Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IS THIS THE beginning of the end of Donald Trump’s presidency? Seasoned political observers in the United States, as well as casual onlookers around the world, are considering the question this week. Before endeavouring to provide an answer, it is worth examining what we know now.
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed by Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, is looking into, among other things, the possibility that President Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russian government in 2016 in order that he would prevail and Hillary Clinton, whose negative opinion of and aggressive posturing against Vladimir Putin were no secret, would lose what one long-time Democratic operative has termed “the unlosable election.”
Accused of a number of federal crimes
On Monday morning, it was confirmed that Mueller and the team of lawyers and investigators working under him have convinced a grand jury that President Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and Rick Gates, Manafort’s close associate and protégé, should be charged and face trial. They stand accused of a number of federal crimes. If convicted, they could serve decades in prison.
Both pleaded not guilty on Monday afternoon. They are represented by exceptional defence lawyers and seem ready to contest vigorously what has been alleged. And already, some experts have asserted that it may be very difficult to establish a case against them insofar as criminal prosecutions for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (the basis for much of what is contained in court filings) are uncommon.
This was clearly no surprise to the Trump White House and the president almost immediately tweeted that the charges pre-date his campaign and, again, that there was “NO COLLUSION” with the Russians. It is true that most of what has been directed at Manafort and Gates preceded 2016 and that the president’s name appears nowhere in court filings, but former prosecutors expect Mueller’s office to use the potential for lengthy prison sentences as leverage to extract information from the two men about what transpired last year.
Lied to the FBI
What apparently did come as a shock to the administration was the revelation that George Papadopoulos, a 30-year-old, unpaid, foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, lied to the FBI and has since been cooperating with investigators seeking further incriminating information on figures closer to the president.
In March 2016, Papadopoulos was in contact with a London-based academic claiming to have ties to Russian government officials who had emails containing “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
Papadopoulos was willing to accept the emails and communicated the possibility to high ranking individuals in the campaign over several months. These included Paul Manafort, who responded that, if this were to be done, it should be by someone at a very low level. Papadopoulos lied about the timing and substance of his interactions with Russians. He did not receive the emails, nor did he travel to Russia.
So, what does this all mean and what is next?
The two questions are inextricably intertwined. Robert Mueller is certainly living up to his impeccable reputation as a skilled prosecutor and hugely capable person who will not curry favour, politically or otherwise, and will pursue the truth relentlessly – no matter where it leads.
That the entire sequence of events involving George Papadopoulos seems to have been a secret to everyone in a city that collectively leaks like a sieve is indicative of the tightly controlled operations of the investigation itself and the highly disciplined nature of those carrying it out.
Some opine that far more grave disclosures are sure to follow this one. Others say it’s the equivalent of a “big nothing burger” and that Papadopoulos was just a “hyperactive campaign staffer” who had almost no relevant experience and was ultimately “shut down by senior staff.”
On one side, the outspoken left-wing attorney and journalism academic, Seth Abramson, tweets to his 294,000 followers that “I can assure you the amount of intel (sic) Mueller already has ‘dwarfs’ what we know – and what he ‘has or will have’ will be enough to impeach.”
Abramson, however, rather wildly maintained that Bernie Sanders would win the Democratic presidential nomination at a stage when numerical and all other realities rendered it an impossibility. He has also embraced nearly every salacious rumour, with or without solid evidentiary foundation, about President Trump.
Seeking contact with foreign officials is not a crime
By contrast, Michael Treacy, a similarly left-wing journalist with a large Twitter audience who has taken a dim view of the theories that there was collusion between Trump’s campaign and the Russians, writes (cynically in the first instance) that “you can tell this Papadopoulos character is a smooth operator because he voluntarily chose to make incriminating statements to the FBI”; that “once it was decreed that meeting Russians is heinous, not surprising that incompetent hangers-on would try to obfuscate” and that “seeking contact with foreign officials is not a crime, and was the ordinary course of business prior to this blathering frenzy.”
Nonetheless, Treacy has been extremely, probably excessively, dismissive on this front from the beginning. This week, things progressed to a point beyond which he arguably forecast they would.
Frankly, we don’t know at present exactly what all that has unfolded this week means or what lies ahead. Mueller’s comprehensive investigation will continue apace, in secret, and invariably biased speculation will persist without pause, in public. This ongoing conjecture is fascinating at one level and frustrating at another.
Moreover, how congressional Republicans position themselves in this context, which, as always, will be dictated by their own electoral self-interest and sense of how their constituents see things, will be telling. At least movements in politics and of politicians can be tracked.
Returning to the question posed at the outset, it is still much too early to call Monday the beginning of the end for President Trump. But even those – this writer included – who are sceptics when it comes to the “Russian connection” need to acknowledge – perhaps for the first time – that it could be the beginning of the end. And that’s why it was so significant.
Larry Donnelly is a Boston attorney, a Law Lecturer at NUI Galway and a political columnist with TheJournal.ie.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Who’s more dishonest?
Prisoners or the ones they’d be voting for?
It seams like prisoners have more rights than their victims
If you read the judgement, the ECHR (not the Court of Justice in Europe, by the way) objects to a blanket ban on all prisoners voting. They agree, in principle, that some prisoners can be banned, but not all. So I’m not sure how you’re arguing that a mugger has more voting rights than the victim or a drug dealer has more voting rights than a drug user.
They’ll have more voting rights than everyone who’s been forced to emigrate. Commit a murder and you get to be involved in shaping a government?! Enforced emigrants can’t vote from abroad so can’t help reshape the government that caused their exodus. Something’s wrong with that picture.
If you read the judgement, you would have noted they don’t say it has to be extended to murderers, simply that a blanket ban against all prisoners is disproportionate. What about those serving minor sentences?
I think it would be really interesting for Irish emigrants to take a case to the ECHR, however. It’d be a good case with these precedents.
Even more reason to leave the EU
The EU and the European Convention of Human Rights are two separate organisations.
Nick, EU Membership requires accession to the ECHR.
Do you think he was referencing that distinction or that he had confused the two? I’m betting on the latter….
I’m more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
You’re clearly less cynical than I am. :-) Regardless, I do think there’s a lack of understanding of the distinctions between the two and it’s important that when we’re talking about it, that it’s clearly pointed out what the ECHR does and what the Court of Justice of Europe does.
How far can the ECHR go in interfering with the way countries are run?
Surely suffrage is a constitutional matter.
I don’t believe that prisoners voting is mentioned in the Italian constitution (certainly not in the UK). I heard the arguments being made on behalf of the prisoners and it was quite compelling – the idea that when politicians (not constitutions) define who should be able to vote, it’s a dangerous concept of democracy.
Suffrage is generally granted by the state. Should it be imposed from above?
And the UK doesn’t have a written consitution it has a history through law.
It seems it comes down to how much you believe that voting is a human right and how much you think it should be a sovereign matter. Considering that voting has typically been denied to women and minorities in a lot of states, I view it as a basic human right (of course, I’m in the minority that believes children should be able to vote, so I doubt I’m representative of the whole populace).
If you perceive voting as a basic human right, this judgement makes a lot of sense. You don’t seem to view it as a right, but as something which states can legitimately deny portions of the population.
Sorry, I’ve been agog since I read that you want kids to vote.
They can’t decide whether they want sausages or fish fingers for dinner but you want them to elect governments.
Mad. As.
I believe in pure democracy. But I don’t think they can do worse than some other voters in Europe!
Diluting the franchise doesn’t strengthen it, unless you believe in homeopathy.
I don’t know what that comparison is about, but if you argue that you believe in universal suffrage, there should be no exceptions. But then we’ve already established you believe governments should be able to take the vote away from people without any form of oversight.
I also would love to live in a society governed by pure democracy but could only ever work if everyone was informed on what they have the power to vote on, take for example some people I’ve meet recently who plan on voting yes, they can only reiterate what the TV told them about “stability” and future bailouts. They hadn’t the foggiest clue what I was on about when I mentioned my concerns and skepticism over certain articles of the treaty or our relation to the ESM if we ratify it what it means to vote Yes and our then commitments, they switch off and say “ah but shure the Gov. are looking for a yes so we can get more money and the no are a bunch of shinners and out from the fringes as usual”
These people who wont go to the bother of looking into what they been asked to make an informed decision and vote on are dangerous, and a sad byproduct of democracy led by laziness and persuasion when they will vote the way they are told if its repeated enough times and made sound the safer option between the ads for Eurovision.
Even though they will not question the accuracy or merits of what they are taking as positive points.
This can be said for people who vote the other way also mind, but since the Gov are pushing these things in a certain direction pure democracy has little chance of achieving its true potential of everyone in society making a valid contribution through their informed decision when real assessments and clear wordings are absent and drowned out with garbage, garjon and scaremongering.
My understanding of an individual being punished for crimes committed means ‘no rights to anything that is happening in the outside world. Did the crime – do the time!
It is in my opinion that if you are in prison for committing a crime you forfeit your right to vote until you are rehabilitated and released!
Next thing you know they’ll expect the jails to let the inmates nip down to their local voting centres, “of course we’ll be back, honest g’vnor.”
Sinn fein will be thrilled!
have your say