Commenter Joe raised the issue recently of how to deal with the Russia Hoax if it leads, as seems inevitable now, to the Obama White House. In doing so, while avoiding the word itself, he referred in passing to the ultimate evil in Liberal mythology--Watergate: Eeeeek!
We have a history of not indicting presidents, à la the Ford pardon of Richard Nixon. Is it a realistic possibility that charges are brought against Obama and Clinton, with a Trump pardon predicated on an admission of guilt and possible payments of large fines? Thinking of Clinton for all the dirty Clinton Foundation pay-to-play scheme.
In response I noted that Nixon, IMO rightly, never made that admission of guilt. Further, in my mind the Russia Hoax is different in kind as well as degree from Watergate. George Parry, a former prosecutor, expresses the stakes as well as the distinction well in a recent article:
"The Watergate burglary was a bungled attempt by the Committee to Re-Elect President Nixon to break into Democrat headquarters to plant listening devices in the telephones. The burglary failed, but the national outrage at the mere attempt drove Nixon from office and sent members of his administration to prison. As bad as that was, at least the Nixon campaign didn’t corrupt the FBI and CIA to do its dirty work. So it is that, if our official law enforcement and intelligence agencies were co-opted by the Obama administration to illegally spy on American citizens and the opposition party, this will be the worst governmental scandal and threat to our civil liberties in the history of the nation.
"If Joe diGenova is right, the very survival of the rule of law and our constitutional republic mandates that these treasonous thugs — no matter how highly placed in the Obama administration — be exposed, charged, and imprisoned."
I think Parry and DiGenova have it exactly right. What we're faced with is a conspiracy against our constitutional order. It may not satisfy the requirement of force and violence to constitute a seditious conspiracy, but in its intent (and its methodical abuse of our legal system) it represents absolutely as much of a threat as any violent conspiracy to the rule of law and our constitutional republic. And let it not be forgotten that this conspiracy was undertaken and carried out in collaboration with foreign powers. A conspiracy against our constitutional order in collaboration with foreign powers. There. I said it again.
The ball is in Bill Barr's court.
Color me a coward, but I cannot imagine the violent reaction of progressive partisans if either Obama or Clinton are charged and or imprisoned.ReplyDelete
I believe that they believe that Trump is/was so bad that everything that was done was understandably acceptable.
These guys play to win. They don’t like America as founded, and if their actions fray the edges, they are one step closer to their objectives.
We will see. Bart was excellent today though so who knows.
I don't think there's much doubt but that Barr is aware of all the above. We can only wait.Delete
This is my concern also, that the Dem's have gone so far around the bend they can never be reeled in. If you listen to their rhetoric, and the narrative spun by media, they already style themselves as the only true Patriots and no act is too heinous in defense of the one true faith (Orange Man Bad and its corollary Dirt People Must Bow). They seem determined to prove the Government of the U.S. illegitimate. How they think they will survive that, literally, is beyond me.Delete
It'll take more of an awakening among ordinary Americans than has currently taken place.Delete
"The ball is in Bill Barr's court."ReplyDelete
Then let's read what the man stated in his prepared remarks for his January 15, 2019 confirmation testimony.
"This Committee unanimously approved me for each of those offices. Twenty-seven years ago, at my confirmation hearing, I explained that the office of Attorney General is not like any other cabinet post; it is unique and has a critical role to play under our constitutional system.
I said then: The Attorney General has very special obligations, unique obligations. He holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice. It is the Attorney General’s responsibility to enforce the law evenhandedly and with integrity. The Attorney General must ensure that the administration of justice – the enforcement of the law – is above and away from politics. Nothing could be more destructive of our system of government, of the rule of law, or the Department of Justice as an institution, than any toleration of political interference with the enforcement of the law.
I believe this as strongly today as I did 27 years ago – indeed, more strongly. We live in time when the country is deeply divided. In the current environment, the American people have to know that there are places in the government where the rule of law – not politics – holds sway, and where they will be treated fairly based solely on the facts and an even-handed application of
the law. The Department of Justice must be such a place.
I did not pursue this position. When my name was first raised, I was reluctant to be considered. I am 68 years old, partially retired, and nearing the end of a long legal career. My wife and I were looking forward to a peaceful and cherished time with our daughters and grandchildren. And I have had this job before. But ultimately, I agreed to serve because I believe strongly in public service, I revere the law, and I love the Department of Justice and the dedicated professionals who serve there. I believe I can do a good job leading the Department in these times. If confirmed, I will serve with the same independence as in 1991. At that time, when President George H.W. Bush chose me, he sought no promises and asked only that his Attorney General act with professionalism and integrity. Likewise, President Trump has sought no assurances,
promises, or commitments from me of any kind, either express or implied, and I have not given him any, other than that I would run the Department with professionalism and integrity. As Attorney General, my allegiance will be to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people. That is how it should be. That is how it must be. And, if you confirm me, that is how it will be."
He doesn't sound like a member of the Deep State.
I think this is a guy who has continued to learn over the course of his years in the law and has thought seriously about what he has learned.Delete
Follow up: it is s the Democrats stranglehold on the media that makes me think that justice is impossible. How many times did Chuck Todd formulate a question that entertained the possibility of the President’s innocence? Not one that I can remember. How then will he and his fellow travelers report the details of the attempted coup.ReplyDelete
True. We've already seen that they refuse to change their narrative, for the most part, even after the no-collusion bombshell.Delete
Hirono was so annoying today, and the Dems were so proud of her and themselves. What a disgusting bunch! Barr was very good, as expected. My only concern is his praise for Wray. But the coming months will be revealing, with the Horowitz report and whatever comes out of Barr's office.ReplyDelete
Hirono is one of the very dumbest senators. Yet vile. I agree re Wray--I'm not comfortable with him, and I simply don't like the FBI Director post being constantly handed to career DoJ types.ReplyDelete
Just one more observation on the Barr hearings. After almost three years of ignoring Republican concerns of Rosenstein's conflict of interest, and playing hardball to ensure his continued supervision of the Mueller probe, the Democrats are now pushing the conflict of interest point because Rosenstein joined in Barr's no-obstruction conclusion. The insufferable Kamala Harris thought she had cornered Barr by asking whether the Rosenstein matter had been reviewed by the DOJ ethics branch. To her surprise, it turned out the answer was "yes." I am hopeful that Rosenstein can be persuaded by Barr to provide incriminating evidence regarding leaks, Mueller, McCabe etc.ReplyDelete
Yes, like you, I was surprised by the ethics gambit on Rosenstein. Rosenstein still isn't off the hook on FISA, btw. He's at least a major witness and IMO complicit. There should be pressure on him.Delete
Thought of this last night while I pondered this entry by you.ReplyDelete
I absolutely think Obama and the Clintons are implicated in this national scandal. This unprecedented what they did, at least to my knowledge, it is unprecedented. I have no qualms if they get their just desserts.
I do worry about the Dem reaction once they have the Senate, House and Presidency all at the same time. They practice moral equivalency. "If you punish Obama and the Clintons, we will punish Trump, Pence, etc., once we hold power, even if they haven't committed any crime."
That's the leftist way. I'm not saying don't follow the trail all the way up to the President. I am saying be aware of the reaction.
If we have conservatives who aren't afraid to fight, then we should gird our loins. If we have "conservatives" like Kristol, Romney, French, Ryan and Flake, we are in for a rough future.
I agree with Joe DiGenova that we are in a cold civil war.
I just realized after again reading the first comment by Gary Brendle that I pretty much parroted what he said.ReplyDelete
In his testimony Barr referred to "a few people at the top getting into their heads that they know better than the American people.” So he's talking about responsible people, which I have to assume means political appointees. Comey, for example, rather than JUST McCabe or Ohr--involved as they may have been. That seems to me the clear implication.Delete
Was the Clinton impeachment moral equivalency for Watergate? Perhaps, but to me I don't see that as presenting a threat to our constitutional order on the scale that we now see, when basic legal principles are ignored.