President Trump's speech yesterday confirmed that the "law-and-order candidate" will indeed be the law-and-order President. His remarks on that topic were necessarily general, given the breadth of his address and the number of topics covered.
Earlier the same day, Attorney General Sessions spoke to the National Association of Attorneys General. His remarks as prepared for delivery, dated the day before, are posted on the DoJ website. Here are some excerpts.
Earlier the same day, Attorney General Sessions spoke to the National Association of Attorneys General. His remarks as prepared for delivery, dated the day before, are posted on the DoJ website. Here are some excerpts.
First, let's put things in context. Overall, crime rates in the United States remain near historic lows. Murder rates are half of what they were in 1980. The rate of violent crime has fallen by almost half from its peak in the early 1990s. Many neighborhoods that were once in the grip of gangs and drugs and violence are now vibrant places, where kids can play in the park and parents can enjoy a walk after sunset without fear. There is no doubt that in the past four decades - under leadership from both political parties, and thanks above all to the work of prosecutors and good police using science and professional training - we have won great victories against crime in America. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are alive today as a result.
But in the last two years, we've seen clear warning signs - like the first gusts of wind before a summer storm - that this progress is now at risk.
The latest FBI official data tell us that from 2014 to 2015, the violent crime rate in the U.S. increased by more than 3 percent - the largest one-year increase since 1991. The murder rate increased 11 percent - the largest increase since 1968. The rape rate increased by over 4 percent, and the aggravated assault rate rose by nearly 4 percent.
If this was a one-year spike, we might not worry too much. But the preliminary data for the first half of 2016 confirmed these trends. The number of violent crimes in the first half of last year was more than 5 percent higher than the same period in 2015. The number of murders was also up 5 percent over the same period the year before, and aggravated assaults rose as well.* * *
Every time someone makes a statement about the recent increases in violent crime, media "fact-checkers" spring into action, noting the long-term numbers as if they are the only ones that matter and implying that people who are concerned about the short-term increases somehow don't have their facts straight. As the AG's statement makes clear, those of us warning about the worrisome recent trend are well aware of the long-term drop, and both facts are important parts of the picture. The danger that the long-term drop has ended and that we are headed for years of increases is a real one. It's not a certainty yet, but it is a genuine cause for concern.
The upward trend continued to a peak in violent crimes per capita in 1991. Today's rates are far lower than that peak, but they are only "down" from a horrifically high rate. That does not mean they are "low" in any kind of absolute sense. The 2015 violent crime rate of 372.6 per 100k population is still higher than the rate of 1970 and more than double the rate of 1960. It is true that the long-term trend is down from 1991, but it is equally true that the even longer-term trend is up from 1960.
These numbers should trouble all of us. My worry is that this is not a "blip" or an anomaly, but the start of a dangerous new trend that could reverse the hard-won gains of the past four decades - gains that made America a safer and more prosperous place.We at CJLF are keenly aware of that earlier time. Our organization was formed in 1982 to join the fight against increasing crime.While we can hope for the best, those of us charged with protecting public safety can't afford to be complacent or take for granted the achievements of recent years, because when crime rates move in the wrong direction, they can move quickly.
We know this, because those of us above a certain age have lived it. In the early 1960s, crime began to rise in our country; by 1973, crime rates in almost every category - violent crime, murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary and car thefts - had doubled over where they were just a decade before. And as the 1970s went on, levels of crime and violence that we once deemed unacceptably high became the "new normal" in America.
As someone who lived through that dark time in our history, and dealt with its consequences every day as a prosecutor, I can assure you: We do not want to go back to those days. We cannot risk giving up all we have achieved in our fight against crime.
The upward trend continued to a peak in violent crimes per capita in 1991. Today's rates are far lower than that peak, but they are only "down" from a horrifically high rate. That does not mean they are "low" in any kind of absolute sense. The 2015 violent crime rate of 372.6 per 100k population is still higher than the rate of 1970 and more than double the rate of 1960. It is true that the long-term trend is down from 1991, but it is equally true that the even longer-term trend is up from 1960.
I've thrown a lot of numbers at you to illustrate my point. But we must remember that these data represent real neighborhoods and real people whose safety and lives are at stake. Each victim of this recent spike in violent crime is someone's parent, or child, or friend. And every loss of a young life to guns or drugs is a tragedy we must work to prevent.How wonderful to have an Attorney General like this. It's been too long.* * *The immense social costs of crime are indisputable. Yes, incarceration is painful for the families of inmates, and every conviction represents a failure on multiple levels of society. But the costs of rising crime are even more severe. Drug crimes and violent felonies change the lives of victims forever. Neighborhoods hit by rising crime suffer deep economic harm. And if more young men choose to commit crimes because jail time is less daunting than before, that means they are forgoing more hopeful courses for their lives and their communities. In the midst of a terrible heroin epidemic and a rise in violent crime, we should not roll back the tools law enforcement has to go after federal drug trafficking and firearms felons, or release thousands more.
The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this crisis. I pledge that under my leadership at the Department of Justice, we will systematically prosecute criminals who use guns in committing crimes. We will work to take down drug trafficking cartels and dismantle gangs. And we will enforce our immigration laws and prosecute those who repeatedly violate our borders.* * *But the federal government cannot meet this challenge alone. States and cities and towns have always played the lead role in criminal law enforcement in our country - and that must continue, for two reasons.* * *Unfortunately, in recent years law enforcement as a whole has been unfairly maligned and blamed for the unacceptable deeds of a few bad actors. Our officers, deputies and troopers believe the political leadership of this country abandoned them. Their morale has suffered. And last year, amid this intense public scrutiny and criticism, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty increased 10 percent over the year before.
To confront the challenge of rising crime, we must rely heavily on local law enforcement to lead the way - and they must know they have our steadfast support.
For the federal government, that means this: rather than dictating to local police how to do their jobs - or spending scarce federal resources to sue them in court - we should use our money, research and expertise to help them figure out what is happening and determine the best ways to fight crime. We should strengthen partnerships between federal and state and local officers. And we should encourage proactive policing that ensures our police and citizens are communicating and working well together.
Decency evolves: I know as a conservative you are very excited about having Sessions as Attorney General. As someone who isn't, I'd be curious to know this given last nights news: Assume Hillary Clinton had been elected and the Russian Government had hacked the RNCs computers and leaked damaging information to help her win. How would you feel if her attorney general, an early campaign supporter, repeatedly stated under oath that he hadn't met with Russian officials at the time the campaign was in full swing when in fact he had met with the Russian Ambassador to the US twice during that period? Would you be upset? Would other Republicans be upset? Would they be justified in that feeling?
I am eager to hear what AG Sessions will do to carry out the federal death penalty--especially since over 20 condemned federal inmates are warrant-ready.
I am also keen to learn whether he will help end the lethal-injection drugs logjam that has been preventing the states from carrying out of death sentences for far too long.
Such. Thin. Gruel.
SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY: "Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?”
SESSIONS: No.
___________________________
SEN. AL FRANKEN: "CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"
SESSIONS: “I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”
The questions posed and Sessions answers are clearly directed towards any communication about the campaign.
The meetings Sessions had with the Russian ambassador had to do with his job as Senator and member of the ASC. I would also point out that even if he had discussed the campaign, there would have been nothing illegal about it. If you want to see real attempts at getting the Russians to meddle, dig up Ted Kennedy's pickled corpse and abuse it with questions about him asking the Soviets to get involved in the 1984 election.
Y'all need to grow up.
Regarding Law & Order and the Rule of Law:
http://lawfareblog.com/does-sessions-have-recuse-himself-russia-investigations
And this was written before the most recent revelation.
No doubt in my mind that, at a minimum, he must recuse himself from any investigation into any Trump-Russia connection. That is, if he truly believes in the Rule of Law.
First off, any discussion about Sessions and the bleating of the Democrats has to point out their hypocrisy--Eric "Marc Rich" Holder was demonstrably unfit. Of course, more should be expected than the 'rat standard, but if one side is doing whatever it wants and the other is playing by Marquis of Queensberry rules, guess who loses.
But why should Sessions recuse himself, and if he doesn't why is that a litmus test for his belief in the "Rule of Law"? And are you blind to the sabotage going on here?
You don't like Trump--I get that--but it's surpassing silly to cast aspersions on Jeff Sessions if he doesn't take the path dictated by some HLS student with an axe to grind.
Generally agree, but we could have done without that closing remark.
I see considerable political value in Sessions recusing himself as soon as the DAG is in place just to eliminate the controversy over whether he should.
It would be nice if they moved that appointment along.
Here are a couple of WSJ articles on the Russia kerfuffle:
Natalie Andrews, Siobhan Hughes, and Byron Tau on the flap itself.
This post on what Senator Sessions actually said to the committee, both in person and in writing.
The first article could use some editing. Early on, it says, "Mr. Sessions also faced pressure Thursday to clarify his previous Senate testimony in which he said he hadn’t spoken to Russian officials during the campaign, even though he met twice with the Russian ambassador during that period."
However, later on the article says, "During his confirmation hearing for attorney general in January, Mr. Sessions testified under oath that he had no contact with Russian officials as a campaign surrogate and never discussed the 2016 election with Russian officials."
Huge difference. The first summary of what Sen. Sessions said would be false, it now appears, but that is not what he said. The second summary is what he actually said, and as far as we know to date it is the truth.
Sessions did the right thing. Now Congress needs to do the right thing and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate any Trump-Russia/Putin connection involving the election.
Let there be no mistake. The facts surrounding any such connection will ultimately come to light, even if it will be a drip-by-drip, leak-by-leak process.
If there is nothing there (as Trump and his supporters claim), it is better to clear the air and lift any cloud of suspicion (that might linger over Trump and his administration) by a timely, thorough, and fair and objective process that only a nonpartisan special prosecutor can bring to this important issue.
Can Congress appoint a special prosecutor? What's the authority for that?
The old independent counsel law died, unmourned, after both parties had been burned by it.
I also think that Morrison v. Olson might well be overruled if the question came up to SCOTUS again. Which it won't.
Bipartisan congressional support to reauthorize the independent counsel law. Carefully drafted to ensure truly nonpartisan investigation.
Yes, very, very, unlikely. But that doesn't mean it isn't the proper thing to do.
I know this isn't Jeopardy, Kent, so I don't get to ask questions. But don't you believe that some sort of independent, nonpartisan, investigation into possible Trump-Russia/Putin election collusion is warranted? And, if so, what would you propose.
Like I said, if the cloud hanging over Trump's head isn't cleared up, it will just get bigger and darker. The Fourth and Fifth Branches -- the Press and the Federal Bureaucracy -- are going to continue with a leak-and-report M.O. for the remainder of Trump's term. And given the fact that Trump presumably has many enemies within the vast Federal Bureaucracy (especially within the intelligence communinty who he has insulted over and over), I suspect that more evidence will emerge exposing a anti-democratic connection between Trump and Russia.
If there is nothing there, let's reach that conclusion. If there is something there, let the chips fall where they may. But this matter needs to be resolved in a fair, nonpartisan, way sooner rather than later.
I do not think that in the present environment an investigation such as the one you are thinking of is possible.
Further, if a proper investigation showed nothing there, I do not believe that the people seething with hatred of President Trump would accept it.
I agree with your first sentance. I partially agree with your second sentance. The dyed in the wool Trump-haters, wouldn't accept it. But most of the 70 million or so people who voted for Clinton (or voted for someone other than her or Trump) don't fit into that catagory and would, I believe, accept the results of a truly independent nonpartisan investigation.
FWIW, the linked article lays out various congressional investigatory possibilities that Americans who want to "place country before party" should consider:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/rules-congressional-investigations-and-trumps-growing-russia-problem
The independent counsel, if there is one, will be appointed by Dana Boente, an Obama appointee as USA for the EDVA and currently Acting DAG.
Not that it should or will make any difference. The idea that Trump and Putin colluded to rig the election is enough to give paranoia a bad name. No one has yet come up with a single person who voted for Trump over Hillary because of Russian activities.
Those who have contempt for Trump are simply never going to accept his being President. If and after the independent counsel comes up with zilch, there will be another demand, and then another. I'm still waiting for these people to come up with their loudly promised "faithless electors" to swing the election into the House.
Yikes.
The Acting Deputy Attorney General can and should appoint a special prosecutor to look into this. In the absence of a Senate Select Committee, which Senators McCain and Graham proposed but Senator McConnell has thus far rejected on political grounds, it may well be impossible to have a Congressional investigation that will get to the bottom of any of this.
Reince Preibus enlisted the Republican chairs of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to call the media and tow the Administration line regarding communications between individuals in the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Accordingly, it's hard to feel any confidence that Nunes and Burr will press for a searching investigation if they sense any political danger to the GOP.
Worse still, according to Congressman Schiff, Comey is refusing to provide information requested by members of the House Committee in closed session. The FBI covered itself with remarkably litttle glory with one sided leaks in the immediate run up to the election (with the Southern District of NY office being called "Trumplandia") but they won't be able to hide information from a special prosecutor. If the public is ever to get to the bottom of what happened, a special prosecutor is necessary.
Do you honestly think that Trump is President because the Russians hoodwinked enough people to make it happen?
I know you don't know the answer for sure. Based on what you do know, is your answer yes or no?
My own view is that this whole thing is being hyped by the same crowd who have put up one fake story after the next (faithless electors, need for recount, Trump's "yellow shower" with a Russian prostitute, etc.) because you simply aren't mature enough to accept the results of an election whose outcome you were led (by your side) not to expect, and now find yourself with a President you detest.
The Left used to snicker at "wingnuts" and their conspiracy theories. I guess liberals were against those theories before they were for them.
P.S. If you ever ran across a prosecutor who wanted to indict a client of yours on the basis of evidence as far-fetched as this, you would move the court to send him to a mental hospital.
With margins as small as they were in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and the nearly 3 million vote popular vote gap between Trump and Clinton, the result was over-determined and virtually everything mattered. Comedy's Anthony Wiener nothingburger, delivered to Congress quell angry Trump fans in the FBIs New York office, was a bigger factor than email stories delivered by Wikileaks with assistance from the Kremlin, but they sure didn't help. Trump himself certainly seemed overjoyed by Wikileaks and Roger Stone was positively gleeful about his impending knowledge of the leaks. Anything that kept emails and Clinton in the public eye was unhelpful to her campaign at a time when Trump's crowds were chanting "LOCK HER UP!" Over emails amd Trump was saying he intended to do just that to "Crooked Hillary." Lest anyone forget, at the last press conference he held before the election, Trump urged Russia to hack and release emails.
If you don't think Russian interference in the campaign and the campaigns' contacts with the Russians merits investigation, what would? If I recall, you were up in arms at Hillary's emails before the election, Bill. Possible collusion between a political campaign and a foreign power to subvert a Presidential campaign seems like a much bigger deal to me. The fact that the National Security Advisor has resigned and the Attorney General has recused himself over misrepresentations about contacts with the Russian Ambassador when the FBI is investigating ties between Russia and the Trump campaign is not a good look.
There is a huge difference between the Clinton emails and the Russian probe.
She did it and we knew she did it. It was never legitimately a matter of whether she broke government directives and Federal law. There was a smoking gun and it was the server set up in her home. It was a matter of whether it would ever be prosecuted.
For the life of me, I cannot find a shred of evidence that Trump, Sessions, or anyone within the incoming Trump Administration broke Federal law. Noting that speaking to foreign government officials is not in itself a crime at all, please provide probable cause for ANY formal investigation that the Trump campaign asked for or received help in the form of Russian interference in the election.
That Sessions "misrepresented" anything is a statement of a partisan hack. Read the transcript I provided above. He was asked, in the context of the campaign and as a campaign employee or surrogate, whether he knew of anyone having contact with the Russians. He said no, and that he had not. What evidence to the contrary is there? None that I know of. His contact was a chance meeting and another in the context of his position as Senator.
It is all "fake news."
Sign number 2,768 that this is a partisan witch hunt.
Upthread by Paul: "No doubt in my mind that, at a minimum, he must recuse himself from any investigation into any Trump-Russia connection. That is, if he truly believes in the Rule of Law."
Now that he has recused himself by DE: "... the Attorney General has recused himself over misrepresentations about contacts with the Russian Ambassador when the FBI is investigating ties between Russia and the Trump campaign is not a good look."
It's hilarious. He has to recuse himself to uphold the Rule of Law!
Once he does, the same recusal called for in order for Sessions to uphold his dignity and honor is now anchored around his neck as evidence of malfeasance.
That's some real nice kobayashi maru type stuff you guys have going on there.
In the 1970s, a special prosecutor was needed to investigate the Watergate break in and steps taken to cover up government involvement in it. Attorney General John Mitchell couldn't investigate the matter given his involvement and his recusal certainly was required to uphold the rule of law. Mitchell was being investigated, which was definitely "not a good look" for the Nixon Administration. Mitchell later was convicted of obstruction of justice and went to prison, which was even less good, but not a contradiction of the principle that Mitchell earlier needed to recuse himself from the Watergate investigation.
We won't know what this investigation reveals until it's over, TarlsQtr and I'm not interested in getting ahead of ourselves. That said, this is a matter that deserves a fair, thorough and nonpartisan investigation without interference from the Administration or its partisans in the legislative branch. The behavior of the Russian government during the campaign, the number of contacts between people close to Trump and the Russians, Trump's public solicitation of Russian hacking and his campaigns contacts with Wikileaks and the misrepresentations regarding all of this are matters of serious concern that demand investigation. We will see where it all leads, but to insist frantically that there is nothing to it strikes me as unconvincing.
In two paragraphs, you never do get around to telling us what the probable cause is for an investigation.
Your continual misrepresentations tell the story.
That Sessions misrepresented himself is a joke when you read the response in its entire context.
Calling Trump's obvious joke about the Russians releasing more information (he could not "solicit" a hack that had already occurred) regarding Hillary is disingenuous at best (I am trying to obey Kent and not be as blunt-a euphemism for accurate).
Again, what evidence of unlawful behavior is there?
There is certainly probable cause to believe that federal crimes were committed, The hacking by Russian intelligence was certainly illegal.
http://www.hackerlaw.org/?page_id=55
Time and investigation will tell whether people associated with the Trump campaign are implicated in it.
Three questions if I might, one a repeat and two new.
1. Do you honestly think that Trump is President because the Russians hoodwinked enough people to make it happen?
I know you don't know the answer for sure. Based on what you do know, is your answer yes or no?
2. Can you name a single person who voted for Trump because of Russian interference in the election (assuming there was some)?
3. Do you accept the results of the election?
In reverse order:
1. I accept the results of the election, just as everyone accepted the results of the 1972 Presidential Election. That wouldn't excuse or prevent investigation of either.
2. I don't know personally know anyone who cast or refrained from voting for Trump or Clinton based on the Wikileaks email leaks. I'd be surprised if I personally know the motives for more than a hundred particular voters out of the 130 plus millions of votes cast in this election.
3. As for your first question, I don't know. However, I do think it's very possible that had the Russians not hacked and leaked emails to Wikileaks,the result would have been different. When less than 100,000 votes of 130,000,000 cast would have shifted the result, it would be foolish to think that anything that tended to depress the vote for Clinton failed to make a difference. The Wikileaks emails suggested to some Sanders supporters that they had been "cheated" by the DNC, a position the Trump campaign hyped, and that certainly didn't help the Clinton campaign. This also kept the email story, which was a drag on the campaign, bubbling throughout the fall. The Russians certainly wanted to help Trump win and may well have succeeded. The FBI's last minute interjection almost certainly did change the result, and that is frankly disgraceful.
How disingenuous.
Your investigation goes way beyond whether the Russians hacked DNC emails.
The investigation you seek is into the Trump campaign and alleged coordination with the Russians.
Once again, you have failed to bring a shred of evidence that could be considered probable cause for such an investigation.
You are dodging.
DE stated: " However, I do think it's very possible that had the Russians not hacked and leaked emails to Wikileaks,the result would have been different. When less than 100,000 votes of 130,000,000 cast would have shifted the result, it would be foolish to think that anything that tended to depress the vote for Clinton failed to make a difference."
Perhaps. However, none of this is reason to believe that Trump had anything to believe in it. We know how the Russians got access, via almost non-existent security and gross incompetence at the DNC. No investigation needed.
DE stated: "The Wikileaks emails suggested to some Sanders supporters that they had been "cheated" by the DNC, a position the Trump campaign hyped, and that certainly didn't help the Clinton campaign."
Suggested? Sanders WAS cheated, perhaps not enough to secure the nomination but let's not pretend that the DNC played fairly with him and did not do everything possible to ensure Hillary's nomination. They were even giving her debate questions.
As far as Trump hyping it. So what? He did what any politician would do, just as Hillary hyped stories about him. At least the Wikileaks emails were accurate.
DE stated: "This also kept the email story, which was a drag on the campaign, bubbling throughout the fall. The Russians certainly wanted to help Trump win and may well have succeeded. The FBI's last minute interjection almost certainly did change the result, and that is frankly disgraceful."
Let's be clear. 1) Hillary's emails are different than Wikileaks. 2) If Hillary does not decide to illegally put an email server in her home and run all of her State Department business through it instead of through approved government servers, there is no opportunity for a "last minute interjection" by the FBI.
No one screwed Hillary but Hillary.
Bill, if you don't mind, I will give a crack at answering your questions and pose a few questions:
1. No. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify an investigation into possible collusion between Trump and/or his surrogates and Russian actors (who the intelligence community has concluded, beyond any doubt, attempted to alter the election to benefit Trump)? If you agree with the Senate, House, and tens of millions of Americans that such an investigation is warranted, how should it proceed?
2. No. But, again, that's besides the point: Did anyone associated with Trump aid, assist, encourage, etc. any Russian actor to interfere in the election? (Let's ignore, for the time being, Trump's public statement requesting the Russians to find Clinton's email.) That's the question that only a nonpartisan, fair and objective investigation can answer. Do you believe such an investigation is called for?
3. Yes. But if a proper investigation reveals any improper contact between the Trump machine and the Russians, I reserve the right to change my opinion, depending upon the specific findings.
Probable cause is not the appropriate standard to determine whether or not to initiate an investigation into coordination between T and the R to alter the election results.
Assuming a quantum of evidence is even required before any such investigation can begin, reasonable suspicion is the highest standard required. And, as the facts (and alternative facts) overwhelminingly establish, that standard has been clearly met. And, no, I am not going to regurgitate that mountain of circumstantial evidence.
Just to add what I hope will be a final thought from me, let me quote what Kent has said, with which, as usual, I agree:
"I do not think that in the present environment an investigation such as the one you [paul] are thinking of is possible.
"Further, if a proper investigation showed nothing there, I do not believe that the people seething with hatred of President Trump would accept it."
I think that if paul and DE are honest with themselves, they'll acknowledge that they would not accept the results of ANY investigation that will actually occur that would find an absence of significant wrongdoing by Trump.
What this debate reminds me of is the dispute about Merrick Garland, in which the pro-Garland forces insisted, "Well, come on people, why won't you even give this decent and learned man the simple courtesy of a hearing?"
The problem is that the real struggle was not about a hearing, nor courtesy, nor about Garland's (undoubted, in my view) decency and learning. It was about getting him, for the next generation, as the fifth vote on SCOTUS for a broad array of the liberal agenda. Period. The rest was so much fluff. If he'd gotten a hearing, the drumbeat would not have ended. It would, to the contrary, have become louder.
Something similar is going on here. This has next to nothing to do with Trump's supposed connivance with the Russians (proof sketchy), nor about the proposition that it changed the election results (proof, or even serious evidence, essentially non-existent (and said, tellingly, to be beside the point)). It's about removing Trump as President, simply because you (paul and DE) detest him, as you have for months if not years. That is also the reason any investigation substantially exonerating Trump will be dismissed (or worse) the day it ends. The point here is not, and was never, a search for truth. The point is a political result, to wit, Trump's removal from office, neither more nor less.
DE: This is my last thought on the subject. Perhaps, Bill, you felt the same about Watergate. Some did. I feel the outcome showed the strength of our institutions.
From my point of view, it's sad that so much has changed politically since then, a time when Howard Baker could ask that the question was "What did the President know and when did he know it?" notwthstanding the fact that he was a Republican Senator from Tennessee.
While John McCain and Lindsay Graham seem genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of this and view it as a serious matter, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan seem more interested in enacting their agenda and preventing any investigation that might slow that down.
Russian interference in an American Presidential campaign and potential links between Russia and the political campaign that benefited from that intereference is an extremely serious matter. A Senate Select Committee could ensure a fairer process in the investigation of these questions, as could the selection of a widely respected special prosecutor. There are straight shooting, largely non-partisan career federal prosecutors who are nominal Democrats and Republicans who could be trusted to fully investigate this, but I'm not sure that will happen. I hope it will.
Whether or not you believe it, I'm not looking for a particular outcome but a fair thorough and transparent process. We don't live in times that are likely to produce that, unless ccontinuing leaks of damaging information force the Congressional Republican Leadership to embrace country over party. That hasn't happened yet, but it may in the future. For the sake of our democracy, I hope it does.
"Perhaps, Bill, you felt the same about Watergate."
And the evidence for that is........?
N.B. Note your easy equivalence between the current controversy and a proved episode of severe misconduct in office.
"There are straight shooting, largely non-partisan career federal prosecutors who are nominal Democrats and Republicans who could be trusted to fully investigate this, but I'm not sure that will happen."
Perhaps you missed my remark noting that the Acting DAG who now has jurisdiction of this matter is Dana Boente, the Obama-appointed USA for EDVA who is a career man at Justice.
"Whether or not you believe it, I'm not looking for a particular outcome but a fair thorough and transparent process. We don't live in times that are likely to produce that, unless ccontinuing leaks of damaging information force the Congressional Republican Leadership to embrace country over party."
Do you see how your second sentence, which assumes corruption and bad faith in Republican leaders, contradicts your first sentence, which speaks, as if with neutrality, about wanting merely a "fair process"?
Bill--We don't know whether investigation in this case will prove misconduct or not, and we will never know without a thorough and transparent, nonpartisan or bipartisan process?
I don't assume anything. I'm just responding to events. Devin Nunes and Richard Burr keep acting in ways that suggest that they may be too partisan to play it straight or may prejudge the outcome:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-enlist-intelligence-officials-key-lawmakers-to-counter-russia-stories/2017/02/24/c8487552-fa99-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-russia-connection-devin-nunes-response-235439
For his part, McConnell has blocked the calls of Senators Graham and McCain and others for a Bipartisan Select Committee:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-13/senate-panel-to-probe-russia-contacts-with-2016-campaign-teams
One could get the sense from what you say, Bill, that you might not want an investigation not firmly under GOP control. In his current role, Boente doesn't have the power or independence of a special prosecutor. Moreover, he is likely to be replaced within a week or two by a Trump appointed Deputy AG. Are you afraid of where an independent or bipartisan investigation might lead?
"Are you afraid of where an independent or bipartisan investigation might lead?"
What an odd question from someone who literally makes a living attacking the work of the entirely non-political investigations known as "grand juries."
P.S. You notably do not deny that you aren't about to live with the results of ANY investigation that might occur that does not effectively find Trump guilty.
In this, I am compelled to acknowledge your honesty. As I said (something you also don't deny), targeting Trump for an "independent" investigation is like targeting those who denied Garland the "courtesy" of a hearing. It was never about courtesy and it was never about a hearing; it was about a substantive outcome favorable to a Democratic agenda. Ditto with the targeting of Trump.
I wasn't born yesterday, DE.
Bill--Not everyone is as partisan as the GOP House Republicans investigating Benghazi (really--8 investigations, and to what end?) although with that degree of partisanship I can see why they are desperate to keep tight control of an unpredictable situation that could yield politically damaging results.
When I say I'm interested in a process, not a result, that means that if the process is fair, thorough, and bipartisan or nonpartisan, I'll accept it, whatever the conclusion may be.
I've not challenged grand jury decisions, but I have litigated habeas cases. I think habeas plays a useful role in checking malfunctions of the criminal process. I'm not alone in that. I've had some success under highly demanding standards.
My role as an attorney in habeas cases doesn't interfere with my abilities as a citizen to learn about and access political situations on their merits.
Paul stated: "Assuming a quantum of evidence is even required before any such investigation can begin, reasonable suspicion is the highest standard required."
And, what is that "reasonable suspicion?"
You stated: "And, as the facts (and alternative facts) overwhelminingly establish, that standard has been clearly met. And, no, I am not going to regurgitate that mountain of circumstantial evidence."
LOL This is a trick so obvious and so juvenile that even Facebook debaters would look down on it. No, the "standard" has not clearly been met and you only reason you will not regurgitate any evidence is that you have none. The FBI and the Obama Justice Department admitted it had none, so what do you have? And it is not like they failed to try.
Read this absolutely devastating take down of your position from someone much smarter than the both of us.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445496/special-prosecutor-trump-campaign-russia-jeff-sessions-recuse-ambassador-sergey-kislyak
Here is a taste, as it would take up too much room to post everything relevant to your folly:
"To summarize, there is no crime here except the ones committed by Russian intelligence. There is no evidence that Trump or his associates had any complicity in those hacking crimes. When all of the smoke is cleared away, the Democrats’ beef is that Trump may have benefited from Russia’s crimes. In reality, it is highly unlikely that the Russian hacking of Democratic e-mails had any effect on the outcome of the election. Even if we indulge the fantasy that it did, however, here’s the sad news the media won’t tell you: It is not a crime to benefit from other people’s crimes."
BTW, the real crime (other than Hillary's server) of the election may end up being Obama wiretapping his political adversary during an election.
TarlsQtr: about those "wiretaps", assuming they aren't another just another product of our President's fevered imagination, I have the same questions raised by Ben Wittes on Lawfareblog:
https://lawfareblog.com/ten-questions-president-trump
Senator Coons is suggesting that there may be transcripts showing collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia re: hacking. If so, I'm looking forward to reading them.
So now we find out from Robert Costa of the Washington Post that the White House counsel is looking into what he can find out about possible surveillance of Trump and his campaign (through a FISA warrant it seems). Trump and the White House seem incapable of non-interference with this investigation. When comes the moment when Republicans can say (1) this is serious and (2) requires a special prosecutor?
I love how the wiretaps are written off as a figment of Trump's imagination, but supposed maybe could be you never know possibly transcripts "suggested" by Senator Coons is treated by you as credible.
What crime are you proposing was committed by Trump, Sessions, anyone?
What evidence do you have or have seen that merits an investigation? I have asked this several times and have received zero responses, only evasions.
I don't know more than what The Hill is reporting. I agree with Senators Sasse and Graham about the seriousness of this.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/322379-gop-senator-demands-trump-give-more-information-behind
STILL waiting:
"What crime are you proposing was committed by Trump, Sessions, anyone?
What evidence do you have or have seen that merits an investigation? I have asked this several times and have received zero responses, only evasions."
The Russian government violated federal anti-hacking laws. Time and investigation will tell what the Trump campaign knew about it. I take back whatever I said about the "wiretaps" earlier. News accounts make it increasingly clear that this is just another Presidential fantasy concocted from reading too much Breitbart.
You didn't answer the questions.
We know the Russians violated federal anti-hacking laws. If an investigation shows people affiliated with the Trump campaign colluded with this violation of federal law, that too would be a criminal offense. We won't know whether that happened until the investigation is completed.
News accounts have discussed contacts between Russian officials and Stone, Page, Manafort, Flynn and Sessions and discussions among and by Russian officials about the content of those discussions. Parts of the raw material contained in the dossier leaked by Buzzfeed have been disproven and other parts confirmed. Until intelligence and law enforcement agencies and prosecutors run all of this down, we won't have answers about whether there are criminal offenses that require prosecution.
Enough of the flim flam. You use vague language (other "parts" confirmed!) in an attempt to not say the obvious, that there is no evidence of collusion from the Trump campaign. Just be honest for once and say it.
The Russian hacking HAS been investigated, which is how our intelligence agencies came to the conclusion that it was actually the Russians who did the hacking. We know what they did, how they did it, even the exact email that got them into Podesta's account.
We also know that they tried the same technique to get in the RNC's email system and failed because they had people working there smarter than monkeys flinging crap. Are you suggesting that we appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether Hillary colluded with the Russians to get into the RNC servers? She did receive millions into her faux "charity" from them after all and approved them to take over 20% of the world's uranium supply. Or, what about Obama? Is this part of his "flexibility?" Let's start a bunch of investigations based on nothing.
The intent was not to help Trump, but to delegitimize the presidency (whoever had it), which you are helping to do. We need to bring back the phrase "useful idiot" when it comes to those helping the Russians.
Even Clapper said there was "no evidence" over the weekend. This is political.
The President can investigate anything he wants about the prior Administration. He's in charge of the Executive Branch, not just an old guy yelling at Fox News. If he's found something out, he has the entire mechanism of the Executive Branch to publicize it. If he's just watching Infowars or reading Breitbart, that's not evidence, but hey if, you are his spokesman, I guess you've got to defend whatever he says, no matter how ridiculous.
As for what happened between the Trump campaign and a foreign government that violated federal law in order to favor that campaign, we will find out what a thorough and complete investigation reveals when and if it's finished. It's silly to say you know what the outcome of such an investigation would be. You don't. Insisting that you do is, as you so pithily put it, "film flam."
You stated: "The President can investigate anything he wants about the prior Administration. He's in charge of the Executive Branch, not just an old guy yelling at Fox News. If he's found something out, he has the entire mechanism of the Executive Branch to publicize it. If he's just watching Infowars or reading Breitbart, that's not evidence, but hey if, you are his spokesman, I guess you've got to defend whatever he says, no matter how ridiculous."
Stop answering questions I never posed.
I didn't ask if the Trump administration "can" investigate Obama and Clinton for their ties to Russia. I asked if they SHOULD do so even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
It is obvious why you would prefer to answer if they can though.
You stated: "As for what happened between the Trump campaign and a foreign government that violated federal law in order to favor that campaign, we will find out what a thorough and complete investigation reveals when and if it's finished."
Using your "logic," it would be just as justified to begin an investigation of Obama and Hillary on the same grounds. Why have you not called for such a measure? In fact, it would be more justified because the Trump campaign's alleged collusion has ALREADY been investigated with no evidence found.
You stated: "It's silly to say you know what the outcome of such an investigation would be. You don't. Insisting that you do is, as you so pithily put it, "film flam.""
Nice straw man. I have not been saying that I "know" what an investigation would bring up, just as I do not know what the findings would be if we were to investigate that you abuse puppies. My position has been that there is no evidence of Trump's collusion and even Clapper says there is no evidence. I am fairly certain that this is correct, as you refuse time after time to provide even a shred of evidence when asked.
You want investigations based on nothing, something you would wail and gnash your teeth about if it was a client of yours instead of a political enemy. I do not know if you abuse puppies, but you abuse the truth like a Grand Canyon mule.
What do we know: (1) The Russian government violated federal anti-hacking laws to subvert the Presidential Election and benefit the Trump campaign. (2) numerous members of the Trump campaign had contacts with Russian officials before and in the aftermath of the campaign (3) Trump's National Security Advisor resigned on account of his lies about these contacts, and (4) the Attorney General recused himself after he gave accounts of his contacts which he himself said should have noted that he had in fact met with the Russian Ambassador on subjects other than the campaign. Is there some requirement of more than this that I'm unaware of to simply investigate whether there was collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign? The House is apparently going to investigate whether the previous President illegally wiretapped this one based on nothing at all it seems.
You also assume that investigations of the contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials have been fully completed and exonerated everyone involved. If you have a link for a reputable news story supporting that assertion, I'd love to read it.
You stated: "(1) The Russian government violated federal anti-hacking laws to subvert the Presidential Election and benefit the Trump campaign."
We do not know the second part of that at all. Yes, the Russian government" violated US law, which has nothing to do with Trump. However, we do not know if the purpose was to get Trump elected or to create chaos in our electoral politics and delegitimize WHOEVER was elected. After all, they did not try to hack only the Democrats but the RNC as well.
You stated: " (2) numerous members of the Trump campaign had contacts with Russian officials before and in the aftermath of the campaign"
None of which is a crime or evidence of a crime.
You stated: "(3) Trump's National Security Advisor resigned on account of his lies about these contacts,"
He resigned because he misled the VPOTUS, not because his contact was wrong or illegal in any way.
You stated: "the Attorney General recused himself after he gave accounts of his contacts which he himself said should have noted that he had in fact met with the Russian Ambassador on subjects other than the campaign."
He recused himself (wrongly, IMO) to avoid a crap storm from dishonest political hacks like yourself who want to turn everything into a Federal case. When you actually read the context of Franken's question, his answer was appropriate.
You stated: "Is there some requirement of more than this that I'm unaware of to simply investigate whether there was collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign?"
"More than this?" More that what? Nothing? None of what you post above is evidence of anything. Nothing points to a crime. Conversations are not illegal. Much of this was from wiretaps, was investigated, and Clapper has said there is zero evidence.
You stated: "You also assume that investigations of the contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials have been fully completed and exonerated everyone involved."
What I have said is that Clapper said they found no evidence of collusion.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597
Your attack on Sessions is misguided. As I have noted in an entry to which you have not responded (in contrast to your 20 or so responses here), Sessions' answers were correct TO THE QUESTIONS HE WAS ACTUALLY ASKED; and his contacts with the Russian ambassador had zip to do with the campaign (much less were they aimed to assist Russian subversion of the campaign), and were essentially indistinguishable from dozens of similarly routine contacts by dozens of senators of both parties.
If a client of yours were being investigated based on this kind of nothingness, you'd blow your stack.
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2017/03/the-collapsing-souffle-of-the-.html