Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

TrumPOS ...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

There are significant questions as to whether President Trump obstructed justice since taking office. We do not yet know all the relevant facts, and any final determination must await further investigation, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But as we demonstrate in a new paper, “Presidential obstruction of justice: The case of Donald J. Trump,” the public record contains substantial evidence that President Trump attempted to obstruct the investigations into Michael Flynn and Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election through various actions, including the termination of James Comey. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...-justice-the-case-of-donald-j-trump-final.pdf

As we explain in our paper, attempts to stop a government investigation represent a common form of obstruction. Demanding the loyalty of an individual involved in an investigation, requesting that individual’s help to end the investigation, and then ultimately firing that person to accomplish that goal are the types of acts that have frequently resulted in obstruction convictions, as we detail in our paper. In addition, to the extent the president’s conduct could be characterized as threatening, intimidating, or corruptly persuading witnesses, that too may provide additional grounds for obstruction charges. There is also an important question as to whether President Trump conspired to obstruct justice with senior members of his administration although the public facts regarding conspiracy are less well-developed.

While those defending the president may claim that expressing a “hope” that an investigation will end is too vague to constitute obstruction, we show that under applicable precedents such language is sufficient to do so. In that regard, it is material that former FBI Director James Comey interpreted the president’s “hope” that he would drop the investigation into Flynn as an instruction to drop the case. That Comey ignored that instruction is beside the point under applicable law. Potentially misleading conduct and possible cover-up attempts could serve as further evidence of obstruction. The president’s actions that might qualify as such evidence include: fabricating an initial justification for firing Comey, directing Donald Trump Jr.’s inaccurate statements about the purpose of his meeting with a Russian lawyer during the president’s campaign, tweeting that Comey “better hope there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations,” despite having “no idea” whether such tapes existed, and repeatedly denouncing the validity of the investigations.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

TrumpFuckingIdiot, TrumpTard, TrumpFuckingMoron, ...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

TrumpFuckingIdiot, TrumpTard, TrumpFuckingMoron, ...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

WTF ...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

TrumPropaganda, TrumPsychopath ...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

TrumpDementia ...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

On Wednesday, Baby Donald threw a one-two punch at the press that sent it on a quick trip to the mat, stunned and bleeding. In a tweet, responding to an NBC News story he insisted was inaccurate, the president called for the revocation of the network’s broadcast licenses. A few hours later while speaking in the Oval Office, Trump expanded on that theme. “It is frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and people should look into it,” he said.

Indignation fell on Trump like sheets of spring rain. The First Amendment lobby called the threat “troubling.” Senators accused the president of overreach, saying he doesn’t enjoy that sort of authority over licenses. Broadcast journalists especially—Andrew Kaczynski, Kaitlan Collins, Jake Tapper, Andrea Mitchell, Shepard Smith and Brian Stelter—railed against his comments. “Direct threat to free and independent media,” tweeted CNN’s Chris Cillizza. “If this doesn’t scare you, you aren’t paying attention.”

Sorry, Chris, but after paying close of attention to President Trump’s bombastic tweets and speeches for almost nine months, none of the gases escaping from his ripe id scare me anymore. This is not to say that Trump’s tweets present zero threat. The NFL, for example, has good reason to fear Trump. But that’s only because they’re too cowardly to stand up to his bullying and explain to fans that open political expression is the highest form of patriotism in a free society. With few exceptions, though, I treat his incendiary tweets the way I do my morning alarm: I open one eye, glance at the thing and go back to sleep. His tweets aren’t just paper tigers; they’re virtual kittens.

As cognitive linguist George Lakoff explained to On the Media’s Brook Gladstone in January, Trump primarily uses his tweets to divert and deflect attention from news that threatens him, or to launch a trial balloon for one of his proposals. He also tweets to pre-emptively frame a topic before his opponents get a chance to comment, the best example being his categorization of news he doesn’t like as “fake news.”

 

[Michael Scally MD]