Impeachment Collection

[PaulinVA]

Mueller said “unconstitutional “. I’m not aware that it has changed since then.

Where did he say that?

But you reveal Mueller’s deception. The ILC rule does not prevent him for recommending prosecution.

It’s the OLC. And he interpreted the opinion to be guiding to his result. He could have recommended prosecution, but why bother? DOJ wouldn’t prosecute.

He himself to Barr it could be challenged.

Have no idea what that means.

There are no charges because there is no crime.

Once again, the Mueller Report is a magical document that people read what they want into.

Tell Michael Cohen or Flynn orthe other Trump associates there is no crime.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Tell Michael Cohen or Flynn orthe other Trump associates there is no crime.

The severe problem you have is that they were all side players, nothing more. If Mueller had actually found something on Trump, he would have stated so. He didn’t but many dearly want to think he did. The whole “he absolutely positively has to be guilty of something, whatever that something is, we don’t know, we don’t care as long as there is something.” Face it, it was Mueller’s mission to find that something and so state. He didn’t, that’s all there is to it.

The real problem Mueller has now is when did he know the dossier was false yet still he proceeded forward as if it wasn’t. It’s going to be hard for him to get out of that one.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Tell Michael Cohen or Flynn orthe other Trump associates there is no crime.

As to Papadopoulos and Flynn, one would be correct in saying that. The former was framed by an intel agent and even Strzok (who was there) admitted Flynn didn’t lie. Neither of them actually committed a crime.

As to Cohen, I don’t know. I didn’t follow the taxi medallion thing.

As to Manafort, it appears Rosenstein declined to prosecute him years ago for the very things Mueller prosecuted him for. Looks like he probably did do those violations, but it also appears these were violations than are not commonly prosecuted.

 

[JonNC]

Where did he say that?

“It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.”

It’s the O LC. And he interpreted the opinion to be guiding to his result. He could have recommended prosecution, but why bother? DOJ wouldn’t prosecute.

Typo. Yes. OLC.
Not entirely, according to what he said to Barr.
But that begs the question; why investigate it at all if he can’t recommend prosecution?
The fact is he could have said, if not for the OLC rule, he would have recommended prosecution. He could have recommended an overturning of the OLC rule.

He himself told Barr it could be challenged.

Once again, the Mueller Report is a magical document that people read what they want into.

Another indication of the incompetence (or bias) of the Mueller team.

Tell Michael Cohen or Flynn orthe other Trump associates there is no crime.

Perjury traps aren’t exactly the same.

 

[PaulinVA]

The fact is he could have said, if not for the OLC rule, he would have recommended prosecution. He could have recommended an overturning of the OLC rule.

Instead he said that because of the OLC rule, he didn’t even make a decision.

Would Trump supporters really be happy if Mueller said , “Here are ten Obstruction counts I would have charged except for the OLC rule.”?

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Instead he said that because of the OLC rule, he didn’t even make a decision.

Would Trump supporters really be happy if Mueller said , “Here are ten Obstruction counts I would have charged except for the OLC rule.”?

At best, this is a flimsy excuse. He could have stated something along with citing the legal constraints he thought he was operating under, then let the chips fall where they may. He had no hesitation to go after lesser players even on flimsy charges, why didn’t he hit Trump with the same alacrity?

That whole remarks thing amounts to covering his backside.from his own side.

 

[JonNC]

Instead he said that because of the OLC rule, he didn’t even make a decision.

Which means two things.

1. there is no obstruction.
2. he failed to do his job.

Would Trump supporters really be happy if Mueller said , “Here are ten Obstruction counts I would have charged except for the OLC rule.”?

Yes, I would, because it would be something to defend against. Instead, he pulls this Comey move, only more wishy washy.
As I said, he is either incompetent or blindly biased

 

[PaulinVA]

Yes, I would, because it would be something to defend against. Instead, he pulls this Comey move, only more wishy washy.
As I said, he is either incompetent or blindly biased

I am offended that people who are partisan try to attribute partisan motives to everyone else.

Maybe Mueller actually thought that he was being a straight shooter and doing the best thing. Maybe he is an honorable person.

His recent press conference was like a rural magistrate arraigning a guy for speeding and telling him he can’t recommend any particular lawyer while pointing to a lawyer’s number in the phone book. Was he helping out or trying to force an outcome?

 

[Economist]

Correct. But his mandate was still to remove Trump from office by whatever means he could, which is why he suggested impeachment to the Dems in congress after he realized he could pin no crime on Trump.

How strange that simple English is not understood. The DOJ policy precludes even the possibility of indicting a sitting president. Only Congress has that power. What is so complicated about this principle?

Now, personally I disagree with this policy. To say that an Al Capone type of president cannot be criminally indicted is ludicrous. Interestingly enough even the president can be indicted on the state level. Will be interesting to see how that would turn out? Would Trump claim executive privilege, or quickly “pardon” himself. Looks like he believes he can. (Oops… not even president can pardon a state crime. But that does not mean that it cannot be attempted. )

Yep! It was men’s type of locker room talk.

No. It was a juvenile locker room talk, unbecoming to the office (and the office-holder) of the presidency. I wonder if Trump correctly assessed the behavior of his supporters, when he said that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and his followers would still vote for him? I suspect that he might have been correct. Maybe even raping a young girl would be acceptable to some of his followers.

The severe problem you have is that they were all side players, nothing more.

Side players who acted on behalf and at the command of “Individual 1”. Which falls under the concept of obstruction of justice.

 

[Thorolfr]

Please share a couple of the impeachable offenses, ones with evidence and not just conjecture.

Impeachment is a political process, not really a legal one where someone gets impeached if they violate something on a list of “impeachable offenses” in the law books. So, the House gets to decide whether the President has done things that they consider to be “high crimes and misdemeanors” and if so, start impeachment proceedings. If they can convince two thirds of the Senate to convict, that’s all that’s needed to remove a president.

 

[F_Marturana]

If their were a hypothetical Al Capone president, he’d need to be impeached first, removed from office, then prosecuted.

I wonder where a hypothetical Al Capone president would be incarcerated?

 

[PaulinVA]

I wonder where a hypothetical Al Capone president would be incarcerated?

Trump Tower Moscow?

 

[Economist]

If their were a hypothetical Al Capone president, he’d need to be impeached first, removed from office, then prosecuted.

I wonder where a hypothetical Al Capone president would be incarcerated?

The problem would be (lots of fun to play a hypothetical) that as long as his consigliere and his lieutenants are the majority in the jury (or at least sufficiently powerful to obstruct the process), then he will not be convicted.

But the historical precedent of Nixon shows that the process is played out on a much broader platform, the whole country will be part of the jury. Nixon won with a landslide, his approval rating was something that Trump can only dream about, and yet, as his deeds came out to the light of the day, he had no other option but to resign.

Yes, we can look forward to some interesting times (the ancient Chinese curse is still powerful). That reminds me that the Chinese are about as good as the Russians playing dirty tricks, and if they start to support the Democrats, then the Russians had better look around to find something soft to land upon.

And in that case the efforts of Mitch McConnell of preventing our efforts to ensure an interference-free election process will seriously backfire. Hmmm. Interesting!

 

[JonNC]

I am offended that people who are partisan try to attribute partisan motives to everyone else.

Then take the choice of incompetence.

Maybe Mueller actually thought that he was being a straight shooter and doing the best thing. Maybe he is an honorable person.

Maybe Comey was, too. Since there’s no indictment, apparently Trump was, too.

His recent press conference was like a rural magistrate arraigning a guy for speeding and telling him he can’t recommend any particular lawyer while pointing to a lawyer’s number in the phone book. Was he helping out or trying to force an outcome?

Well, since there isn’t going to be an arraignment, the analogy doesn’t match up.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The DOJ policy precludes even the possibility of indicting a sitting president. Only Congress has that power. What is so complicated about this principle?

It’s not complicated. It’s just not mandatory. “Policy” is only policy. And as my previous email purported to show, Nixon was indicted by Jaworski, policy or no policy. But even if the policy was instituted after that, it’s still just a policy.

 

[Economist]

It’s not complicated. It’s just not mandatory.

Hmm, let’s analyze it, shall we?

1. First you have a long standing policy, which has never been questioned. (A sitting president cannot be indicted)
2. Next you have an immediate “boss” (Barr), who earned his job by submitting a resume, and that resume wholeheartedly supports this policy.
3. The next level boss (Trump) explicitly granted his job, due to the fact that Barr strongly supported the view that the president cannot be indicted.
4. Now we have an exceedingly honest investigator, whose honesty and integrity has never been doubted or questioned.
5. Moreover, this investigator is well known to be loyal - not just to the establishment, but also the policies.
6. Next, we know that the high level boss tried to sabotage the investigation whenever he could. If and when he was unable to sabotage it, he fired the person who dared to challenge him.
7. As such we know that this high level boss is extremely vindictive, if someone questions him.

And now you seriously suggest that Mueller should have disregarded the policy, knowing his boss’s attitude toward the president. Would you give him a sharp knife, too, to cut his own throat?

It is JUST a policy, you say? Have you ever tried to question a long standing policy where the attempt would be lethal - maybe not only figuratively? Even his mild assessment invoke the fury of Trump.

So it is my opinion that Mueller chose the only available option, pass the buck to Congress, which is legally obliged to exercise control over a runaway president. The members (and also Trump) all had to take a solemn oath to defend and maintain the Constitution, and Trump ties to roughshod over the attempts. I am aware that you think that Trump is a “godsend” because he installed some ultra-conservative judges, and you hope that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. I don’t blame you that you support Trump. But I do blame you for the unconditional level of support, because Trump only cares about himself, and is willing to dismantle the whole Constitution to push through his own selfish agenda.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One can invent anything one wants, but the reality is that a policy is not binding. It just isn’t. One might be criticized for going against a policy, as the two parties have criticized each other for violating policy by such devices as the “nuclear option”. But they’re free to do it. Mueller is nothing if not an adversary of Trump in the investigation. It was, after all, Trump who was being investigated, and not willingly.

And apparently, the policy didn’t exist during the Watergate mess, because it appears Nixon was, indeed, indicted, as I cited before. But no matter what, it would be an absolute dereliction of duty on mueller’s part to draw back from seeking a criminal indictment if thought he had the evidence of it, all because of policy to which he was not a party and to which he was not bound. I’m not sure whether the crime “misprision of felony” would apply to such a dereliction of duty, but it might.

Mueller didn’t have the evidence, and, as many have pointed out in these threads, he turned it over to congress for a political resolution, and as a political matter, (which it always was, in truth) not a criminal matter. In doing so, he rolled the dice. He’ll get an impeachment in the House if a majority of Dems think that would help them politically, but a conviction in the Senate is extremely doubtful.

The Dems should be angry with Mueller, and probably are. To avoid having a crashing and embarrassing failure as his “swan song” in law enforcement, he handed it to them. They are now almost forced to start an impeachment because if they don’t they’ll have a hard time excusing that failure.

 

[JonNC]

First you have a long standing policy, which has never been questioned. (A sitting president cannot be indicted)

It has been questioned. Mueller himself indicated it could be challenged.

Next you have an immediate “boss” (Barr), who earned his job by submitting a resume, and that resume wholeheartedly supports this policy.

All the more reason for Mueller to push for an indictment in his report. Take note that no one else was indicted either.

The next level boss (Trump) explicitly granted his job, due to the fact that Barr strongly supported the view that the president cannot be indicted.

All the more reason…
that’s why he’s a special counsel.

Now we have an exceedingly honest investigator, whose honesty and integrity has never been doubted or questioned.

Assumes facts no where near in evidence.

Moreover, this investigator is well known to be loyal - not just to the establishment, but also the policies.

Loyal to the establishment, the very reason he was chosen

Next, we know that the high level boss tried to sabotage the investigation whenever he could. If and when he was unable to sabotage it, he fired the person who dared to challenge him.

Factually false.

1. all documents requested were turned over.
2. never a claim of executive privilege
3. Never a claim of attorney client privilege
4. Mueller was not fired
5. nine of his hand -picked cronies were fired.
6. funding was limited

Nothing was done to interfere with the investigation.

As such we know that this high level boss is extremely vindictive, if someone questions him.

That is not obstruction. That is not a crime

 

[kat07]

Mueller’s statement is a totally unfair standard and not what prosecutors normally due, investigations are not to find that a person did not commit a crime but to find if the person did commit a crime. Mueller could have voiced an opinion on guilt short of charging the president, much as he expressed an opinion that he could not find the president clearly not guilty. If there is evidence to charge Trump Mueller could have put in the report that they had evidence but we couldn’t charge Trump and that is up to Congress to impeach. Mueller could have seek indictment, which he failed to do by going to the House of Representatives and saying that he found real (instead of imaginary) evidence of obstruction. If there was enough evidence (or any evidence) Mueller would have been in front of the House presenting the case for impeachment instead of issuing greasy disguised political attacks. It doesn’t matter whether Mueller had “confidence” as he stated (“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”) that is an opinion. What matters if there was evidence. There clearly was none or he would have enumerated it. At least Comey had the guts to say he thought Hillary shouldn’t be charged. This entire media appearance was a hand grenade thrown into the political process.

 

[Economist]

Looks like that you are all confused. The expression “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not actually mean murder on the Fifth Avenue or something that is in the criminal code system. It is sufficient to behave in a manner which is incompatible with the office that the person holds. (Can be the presidency, or the attorney general, or something else).

But, of course in this case the problem is almost too easy. Lying to the American people (many times every day), tax related crimes, insurance fraud, and many others. That is why Trump fights tooth and nail to keep his affairs out of the public eye. Though it looks like that he losing.

The good news for him is that the democrats are impotent. One cannot play nicely when the opponent does not respect the rules. Yes, it means to stoop down to the same level, but sometimes the end does justify the means.