Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Grasswire2

(13,564 posts)
Sun Jan 13, 2019, 05:50 PM Jan 2019

Excellent article Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare: "What If Obstruction Was Collusion?"

[link:https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-if-obstruction-was-collusion-new-york-timess-latest-bombshell|

Excerpt:

The analysis that follows is lengthy and takes a number of twists and turns before laying out what I think is the significance of the whole thing. Here’s the bottom line: I believe that between today’s New York Times story and some other earlier material I have been sifting through and thinking about, we might be in a position to revisit the relationship between the “collusion” and obstruction components of the Mueller investigation. Specifically, I now believe they are far more integrated with one another than I previously understood.

Because I am certain the disclosures in this story will give rise to questions of leaks, let me start by addressing at the outset the portions of Baker’s testimony which I discuss in this post. To be very clear, I did not receive information about this from Baker. I received it from the New York Times only. And while I don’t know who gave it to Schmidt and Adam Goldman, who share the byline on the story, I am very confident it was not Baker or anyone associated with him. My assumption is that this material reached the Times from congressional sources, since the overwhelming majority of leaks of material available to Congress come from Congress, but I don’t know that for sure. Exactly one thing in the material I discuss below did come to me from Baker, and was not until today a part of the public record—and I flag that very clearly. None of this material is classified. The reporting that Schmidt shared with me made clear that the FBI specifically permitted Baker to answer the questions he addressed.

The public understanding of and debate over the Mueller investigation rests on several discrete premises that I believe should be reexamined. The first is the sharp line between the investigation of “collusion” and the investigation of obstruction of justice. The second is the sharp line between the counter-intelligence components of the investigation and the criminal components. The third and most fundamental is the notion that the investigation was, in the first place, an investigation of the Trump campaign and figures associated with it.

These premises are deeply embedded throughout the public discussion. When Bill Barr challenges what he imagines to be the predicate for the obstruction investigation, he is reflecting one of them. When any number of commentators (including Mikhaila Fogel and me on Lawfare last month) describe separate investigative cones for obstruction and collusion, they are reflecting it. When the president’s lawyers agree to have their client answer questions on collusion but draw a line at obstruction, they are reflecting it too.

But I think, and the Times’s story certainly suggests, that the story may be more complicated than that, the lines fuzzier, and the internal understanding of the investigation very different along all three of these axes from the ones the public has imbibed.
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Excellent article Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare: "What If Obstruction Was Collusion?" (Original Post) Grasswire2 Jan 2019 OP
It was conspiring with an enemy , duforsure Jan 2019 #1
kick! Blue_Tires Jan 2019 #2

duforsure

(11,882 posts)
1. It was conspiring with an enemy ,
Sun Jan 13, 2019, 05:59 PM
Jan 2019

Where collusion was already proven when Jr , Jared and manafort met with the russian government lawyer to discuss getting stolen email information to use against Hillary with. trump admitted it by announcing he'd have something special for his audience about Hillary soon. Just meeting them was collusion, and acting out on it, which they did, was organized conspiracy against our government. trump will be saying soon "no conspiracy" ,"no conspiracy". He repeats his lies often over and over again.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Excellent article Benjami...