“Emigrants (sic) will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1782 (source: Notes of the State of Virginia).
“What I said was that anyone who felt that firing James Comey was going to shut down the Russian investigation was mistaken, that [while] the president fired the director of the FBI, he did not fire the whole FBI. And indeed, I have talked to FBI officials. And we've heard testimony from the acting director assuring us that the investigation is continuing as it should.” –Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), 2017 (source: NPR, “Morning Edition”, May 17th).
Update; 5th August 2017: the appointment of a special counsel has essentially leap-frogged the argued necessity of a special bi-partisan commission. The arguments laid out below apply equally to the Special (prosecutorial) Counsel, Director Mueller. The Trump Administration's insinuations that Robert Mueller and his team are somehow biassed and dedicated to bringing down the President and that the current Attorney General ought to be switched out in favor of one open to dismissing Director Mueller are as specious as they are repugnant to me and many fellow conservatives (e.g., Senators Graham, R-SC, and Tillis, R-NC). Three cheers for A.G. Sessions for maintaining his independence from President Trump and Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein for his integrity. Two key developments have occurred since the last update relevant to this essay.
First, the implausibility of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign -- a central assumption animating the view below -- has been diminished, if not altogether undermined, by the revelation of a meeting with a surrogate (as informal emissary) of the Putin régime and Messrs Kushner, Trump, Jr and Manafort in June 2016.
This meeting displays intent by senior Trump campaign people to collude, whether such collusion actually took place. Naïveté is no excuse here since Mr Manafort clearly had the experience to understand the implications of taking such a meeting and doubtlessly informed the newbies before the encounter. In fact, Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) established that fact in the same hearing.
Second, Attorney General Sessions has announced an increased scrutiny and possible crack-down on leakers. This announcement is good or bad news depending on how the A.G. pursues this policy. Leaking unclassified information or classified information that ought properly not be classified to expose wrong-doing should lie beyond the scope of the policy. Leaking information truly damaging to national security should be the scope. Hopefully, the mere announcement of the policy will deter the dangerous practice of leaking information aimed at removing President Trump.
Essentially, the three developments above have undermined the conclusion of avoiding a rush to judgement, as argued below. The burden of judgement has shifted to the President and does not include an automatic right of the presumption of innocence under due-process in criminal law to his worthiness for the office; that is, the door to a vote of no-confidence (on articles of impeachment submitted to the Senate) is now open.
Update; 22nd May 2017: a question latent in the initial writing of this essay and now emergent is a growing concern over the frequency and nature of the leaks threatening to bring down this President. The use of malicious leaks to remove an elected official, no matter how welcome that expulsion will be, is far more harmful to the Republic in the long run than actual wrongdoing by that hated official himself.
With the appointment of Director Mueller as a Special Counsel, hopefully his team will also investigate these leaks as wrongdoing arising "directly" from the investigation of Russian interference. These leaks are calculated to accelerate, if not determine the outcome of, that enquiry. Otherwise, the country has empowered a shadowy layer of government, free to leak classified information at will with neither transparency nor its attendant accountability.
===================
BLUF (bottom-line, up-front). We live in interesting times, or so says that allegedly Chinese curse. President Jefferson’s thought of a tendency to go from one extreme to the other is timely. Fears over the soundness of our institutions recede daily as a new anxiety supersedes them: that of a group psychology assuming the worst about an unpopular public figure. The latter could be more damaging in the longer run.
Introduction. The chorus for an independent commission to act as grand jury investigators – perhaps as the grand jury itself – will rise to a collective voice of inevitability in the coming days as increasing numbers of Republicans buy into the concept of deeper investigations. While somewhat like the unsound proposal I laid out in my previous letter, this deeper investigative commission will most likely not grind governance to a halt.
To paraphrase another widely detested President, ‘let me make one thing personally clear’: I am and remain no fan of Donald Trump. His candidacy and nomination damaged my Party; his election has likely hurt my country. President Trump’s personal insecurities make him at least as vulnerable as President Nixon to fear, paranoia and authoritarianism.
Yet being crude, rude and socially unacceptable is not an impeachable offense. The several investigations already started or the one soon to start must remain deliberative by focusing on a man’s deeds and not only his temperament.
If President Trump truly is unfit for office, the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America will still be in force. That said, if Vice President Pence were to pardon a resigning President Trump pre-emptively for the latter to escape full accountability in the eyes of the citizenry, he might well become accountable for obstructing justice.
Why an independent commission. With unseemly behaviors hitting the airwaves and cyberspace every week, an independent commission remains the appropriate course to take. Beyond its own work as a preliminary review of possible evidence, this commission could integrate the findings of three intelligence investigations already taking place that are looking onto "all things Russian" about the 2016 election.
Those three investigations include one in each House of Congress, specifically their Select Committees on Intelligence, and one by the FBI. With the evidence and / or hearsay mounting, my previous idea of three-person panel would be inadequate to the task of reviewing a far more complicated situation and would add little value to, perhaps detract from, the rule-of-law.
An independent commission assures Republicans that it will not be a fishing expedition to justify many people’s hatred of this President and to satisfy their desire to remove him. With its limited scope, an independent commission should be timely enough not to bog the whole government down. Congressional G.O.P. leadership is likely preparing for the worst-case scenario in order to be prepared to keep the government functioning.
Consequently, a potential crisis of governance ought not be a deterrent to impanelling an independent commission. The government continued working just fine in 1973 and 1974; things did not go so well for President Nixon. Hopefully, the American people – at least a majority – will remain open to the possibility that this man has done nothing that rises to the level of impeachment and removal from Office.
The President’s fitness for office is a separate issue, though being cleared from possible impeachment would go a long way toward muting that question since so many of the problems before us reflect the man’s temperament. A conspiratorial invocation of XXV Amendment, however, to remove President Trump without proper accountability of President Trump's actions would arguably also rise to the level of obstructing justice by Cabinet members and V.P. Pence.
Checking out the current scuttle-butt. There is a gathering consensus for a commission – or scheiße-storm (depending upon one’s feelings toward the President) – to “get to the bottom” of all that has hit the news media in recent weeks. In this closing section, I will play the Devil’s Advocate (more to caution me than you) against jumping to conclusions of treason or criminal intent.
Asking Director Comey to “Shut Down” the Flynn lnvestigation and Demanding a Loyalty Oath. Many people argue that President Trump committed an impeachable offense in asking Director Comey to “let go” of the investigation of General Flynn and to make a loyalty pledge to him, reminiscent of that made by the SS to Adolf Hitler, and superseding that to the Constitution.
While I dislike General Flynn almost instinctively and shudder at placing personalities ahead of principles, it is far from clear, at least to me, that the President's apparent requests rise to an impeachable level. As we do with so many other contestable and contemptible actions of President Trump, we simply lack context. It is possible that the following occurred:
President Trump: “Am I under investigation?”
Director Comey: “Mr President, while I am unable to disclose the contents of ongoing activities of the Bureau—“
President Trump: “Of course you can’t say. My apologies…”
Director Comey: “No problem, Mr President. I can say that you are not the subject of an investigation at this time…”
President Trump: “And my friend, Mike Flynn. Look, he’s a good man – you know: served his country in war -- and made some mistakes. Can’t you just let that one go? He's already disgraced and all that...”
Director Comey: “Mr President, you may not understand that you are asking me to do is to obstruct justice and, just by asking me, you are obstructing justice…”
President Trump: “My God! That’s the last thing I want to do! I was just – eh, Mike is a friend and I want to be loyal but...Got it…All these rules – I never imagined…”
Director Comey: “Understood, Mr President. Having been with a hedge fund, I know that Washington and Manhattan are two different games with two different rule-books. It all takes some getting used to….”
President Trump: “Just one other thing…”
Director Comey: “Mr President?”
President Trump: “Things are harder than I ever imagined in this job, you know. Can I count on you to be in my corner?”
Director Comey: “On everyday administrative matters, of course. Mr President, I must say that on serious matters involving possible wrongdoing, I have to remain loyal to my oath to the Constitution at all times…”
President Trump: “Of course you do. I didn’t mean anything wrong but things like, you know, publicly criticizing me.”
Director Comey: “On political matters, I really try to avoid saying anything. On the more serious questions, if I am going to issue a public statement that will be critical of you or your team, I will forewarn you that a criticism is coming so you are not caught by surprise in a Press Conference or something.”
President Trump: “Thank you.”
Director Comey: “But, Mr President, the only assurance that I can really make to you categorically is that I will be honest. I will go ahead and make that statement if I deem it necessary…”
President Trump: “No President could ask for more. Thank you….”
Many people bristle at the thought that President Trump would never act in so even-handed a manner. It certainly defies his public persona. Yet, many people walked away from one-on-one meetings in New York City with the then President-elect – including Senator Corker and Governor Romney – who found President Trump to be engaging, open-minded, even humble.
So how do we know President Trump did not act this way with Director Comey?
Tipping the Russians with 'Insider Information'. President Trump unwisely excluded the American Press from the Oval Office meeting, permitting an openly biassed Russian reporter to sit in. The photos of international leaders as frat-brats soon careened across the inter-net.
Now a leak is out alleging that President Trump disclosed classified information, even compromising an intelligence asset or source. Again we have no idea what was said, except that it was related to an impending I.S.I.S. attack. So, the incident may have occurred this way.
President Trump: “Sergei, we’ve got a problem…”
Foreign Minister Lavrov: “Oh, Mr President, we have a lot of problems…”
Both laughing as President Trump says: “I said call me Donald, Sergei. In any case, not the standard stuff this time but solid Intel from a reliable source that I.S.I.S. has something big planned for Saint Petersburg – could be really deadly…”
Minister Lavrov, turning serious: “Donald, did you get that from the Fredonians?” President Trump tightens up slightly, but perceptibly as Minister Lavrov continues, patting President Trump on the shoulder and smiling: “I thought so. Frottage [the Fredonian Intelligence Agency] has been communicating that same intelligence to us through their counterparts in our F.S.B. Thank you, all the same….”
Again there is no way to refute this version of the story any more than to assume that President Trump committed treason. Like the discussion with Director Comey, we will have to wait and see what the independent commission and three other investigations bring to light and what people say under oath. One thing for sure: I suspect the American Press will be allowed into future meetings!
Conclusion. There are many other objectionable actions of President Trump. Good and charitable people believe they indicate impeachable actions or mis-steps indicative of the President’s unfitness for office. The two big questions addressed above could support plausible, if unlikely, scenarios that indicate nothing more than an awkward newbie ascending a learning curve.
So, we should resist a rush to judgement. There is no need to address other questions with alternative scenarios since, betting my bottom ruble, one could devise such innocent outcomes easily. The key point remains: let the investigations proceed as rapidly as safely possible and avoid a rush-to-judgement. Lastly, ongoing skepticism by the Press, whether welcome or not, is the life-blood of accountability for our Republic.
“What I said was that anyone who felt that firing James Comey was going to shut down the Russian investigation was mistaken, that [while] the president fired the director of the FBI, he did not fire the whole FBI. And indeed, I have talked to FBI officials. And we've heard testimony from the acting director assuring us that the investigation is continuing as it should.” –Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), 2017 (source: NPR, “Morning Edition”, May 17th).
Update; 5th August 2017: the appointment of a special counsel has essentially leap-frogged the argued necessity of a special bi-partisan commission. The arguments laid out below apply equally to the Special (prosecutorial) Counsel, Director Mueller. The Trump Administration's insinuations that Robert Mueller and his team are somehow biassed and dedicated to bringing down the President and that the current Attorney General ought to be switched out in favor of one open to dismissing Director Mueller are as specious as they are repugnant to me and many fellow conservatives (e.g., Senators Graham, R-SC, and Tillis, R-NC). Three cheers for A.G. Sessions for maintaining his independence from President Trump and Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein for his integrity. Two key developments have occurred since the last update relevant to this essay.
First, the implausibility of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign -- a central assumption animating the view below -- has been diminished, if not altogether undermined, by the revelation of a meeting with a surrogate (as informal emissary) of the Putin régime and Messrs Kushner, Trump, Jr and Manafort in June 2016.
This meeting displays intent by senior Trump campaign people to collude, whether such collusion actually took place. Naïveté is no excuse here since Mr Manafort clearly had the experience to understand the implications of taking such a meeting and doubtlessly informed the newbies before the encounter. In fact, Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) established that fact in the same hearing.
Second, Attorney General Sessions has announced an increased scrutiny and possible crack-down on leakers. This announcement is good or bad news depending on how the A.G. pursues this policy. Leaking unclassified information or classified information that ought properly not be classified to expose wrong-doing should lie beyond the scope of the policy. Leaking information truly damaging to national security should be the scope. Hopefully, the mere announcement of the policy will deter the dangerous practice of leaking information aimed at removing President Trump.
Essentially, the three developments above have undermined the conclusion of avoiding a rush to judgement, as argued below. The burden of judgement has shifted to the President and does not include an automatic right of the presumption of innocence under due-process in criminal law to his worthiness for the office; that is, the door to a vote of no-confidence (on articles of impeachment submitted to the Senate) is now open.
Update; 22nd May 2017: a question latent in the initial writing of this essay and now emergent is a growing concern over the frequency and nature of the leaks threatening to bring down this President. The use of malicious leaks to remove an elected official, no matter how welcome that expulsion will be, is far more harmful to the Republic in the long run than actual wrongdoing by that hated official himself.
With the appointment of Director Mueller as a Special Counsel, hopefully his team will also investigate these leaks as wrongdoing arising "directly" from the investigation of Russian interference. These leaks are calculated to accelerate, if not determine the outcome of, that enquiry. Otherwise, the country has empowered a shadowy layer of government, free to leak classified information at will with neither transparency nor its attendant accountability.
===================
BLUF (bottom-line, up-front). We live in interesting times, or so says that allegedly Chinese curse. President Jefferson’s thought of a tendency to go from one extreme to the other is timely. Fears over the soundness of our institutions recede daily as a new anxiety supersedes them: that of a group psychology assuming the worst about an unpopular public figure. The latter could be more damaging in the longer run.
Introduction. The chorus for an independent commission to act as grand jury investigators – perhaps as the grand jury itself – will rise to a collective voice of inevitability in the coming days as increasing numbers of Republicans buy into the concept of deeper investigations. While somewhat like the unsound proposal I laid out in my previous letter, this deeper investigative commission will most likely not grind governance to a halt.
To paraphrase another widely detested President, ‘let me make one thing personally clear’: I am and remain no fan of Donald Trump. His candidacy and nomination damaged my Party; his election has likely hurt my country. President Trump’s personal insecurities make him at least as vulnerable as President Nixon to fear, paranoia and authoritarianism.
Yet being crude, rude and socially unacceptable is not an impeachable offense. The several investigations already started or the one soon to start must remain deliberative by focusing on a man’s deeds and not only his temperament.
If President Trump truly is unfit for office, the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America will still be in force. That said, if Vice President Pence were to pardon a resigning President Trump pre-emptively for the latter to escape full accountability in the eyes of the citizenry, he might well become accountable for obstructing justice.
Why an independent commission. With unseemly behaviors hitting the airwaves and cyberspace every week, an independent commission remains the appropriate course to take. Beyond its own work as a preliminary review of possible evidence, this commission could integrate the findings of three intelligence investigations already taking place that are looking onto "all things Russian" about the 2016 election.
Those three investigations include one in each House of Congress, specifically their Select Committees on Intelligence, and one by the FBI. With the evidence and / or hearsay mounting, my previous idea of three-person panel would be inadequate to the task of reviewing a far more complicated situation and would add little value to, perhaps detract from, the rule-of-law.
Consequently, a potential crisis of governance ought not be a deterrent to impanelling an independent commission. The government continued working just fine in 1973 and 1974; things did not go so well for President Nixon. Hopefully, the American people – at least a majority – will remain open to the possibility that this man has done nothing that rises to the level of impeachment and removal from Office.
The President’s fitness for office is a separate issue, though being cleared from possible impeachment would go a long way toward muting that question since so many of the problems before us reflect the man’s temperament. A conspiratorial invocation of XXV Amendment, however, to remove President Trump without proper accountability of President Trump's actions would arguably also rise to the level of obstructing justice by Cabinet members and V.P. Pence.
Checking out the current scuttle-butt. There is a gathering consensus for a commission – or scheiße-storm (depending upon one’s feelings toward the President) – to “get to the bottom” of all that has hit the news media in recent weeks. In this closing section, I will play the Devil’s Advocate (more to caution me than you) against jumping to conclusions of treason or criminal intent.
Asking Director Comey to “Shut Down” the Flynn lnvestigation and Demanding a Loyalty Oath. Many people argue that President Trump committed an impeachable offense in asking Director Comey to “let go” of the investigation of General Flynn and to make a loyalty pledge to him, reminiscent of that made by the SS to Adolf Hitler, and superseding that to the Constitution.
While I dislike General Flynn almost instinctively and shudder at placing personalities ahead of principles, it is far from clear, at least to me, that the President's apparent requests rise to an impeachable level. As we do with so many other contestable and contemptible actions of President Trump, we simply lack context. It is possible that the following occurred:
President Trump: “Am I under investigation?”
Director Comey: “Mr President, while I am unable to disclose the contents of ongoing activities of the Bureau—“
President Trump: “Of course you can’t say. My apologies…”
Director Comey: “No problem, Mr President. I can say that you are not the subject of an investigation at this time…”
President Trump: “And my friend, Mike Flynn. Look, he’s a good man – you know: served his country in war -- and made some mistakes. Can’t you just let that one go? He's already disgraced and all that...”
Director Comey: “Mr President, you may not understand that you are asking me to do is to obstruct justice and, just by asking me, you are obstructing justice…”
President Trump: “My God! That’s the last thing I want to do! I was just – eh, Mike is a friend and I want to be loyal but...Got it…All these rules – I never imagined…”
Director Comey: “Understood, Mr President. Having been with a hedge fund, I know that Washington and Manhattan are two different games with two different rule-books. It all takes some getting used to….”
President Trump: “Just one other thing…”
Director Comey: “Mr President?”
President Trump: “Things are harder than I ever imagined in this job, you know. Can I count on you to be in my corner?”
Director Comey: “On everyday administrative matters, of course. Mr President, I must say that on serious matters involving possible wrongdoing, I have to remain loyal to my oath to the Constitution at all times…”
President Trump: “Of course you do. I didn’t mean anything wrong but things like, you know, publicly criticizing me.”
Director Comey: “On political matters, I really try to avoid saying anything. On the more serious questions, if I am going to issue a public statement that will be critical of you or your team, I will forewarn you that a criticism is coming so you are not caught by surprise in a Press Conference or something.”
President Trump: “Thank you.”
Director Comey: “But, Mr President, the only assurance that I can really make to you categorically is that I will be honest. I will go ahead and make that statement if I deem it necessary…”
President Trump: “No President could ask for more. Thank you….”
Many people bristle at the thought that President Trump would never act in so even-handed a manner. It certainly defies his public persona. Yet, many people walked away from one-on-one meetings in New York City with the then President-elect – including Senator Corker and Governor Romney – who found President Trump to be engaging, open-minded, even humble.
So how do we know President Trump did not act this way with Director Comey?
Now a leak is out alleging that President Trump disclosed classified information, even compromising an intelligence asset or source. Again we have no idea what was said, except that it was related to an impending I.S.I.S. attack. So, the incident may have occurred this way.
President Trump: “Sergei, we’ve got a problem…”
Foreign Minister Lavrov: “Oh, Mr President, we have a lot of problems…”
Both laughing as President Trump says: “I said call me Donald, Sergei. In any case, not the standard stuff this time but solid Intel from a reliable source that I.S.I.S. has something big planned for Saint Petersburg – could be really deadly…”
Minister Lavrov, turning serious: “Donald, did you get that from the Fredonians?” President Trump tightens up slightly, but perceptibly as Minister Lavrov continues, patting President Trump on the shoulder and smiling: “I thought so. Frottage [the Fredonian Intelligence Agency] has been communicating that same intelligence to us through their counterparts in our F.S.B. Thank you, all the same….”
Again there is no way to refute this version of the story any more than to assume that President Trump committed treason. Like the discussion with Director Comey, we will have to wait and see what the independent commission and three other investigations bring to light and what people say under oath. One thing for sure: I suspect the American Press will be allowed into future meetings!
So, we should resist a rush to judgement. There is no need to address other questions with alternative scenarios since, betting my bottom ruble, one could devise such innocent outcomes easily. The key point remains: let the investigations proceed as rapidly as safely possible and avoid a rush-to-judgement. Lastly, ongoing skepticism by the Press, whether welcome or not, is the life-blood of accountability for our Republic.
