not a crime in and of itself, though it could cause someone to commit any number of crimes. Trumps being compromised might, for instance, have caused him to lie under penalty of perjury, to trade official acts in exchange for something of value, or to accept foreign contributions in connection with an election.
Its true, though, that we appear to be closer to prosecutors making a case that a key Trump associate committed a crime resembling collusion. The recent revelation that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort shared the Trump campaigns private polling data with alleged Russian intelligence operative Konstantin Kilimnik was the most important evidence of potential collusion revealed publicly thus far.
This evidence strongly suggests that Manafort sought aid from the Kremlin. Why else would the campaign chair of a major party presidential candidate provide internal polling data to a Russian intelligence operative? While it is not illegal in and of itself to prove internal polling data to a Russian operative, neither is wearing a ski mask while walking into a bank.
Both actions strongly suggest a crime was committed.
The most obvious potential liability for Manafort stems from Muellers indictment of Russian operatives for defrauding the United States by interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016. To prove that Manafort committed a crime, as in any conspiracy charge, Mueller would need to prove that Manafort knew of the criminal conspiracy and helped make it succeed. So far, theres no public evidence that proves Manaforts knowledge.
Still, Mueller knows far more than we do, and its very possible he can prove that Manafort committed a crime when he provided polling data to Kilimnik. Yet even proof that Manafort committed a crime resembling collusion would not prove that Trump was implicated in the crime.
But with the new revelations about Trump, that matters much less than it did even last week. We now know that the FBI counterintelligence investigation into Trump began with events surrounding the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
In that context, obstruction takes on a different, graver meaning. You might say it takes on the same meaning as collusion. And if Mueller can prove that Trump obstructed justice, does it even matter whether he can prove that Trump committed other crimes? After all, the FBI saw Trumps attempt to obstruct the FBI investigation by firing Comey as evidence that Trump was trying to aid Russia by undermining the investigation of Russian efforts to interfere with our election. The FBI saw Trumps obstruction as a form of collusion, aiding the Russian government by undermining our own.
Even based on public knowledge, the obstruction case against the president is very strong. Its so strong, in fact, that even a year ago, I concluded that Mueller would find that Trump obstructed justice. Since then, the evidence against Trump has grown, as Trump has publicly revealed his desire to obstruct justice on multiple occasions. On its own, the evidence will establish that Trump obstructed justice. Even Trumps ardent defenders, like Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani or Professor Alan Dershowitz, argue that Trump couldnt obstruct justice as a technical legal matter. They dont argue that the facts wont show he tried to do so, because they cant.
But Mueller is extremely unlikely to indict Trump for obstructing justice, because the Justice Department has determined that a sitting president cant be indicted. What really matters, then, is whether Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of impeachment. If Mueller proves that Trump obstructed the FBI and Justice Department investigation into the Russian attack on our democracy because he was compromised by the Kremlin, would that be worthy of impeachment? It should be, but thats a question for the American peoplethrough their elected representatives in Congressto decide.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 656 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post