This is a rare moment for me to say something like this: Someone on cable news had something important to say. Imagine that.
CNN corporate media pundit Jeffrey Toobin's points: The evidence is now largely gathered to demonstrate (1) Trump was trying to cut a deal for a Trump Tower in Moscow during the presidential campaign; (2) Trump was in consistent contact with Roger Stone about what Wikileaks was up to in terms of illegally releasing private emails from the DNC or those high up in the DNC, when there is also evidence of Wikileaks contact with Russian operatives in this regard; and (3) Trump was aware of his son's meeting with the Russians, and it was about more than adoption policies; and instead about foreign policies including the sanctions Obama had enacted against Russia, and about Russian policies in Ukraine. Of course, Trump's position on both policy subjects has been out in the open, which is to support Russia's position on both counts. The evidence is sufficiently solid for a fairly sober reporter, Craig Unger, to connect the dots as to Trump's long time alliance with Russians and the obvious desire of Putin to install someone like Trump at the top of the U.S. government.
For those who think, well, isn't it still largely circumstantial, it is important to recognize that fraud and conspiracy are often proven with circumstantial evidence. And conspiracy is a very broad legal concept where one may be held strictly liable for the overt acts of others, even when one does not participate in that particular overt act. And consider how the normal hearsay prohibition is no protection in conspiracy cases because of the manner in which one person is held liable for the statements of others which constitute an "overt act" in the conspiracy. This is also how and why the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Act (RICO) have come into view with respect to Trump's actions during his campaign for president, not only with respect to paying off a prostitute but trying to do business with Russia when running for president.
If the evidence and understandings already publicly reported concerned a president who was a Democrat or, say, Bernie Sanders, and this was during the time of the Soviet Union's existence, with Gorbachev or especially Brezhnev as the Soviet leader, we know exactly where the Lee Greenwood song fans who so adore Trump would be standing, and what they would be saying. The articles of impeachment would already have been approved, with Blue Dog Democrats joining in, and the Senate Republican leaders would have said this impeachment trial would easily result in conviction.
I know, I know. I have never liked the criminalization of policy differences. I have never liked the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, or the Smith Act of 1940. And I have shared some of Justice Stevens' misgivings of the broad interpretation of the RICO Act, as in his dissent in Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009). But, considering how most right wingers in this nation believe they are the true patriots, and "libtards" are the ones who don't love their country, and considering how the Cold War discourse in our national and local corporate media was structured in a manner that made anyone left of center feel less than American ("Oh, you like national health insurance? So does the Soviet Union. You must be one of those Commie traitors!"), it is time, well, really past time, to put that shoe on the feet of these so-called patriots who support Traitor Trump.
Maybe, once Trump is vanquished, we can recognize that maybe criminalizing politics is not a good thing. We can further recognize secrecy is overrated, and only primarily helps the power of the National Security State. We can also then begin to recognize one can be against the Empire and still be pro-American. I know, I know. Cue Aerosmith's Dream on....But wait, isn't the full line, "Dream on. Dream on. Dream until your dreams come true?" Yes. Yes, I think it is. So, I dream.
And for those who say, Whoa, what about "President" Pence? That is easy at the point where even Nancy Pelosi (known as The Follower Who is Somehow Leader) agrees with impeaching Trump: (1) Pence is the fruit of the poisonous tree and (2) I think ol' Mueller has got some stuff on Pence for his cavorting with the treasonous general, Mike Flynn. So, let's talk about all of this and let's see what happens. The noise may be enough to swing the 2020 elections harder toward Dems anyway, just as the Republicans used the impeachment of Clinton in a manner that led Al Gore not to have Clinton even near him for much of his 2000 campaign, though the economy was hot at the time and the federal government had a surplus, not a deficit, for a couple of years at that point. In any event, the evidence is sufficient for a legitimate impeachment investigation, though I think it may be better to allow Mueller to complete his investigation so we avoid undermining Mueller's criminal investigation as happened to some extent during the Iran-Contra scandals when Ollie North received partial immunity to testify in the Congressional investigation. My sense is Mueller will complete his report in the next few months, as he completes his review of the Deutsche Bank records and Trump's tax returns, and finishes connecting dots as to how Trump ran his companies and how he ran his presidential campaign. This will make it easier for congressional investigators to get up to speed as they consider whether to issue articles of impeachment. And again let's not worry about how Republicans in Congress behave, and how venal and cynically they act. The key is to talk about it, agitate, and educate. The pressure will get stronger each day this occurs. Jeffrey Toobin is correct. These are significant developments and it is time to agitate against those still calling the investigation a witch hunt or a hoax.
