Thursday, April 18, 2019

The Dog That Doesn't Bark

Surprised?  Me, neither.

The table of contents for the Mueller report runs to five pages.    It is in outline form, with topics like:

II.  Russian "Active Measures" Social Media Campaign

and:  "C.  The IRA Targets U.S. Elections 1.  The IRA Ramps Up U.S. Operations as early as 2014,"  "III.  Russian Hacking and Dumping Operations," which includes "D.  Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials."  Under this subtopic two topics are redacted under the heading of "Harm To Ongoing Matter."

Topic IV is:  "Russian Government Links to and Contact with the Trump Campaign."  It runs to such details as subtopics on "George Papadopolous" and "Carter Page" and "June 19, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower."

What's interestingly missing in an outline that granulates down to specifics like:  "IV.B.2.c.iii.  Erik Prince's meeting with Steve Bannon after the Seychelles Trip," is any reference at all to the Steele Dossier.

The dossier Trump blames for all his woes, the author and father of all his troubles, the fountainhead of his travails:  not present or accounted for.  Maybe in passing in the content, somewhere; but as an item of interest in this investigation?


And there's always the problem of trying another lawyer's case (never a good idea), but still, there are questions:

“Just because things happen in public doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t still provide evidence for potentially criminal behavior or activity,” [Carrie] Cordero said. “So certainly, the president’s intent would have been relevant in the obstruction case, but if there were ten different scenarios?”

“I think one of the most important things that are going to come out of the hearings of the attorney general and the special counsel is why under the obstruction statute didn’t you think that this wasn’t –” Cordero went on, pausing to collect her thoughts. “You could look at an obstruction case on one or two examples. If there were ten examples of the president trying to derail, disrupt, or obstruct the investigation, why isn’t that sufficient?”
It's certainly sufficient to question what Barr thought he was doing at that press conference.  Strike that:  we know what he was doing; this just makes it plain.

No comments:

Post a Comment