Tag: Impeach

Legal Definition of Conspiracy, Agreement | Mueller Hearing Essential

Washington (Gallant Gold Media Hill Report | Analysis | May 6, 2019) –  After a deep dive with the Mueller Report, fully consumed for a week, it seems baffling that Mueller did not charge Trump and/or his campaign with conspiracy, considering how many contacts there were between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and the mutual support each party had for the other. Additionally, both the Trump campaign and the Russians consistently showed appreciation for the other’s actions and conveyed this in plain sight for the public to see throughout the campaign.

With both Russia and Trump mutually supporting the other, for a full year before the election, and two plus years after, it almost seems incredulous that there was no conspiracy, since they still to this day give the impression that they’re conspiring. (For example, Trump’s recent But since Mueller is a patriot, held in the highest esteem by the vast majority, there’s no doubt that his finding of no collusion or conspiracy is accurate based on the information he had in his possession at the time he concluded the investigation.

So then the collision of these two divergent realities, does create cognitive dissonance for some of us, and has resulted in my extended analysis in order for the glaring incongruity to be resolved. During this extended analysis, I’ve made several deductions:

  • The black & white legal definition of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 951) is what Mueller appears to have used to base his decision
  • The word “agreement” appears to be the critical word that becomes the game-changer  (I’m not a lawyer so don’t know the history of this word and generally how it may or may not impact a prosecutor’s ability to charge someone for a crime, it does appear to be pivotal though in determining conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia)
  • How was agreement defined for this investigation? Perhaps the House Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to ask Mueller.

Another factor to consider in analyzing the Mueller Report in the hopes of reducing cognitive dissonance, is the various methods of communication that were used. It appears that much of the evidence (or lack there of in some cases) was eyewitness account, emails, texts, and phone calls.

  • Repeatedly throughout the Mueller Report, the vast majority of the 500 witnesses gave the reply of “I don’t recall” at one time or another during an interview. Saying “I don’t recall” doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, it simply means that it can’t be proven to have happened
  • There were several examples of texts being deleted, Steve Bannon and Eric Prince for example, this despite the fact that all texts and emails were supposed to be preserved. Bannon’s and Prince’s response to a direct question about the missing texts was something to the effect that they didn’t know how the texts vanished from their phone. Reading something like this about such a serious matter, and understanding that there were no consequences for this offense, is quite unsettling.
  • There were multiple examples provided in the Mueller Report revealing that Trump campaign members were cautioned about communicating with Russians, and advised not to, especially after the media began reporting on it. It appears that after being warned, several parties followed the advice. However, they may have simply altered the way they communicated rather than break off all interaction with the Russians.

There weren’t very many examples of alternative forms of communication that may have been used between the Trump Campaign and Russians, but there was at least one example of coded messaging that was cited in the Mueller Report. There are several questions that can hopefully be asked about the many forms of alternative communication:

  • Russians are notorious for the symbols and signs used by spies (NYC International Spy Museum); Trumps uses numerous symbols and signs and seems to speak in code when he gives a speech (CPAC, NRA Convention, his rallies); communicating may be as simple as wearing a red MAGA hat on a specific day or tweeting “Make America Great Again” the way he was doing repeatedly back in March; there are many books about how to signal messages in the public
  • Trump says that he doesn’t email or text, but is that really true? Trump’s a chronic liar, so why should we believe this. If he tweets, it’s very possible he texts and emails, using an alias of course. He then tells everyone “I never email or text” so he doesn’t have two explain using a private server. Seriously. I can picture this so clearly.
  • Since we’re dealing with the Russians, the possibilities of alternate forms of communication are endless. According to many blockbuster films, (Sum of All Fears and Hunt for Red October to name two) Russian spies are incredibly sophisticated and know not to send an official written agreement to conspire, but can certainly craft a coded agreement.

So much to think about. So many questions to ask Mueller.

Lastly, can the Trump campaign’s decision NOT to report Russia’s offer to help Trump win the election be considered as evidence that Trump did communicate directly with Putin his “agreement” to conspire with Russia? It certainly appears like an agreement commitment. Trump’s actions since his inauguration further convey committed agreement. The Russians have reached out to presidential candidates for decades. In the past, the presidential candidates have gone straight to the FBI and reported it. Why didn’t Trump? It seems obvious why he didn’t. Trump’s decision to not go to the FBI, which he extended toward a foreign enemy that’s in direct conflict with our laws, may not by definition be considered “conspiracy,” but may in spirit strongly communicate to a foreign enemy that the Trump campaign and Russia entered into an agreement before the election.

After so much reading, research and analysis, there’s still quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. How will this be resolved? It seems the only way possible is that Mueller have the opportunity to answer questions for the House Judiciary Committee during a hearing. Mueller seems concerned the American public may be confused because of Attorney General Barr’s partisan response. Yes, very confused. A Mueller hearing is essential.

© Copyright 2018 – 2019. ALL Rights Reserved.2Pillars&Gold-mini

The Impeachment of Supreme Court Associate Justice

Washington (Gallant Gold Media Hill Report) –  Since history does seem to repeat itself, the past becomes quite useful in providing valuable precedents that can be used to guide America two hundred years later.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Chase from Maryland – aka Old Bacon Face – a two term member of the Continental Congress and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington on January 26, 1796. Those were stressful years back at the very beginning of the great American experiment. Two political parties had emerged in less than ten years of the 1st Congress, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. John Adams, second American president and an ardent Federalist, was a strong supporter of hardline Federalist Samuel Chase. Old Bacon Face was an insufferable partisan though, one who boomed his extreme political opinions from the bench. The refined Democratic-Republican gentlemen of the South were aghast at Chase’s abrasive temperament and overt partisanship and accused him of promoting a political agenda through his rulings rather than applying wise impartiality based on Constitutional law.

The bitter conflict reached a crescendo when third President Thomas Jefferson arrived at the “President’s House” on March 4, 1801. Jefferson was so outraged at former president John Adams’ last minute attempt to diminish the power of the Executive Branch by granting increased power to the Judicial Branch through the Judiciary Act of 1801, which went into effect on March 3, 1801, Adams last day in office, that Jefferson was on an immediate mission to repeal the Act. Within 19 days, Jefferson successfully removed the “midnight judges” despite the fact that they’d been appointed for life by the Adams Administration. It was a vicious first chapter of our three branches of government, very similar to several hellacious extremes during the 2018 midterms.

Jefferson was leery of any Federalist partisan hardliner pushing the party’s political agenda from the Supreme Court bench, especially a Justice as loud and turbulent as Samuel Chase. On March 12, 1804, led by Representative John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia, a close ally of Jefferson, the House voted to impeach Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Chase for political bias. The examples cited:

  • declining to dismiss biased jurors
  • excluding or limiting defense witnesses in two political cases
  • “behaving in an arbitrary, oppressive and unjust way by announcing his legal interpretation on the law of treason before defense counsel had been heard”

In January 1805, when the Senate tried Federalist Justice Chase, he defended himself by claiming he was being punished for his political convictions rather than any real crime or misdemeanor. The Senate acquitted Samuel Chase on all eight counts, despite the majority voting in favor of impeaching on three of the eight, however they needed a 2/3 majority to prevail. Old Bacon Face remained in office until his death in 1811.

The Samuel Chase impeachment proceedings in Congress were the third impeachment proceedings in the fifteen short years since the start of the 1st Congress. Back at the beginning it seems, our Representatives were extremely tenacious, and apparently relished the opportunity to protect our nation’s principles no matter how tedious the process… after all, American democracy was just an experiment that so few expected to succeed, thus it seemed that everyone was determined to exert the maximum effort required to triumph.

© Copyright 2018 – 2019. ALL Rights Reserved.2Pillars&Gold-mini