I feel like I called the Manafort arrest about a month ago. I also feel like I foresaw the Papadopoulos thing under the "other" category. But I think Monday's news will be the first stop of many rather than the end point. So why do I think that, and what did we learn Monday?
The Manafort/Gates arrests seem small in the grand scheme of things. They're mostly money laundering and failure to file proper reports and registrations. "Conspiracy against the United States" sounds like treason, but it's not. It's really about defrauding the government, or more specifically "to cheat the Government out of property or money" per former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft in 1924. It's such a low-level crime that even the maximum penalty (which is rarely handed down) is five years. The amount of accused money laundering is a significant amount: $18 million. NBC News reported that there was a statute of limitations issue that likely prompted the timing of the Manafort/Gates arrests. These charges do not preclude other charges from being filed in the future, though. Many are speculating that Mueller's team is using these arrests to try to "turn" Manafort and Gates against Donald Trump. That certainly sounds logical, but given how secretive the Mueller team has been, I hate to speculate myself. Maybe that is the plan; maybe it's not. Manafort is (despite the Trump administration's efforts to distance themselves from him) a significant piece in this whole thing: He was in the Trump Jr./Trump Tower meeting with Russians, he was campaign manager when Trump won the primary and when the Clinton emails were leaked, and he was as central a figure to the dealings of the Trump campaign as you can find. It COULD be significant, but I don't think it's significant enough on its own YET.
What I find to be most interesting from Monday is the George Papadopoulos plea deal. He plead guilty to lying to the FBI during an interview on Jan. 27. He's not a nobody. While the statement of offense lists "The Campaign" as naming Papadopoulos as one of his five foreign policy advisors, the words actually came from Donald Trump's mouth. I think it's downplayed a bit, but this isn't just an indictment, it's a guilty plea and therefore a conviction. It's hard fact. In lieu of parsing commentary from other sources, I figured I'd read the statement of offense and affidavit myself. Here's what I learned:
1) He admitted he lied about the timing of meeting with a Russian-connected "professor." He had told the FBI that he met with the "professor" BEFORE he had joined the Trump campaign. This "professor" told him the Russians owned "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails." (Note: True.) However, the lie is that the "professor" only took interest in Papadopoulos and met with him AFTER it was made clear Papadopoulos was with the Trump campaign. According to the documents, Papadopoulos only learned about the "thousands of emails" after being a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign for more than a month. He also lied to the FBI that the "professor" was unimportant, but he actually knew the "professor" had ties to the Russian government. He used his connection with the "professor" to try to arrange a meeting between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
2) A campaign supervisor (Confirmed as Sam Clovis, former Trump campaign official and currently Trump's pick as chief scientist to the Department of Agriculture, although he is not a scientist.) told Papadopoulos upon his hiring that improved relations with Russia was a goal of the campaign.This same campaign supervisor said "Great Work" after Papadopoulos said he met with the "professor" and a woman he believed to be Putin's niece.
3) At a "national security meeting," Papadopoulos introduced himself to the group as a guy who could arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin. Trump didn't really react one way or another in the meeting, though Jeff Sessions said it shouldn't happen. Later, Papadopoulos learned of the "thousands of emails" the Russians had as "dirt" on Clinton and told the campaign the Russian state was "open for cooperation." He then continually tried to set up meetings with the Russians, and the campaign (through a person who's probably Manafort, but who told him to work with Clovis) seemed open to it, though the documents say these meetings never ended up happening.
4) After the FBI met with him for a second time, Papadopoulos deleted his Facebook account and changed phone numbers to try to hide his conversations with the "professor" and the possible Putin's niece. Eventually, he started cooperating with the FBI since July and pleaded guilty on Oct. 5.
The FiveThirtyEight podcast correctly noted that Mueller's team doesn't leak, so reading any information from him or his team is like understanding the aliens' language in Arrival (great movie, by the way). Keith Olbermann (who I find frequently over-the-top but usually shows his logic) correctly pointed out that Papadopolous has been working with the FBI since July, signed a plea deal in early October, yet the first we heard about it was Monday. It shows that a lot of work is taking place, even if the public doesn't get to see all the cards that are on the table. Jeffrey Toobin (a fantastic legal analyst for CNN who I feel is getting a little over his skis about this issue) said that what this secretive process means is that Papadopoulos was possibly wearing a wire since July. That's interesting, but it's pure speculation.
We've also recently learned that Sam Clovis himself has already been interviewed and testified before the grand jury, and longtime Trump spokesperson (and current communication director) Hope Hicks is also set to be interviewed. Manafort, Hicks, Clovis and Papadopoulos are about as high as you can get in the Trump campaign without being either a) Trump family or b) Cabinet members. In the Manafort documents (which I didn't read directly) and the Papadopoulos ones, there is an indication that this goes higher. "Campaign staff." "Campaign manager." "High-Ranking Campaign Official." "Together with Others."
So what we, the public, is learning is that there's a lot more to the case than we publicly knew. Mueller's team is being cautious, deliberate, and they're making progress.
Why the Executive Should Stay Out of the Judicial
This morning, President Trump tweeted that the New York truck terrorist should be executed. He called the justice system a "joke" and a "laughing stock" when dealing with terrorists. This is the President of the United States claiming that our judicial system is broken. That undermines our faith in the judicial branch, which is doing its job — which doesn't happen overnight. President Trump advocated for a punishment that is "far quicker and far greater" for terrorism. (Note: What's greater than death? What's quicker than lethal injection or hanging or firing squad? Is he advocating for torturing someone, then a bullet to the head?) The bigger picture is that words matter. And the President's words carry a lot of weight.
Which is why he needs to shut up about the judicial branch. When he says what should or should not be done with punishment, it potentially taints the jury pool. One former federal prosecutor tweeted: "Mr. President, we all know [the truck terrorist] should get the death penalty. But when *you* say it, it makes it harder for DOJ to make it happen." We've already seen this in action once this year with the case of Bowe Bergdahl. The President tweeted about Bowe Bergdahl (who abandoned his post before being captured by the Taliban for five years) before becoming President, and what he's said as president have sway in military courts, since he's the commander-in-chief. And as President, he has said he can't comment on the Bergdahl case, "but I think people have heard my comments in the past." Arguments in military court lasted for an hour over that phrase, and the military judge in charge of the Bowe Bergdahl sentencing has already said that it could affect the sentencing (The judge can sentence Bergdahl to anywhere from life in prison to letting him go.). The more the President talks, the more he imperils the actions he wants to see. Perhaps that could be applied on a larger scale.
Scheduling Note
I'm sorry my posts haven't been as regular or lately. I have been having two separate problems. The first is finding the time to write. I've been busy with an outside-of-work project that's going to take me through the rest of the year and into next year. It's a big undertaking, and I'm happy to do it, but it's time-consuming. the other is that I just haven't felt compelled about many subjects without feeling like I'm just taking a partisan view. I want my writing to have a purpose, and if I'm just standing on a soapbox saying what every other loudmouth with a blog is saying, then I should save my words. So I hope you appreciate that I'm trying not to force myself into opinions, while I also try to find the time to write. In case you missed it, I did have a recent post, but I haven't said much about it because... the main topic never felt like I hit the right tone. The smaller story and the summary judgments section were great, but if someone doesn't get through the first part, they're not going to get to that.
Allegedly.
This story on Deadspin about journalistic practices and the use of "allegedly" got me thinking. Hard. If you don't want to read it — though you should — the sum is this: Journalists use "alleged/allegedly/allegations" too much, when they should never use it. It's a crutch for bad writing and bad journalism. It's "another layer of ass-covering doubt," Diana Moskovitz writes. What's she's saying is all (mostly) true. I'll save you more pontificating on the wisdom of her essay, but I found myself wondering if I had made those same mistakes. I feel the same way about "alleged/allegedly/allegations," so surely I didn't make the same mistakes.
I searched my old newspaper and found 31 articles containing my name and "alleged." That's 31 times too many. Seven were from one murder case. Five more were from a different murder case. Three were from a case in which a church employee stole money from the church. An animal cruelty case prompted two more. Two more from a fireworks case and two more from a fraudulent bidding scheme by the county 911 director.
It does appear I learned my lesson, though. I only used the words in question four times in the last three years. In fact, the last time I used any of them (allegations, in this case) was in the context of saying someone was innocent until proven guilty. I used the word "allegations" as a synonym for "claims" or "accusations" more often as I became more experienced. But the earlier episodes do bother me. For example, in one story, mention the aforementioned county 911 director was indicted and dismissed "for alleged wire and mail fraud." That's lazy writing. What I should have said was he was indicted for wire and mail fraud and subsequently dismissed. That's better.
We owe a little grace to small newspapers, who often don't have time or resources to edit as carefully as needed. But larger papers and media organizations certainly demand a higher bar.
Summary Judgments
This essay at Splinter News broke my heart. • • • The AP reported that the hackers who infiltrated the DNC emails had a "hit list" of "who you'd want to target to further Russian interests." The attacks spiked from 9-6 Moscow time. They targeted not just U.S. enemies, but Ukrainian, Russian, Georgian and Syrian targets. If you're waiting for proof the Russians were behind it, wait no longer. • • • I signed up for a Thanksgiving Day run, but I'm going to have to miss it. Our Thanksgiving plans have changed, so I probably won't run again this year. I mean, I could start running again and do the race virtually... but there's all this Halloween candy that needs to be eaten. • • • We went trick or treating for Halloween. Within seconds the kids didn't want to wear their Woody and Jessie hats any longer, so I wore them both on my head. They were cold (it was barely snowing) and their buckets got so full that Roland kept asking me to carry it, because it was too heavy. They whined and had to be cajoled and pushed into getting candy or saying anything ("Trick or treat? Thank you?"). And yet... yesterday they both asked if they could go trick or treating again. Such is kids.
No comments:
Post a Comment