And so it is done. I have just finished reading the 45 page indictment. It seems clear that Jack Smith has chosen to indict only Trump at this point in order to increase the likelihood that a trial can be completed before the election.
I was born in December of the year in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt first took office as president. I was a senior in college before a Republican was elected to the presidency. I now believe that I will live long enough to see Trump tried and convicted. Appeals will almost certainly delay Trump's incarceration until after the election but he could of course run while in jail. (One of the little benefits of this disaster is that has compelled commentators to recall Eugene Victor Debs, the head of the Socialist party in the first part of the 20th century, who ran for the presidency while in jail and got almost 1 million votes.)
Direct quotation in the indictment of statements alleged to have been made by Trump make it clear that Pence and others have testified fully before the grand jury.
11 comments:
The indictment is incredibly well-written as well as cleverly crafted.
I would remind everyone that read the Mueller Report that Trump beat the rap of two impeachment due to corrupted individuals and institutions. While there are 1,000 significant points of difference regarding the current indictments, I wouldn't be popping your corn just yet. I am cautiously optimistic though that this will end Trump's personal political threat to the country, but not necessarily of his rabid followers.
Politik
You make a valid point, though there are reasons for being optimistic. While the judge in Florida seems to be doing all that she can do for Trump--the latest being locating the trial in a secondary court house in the midst of red voters--the Jan. 6 trial will be in very different venu, the 90% Democratic District of Columbia. As to Mueller, recall that he followed DOJ policy with regard to charging a sitting president with a crime. The judge in DC is an Obama appointee, who happens to be the only judge so far to impose a higher sentence on a Jan. 6 defendant than the government asked. No Aileen Cannon she.
David,
Yes, however, my immediate fearful scenario is for a "political insurgent" insinuating themselves into the jury pool determined to vote acquittal. "But I truly believed him" will be their lifelong refrain.
I'm not sure what relevance the Mueller report has. My recollection, which could be wrong, is that Mueller at least implied that there was insufficient evidence to charge Trump w a crime re Russian interference in the 2016 election.
And neither of the two failed impeachments of Trump dealt directly w the subject of the Mueller report. The first impeachment was about his quid pro quo conversation w Zelenskyy and the second impeachment was about Jan. 6.
LFC
Yes, Russian interference charge wasn't established. Obstruction was, but due to DOJ policy, no charge; but he did acknowledge that Trump was criminally liable post presidency. But the main point was that because of extensive corrupt interference and political self-serving interests, Trump beat the rap, whereas the same is less likely here, but not impossible. The Indy 500 Yellow Flag is waving...
"Yes, Russian interference charge wasn't established."
Actually there's only one conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from Manifort's history, offering to work for free on the Trump campaign, and passing internal polling data to Kilimnik.
The report (not Barr's deceptive gloss) and the Senate report make Russian interference clear.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
Also recall it was the Trump campaign that was responsible for pulling the commitment to provide Ukraine with weapons from the 2016 Republican Platform.
aaall
The question is not whether Russia intervened in the 2016 election (it did), nor whether someone like Manafort aided that intervention; rather the question is whether Trump himself was engaged in a conscious conspiracy or colluded w Russia to intervene. And, despite his publicly inviting Russian "help" on one occasion w/r/t the issue of Clinton's emails, the answer to that question seems to be, afaict: probably not. But this is water under the bridge, and he's just been properly indicted for his actions w/r/t the 2020 election.
LFC, we should always keep in mind that this is what we are dealing with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2bDVyfOma0
In that world folks like Trump speak in code but you know what they mean. Can it be proved? That's why the code. Jail (or novichok) is for folks like Manifort or Cohen. Putin didn't want Clinton, Trump wanted a deal (I believe he didn't expect to actually win but saw openings for new grifts). The little people figured out what to do.
https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
aaall,
Misspoke. Meant to assert that interference wasn't criminally charged, more specifically against Trump. But yes, significant interference between members of the campaign and Russian operatives was definitively established.
Post a Comment