There is overwhelming political and public will for a full disclosure of the report, including whatever sources that the commission used to come to conclusions of guilt or innocence—or most likely inconclusive of either. Whether exculpating—unlikely—damning or excoriating, it is really going to be a challenge to subject the same evidentiary material to interpretation, especially considering the received immunity that the office of the president has from persecution which really sets a high-bar for passing judgment. It’s the antithesis of due-process to besmirch and condemn someone for being not quite a criminal—as bad as those liminally rotten scoundrels can be—and puts too high a bar on revealing the patent but evasive true character of those under scrutiny. What do you think? No one believes that the Trump crime syndicate is beyond reproach, legally or ethically, but perhaps we’ve vested too much faith and energy in couching that repugnance in a legal framework that both dissenters and supporters might recognise and acknowledge.
Saturday 23 March 2019
it’s mueller time
After an astounding six hundred and seventy-five days, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has relayed to the US judiciary that he has concluded his investigation charged with exploring Russian meddling into the 2016 presidential campaign and to what extend the Trump campaign was involved.
There is overwhelming political and public will for a full disclosure of the report, including whatever sources that the commission used to come to conclusions of guilt or innocence—or most likely inconclusive of either. Whether exculpating—unlikely—damning or excoriating, it is really going to be a challenge to subject the same evidentiary material to interpretation, especially considering the received immunity that the office of the president has from persecution which really sets a high-bar for passing judgment. It’s the antithesis of due-process to besmirch and condemn someone for being not quite a criminal—as bad as those liminally rotten scoundrels can be—and puts too high a bar on revealing the patent but evasive true character of those under scrutiny. What do you think? No one believes that the Trump crime syndicate is beyond reproach, legally or ethically, but perhaps we’ve vested too much faith and energy in couching that repugnance in a legal framework that both dissenters and supporters might recognise and acknowledge.
There is overwhelming political and public will for a full disclosure of the report, including whatever sources that the commission used to come to conclusions of guilt or innocence—or most likely inconclusive of either. Whether exculpating—unlikely—damning or excoriating, it is really going to be a challenge to subject the same evidentiary material to interpretation, especially considering the received immunity that the office of the president has from persecution which really sets a high-bar for passing judgment. It’s the antithesis of due-process to besmirch and condemn someone for being not quite a criminal—as bad as those liminally rotten scoundrels can be—and puts too high a bar on revealing the patent but evasive true character of those under scrutiny. What do you think? No one believes that the Trump crime syndicate is beyond reproach, legally or ethically, but perhaps we’ve vested too much faith and energy in couching that repugnance in a legal framework that both dissenters and supporters might recognise and acknowledge.