Deaf Ears
The one thing that brightened-up Robert Mueller yesterday was his firm belief that Russians interfered with the election in 2018 and they are preparing to do it in 2020.
Meanwhile, Republicans are refusing to do anything about it. Other than encouraging it to happen again, of course. They say that God made Trump president, not the Russians. Nope.
So, following Mueller’s testimony they voted down another bill to look into the problem. They called this one “overly broad,” which is kinda like they’ve been saying before.
This is the third bill they have voted down, including one by Republican Tom Cotten and Democrat Ron Wyden “that would allow the Senate Sergeant at Arms to provide voluntary cybersecurity assistance for personal accounts and devices of senators and staff.”
Voluntary. In the list of things to do about Russian interference, that ranks three levels below being on alert for a couple name Boris and Natasha looking for a squirrel. But, no, they’d vote the down, too.
All it’s gonna take is for the Russians to help one Democrat – anywhere in America – to win. I don’t care if it’s a constable in Pennysquat, Mississippi, that’s all it’s gonna take.
Here are 5 flat-out lies Republican House members told during Mueller’s testimony.
New Yorker’s Eric Levitz describes five of their most blatant distortions
Edit: The first Republican claim that Levitz fact-checks is Rep. Doug Collins’ assertion that Trump, according to the Mueller Report, never “colluded” or “collaborated” with members of the Russian government in 2016. As Levitz notes, Mueller never said that the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russians three years ago were totally innocent — only that he didn’t find sufficient evidence to warrant charges of criminal conspiracy.
Second, Levitz notes, House Republicans “repeatedly insinuated” on Wednesday that the FBI’s investigation of Trump’s campaign in 2016 originated with British intelligence official Christopher Steele’s dossier. Republicans have made this claim in the hope of discrediting Mueller’s investigation, but Levitz writes, “One of the House GOP’s own infamously partisan investigations confirmed that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos triggered the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation.”
Third, Levitz addresses a claim by Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas that because Trump knew he was innocent of any wrongdoing, he was “pursuing justice” instead of “obstructing justice” during Mueller’s probe in 2017 and 2018. Levitz finds that claim ridiculous, stressing that one “doesn’t need to be legally threatened by an investigation in order to corruptly obstruct it.”
Fourth, Levitz explains, Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana insisted that Trump “fully cooperated” with Mueller’s investigation — a claim Levitz denounces as “blatantly false,” noting that Trump “refused to sit down for an interview with the special counsel or answer any questions related to obstruction of justice.” Further, Levitz adds, Trump urged witnesses not to “flip” for Mueller.
Finally, Levitz addresses Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe’s assertion that it was unethical for the Mueller Report to lay out a possible case for obstruction of justice because doing so undermines the “presumption of innocence.” Ratcliffe emphasizes, “The main problem with Ratcliffe’s complaint is that Mueller’s decision to detail the evidence for charges he did not ultimately bring — and to clarify that his office could not say that this evidence was insufficient to support an indictment — was compliant with the regulations governing his inquiry.”
1Not surprised. The invertibrate loss is matched totally by their fear – yeah, outright fear – of tech, high or low. Thats why they have staffers do the dirty work of using a computer and any and all of them new gadgets. Remember the late Senator from Alaska? He tight there were tubes conducting transmissions from all the computers in the world.
2@megasoid: Levitz’ fifth point is correct but much too limited. The presumption of innocence attaches at jeopardy and continues through jury deliberations. If it applied earlier, we would not need a bail system because everyone should be released pending trial. Moreover, the OLC opinion that the President cannot be charged would result in the circumstance that Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue on camera and in the presence of a 1000 prosecutors would be not merely presumed but conclusively innocent (at least for the duration of his Presidency). The presumption of innocence has no application to the public at large. Hell, there isn’t one of us who believes OJ innocent.
3Lless @3
I will state again for the record, that I only smell like a lawyer from time to time. I don’t know Levitz’s bonafides. (Writer… yeah, check.)
The OLC opinion to me sounds more like FBI guideline fealty to the executive office than SC argued decision. Senate runs that peachmints show don’cha know.
4As a financial backer of Kentucky (i.e. resident of a blue state supporting red states through “socialism”) I demand KY elect better senators.
5Was watching CSPAN yesterday. That majority crowd in the Senate is a real interesting bunch of you consider them the same way Darwin et al. did. They voted against a bill and the Dems took advantage of the open discussion afterward when the thing was tabled and they announced they were renaming the bill “The Kick the Can Down the Road” bill. First time I overheard anyone int he Senate to that. Who says they ain’t earning their keep?
6