CTMirror tells us that President
Donald Trump has “attacked the credibility of Connecticut Sen. Richard
Blumenthal and several other Democrats, warning television
networks against booking them on their news shows.”
Tim Murtaugh, spokesman for the Trump campaign, wrote to the
television networks, “You should begin by asking the basic question: Does this
guest warrant further appearances in our programming, given the outrageous and
unsupported claims made in the past? Murtaugh pointed to “reckless” and
“outlandish, false claims” made by Blumenthal; among them “was Blumenthal’s
statement in October on MSNBC that ‘the evidence is pretty clear that
there was collision between the Trump campaign and the Russians.’”
In the past, presidents loftily ignored their opposition gadflies
as being somehow below the presidential salt. Those in Connecticut who long
have known there is no more dangerous place in politics than that between
Blumenthal and a television camera may be inclined to admire Trump’s courage.
Trump, some may have noticed, is not averse to engaging in political
fisticuffs. The dispute between Trump and Blumenthal clearly turns on a matter
of honor.
Neither Trump nor Blumenthal have yet challenged each other
to a duel, perhaps because dueling has long been outlawed in the United States.
The practice was petering out when Democrat state auditor James Shields
challenged Abe Lincoln, then a Whig lawyer, to a duel in 1842 owing to several
sharp letters he thought had been written by Lincoln.
The circumstances surrounding the duel were – it must have
seemed to Lincoln, though not of course to Shield – somewhat farcical. Mary
Todd had written in the Sangamo Journal, a whig newspaper, several very rough
letters concerning Shields. The temper of the letters may be deduced from the
following extract, which appeared to have been written by a farmer’s wife:
“Shields is a fool as well as a liar, With him truth is out of the question, as
for getting a good, bright, passable lie out of him, you might as well strike
fire from a cake of tallow.”
Lincoln, seeking to maintain Todd’s anonymity, admitted to
only one of the letters. Challenged by Shields, Lincoln set the terms of the
duel as follows:
“1st Weapons —
Cavalry broadswords of
the largest size precisely equal in all respects — and such as now used by the
cavalry company at Jacksonville—
“2nd Position — A
plank ten feet long, & from nine to twelve inches broad to be firmly fixed
on edge — on the ground, as the line between us which neither is to pass his
foot over upon forfeit of his life— Next a line drawn on the ground on either
side of said plank & parallel with it, each at the distance of the whole length of the sword
and three feet additional from the plank; and which lines the
passing of his own such line by either party during the fight shall be deemed a
surrender of the contest— The fight in no case to last more than fifteen
minutes—“
The quarrel was
patched up and the duel shelved. The honor of all involved was preserved.
It seems almost
indecent to speak of honor in connection with tweeting politicians and
Democrats who have their sights on Trump’s presidential hide. However often
Speaker of the U.S. House Nancy Pelosi denies it, anti-Trumpers, Blumenthal
among them, appear to be assembling an impeachment case; in a pinch, they may
be satisfied with a process-crime prosecution once Trump leaves office.
The notion that
Trump engaged in a collusion with President of Russia Vladmir Putin to deny
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton her presidential ambition is – just
fetching for a word here – farcical. And Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller said
as much in his report, filed nearly two years after a lengthy, thorough and
professional investigation. Mueller, Attorney General Bill Barr has reported in
a summary of the investigation, has discovered no evidence pointing to a
conspiracy or collusion between Trump and Putin the object of which was to deny
Clinton the presidency that she felt was her due.
In his response to Murtaugh,
Blumenthal told CTMirror’s Ana Radelet, that Murtaugh failed to quote
Blumenthal in full. He does not deny saying, “the evidence is pretty clear that
there was collision between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” However, CTMirror
reports, “Blumenthal said Murtaugh’s memo did not include the whole statement he gave MSNBC in
October, which was “the evidence is there, whether there’s enough of it to
bring criminal charges is another issue entirely.”
And, Blumenthal told
Radelet, “I stand by the contention that there is evidence [of collusion], it
may not rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I know as a
former prosecutor that sometimes that proof becomes very close, but it has to
be beyond a reasonable doubt. Particularly when it’s the president, it’s a
very, very high bar.”
As a former
prosecutor, Blumenthal should know that collusion, unlike conspiracy, is not a
crime. And because collusion is not a crime, no amount of evidence assembled by
Mueller demonstrating collusion could result in a prosecution. High proof bars
have nothing to do with the matter.
In the light of
Barr’s claim that Mueller found no evidence of collusion, Blumenthal may possibly,
though unreasonably, claim that Barr’s interpretation of the Mueller
investigation is in error. He has not made such a claim. Nor has he been asked
by CTMirror to affirm such a claim.
In the meantime,
all the crooks and bends in the political arena might easily be settled by the
reinstitution of dueling. But the chances of this happening are as remote as
the notion that Barr’s summary of the Mueller report is wrong in its conclusion
that Mueller found no evidence of collusion. In the absence of collusion, no
conspiracy can ensue because conspiracy without collusion is like Blumenthal
without access to a television network.
Comments