The Agonizingly Slow Pace of Exposure: Is There an Understandable Justification?
This morning one commentator pointed out that the most damaging thing about the Woodward book isn't that it provides any 'new' information, but rather that it provides powerful confirmation to what's already been exposed by multiple sources.
That was followed, later today, by the ominously phrased and carefully anonymous "Resistance From Within" Op-Ed in the New York Times "by a senior Administration official".
And no one has to tell us here on DU that the pace of the Mueller investigation seems positively glacial, considering how much evidence there apparently is just (metaphorically and possibly literally) lying around, and how many people lining up to sing like prize canaries.
I've lost count of the number of pieces, here and elsewhere, pointing out hundreds of different aberrations, incompetences, and clear incidences of gobsmacking corruption, and saying something to the effect of "If anyone in the Obama Administration had done that the impeachment proceedings would be done and dusted by Friday of the same week!"
Yes, it's frustrating. It's agonizing. We watch the damage accumulating and holler "What The Actual F***!" among ourselves. When is the metric crapton of other shoes going to hit the deck and SOMETHING HAPPEN TO BRING THIS TRAVESTY TO AN END?
And I think I'm getting a sense of why people who otherwise would be pushing hard to do exactly that might be deliberately slow-rolling this stuff.
It's linked to two clear facts that are almost never brought up during the course of the discussions, at least not anywhere other than here on DU. And even we seem to forget them a lot:
Fact One: The extent of Russian intervention in the 2016 election is not fully known, but the shape materializing in the fog is looking bigger and uglier by the day. Which brings into question the legitimacy of those 2016 election results, although possibly not the legality of the inauguration and the installation of the [Redacted] Administration and all the appointments appertaining thereunto. There is no consensus on how the Constitution should be interpreted to provide guidance in such a case.
Fact Two: It is also becoming increasingly clear to a larger and larger section of the public as well as the punderati and the Federal Establishment that the GOP has become so corrupted, vitiated, greedy, and possibly actually subverted by Putin & Co., that they will NOT cooperate with any of the Constitutionally-provided processes for changing the composition of the Executive Branch between elections. Unlike after Watergate, there are no GOP heroes left who will put the integrity of the Constitution and the government of our Republic ahead of their own greed and/or agendas (Or Putin's agenda.) Both impeachment and Article 25 removal rely on a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
No one sees that happening yet.
Keeping those two facts in mind, what are the likely outcomes that might proceed from increasingly serious evidence of increasingly serious crimes on the part of [Redacted] and his minions?
And who might be waiting just beyond our view, to exploit situations of Constitutional chaos and civil disorder? With what resources, what foreign masters, what domestic traitor/collaborators?
I think it's possible that this process is being slow-rolled because it's necessary to buy time- a lot of it- to lean on various GOP Senators, cobble together Constitutional justifications and processes, identify the most dangerous ambush sites and (metaphorically) flank them.
That NYT Op-Ed looked like a pretty clear indicator to me: There are several lines of attack from Russia and/or domestic adversaries wanting to undermine our nation. If a "soft coup" is part of their plan, Constitutional chaos and civil disorder might well leave all the wrong people in charge.
Maybe slow is a good thing right now.
speculatively,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read
