I don’t know. I would imagine so, but IANAL.
1 Like
So to use an explanation Trump could understand: Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are NOT smarter than a fifth grader?
1 Like
And he conclusively found that there was none. Greenwald is having a heyday over at The Intercept. And he’s not wrong.
That’s quite an overstatement.
The actual findings of the Mueller report were much more nuanced, but might be summarized as
- The Special Counsel did not find conclusive proof that Trump or his team illegally conspired with Russia during the latter’s coordinated attack on the US elections of 2016, though it was clear Trump was pleased by those efforts.
- The Special Counsel found (and presented) substantial evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation into any such conspiracy. However, the Special Counsel also chose not to make a call on whether those actions constituted crimes the President could or should be indicted for due to the standing policy in the Justice Department that a sitting President shall not be indicted for crimes while in office.
Clearly there’s more than enough evidence to impeach the President if there was the political will to do so.
10 Likes
“Why do you take notes? Lawyers don’t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes,” the president asked McGahn, according to Mueller’s report.
3 Likes
Imagine having this little self inflection and having the audacity to call the other side non-self aware.
Impeachment at this point would be a terrible idea. If it succeeds, we wind up with Pence…much worse than Trump in every conceivable way. And if it fails, it all but insures a Trump win in 2020.
1 Like
Pence is arguably worse policy-wise, but he’s horribly uncharismatic. Campaigning against him in 2020 would be much better than against Trump.
7 Likes
I’m pretty sure that Greenwald would claim there was no Russian collusion even if you gave him a “Let’s Collude Together!” contract signed by Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, with accompanying photos and a RT news clip from the signing ceremony.
11 Likes
Typically conspiracy requires intent and actions taken in service of that intent. They need not be successful. Giving an order to commit a crime and expecting it to be taken seriously is really enough here.
What is interesting is after the report was finished Mueller was farming work out to other jurisdictions and pointing to actions Congress can take. His office may not have been willing to indict a sitting president, but he certainly knew of others which are.
Its not the slam dunk case expected from the investigation. I just find it hilarious that the main defense of Trump was that his staff was too stupid or disloyal to commit the crimes he wanted them to do.
4 Likes
The point of impeachment is to hold the executive accountable for their actions, not to appoint someone we like better.
Besides, a President Pence might support terrible policy but we’ve survived Presidents who supported terrible policy before. Trump is unique in the history of the office in that he has attacked and corroded the very foundations of our democratic norms in ways no other President has done before.
18 Likes
I know some democrats feel that its fruitless to impeach him, because it may backfire and McConnel will never let it happen anyway.
But I think they have a duty, and a moral obligation to impeach trump and call him out for his behavior. I think they just have to do it, speaking out that is a moral obligation and duty they owe the country even tho they know McConnel and the GOP will allow trump to escape consequences for his behavior.
Then force McConnel to be the one that excuses all this bad behavior, and make sure everything that trump has done stands in the light for everybody to know about. Make sure it languishes in the news cycle and spot light for the next year and a half, and add his current declarations of innocence to his cadre of lies.
Otherwise, you are not just giving trump a get out of impeachment free card, you are letting the GOP off the hook too.
12 Likes
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. Whatever ends up happening…it certainly won’t be boring. God, I miss when things used to be boring…
That’s not a “defense” it’s the justification for not alleging conspiracy. Conspiracy requires multiple people to cooperate, what it boils down to is they weren’t willing and able to cooperate.
How did it happen after the report if it’s in the report? We also knew full well he was doing that, it’s how Cohen was charged. What’s interesting is that there’s 10 more of those referenced in the report.
You can’t know that until or if someone indicts Trump.
And it’s not “willing”. It’s “able” DOJ line is you can’t indict a sitting president, not that they won’t. And that’s the legal consensus, DOJ rolls with it to avoid the legal shit show that would result from challenging it.
It’s fruitless because it’s fruitless. Impeachment is eminently possible. Conviction and removal from office impossible without GOP support.
It’s nothing to do with McConnell. If the house passes articles of impeachment the Senate must have a trial. But there is absolutely nothing to indicate that any Republicans are likely to vote to convict. None the less enough of them to make it happen.
Timing wise you’re looking at sticking a messy, GOP controlled impeachment fight right in the middle of campaign season. Whether or not it triggers a backlash or galvanizes the GOP base or whatever. That’s bad. The election is now 100% about Trump and Impeachment. Can’t push a platform, can’t push a vision or a movement. Or specific policy ideas. The DNC loses all ability to set the conversation.
That means it’s smart to hold impeachment back until and unless it’s clearly possible and unassailably called for. It’s not like they’re just dismissing the idea. Just downplaying it publicly. What exactly do you think all these subpoenas and investigations are for?
Making sure McConnell is held responsible would be great. If a large portion of his constituents wouldn’t celebrate him for it and cheer on a partisan, compromised process. Trump’s deeds getting hung out for all to see would be nice. But assumes that a GOP controlled body would do anything other than what Bar is doing now, defend Trump at all costs. And that his constituents wouldn’t celebrate those deeds.
And the news media is still so locked into false balance horse race coverage that a report that describes Trump’s actions as “corrupt abuses of execute power” is being debated as inconclusive.
2 Likes
This is like the opposite to the plot of Burn After Reading:
1 Like
Actually its more of a guideline and policy. It is not a law or even a rule of conduct.
3 Likes
9 Likes
Like I said it’s the consensus academic position in constitutional law. The most broadly accepted interpretation and considered to be the most likely ruling should it ever come up in the courts.
That doesn’t prevent you from doing so. But an indictment to a sitting president will be challenged. It will be a constitutional crisis. And it’s considered unlikely that such an indictment would stand.
The DOJ set that rule to avoid triggering that situation. Particularly since that would involve the executive branch fighting the executive branch. So they’re unlikely to lift that rule, or disregard the guideline unless we end up with a clear ruling on the subject that renders it moot.
OK, but what will the answers to these questions show? I don’t understand the context of these questions or what they mean.
Its not even that. More of a policy position for the DOJ more than anything else.
Not really, since the constitution does not actually address the subject in any sort of direct manner.
Its more like people are afraid such an indictment would be used where the situation is far less clear cut and more politically motivated. But the sheer disdain for rule of law and systemic corruption of the Trump administration may motivate decisions to the contrary.
4 Likes
