Why Arresting Roger Stone Was the Right Thing to Do

As Ben Wittes explains

Law enforcement simply does not hand a summons to someone who threatens to kill a witness and trust that person to act responsibly with it.  No conscientious prosecutor would think a summons appropriate there, or think that a threat to kill a witness is simply what targets of grand jury investigations routinely do.

If Mr. Stone does as he promised Tucker Carlson and fights the charges in open court,  we may learn things the Trump legal team would rather we didn't. In any event, we're off to a dramatic start.

This.

I Don't Get the Buzzfeed Buzz

OK, I think I see the attraction to Buzzfeed's story about Michael Cohen claiming he committed perjury at the direction of President Trump.  By bringing the Special Counsel's Office into the mix Buzzfeed adds a layer of authenticity to previously known facts.

But so what? We already knew about Mr. Trump's involvement. Remember the SCO's December 2018 filing for Cohen's sentencing?

The defendant’s false statements obscured the fact that the Moscow Project was a lucrative business opportunity that sought, and likely required, the assistance of the Russian government. If the project was completed, the Company could have received hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian sources in licensing fees and other revenues. The fact that Cohen continued to work on
the project and discuss it with Individual 1 well into the campaign was material to the ongoing
congressional and SCO investigations, particularly because it occurred at a time of sustained
efforts by the Russian government to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.(emphasis added)

 So do I believe the facts in Buzzfeed's story. Of course. Those aren't new. Am I impressed that the SCO's role is highlighted? No, we've already seen it displayed in court documents. Do I understand the uproar over the Buzzfeed story? Not at all. 

Whitaker Should Recuse

The Trump family is under increasing scrutiny. A key figure in the administration, Matt Whitaker, has a choice to make: protect the President or uphold the rule of law.

His position as acting Attorney General unconfirmed by the Senate is already tenuous, and it isn't much of a leap to consider his legal vulnerability if he takes any action to protect the President.

Mr. Whitaker himself is now a fact witness in that investigation and should recuse himself from overseeing it. His refusal to follow the advice of career ethics officials and recuse himself from the Russia probe makes us doubt he will do so here, but he is nonetheless irretrievably compromised.