"WASHINGTON
— Lawyers for President Trump have advised him against sitting down for
a wide-ranging interview with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller
III, according to four people briefed on the matter, raising the specter
of a monthslong court battle over whether the president must answer
questions under oath."
"His
lawyers are concerned that the president, who has a history of making
false statements and contradicting himself, could be charged with lying
to investigators. Their stance puts them at odds with Mr. Trump, who has
said publicly and privately that he is eager to speak with Mr. Mueller
as part of the investigation into possible ties between his associates
and Russia’s election interference, and whether he obstructed justice."
One interpretation: Talking Points Memo: "Trump to Plead the De Facto Fifth."
"Really this shouldn’t surprise us. The President has gone to war with
whole sections of the federal government to undermine the criminal probe
which appears to be gathering vast evidence of his guilt. It’s total
war. We lose track of how many things the President has done just in the
last few weeks which were heretofore unimaginable and which all would
be credible and robust grounds for removal from office."
Hard to know where this will end up. Wait it out until the next election? The Republicans stiffen their spines and charge him if Mueller makes the case for obstruction AND complicity?
Harry Litman explored the possibilities last month:
ReplyDeletehttps://lawfareblog.com/dont-expect-trump-testify-anytime-soon
Thanks Jim. Seems to cover the territory, including a Trump refusal to testify. I found the following comment astute, and probable. But what a mess.
Delete"Eventually Nixon and Clinton were pushed into corners from which they could not escape. Assume the day comes when Trump has no more room to maneuver. The courts have ruled against him, the subpoena has been upheld, the grand jury has assembled. Trump still has one more thing going for him: his apparent contempt for the Constitution. Clinton, like Nixon, was ultimately conscious of the institutional legacy of office; Trump seems indifferent to, even derisive of, such high-minded concerns, and his political base consistently rewards him for his churlishness."
What then? We all live with him and his contempt for the Constitution, the law, and the courts. Sad!
TPM: "The President is obviously guilty of obstruction of justice. He’s likely guilty of criminal conspiracy with a foreign power ..."
ReplyDeleteIs he? I know many people believe he is guilty, and I am tired of feeling embarrassed for him, but I see no clear, hard evidence that would put him away right now.
So the game continues: Mueller probes, Trump denies, lawyers advise him to shut his mouth (because what other advice could you give a prevaricator extraordinaire), and we wait to see how it plays out.
It will come down to brinkmanship: How much will Mueller have to uncover before Trump quits voluntarily, or the GOP sends a deputation a la Nixon? Trump is an egomaniac, and my guess is that he won't be quick to blink. And the GOP is still in the afterglow of it's tax cut bill. Distancing themselves from Trump a mere month after they stood fawning over him in their victory gathering would be weird, even by their standards.
Of course Trump would lie. He has spent 71 years lying, cheating, etc and he has always gotten away with it. He seems so amoral as to perhaps be unable to distinguish between reality - objective truth - and his understanding of "truth". As he himself noted during the campaign, he could stand on 5th Ave and mow a bunch of people down with a gun and he would get away with it - his supporters would still love him. So, as noted, he won't blink.
ReplyDeleteHis intent to obstruct the investigation (which he probably believes is an injustice, so in his mind he would not be obstructing "justice"), is fairly obvious.
That there was an attempt by Russia to influence the election is clear, through the planting of false news (against Hillary though) via social media, and through the Russian attempts to groom members of Trump's staff as insider sources. Trump's staff during the campaign and transition and early days in the White House were also totally un-knowledgable about how international intelligence operatives work, and clueless also about national security policy. Plus they were arrogant, making them perfect targets for sophisticated Russian operatives. I have long felt that the collusion that occurred (and it did occur) was not actually deliberate - really not understood by the Trump family and close "advisors" at first because they knew so little about how the intelligence world works. (Haven't read enough spy novels I guess). Manafort might be an exception to the overall cluelessness (it seems he owes the Russians a lot of money, and he may have been trying to find a way to "renegotiate" his debts). Flynn, as former head of the DIA certainly should have known better. But Flynn was fired as head of the DIA for a reason - he had gone off the rails, resulting in achieving the distinction of being one of the few (maybe the only?) heads of the DIA to be fired before his full term was up. Carter Page might be another one who was playing along with the Russians while understanding what they were up to, but not concerned about it.
What is frightening is that almost everyone in the GOP, everyone on Trump's staff is enabling him. If they really cared about the country, they would be quietly trying to engineer a graceful exit for him - perhaps a "trumped" up medical crisis.
As long as the GOP members of Congress think that their own voting base will not support them for re-election if they try to thwart Trump, they will continue to be spineless. They too have no moral integrity left.
Anne, I agree that some of Trump's senior advisers most likely were naifs regarding this stuff. Even so, the GOP's presidential candidate should have professional staff to handle difficulties of this nature. He should be surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers who understand this stuff and can advise accordingly. In that regard, this goes back to Trump and his unpreparedness and amateurism. And I guess we could say, back to the GOP voters that anointed him their candidate.
ReplyDeleteI'm late getting into the latest chapter of Book Three of One Man's Ego. I've been in the hospital through no fault of my own. I tried to follow the blog on a borrowed tablet, but it was Microsoft technology, elegant but all screwed up in this Mac user's experience. Click on one action, and it gives you something it considers better for you.
ReplyDeleteBut I digress. This much is known:
1. Highly placed members of the Trump campaign attempted to collude with the Russians. Whether or not any of them succeeded is unknown, but if they failed it was not for lack of trying.
2. Mueller's investigation was not originally "about" Trump. Trump has made it so by claiming it so for public consumption, but the original assignment was Russian cyberwarfare against the U.S. Some of the ways Trump has made it about himself look, walk and quack like obstruction of justice, but the law covering obstruction is more complicated than the duck principle.
3 The aim of Russian cyberwarfare was to discredit American democracy and create divisions and hatreds among Americans. That warfare has been quite successful; turn on your TV anytime. Trump's actions in defense of Donald J. Trump have done nothing to prevent Russian success and have, in fact, contributed to bringing about what Russia seeks, collusion or not.
4. As long as the divisions continue and Trump continues to feed them, the people who should be countering cyberwarfare and inventing defenses will be scampering to deal with the daily soap opera generated by the White House, another Trump contribution -- intentional or otherwise -- to Soviet purposes.
4. This Congress will not impeach Trump. Charles P. Pierce calls it Trump's dogsled team. Very apt. A Democratic House (should enough Democrats bestir themselves to run real races and say real things other than "Beat Trump" -- not a sure thing) might, just barely do it, if Mueller produces a dynamite charge in his report. But a) don't bet on dynamite because the Rs, as Jim noted, are laying the predicate that Mueller (a R when last checked on)is a lyin' liberal bastid, ans b) never bet on the Ds to do the right thing if they can do something else.
In fact the best thing Mueller could do for us in his report is not mention Trump at all. That would cause the president's brain to explode and his hair to catch fire.
5. If I were Vlad Putin, it would be high fives all around.
Tom, hope you are out of them hospital and OK!
DeleteGlad you are back, Tom. Hope you are doing better!
DeleteTom: Through no fault of you own? Involuntary double knee replacement?
DeleteFeel better and keep moving.
Nobody called me on saying "Soviet" when I meant "Russian" in point 4. Old habits die hard. But it is kind of interesting that the party that carried being against communism to excess sees no reason to be anti-oligarch at all. Not when the oligarchs are using Trump properties like certificates of deposit.
DeletePer Anne's point above: "I have long felt that the collusion that occurred (and it did occur) was not actually deliberate - really not understood by the Trump family and close "advisors" at first because they knew so little about how the intelligence world works. (Haven't read enough spy novels I guess)."
DeleteAnd Toms: "But it is kind of interesting that the party that carried being against communism to excess sees no reason to be anti-oligarch at all. Not when the oligarchs are using Trump properties like certificates of deposit."
The Trump Family, Inc., may be naifs (though their behavior may turn out to be illegal and/or criminal). They have surrounded themselves for years with yea-sayers. Can they detect corruption and collusion when it's going on right in front of them? Would Trump himself have enough imagination (literary or otherwise) to see that the oligarchs who lent him money also worked for Russian intelligence?
Today's NYTimes has a gazillion word article on U.S./Trump policy in Libya--(there is no policy). The sub-theme here is that Russia is moving in on Libya via one of the warlords and the U.S. administration seems to be turning a blind eye. There is a subtle question/theme in the story suggesting that perhaps that is the intent of Trump's non-policy. (Not that the Obama-Clinton policy was wonderful!)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/world/africa/trump-libya-policy-russia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Now Trump is pouting that we should shut the government "shut it down, it would be good for us" if he doesn't get his wall with DACA. No word about the poor troops missing pay checks this time.
ReplyDeleteTo Tom's #5 above, there was some geek on the NewsHour last night talking about Twitter bots that Boris and Natasha could use in various nefarious ways and how this figures in with Trump-Russia.
Also, NPR had John Dean on Saturday responding to Papadopoulos's claim to be Trump's John Dean. Dean's response was, "I know John Dean, John Dean was a friend of mine, and Papadopoulos is no John Dean."
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/03/582968734/the-nunes-memo-and-parallels-to-watergate
Just a little refreshing aside. Inverse-Trump rich guy Elon Musk just launched the most powerful rocket in the world. Spectacular as the liftoff was, the greatest things for me were the simultaneous landing of two boosters. I felt like a kid again looking at rocket landings in a 1950's SciFi movie. But it's real. It's REAL!
ReplyDeleteYes! It was very cool. Sadly Elon Musk has not answered my requests to take that one way trip to Mars.
DeleteI think it's coming, Jean.
DeleteWhen he is 80 Musk will land that sucker on Venus, and drive the car out of the nose. It will run like a charm. But you are right about reusable rockets. What a concept, especially with so much human junk floating around in the oceans and in space already.
DeleteUnless you had children or grandchildren at the right age at the right time, you may have missed the Disney Pixar flick Wall-E, but it's highly recommended. It's not just another variation on the robot boy meets robot girl formula, because of the dystopian terrestial future in which it's set. Dystopian yet not without hope.
Delete"Wall-E" is a great show. Not sure it's for kids, though The Boy liked it. It's on Netflix or Prime right now.
DeleteYes, Jim, I saw it despite having no offspring. A nice parable about caring for the earth and not depending too heavily on technological luxury.
ReplyDeleteTom, if I have one complaint about Musk, it's that he gives rich capitalists a good name. Money seems to be for him only a means to an end, which is accomplishing cool stuff. The only guy who seems similar is Branson, but Musk still outdistances him by an order of magnitude. Tesla cars, solar power, giant battery storage, the hyperloop, space travel.
Stanley, I don't think anyone thinks of Musk (or Buffet) when they hear the name of Trump or Wynn.
DeleteElon Musk strikes me as a dozy dreamer type. I guess the world needs them, and I like his willingness to go where no one has gone before. But I there was some degree of democracy/meritocracy at NASA; space was everybody's dream. Now it's just Elon Musk's world to live in, and only the rich are going to be able to enjoy his space ship thrill rides--oligarchs in space, which, come to think of it, is where they belong. Plus he chooses the payload. It's his show, not ours. Not a criticism of him as much as our national priorities, I guess.
DeleteJean, He landed those booster rockets. He will use them again. As long as takeoff depended on megabucks boosters that don't come back there was never a chance for the ordinary punter to get a rocket ride. But get reusable boosters and reusable rockets, and you are almost to a bus line. And Musk doesn't have to cancel programs Obama started and start programs to honor Donald J. Trump, so he can keep going.
DeleteActually, since this was a test with an indeterminate possibility of failure, it would have been imprudent to launch something serious like a $100M weather satellite. It was essentially a dummy load even though a whimsical one. Right now the government is in the hands of the Flintstones ("Me like burn coal. Pretty fire."), hopefully temporarily. So, I don't mind someone like Musk taking up some of the imaginative load in the meantime. It's not just Musk, though. Solar and wind are getting cheaper. If the researchers can solve the perovskite problems and some recently claimed significant progress, solar will wipe out everything. R&D is like mining, looking for hidden things without an exact knowledge of the possibility of success. Coal, oil, natural gas, even nuclear are pretty much played out mines technologically. The renewable technologies are still unknown which means they still hold promise.
ReplyDeleteNPR has been running periodic reports on progressive black lung. Now that coal companies are mining thinner veins and blowing up silica with the coal, people are getting worse cases at earlier ages. Meantime, the Trumpsters in my area put up NO TURBINES signs as soon as he was elected. They claim everyone is going to get migraine headaches and epilepsy from them. I looked into getting a battery attached to my exercise "bike to nowhere," but everything I read said that it costs more energy to build the battery than I would ever produce on the thing. Alas. Here I thought I had the answer to going off-grid right there at my feet.
DeleteStanley, Who owns the mines?
Deleteperovskite, a yellow, brown, or black mineral consisting largely of calcium titanate.
any of a group of related minerals and ceramics having the same crystal structure as this.
plural noun: perovskites
Origin mid 19th century: from the name of L. A. Perovsky (1792–1856), Russian mineralogist, + -ite1.
Jean,perovskite actually refers to the crystalline structure more than the "ingredients". Also, it is a thin film technology, coating a very thin film on a cheap substrate like glass. So we really don't have to mine the stuff or be dependent on the Russkies. One perovskite is calcium titanate. We have lots if calcium and titanium oxide is white paint. The problem is environmental degradation which drops output but some researchers think they have made progress.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Margaret, for the mixup. I should have adressed the reply on perovskite to you, not Jean. Anyway, perovskite crystals don't have to be mined. It can be synthesized cheaply.
ReplyDeleteDidn't know about the perovskite problem re solar energy. Is that like a coating on glass that captures solar energy? And it erodes over time like a battery that runs down? Or wears off like a coat of varnish?
DeletePhotoelectric effect usually takes place near the surface of any material. So a thin film of material only tens of microns can usually do the trick. Problem with any material is how environmentally stable it is, most importantly, if it degrades in the presence of oxygen and moisture. Apparently, this is a problem with perovskites. You can shield it with a resistant coating but this may only slow down the process. Solar panels have to last 20-25 years. If they can lick these problems, and some claim progress, the stuff will be a lot cheaper than monocrystaline or polycrystaline silicon. I think it can be coated using cheaper techniques.
ReplyDelete