Tuesday, January 02, 2018

Turley on Trump, Collusion, and Obstruction: "A Year Later, An Investigation In Search Of A Crime"


   Obviously I don't really know much about this. But overall, what Turley writes is consistent with the trajectory of my own suspicions. (Obviously I started out with a bunch of stupid predictions about impeachment within [nine months or two years, depending on which dumb thing I said we're talking about].)
   The Clinton email fiasco was a big turning point for me in that an important realization came into focus for me:  I usually have little real understanding of what's going on re: politics and policy because I don't know enough about the norms and standard practices. So usually the same people who are revealing some alleged fact to me are the ones telling me what it means. Case in point: I didn't know what to think about HRC's email woes because I didn't know enough about how such officials typically handle their email. She used a private server it was treason!!!  Oh...wow...holy crap! That's awful / unconscionable! Uh...right? Right? Or...y'know...is it? Anyway. I started off thinking it was game over for Clinton...but eventually came to realize that I had no idea what it was, because I had no background against which to see it. (Also, the Mystic gave me a bunch of IT info, and pointed out a bunch of stuff about Powell's email.)
   Anyway, eventually I shamed myself into applying the same realization to the Trump/Russia stuff. As it turns out, I have just about no idea what to think about the vast majority of it, really. I mean...they met with some Russians!!! Uh...I have no idea how often the minions of wheeler-dealers like Trump meet with Russians. Nor how often people associated with presidential campaigns meet with them. They could all just about meet with Martians for all I know.
   Anyway, for several months now, I've been willing to bet at least a little bit that Trump didn't "collude"...whatever we mean by that at this point.
   It's more surprising to me that Turley argues that the Comey firing isn't strong enough evidence to prove obstruction of justice. But he's an expert, and I'm way, way not. There's no doubt in my mind that firing Comey was an attempt to trip up the investigation...but my opinion's not worth much, obviously.

* I know that journalists and op-ed contributors and suchlike generally don't write their own headlines...but...isn't every such investigation basically "in search of a crime"? This is just trivial snark, but I couldn't resist the urge to point this out.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home