It's Spring at last here in the northern portions of God's favorite country, and in this time of rebirth what is called the Mueller Report has been born and must be borne, if only in its redacted form.
I have not read it. I read legal opinions, pleadings, reports even, being a lawyer, almost every day, and to read all of this particular report would be far too much like work. Some day I might, but I make no promises. I've read a bit of it, though, and of course have read and heard about it persistently since it was thrust upon us. We cannot escape the pontificating of the politicians and pundits, nor can we avoid the bleating of their enthralled and increasingly misinformed audiences.
The reaction of the tiresome inhabitant of the White House, his cronies and followers is unsurprising. What else would it be? Coarse jubilation, misstatement, misunderstanding and misrepresentation. It's likely that none of them understand just what collusion is or that collusion is not a legal term or act. It's likely also that collusion, the intentional, combined effort and intent to deceive for an illicit (not necessarily illegal) purpose took place and takes place daily in politics. That does not mean the law has been broken, though. It merely means that corruption exists and even thrives.
As for obstruction, judging from the language of the federal statutory law (I haven't read the case law), it would seem to me clear that attempted obstruction is against the law as much as actual obstruction, so I'm inclined to say the law was broken. I'm not all that surprised, though, that an indictment of a sitting president wasn't sought by the Special Counsel. Someone in his place might well avoid that decision and leave it to the DOJ or the Congress. The Attorney General has proved to be something of a toady. God only knows what the Congress will do.
What can be called "good" or "bad" in such a situation? The result of the report is not "good" I think, but it was never intended to be "good" or "bad." It's a report of the results of an investigation into the conduct of certain people. The investigation was to determine the extent to which Russia sought to influence the last presidential election and whether any U.S. citizens participated in that effort. That Russia did seek to influence it is clear, as is the fact that its efforts in this regard were extensive. Just how much it influenced the election isn't clear, but it's likely it had some impact. It was concluded there was not enough evidence to establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy, although it was concluded that the president's campaign was happy to use whatever those efforts were to its advantage.
The president's fragile ego is such that he cannot accept that the efforts of the Russians took place, let alone that it worked in favor of his election. But as far as we know his election is the first to follow a serious, well-planned effort by a foreign power--traditionally an enemy--to assure the election of a particular candidate, in this case himself. It's quite a distinction.
Legal considerations aside, no person that was the subject of the investigation comes out looking good, and to me at least many of them come out looking bad. Most of all, though, they come out looking grubby. A dictionary will tell us that "grubby" is defined as "dirty, grimy; worthy of contempt; base."
None of this seems to matter, though, to some of us; maybe most of us. Perhaps we have come to expect our leaders to be grubby, and tolerate their grubbiness provided they say what we want them to say, do what we want them to do. Perhaps we've grown so tired of the hypocrisy that characterizes politics that we find the openly grubby refreshing. Perhaps we've become grubby ourselves, or have accepted grubby ideals, grubby dreams.
April is the cruelest month, according to T.S. Eliot. There are grubs aplenty. Grubs of one kind in low places, grubs of another kind in high places.
No comments:
Post a Comment