Mediaboss Marketing

Robert Mueller at an installation ceremony at FBI Headquarters in Washington.

By Charles Dharapak/AP/REX/Shutterstock.

Among Washingtons white-collar defense bar, whether Donald Trump was under personal investigation was not a matter of if, but when: There plainly is a question of obstruction, a lawyer who served in a previous administration said in an interview, shortly after it was reported that special counsel Robert Mueller appeared to be building an obstruction case against the president. Prosecutors are not going to leave anything like this untouched . . . they have to look at it. They have no choice.

But, in terms of the law, the path forward is anything but clear. To begin with, whether a sitting president can even be indicted is a matter of legal debate. The notion is this: if you allowed a president to be indicted, any U.S. attorney in any place in the country for political reasons could indict the president, and that would cause havoc, white-collar lawyer Robert Bennett, who represented Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky scandals, explained to me. The remedy would be for the Justice Department or the special counsel to turn over the evidence to Congress and they would initiate an impeachment proceeding and then there would be a trial in the Senate with the chief justice presiding.

And, while Trump admitted on national television that he fired F.B.I. Director James Comey to hinder the Russia investigation, it is a long way from [Robert Mueller] taking a look at it to making [a] case, one leading Washington defense lawyer said. All those complications, difficulties, burdens that a prosecutor has to make in such a case still are there. Mueller, whom Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed as special counsel in the Russia probe last month, and his team would have to prove that Trumps actions were driven by corrupt intentthat he knowingly and willfully tried to thwart the F.B.I. investigation.

This corrupt intent is what remains to be shownhe has to be concealing something. In the opinion of several attorneys I spoke to, Trumps reported request that he hoped Comey could see his way to letting this go, letting Flynn go, in reference to former national-security adviser Mike Flynn, and his subsequent decision to fire the F.B.I. director dont, on their own, meet this standard. Its just not a garden-variety obstruction case, the D.C. defense lawyer continued, after noting the constitutional protections a president has to fire subordinates. I cant think ofand I dont believe one existsa case in which counterintelligence and criminal law investigation have merged or overlapped the way that they have in this case . . . I think it is a very delicate and difficult puzzle to put together for that reason.

Bennett echoed the sentiment. Of course I am not in a position to know all of the evidence, but right now I dont see where you would have a good case or a strong case on obstruction of justice.

One key to the puzzle, say attorneys, is whether Trump or someone else gave any assurances to Flynn or other subjects of the investigation, such as the presidents campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Trump is reported to have called Flynn after hed been fired and told him to stay strong, but otherwise this is a dark area. We have looked at what he said to people that could help influence the course of the investigation, but we havent looked at the question of what understanding he might have reached with the beneficiaries, the former White House lawyer said.

[Trump] is a prosecutors dream because he keeps talking.

While William Jeffress, a D.C. trial attorney who represented I. Lewis Scooter Libby in the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plames identity under George W. Bush, understands firsthand the risks of perjury and obstruction charges in political scandalsthe fate that befell Libbyhe believes that based on Trumps actions to date, Muellers ability to build a viable obstruction case against Trump could hinge on what he uncovers about the Trump campaigns Kremlin ties. The question is what evidence is there of collaboration between the Russians and the Trump campaign. That is what we dont know now, Jeffress said. If there is evidence out there that there was collaboration and Mr. Trump knew it, and against that background he was seeking to influence the investigation, hes got a problem . . . If they wind up not producing evidence of that, I think that affects their obstruction charges as well because you wouldnt be in a position to say that they were trying to keep people quiet.

To determine what, if any, coordination occurred between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin during the 2016 election, Mueller is assembling an all-star legal team. He has hired a dozen top-notch legal minds to help him in the probe, including Michael Dreeben, a leading expert on criminal law, Andrew Weissmann, who rose to prominence for his work on complex cases against New York mobsters and Enron executives, and Lisa Page, an F.B.I. lawyer with experience in organized crime. Already Muellers team has reportedly begun digging into the business and financial dealings of Flynn, Manafort, and Trumps son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.

Critics on the left, and even some on the right, have been quick to highlight parallels between Watergate and the Russian melodrama captivating Capitol Hill. Most recently, amid rumors that Trump might fire Mueller, comparisons were drawn to the Saturday Night Massacre. But the D.C. defense attorney argued that Trumps actions have yet to bubble up to Nixons level of infamy. To be fair to Trump, he said Watergate encompassed a much greater and more expansive set of acts, direct acts by the president to interfere in an ongoing investigation than we have seen so far.

He did, however, also stress that Trump has been, and likely will continue to be, his own worst legal nightmare. For a prosecutor, there is a clear pattern to Trumps fulminations against anyone involved in the F.B.I. probe, from Comey to Mueller to Rosenstein, in turn. In effect, he supplied evidence against himself I guess is the ironic part of all this. In one sense, he is a prosecutors dream because he keeps talking.

In this respect, Trumps personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, has followed the presidents leadwhich is precisely the opposite of how defense attorneys ordinarily like to relate to their clients. They have already violated all the rules of dealing with this thing, so I dont know that there is much left for them to do tactically except to let it play out, the defense lawyer said of Trumps legal team. Its like they ratify these things and they make it harder for the investigators to look the other way or ignore . . . they are making one mistake after another.

So while Mueller may not yet have enough to build a case, the president is continually supplying new material. As the former White House lawyer said, Trumps capacity for making it a lot worsethrough his choice of counsel, choice of tacticsshouldnt be underestimated.

PreviousNext

Left, by Lucas Jackson/Pool/Getty Images; right, by JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images.

by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images.

by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

By NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images.

Pool

by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

By Aaron P. Bernstein/Bloomberg/Getty Images.

by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

By NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images.

SAUL LOEB

From Getty Images.

Continue reading here:
Sorry, Liberals: There's No Shortcut to Indicting Donald Trump - Vanity Fair

I wrote that in 2011, in the wake of the horrific shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords that killed six people. At the time, we didn't know if Jared Loughner had any self-proclaimed political "motivations," and it turned out he was severely mentally disturbed. That didn't stop Democrats and liberals in the press from blaming Republicans and their "heated rhetoric" for the shootings. Now the shoe is on the other foot. James Hodgkinson -- a volunteer for Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and anti-Trump socialist, according to his social media -- sought out Republican lawmakers on Wednesday at a practice for a charity baseball game, taking aim at members of Congress and severely injuring one, as well as a Capitol Hill police officer and two others. His motives seem far clearer than Loughner's, whose journals revealed an incoherent maze of anti-God, anti-government paranoia and affection for gold currency and apocalyptic conspiracy theories. Hodgkinson's Facebook page alone offers a treasure trove of evidence that he simply believed Republicans and the Trump agenda must be stopped. Rep. Rodney Davis, an Illinois Republican who survived the shooting, was ready to concede that "This could be the first political rhetorical terrorist attack."

And yet, as tempting as it is for Republicans to blame liberals for Hodgkinson's attack, we still must resist blaming political rhetoric for the ginned-up whims of a madman. Murder is murder: Focusing solely on why he claims he did it, no matter whose argument that may serve, doesn't benefit anyone.

One of the first casualties of politically charged tragedies like this one is consistency.

Some Republicans, who are always quick to insist that right-wing ideology, angry rhetoric and even the unprecedentedly divisive language that President Trump used on the campaign trail are not to blame for individual actions, are loosening their grip on that mantra.

Of course, back in 2011, Gingrich was one of the first to slam liberals for blaming the Giffords shooting on conservative rhetoric.

He was right, then, at least.

"Nobody can honestly express surprise that such a tragedy finally occurred. ... Congresswoman Giffords publicly expressed concerns when Sarah Palin, on her website, placed her district in the crosshairs of a rifle -- and identified her by name below the image -- as an encouragement to Palin supporters to eliminate her from Congress." He further insisted the burden was on Sen. John McCain to do more:

"As the elder statesman of Arizona politics, McCain needs to stand up and denounce the increasingly violent rhetoric coming from the right wing and exert his influence to create a civil political environment in his state."

Others on the left were likewise quick to blame Trump for inciting violence and are just as quick to denounce any connections between Hodgkinson and left-wing rhetoric.

He makes no mention at all of the violence at anti-Trump rallies but does anecdotally (and irrelevantly) offer that "Not once, publicly or privately, did a single person in a single meeting I was a part of ever suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that someone should go do what James Hodgkinson allegedly did today."

And then, with almost impressive inconsistency, King suggests it's once again Trump's rhetoric, not the left's, that created a climate in which a lunatic would go after Republicans. Try to make sense of that one.

This isn't to say that rhetoric is meaningless. This is a terrific time, if a tragic one, to call for a lowering of the temperature on both sides. That, first and foremost, should come from our leaders, and that should start with President Trump.

In trying times like these, it's admittedly difficult to keep our heads cool and our voices sane. But it's also imperative that we do. Consistency in our arguments, regardless of whose politics is benefiting from the situation, is the very least we should demand.

More:
Republicans, resist the temptation to blame liberals for this tragedy - CNN

Matthew Tuiningas Calvins Political Theology and the Public Engagement of the Church aims to be more than an historical study of Calvins two kingdoms political theology. Tuininga wants to demonstrate that Calvins theology is a neglected resource for contemporary Christian political engagement.

According to Calvin, Christ rules everything in order to transform all things into a future heavenly kingdom. In the present age, humanity is governed by two sharply differentiated orders or governments: the spiritual government of the Church, which anticipates the age to come, and the order of political life, which exists to preserve temporal life. The former has the power to restore humans to spiritual righteousness, true virtue, and eternal life, whereas the latter can only establish outward, civil, and temporal versions of the same. Church and state are both ruled by the ascended Christ, and the two kingdoms overlap and interpenetrate, but the distinction enables Calvin to limit church authority to word and sacraments, and to maintain a sober realism about the limitations of temporal power.

Calvins refusal to draw simplistic political inferences from Scripture, his use of natural law, his insistence on the Churchs independence from political power, and his recognition of the limits of both temporal and spiritual kingdoms are valuable resources for Christians living in secular societies. Calvin provides resources for a substantive Christian critique of the ideal of Christendom.

Calvin the political theologian is definitely worth reading, and Tuiningas detailed exposition of Calvins two kingdoms theology is valuable. His effort to apply Calvin to contemporary politics is less successful.

Near the beginning of the book, Tuininga takes brief notice of recent theological critiques of liberalism, but its not clear he has grasped the objections. He defines liberal democracy as a system of representative, democratic government erected to protect rights in accord with the rule of law under a system of checks and balances that includes the separation of church and state.Virtually none of liberalisms theological critics objects to these forms and procedures as such. Their complaint isnt against representative government or voting or freedom of speech and association. No one advocates a fusion of Church and state.

Rather, theyclaim that such a formal, procedural description masks the basic thrust of liberalism. Liberalisms stated aim is to construct a society without substantive commitments, leaving everyone free to choose whatever his or her or hir own may be. Liberalisms common good is to protect society from adopting any single vision of the common good. Thats a deviation from classical and traditional Christian politics (including Calvins), which sought to orchestrate common life toward a common endthe cultivation of virtue or the glory of God. In factand this is the other side of the critiqueliberal societies do have substantive commitments. The liberal state pretends to be a referee, but beneath the striped shirt it wears the jersey of the home team. Under the cover of neutrality, liberal order embodies, encourages, and sometimes enforces an anthropology, ecclesiology, and vision of the good society that is often starkly at odds with Christian faith. Tuininga never confronts that line of analysis.

The big challenge for someone who wants to enlist Calvin in a defense of liberalism is, well, Calvin himself, who is often, as Tuininga admits, illiberal in theory and in practice. Much to his credit, Tuininga attempts to face this challenge head-on. He acknowledges that, for Calvin, civil rulers are responsible for the care of religion and that rulers ought to consecrate their work to the promotion of Christs kingdom (Calvins words). With certain qualifications, Calvin even defends capital punishment for false teachers. That, to put it mildly, aint liberal.

More broadly, Calvin teaches that civil government exists for something more than the protection of individual choice. On one hand, civil order isnt to enforce true virtue; yet, on the other hand, the civil ruler ought to promote true religion. One would have thought that true religion had some relation to true virtue. Tuininga is right that Calvin never claims that civil government is a means of grace by which God justifies or sanctifies human beings, but who ever thought otherwise? Besides, Tuininga admits that Calvin believes that civil coercion may be an indirect aid to sanctification (my emphasis) and that civil government should attend to spiritual realities, the conscience, the soul, piety, and the inner mind. Because Tuininga hasnt grappled with the theological critique of liberalism, he doesnt fully recognize the anti-liberal force of Calvins positions.

To sustain his argument, Tuininga has to save Calvin from himself, skimming off the illiberal husk to get to the liberal-friendly kernel. Whenever the two Calvins are in conflict, Tuininga argues that the liberal-leaning is more foundational. Its not convincing, because the tension is largely of Tuiningas making. Still, it is testimony to his care as a scholar that he presents enough evidence to sustain a thesis diametrically opposed to his own. The Calvin Tuininga portrays might easily be enlisted as a critic of liberalism and a spokesman for a modified, Protestant Christendom.

Peter J. Leithart is President ofTheopolis Institute.

Become a fan ofFirst ThingsonFacebook,subscribe toFirst ThingsviaRSS, and followFirst ThingsonTwitter.

Read the original post:
Is Calvin Among the Liberals? - First Things (blog)

A famous feminist pointed out that liberals arent concerned with scientific facts when it comes to the debate about transgenderism in a Thursday interview.

Camille Paglia, author of Sexual Personae, discussed a contradiction in liberals obsession with science in a The Weekly Standardinterview. The left will call themselves defenders of science when they support climate change, but jump to support transgenderism, an idea that is biologically unsound, Paglia said.

It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming (a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence) flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender. Biology has been programmatically excluded from womens studies and gender studies programs for almost 50 years now, Paglia explained. Thus very few current gender studies professors and theorists, here and abroad, are intellectually or scientifically prepared to teach their subjects.

Despite claims from the left, it is scientifically impossible for a person to change their sex, Paglia went on.

The cold biological truth is that sex changes are impossible. Every single cell of the human body remains coded with ones birth gender for life. Intersex ambiguities can occur, but they are developmental anomalies that represent a tiny proportion of all human births, she said.

Paglia has also been critical of the modern feminist movement, saying it has become too concerned with the Democratic party. Her hope is that the movement will broaden to embrace women from all walks of life. (RELATED:Camille Paglia: Feminism Bogged Down By Being Identified With Democratic Party)

I want feminism to include women who are conservative, women who are church-going, women who are into home-schooling and so on. As well as women like me, who favor total abortion rights, she said while speaking on the Sean Hannity radio show.

Follow Amber on Twitter Send tips to [emailprotected].

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

Read the original here:
Paglia: Liberals Are Obsessed With Science Except When It Comes To Transgenderism - The Daily Caller

Daily Mail

Liberalism: Believers Need Not Apply Wall Street Journal (subscription) Does liberalism have any room left for Christians and other believers? The question has been posed countless times, and each time liberals answer more decisively than the previous: No. On Thursday Britain's Liberal Democrats delivered that message to ... PETER OBORNE: Liberal fascism and a man hounded by moral pygmies - for being a ChristianDaily Mail Tim Farron's religion wasn't a problem his leadership wasCity A.M. Nick Spencer: Tim Farron and the two kinds of liberalismTotalPolitics.com all 247 news articles »

More:
Liberalism: Believers Need Not Apply - Wall Street Journal (subscription)