Impeachment Investigation, Impeachment Vote: A Prosecution Perspective

There are differences between the decisions facing a prosecutor in an ordinary criminal case and the decisions now facing members of the House of Representatives. There are also similarities.

Time, Relativity, and the Mayfly Self

The Physics of Time

 

Even before Einstein, physics was never really supportive of our common-sense ideas about time. Humankind has long believed that the past and the future are very different, the one over, done with, fixed, the other ahead, open, malleable. The past keeps gaining new territory from the future across the boundary of the present. The calendar date of tomorrow becomes that of today, then of yesterday. All this seems to force upon us the conclusion that now is something that moves. 

Science, with physics at its base, has been a great success in explaining the phenomena of our world: thunder, billiards, fire, elevators, airplanes, the ability of fish to swim and viruses to infect. What did Newtonian physics have to tell us about this moving now? Nothing. The equations of physics contain variables for time, t₁, t₂, even t₀, but no “now.” 

With Einstein, physics stopped being unhelpful regarding our shared sense that the now moves, and became hostile, or at least unfriendly.

Yes Collusion! 2:"Russia, if you're listening . . ."

On 8/2/18, I devoted a post to Trump’s famous July 27, 2016, invitation, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”  I there contended that this did not constitute a violation of any federal solicitation-computer crime statute, but that it arguably constituted criminal solicitation of a foreign (“in kind”) campaign contribution in violation of the election laws. I added, in passing, that it was potentially an impeachable offense. https://lawrencecrocker.blogspot.com/2018/08/was-trumps-russia-if-you-are-listening.html.

I have seen no reason to revise those conclusions substantially. I still think that there is a respectable argument that Trump violated the solicitation provision of the election law, a violation not merely civil, but a criminal. It is simply implausible that he did not think he was asking for something that he expected to be of very substantial value to the campaign – certainly more valuable than many thousands of MAGA hats.  It is also implausible that he had not been told about the prohibition against foreign contributions.

What I want to do here is first to extend the analysis to consider Trump’s defense to accusations against his statement: “Of course I was being sarcastic.” (Interview on Fox and Friends.); "[I]n jest and sarcastically, as was apparent to any objective observer." (Written answers to Mueller questions.)

 

Second, I want to return to the question of Trump’s claims that he has been fully vindicated with respect to all claims of the sort that he or his campaign colluded with the Russians.

Yes Collusion!

Many who are pro-impeachment or tend in that direction concede that Mueller’s Volume I supports Trump’s repeated claim  “No Collusion.” Trump and his friendly media go so far as to say that the Trump Campaign was “exonerated” on collusion.

Not so. There is in the Mueller Report itself evidence, summaries of evidence, and conclusions about evidence that strongly support what we would ordinarily call “collusion” between Trump and the Trump campaign on one side and agents or intermediaries of Russia or Wikileaks on the other. In Mueller’s judgment, this evidence is insufficient to support a prosecution under Justice Department guidelines for conspiracy or any other crime in the collusion neighborhood. However, that is far from a conclusion that there was in fact no collusion.

Is Money Laundering Impeachable?