Regarding Trump (and Stone) from July 2020

I wrote this in July of 2020. Except that Trump has piled on charges by his insurrection, the Supreme Court (after the fact) made doing so to cover up these crimes unnecessary. So far, Smith has not mentioned them. If you want to know why some Democrats are crying all the way to the bank - read this:

This is a follow-on to a previous essay about freeing Roger Stone, which Trump did earlier tonight.  My arguments in that essay have not really changed. Where some people see rule of law issues, others see using obstruction, et al, as a way to punish someone when their resistance to being investigated is easier to prove than whatever they were being investigated for. Perhaps, these "rule of law" penalties should only be imposed if the underlying crime is proved as well. A similar argument can be made on civil asset forfeiture. Instead of convicting someone of drug crimes, we just take their stuff in civil court. This might be a thing in dealing with Trump's financial crimes. Indeed, it would be apt punishment.

A more concrete way of putting the question is this: If Stone, et al, went to Hill & told whole story of Wikileaks, what crimes were committed by Trump campaign? Internet Research Agency members were indicted, but could anyone else have been? This is especially a question because, technically, Stone is a journalist, as is Wikileaks (who have not been charged with a crime in this incident). If going into this investigation, the FBI knew that no case was possible, is that investigation an abuse of power? The fact that the question can even be raised explains why Trump supporters are standing by their man.

Did Stone, Trump and the campaign do materially affect the outcome of the 2016 election?

No one who has been active in politics in this town was at all surprised that the Democratic National Committee had its thumb on the scales in the primary season. They pulled a similar trick in 2004 to get Kerry on the ballot. I know this because before primary season, I met a DNC staffer on Metro on the way home from work and asked her if Hillary was going to be the candidate. She said, no, it would be Kerry. This was way before Iowa.

The only way a Trump hack might have influenced the election is if the campaign had a copy of Clinton's briefing book and saw that her likely answer on partial birth abortion made her vulnerable. (Recall that Reagan had a copy of the Carter book in advance, with George Will using it to help prep the Gipper). The answer she gave to an issue that Trump raised in response to a different abortion question moved Catholic voters in the Midwest from the Obama column to the Trump column, with not inconsiderable aid from the swing state bishops.

If any matter should be investigated, any hacking of the briefing book should. The ultimate fault, however, is Clinton's for playing to a base she already had. Pro-Choice women were going to vote for her anyway in numbers. They would never be Clinton voters. Trump did not steal the election, she gave it away (putting Kaine on the ticket also left Obama voters on the table - oops).

Trump and Stone were pikers on dirty tricks. Nixon's minions kept Muskie out of the race and got McGovern and a huge landslide. The best tricks are to confound your opponents, not the voters. Back in 1994, I was asked by a friend to do a focus group of Ward 3 voters for the Sharon Pratt re-election campaign. Five of us were asked, with three seated. The survey firm was not very good - they actually told one of us (who is Black) that his people were going to be part of another group.

The punchline is that we were all John Ray supporters and gave responses that played into all of Madam Mayor's preconceived notions on how well she was doing. In the end, we all stated that we supported John - but the campaign showed that they still relied on what we said. John lost, because my future boss, Marion Barry, very quietly did an under the radar campaign in Ward 4 that led to a huge victory. Sharon came in third. As dirty tricks go, what we pulled off was a classic and had more of an impact on our race than anything Stone and Putin could engineer.

Also of note this week is the finding in Trump v. Vance that Citizen Trump deserves no special protection from his office in dealing with subpoenas to his accounting firm and banker regarding his personal financial dealings. The same information is also of interest as to whether Trump is compromised in his dealings with Russia prior to his election.

The Supreme Court declared that the similar Judiciary subpoenas were so broad as to be a fishing expedition, but put in procedures that can be navigated to explore the Russia link directly. Trump will find it harder to run out the clock if Chairman Schiff wishes to pursue the issue (which he should).

The question is then what and why are we investigating? The only Trump crime of any consequence is fealty to Putin. No one cares about campaign dirty tricks and they are not being prosecuted. If the Trump-Putin relationship falls under foreign policy discretion, what are we doing here? Why does anyone bother lying? Put another way, if Trump went to DC Federal Courthouse and detailed everything he actually did, what crime was committed?

Unless we face the question of espionage by Trump, this national soap opera is a sad farce on both sides. Unless the message about the Trump presidency does not go that deep, no Trumpsters will give up on their hero. This must be explained as more than partisanship on both sides. Not doing so is why impeachment failed.  If Schiff  cannot or will not point to an actual non-partisan crime, then half the nation will believe this has all been a witch hunt. That is not a good look for the nation. Indeed, it does exactly what Putin wants.

Allowing Russia a zone of influence near its borders (a Monroe Doctrine, if you will) is not an idea originating with Trump. Is his presidential discretion wide enough to pursue such a policy, regardless of past doctrine?  This is another way of asking whether we wish to criminalize American foreign policy?

We tried in Iran-Contra, however the investigation led to the overturn of Lt. Col. North's criminal conviction. The question remains, was violating the Boland Amendment a crime or a secret foreign policy?

The Ukraine affair is of a similar nature - although the system worked well enough to make sure the military aid was spent. The purported crime was election interference, but that interference would have, at worst, been one day event on Fox News. It amounts to a dirty trick, and a sloppy one at that.

The real issue with Urkaine is whether election interference was just the cover story, with Trump's real intention being to hang Ukraine out to dry and force a pro-Moscow settlement. Would doing so have been a crime or an act of presidential discretion. While the impeachment trial hinted at treasonous intent, it was not pursued convincingly enough for Republicans to have to vote to remove.

Some may even conclude that Senator Schumer and Chairman Schiff took a dive, that the entire impeachment was, essentially, an electoral stunt all its own - one that far exceeds the 15 minutes of fame on Fox News had the Ukrainian President been more cooperative.

President Bush took a pass at arresting Vice President Cheney when he attempted to force his own policy on torture on the Justice Department - who objected and went to the President. There is also the matter of war crimes ordered by Cheney and Rumsfeld. The Geneva Convention was not observed at Gitmo. The war may or may not have been about WMD. Regardless, Rummy lost the peace by firing all Baath party officers from the Iraqi Army, thus destroying the existing civil society in Iraq. When the Baathists fled to Syria, they just may have taken the WMD with them. That chemical weapons were used in Syria should be no surprise to anyone who can connect the dots.

The 2006 election was about a few things, but the failure of the peace, as detailed by Bob  Woodward in a book that came out just before the election, had a big part in the loss (as did GOP corruption). There was a real push to hold the President (or the Vice President), responsible for the debacle, but Speaker Pelosi would not go there. Doing so would have criminalized foreign policy.

Where do we draw the line once we open Pandora's Box? Iran-Contra was played as a rogue operation by the National Security Advisor and his Deputy. By that time, Reagan's dementia was likely far enough advanced that he had no involvement - and no one asked whether Vice President Bush was in the loop. This has always vexed me. History may provide an answer when we are all dead or we may never know.

We currently have a similarly demented President, although he seems to be active when he thinks it is in his interest. His niece paints a picture in her book of a learning disabled sociopath. The real constitutional crisis is that the Executive Branch is operating without the active participation of the elected President. What role is Vice President Pence playing in the operation of the government? He should at least be held to account for not invoking the 25th Amendment when Robert Mueller was appointed. What did he know and when did he know it on Russia? Was the cover story of Flynn being fired for lying to Pence itself a cover story? Did anyone ask?

This is important because Cy Vance (as well as the D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine) are now empowered to investigate Citizen Trump. Does Trump v. Vance imply the end to the OLC Memo? How can it not if the President is not above the law? If A.G. Barr is really the bright shiny object distracting Trump while SDNY and DC do their work, is it time for them to now go forward, indict and arrest Trump (before Vance and Racine can beat them to it)?

If we are lucky as a nation, Leader McConnell will realize that he and his band of rats need to jump off the U.S.S. Trump, thus forcing him to resign or to have Pence bench Trump and become both Acting President and the nominee. In this case, Vice President Biden needs to shift his attentions from the incompetence and criminality of Trump to the lack of moral courage and mixed motives of Pence. Regardless, we must still address the issue of the criminality of the White House foreign policy.

Schiff should have followed the money trail, which in the Parnas and Fruman case has shown starts in Moscow, likely leads to Rudi and is alleged to fund the Trump Super PAC (thus benefiting much of the Senate impeachment jury). Let us hope this is not being saved as an October surprise. If McConnell moves Trump out of the way, it won't be of much use in going after Pence, who seems to have been mostly above the fray.

If McConnell fails to act, investigations must go on, which brings us back to Pandora and her box. How shall any Putin-Trump connection be played? Is it corruption or discretion. So far, only the corruption angle has been advanced. This has not worked with the GOP Senate or the electorate. If Trump is a traitor, it should be examined, but this will have implications for future presidents, including a President Schiff.

The question of whether Bin Laden was assassinated rather than being captured has criminal implications. Others have raised the question of the targeting of an American citizen who was part of Al Queda in the Arab Peninsula. Most come down on the side of presidential discretion. If we criminalize foreign policy, could it boomerang on our best president since Ike?

In my opinion, we need to open the box. Corruption is non-starter. It will not convince anyone in the Trump orbit that he did anything wrong. Unless Trump is pursued as a traitor - which I argue that he is - and the point is proven by a future DeutcheBank data dump on the Intelligence Committee - the nation will take a long time to heal. Not all Republican Trump supporters are his "fine people" who defend the Lost Cause. Continuing with Trump's criminality must lead to a knockout blow or it will be perceived as yet more partisanship, even if this means walking on the slippery slope.