So, what’s new in your world? What’s listed below is a crime. And with a conspiracy in place, anyone aiding and abetting it is in legal jeopardy.
What's been announced is only what's been announced. The indictment here recognizes “unwitting” Americans. But this is not the end of the probe.
Any attempt to fire Mueller now…
Jennifer Rubin/WaPo:
The special counsel’s actions raise a host of questions, but here is what we can say with confidence:
- There is no “hoax,” and Trump’s insistence that the Russia investigation is about nothing only reinforces the perception that he cannot concede that he received Russian help and/or that he’s been trying to disable the Russia investigation, precisely because he did not want this plot of interference to come through.
- It will be exceptionally hard, if not impossible, for Trump now to fire Rosenstein or Mueller.
- Mueller and his team are moving with remarkable speed, wrapping up witnesses and substantiating a conspiracy to influence the election. There is much more to this than “just” evidence of obstruction. There is an embarrassing scheme of influence that certainly could have been the motive for Trump’s effort to thwart the Russia investigation. Mueller has multiple witnesses: Michael Flynn, Richard Pinedo(the indicted American), George Papadopoulos and soon, we are told, Rick Gates). Trump and his legal team should be exceptionally worried about what else Mueller has.
- The president’s failure to take action to protect the U.S. election system and prevent another assault on our democracy — a real and ongoing concern voiced by the unanimous testimony of his top intelligence officials — appears to be a gross dereliction of Trump’s duties and an abrogation of his oath.
- The Russian plan was specifically aimed at helping Trump. “By February 2016, the suspects had decided whom they were supporting in the 2016 race. According to the indictment, Internet Research Agency specialists were instructed to ‘use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them),'” The Post reports. “Prosecutors say some Russian employees of the troll farm were chastised in September 2016 when they had a ‘low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton’ and were told it was ‘imperative to intensify criticizing’ the Democratic nominee in future posts.”
- While Rosenstein said there was no evidence that the actions in the indictment affected the election outcome, such an assertion, he surely must know, is not a provable fact and is legally immaterial. No one can prove how many people were affected by what the Russians put out.
Norm Eisen/Politico:
Bob Mueller Is Not Playing Around
Friday’s indictments prove that Russia interfered in our election. And they make it almost impossible to fire him.
Supporters of the president have been quick to point out that the indictment does not allege purposeful cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian charged. Some, apparently including the president, have gone so far as to suggest that the indictment exonerates him, proving up his frequent assertions of “no collusion.” It does nothing of the kind.
What's more surprising? MAGA heads thinking the indictments are exculpatory, or the shock of mainstream political journos that Russian interference is a Big Story? It’s been a Big Story since the election.
NY Times:
Indictments Present a New Political Reality for a President Crying ‘Hoax’
PolitiFact called Mr. Trump’s denial of Russian meddling its 2017 “Lie of the Year.”
For Mr. Trump, who has tried to discredit Mr. Mueller’s investigation as a politically motivated witch hunt, it was a direct assault on the version of reality that he has sought tirelessly to create.
NBC:
On a political level, Mueller's story is devastating to Trump's narrative of a false-flag conspiracy to discredit him. And it could serve as a warning to Republicans to tread carefully in defending the president in the coming months.
"If anything, the indictment reinforces Trump’s lack of credibility on Russian interference in the election by giving a jaw-dropping account of the time, money and effort exerted by the Russian government on American soil to influence the election," said Elise Jordan, an MSNBC political analyst and former National Security Council aide.
"There’s no question now that it was a Russian state operation," she added.
Kurt Bardella/USA Today:
President Trump's Russia denialism is grounds for impeachment
Trump's refusal to accept the consensus of his own national security team seems to be the definition of “adhering to” our “Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” His state of denial of emboldens America’s enemies to continue their attacks against our democratic process, and makes him a willing accomplice in their efforts to undermine our republic.
And that was posted before the bombshell.
Norman Eisen and Victoria Bassetti/USA Today:
Trump can't block the Democratic memo on Russia. Here's why.
The House can put an end to this posturing right now. Its rule book contemplates that a president might rebuff an effort to reveal sensitive information. Here too, Rule X lays out the process. If the president objects to releasing information, a majority of the Intelligence Committee can ask the full House to vote and the chamber — also by a majority — can approve the memo’s release. That is not only in accordance with House rules, but the Constitution. As a coequal branch of government under the Constitution, Congress has the full authority to take that action.
This would only happen with bipartisan cooperation and a real dedication to transparency by GOP leaders — both rare commodities these days. But even if that were lacking, the memo could still see the light of day.
History shows how. Almost 40 years ago, in the midst of another showdown between a president and Congress (and the press) over classified material, an Alaska Democrat put 4,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers into the public record.
In non Russia indictment news:
Philip Bump/WaPo:
When it’s okay to talk politics after a mass shooting
We tried to figure out when, exactly, it’s been acceptable to discuss gun politics after mass shootings. Using a database of incidents compiled by the pro-gun-control Gun Violence Archive, we created this interactive that lets you determine what counts as a mass shooting and how long after one of those events we should wait before tackling the political issues underlying gun ownership.
Rebeka Mercer/WSJ:
Forget the Media Caricature. Here’s What I Believe
I own a minority stake in Breitbart News (where I have no editorial authority) because I believe it adds an important journalistic voice to the American conversation. Stephen Bannon, its former chairman, took Breitbart in the wrong direction. Now that Mr. Bannon has resigned, Breitbart has the opportunity to refine its message and expand its influence.
Christopher Stroop/blog:
Disclaimer: The following op-ed was penned by guest blogger B. Mercenarius III (well, by his ghost writer, and in accordance with the conclusions of several focus groups regarding the talking points likely to be most effective in eliciting the sympathy of his fellow Americans). Any resemblance to Rebekah Mercer’s op-ed in The Wall Street Journal of February 14, 2018, entitled, “Forget the Media Caricature. Here’s What I Believe” is deliberate and intended as parody.
Brian Beutler/Crooked:
REPUBLICANS WANT TO DEPORT DREAMERS
Why is the Trump administration so fixated on killing this bill in the Senate? Ryan has already committed to shelving any legislation Trump doesn’t support, and no legislation can become law over a veto without supermajority support in both chambers. The chances that a bill Trump doesn’t support will become law are effectively zero.
The risk to Trump and Republican leaders is that if a bipartisan bill to protect Dreamers passes the Senate, the case of whodunnit is solved. When Paul Ryan refuses to put it up for a vote on the House floor, he’ll become the one who done it. If he caves, and lets it pass the House, the culprit will become Trump, in the White House, with his veto pen.
Kabuki theatre.
David Byler/Weekly Standard (data guy):
The Republican Party in the Age of Trump
Trump has changed the way the GOP thinks, looks, and talks—but Republicans have also changed Trump.
Most Americans have probably heard the parable of the blind men and the elephant. There are different versions of the story, but the basic idea is that a group of blind men encounter an elephant, and they each touch different parts of it. One man feels the tail, another the leg, another the ear, and so on. They each come away with a true view of what an elephant is like, but it’s an incomplete view.
There’s more than one way to think about this story—some see it as a metaphor for the monotheistic religions and God, others simply see it as an illustration of how all of our perspectives are limited—but it works surprisingly well as a political metaphor. The elephant right now is (obviously) the Trump-era GOP, and the blind men are the analysts, reporters, and researchers like myself trying to understand it.
For the last two and a half years, we have tried a variety of tools—polls, analysis of legislation, interviews with everyone from voters to top Republicans, statistical analysis of election results, and combinations of these tools—to get a handle on the GOP and how Trump has and hasn’t changed the party. Each of the approaches is helpful, but none tells the full story. And there are the related questions of who Republicans are, what they believe, and what they do. All together these might give us a better sense of exactly how much the president has changed the party.