Carl Bernstein made headlines yesterday. Bernstein is now a political analyst for CNN and was interviewed on "Reliable Sources." Extensive excerpts from the interview are immediately below and a link to the entire transcript follows.
The headlines were "Bernstein: Trump helped Putin destabilize U.S." and the headlines were correct, that is what Bernstein said that in part. That's the part that got me to read the first report I saw on the interview. Bernstein's statements are heavily nuanced and the nuance I first alerted to was the "witting, unwitting, half witting" nuance. When I read the actual transcript, there were more nuances.
From Bernstein's interview it looks to me that Mueller's report is going to be on Trump similar to what James Comey's statement was on Hillary Clinton's email server: that it was "extremely reckless" behavior but not criminal. And that pisses me off. Both of those things, if the Mueller report is like that, piss me off. I don't think Comey had any business saying what he said--I completely understand why he did but I don't think law enforcement's role is to characterize non-criminal conduct. It's either a crime or it's not, don't waste my time as a prosecutor setting up a meeting and then come and tell me there's no crime for me to prosecute, "But Ben, this was 'extremely reckless' behavior." Get lost.
Bernstein was told by his reliable sources that a draft of Mueller's report is going to look into all of this. A draft. Drafts are important, but what Bernstein was told was off a draft, not the final report.
What pisses me off most, and I entirely believe Carl Bernstein's reporting on this Mueller draft report, is that Mueller has concluded that Trump wittingly obstructed justice; that Trump wittingly aided Russia in interfering in the election—publicly asked for their help in winning the election; won the election; wittingly took the oath of office; did accomplish Putin's goal of destabilizing the U.S.; did markedly decrease America's influence in the world; did retain the services Flynn, Manafort, et all knowing that they were deep inside Putin's pocket; did have two motives, one financial, one, of course, political, to do what he did; told the Russian ambassador and foreign minister in the Oval Office while the cameras and tape recorders were working that he fired Comey because he was getting too much heat on Russia, said the same thing to Lester Holt, and yet, "But we can't decide if it was witting, unwitting, or half witting and we have to prove intent for there to be a crime, Carl." (?)
Are you serious? What part of “intent” is giving you trouble? Russia through Trump invaded the former United States of America, stole the presidential election, installed its pawn, Trump himself, thereby successfully invading and conquering the United States of America! It does not matter why Trump did what he did, he did it! It pisses me off.
...Mueller is operating, as has been members of the president's own national security team, Mattis, among others, some people who are still there, some who have left, that indeed he has become a pawn of the Russians.
...he has become a pawn of the Russians.
Now, whether that is a witting pawn, a unwitting pawn, a half witting pawn, that is something that perhaps Mueller's report will tell us because one of the things Mueller is doing is he is looking at the obstruction, the obstruction of justice by the president of the United States...and whether the obstruction itself has furthered Putin's aims and becomes part of some kind of collusive notion.
There's been an obstruction of justice, there's no question about that. No question about the president's involvement in that obstruction. One of the questions that Mueller is trying to answer, I believe, is whether that obstruction itself furthered the interest of the Russians.
The headlines were "Bernstein: Trump helped Putin destabilize U.S." and the headlines were correct, that is what Bernstein said that in part. That's the part that got me to read the first report I saw on the interview. Bernstein's statements are heavily nuanced and the nuance I first alerted to was the "witting, unwitting, half witting" nuance. When I read the actual transcript, there were more nuances.
From Bernstein's interview it looks to me that Mueller's report is going to be on Trump similar to what James Comey's statement was on Hillary Clinton's email server: that it was "extremely reckless" behavior but not criminal. And that pisses me off. Both of those things, if the Mueller report is like that, piss me off. I don't think Comey had any business saying what he said--I completely understand why he did but I don't think law enforcement's role is to characterize non-criminal conduct. It's either a crime or it's not, don't waste my time as a prosecutor setting up a meeting and then come and tell me there's no crime for me to prosecute, "But Ben, this was 'extremely reckless' behavior." Get lost.
Bernstein was told by his reliable sources that a draft of Mueller's report is going to look into all of this. A draft. Drafts are important, but what Bernstein was told was off a draft, not the final report.
What pisses me off most, and I entirely believe Carl Bernstein's reporting on this Mueller draft report, is that Mueller has concluded that Trump wittingly obstructed justice; that Trump wittingly aided Russia in interfering in the election—publicly asked for their help in winning the election; won the election; wittingly took the oath of office; did accomplish Putin's goal of destabilizing the U.S.; did markedly decrease America's influence in the world; did retain the services Flynn, Manafort, et all knowing that they were deep inside Putin's pocket; did have two motives, one financial, one, of course, political, to do what he did; told the Russian ambassador and foreign minister in the Oval Office while the cameras and tape recorders were working that he fired Comey because he was getting too much heat on Russia, said the same thing to Lester Holt, and yet, "But we can't decide if it was witting, unwitting, or half witting and we have to prove intent for there to be a crime, Carl." (?)
Are you serious? What part of “intent” is giving you trouble? Russia through Trump invaded the former United States of America, stole the presidential election, installed its pawn, Trump himself, thereby successfully invading and conquering the United States of America! It does not matter why Trump did what he did, he did it! It pisses me off.
...Mueller is operating, as has been members of the president's own national security team, Mattis, among others, some people who are still there, some who have left, that indeed he has become a pawn of the Russians.
...he has become a pawn of the Russians.
Now, whether that is a witting pawn, a unwitting pawn, a half witting pawn, that is something that perhaps Mueller's report will tell us because one of the things Mueller is doing is he is looking at the obstruction, the obstruction of justice by the president of the United States...and whether the obstruction itself has furthered Putin's aims and becomes part of some kind of collusive notion.
There's been an obstruction of justice, there's no question about that. No question about the president's involvement in that obstruction. One of the questions that Mueller is trying to answer, I believe, is whether that obstruction itself furthered the interest of the Russians.
...the most serious counterintelligence people we have in the U.S. government saying, oh, my god, the president's words and actions lead us to conclude that somehow he has become a witting, unwitting or half witting pawn, certainly in some regards to Vladimir Putin.
...he has done what appears to be Putin's goals. He has helped Putin destabilize the United States and interfere in the election, no matter whether it was purposeful or not.
And that is part of what the draft of Mueller's report, I'm told, is to be about.
What fits hand in glove is both the cover-up and the possibility, likelihood -- we know there has been collusion. We know there has been collusion by Flynn. We know there has been collusion of some sort by Manafort.
The question is, yes, what did the president know and when did he know it? But also it could be unwitting, half witting, that's what we're going to find out. But...there is nothing benign about what the consequences of this have been.
Why is he so beholden?
And, you know, it's his son that told us years ago, hey, we do a tremendous amount of business in Russia. It is the source of a huge amount of our family income. Well, clearly, Mueller is looking at that.
