Have Your Kids Asked You If Trump Is Going To Prison Yet? Have Them Ask Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy

No one ever accused House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of being brilliant but, according to a report from the Washington Post yesterday there's a tape of him telling fellow Republicans that Putin was paying Trump and Dana Rohrabacher, the Orange County GOP crackpot long known as "Putin's favorite congressman." McCarthy's office at first denied he ever said it and, after being told there's tape, change the story to claim he had only been joking.

But he hadn't been joking and, in fact, he had said "Swear to God" when other Republicans asked if it was really true that Putin was actually funneling money into the Trump campaign.

"There's two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump," McCarthy ws caught on tape saying last June. Paul Ryan was there and tried to get all the other Republicans in the room to promise not to tell anyone. "No leaks," he warned. This stays in the family."

So high level Republicans, many already uncomfortable with Trump and fully aware about what a lowlife he is, were willing to climb aboard the Trump train even though they were aware that he's a traitor. What does that make them? And, by the way, Ryan also denied the whole incident have ever happened until he was confronted with a tape, at which point he completely changed his story.

In The Guardian Wednesday, reporter Jill Abramson seemed far more concerned with the well-being of the country than Ryan, McCarthy and Republicans in Congress. She reported that Trump is gripped by delusions of absolute power (like his buddy Vlad has) and has virtually no understanding of, or respect for, the U.S. Constitution.

America’s founding fathers were deathly afraid of centralised, absolute power. This is why the government they structured had three equal branches, and plenty of checks and balances. And the first amendment is first for a reason. Freedom of the press is guaranteed because the founders envisaged the press as a bulwark against absolute power. This goes to the heart of who we are, and what we might become.

This is American law for dummies, but Trump gives no indication of knowing its basic tenets. Fundamentals bear repeating. No one in the United States has absolute power or an absolute right to do anything that violates the constitution. But apparent violations seem to be occurring almost daily.

...[T]he charge sheet envisaged by many is now a long one. It says Trump violated his oath to protect the country by improperly disclosing highly classified information about impending terror attacks and sharing it with Russia, a country that is hostile to many US policies. It says he trampled on Comey’s due process rights by firing him without cause and providing the public with a false pretext for the termination.

It says Trump flouted anti-nepotism law by appointing his daughter and her husband to White House jobs. The former ethics tsars for presidents Obama and Bush agree that such law applies to the presidency.

It says he trespassed on prohibitions on self-dealing and conflict of interest by continuing to profit from his ties to the Trump Organisation while his sons pursue foreign deals. Furthermore, it says his daughter’s brand has received trademarks from China while the White House is involved in myriad issues involving China. The real estate conglomerate owned by the family of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is also actively seeking foreign investment, including in China.

Whether or not these actions trigger articles of impeachment is a political question for the majority Republican party. But it seems highly probable that Trump has violated the law.

Also yesterday, Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, respectively chief White House ethics lawyers for Presidents Bush and Obama, penned a NY Times OpEd, The Criminal President?, speculating that Trump has crossed the line into criminality, namely obstruction of justice. They point out that what no president can do-- namely Señor Trumpanzee-- is exercise his power corruptly, to spare himself or those associated with him, like Flynn, from scrutiny and possible criminal liability. "To do so would run afoul of a series of federal statutes that define the crime of obstruction of justice."

[T]he evidence strongly suggests that the president acted corruptly. That starts with the demand for loyalty from Mr. Comey, the account of which the White House disputes. That demand can reasonably be understood to mean that Mr. Comey should protect Trump and follow his bidding, rather than honoring his oath to follow the evidence. It is also an implicit threat: Be loyal, or you will be fired.

When Mr. Comey did not seem to take the hint, Mr. Trump made his meaning crystal-clear on Feb. 14: Let the investigation go, and let Mr. Flynn go, too. The president denies this as well, of course, as he has denied so much else that has proven to be true. Who are we to believe: Mr. Comey, who would have no reason to accuse the president of obstruction of justice, and who has apparently preserved meticulous notes of his conversations? Or the president, who fact-checkers have demonstrated has told more lies in less time than any other modern occupant of the Oval Office?

While Mr. Trump might have been within his rights to fire Mr. Comey, this pattern of demands to protect himself and Mr. Flynn, followed by retaliation when the demands were not met, if proven, is a textbook case of wrongful conduct. Add to this the fact that Mr. Flynn was already offering testimony about the Russia connection in exchange for immunity from prosecution, and Mr. Trump’s clumsy attempt to dissemble the cause of the firing, and it is clear that a cover-up was afoot.

Finally, Mr. Trump topped things off with his tweeted threat to Mr. Comey; witness intimidation is both obstruction of justice in itself, and a free-standing statutory offense.

Taken together, this evidence is already more than sufficient to make out a prima facie case of obstruction of justice-- and there are likely many more shoes to drop. Mr. Comey reportedly took notes on all of his encounters with the president. If what has emerged so far is any indication, this is unlikely to offer much comfort to Mr. Trump.

And there remains the core question of the president’s motives. Is he withholding his taxes because they show evidence of “a lot of money pouring in from Russia,” as his son once stated, or do they show no such thing, as his lawyers claim? Why is Mr. Trump so fervently protecting Mr. Flynn: out of loyalty to a friend, or because Mr. Trump fears what that friend would say if he received immunity?

We have previously called for Congress to set up an independent 9/11-style commission on the Russia and Flynn investigations, and for the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor. This appointment is necessary because Congress can’t actually prosecute anyone who may have committed crimes, including obstruction of justice, in connection with the Trump-Russia matter. This week’s revelations about the president, the most powerful man in the country, emphasize the need for these independent structures to be erected and to encompass these new allegations.

At least for now, we need not address the question, fully briefed to the Supreme Court during Watergate, but never resolved, of whether a special prosecutor could indict the president; as with Nixon, the question may again be obviated by other events, like the House initiating impeachment proceedings and the president resigning.

In the meantime, the House and Senate must continue their existing investigations and expand them, with the Judiciary Committees of both bodies immediately beginning hearings into the president’s abuse of power. Congress must be prepared to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

And the whiny little bitch in the Oval Office keeps hissing that he's being mistreated by the media.