, , , , , , , , ,

I watched a CNN questioner ask a Republican representative whether or not President Trump violated the law which prohibits asking foreign govts. to meddle in a U.S. election.  The G.O.P. rep dodged the question, which was weak.  I think that he should have answered the following way.

Rep.: Sure, you’re totally right, the President should have covered up the Biden’s extortion racket for which there was prima facie evidence.  I mean, the govt. and media cooperating to cover up evidence of wrongdoing by democratic politicians has many, many precedents.

Media (attempting to dodge): Well, whatever the Bidens may or may not have done, committing a crime by asking a foreign govt. to dig up dirt on a candidate for U.S. president can’t be allowed.

Rep.: Yes, it’s so much better to cover up more serious crimes like extortion and abuse of power by a Vice President of the United States when he was charged with fighting corruption in Ukraine.  The media looks so virtuous by pushing this line.  They don’t look like hypocrites at all.

Media: Well, I don’t see any way to do anything other than enforcing the law against election tampering by foreign agents.

Rep.: I think that I see a way around your impasse.  If a U.S. official asks a foreign govt. to create dirt on a candidate or to go on a fishing expedition looking for evidence of wrongdoing by the candidate, then that is the sort of crime which the law was intended to prevent.  However, if the U.S. official asks the foreign govt. to investigate a particular case for which there is prima facie evidence and to work with the U.S. Justice Dept., then the law regarding election tampering is not applied.  It seems to me that, otherwise, there is no way around the impasse because it’s a Catch-22 situation.  But we try to avoid those situations and my reading of the laws allows us to avoid a Catch-22 situation.