My actual analysis is tedious and based primarily upon long experience about how public figures avoid saying what's really important. My original specialty was in the theft of American Indian land, where government officials and their co-conspirators frequently destroyed and concealed evidence. In those cases one must look at the pattern of cover-up to find the evidence. It's "crystal ball" work, a path of research methodology open to historians, but not lawyers or journalists.
Some of it, however, can be clearly presented:
* When I saw Voice of America and the Washington post take the lead on the platform change, my ears pricked up. Both of those organizations have a long and well established inside track when it comes to reporting on issues touching upon national security.
* Then, when Donald Trump expressly asked Russia to commit espionage for him, I looked up the espionage statutes themselves. Here's a good one:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
(Ironically, this is the very statute that Republicans have tried and failed to tie to Mrs. Clinton for the past year, so they were quite easy to find.)
* Then, the President interceded in what I thought to be an unusual way. He suddenly and authoritatively stepped in with his "unfit to serve" comment, and followed it up in almost the same breath by wondering why Republicans have failed to disown Trump's various comments. I interpret that as a warning, something President Obama the politician would not give his opposition in politics, but something he would give in national security matters.
* I then looked again at Trump's various faux pas regarding Russia, and realized that the President would be in an excellent position to know for sure how deep Trump's relationship with the Russians actually goes. In particular, if Trump really did fail to hold onto classified information on the first day that he was given a private briefing, the President would know about it. If the Clinton campaign emails were baited with a reverse hack, as was fleetingly reported earlier this week, that would give the President a unique inside look at who exactly was behind it, and possibly also a look at direct evidence of a relationship between Trump's people and Russia.
* Then Senate Democrats took the unusual measure of sending a letter to Ted Cruz, in his capacity as Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Federal Rights and Agency Activities, asking him to investigate Trump's comments. The letter names both the Logan Act and the Espionage Act as potential violation areas, which confirmed my own conclusions above. It's basically asking, "if it ain't illegal, WHY isn't it?"
https://www.coons.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016.08.03%20Coons,%20Whitehouse%20letter%20to%20Cruz.pdf
All of this assumes a higher level of responsibility among Democratic politicians than Republicans have shown. The President could be forcing Republicans to dig in by saying one thing and knowing they will do the opposite, but to do so over a potential national security measure would be far below the level of competence this President has shown in the past. Democratic Senators could be playing tit-for-tat in the Senate as revenge for the Benghazi hearings, but that also would be beneath their normal level of responsibility.
We also see a kitchen-sink hit-job on Trump in the press. That's largely thanks to himself, but it does not escape my notice that the FBI also frequently uses a public-pressure approach against suspects who refuse to confess, particularly against low-empathy people like serial killers, murderers, and domestic terrorists. Some of this shitstorm could actually be designed to produce a result of some sort. I think some of this is coming from an effort to publicly pressure a national security risk out of the race.
Note also that the issue is time-sensitive. If Trump really is a security risk, or if that's a reasonable possibility, he's got to be moved out of this race before he can get in, pardon himself, and grant himself all the security clearances which otherwise would be denied him. As long as he's still in it, he has a chance. If he's a patsy for the Russians, he can't be offered that chance. A formal investigation might not be able to move fast enough to avert the ultimate disaster, and evidence generated by clandestine means may not be admissible in public court. Furthermore, the timing of the event, in August, is most favorable to Republicans. It gives them a free do-over and even allows the RNC to pick a new candidate without voter input, which is what they've wanted all year. That's a pretty big concession to some people who don't deserve it, unless their tacit agreement is required behind closed doors.
And, perhaps most important, the potential outcome of Trump leaving the race is mainly positive for Republicans and negative for Democrats, who are quickly opening up a lead which may result in the largest across-the-board landslide in American politics in nearly 200 years. So if he's got to go, and I think he does, we pay the price for it, and yet the tea leaves tell me that's where it's headed.
So, in sum: I see movement under the covers. I saw Trump go silent for half a day on Twitter, after spending half a day trying to project his own crimes onto Mrs. Clinton by trying to tie her to the Russians. I see him furiously trying to generate donations instead of votes in the wrong states, as if he's trying to leave with a big bundle of cash.
And... I see nothing. No overt discussion of the issue by the government, though it's clearly a problem. Crystal ball shit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
