The Mueller report has become like the Bible, where most people seem to cherry-pick scriptures which support their agenda, and fail to stand back and see the larger picture. This has especially been the case with the most ardent of Trump supporters.
Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. His 2-year investigation resulted in 34 indictments, which included several Russian nationals and Trump aides/advisors. This has led to multiple guilty pleas and verdicts, and with that, prison time. The most striking conclusion in the Mueller report is that Russia did heavily interfere in our election and it will likely happen again unless we do something about it. Did Russia's interference ultimately determine the election's outcome? That's impossible to conclude with any degree of certainty at the moment. What's not difficult to conclude, however, is that Russian interference did impact the 2016 election, and with that, our democracy. If our leaders twiddle their thumbs about the matter until the 2020 election, rest assured the cycle will repeat itself.
While some may say, "Hey, that was already common knowledge! Everyone knew Russia interfered in the election!," Donald Trump has yet to admit that to the public, which has continued to leave roughly 30-40% of the population in the dark regarding the matter. Also, it's one think to just generally state, "Russia interfered in our election" and it's quite another to provide vivid detail on how this interference came about, who orchestrated it, and how we can prevent the likelihood of such an occurrence in the future. Sadly, I haven't heard many Congressional leaders speak up about this at all. They've instead used the report as a political football in an attempt to rile their base and drum up support for next year's elections.
When it comes to Donald Trump and his inner-circle's level of conspiracy with the Russians and obstruction of the Mueller report, Republican leaders have tended to look at things from a pure black-and-white perspective, and once again, I think this fails when attempting to examine the full picture.
Even before the Mueller report was officially released, Trump went on the record saying, "No collusion! No obstruction!" After the report's release, he and his supporters have repeated these claims. The problem is 438-page reports on Russian interference of U.S. presidential elections tend to be more nuanced than a simple yes or no.
For the record, collusion, which the president and his supporters keep spouting, is more a general term than a legal one. To say the president didn't commit the crime of collusion would be like saying Mike Pence didn't commit the crime of walking. Once we add the detail that he jaywalked, however, then it becomes a different story. The actual crime that was under investigation was conspiracy. While Special Counsel Mueller and his team said there was not enough evidence to prove Trump and/or his inner-circle conspired with Russians to impact the outcome of the election, he did note there was some evidence to suggest such and that the overall scope of said investigation had been limited due to individuals either refusing to cooperate with the Special Counsel or lying to him. It'd be like a murder trial, where there's some evidence to suggest the defendant is guilty, but key witnesses plead the 5th while on the stand or commit perjury. While the defendant may indeed be guilty, there is not enough evidence to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, so the jury finds him not guilty. As I've always said, though, not guilty is not the same as innocent, and for conservative Congressmen/women and talking heads to deny any conspiring occurred for the simple fact Trump wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is pure hogwash. That'd be like saying, "Yeah, that guy probably committed murder, but due to the gangsters who took the stand and lied to the jury on his behalf, he can't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so therefore he's completely innocent!" Like I said, pure hogwash.
While Mueller may not have been able to complete his investigation and therefore make a final determination on the act of conspiracy, he was able to provide quite the detailed road map for obstruction. He laid out ten examples of possible obstruction by the president and handed this road map to the attorney general (AG) to release unto the public and Congress, thinking the latter would have the final say. AG William Barr didn't do this, of course, and until we hear the Special Counsel testify in front of Congress, we're left in a Rorschach debate over Mueller's ultimate intent. Having said that, unlike with conspiracy, I think there is enough evidence to prove Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to obstruction. Attorney General Barr's main two arguments on why Trump isn't guilty of obstruction are: 1) He was falsely accused of collusion, which makes obstruction of a non-existent crime not a crime and 2) He openly obstructed/was ignorant of the technicalities of the crime. If a defendant obstructs his own murder case, while he may be deemed as not guilty of murder, he can still be found guilty of obstruction. These are two separate crimes. Just because A is one thing, doesn't mean B will be as well. That's pure ignorance of math and the law. Also, just because a person stupidly shows the world he obstructed justice doesn't make him innocent of the crime. If a person records themselves killing a person and then sends that video to the authorities, does that then make him innocent of murder? I don't think so. So whether or not Donald Trump could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy (not collusion, Mr. Barr), that's irrelevant to the case of obstruction. Also, how can Barr sensibly intertwine the two in such a manner? If he's going to do so, he should go about it another way. Donald Trump obstructed justice. Period. This could very well have played a factor in Mueller being unable to complete his investigation into conspiracy. Barr seems to think, "Hey, he's not guilty of collusion; he's not guilty of obstruction." No. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. Trump is guilty of obstruction, which may have led to him being found not guilty of conspiracy.
Donald Trump may not have been indicted for conspiracy or obstruction, as the GOP has declared ad nauseum, but they're not seeing the forest, merely the trees. The Office of Legal Counsel (which Mueller noted in his report) has long held that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Between this and the lack of cooperation and/or honesty by many, Donald Trump is currently safe from legal prosecution. This doesn't excuse him from being guilty of any crimes while in the Oval Office, however, and soon after he's out of office, he'll discover that, as too will Lindsey Graham, William Barr, and the rest of the Republican Party, who has ultimately decided to place party over country. Check that, they've decided to place country over country - Russia over the United States of America.
Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. His 2-year investigation resulted in 34 indictments, which included several Russian nationals and Trump aides/advisors. This has led to multiple guilty pleas and verdicts, and with that, prison time. The most striking conclusion in the Mueller report is that Russia did heavily interfere in our election and it will likely happen again unless we do something about it. Did Russia's interference ultimately determine the election's outcome? That's impossible to conclude with any degree of certainty at the moment. What's not difficult to conclude, however, is that Russian interference did impact the 2016 election, and with that, our democracy. If our leaders twiddle their thumbs about the matter until the 2020 election, rest assured the cycle will repeat itself.
While some may say, "Hey, that was already common knowledge! Everyone knew Russia interfered in the election!," Donald Trump has yet to admit that to the public, which has continued to leave roughly 30-40% of the population in the dark regarding the matter. Also, it's one think to just generally state, "Russia interfered in our election" and it's quite another to provide vivid detail on how this interference came about, who orchestrated it, and how we can prevent the likelihood of such an occurrence in the future. Sadly, I haven't heard many Congressional leaders speak up about this at all. They've instead used the report as a political football in an attempt to rile their base and drum up support for next year's elections.
When it comes to Donald Trump and his inner-circle's level of conspiracy with the Russians and obstruction of the Mueller report, Republican leaders have tended to look at things from a pure black-and-white perspective, and once again, I think this fails when attempting to examine the full picture.
Even before the Mueller report was officially released, Trump went on the record saying, "No collusion! No obstruction!" After the report's release, he and his supporters have repeated these claims. The problem is 438-page reports on Russian interference of U.S. presidential elections tend to be more nuanced than a simple yes or no.
For the record, collusion, which the president and his supporters keep spouting, is more a general term than a legal one. To say the president didn't commit the crime of collusion would be like saying Mike Pence didn't commit the crime of walking. Once we add the detail that he jaywalked, however, then it becomes a different story. The actual crime that was under investigation was conspiracy. While Special Counsel Mueller and his team said there was not enough evidence to prove Trump and/or his inner-circle conspired with Russians to impact the outcome of the election, he did note there was some evidence to suggest such and that the overall scope of said investigation had been limited due to individuals either refusing to cooperate with the Special Counsel or lying to him. It'd be like a murder trial, where there's some evidence to suggest the defendant is guilty, but key witnesses plead the 5th while on the stand or commit perjury. While the defendant may indeed be guilty, there is not enough evidence to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, so the jury finds him not guilty. As I've always said, though, not guilty is not the same as innocent, and for conservative Congressmen/women and talking heads to deny any conspiring occurred for the simple fact Trump wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is pure hogwash. That'd be like saying, "Yeah, that guy probably committed murder, but due to the gangsters who took the stand and lied to the jury on his behalf, he can't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so therefore he's completely innocent!" Like I said, pure hogwash.
While Mueller may not have been able to complete his investigation and therefore make a final determination on the act of conspiracy, he was able to provide quite the detailed road map for obstruction. He laid out ten examples of possible obstruction by the president and handed this road map to the attorney general (AG) to release unto the public and Congress, thinking the latter would have the final say. AG William Barr didn't do this, of course, and until we hear the Special Counsel testify in front of Congress, we're left in a Rorschach debate over Mueller's ultimate intent. Having said that, unlike with conspiracy, I think there is enough evidence to prove Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to obstruction. Attorney General Barr's main two arguments on why Trump isn't guilty of obstruction are: 1) He was falsely accused of collusion, which makes obstruction of a non-existent crime not a crime and 2) He openly obstructed/was ignorant of the technicalities of the crime. If a defendant obstructs his own murder case, while he may be deemed as not guilty of murder, he can still be found guilty of obstruction. These are two separate crimes. Just because A is one thing, doesn't mean B will be as well. That's pure ignorance of math and the law. Also, just because a person stupidly shows the world he obstructed justice doesn't make him innocent of the crime. If a person records themselves killing a person and then sends that video to the authorities, does that then make him innocent of murder? I don't think so. So whether or not Donald Trump could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy (not collusion, Mr. Barr), that's irrelevant to the case of obstruction. Also, how can Barr sensibly intertwine the two in such a manner? If he's going to do so, he should go about it another way. Donald Trump obstructed justice. Period. This could very well have played a factor in Mueller being unable to complete his investigation into conspiracy. Barr seems to think, "Hey, he's not guilty of collusion; he's not guilty of obstruction." No. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. Trump is guilty of obstruction, which may have led to him being found not guilty of conspiracy.
Donald Trump may not have been indicted for conspiracy or obstruction, as the GOP has declared ad nauseum, but they're not seeing the forest, merely the trees. The Office of Legal Counsel (which Mueller noted in his report) has long held that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Between this and the lack of cooperation and/or honesty by many, Donald Trump is currently safe from legal prosecution. This doesn't excuse him from being guilty of any crimes while in the Oval Office, however, and soon after he's out of office, he'll discover that, as too will Lindsey Graham, William Barr, and the rest of the Republican Party, who has ultimately decided to place party over country. Check that, they've decided to place country over country - Russia over the United States of America.
Comments
Post a Comment