A giant stride toward the cliff
Nothing corrupt and sleazy about this, oh hell no.
The Justice Department said Monday that prosecutors were looking into whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate political rivals President Trump has singled out for scrutiny, including Hillary Clinton.
The department, in a letter sent to the House Judiciary Committee, said the prosecutors would examine allegations that donations to the Clinton Foundation were tied to a 2010 decision by the Obama administration to allow a Russian nuclear agency to buy Uranium One, a company that owned access to uranium in the United States, and other issues.
The letter appeared to be a direct response to Mr. Trump’s statement on Nov. 3, when he said he was disappointed with his beleaguered attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and that longstanding unproven allegations about the Clintons and the Obama administration should be investigated.
Any such investigation would raise questions about the independence of federal investigations under Mr. Trump. Since Watergate, the Justice Department has largely operated independently of political influence on cases related to the president’s opponents.
But now there’s a lying raping thief squatting in the White House, so fancypants ideas like “the independence of federal investigations” are a dead letter.
Although Mr. Sessions has recused himself from all matters related to the election, he and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, will oversee the prosecutors’ decision to appoint the special counsel, the letter said.
It’s what autocrats and dictators do. It’s what Putin and Erdoğan and Mugabe do. It’s filthy.
During his Senate confirmation hearing this year, Mr. Sessions said he would not name a special prosecutor to investigate Mrs. Clinton even if ordered to do so by the president.
“This country does not punish its political enemies,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Emphasis added.
Mr. Trump, who closely monitors the conservative news media ecosystem for ideas on how to attack his opponents, has cited reports from those outlets to aides and friends as examples for why a special counsel should be appointed.
One commentator in particular, the Fox News host Jeanine Pirro — who is a friend of Mr. Trump’s and whose show he rarely misses — has aggressively denounced Mr. Sessions as weak for not investigating the uranium deal. In addition to making scathing critiques on her show, Ms. Pirro — who had interviewed to be the deputy attorney general, according to three transition officials — recently met with the president to excoriate the attorney general.
In an Oval Office meeting on Nov. 1, Ms. Pirro said that a special counsel needed to be appointed, according to two people briefed on the discussion. Through a Fox News spokeswoman, Ms. Pirro said, “Everything I said to President Trump is exactly what I’ve vocalized on my show, ‘Justice with Jeanine.’”
So Fox News and a lying thieving fraud are running the country. Awesome.
Peter Baker points out how aberrant all this is.
President Trump did not need to send a memo or telephone his attorney general to make his desires known. He broadcast them for all the world to see on Twitter. The instruction was clear: The Justice Department should investigate his defeated opponent from last year’s campaign.
However they were delivered, Mr. Trump’s demands have ricocheted through the halls of the Justice Department, where Attorney General Jeff Sessions has now ordered career prosecutors to evaluate various accusations against Hillary Clinton and report back on whether a special counsel should be appointed to investigate her.
Mr. Sessions has made no decision, and in soliciting the assessment of department lawyers, he may be seeking a way out of the bind his boss has put him in by effectively putting the matter in the hands of professionals who were not politically appointed. But if he or his deputy authorizes a new investigation of Mrs. Clinton, it would shatter norms established after Watergate that are intended to prevent presidents from using law enforcement agencies against political rivals.
Emphasis added, again.
The request alone was enough to trigger a political backlash, as critics of Mr. Trump quickly decried what they called “banana republic” politics of retribution, akin to autocratic backwater nations where election losers are jailed by winners.
My point exactly.
“You can be disappointed, but don’t be surprised,” said Karen Dunn, a former prosecutor and White House lawyer under President Barack Obama who advised Mrs. Clinton during her campaign against Mr. Trump. “This is exactly what he said he would do: use taxpayer resources to pursue political rivals.”
Democrats still vividly recall Mr. Trump on the campaign trail vowing to prosecute Mrs. Clinton if he won. “It was alarming enough to chant ‘lock her up’ at a campaign rally,” said Brian Fallon, who was Mrs. Clinton’s campaign spokesman. “It is another thing entirely to try to weaponize the Justice Department in order to actually carry it out.”
He is – in his thinking, his rhetoric, his character, his innermost essence – a dictator. He clearly thought being president actually meant being a dictator, and he’s thrashing wildly against all the restraints. He’s going to destroy the place.
While presidents typically are not supposed to intervene in investigations or prosecutions of specific individuals, Mr. Trump’s calls for an investigation of Mrs. Clinton over the last several months have been repeated, insistent and not even slightly subtle.
“So why aren’t the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?” he wrote on Twitter in July.
“There is so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out,” he wrote in October. “DO SOMETHING!”
“At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper,” Mr. Trump wrote again in November. He added: “Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems.”
That’s a dictator raving.
More dangerous every day as his mental capacity plummets. There’s nothing to him except his narcissism; that’s all the there there, and yes, he is flailing. Most of them do so until they hit a major blow out (or more than one).
It’s not enough for him to have won. He has to literally destroy her. He has to make her Un-Existed. She has to be punished for having existed, and having been a qualified woman he was forced to face.
Not face so much as running about gesturing and grimacing behind her back in their “debates”.
Ah but he was so much older then, he’s younger than that now.
It’s as if he does wish that he was Putin or Duarte and could just have anyone who displeases him killed.
On the other hand, Sessions has kiboshed a second special counsel, so there’s still a sliver of hope: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/14/jeff-sessions-just-threw-a-wet-blanket-on-president-trumps-russia-dossier-conspiracy-theory/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sessions-804am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f920651a607a
I’m not saying that this isn’t cause for concern, because it certainly is, and the Trump administration doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
But there is a more innocuous interpretation of what’s going on with this letter. Although the Times characterizes the letter as appearing to be a direct response to Trump’s statements, it is formally a response to letters dated July 27 and September 26, 2017, from the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, requesting appointment of special counsel. Sessions hadn’t responded to those letters until yesterday.
Why now? Well, probably because he’s appearing before that committee today, so he didn’t want to have to explain why he ignored their letters. So on the eve of his testimony, he spits out a noncommital, we’ll-look-into-it-and-follow-the-usual-procedures response, which allows all the GOP to be happy. The Congressional idiots get to brag that this is being looked into because of their hard work, Sessions gets to say he’s following proper procedure, Fox News gets to blare that there’s a possibility of special counsel after all just like they insisted there should be… and it all gets kicked down the road. Eventually, the career prosecutors at DOJ will find there’s nothing to this, issue a recommendation that the matter be dropped, and it’ll be low profile news if that. In the meantime, the conservative noise machine will have found another Democratic “scandal” to scream about.
I should note that this interpretation of events still doesn’t cover anyone in glory – especially the Congressional idiots who should know better. But I think that’s the dynamic here, rather than any serious intent to pursue this bogus investigation.
And also having the temerity to appear in public after she was too old to interest him sexually. How dare she?
Another thing that has occurred to me, which undoubtedly is not part of Trump’s flailing because it would suggest some level of sophistication in his thought, is that this sort of thing could further shrink the Democratic candidate pool, if there continues to be this constant persecution (and, in the case of the Clintons, prosecution) of Democratic presidents.
While I suspect Trump has no deeper motive than just punishing anyone who says “no” to him, such a possibility would be unlikely to escape the somewhat more strategic leaders of the GOP (Grotesque Old Party). The idea that Democrats will hesitate to run if we live in a world where they can be hounded and harassed even long after they leave the field (or especially if they win) must leave a lot of them salivating.
Screechy, we sort of crossed, so I was very interested to read your post once I hit ‘post’ myself. I think that is likely the outcome, but that is still very bad. For most people who already dislike Hillary, the failure to find anything will be seen as her “rigging” the process, because she is already viewed as Crooked Hillary (even by a critical mass of Democrats). If they hear about it at all, since such news is perceived as non-news, and buried in the back of the paper if reported on at all. So no matter what, she is already found guilty in public perception, and the Democrats are smeared by association. Any attempts to clear the record will be seen as apologism for corruption (especially by people who voted for the most corrupt president ever to be the leader of a major political party, and possibly the most corrupt of any democratically elected leader, though I’m not totally sure about that last one. There has been a lot of corruption in the world; he has a fairly high hurdle, and he’s pretty lazy).
“This country does not punish its political enemies,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Hm. I only just now realised that this comment implies that Clinton is an enemy of the United States. That didn’t register at the time when he said it.
With an abuse of presidential power as obvious as this, Congress will have no choice but to impeach. Right?
iknklast,
Yeah, I agree. Even if we not at the stage of “prosecuting the current administration’s political enemies” and instead “only” at the stage of “indulging Congresspeople when they grandstand for their base by demanding the prosecution of political enemies,” that is still, as the post title says, a step towards the cliff.
Sam Day,
Replace “impeach” with “cut taxes for billionaires,” and you’ll have it about right.
“There has been a lot of corruption in the world; he has a fairly high hurdle, and he’s pretty lazy.”
HAHA!
I have visions of a Corruption Olympics, with a variety of sleazy events. I suspect that more of them have to do with plumbing depths than scaling heights.Trump has entered them all: he’s likely to qualify as a decathlete there.
Consider the following (if increasingly desperately optimistic) scenario:
In 2020, a Democrat wins the national election and the next January becomes President.
Will everybody here scream in outrage if her or his administration opens a criminal investigation of D. J. Trump?