JMM notes that Paul Manafort is not mounting a legal defense, but a political one:
Manafort’s spokesman and lawyers are tightly mimicking the President’s message: fake news, no collusion, no obstruction. Not a hint of daylight.
The political defense doesn't matter to me, because the only one the courts care about is the legal defense. According to the formal federal prosecutor Marshall quotes, Mueller has a strong case, on paper, against Manafort. Manafort's only hope is a plea deal, or a pardon. But here's the problem with a pardon: if Trump starts down that road, he's toast.
GHWBush pardoned the Iran/Contra players on his way out the door. It was widely seen as a CYA effort to protect Poppy from any involvement in something he was probably in up to his eyeballs. The blowback against him was severe, but he was leaving office. Ford pardoned Nixon, one reason among many he was never elected President. If Trump pardons Manafort, not only could it lead to a court case on using the pardon power to obstruct justice (and will the courts allow that?), it ends Trump once and for all, and the GOP has nothing to stand on in defending him or at least allowing him to play at POTUS because of tax reform or ACA repeal or making the trains run on time.
Trump didn't do anything for himself when he pardoned Arpaio; but mostly people didn't care, because it didn't affect the Presidency. If Trump starts pardoning people in order to avoid scrutiny himself, it will be another matter entirely. Trump is already down to 33% approval (it doesn't really matter what the GOP voters think of him; all that matters is how they vote next November, or whether they vote). If he starts issuing pardons, especially before November 2018, he just sinks lower and pushes more voters to put Democrats in the House and Senate.
And that's the critical analysis: what does a pardon do for Trump? He's already disavowed Manafort as "unpaid" (he was, which is very curious for other reasons) and fumed that Manafort didn't win the election, Trump did (Trump's ego will not allow that anyone was instrumental in his victory aside from Trump). Does Trump even understand that Manafort could give evidence against him? He doesn't seem to think so. His entire defense against Mueller is a political one: there is no evidence (yet we don't know what Mueller knows, as the plea agreement with Papodopolous showed everyone); Manafort's crimes are old and unrelated to the campaign (not that old or unrelated, however), and he never heard of these people anyway. It doesn't seem Trump understands what these three people could say about him that might put him in legal jeopardy, and I'm not sure his ego would allow him to see it.
There are also simple legal problems: pardon someone, and they can't plead the 5th to avoid testifying against you. Mueller wants to "flip" Manafort, say. If he doesn't, and Manafort is pardoned, he is still liable for perjury after the pardon. There's also the matter of what the pardon covers. Any offense not specifically identified could be deemed not included, and that means the 5th Amendment still applies, but so does the threat of prosecution. Then there's the matter of state crimes: Trump could pardon Manafort for the federal crimes listed in the indictment against him, but not for the same crimes in state court (the financial crimes, in that case). So a pardon might not buy Trump as much as he wants it to. On top of all that there's the obstruction issue:
If the President issues a pardon in order to influence a witness and impede the investigation, that would also be a further act of obstruction. Although he has the legal authority to pardon, he cannot use that power to commit another crime. A defendant in, say, a fraud case also has the “power” to shred documents that belong to her, but doing so with the intent to shield those documents from a pending investigation would be criminal obstruction.
So when a pardon itself becomes a criminal act, it doesn't protect the President from anything.
Pardons would not protect Trump from investigation and prosecution, as those pardoned could still be required by court order to testify, and still be subject to prosecution for perjury. Trump can't purchase silence with Presidential power, in other words. And if he starts pardoning people who might testify against him, he has to keep pardoning them for perjury or other offenses. The question then becomes; what's in it for Trump? He pardoned Arpaio because it was an exercise of power without consequences. However, he's never shown any willingness to exercise his Presidential powers where there are consequences, as in negotiating with Congress. Trump jumps at the opportunity that makes him a winner, and when there isn't one, he stays resolutely out of the scrum. He issues claims of directives on Twitter, but walks away from public executive order signing ceremonies because he can't be bothered with the actual effort. He might think pardons would buy him immunity, but could as easily understand they will only buy him trouble, and create a chaos that would consume him, not protect him.
The best case scenario for Trump is to pull a Nixon: pardon everyone, resign, and get Pence to agree to pardon Trump. But that would require Trump to willingly play the part of loser, to be the "quitter" that Nixon was. I don't see that happening, either. Dare I be so "optimistic"?
“Here’s what Manafort’s indictment tells me: Mueller is going to go over every financial dealing of Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization,” said former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg. “Trump is at 33 percent in Gallup. You can’t go any lower. He’s fucked.”
Oh, it's far more than that:
The collapse of Obamacare repeal, and the dimming chances that tax reform will pass soon—many Trump allies are deeply pessimistic about its prospects—have created the political climate for establishment Republicans to turn on Trump. Two weeks ago, according to a source, Bannon did a spitball analysis of the Cabinet to see which members would remain loyal to Trump in the event the 25th Amendment were invoked, thereby triggering a vote to remove the president from office. Bannon recently told people he’s not sure if Trump would survive such a vote.
And Trump's response to Mueller: "Why don't they go after Clinton this way?"
“Trump wants to be critical of Mueller,” one person who’s been briefed on Trump’s thinking says. “He thinks it’s unfair criticism. Clinton hasn’t gotten anything like this. And what about Tony Podesta? Trump is like, When is that going to end?” According to two sources, Trump has complained to advisers about his legal team for letting the Mueller probe progress this far.
He has no clue what he's in for, and no idea what's really going on. He wants to link ACA repeal to tax reform, which helps nobody. Tax reform has already been pulled, with only weeks to go to year's end. There are stories that the divisions between Republicans on what to do about taxes are greater than divisions with Democrats. The question for the GOP is rapidly going to become "What have you done for me lately?," and the answer won't be that Trump is their savior. If he fires Mueller, no one will stand by him. Roger Stone's "advice" (to appoint a special prosecutor for the Uranium One deal, and then run Mueller off by making him and the FBI the subject of the investigation for approving the deal) is DOA (because A) it's not a situation requiring a special prosecutor, since no one involved is part of the current administration, and B) the FBI's investigation wouldn't affect Mueller's at all. Trump really does hire children and give them shotguns.) There really isn't an exit strategy and Trump isn't plotting one, except via Twitter.
There isn't anything to stop Mueller and nothing that saves Trump. Stick a fork in 'im, he's done.
if they made a movie about all these events..no one would believe it.
ReplyDelete