Why I’m Not Writing About Today’s Indictments

Plenty of people will be busy putting their spin on the Manafort indictment.  Unlike those involved in the investigation who are under an obligation of secrecy but leak anyway, I have no obligation to keep quiet.  Yet, I see no point in rehashing the facts because people will read, misread, omit, distort, or whatever as they choose in order to use the current developments to support their own narrative. 

So, this will be very short, with just a few comments/questions:

 1.   I thought that the “investigation” was a hunt to find collusion between Trump and the Russians that affected the 2016 election.  If so, why is the indictment for alleged crimes committed at the latest in 2015 and before?

 2.  Why did Mueller suddenly ramp up and indict when the news was coming out of his possible involvement in the Clinton uranium deal (possible scandal) and his connection with Comey and the FBI and its use of the DNC ordered & paid for dossier on Trump (possible connection with Russia to affect election!)?

 3.  If Mueller’s investigation has this broad latitude to go hunting far beyond and outside of the 2016 election, why is he not investigating the many questionable actions that occurred during the Obama administration or at the hand of Obama’s some or one-time affiliates?

 4.  How can the left possibly read today’s news to justify headlines such at: “Information proves Trump campaign tried to collude with Russia”?

 5.  Why do the democrats continue to insist upon creating a narrative in which Trump is not a legitimate president?

 6.  How long and with what power will this “investigation” continue?

The far broader question can be simply stated:  Why do people jump to conclusions without examining or understanding the facts, or asking necessary questions?  Or, put another way:  Why do people insist that their preferred narrative is fact, whether or not facts can or do indeed support it?  Why cannot people be honest with themselves and others and admit that things are not always the way they wish them to be, but that simply wishing them to be so does not make them so, nor does it justify recreating factual reality in order to support their own narrative?

Perhaps rather than gloating at how today’s (or any day’s) news supports one’s preferred narrative we would all be better suited by stepping back and taking a breath and understanding what the facts really say and what reality really is.

Another Russia Collusion Story Fail

According to Alan Dershowitz (prominent Constitutional Law scholar) in an interview on Fox, there is nothing wrong with a candidate getting information about an opponent from any type of source.  This right is based in the First Amendment.  “If it were to be prosecuted the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes. It’s like The New York Times publishing the Pentagon papers case or the Washington Post publishing material stolen by Snowden and Manning. You don’t prosecute the newspaper and you don’t prosecute the candidate or the candidate’s son. If the material was obtained unlawfully you prosecute if you can the people who obtain the material. But there is a First Amendment right of a candidate to use information. So you can’t include information under the campaign finance law, that would be unconstitutional."

So, once again the attempt to overturn the election based on the meeting to obtain information about Hillary must fail.  Even if the material was obtained illegally by Russians or others, the Trump campaign had a first amendment right to collect it and to use it. 

But, beyond the obvious (that it is once again a hysterical but ineffective attempt by the Left to overturn the election results), there is the more frightening underlying concept:  that the Left really has no regard for the First Amendment.  Our First Amendment rights are a necessary and critical part of our democracy.  Yet the Left would just as happily do away with them as keep them.  We have seen this for some time now, and their attack on the First Amendment has ramped up since they began their quest on Nov. 9, 2016, to overturn the election results and remove President Trump from office if not destroy him completely. 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  First, as to religion:  the conservative Christian community has been under attack since then candidate Obama made fun of them “clinging to their Bibles.”  Those who do not have the same beliefs or values as the Left are not tolerated but are silenced in any way possible.   Moving on to the freedom of speech and the right to assemble: too often we see those with views contrary to those of the Left shouted down, attacked, or in any way possible denied their right to speak.  The Left seems to believe that their own right to assemble includes violence against property as well as against those with whom they disagree.  Last time I checked, such violence was not a part of the word “peaceably.” 

The First Amendment essentially underscores the tolerance for diversity that is a necessary part of our democracy.  The Left would destroy both the Amendment and the underlying tolerance and replace it with a demand that everyone accept their views and values.  They would do away with dissent by anyone who disagrees with their positions.  That, my friends, is not America.

We see this attitude of the Left, the belief that the Constitution and laws that are the cornerstone of our democracy should yield to their obsession with removing Trump.  Alan Dershowitz, in addressing their current ploy, also stated, “I’m shocked as a civil libertarian, and a criminal lawyer and a liberal at how liberals are, some of them at least, prepared to stretch existing laws, talk about treason, talk about other kinds of crimes that just don’t exist when it comes to the facts as we know them about this meeting. So I’m going to keep insisting we stop accusing people of crime when there is no evidence of crime.”

We should all insist the same:  that the Left (and the media) stop accusing people of crimes when no evidence exists.  As Mr. Dershowitz further stated, "It's so dangerous to democracy to throw around these criminal law terms and accuse people willy-nilly."

But beyond that we should all insist that our elected officials, even those on the Left, remember and obey the oath they all took: to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.  For even if President Trump were to be removed from office, or were to be defeated in the next election by someone to the Left’s liking, that is going to serve no one but the power structure of the Left if the very foundation of our democracy has in the process been destroyed.