The Benefit of the Doubt Is Gone

[EasyAce]

Invoking the Clintonian precedent as a moral justification for Team Trump’s actions is ludicrous.
By Jonah Goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/449516/donald-trump-russia-benefit-doubt-now-gone

. . . It doesn’t frick’n matter if — note the “if” — nothing came of the meeting. [Donald Trump Jr.] can’t claim
he, [Paul] Manafort, and [Jared] Kushner never sought to collude with the Russian government when he admits that
he, Manafort, and Kushner eagerly took a meeting for the express purpose of colluding with Russia. This is like one of
those episodes of Dateline’s “To Catch a Predator” where some sleazebag is catfished into having a “date” with a 13-year-
old girl only to show up and find Chris Hansen waiting in the kitchen with a transcript of their conversations. At least
those scumbags had the “integrity” to lie and say it was all a misunderstanding and that they were just there because
they really like hanging out and watching MTV and eating ice cream. “We had a lot in common! I thought we could be
friends!”

I don’t recall any of them saying, “Hey, I didn’t do anything wrong because I didn’t actually get a chance to rape her.”

If you break into a bank, you can’t claim you did nothing wrong if the safe turns out to be empty any more than a
terrorist can plead innocence if his bomb didn’t go off . . .

. . . Why on God’s good Earth would you defend any of this? Since I’ve been having this ridiculous argument all week,
let me skip ahead. Yes, “Crooked Hillary,” Ted Kennedy, and a host of other liberals did bad things. Whether those bad
things were analogous to this is highly debatable. But let’s just concede the point for argument’s sake. Let’s also accept
the president’s grotesquely cynical and false claim that pretty much anyone in politics would have done the same thing
and taken the meeting. (I for one am perfectly happy to concede that Sidney Blumenthal would happily have done
equally sleazy things for his Queen-master. But I have every confidence that if some shady Russian cutouts approached,
say, James Baker with a similar scheme to “incriminate” Michael Dukakis, he would become a helicopter of fists.)

But here’s the thing: Who gives a dirty rat’s ass? If you spent years — like I did, by the way — insisting that the Clintons
were a corrupt affront to political decency, invoking their venal actions as a moral justification for Team Trump’s actions
is the rhetorical equivalent of a remake of Waterworld set entirely in the main vat of a sewage-treatment plant, i.e., the
intellectual Mother of Sh*t Shows. This is a point Ben Shapiro made well earlier this week (and which I’ve been writing
about for two years now). If you want to make the case that Democrats or the media are hypocrites, whataboutism is
perfectly valid (and quite fun). But if you want to say that it’s fine for Trump to do things you considered legally and
morally outrageous when Hillary Clinton did them, you should either concede that you believe two wrongs make a right
or you should apologize for being angry about what Clinton did. And you should be prepared to have no right to complain
when the next Democrat gets into power and does the same thing . . .

. . . Erick Erickson may be right that this meeting was a setup. Trump’s more-credible defenders certainly may be
right that this is all the result of ineptitude and amateurishness. These guys are like a mix between Ron Jeremy and
a yoga master in their ability to step on their own johnsons.

But my wait-and-see approach was grounded in the fact that other than Trump’s public obsession with the Russia story
— including his firing of James Comey — there was no concrete evidence that the Trump campaign had any dealings
with the Russians. That benefit of the doubt is gone.

[Oceander]

@Frank Cannon

Some nasty vituperation is needed!

[EasyAce]

@Frank Cannon

Some nasty vituperation is needed!
@Oceander

[Oceander]

Couldn't resist.

[mystery-ak]

@EasyAce you need to excerpt more

Well....I could understand and blame it on naivety if just Kusnher and Jr were in the room, but Manafort was there too..a seasoned politico. Here is my guess...after Jr got these emails they were all excited including the Prez[can't convince me they all didn't run and tell the Prez about these emails]. As Trump himself said every politician would jump at a chance like this to get op-research against their opponent....this *research* came from a foreign gov..Russia for Christs Sake!..and did they use it?...they are all lucky that *colluding* is not a crime..but lying to the Feds is...just ask Martha Stewart

[Cripplecreek]

when the next Democrat gets into power and does the same thing . . .

It will be worse and nobody will have the credibility to do anything about it.

[TomSea]

It's like Rush says, only those inside the beltway are really concerned about this. Most others could care less.

[mystery-ak]

It's like Rush says, only those inside the beltway are really concerned about this. Most others could care less.

...that's true....

[EasyAce]

@EasyAce you need to excerpt more

Well....I could understand and blame it on naivety if just Kusnher and Jr were in the room, but Manafort was there too..a seasoned politico. Here is my guess...after Jr got these emails they were all excited including the Prez[can't convince me they all didn't run and tell the Prez about these emails]. As Trump himself said every politician would jump at a chance like this to get op-research against their opponent....this *research* came from a foreign gov..Russia for Christs Sake!..and did they use it?...they are all lucky that *colluding* is not a crime..but lying to the Feds is...just ask Martha Stewart

@mystery-ak
That was excerpted, believe it or not! ;)

[Victoria33]

@EasyAce you need to excerpt more

Well....I could understand and blame it on naivety if just Kusnher and Jr were in the room, but Manafort was there too..a seasoned politico. Here is my guess...after Jr got these emails they were all excited including the Prez[can't convince me they all didn't run and tell the Prez about these emails]. As Trump himself said every politician would jump at a chance like this to get op-research against their opponent....this *research* came from a foreign gov..Russia for Christs Sake!..and did they use it?...they are all lucky that *colluding* is not a crime..but lying to the Feds is...just ask Martha Stewart

@mystery-ak

I also read/saw today that Trump was in the building when that meeting happened.  Of course he knew it was going on - was he is there, too.?

[Cripplecreek]

@mystery-ak

I also read/saw today that Trump was in the building when that meeting happened.  Of course he knew it was going on - was he is there, too.?

Haven't you heard?

Nobody cares. 

[EasyAce]

@mystery-ak

I also read/saw today that Trump was in the building when that meeting happened.  Of course he knew it was going on - was he is there, too.?

@Victoria33
The more this unfurls, the more I can't help thinking about a similar time point during the early stages of the Watergate
scandal when Barry Goldwater told whomever would listen, "This is beginning to smell like Teapot Dome."

[Oceander]

President Mike Pence?

[truth_seeker]

Ohs Noes. A Republican actually tried to win the lection. We can't have that, said "Presidents"  Dole-McCain-Romney.

[EasyAce]

...they are all lucky that *colluding* is not a crime..but lying to the Feds is...just ask Martha Stewart

Collusion actually is a crime, depending on what you collude to do, according to Merriam-Webster:

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy.

Unfortunately, too, you can lie to the Feds or to the police, for that matter, any time you wish, so long as you're not under
oath. If you do it without being under oath, you're a mere liar; if you do it under oath, it's perjury. As for Martha Stewart,
whatever one thinks of the lady otherwise, a reminder:

Those who are salivating over Stewart's demise should put down their forks. In early 2002, when she was
first questioned by the feds, all the news outlets reported speculation, based on anonymous government sources, that
she had sold the last remnant of her ImClone stock on December 27, 2001, because her buddy, ImClone founder and
CEO Sam Waksal, had told her that the Food and Drug Administration was about to reject an application for Erbitux,
the company's highly touted cancer drug. The news reports also suggested that she had lied to the feds about Waksal's
tip. But as the government now tacitly admits, neither of these allegations is true. That fact helps explain why the feds
waited until June 2003 to bring charges: They had trouble finding anything to pin on Stewart.

The most serious criminal charge against her is not perjury or insider trading but securities fraud, based on the fact
that she denied to the press, personally and through her lawyers, that she had engaged in insider trading. This was
done, the feds say, not for the purpose of clearing her name, but only to prop up the stock price of her own publicly
traded company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. In other words, her crime is claiming to be innocent of a crime
with which she was never charged.

As for the SEC's civil case, it hinges on an elastic understanding of insider trading, an offense Congress has never
defined. The justification for the ban on insider trading, which makes little economic or legal sense, is just as murky
as the behavior covered by it. Given the difficulty of figuring out exactly what constitutes insider trading (let alone
why it's illegal), it is entirely possible that Stewart and her lawyers weren't sure whether she had broken the rules.
In any event, under existing case law, it's clear that she didn't.

---Michael McMenamin, from "St. Martha," Reason, October 2003.

[mystery-ak]

Hmmm...All I've heard from the tv pundits that this would not be a crime...IF the info was not used...and that is a big if

[Oceander]

Ohs Noes. A Republican actually tried to win the lection. We can't have that, said "Presidents"  Dole-McCain-Romney.

/snicker

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon

Some nasty vituperation is needed!

Isn't Jonah Goldberg the loser who told us all to vote for McMuffin because Trump was a dirtbag and a crook? Looks like McMuffin is the crook and scam artist.....

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/19/never-trump-candidate-unable-to-pay-off-massive-campaign-debt/

Jonah Goldberg is a genuine piece of shit. He is the poster child for inside the Beltway ignorance.

[EasyAce]

I keep thinking . . .

Asked once about Elvis Presley's death, John Lennon said, "It's the courtiers who kill the King." Or, lure him into
sanctioning or committing crimes on their behalf. Consider:

* Tricky Dixon himself committed no crime regarding the Watergate break-in itself, that was the work of certain people
tied to the Committee to Re-Elect the President, but he did get lured into sanctioning and partaking in the Watergate
cover-up. (Net result: Resignation before he could be impeached.)

* Droopy-Drawers Clinton was merely being an adulterous jackass when he hoochie-cooed with Monica Lewinsky and
Paula Jones, adultery being grounds for divorce but not a statutory crime, but then he committed perjury, suborned
perjury, and obstructed justice trying to dodge it. (Net result: Impeached, but not convicted in a Senate trial.)

* Donaldus Minimus himself hasn't committed any known crime just yet (not that we know of); being a blustery
bonehead with the constitutional knowledge of a pygmy isn't a statutory crime, and gaming the system to his financial
advantages before he became president isn't exactly known to be criminal in and of itself. (Unless, of course, your fool
head convinces you it's not enough just to be able to know how to navigate a system with more loopholes than
an oil field has oil wells.) But heaven help him if a) his subordinates (in or out of his family) actually have or do or
will commit crimes on his behalf, and b) he, too, gets tricked into sanctioning or partaking in a cover-up.

[Oceander]

Isn't Jonah Goldberg the loser who told us all to vote for McMuffin because Trump was a dirtbag and a crook? Looks like McMuffin is the crook and scam artist.....

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/19/never-trump-candidate-unable-to-pay-off-massive-campaign-debt/

Jonah Goldberg is a genuine piece of shit. He is the poster child for inside the Beltway ignorance.

@Frank Cannon

C'mon, you can do better than that.  Too much hung over today?

[mystery-ak]

* Donaldus Minimus himself hasn't committed any known crime just yet (not that we know of); being a blustery
bonehead with the constitutional knowledge of a pygmy isn't a statutory crime, and gaming the system to his financial
advantages before he became president isn't exactly known to be criminal in and of itself (unless, of course, your fool
head convinces you it's not enough just to be able to know how to navigate a system with more loopholes than
an oil field has oil wells). But heaven help him if a) his subordinates (in or out of his family) actually have or do or
will commit crimes on his behalf, and b) he, too, gets tricked into sanctioning or partaking in a cover-up.

This is about where I am now. Everyday more bits and pieces of this puzzle....I have Russian fatigue to tell you the truth.

[Oceander]

I keep thinking . . .

Asked once about Elvis Presley's death, John Lennon said, "It's the courtiers who kill the King." Or, lure him into
sanctioning or committing crimes on their behalf. Consider:

* Tricky Dixon himself committed no crime regarding the Watergate break-in itself, that was the work of certain people
tied to the Committee to Re-Elect the President, but he did get lured into sanctioning and partaking in the Watergate
cover-up. (Net result: Resignation before he could be impeached.)

* Droopy-Drawers Clinton was merely being an adulterous jackass when he hoochie-cooed with Monica Lewinsky and
Paula Jones, adultery being grounds for divorce but not a statutory crime, but then he committed perjury, suborned
perjury, and obstructed justice trying to dodge it. (Net result: Impeached, but not convicted in a Senate trial.)

* Donaldus Minimus himself hasn't committed any known crime just yet (not that we know of); being a blustery
bonehead with the constitutional knowledge of a pygmy isn't a statutory crime, and gaming the system to his financial
advantages before he became president isn't exactly known to be criminal in and of itself. (Unless, of course, your fool
head convinces you it's not enough just to be able to know how to navigate a system with more loopholes than
an oil field has oil wells.) But heaven help him if a) his subordinates (in or out of his family) actually have or do or
will commit crimes on his behalf, and b) he, too, gets tricked into sanctioning or partaking in a cover-up.

What about President Mike Pence?

[Cyber Liberty]

Unfortunately, too, you can lie to the Feds or to the police, for that matter, any time you wish, so long as you're not under oath. If you do it without being under oath, you're a mere liar; if you do it under oath, it's perjury. As for Martha Stewart, whatever one thinks of the lady otherwise, a reminder:

You never heard of "Obstruction of Justice?" That's what you get charged with if you lie to an LEO, oath or no oath.

[Frank Cannon]

What about President Mike Pence?

You would be a Pence booster. Pence is a loser. He was on his way to losing reelection in his state before Donny gave him a gift. As a matter of fact his own party set about reversing all sorts of his actions the second he left office....

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/09/pence-gone-fellow-republicans-undo-his-work/97699694/

[EasyAce]

This is about where I am now. Everyday more bits and pieces of this puzzle....I have Russian fatigue to tell you the truth.

I remember how easy it was to get Watergate-fatigued in the first fourteen months of that scandal, no matter
whether you supported or opposed Nixon otherwise. And the bits and pieces still coming forth made it impossible
to rest from it then, too. When Barry Goldwater spoke of Watergate beginning to smell like Teapot Dome, he
probably had no idea he'd look back on that day as one of the more restful days of his political life in comparison
to what came after. (One recalls that, after the revelation of the smoking gun tape, it was Goldwater who was
deputised by a group of senators to bring Nixon the word that he wouldn't survive impeachment in the House
or a trial in the Senate, even if a smart lawyer---which Nixon didn't have---could beat one of the three prospective
articles of impeachment.)

I didn't support either Donaldus Minimus or the old bat Hilarious Rodent Clinton in the election, but something
even then told me that it wasn't exactly going to be a stroll on the beach with either of those two in the White
House. That said, you begin to wonder if you'll see even one week without some new bit or piece coming forth
just when you thought it was safe to breathe for a day or two.