Beyond the distinct possibility being the more innocuous explanation previously stated by the Special Counsel himself, the assertion that McGhan is beyond reproach, that he had “no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the White House” doesn’t hold water. I can think of several motivations, as Devil’s Advocate or The Tenth Man in Hebrew tradition. First and foremost is the lack of legitimacy the investigation had in the first place, and McGhan surely was cognizant of those questions (as well as what the real issues warranting investigation were) as a lawyer; and second, pair that realization with the fact that virtually anyone Mueller wanted “to get” he got. They were dropping like flies over an investigation of arguably questionable, if not inauspicious, origins to begin with.
In short? Maybe he was scared. Fear is a powerful motivator. We already know the age-old Machiavellian political science question of whether it is better for a leader to be feared or loved, and we know that in this country (and I suspect others as well if they’re candid), we vote primarily out of fear of Value X and not love for Value Y. I’m sorry to rain on anyone’s parade here but that’s God’s gospel truth on the matter.
No motive? None? It’s not possible?
Again, the Mainstream Media turns one fumble into another: there is no smoking gun of obstruction. There is no ten-point guide of points for The House to wield as articles of impeachment and for The Senate to put the POTUS on trial for. Not apparent in this document, as it exists in this form, there isn’t.
McGhan’s character proves noble in that he sought to avoid speaking negatively to fellow staff about the President, and when queried about their conversation candidly replied it “was some crazy shit.”
Like what, the Cat Daddy?
Trump: “McGhan, bro, you gotta teach me how to Dougie!”
McGhan: “No, Mr. President, for the one-hundredth time no one wants to see the sitting President do the Dougie.”
Trump: “Well now that’s just ridiculous. How could I possibly do the Dougie while sitting down? Y’know, with your attitude, McGhan, America will never be great again. SAD!”
When we shift gears into the portion on then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a clown car suddenly speeds to the front of the procession. The very idea of a non-staff member who worked on the campaign being given dictated notes to pass to Sessions to give as part of a public address flogging himself is beyond comprehension. Lewandowski is a firebrand who the Special Counsel deems a “devotee” to the POTUS, but the ready defense here for Mr. Trump is that, above all else, he is conscious of his image and, no matter how you slice it, Sessions appeared weak. Weak in part, yes, because of the President’s public ridicule for him and his job performance, but also because he made himself weak for failing to disclose his meeting(s) with Russians during his confirmation hearings. He did “not recall” on numerous occasions when questioned, the same timeframe in which he went on a bizarre tangent saying that while he personally was not invoking Executive Privilege he was nonetheless withholding information because he wanted to offer the President “the opportunity” to do so.
Never, in three forevers, have I ever heard of such an outrage. It’s that Jeff Sessions that the POTUS went on to revile, and on the point of public perception? Even my progressive, RFK-loving partner in thoughtcrime at ModState (Nate S. Wellein, associate editor and podcast host) voiced solidarity in agreement.
While by far not a glowing endorsement of President Trump, this portion is more a charade, a series of communications debacles bungled by people not knowing who wrote what, what to tell whom, and what the President ultimately wanted and why.
Personally, I have no idea what President Trump’s intent was here beyond being rid of an apparent weakling. The Special Counsel connects dots indicating his belief that it was all directly because Mr. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, but it begs the (real) question, “Why did he lie about interacting with the Russians in the first place?” The reason that question is quite valid here is because Volume One of Mr. Mueller’s report unequivocally does exonerate the President. There’s nothing to suggest his campaign was in concert with Russia, that cyber fruitcake Julian Assange or any other nefarious internet actors. It begs the question of what some of his surrogates were up to, and why they felt the need to lie about even meeting with Russians, but we can’t have it both ways: we cannot operate on the assumption that Mr. Trump viewed his campaign as a vehicle for his brand (an extensive “infomercial” for his properties, he called it) and therefore defeat being a foregone conclusion while in the same breath believing he coordinated with Russian e-criminals and wanted Sessions to divert the investigation.
If I’m wrong on that, by all means, e-mail us at ModState@ModState.com or hit us up on Facebook or Twitter or anywhere else. I’ve publicly admitted my being incorrect before and I’ll do it again. But I’m not seeing this one. There’s a lot of the appearance of impropriety here, but is that enough to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors (the threshold for impeachment per The Founders)? Is it enough that Robert Mueller says he knows better than to take anyone’s word? Unless, of course, it reflects poorly on the President. That stuff makes the cut.
In another twist fit for an acid-rock dreamscape is Mueller’s inclusion of Steve Bannon telling the President that he could “fire the Director” of the FBI but that he couldn’t “Fire the FBI.” Mueller hammers that detail down to make sure we all know that Mr. Trump is aware he couldn’t be rid of the FBI, but then proceeds to strongly imply firing Comey was an effort to obstruct justice. But if he knew that wouldn’t end the investigation, how does that hold water? And, again, the President’s easy defense is how can you obstruct something that isn’t valid? And volume one proves the point that it was invalid, and in fact raises more questions than answers about where all the anti-Trump material Steele and the DNC obtained came from.
The decision not to indict the President because of the likelihood of getting him to respond in a timely manner to a subpoena is lukewarm at best. Mueller’s later synopsis being that he felt it unfair because the POTUS couldn’t defend himself publicly against those charges as would occur in open court should’ve been enough, then, to not implicate him for obstruction at all. Because, as I intimated in my response to volume one, the potential Grand Jury pool has been thoroughly poisoned via the court of public opinion. Likely upwards of three-quarters of the Mainstream Media is an extended arm and amplified echo chamber for the Democratic Party. Period. Don’t believe me? Just look at how quickly both the MSM and the Democrats went from loving Mueller and his work and insisting it must be carried out to fruition to then, once it was publicly released, demanding that the Special Counsel then appear to testify before Congress and insisting the investigation would be vicariously continued by House Democrats.
If the Democrats want someone to blame for the limited scope of the Special Counsel, it’s Congress itself for allowing the law enabling a Special Prosecutor appointment to expire in 1999. Last time I checked Donald J. Trump wasn’t around to obstruct them getting something done about that then, when they would’ve likely had complicit Republicans (as Bill Clinton was still in office) on Capitol Hill.
Small wonder Rudy Giuliani saw through any request for an interview for what it was: a perjury trap. Some of the circles talked around and around here made reading and responding with any real sense to this fiasco, even for a wonk (politics junkie) like me. Granted, my education is in economics, but all of The Founding Fathers never intended for a bunch of trial lawyers to govern the country or they would’ve forbidden any farmers, merchants, scientists or economists at the time from being involved in government.
Additionally, it should give any real thinker significant pause to see the overt admission by the Special Counsel that the Obama Administration had factual evidence of Russian tampering in the US Election system since at least 2014. They likely didn’t want to poison the well around the Iran nuclear deal (as they wanted Russia to remain at the table) by slapping sanctions then, but even former Obama Administration staffers have admitted the sanctions placed after the 2016 Election were negligible in their impact and limited in future scope. And if we’d factually known about it, so far as we’re willing to publicly admit, for at least two years? Then in all likelihood we knew it’d been going on for far longer. Yet the Obama Administration does nothing prior to the November 2016 Election? It stands to reason, then, that it’s likely any of us would be paranoid about FISA warrants and campaign surveillance (in particular after the fact) and suspect the whole charade of campaign “collusion” with Russia was a ruse to begin with. Volume One of Mueller’s report underscores it being much ado about nothing, and I refer you again to evidence from that volume of Mr. Trump’s assertion his campaign (so destined to fail, in his view) was a glorified “infomercial” for his brand. That you “collude” with foreign actors over a prize you don’t even want is beyond logic. Lie better!
Common sense, while not common, is enough to see that the President could be guilty as Hell, but that Mueller blinked for a reason. That he didn’t feel he could get an indictment and conviction in a manner he deemed timely is bullshit. He knew he couldn’t get it, apparently, even with a Grand Jury plucked from the DC Metro. Nine out of ten voters there chose Hillary Clinton, and he still didn’t think he’d have any luck convincing a jury to convict The President.
What does that tell you?
Aside from it saying that Mueller blinked, it tells me that what we’ve seen has been a mere prelude to the partisan bloodbath we’re about to see. And if the Democrats get an impeachment proceeding started and succeed, even with one count? They just handed The House back to the GOP in 2020. And before you feign incredulity, remember not only how much it cost Republicans in the 1990’s impeaching Bill Clinton but just how many Democrats won in very purple districts (lots of independent/swing voters) who won’t be any more forgiving than voters were at the end of Gingrich’s heyday. The majority of voters think Trump’s behavior is not above reproach here, but they also feel Congressional Democrats are going to far. Don’t take my word for it: look up polls from even Trump nemesis CNN. The American people grow weary of his behavior, yes, but they’re equally weary with the Democrats not accepting what their once-beloved Mr. Mueller said.
And just remember this: Trump’s approval may be hovering in the low 40’s, and yes that’s historically low for a POTUS with a booming economy, but y’know what the approval rating is for the U.S. Congress? Twenty percent. Twenty. Less than half of Trump’s approval rating, for you Common Core types out there. And we won’t even get into the approval ratings for the Mainstream Media. I don’t take delight in berating those who went “Full Retard” a’right?
Furthermore, they increase the GOP hold in the Senate by at least one seat and, the coup de grâce will be Trump’s reelection. They pursue impeachment to placate a rabid progressive fringe, and Speaker Pelosi (D-NY) knows that, and she also knows it’s dead on arrival in the Senate.
Let’s venture over to the alternate reality where The House not only impeaches Donald J. Trump but then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in a stunning betrayal, leads the GOP (which would have to be rife with rebels) to convict and remove him if he refused to resign.
Are you prepared to watch the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court administer the oath of office to Mike Pence (R-IN)? And if so, are you prepared for the possibility that he, or another Republican nominee, makes a martyr out of Trump and not only fire up the base but expand it to include more Jews, the American Latinos who (especially in Florida and Texas) have increased their support for the POTUS and Asian Americans who feel left out in the cold by things like Affirmative Action?
Sneer all you want, but that’s a distinct possibility. After all, the 2016 POTUS Election, from the perspective of The Democrats, was entirely based on the premise, “Hillary Clinton can’t possibly not be elected POTUS,” and look where that got us. So before you mock the possibility, remember who won (and who they beat) to become our current President, and how even he felt his campaign was a publicity stunt, and then remember a very old but very important adage as my farewell: whether it’s impeachment, whether it’s Senator Sanders (I-VT) as the DNC nominee, Hell, even if it’s a “Charmed” reboot with all four sisters repeatedly having to vanquish a resurgent, demonic Harvey Weinstein for all eternity…
…whatever your longing here, whatever the case may be, be very careful what you wish for.
