CNN Legal Analyst: Trump “Colluding In Plain Sight” and Criminal Case Is Now “Devastating”

Norman-Eisen-1200x1500I just posted a column detailing why I am “skeptical” of collusion theories against President Donald Trump, a view that the President recently tweeted.  CNN Legal Analyst and former White House ethics attorney Norm Eisen responded yesterday to my quote in the Trump tweet with his own analysis that the criminal case for collusion is now “devastating” and that Trump is “colluding in plain sight.”  His evidence? Trump’s failure to respond sufficiently to Russian attacks.  It does not seem to factor into Eisen’s analysis that the government is responding on various levels, imposed some sanctions, and that the specific means used to combat the Russians is a discretionary policy question that balances a wide array of technical, legal, and diplomatic factors.  Nevertheless, Eisen assured the public that the criminal case is now devastating.

Eisen responded to the Trump tweet with a tweet of his own: “Sir, you are colluding in plain sight by refusing to prepare for the coming Russian attack. As for obstruction, we lay out the case against you here. It is devastating.”

Eisen previously issued a report last October of “substantial evidence” that Trump obstructed justice.

Eisen has also claimed the House Intelligence Committee chair Peter Nunes could be indicted. Eisen previously declared the meeting at Trump Tower with Russians promising evidence of illegal contributions to the Clinton Foundation to be the long-sought “smoking gun” for prosecution. Eisen invoked the Logan Act, a law from 1799 that makes it a crime for citizens to intervene in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a single U.S. citizen and is widely viewed as facially unconstitutional.

My column in the Hill is an effort to actually bring some legal content to this debate.   There have been countless hours of broadcast “analysis” but very little of the actual cited evidence and how it could fit with any criminal provision or even credible definitions of collusion.  The primary acts of collusion form a rather implausible basis for a criminal case.  While I have stated that there is still the possibility of new evidence, it is astonishing to hear that this evidence makes for not just a strong but devastating case for prosecution.

135 thoughts on “CNN Legal Analyst: Trump “Colluding In Plain Sight” and Criminal Case Is Now “Devastating”

  1. This claim by Mr. Eisen is patently absurd.

    Taking his argument, one is to conclude that to not strongly and immediately object to an action is admission of the action.

    Some may call me the lone hold-out, but I am still unconvinced that the Russian government did anything amounting to the level they were alleged to have done in 2016 and the years leading up to that election. If those Russian trolls were so good at what they did, I wouldn’t want to have them prosecuted; I would rather hire them as copywriters for advertising campaigns. Additionally, the technical evidence about any alleged intrusions into the Democrat National Committee computers has not been proven beyond even the smallest doubt. There has not been a conclusive report by any police entity of what happened. The only report I read was the VIPS report that states with certainty that any intrusion into the Democrat National Committee computers was done from within the same building where their computers were located. I would hold that report as more valid evidence than any report that is made without actually doing a scan of the hacked computers.

    On an additional point, all this alleged tampering occurred when President Obama was in office. What did he do at the time about it? From what I recall, he made two pronouncements:

    1. He stated that it was impossible for Russia to hack into our election hardware;
    2. He did not even threaten to take any action against any foreign adversary related to this.

    As an additional issue, I would like to challenge Mr. Eisen to one other point: When President Trump asks the Justice Department to investigate Hillary Clinton for crimes related to document storage and access while she was Secretary of State, and the Justice Department sits aside, does that make the Justice Department guilty of collusion with the Clinton campaign? And maybe you could define “collusion” in terms of how it is illegal in this case, while you are busy answering these other issues.

    Therefore, I would suggest that the President is delivering an adequate response. He is directing the Justice Department to investigate a case where there is actual evidence that a crime has been committed. He has repeatedly referred to the evidence of the crime, so it’s obvious what crime he’s talking about.

    I see more evidence of guilt in front of my eyes with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Justice Department than I do with President Trump.

  2. The way you accuse people Linda is very similar to the way Stalin accused people before killing them or sending them to labor camps. Are you related?

  3. Not gonna see this on CNN: Greasy Loretta Lynch busted for using alias


    Loretta Lynch used the alias Elizabeth Carlisle while Attorney General in order to conduct @TheJusticeDept business anonymously.

    “Judicial Watch said that as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, Lynch, Barack Obama’s second attorney general, “skirted public-records laws by using the alias Elizabeth Carlisle in emails she sent from her official DOJ account.”

    Judicial Watch said that in the records it received, the Justice Department explained it as necessary to “protect her security and privacy and enable her to conduct department business efficiently via email.”

    The watchdog said it raises the question of “how many other government officials use fake names and whether those aliases are searched when agencies process Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.”

    • “Not gonna see this on CNN: Greasy Loretta Lynch busted for using alias”

      That is the problem with CNN and a few others. I can deal with the spin, but on CNN certain things aren’t even spun. They are left completely out of the news leaving the viewer to look like a dummy.

    • TRUE! Lynch, Barack Obama’s second attorney general, skirted public-records laws by using the alias Elizabeth Carlisle in emails she sent from her official DOJ account. MORE CORRUPTION!

  4. If Trump is ever indicted and brought to trial, I’m sure that Turley will want to be on the defense team, pro bono.

        • “Why? Turley keeps posting essays which basically claim that the Russia collusion is groundless.”

          …and you keep making silly statements. Since you obviously feel Russia collusion isn’t groundless why not list your evidence? You never do.

          For extra credit, you could compare that evidence to the evidence against Hillary.

            • “Was Hillary colluding with the Russians? As far as I know, she has always been deeply distrustful of them.”

              You know wrong. This list has covered many of her problems. Even the Ukranian government had to apologize for collusion with Hillary. But, collusion is not a crime and I am not advocating jail for Hillary or any conviction for that type of action.

              Now you can list the evidence against Trump and respond to the real question above. I quote: “Since you obviously feel Russia collusion isn’t groundless why not list your evidence? You never do.”

        • Yeah, silly Turley, what would he know about the law anyway? As far as evidence goes, JT has written that there is significantly more to implicate the Clinton campaign/DNC/IC/FBI etc.for colluding with foreign entities to undermine our democratic process than anything uncovered during this investigation regarding Trump, etc. There’s nothing worse than a beltway legal scholar that won’t just pick a side and call balls and strikes that favor one side. He’s suspect!

        • No, what he keeps saying is that there isn’t a scintilla of evidence (at least in the press) from which an informed member of the public could conclude that “collusion” occurred between Trump and the Russians. There is, however, evidence that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid money to Russian operatives (concealed through their law firm) for dirt on Trump. Pretty simple.

  5. Javanka and ethics don’t mix,
    The end is approaching for Hicks,
    Trump’s angry anew
    With Sessions (“Magoo”),
    And people appreciate DICK’S.



  6. Twitteratti:

    Hope Hicks’ comment to Trump when telling him she was leaving him: It’s not you, it’s me trying to avoid a prison sentence.

  7. How about we get some non partisan investigators to prosecute these colluders with the dossier bs. These dispicable people need to be prosecuted and then jailed, fined – but definitely fired giving they are being paid by OUR tax dollars

    • Why, exactly, is the Trump dossier “bs” ? Irrespective of who did or didn’t pay for it, how much of it has been shown to be false ?

      • Irrespective of who did or didn’t pay for it, how much of it has been shown to be false ?

        Because it was submitted as evidence to secure a FISA warrant, the better question is how much of the dossier has proven to be true?

  8. A day after confessing to telling white lies at Trump’s request, Hope Hicks is gone. And Javanka’s main communication guy resigned yesterday.

    You know who is draining the DC swamp? Mueller.

    • Several more alligators to go, but the waters are clearing up. I have to wonder – who can be recruited or want to serve in this Administration? Seems to me, only grifters or martyrs. “Public spirited citizens” won’t touch it. Maybe this is how Trump plans to shrink the federal government? Make serving the public so obnoxious and dangerous, that no one would want to.

      • The “public spirited citizen” PR that was created for Gen. Kelley turned out to be false. He used his public platform to lie about a congresswoman. And, his political similarity to Trump has been exposed, making him an embarrassment to the military.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s