If you remember nothing else about this extraordinary time in American history, remember this day, and remember this quote: “Dan Coats came to me and said they think it's Russia. I have, uh, president Putin, uh, who just said it's not Russia. I will say this, I don't see any reason why it would be."
Let that sink in. "I don't see any reason why it would be."
So... president Trump does not accept Russian interference in the 2016 election even as a hypothetical possibility, let alone as a by now excruciatingly well-documented fact. He can't think of any reason why Russia might want to interfere with our election, never mind that Putin admitted in that very same news conference that he wanted Trump to be president. And then there is the fact that his own intelligence agencies say that Russia interfered, members of his own party say Russia interfered. Russia's innocence is less tenable than O.J. Simpson's.
The Constitution defines treason as "adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States and] giving them aid and comfort." If this isn't treason, I don't know what is.
There are clearly only two possible outcomes now: either Donald Trump will go down in screaming flames, or the United States of America will. There are no other options left at this point. Trump's supporters need to think long and hard about which option they prefer as they decide what to do next. This is about to get seriously ugly.
@Ron:
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify: an indictment is not a "fact", it's an allegation. The allegations certainly look like they will hold up when they are actually tried in court, but until a court actually says "guilty", they're not facts. If we're going to criticize Trump for not upholding the rule of law, it behooves us to make sure we ourselves do uphold it.
> an indictment is not a "fact", it's an allegation.
ReplyDeleteIt's an allegation made by a grand jury on a finding of probable cause. And you don't get the benefit of the presumption of innocence if you are in a country without an extradition treaty and refuse to stand trial. Furthermore, the *individuals* cited in the indictment are entitled to a presumption of innocence, but the Russian *government* is not.
Also, Trump went far beyond saying that the accused is entitled to a fair trial. He said that he sees *no reason* to even *suspect* that Russia *might* be involved ("I see no reason why they would be"). He has repeatedly called the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt" and called for it to be shut down. Finally, today's headline is that he has now acknowledged that the Russians *did* interfere in the election, so whatever else the Mueller investigation might have been, it was not a "witch hunt".
@Ron:
ReplyDeleteyou don't get the benefit of the presumption of innocence if you are in a country without an extradition treaty and refuse to stand trial.
That still doesn't make an indictment the same as a conviction. A US court can try them in absentia and render a verdict based on the evidence presented. Until that happens, they aren't guilty according to the rule of law. (They might be presumed guilty, or at least not presumed innocent, but a presumption isn't a fact.)