Jennifer Rubin asks if there is a scenario where Robert Mueller exonerates Donald Trump and suggests that it is almost unthinkable. Her rationale is that Trump wouldn’t be behaving the way he’s been behaving if he didn’t have something very bad to hide.
There are a few ways to look at this. The first is that Rubin is absolutely correct and that Trump is knowingly guilty of collusion with the Russians’ hacking attempts and the strategy for making the best use of the hacked material. The conspiracy could even go deeper than this and involve knowledge of hacks on voter databases and shared electronic communications for the purpose of targeting voters. This would explain Trump’s behavior.
But there are other explanations possible that may lie in between total innocence and the type of evidence that would virtually compel a Republican congress to impeach and convict the president.
It may be true, for example, that Trump’s been heavily reliant on Russian investment in his real estate ventures. If this has involved money laundering on the Russian side, that’s not necessarily a criminal act on Trump’s end. He’s just selling condos and luxury apartments. In many cases, all he’s doing is selling his name to these projects. He may want to be friendly to Russia for financial reasons, but that doesn’t mean Mueller can point to high crimes. Maybe he can, but maybe he can’t.
Another possibility is that Trump’s campaign was compromised or penetrated by Russians or people in the Russians’ control. Why would Paul Manafort offer to work for Trump for free, for example? But this is different from Trump being compromised himself.
On the strict question of collusion, it won’t be easy to demonstrate that Trump knew or directed it even if it is proven beyond any doubt that it took place.
But even if Mueller never brings a slam-dunk case against Trump on collusion, he will bring charges against those who have already lied to FBI officers or committed other acts of obstruction. The case against Trump for obstruction looks promising to put it mildly. And the idea that Trump’s business and tax practices can survive close scrutiny seems like a stretch.
In the end, though, I can see a situation where Mueller does not conclude that Trump himself colluded with the Russians and exonerates him at least to the extent that he says that he can’t develop a case that he would bring to court.
If this happens, we’ll get the Scooter Libby defense that the underlying charges were not proven. In that case, the investigation was vindicated and justice done by bringing other related charges. In Trump’s case, things are complicated by the fact that he can’t be hauled into court. He may, however, discover that members of his family can be. Resignation could look like an attractive option if it could be part of deal that keeps his family out of prison.
So, Trump could be in some sense exonerated of the main charge against him. But I can’t see a scenario where this ends well for him. Flynn and Manafort are already in plea mode, and Jared Kushner is in big trouble, too. Donald Jr. obviously has his own problems, and I wonder if Ivanka could possibly be isolated from all of this or if she can survive the scrutiny of the Trump Organization’s business practices in places like Azerbaijan.
Mueller would also have to basically punt while in clear field goal range to avoid making an obstruction case against the president. He could decide to do this if he thought the underlying charge wasn’t proven and the best course is to end the constitutional crisis. But I don’t see that as very likely.
I think Trump has created a world of hurt for himself and his family no matter how this plays out, but there are many more possible outcomes to this than that the president is found innocent or guilty of collusion.
BooMan, respectfully, there’s a false conclusion here, early on:
The problem is that you’re laying these two possibilities out like they’re the extremes of a linear progression, with a straight line between them…when, in reality, I think you’re talking about two different things. “Evidence of guilt” and “of the type” “that would virtually compel a Republican congress to impeach and convict the president” are two different things. As in the Watergate era (and, as Josh Marshall and Dahlia Lithwick have been urgently arguing), the abstract fact of lawbreaking or of the Rule of Law itself does not guarantee or even suggest that anyone will take action.
We’ve already seen how this Republican congress responds to Trump’s clear legal transgressions — vested interests in hotels where dignitaries stay; conflicts over business interests (in flagrant contrast to Jimmy Carter having to sell his farm etc.) — so the idea that they’ll be “virtually compelled” to act, at some point down the line, seems unreasonable.
I’m not saying it won’t happen and I’m not disputing your larger point (that Trump may genuinely be exonerated by the investigation). I’m simply saying, even if Trump is shown to be conclusively guilty of crimes, it doesn’t follow that he’ll be removed from power. We’ve already crossed that bridge.
Apologies if the above is unclear, or needlessly verbose.
All I’m saying is, even the most cynical observers of our biased, weakened and compromised congress talk in terms of reaching a point where, whether they want to or not, they “have to” act to remove or sanction Trump.
Sometimes it’s about waiting until their budget is passed (or, conclusively determined that it won’t pass), or other agenda points in the line of judicial appointments, gun/abortion legislation etc. But most often it’s pure legitimacy (as during Watergate): the nation “must” remove Trump or it’s not the United States any more; it’s an abyss we can’t enter.
And I’m saying, I just have trouble believing this. I’d love to be proven wrong (and the Faustian-bargain elements in my 2nd paragraph above may be the important battleground for my being wrong) but I’ve just seen too many government actors turn away from crime and punishment “to spare us the ordeal” or because “the important thing is to look forward” or just because they don’t want to make waves.
I thought it was clear. And also … what is the criminal status of ‘collusion?’ IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that the way we’re talking about it, it’s all political and not legal.
Even if they’re charged with violating the election laws of the United States, or violating FARA … I can already hear the Republican Congress saying, “yes, they are guilty of breaking these little technical laws, and it’s very wrong of them, but you’ll notice that nobody brought charges of collusion” without mentioning that, from my reading at least, no such charges exist.
>>what is the criminal status of ‘collusion?’ IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that the way we’re talking about it, it’s all political and not legal.
I’d also like an answer to this question. The dictionary definition implies illegal, but per wiki the only U.S. laws that use the word are in the antitrust area.
A word commonly used in laws though never yet in the Trump discussion is “conspiracy”. That’s a real crime.
Conspiracy to hack electronic devices is very much a crime.
Collusion is not a legal term, as I understand. But he could be guilty of coordinating illegal acts or conspiracy with a foreign person in connection with the election. That can carry jail time, but as someone said, for Trump, it could be a mere wink if it involves Clinton. I would suppose that if there were some quid pro quo that could change, like if he reduces the sanctions. Hard to connect them though.
Still there are other matters to,get,past, like illegal transactions, obstruction of justice and the emoluments clause. I keep wondering if that $230 M doesn’t touch him somewhere. But there is a good chance nothing comes of any of this.
it’s likely to end up as illegal campaign contributions for “in kind” contributions by a foreign entity
I see the possibilities like this:
I don’t see a scenario where his pardoning himself, Kushner and Fredo Jr. works for him in the long term. The Real Merkins(tm)wouldn’t care if he shot someone on the Mall, but the rest of the country does care.
I should have added:
4. The last president who went to war with the FBI didn’t get a happy ending. Trump is now at war with the entire federal bureaucracy, because he demands total loyalty without giving any, and throws them instantly under the bus for everything that goes wrong for him.
That will guarantee endless further embarrassing leaks. Everything he tries to do, they will leak.
But, respectfully (and, as I wrote above) this is beside the point.
In terms not just of crime but self-incrimination, you couldn’t ask for a guiltier or more inept figure than Donald Trump. He doesn’t tape himself as Nixon did, but he does every other thing he can to sabotage himself, including bragging about his motives, contradicting his defenders, and burning bridges with anyone who can help him. He’s been painting a target on his own back for decades.
But, again…this doesn’t matter. Watergate was pursued by the legislative branch, with the Judicial branch taking the baton and then handing it back (I’m paraphrasing a very smart essay I read in the last few days, which I can’t remember the source of)…but the other two branches in our famous “checks and balances” system are missing in action; asleep at the wheel etc. so now the onus is on the FBI and other components of the Executive Branch, who kind of work for Trump but actually don’t (he’s confused even if we’re not).
So until we see signs of life from the congress, nothing will happen. These guys love to make thunderous speeches and then do nothing…and so far they’re not even making thunderous speeches.
>>there are many more possible outcomes to this than that the president is found innocent or guilty of collusion.
well yeah, not least because “collusion” probably isn’t a crime he can be charged with.
The best possible outcome we can expect legally is this:
Resignations to avoid prosecution: Sessions, Tillerson. Kushner, Ivanka
Plea bargains: Flynn, Manafort, Page, Stone
Testimony that implicates Trump directly, Pence directly/indirectly
The widespread election hacks/violations fully documented.Links from campaign to Wikileaks to Russia laid out. Plus Comey’s useful idiot role confirmed (that’s the cherry on top – not likely).
The election fraud fully discredits the election, Trump, and the fruit of the poisoned tree (Supreme Court appointments).
The Democratic brain trust (?) needs to start strategizing on how to put the pressure on Trump judicial appointments. He didn’t win the election, those appointments are bogus, they ended the filibuster to steal those seats, those judges should resign.
A Republican stolen partisan judiciary should not receive the benefit of doubt in being ‘impartial and independent’ when they aren’t. Democrats have to understand the judiciary has already been politicized by the Republicans and they should not be defensive about calling the partisan hacks out.
I should have included that I think the current system construct has now clearly outlived its usefulness. It doesn’t need a lot of tweaks –
I think these changes would extend the current system indefinitely while the current system is unsustainable.
I could hold on a lot easier if I knew for a fact that literally any one of the items in your 2 posts above were going to happen soon. My feeling is it’s all going to get a lot weirder before (a big if here) it gets any better. I expect election rigging on the level that a blind dog can see before anyone in DC even begins to start talking about reform. And I expect nothing of substance to happen as a result.
If there was any justice at all, T and his whole entourage would be in the pokey just for all the emotional distress they’ve caused, and continue to inflict, on the US and the world. I’m semi-retired, but every day I’ve got this horrible feeling like I’ve got a bad boss making me dance.
‘A Bad Boss Making Me Dance’ is the perfect title.
Both of your “tweaks” would be good idea. The first one is impossible, as the constitution states that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” The second one should be implemented, though the constitutional amendment process is extremely difficult.
Why not eliminate the electoral college or make it democratic?
can you imagine the small states agreeing to that? Why on earth would they?
Do you need to amend the constitution for that?
uh… yes.
Yeah I know
Yeah, I know.
“He may want to be friendly to Russia for financial reasons, but that doesn’t mean Mueller can point to high crimes.”
It doesn’t mean that he can, but it doesn’t mean that he can’t either. There’s no hard and fast line between the two. I have all along thought this the most likely explanation — Trump pursues his own private interests (the only kind he has), with no off switch, no conception of what kind of compromising positions he is getting himself into, no concern for what laws he might be breaking. By now he’s beginning to understand that he could be in a lot of trouble, but of course this is all totally “unfair” to the poor little snowflake.
Whatever will MSNBC and CNN, and your favorite pundit,do without the Russia investigation. Any number of people owe their livelihoods to this.
Right — that’s the important part.
Brian Williams may lose his eleventh hour news show if Russia goes away.
Yes, I get what you’re saying and I’m ridiculing it, because I think it speaks to a messed-up set of priorities.
Messed up? you bet. And then there is Donald’s priorities. How could Brian Williams compete with this, sad:
I don’t watch NBC news these days but I have noticed that within the MSNBC lineup Brian Williams lacks the edge of his counterparts. He reminds me of the more staid years of nightly news where we weren’t faced with crazed rightwingers pummeling the truth with zero push back from the punditry. It feels like he still tries to turn news back into the format of more civility but reality roasts him every time.
I get the feeling his role is to quiet the waters after Lawrence and Rachel so that folks can get some sleep.
Brian Williams’ show is a bit of a snoozefest. Tried watching it a couple times. Wasn’t impressed. Rachel and Lawrence are on fire. Usually I just avoid talk shows of any sort, but for them I’ll make an exception.
Relying on the timing to look at Trump’s fears, I’m remembering that his initial reaction was anger that the charges about Russian interference were somehow attacking the credibility of his win. That meant to me that the Russian interference/collusion was a real scenario and it wasn’t until this started to play out that he realized the next layer of his economic reliance on bad ass Russians and his kids’ being in the crosshairs was a reality.
He could be exonerated, for lack of evidence, on some of the Russia charges but the he ain’t skating on the dirty business tricks. And those may be the ultimate leverage that Mueller has with Trump; dirty business tricks toned down for evacuation of the WH or take your choice, impeachment for Russian collusion or lose your businesses?
That is an excellent point. You can’t pardon a business. And Presidential pardons only cover federal charges: if Mueller uncovers what he very well may, that could drag a whole lotta states into a whole lotta investigation of Trump’s dealings.
Of course, the person who replaced Bharara seems in Trump’s pocket, so who knows?
Mueller was appointed to investigate whether Trump committed obstruction of justice in firing Comey. Will he be exonerated of that? At the time of appointment, most thought that Trump would not.
So we come to the motive of the obstruction. (1) Comey was investigating the Russia connection; (2) Comey was investigating the emoluments clause argument and thus Trump’s finances; (3) either of these and other things.
Obstruction of justice was sufficient for moving on Nixon and on Clinton. But the political situation was favorable to the prosecuting party.
Did the Democrats not think of the possibility of exoneration before they started hyping an investigation as a political football? Of course, that assumes that there is not a Catch-22 when it comes to any Republican accountability. That there is not a double standard in the media, or multiple medias pursuing different narratives.
RE:
Through persistent hard work, with great difficulty, I have trained my inner pedant to restrain himself to ignore misuse of the plural of “medium”, e.g., by coupling it with a singular verb form (e.g., ” . . . the media is . . . “).
This has become so common that I tolerate the acceptance that railing against it is a pointless and hopeless rearguard action doomed to failure (doesn’t make it any less a fingernails-on-chalkboard stimulus every time I encounter it, though). I fully expect you could now find dictionaries that have slid from noting as “usage” putting “media” with a singular noun to considering this abuse “accepted usage”.
But to then stick an “s” on the already plural “media” to make it plural (in obvious ignorance of the fact it’s already plural!) . . .
. . . well, sorry, that’s just an abuse too far, more than one can tolerate.
And don’t get me started on ” . . . data is . . . “. Next thing we know you’ll be writing some linguistic abomination like “the data, or multiple datas . . . “!
</rant>
Ayup. And don’t get me started on phenomenon/phenomena.
in record of a meeting attended by people who all have at least undergrad degrees, plus 1-3 Masters and 1 or 2 PhDs):
Aaaaaaiiiiieeeee!!11!!!1