… If I may, some opinions regarding impeachment and process.
While the tempest is raging around the hearings, the entire situation fell apart quietly, during the trial of Roger Stone. Stone seems like an insignificant political hack, a dweeby apparatchnik, a cipher – but he just blew the whole Trump administration away. The media doesn’t seem to have twigged to that, yet.
I did a google image search for “retroscope” and look at this beauty!
In Stone’s trial, the government presented intercepts and call logs from his phone and email, which indicate that Stone was the cut-out between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence. I was going to do a posting about this, declaring it to be another instance of the retro-scope being deployed (it is!) to back-analyze past communications. This is a key point: the evidence linking Stone to wikileaks and the Trump campaign is not testimony from some skeevy lying asshole like Stone – this is evidence collected from the retro-scope, i.e.: the Department of Justice requested it from Stone et al’s service providers. If Stone’s an Apple iPhone user, this evidence comes from Tim Apple, a reliable source.
That evidence shows that Stone talked to Bannon who was managing the campaign at the time, and the his information was being relayed to Trump. When you line the timing of the communications up, it is clear that Trump knew when Wikileaks was going to dump damaging information provided by Russian intelligence – Trump even said so himself in his famously stupid blatherings about how much he loves Wikileaks.
The evidence against Stone indicates conclusively that Stone lied (hence the trial) but it also indicates conclusively that Trump’s written statement to Mueller was falsehood. None of us are surprised; the kabuki dance at the time was to keep Trump from perjuring himself to Mueller; that’s why the whole idea of allowing him to write a response came up in the first place – he could have lawyers looking over his shoulder the whole time. In other words, we now know that the Mueller report was missing critical information, namely that Trump’s statements were false. I.e.: Trump WAS colluding with Russia.
That pulls in basically everyone into the conspiracy. Trump’s lawyers, who knew that he was producing false testimony – after all, they were the ones who were trying to keep him away from a microphone because they knew the truth and knew he’d lie – they wouldn’t know he was going to lie if they didn’t know what the truth was, in other words. Mueller, who is no idiot, was also in on it – because if he was really trying to do his investigation like the FBI super-cop he was portrayed to be – he’d never have accepted something that was so obviously shambolic. I mentioned before that I suspected Mueller was not really there to investigate; he was there to bury – and this proves I was right. [stderr] How can I assert that? It’s easy: Mueller could have also accessed Stone’s call records and text messages, which would have put “unindicted co-conspirator #1” firmly in the crosshairs of the investigation. It is manifestly absurd to believe that Mueller did not know Stone was a liar – Mueller’s investigation carefully stepped around Stone, and that ought to have been suspicious enough. Stone was clearly in scope for the investigation because the investigation was supposed to be investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 election and Stone was such a fucking idiot that he colluded with Russia (via Wikileaks) in phone calls and texts to Steve Bannon, which mentioned Trump directly. How could Mueller possibly have avoided that fact? Simple: he had to, or the whole thing would have blown up into impeachment proceedings right away. Mueller carefully stepped around a key puzzle-piece that led to damning evidence – now, tell me again how Mueller was on the side of the good guys.
Basically, what the Stone evidence shows is that there was, in fact, collusion with Russia.
Trump can still win, but time is running out. I know how to win, but it ain’t pretty.
– Roger Stone, in a text to Steve Bannon (Trump Campaign Manager)
This is the picture: there is a giant steaming turd in the middle of a sidewalk on Capitol Hill; staffers, lawmakers, cops and the media walk past. As they approach the turd their heads go down and suddenly they are paying attention to their smart phones, or a newspaper, and the pace and timing of their footsteps happens to carry them neatly past the turd as though it’s surrounded by an invisibility field.
That turd is text messages and voicemails that show conclusively that the Trump campaign did collude with Russian intelligence on the 2016 election. The fact that everyone is stepping around the turd means that they know it’s there – which means they have always known it’s been there, because they have been stepping around it since 2016. No wonder Trump has been so frantic with his over-the-top lies: he’s probably gobsmacked because turd-hound that he is, he sees it and knows what it means and he doesn’t know when someone is finally going to put a shoe in it.
If someone who’s not inside the beltway, like me, can put that scenario together, I can only conclude that anyone who is at all involved in the situation put it together long ago. When they did, and went on pretending it was not there, they became part of a conspiracy. Everyone who is pretending to go along with Trump’s “executive privilege” stonewall is tacitly admitting that they are part of a conspiracy. Because innocent people have nothing to hide with executive privilege.
That conspiracy, folks, is treason. That’s the smell coming off that turd. The treason is not the initial collusion with the Russians, it’s the systematic attempt, by the entire republican party, to feign ignorance while the Trump clown-car attempts to do the same thing again in 2020. The democrats finally stopped pretending that it wasn’t there, because they realized that they might well be politically disempowered permanently if the same trick works again a second time. Look at all the witnesses that are coming forward; we’re supposed to believe that they only just figured this stuff out last week; literally, that is what Sondland is trying to say: “I was drinking my tea this morning and remembered that I might be implicated in a conspiracy to usurp the US government and put an illegitimate puppet of foreign powers in place.” That’s what it is, folks – it’s a conspiracy to take over the government with the help of the Russians and (with some nudging) Ukraine. Now that it’s starting to come out in the open, the conspirators are showing, through their actions, that they know exactly what is going on and they favor it. Watch Lindsay Graham’s stupid dance; he’s not that stupid, but he is that power hungry.
Attempting to create a situation where the controls on an illegitimate president are removed is treason – because that’s what it means to deliberately dismantle the process of impeachment. First and foremost, if you’re dismantling the process of impeachment, you are tacitly admitting that you know it’s all true. As usual, the republicans are telegraphing their true thoughts by projecting them on others: we are looking at the back side of a coup – and a fairly successful one at that.
Your rifles are needed, gentlemen
If the senate blows off the impeachment, as most of us expect they will, the house should pass a resolution declaring the senate to be part of a treasonous conspiracy, declare a state of emergency, and send the sergeant at arms of the house to Arlington, draft the old guard infantry who guard the tomb of the unknown soldier, issue them some ammunition for their rifles, and arrest the senate, the attorney general, and the president. Remember: all of this is about the president’s unwillingness to submit to a fair trial. Well, OK, if that’s the way it’s gotta be, I say put the lot of them up against the wall. The US has killed much better people, for far less reason.
I agree that Russians trying to influence election results in the USA is a bad thing. But I still feel like witnessing a hypocrisy. When some American billionaire spends a huge sum of money on influencing election results, then that’s business as usual. But when some person with a Russian citizenship happens to do the exact same thing, then it’s somehow OMFG awful. Manipulating election results ought to be a bad thing regardless of what citizenship some person has.
Also, I strongly dislike the whole notion of “treason” being a crime. The fact that I happened to be born in some country or live there does not mean that therefore I owe the existing political regime loyalty. A citizen cannot possibly betray the country where they live if they never promised any loyalty in the first place. I find it odd that trying to overthrow the government in the country where you live is somehow seen as more evil and heinous than trying to overthrow the government of some other random country.
An armed coup sure will make things in the USA better. After all, countless military coups have ended in liberal democracies where citizens lived in blissful and idyllic conditions. /sarcasm
Andreas Avester@#1:
An armed coup sure will make things in the USA better.
It’s coups all the way down; I guess the question is whether it’s armed or unarmed.
I also agree with you that “treason” may be an unclear concept, or it does not apply. In the case of congress, though, they have agreed to work within a certain framework and they turn out to be not only cheating within that framework but trying to set it up so that cheating in that framework is the new status quo. That means that they’re overthrowing that framework.
Citizens like myself who are assumed to agree with the social contract because I was born under it, and have an option to leave – that’s different. The degree to which I feel I owe society something in return for what it has given me, and the degree to which it can compel me are the key factors there.
I don’t take other people’s oaths particularly seriously, but I take my own seriously. A republican congressperson who has sworn to uphold the constitution, and who chooses instead to work against it, is going against their own word.
I like the sound of your suggestion, but it isn’t bloody likely at this point. There are still a lot of Americans convinced this is a witch hunt. Trump is still allowed direct communication with his electorate via Twitter. No filter and all lies all the time. Could this lead to civil war in the U.S.?
.What happens if Trump resigns? Will that save the senate? Can they persuade/compel him to do so? Is there a threat of jail for these people or will they simply lose their nice cushy jobs? Is the senate really touchable?
Sorry about all the questions, but I don’t understand the U.S. system or mentality that well. (never be afraid to ask a smart person a stupid question)
Marcus @#2
I’m fine with labeling as a crime “an attempt to overthrow an elected government that gets substituted with a dictatorship (or simply somebody else who didn’t have the popular support in the elections).”
What I strongly dislike is how the same action gets labeled as “treason” (a supposedly worse crime) when you are a citizen of the country whose government you are trying to overthrow. When you are messing with some other country’s government, then the exact same crime gets labeled differently and is somehow less bad.
Anyway, Wikipedia gives the following list of actions that can be labeled as treason: “participating in a war against one’s native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state.” WTF? Participating in a war against the country where you were born is somehow bad, but participating in a war against some other country is somehow good? WTF? Spying on your country’s military is somehow bad while spying on some other country’s military is somehow fine? WTF? As for killing heads of states, in my opinion murdering some random homeless person on the street should be considered equally bad as murdering the head of some state. And it shouldn’t matter whether the head of a state you killed is from your country or some other country. Killing a human being is the exact same crime regardless of how fancy hat said victim wears in their daily life.
The whole notion of “treason” is a remnant from the old days back when King Thag murdered the previous king, figured out that he doesn’t want somebody else to kill him, and so he declared that any attempts to overthrow his rule are “treason.” The overall attitude being, “I have power now, therefore I will declare as crimes all attempts to overthrow me.” The mere fact that I was unlucky to be born in some shithole does not mean that therefore I must love King Thag or owe him loyalty. Just think about how having consensual sex with a princess or a queen used to be high treason. Why? Just why? It’s not like the country needs or would benefit from the next king having specific DNA supplied by a specific father. Laws against treason were never enacted to protect the citizens of some country. They exist solely to protect the rulers from being overthrown.
Anyway, when it comes to elected governments getting overthrown by wannabe dictators, then yes, I agree that said action is bad and therefore a crime. But when some king or dictator gets overthrown by a better regime, then it shouldn’t be a crime at all, then it’s a good thing, and definitely not “treason.”
OK fine, here you can technically claim that the person did promise to do something. Still, that promise was semi-coerced, because if you want to do some specific jobs, making promises is mandatory.
Option to leave? Yeah right. All the land on this planet is already divided between countries, all of whom are shitty. Leaving one shitty country simply means going to another almost just as shitty country.
Never mind that countless people cannot possibly leave their shitty countries because of financial or practical reasons. And some are outright refused entry in other countries, because they have dark skin and therefore some racists won’t want to give them a refugee status.
By the way, I hate my country. Mostly because this country denies me access to healthcare and tries to force me to live as female against my will. I believe that I owe absolutely nothing to this country’s ruling politicians and oligarchs. Sure, the country has hired thugs with guns who can coerce me to do various things, but that’s just coercion.
Conveniently, I was never coerced into making any oaths to this shithole’s ruling regime. I never tried to apply to any jobs where cringe-worthy oaths are mandatory.
I like the thought, but do we have to be at war for treason to be possible? If not it’ll be fun coming up with treasonous republican rhetoric on facebook.
@ Andreas Avester 1
I’ve had similar thoughts. I’ve chosen to call it “Russian political trolling” to disrespect the complaining about the Russian election interference since our history is filled with examples of us meddling in the elections of others. We don’t deserve to complain even as we should tighten things up.
Treason has a more restricted definition under the Constitution in the US.
Though of course definitions are always debatable as to what they actually mean.
And here I’m just like, “Oh, now you’re getting political.”
Stone talked to Bannon
There is credible evidence that Stone actually received information from Wikileaks?
jrkrideau@#9:
Jury just convicted stone on all counts including lying about not talking to wikileaks. So that is a “yes”
If the infamous Trump Tower meeting did not constitute collusion, I’m not sure what would.
Stone appears to be a techno-genius:
I guess that possibility didn’t occur to him.
I think there are a few alternative explanations to those put forward by Marcus.
First, regarding Mueller, MSNBC had this to say today:
Second, I agree that everyone in DC of both parties knows that the administration is colluding with foreign countries all over the place — whether you care to call it “treason” or not. But everybody has the same problem, which is that the ultimate judge for the administration isn’t really Congress: it’s the American people, through the medium of our current election stand-ins, the polls. Everybody from both parties has been staring at Trump’s popularity polls for the past three years scratching their heads, trying to figure out how a constant serial liar doesn’t seem to lose any popularity. Not that they’re opposed to lying, but they’d rather stick to the conventionally accepted lies, not someone who spews self-contradictory, meandering, conspiratorial head-scratchers that a five-year-old ought to be able to see through.
I think Trump’s continually high polls have made everybody gun-shy. There are plenty of Republicans who would love to kick him out and replace him with a standard-issue conservative like Pence, but they’re scared of being primaried. And the Dems have been saying “If his support keeps holding steady despite all the horrible stuff he’s said and done, and the Republicans stick with him, and country has often turned against impeaching parties in the past, then how can we possibly present our treason evidence in such a way that we won’t get trounced in 2020?” Hence the prolonged waffling.
In other words, Trump’s candidacy seems to have created a bear-like coalition of around 30-40% of the American people who are unusually stupid, even for Americans, and now everybody is trying to figure out how to tip-toe regime change past the bear without getting shredded.
brucegee1962 @12: Interesting that you would use a BEAR in your analogy. (*cough*russia*cough*)
The indictment charging Stone was issued by Mueller, so I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
The New Yorker, Jan 25, 2019
You? Get political? This blog is going to the dogs 😛
This doesn’t seem like it will end well. I hope it collapses under the weight of their own incompetence before too many (more) people die
@Andreas Avester
I agree. This seems to be another situation where English lacks a good word, so we use one with questionable ideological implications instead
Regarding treason:
Someone living in a democracy, who has voting rights, arguably has the means to change their nation’s policy in a legal manner.* Trying to do so by illegal means – coup, bribery, collusion with foreign powers, to name but a few – would be outside the legal framework and therefore a crime. And if you wanted to attach a name to that, it might as well be treason. But ultimately it boils down to semantics. Treason is weird and arbitrary, just like – and because – nations are weird and arbitrary. If it were otherwise we wouldn’t see cultures and languages extending across borders so much, or have new borders pop up whenever someone decides to redraw the map.
*In the case of US billionaires buying elections, the supreme court decided money to the nth power is fine in politics and therefore not a legal problem.
Investigators in 1998: The president has been caught lying!
Congressional Republicans: OMG he must be impeached!
Investigators in 2019: The president has been caught lying!
Congressional Democrats: How many times this morning? Also, do you have any vodka?
komarov @#17
I’m fine with considering “coup, bribery, collusion with foreign powers” as crimes. If, for example, somebody commits bribery, you can just call their crime “bribery.” Why the hell do you have to attach the name “treason” to said crime instead? “Bribery” is a perfectly fine name for a crime.
Like I said, treason is logically impossible in most situations, because you cannot betray somebody unless you first gave them some promise.
Historically, a lot of the people who have been charged with “treason” hadn’t given any oaths or promises to the political regime they opposed.
Moreover, whenever some person is coerced into saying some words, those words shouldn’t be taken seriously. Confessions extorted under torture are perceived as invalid, because anybody will say absolutely anything while tortured. Similarly, mandatory oaths also shouldn’t be taken seriously. Of course, I’m am not equating confessions under torture with the standard oaths elected politicians have to say before they are allowed to start working in some position. After all, torture is much worse than being told, “Say these words or else we won’t allow you to get this job.” But it’s still coercion. “But you promised to do {whatever},” is a weak argument in situations where the other person can reply with, “You coerced me into uttering these words.”
By the way, in general I consider arguments that boil down to some mythical “social contract” highly problematic.
Yes, semantics that are used to manipulate public perception. Calling bribery “treason” manipulates public attitudes in the same way how, for example, calling genocide in some other euphemism. The words we use can matter.
@ 10 Marcus Ranum
Jury just convicted stone on all counts including lying about not talking to wikileaks. So that is a “yes”.
No, I did not ask about the verdict, I asked about credible evidence of a leak from Wikileaks to Stone.
Juries and courts have made mistakes before. I would refer you to the case of Alfred Dreyfus. (Okay, that was a court martial).
US courts are outstanding in weird decisions. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/judge-iran-pay-6bn-victims-911-attacks-180501120240366.html. Admittedly that was a judge-only case but what the blazes?
@ 10 Marcus Ranum
Jury just convicted stone on all counts including lying about not talking to wikileaks. So that is a “yes”.
=======================================================
…
But what wasn’t really cleared up in the trial was whether Stone in fact had legitimate inside information about WikiLeaks and its posting of Democratic emails that had been hacked by Russian intelligence officers. To an extent, that makes sense — the charges against Stone weren’t about anything he did in 2016, but rather the alleged cover-up he perpetrated the following year.
The government presented voluminous documentary evidence that the story Stone told Congress — that all his WikiLeaks information came from a single “intermediary,” radio host Randy Credico — was false. And they suggested Stone concocted this false story to hide his true WikiLeaks connection — conservative author Jerome Corsi. But what, exactly, Corsi learned, and how he learned it, remain murky.
…
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/15/20964909/roger-stone-trial-verdict
======================================================
So Stone was convicted for lying when he claimed to have dealt with Wikileaks or an intermediary?
“The democrats finally stopped pretending that it wasn’t there, because they realized that they might well be politically disempowered permanently if the same trick works again a second time.”
You gain internet points for this!! According to the Washington post:
“The request followed closely on the heels of Friday’s conviction of longtime Trump friend Roger Stone. Testimony and evidence at his trial appeared to cast doubt on written replies from Trump to Mueller about the president’s knowledge about attempts by his 2016 campaign to learn more about the release of hacked Democratic emails by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.”
But the problem, is that these news aren’t in the front page of the Washington Post, but in the “Legal issues” section… on the local section web… for some reason.
…
You Americans are really fucked by your press…
Edin Villalobos Mora@#22:
You Americans are really fucked by your press…
We have the best press money can buy!
The problem with corporate-owned press is that they don’t realize that the state will not always be on their side and they’re hated by the public and nobody will stand up for them.
Re #12 brucegee1962 , 30-40% of Americans don’t CARE if Trump directly paid half of Russia with campaign funds and blowjobs. Even if he is found to be guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt, the will support him and his party. They’ll keep backing him because he legitimizes their hateful inclinations. Republicans won’t dump him because he maintains his numbers. The media won’t critique him seriously because they are bought and paid for. He represents the best interests of their owners.
I’m not seeing anyone having the wherewithal to do anything about his stinking mess. Bleak times.