Posts Tagged ‘Impeachment’

Star Trek and Impeachment:  how long should the impeachment trial last?  As long as Capt. Picard says it should.

December 26, 2019

Star Trek and Impeachment:  how long should the impeachment trial last?  As long as Capt. Picard says it should.

Counselor Deanna Troi: [explaining] While they’re learning how to communicate with Riva, they’ll be learning how to communicate with each other.
Lt. Commander Data: [interpreting] And that is the first and most important aspect of any relationship.

—–from Star Trek, The Next Generation, season 2, episode 5, “Loud as a Whisper” (1989, Paramount Studios)

     The fundamental divide within our nation is not religious, political or even moral; it is epistemological. We do not see the same reality, so how could we hope to agree on solutions? Some even claim there is no “reality,” just a war of wills between those with “facts” and those with “alternative facts.” Did Donald Trump commit crimes worthy of impeachment? How can we agree, when we don’t even agree with what a “crime” is, what words like “I’d like you to do us a favor though” mean, what “interference” in an election means, or any other independent reality?
If Donald Trump is removed from office, that will not heal the divide in our nation. If Donald Trump is quickly acquitted, that will not heal the divide in our nation. While polls suggest that most people agree that he did things that are immoral and unfit for our nation’s leader, there is debate even there about whether the crimes were “high” enough to justify impeachment. And some people, looking at the same evidence, claim there is no crime at all, not even a questionable act.
Every major intelligence agency of our nation agrees that Russia, and Russia alone, illegally interfered in the 2016 elections. Even the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, run by Republicans, agrees that this is true. Yet Republican senators, who supposedly listened to those reports and who voted to accept those reports into the Congressional record as facts, publicly deny them. Often they simply refuse to even look at such evidence at all, preferring the news feed from RT over any direct briefing from the CIA.
This is not political partisanship. This is epistemological apartheid: two populations side-by-side, with no language in common, no shared reality, virtually forbidden to communicate with one another. Is there an escape from this trap?
If anyone knew (or will know, it gets confusing) political impasses, it was (will be?) Capt. Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise. Thousands of inhabited planets, each with radically different cultures, languages, histories and values, each with competing interests, and one diplomatic misstep could lead to war that could possibly extinguish any or all of these and kill billions of sentient beings. While he had an arsenal of weapons at his command, often the problems were those that could not be solved by a war of wills or weapons. Often the task was to end a war, or stop one before it started. In such situations, what was needed was communication: and before that, the foundation of communication, a shared reality.
Two examples come to mind. The first is from Star Trek, TNG’s second season, the episode “Loud as a Whisper.” The story revolves around a planet which has virtually destroyed its civilization through warfare, and now has finally decided to seek peace between the two enemy factions. They have requested a famous diplomat from another planet, someone with no ties to either side, to mediate between them. The diplomat is actually mute; he has an extrasensory bond with three interpreters, who express his thoughts and emotions. However, at the first peace meeting, one of the two negotiating parties attempts to kill the mediator rather than give up the war that has defined his life. The assassination attempt fails because everyone else realizes that endless war is pointless; the assassin is tackled and his shot goes wild, missing the diplomat but raking his interpreters with deadly fire. Suddenly, this great negotiator is not only deprived of his greatest tool—-his “chorus” of interpreters who provided him not only a voice but also different perspectives——but he is now unable to communicate. He uses a sign language that no one on the ship understands. He is isolated, and the two sides have no mediator.
This seemingly insurmountable problem becomes an asset. Both delegations still want peace and want the mediator to resume his work. He cannot do this without a way to communicate. He resolves therefore to teach them his sign language. By learning to speak to him, they’ll be learning to speak to each other, something they have not done for more than a generation of constant warfare. It may take many months before any but the most rudimentary communication between the mediator and the warring parties is possible, but the whole time they will be engaged in the joint project of learning this new skill, working together, and helping the diplomat help them. The fact that it will take months or maybe years is an asset; they’ve been killing each other for years, and the war was never going to end in a day. This first, drawn-out project will be the start of their reconciliation.
The second episode I thought of was “Darmok.” In this case, an alien culture is seeking to negotiate directly with the Federation and with Capt. Picard. While they have technology that allows them to understand the words each is saying, the cultures are so different that they cannot understand what the other means by those words. The humans use words like you do; the other race, the Tamarians, communicate through metaphor. This is such an important part of their culture that they cannot even think in any other way; but without knowing the story to which their words refer, no one else can know what those words mean. It’s as if I said, “Archie Bunker” in response to something you said. If you knew that Archie Bunker was a bigoted character in the 1960s sitcom “All in the Family,” you’d know I was calling you a bigot. But if you didn’t know the story, you’d have no idea what I meant even if the words were comprehensible. So the aliens have a problem; they want to establish communication, but even though they understand the words the other side is using, neither understands the other’s meaning.
The solution, again, is a joint project. The Tamarian captain traps himself and Capt. Picard on a planet with a dangerous beast, which they can defeat only by cooperating. As a culture that communicates entirely through stories, they set up a situation where the two captains must work together, and the story of this cooperation becomes the context of future communication. It will clearly not be a fast or easy process, but a rushed process would not solve the underlying problem: a lack of shared context.
The current political situation in the United States has been called “a civil cold war.” I was a child in the 1960s and vividly remember television references to “the generation gap” even if I was too young to be part of that conflict. In addition to the clash between the military-aged and their elders who started the war and sent them to fight, there was the ongoing struggle of non-whites and of women to be treated as equal human beings. But I don’t have the impression that the divisions between the two sides were ever as stark as they are now: more violent, but not more decisive. For the most part, people got their news from the same sources. They knew what the issues were and what words meant. Some may have thought Martin Luther King Jr. was a dangerous Communist agitator while others saw him as a Christian peacefully crusading for justice, but at least both sides understood what “Communist” and “justice” meant; the gulf between them was largely about facts and values. Today people who fight to protect children throw thousands in cages, sometimes to die alone or to simply disappear by the hundreds if not thousands, because the “children” they care about are unborn; those already born are on their own. Others say that an “unborn child” is like an “unbuilt car:” not a thing at all but only the potential for one. If we can’t even agree what a person is, how can we decide whether something is an unjust crime against people? How can we decide whether a leader’s excesses are the necessary price we pay to protect hundreds of thousands of “tiny unborn persons” or simply crimes with no excuse except the grievance and will-to-power of his supporters?
Some of this confusion is genuine; groups with different views and values, different metaphysical assumptions and so on deriving different ethical injunctions. Some of this confusion is intentionally created. Russian political scientists have openly discussed their theory of “managed democracy” where the government attempts to create a “post-truth” society as a means to keep the people disorganized, divided and therefore more easily controlled. Whether the divide is natural or manufactured, the result is the same: a society divided not only by competing economic theories or moral philosophies, but even by different epistemic worlds. We don’t agree what truth is, how to find it or even whether it exists. In this situation, I think the great negotiator Riva from “Loud as a Whisper” would agree that what we need is to take the time to recreate a shared reality, a shared frame of reference. The impeachment of Donald Trump is one opportunity to begin this process. A thorough investigation, a lengthy and careful trial, would not only discover the events that actually occurred, but would also establish the meaning of those events. And what is at least as important, even though it would be an adversarial situation (prosecution and defense) it would also be a joint project. A well-played sporting event is a joy to its viewers, no matter who wins, so long as both sides agree in the end that the result was fair. Those who can’t agree are known to be “bad sports.” The fact is that just as you can’t have a football game without two teams, you can’t have a trial without two sides; the adversaries need each other.
What is more fundamental, and most important at this time, is that a real trial would have to be one that accepts the principle that truth matters. Did the President of the United States violate the law, violate his oath of office, and use taxpayer money to secure personal advantages for himself at the expense of national security? That is a factual question; it is either true or false. Did Putin’s government actively and covertly attempt to undermine our free elections, and is he working to do this again, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and 17 U.S. intelligence agencies say? Or is the real “interference” the fact that some Ukrainian official wrote an op-ed article, openly using his own name, expressing his opinion that Donald Trump should not give vast swaths of Ukrainian territory to Putin? Does the factual reality, the truth, matter, or is the only thing that matters whether some claim suits the agenda of some politician?
What this nation needs, more than anything, is a return to a belief in objective reality. When I was a kid, we had race riots, anti-war riots, corruption, the Kent State Massacre, the Weathermen, and more. We had real troubles. But we didn’t have a major political party and millions of people denying objective reality, rejecting science as some sort of conspiracy, rejecting medicine, and even arguing that education was bad because people who know stuff tend to disagree with the party. We had plenty of paranoia, and sometimes it turned out the paranoids were right; but we didn’t have people actually in the government denying everything they heard from over a dozen of our own intelligence agencies. In that sort of situation, we need some long-term work to re-establish a shared frame of reference. A serious investigation of Mr. Trump’s guilt would do that. It would presumably allow witnesses on both sides: the side that says Trump was pressuring Ukraine to cook up evidence to smear a political rival, and the side that says that there was something terribly wrong in Ukraine that Mr. Trump was legitimately investigating. This would in turn raise the question of where each side was getting its information and how it was validating its claims, which would raise the more fundamental question of how we can establish “truth” in any functional sense so that communication is possible. By contrast, having a one-week “trial” in the Senate would allow no time for serious debate about how either side decides whether to believe any particular claim, and would reduce everything to a mere power-play that solves nothing.
Maybe there is no “objective truth” that is free from personal interpretation or projection. Even if you say this, you must also agree that there are degrees of distortion. People of differing cultures and values can work together to solve problems. We may disagree about many things, but we can generally distinguish between those with whom we disagree versus those who are seriously crazy. If we’re trying to avoid drowning in a flood, say, and five people are filling sandbags to reinforce the levy while one is killing cats because cats are agents of Satan, we don’t just say, “Well, he’s got alternative facts.” We don’t just say, “Five of us think sandbags are the way to go, so we decide what’s true.” We look at whether killing cats has ever solved any problem, such as the Plague in Medieval Europe, and we find it hasn’t. We look for some rational reason to believe killing cats might help the situation, and can see no causal connection such as we usually see in other areas of life. On the other hand, we do find instances where sandbags have helped, and our past experience suggests that it is the sort of thing that would be useful. We might also consider the dangers of adopting a sandbag strategy versus the dangers of ignoring the levies and just hunting cats. We would decide that the stakes are too high to do nothing, that the course of action most likely to help was to fill sandbags, and would decide that the person who refused and instead ran around killing cats was (at best) a useless loony. The need to work together, coupled with the urgency of the situation, would force us to make judgments about shared reality and how we can judge truth. In calmer times, we might have just left the cat-hater to his superstition; but when the flood waters are rising, the “he’s entitled to his own opinion” that suggests epistemological relativism becomes “we don’t have time for your nonsense anymore.” The past successes of filling sandbags during floods, versus the failure of felinicide, would give us a practical, pragmatic way to sift likely truth from probable falsehood. If our species could never apprehend the world with any accuracy, we’d have died out a long time ago; so we are capable of some truth, and should try to find it.
The first step towards making the divides in our society manageable and possibly even productive is to decide to seek to treat reality first as a matter for investigation rather than power struggles. No doubt struggles will continue even after all the facts are established as well as they can be, and that is fine. But unless we can at least agree what it is we disagree about, there can be nothing but fighting without end. Democracy is, in the end, a way to have internal struggles without destroying our society, by agreeing to shared rules of engagement and conflict resolution. The only alternative is violence.

The Mueller Report: I read it for you, but you should read it for yourself. pt 5

June 26, 2019

The President’s Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation

We may never know why Mr. Trump ordered Mueller to be fired, then changed his mind. Did he give the order in a fit of temper and either reconsider or lose interest once he’d calmed down a bit? Was he eventually persuaded that his concerns about conflicts of interest were so flimsy they would only embarrass him if he kept pushing them? Does he in fact have so little attention span that he simply forgot, as some books have suggested? Or did he decide that derailing Mueller’s investigation would work better than sacking him? Perhaps an impeachment inquiry or criminal prosecution after he leaves office will reveal more, if Mr. Trump is compelled to testify under oath. What we do know, however, is that the efforts to shut down the investigation were not limited to trying to get rid of the chief investigator.

Two days after McGahn refused to order Rosenstein to fire Mueller, Mr. Trump ordered Corey Lewandowski to take a message to Jeff Sessions ordering him to unrecuse himself and take charge of the investigation. The idea was not to simply shut it down, but rather to forbid the FBI from actually investigating any crimes; instead they were to only look at what the Russians had done and how to prevent them from doing it again, without considering whether Trump or anyone else had committed any crimes. This was unusual since Lewandowski had no government position and hence had no real reason to be carrying instructions or memos between the White House and the Department of Justice, aside from the fact that he was known for being utterly loyal to Mr. Trump and hence perhaps more likely to do as he was told. Trump dictated a letter to Sessions stating that Sessions was to announce that since the President was being treated very unfairly, he had decided to unrecuse himself; furthermore, unless Sessions made this statement as dictated and restricted the investigation as instructed, he would be fired. Lewandowski decided that, given the sensitive nature of this message, he should hand it to Sessions in person; but after several unsuccessful attempts to arrange a meeting where he could do so, he decided to give the memo to Rick Dearborn, a senior White House official who had a dinner appointment with Sessions. Lewandowski says that while he thought Trump had tasked him with delivering this message because of his loyalty, Dearborn would be able to do it better because he actually did work for the government and had a long relationship with Sessions. However, when Dearborn saw the message he was to deliver, he became extremely uncomfortable and did not deliver it; although he said he had “handled the situation” he in fact refused to deliver the message and instead threw it away. At this same time Mr. Trump, not knowing the speech he intended Sessions to deliver had not been passed to him, called an impromptu news conference to talk about how “unfair” it was for Sessions to recuse himself from the Russia probe, and to state that Sessions might not be allowed to continue as Attorney General. Trump followed this up by demanding that Reince Priebus, his Chief of Staff at the time, fire Sessions. Ostensibly this was because Sessions had falsely denied discussing campaign-related matters with the Russian ambassador, but those around him believed the real reason was what Trump had been saying for months: his anger over Sessions’ recusal from the Russia investigation. Priebus resisted, and when Trump insisted Priebus lied and said he’d get Sessions to resign even though he had no such intention. Eventually he was able to convince Trump that if they fired Sessions the second and third ranking people at DOJ, Rosenstein and Rachel Brand, would also resign, and that he would be unable to get anyone confirmed by the Senate to replace them.

The testimony given under oath to Mueller paints a picture of chaos and dread. Hope Hicks said she wanted to “throw herself” between Trump and the press during his July 19 interview lambasting Sessions, but he loved it and loved the coverage it got afterwards. Priebus and McGahn discussed resigning rather than go along with the plan to fire Sessions. Sessions wrote out another letter of resignation and carried it with him whenever he went to the White House after these events. Again, the only thing that prevented a major Constitutional breakdown, with possibly the entire leadership of the Department of Justice resigning , was the refusal of Trump’s underlings to obey orders they thought were “all wrong.” At times they lied and stalled until his temper cooled down, other times they kept trying to talk him out of whatever self-destructive, government-destructive action he was demanding. The whole time he seems to have been loving the press coverage his attacks on Sessions were getting, and his major concern was to time his actions so as to avoid bad coverage during the Sunday news programs.

In considering whether Trump’s efforts to have Lewandowski deliver an ultimatum that he either rein in the Mueller investigation or be fired, the Special Counsel considered the following elements:

  1. Obstructive act: Would these actions naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry? Undoubtedly; Mueller writes that “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign…” so the entire point of the President’s actions was to obstruct the investigation.
  2. Nexus to an official proceeding: It was public knowledge that there was already a grand jury investigation of the Trump campaign by this time. We don’t know too much about that because this part of the report is redacted.
  3. Intent: Mueller writes: “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.” Or to put it bluntly: Trump was trying to cover up his own past misdeeds and those of his employees. In particular, Mueller notes that Trump sought to use Lewandowski, someone outside the government who was known to be extremely loyal, to communicate with Sessions, rather than simply talk to him directly or use normal government channels, suggesting that Trump was trying to hide his message to Sessions and to avoid any official record of having communicated with him at all. And it might have worked, if Lewandowski had managed to deliver the message himself instead of passing it to Dearborn to deliver. Dearborn was so freaked out when he read the message he was supposed to pass on that “he recalled not wanting to ask where it came from or think further about doing anything with it,” and instead lied about delivering it and instead trashed it.

Legal experts agree that the fact that Trump failed to obstruct justice because his staff refused to cooperate (or in the case of Lewandoski bungled the job) does not make it any less a crime, just as we routinely throw terrorists in jail for planning bombing attacks on this nation even when they end up talking to an FBI informant instead.

The Mueller Report: I read it for you, but you should read it yourself. pt. 3(c)

June 23, 2019

How does all of this relate to the three constitutive elements of an obstruction of justice?

  1. Obstructive Act: It is true that Mr. Trump was aware that James Comey was not only investigating Trump’s friend Michael Flynn but was also looking into other aspects of Russian efforts to help elect Trump, including whether any other American citizens had committed crimes. On the other hand, he was advised repeatedly that firing Comey would not end the investigations; as Steve Bannon told him, “You can’t fire the FBI.” Trump even acknowledged as much during his interview with Lester Holt, saying it was likely firing Comey would actually prolong the investigation. What seems to have most troubled Mueller and seems most likely to be part of an illegal obstruction of justice is the way Trump handled it. The vengefulness, the petty cruelty, and the public attacks on the investigation and cries of “Witch hunt!” afterwards seem, according to the report, intended to affect and obstruct whatever future investigators might take over after Comey’s departure. True, there might be other, legally innocent motives, such as paranoia, sadism, or stupidity. That question falls under “intent.” What we can say is that there were in fact official investigations that could be disrupted by this behavior, that Mr. Trump was aware of these investigations and continued in this behavior anyway, despite the fact that his office requires him to support upholding the laws of the nation without undue personal prejudice.
  2. Nexus to a proceeding: You can’t obstruct justice unless there’s an official proceeding to obstruct. In this case, while there was no official grand jury at that time investigating the Trump campaign, there was a criminal investigation of Flynn that Trump had tried to shut down, and public knowledge that the FBI was looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including the crime of hacking the DNC’s computers. Thus there was a nexus to at least one official proceeding.
  3. Intent: As the report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President’s repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement….the President’s over stated rationales for why he fired Comey are not similarly supported by the evidence.” In other words, the report says that Comey was fired for not publicly clearing Trump, and that Trump and others working on his behalf lied about the true reasons for the firing. As stated earlier, intention to deceive is tacit acknowledgment of wrongdoing; if it doesn’t prove impure motives, it at least implies such. But why, the report asks, what this so important? Was it merely for political reasons, because “this Russia business” was making it difficult for Trump to carry out his agenda for the nation? Was it because, as has been stated outside the Mueller but in multiple press reports and books, that Mr. Trump gets angry when anyone mentions that Russia helped elect him because it takes away from his own sense of accomplishment? Or are there other, criminal reasons for Trump’s repeated demands for Comey to publicly announce his innocence? There are the demands that Comey pledge his “loyalty” to Trump personally, and his claim that he thought the Attorney General was not doing enough to protect him personally. He also said he wanted to be able to tell his Attorney General “who to investigate.” Comey was interfering with these goals by the fact that he’d taken over the investigations after Sessions recused himself, and by the independent way he was handling the investigations. Also, when Trump was railing against Sessions for recusing himself and for not doing more to protect Trump and punish Trump’s foes, Sessions had suggested firing Comey, either because he was suggesting to Mr. Trump that this would solve his problems or perhaps merely to redirect Trump’s anger onto someone else. In addition, as the Muller report states, “…the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.” Thus there is a strong prima facie case that Trump was motivated by personal goals rather than national interests in firing Comey, the definition of “corrupt intent.”

As Mr. Mueller stated, we need to have some sort of a hearing to allow the accused party the chance to clear his name. Legally, there is no law against being stupid, sadistic, deceitful, vain, vindictive, paranoid or obstinate. These may be reasons to say someone is unfit for an important office, but they are not crimes. Perhaps Mr. Trump was not trying to shut down or intimidate other investigations, and anyone or everyone around him who might think about challenging his orders. Perhaps he was just running the White House the way he’d run his businesses: as his wife says, if he feels you’ve hit him he’ll hit back ten times harder.[1] Perhaps, as many who have or do work for him are reported to have said, he’s very insecure about his election victory, and his desire to have Comey and others come out and publicly say he had nothing to do with Russia is his way of insisting that he won on his own, without Putin’s help, despite what Putin said at Helsinki and what every U.S. intelligence agency has said. But as Mueller said, the only way to bring these facts out, and show whether or not Trump had corrupt motives or simply acted foolishly in ways that appear corrupt, is to have an impeachment investigation, where all the facts can be presented and the President can take the opportunity to personally defend himself under oath. As it stands, the report states, there is evidence that the President* knowingly and intentionally obstructed justice, seeking to impede and influence official investigations of crimes as well as undermining counterintelligence operations, for corrupt personal reasons.

[1] Ali Vitali, “Melania Stumps for Donald Trump: ‘He Will Punch Back 10 Times Harder;” NBC News.com April 4, 2016 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/melania-stumps-donald-trump-he-will-punch-back-10-times-n550641). Or as Mr. Trump says on Twitter: “When someone attacks me, I always attack back…except 100x more. This has nothing to do with a tirade but rather, a way of life!” @realDonaldTrump Twitter 11 Nov. 2012. These claims, I believe, fit the dictionary definitions of “vindictive” and “vengeful.”

 

If you like visual aids, here’s a quick summary of the Mueller report

May 29, 2019

Here’s a chart summarizing the Mueller report.

I haven’t finished my analysis so maybe I’ll quibble with some of these later.  What it shows, and what your own reading of the Special Counsel’s report will show, is that the claims of “no collusion” and “total exoneration” are #FakeNews, to turn a phrase.  In fact, the report is closer to #ImpeachTrumpNow than it is to #WitchHunt.  The short version is “The Special Counsel can’t indict a sitting president; presidents have to be impeached first, and then indicted, so it’s up to Congress to take it from here.”

The Mueller Report: I read it for you, but you should read it yourself. pt. 2(a)

May 22, 2019

Redacted Reactions to the Redacted Mueller Report: I read it so you don’t have to, but you really should; pt. 2(a)

 

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

——Special Counsel Robert S Mueller III, Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election

 

Volume Two of the Mueller Report deals with the question of obstruction of justice. There are three points that I consider most important to understanding this part of the report. The first is that the Special Counsel began with a decision not to recommend prosecution no matter what. This decision is explained as being based on the Office of Legal Counsel’s standing policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted, because it would undermine his effectiveness. A sitting President can be impeached, which is much harder since it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict and removed an impeached official. A substantial majority of Senators could believe the person guilty and even a danger to the nation, but so long as 34 vote in favor of the impeached official (whether it be a president, judge or whatever) he or she remains in office. A president can be indicted and tried upon leaving office under OLC guidelines, but not until then; so the president must either be first removed via impeachment or 25th Amendment procedures, or indicted after finishing his elected term of office. So while the Attorney General expressed surprise that Mueller made no recommendation to prosecute, the fact is that Mueller felt he had no choice; his only job was to gather and preserve evidence for possible later prosecution.

Furthermore, Mueller expressed the opinion that even creating a sealed indictment, to be automatically served upon the President’s leaving office, would be unjust. The accused must have the right to clear his (or her) name. Usually that is done through a trial, when the defendant is declared “Not Guilty.” If a President can’t be tried, then the President can’t clear his name; the accusation will hang over him (or her, if we ever get that far) like the Sword of Damocles. The only just way to resolve this situation is through impeachment. With an impeachment hearing, the evidence against the impeached official is presented; and more important for the defendant, the accused can present his/her evidence in defense. Thus an impeached President would have the opportunity to clear his name, by offering a defense at the impeachment hearing and trial.

The refusal to recommend indictment is not, therefore, remotely like claiming that there is nothing indictable. Rather, it is a recognition that, given the laws and rules that authorized the investigation in the first place, a sitting President can’t be indicted as any other person would who did the same things. Impeachment, and/or prosecution after leaving office, are the only options.

In fact, the Special Counsel’s report states several things quite clearly: first, that even if no “collusion” was established, that does not mean there was no evidence that it existed or that such evidence might come to light if certain witnesses cease refusing to testify candidly and truthfully; second, that if the investigation had exonerated the President they would say so, but they are not saying so, so you can draw your own conclusions (or have an impeachment trial to examine the evidence); and third, that there is in fact substantial evidence for obstruction of justice charges against the President.

To be continued….