Counterpunch | So, Paul Manafort, described by the New York Times as “a longtime
lobbyist and political consultant who worked for multiple Republican
candidates and presidents,” was convicted of bank fraud, tax fraud and
failure to report a foreign bank account. And Michael Cohen, Donald
Trump’s former personal lawyer, pled guilty to tax evasion, bank fraud
(making false statements to obtain loans), and breaking campaign finance
laws by paying off two women who claimed to have had sexual affairs
with Trump. Because Cohen says those payoffs were made at Trump’s
direction, that is the one charge that directly implicates Trump.
On the basis of the these results, the NYT editorial board insists:
“Only a complete fantasist … could continue to claim that this
investigation of foreign subversion of an American election, which has
already yielded dozens of other indictments and several guilty pleas, is
a ‘hoax’ or ‘scam’ or ‘rigged witch hunt.’” Democrats concur, saying the results “put the lie to Mr. Trump’s argument that Mr. Mueller was engaged in a political investigation.”
But these crimes are tax fraud, money laundering, and credit app
padding that have nothing to do with Donald Trump, and campaign-finance
violations related to what a critic of Trump aptly describes
as “a classic B-team type of bumbling screw-up of covering up
mistresses.” I question the level of word play, if not fantasizing,
necessary to claim that these crimes validate “this investigation of foreign subversion.” None of them has anything to do with that. The perils of this, that, these, and those.
Do these results disprove that the Mueller probe is “a political
investigation”? I think they imply quite the opposite, and quite
obviously so.
Why? Because these convictions would not have occurred if Hillary
Clinton had been elected president. There would be no convictions
because there would have been no investigation.
