May 1st, 2019, By David Frum

To date, the cover-up has worked about as well as President Donald Trump could have hoped.

Almost four years after Trump declared his campaign for the presidency, and more than 30 months since he won that office, he has successfully kept secret almost all the things he wished to keep secret. How much debt does he owe, and to whom? How much of his income derives from people who do business with the U.S. government? How much of his income derives from foreign sources? Who are his business partners, and do any of them present ethical or national-security concerns.

These basics of post-Watergate official disclosure have all been suppressed. Incredibly, even after the delivery of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, the American people still have only the haziest idea of Trump’s business connections to Russia and Russians. Do those connections cast any light on why the Russian government was so eager to have him elected president in 2016? Perhaps that information is held somewhere within the Department of Justice or the FBI, but citizens and taxpayers can only guess.

If Trump has his way, the secrecy will continue for a lot longer. In the past few days, he’s filed suit to prevent his bankers from complying with a congressional subpoena. His secretary of the Treasury has defied a never-before-questioned law and refused to surrender the president’s tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee. His attorney general mischaracterized the Mueller report, as Mueller complained in writing, and now has operational control over the ongoing criminal prosecutions bequeathed to the Justice Department.

Trump’s trouble is that the dike is sprouting more leaks than he has fingers with which to plug the expanding trickles. Two federal judges, one in Maryland and one in the District of Columbia, have approved lawsuits based on the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause demanding information about Trump’s revenues from foreign-government entities. Those lawsuits—one filed by congressional Democrats, the other by attorneys general for the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia—now proceed to two different appellate courts, the Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit. At this rate, an emoluments case could reach the Supreme Court before the 2020 e******n.

The dispute over the president’s tax returns has not yet triggered a judicial process. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin must first decide whether he will risk a contempt-of-Congress citation and shoulder personal legal risk. If the tax-return demand ends up in court, we’ll witness the unusual spectacle of a Republican administration inviting judges to reverse decades of conservative legal theory and to defy the clear letter of the law in favor of nebulous concepts of privacy.

For half a century, conservative lawyers have mocked the 1965 birth-control case in which Justice William O. Douglas created a new constitutional right to privacy out of the “penumbras” formed by “emanations” of the Bill of Rights. Perhaps Douglas, like Julian Assange before him, will now t***sition from conservative villain to Trumpist hero.

The law very much favors Congress in the subpoena of Trump’s bankers. Congressional subpoena power extends to any subject on which Congress can constitutionally legislate, among other realms, as the Supreme Court has affirmed again and again. It’s not necessary that Congress actually have any legislation in mind, so long as it potentially could. The Supreme Court explained in 1975: “The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto … Nor is the legitimacy of a congressional inquiry to be defined by what it produces. The very nature of the investigative function—like any research—is that it takes the searchers up some ‘blind alleys’ and into nonproductive enterprises. To be a valid legislative inquiry there need be no predictable end result.”

Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr has just advanced a likely doomed new legal theory that a president is entitled to shut down any investigation that he feels is unfair to him: “The president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow a special-counsel investigation to run its course. The president could terminate the proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent, because he was being falsely accused.” It’s an argument for total impunity based purely on political power—and for that reason will gain no favor from either Congress or courts.

Perhaps the Trump administration hopes that it can run out the clock on the bank subpoenas and the other matters, too. But so many clocks are ticking over so many inquiries into so many areas of potential scandal. Can they all be postponed and postponed past 2020? For a president with many guilty secrets, everything turns on the ability to insert delay after delay before ultimate legal defeat. It’s not a great plan. It’s liable to go wrong, maybe catastrophically wrong. At this point, though, it’s all he’s got.

Slatten, I can't believe that you would say this. If anything, it's the Democrats, Hillary and BHO (Dem/Hill/BHO) who have been the artful dodgers. Every seeming fantasy thing he's complained of, has been borne out. Dem/Hill/BHO did bug his campaign HQ, the Dem/Hill/BHO did collude.

This is part of progressive long term legacy. They scoffed at McCarthy's accusations of penetration of the governemnt and ARMY. Alger Hiss was a spy.

With Barr's investigation of the investigaton and FISA Warrant abuse becoming public, that rumbling sound you're hearing in the distance, is the cracks developing in their flamsy facade. You can't indict a sitting president but no one has ever maintained that you can't indict a former president nor a former p**********l candidate.

And Kerry is another with a lot to worry about.

" For a president with many guilty secrets, everything turns on the ability to insert delay after delay before ultimate legal defeat. It’s not a great plan. It’s liable to go wrong, maybe catastrophically wrong. At this point, though, it’s all he’s got. "

Obviously the Mueller Investigation was a fishing expedition. Two years and nothing. Now Congressional Democrats wish to continue an open ended discovery, based on nothing. Collusion, Collusion, Collusion backed up by nothing. Then Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction once again backed up by nothing.

I suppose the good thing is that Democrats can pass nothing harmful to the US of A while ahuntin for witches.

Slatten I truly enjoy your posts and even though they are not what I believe, you are very articulate. With the intelligence that you show, I am really disappointed in your political bent. I am sure that you can see the improvements that the e******n of Trump has accomplished for America, from employment, to the great economy, to foreign policy in getting our allies to pay more of their own way, to the improvement in the trade deals, to the diplomacy with Our adversaries, etc., etc. What I don’t understand is your reasoning in not being glad that we, as a country, are recovering from the worst eight years that we had to endure under the false presidency of Obama. I truly believe that you love America, but I am confused by your posts.

You need to compare Mueller's treatment of Trump with Comey's treatment of Hillary. The difference is motivation. Comey laid out the case for locking Hillary up and welding the cell door shut. Then he said no prosecutor would proceed. Mueller laid out no proof and then hinted about Trump's guilt.

The difference is the Mueller was a motivated Prosecutor. If he had anything at all on Trump he would have run with it. Then look at Comey. Comey was totally unmotivated. Hillary could have committed murder, handed Comey the smoking gun, and a confession, and Comey would not have recommended prosecuting her.

I guess this is your way of avoiding admitting that the investigation was not just a "fishing expedition" and "two years of nothing." The resulting indictments, convictions, guilty pleas and convictions suggests otherwise, as does the following...

"Trump's staff cooperated with Russian agents. Yes collusion, But collusion isn’t a crime.

Mueller decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge with conspiracy, which is a crime, and stated he would not prosecute for conspiracy. Although he found Russia wanted to help Trump win, and Trump staff were willing to accept that help, the evidence fell short of what he thought he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt on the crime of conspiracy against the US with a foreign government = Russia.
On obstruction, Mueller lays out detailed, clear, and overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice. The evidence clearly proves that Trump is guilty of multiple counts of obstruction of justice. In my opinion, there is no reasonable reading of the evidence that doesn’t lend itself to that conclusion, i.e. Trump obstructed justice multiple times.

Here’s what Mueller says about obstruction: 'Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance.'

But due to DOJ policy that says a sitting President can’t be charged with a crime while in office, Mueller does not indict.

Mueller also says since he’s not charging, due to DOJ policy, he also won’t state a conclusion on obstruction as that would be unfair.

Mueller goes on to say he is preserving the evidence and the remedy to a President that has committed crimes such a obstruction are limited to: Prosecute once the President leaves office, and Congress can impeach.

Bottom line: The only reason our President isn’t in jail right now is because of DOJ policy that you can’t charge a sitting President."

If you doubt that, there are close to 400 former federal prosecutors who served all over the country and under both Republican and Democratic administrations who signed a letter saying as much...

https://dmlnewsapp.com/breaking-hundreds-former-prosectors-sign-letter-mueller-report-obstruction-justice/

Excerpt from link: “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.

Mueller is supposed to find and weigh evidence, not inject his personal opinions. As far as Russia wanting Trump to win, you seem ignorant of how Russia works. Russia did not care who won. They only care about weakening whomever won. They threw dirt at both candidates. If they threw more at Hillary it only shows that they were fooled like everyone else by the crooked polling. They believed Hillary was a shoe in.

Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier which was Russian disinformation, and yet you are fine and dandy with that little bit of Russia-Hillary Collusion.

I guess this is your way of avoiding admitting that the investigation was not just a "fishing expedition" and "two years of nothing." The resulting indictments, convictions, guilty pleas and convictions suggests otherwise, as does the following...

"Trump's staff cooperated with Russian agents. Yes collusion, But collusion isn’t a crime.

Mueller decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge with conspiracy, which is a crime, and stated he would not prosecute for conspiracy. Although he found Russia wanted to help Trump win, and Trump staff were willing to accept that help, the evidence fell short of what he thought he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt on the crime of conspiracy against the US with a foreign government = Russia.
On obstruction, Mueller lays out detailed, clear, and overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice. The evidence clearly proves that Trump is guilty of multiple counts of obstruction of justice. In my opinion, there is no reasonable reading of the evidence that doesn’t lend itself to that conclusion, i.e. Trump obstructed justice multiple times.

Here’s what Mueller says about obstruction: 'Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance.'

But due to DOJ policy that says a sitting President can’t be charged with a crime while in office, Mueller does not indict.

Mueller also says since he’s not charging, due to DOJ policy, he also won’t state a conclusion on obstruction as that would be unfair.

Mueller goes on to say he is preserving the evidence and the remedy to a President that has committed crimes such a obstruction are limited to: Prosecute once the President leaves office, and Congress can impeach.

Bottom line: The only reason our President isn’t in jail right now is because of DOJ policy that you can’t charge a sitting President."

If you doubt that, there are close to 400 former federal prosecutors who served all over the country and under both Republican and Democratic administrations who signed a letter saying as much...

https://dmlnewsapp.com/breaking-hundreds-former-prosectors-sign-letter-mueller-report-obstruction-justice/

Excerpt from link: “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.