(I wrote the following as a reply to a comment made by Procopius on Booman’s recent post Trump Will Need to Throw Flynn to the Wolves. It grew, and I am now posting it as a standalone article.)
—————————————————————————
Procopius quoted from Booman’s original post:
If [Flynn] indicates that Trump was witting about his activities, that’s an impeachable offense…
And then wrote:
[sigh] An impeachable offense is what the members of the House Judiciary Committee say is an impeachable offense. I find the careless use of language disheartening. Six months from now you will have forgotten making this statement, but your readers will be disappointed. I believe Trump could shoot a random person on Fifth Avenue and the Republicans in the House would refuse to pass a Bill of Impeachment. Even Digby, whom I used to adore, has gone insane with the words collusion and treason. None of what Flynn is accused of is equivalent to making war on the United States. Nothing that Trump has done rises to the level of making war on the United States, although I admit he’s doing an awful lot to harm the U.S. There has been no evidence presented to support the thousands of assertions that Trump Jr. “colluded” with “the Russian government” by meeting with people who claimed to have discreditable information about Hillary.
Read on for my approving response.
[Sigh]…twice!!!
You write:
None of what Flynn is accused of is equivalent to making war on the United States. Nothing that Trump has done rises to the level of making war on the United States, although I admit he’s doing an awful lot to harm the U.S.
Precisely.
It could be said…if thoroughly proven…that Russia was making a sort of “war” on the United States by using media to influence popular opinion. (“New media…just like the old media that the U.S. has been using to influence popular opinion all over the world since the beginning of WWII hostilities, only miles better in the “influencing” department.) But proving that Flynn and the other hustlers surrounding this administration…right on up to Trump…were trying to somehow injure the United States by their actions? That is going to be a very long haul.
Here is what the Trumpists will say when (If?) push actually comes to shove:
Promising to remove or lessen sanctions? We did it in the name of peace!!! In the name of cooperation between two great powers!!! We did not know that Russia was going to mount a new age propaganda campaign here, nor did we know how effective it would be.
Barring absolute proof of ill intent…if of course the idea of “absolute proof” even remains accessible in this digital, post-truthiness world…can they be busted for this? When Henry Kissinger took part in sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks for Richard Nixon’s electoral benefit…bloody-handed Henry Kissinger, still being honored for his various treacheries and certainly a very rich man…that was treason!!! How is it that every high official of every government under which the the U.S. has operated has made lots of money? It’s certainly not a coincidence. Can we bust these people for trying to do that? I don’t really know. If this happens, it will a purely political act. I am fine with that, but let’s call a spade a spade here. What happened in this instance is business as usual, only this time the ultimate beneficiary of this business is equally disliked and feared by both parties, and quite probably incompetent for the job at hand as well.
The only disagreement I have with what you wrote is about the following:
There has been no evidence presented to support the thousands of assertions that Trump Jr. “colluded” with “the Russian government” by meeting with people who claimed to have discreditable information about Hillary.
Just because no evidence has been “presented”…an assertion with which many would disagree…does not preclude the existence of evidence.
Further, the spooks can manufacture “evidence” on an industrial level if they so desire. That pee tape that so titillated Trump’s enemies and produced so much clickbait-generated profit for the media? Even if it really exists and is eventually shown as evidence on CNN, I personally do not believe any evidence that is digitally based. It’s simply too easy to fake. That goes two ways as well. If said tape were to be presented in lurid detail on the national news, one thing would immediately happen. Cadres of “experts” would immediately step forward to say that they can prove that it has been doctored, and other cadres of other “experts” would step forward saying that they can prove that it has not been doctored. Much like the global warming brouhaha, there is simply no “truth” left, short of what one can witness personally. All the rest is up for grabs. Those with the most interest and the most money will eventually be declared the winners in that particular truthiness sweepstakes, and on to the next outrage we will happily tumble.
So it goes.
Thank you, Procopius, for trying to make some sense here.
Later…
AG