Newsletter: Why Mueller will remain Trump’s menace
Good morning. I’m Paul Thornton, and it is Saturday, May 19, 2018. Congratulations to Hollywood’s Immaculate Heart High School for adding “member of the British royal family” to its alumni roster today. Let’s take a look back at the week in Opinion.
What’s the surest way to convince someone you’re not guilty of a terrible wrongdoing? Demanding an end to the law enforcement investigation of which you are a subject doesn’t land high on the list of good PR strategies, but behaving reasonably has never stopped Donald Trump from getting what he wants.
A year into Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Trump’s campaign — an investigation prompted by the president’s firing of then-FBI Director James B. Comey in 2017 — the White House is increasingly agitating for the special counsel to wind down his inquiry. Problem is, notes constitutional law professor and former U.S. Atty. Harry Litman, one year has historically marked the infancy of any investigation of the president — the probe that ensared Bill Clinton persisted for four and a half years — and in this case, Trump still faces great peril:
Even a successful ouster of Mueller would not derail the investigation at this point. Too much evidence has been gathered, and too many prosecutors, who have surely considered and planned for the contingency, stand ready to carry on. Should Trump try to shutter the entire special counsel's office, a much graver and politically and legally riskier act than firing Mueller or Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein, other divisions in the Department of Justice, in particular the Southern District of New York, would also be ready to take up the charge.
The strength of all that evidence, the careful work done thus far, and the indictments already filed are the special counsel's protection against "witch hunt" tweets and protestations that the investigation is already over with nothing to show for it.
In the course of the past year, we've learned not to underestimate what Mueller knows and what bombshell he may have prepared. It may involve the Russians and the campaign, it may involve obstruction of justice, but there are other relevant threads as well: the true motive behind the Seychelles meeting between Trump associate Erik Prince and the head of a Russian wealth fund, the hacking of Democratic Party emails and its links to Trump political advisor Roger Stone, the recent sale of Russia's state owned oil company to Qatar.
Last week we discovered that Mueller was way ahead of us on the huge payments made to Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen for access to the president. We don't yet know what he's found out from cooperating witnesses, including Michael Flynn and Rick Gates, that might point directly at the president. And there is still the possibility that Paul Manafort or Cohen could decide to cooperate with the investigation.
Even in his scandal-ridden presidency, Trump has managed to change the language of our democracy. Gone is “nation of immigrants” from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ mission statement. The word “democratic” was deleted from the Department of State’s mission statement, as it has backed away from supporting democracy abroad. Past presidents have used language to serve their goals, writes Karen J. Greenberg in an op-ed article, but never has an administration done so in a way that diminishes the country’s foundational principles. L.A. Times
It happened again. And the routine is the same: Hear of another mass shooting at a school, check for updates, post reactions on social media and try to reassure each other that … what? This won’t happen again? Reacting to the shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, on Friday, The Times Editorial Board writes: “This is too crucial an issue, too dangerous a problem, to just walk away from in disgust. We, as a nation, must persist in this seemingly Sisyphean task. We have to get that rock to the top of the hill. But it’s moments like this that drain the soul.” L.A. Times
It’s not gentrification, but gentefication, and the people doing it to historically Chicano neighborhoods like Boyle Heights are Latinos themselves. Columnist Gustavo Arellano explains that barrio residents who make it to college and the professional world often want to return to their old neighborhoods but want amenities that reflect their social class (think single-source coffee houses, craft breweries and the like). Pushing back against them are the anti-gentrification activists who believe these upwardly mobile Latinos ought to know better. L.A. Times
California — yes, California — can save conservatism. You have to bask in the admiration of our state as an innovator in this era of Trump, but the distance between us and the East Coast might have fogged the New York Times editorial board’s view on this one: From California, where electable conservative politicians are an endangered species, a new center-right third party can spring forth on this nation, led by the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chad Mayes. The New York Times justifies its reasoning with a cliche: “Talk of third parties can seem like wishful thinking. But it shouldn’t in California, which prides itself on being home to disruptive businesses, pathbreaking artists and eclectic thinkers.” New York Times
Venice is going to the Birds — the motorized scooters, not the horrifying Hitchcockian flocks. Author, former NFL football player and Venice resident Nate Jackson says the newly ubiquitous electric scooters not only present real safety hazards to pedestrians and cyclists, but their riders represent a kind of conspicuous indifference toward the crisis of homelessness in his neighborhood. L.A. Times
Reach me: paul.thornton@latimes.com
