Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

The New York Times lead story, May 30, 2019 (headline):

BREAKING SILENCE,
MUELLER DECLINES
ABSOLVE TRUMP

LPR comment: Where in law must one prove innocence?

The Special Counsel and Impeachment

June 5, 2019 --

The New York Times, May 30, reported that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, in a ten-minute statement to the media "pointedly refused to
exonerate Mr.. Trump." Others have suggested that exoneration was not the responsibility of the special counsel. His guidelines, after all, were, in part, to
investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump...."

According to the lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal, May 30, "...Mr. Mueller's analysis of the obstruction evidence in his own report makes clear that no investigation was obstructed."
On the other hand, Democratic candidates for president responded to the Mueller statement by calling for impeachment proceedings, with Senators Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg joining seven other candidates, including Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, who had earlier called for impeachment.

The Democrats demanding impeachment now apparently want such proceedings to move on one track, while the 2020 presidential campaign moves on a parallel track. Impeachment proceedings could also provide a convenient diversion from disclosure of conduct by the Hillary Clinton campaign, aided by the intelligence community, to try to block the election of Donald Trump and failing that, to seek to force his removal as president. Is there a planto have impeachment proceedings along with Democratic presidential nomination debates?

The New York Times May 30 report pointed out that Mr. Mueller, in his May 29 statement, "did not accuse the president of a crime" but he "refused to exonerate Mr. Trump" This prompts the thought that exoneration was not Mr. Mueller's responsibility. The Times account suggested that the president's backers and his adversaries have taken what they wanted to from Mr. Mueller's comments, as they have from his report.

This points up the political nature of the controversy. Indeed, it is fair to say that had the Democrats not won their House majority in the 2018 elections, there would be no talk of impeachment. It is generally conceded that even if the House voted to impeach, the Senate, with its Republican majority, would not convict and remove the president from office. And what could be more political than than conclusion.

The Wall Street Journal suggested in its May 30 editorial that to the extent that Mr., Mueller, in his statement, did not end Democrat talk if impeachment, his remarks may have been revenge at the president for having criticized the investigation.

For the Resistance, criticism from the president rises to the level of obstruction; apparently there is no need for direct action. In the eyes for radical Democrats like Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the president "subverts the United States Constitution every single day." The fact that he is president is, apparently proof of guilt, for the radicals.

Law Professor Alan Dereshowitz takes a more nuanced view, arguing in The Hill, May 23, 2019 that courts should look for "the real reasons behind the issuance of subpoenas" and balance the interests of Congress with individual rights, He thought that the judge who upheld the congressional subpoena to an accounting firm retained by the president had provided "an open invitation for abuse of power."

Stated differently, the Founding Fathers, in establishing a tripartite government based on separation of powers, sought to protect the country against an Imperial Congress as well as an Imperial President. A Congress with dictatorial power -- backed by a near-monolithic media -- is far more a threat to American liberty than president who dares to hold views on policy at odds with the radicals.

The response to the Mueller statement of May 29, in a way, reflects that law of politics that holds, "it all depends whose ox is gored." Clearly, the Resistance intends the political goring of the president. In Federalist No. 48, Madison advised that against the legislative ambition, the people ought to indulge all of their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions." The radical Democrats, prodded by the anti-Trump near-monolithic media, can be expected to try to draw the people into what Madison called the legislative "vortex."

LPR believes It is the responsibility of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans to withstand the radicals.

LPR hopes that the people will not permit the radicals from diverting attention from the truth of the origins of Russiagate, including the Steele dossier, by an impeachment inquiry that would likely move in parallel with the political conventions this summer.

Thus far, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is said to be holding off the push to inpeach, fearing such a move will be counter-productive. One argument put forward, incredibly, is that the president would like to be impeached to solidify his base.

Not stated, at least not thus far, is the observation, how does impeachment and removal from office help the anti-Trumpers if it gives the country President Mike Pence?