Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, May 06, 2019

"We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. ... Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice," said the statement, which has garnered at least 375 signatures. "To look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice -- the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution -- runs counter to logic and our experience."

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The Imaginary OBAMA that lived in my head was way worse

------- jeffytoecentrebe

#1 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-05-06 02:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 5

We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President's efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

· The President's efforts to limit the scope of Mueller's investigation to exclude his conduct; and

· The President's efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

Investigate, gather testimony, educate the public on the facts, and when the inevitable tipping point is reached move to impeach this President. Eventually the political pressures from within the GOP itself will hopefully lead to his resignation just like Nixon.

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 02:12 PM | Reply

Tony,

While you are not wrong, impeachment is a political process.

Recent polling that I've seen shows 2/3 of the public is opposed to impeachment.

Nixon only resigned when he was informed that he only had 16 votes in the Senate and this was after he was impeached by the House.

Right now, the House isn't even considering introducing articles of impeachment. Absent that, Trump will never resign over what was produced in the Mueller report.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Recent polling that I've seen shows 2/3 of the public is opposed to impeachment.

In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll... (a)mong all Americans, it's 48 percent oppose impeachment hearings, while a combined 49 percent want them now or possibly in the future if there's enough evidence.
Repeat: Investigate, gather testimony, educate the public on the facts, and when the inevitable tipping point is reached move to impeach this President.

#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Tony,

Investigate away.

I have no problem with that.

It carries political risk for the Democrats, though.

Going into Benghazi mode may not work out well politically.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 02:32 PM | Reply

Going into Benghazi mode may not work out well politically.

Benghazi was never an impeachable incident. It was a CIA undercover operation done through State Department cover where the CIA was responsible for all the security at an auxiliary consulate where mixed-loyalty, untrustworthy militia personnel were contracted, not a Marine-protected embassy compound under full State Department security control.

Felony crimes committed by a sitting President with all the ancillary evidentiary realities surrounding him and his people is a constitutional issue on top of a political one. The risk isn't to the Democrats alone, it's also to the GOP for protecting someone who daily violates his oath to protect and defend the Constitution and this nation when he won't even hold the foreign government responsible for their crimes against the US after scores of indictments intricately and meticulously tied to said government's personnel who operated on orders from the very top.

The US Attorney General also abdicates his responsibilities as he invents fiction from the facts these federal prosecutors of both parties find indisputable grounds for indictment and prosecution of this President if he weren't immune from such by the DOJ policy directive.

Sometimes doing the right thing is far more important then doing what is politically expedient. It's called principles and belief that no person, even the President, is above the law and must be held accountable, especially when they and confederates they've put in places of power that assist them blatantly and repeatedly break laws and violate the public's trust opposite the stated responsibilities inherent in their elected position.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

Tony,

I agree with you.

The problem is the only remedy is impeachment, which is a political process not a legal one.

Right now, the public doesn't support impeachment.

Given that, Dems would best be served by focusing on 2020.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 03:21 PM | Reply

The number of signatories is up to 414. Expect it to continue to climb.

The president is a criminal. Anyone defending or deflecting on his behalf at this point is beyond help.

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 03:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

The number of prosecutors signing on to this is a sign of how egregiously illegal Trump's conduct has been. It is a sick joke that the president is above the law because of a DOJ guideline.

#9 | Posted by rcade at 2019-05-06 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

It is a sick joke that the president is above the law because of a DOJ guideline.

#9 | POSTED BY RCADE

There is nothing stopping him from being prosecuted after he leaves office.

Maybe the statute of limitations?

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 04:29 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

When the signatures pass the thousand mark we will see clearly if those who claim to support law and order truly do or if it's just been a lie they told to justify cruelty towards others.

#11 | Posted by Tor at 2019-05-06 04:30 PM | Reply

Political concerns aside, if there is enough to indict anyone other than the President, then starting impeachment proceedings is a no-brainer.

#12 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2019-05-06 04:35 PM | Reply

Is there anyone with the authority to charge Trump with the crimes that are listed?

#13 | Posted by Tor at 2019-05-06 04:41 PM | Reply

I think there's a difference between what the right thing to do is and what the politically expedient thing to do is. Donald Trump deserves to be impeached. That's the right thing to do. I don't know if it's politically expedient in a realpolitik sense, but for him to so egregiously shatter our laws and our norms and face no consequences whatsoever is a disservice to future generations of Americans.

I have no faith in Republicans to do the right thing even if the Democrats do.

#14 | Posted by dylanfan at 2019-05-06 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

If we can't nail this mentally-defective hunchback of a president for what he's doing and what he's done, then we have no hope against any genuine Caesar who comes down the pike.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-06 04:48 PM | Reply

Maybe the statute of limitations?

If he wins, it runs out on these crimes before 2024.

If he loses, there will be a lot of talk about how he's already been punished by losing and shouldn't be prosecuted.

Instead of all that ----, the DOJ should treat him like any other American instead of pretending he's got Magic Law-Breaking Powers.

#16 | Posted by rcade at 2019-05-06 04:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

Trump could shoot Lindsay Graham's mother on Fifth Avenue and the Senate wouldn't convict him.

How to get Trump out? (1) Keep investigating him and his criminal enterprise of an administration. (2) Find out all that can be found out, and if stone-walled, make that known. (3) present the facts to a skeptical electorate. (4) Convince enough swing voters that supporting Trump is supporting a criminal who is operating in opposition to the rule of law. (5) Present a reasonable alternative in the form of an experienced, moderate Dem who has a running mate with a strong will, moderate tone and fast-thinking mind. (6) Make sure FaceBook, Twitter, et alia are keeping the Russians, racists and bots at bay. (7) Vote like the future of our democratic society depends upon it, and bring all of your friends and neighbors to the polls.

#17 | Posted by catdog at 2019-05-06 04:51 PM | Reply

The president is a criminal. Anyone defending or deflecting on his behalf at this point is beyond help.

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05

Many of them want that dictatorship. They may wish for a different word to call it, but that's something that will be given to them in time.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-06 04:53 PM | Reply

Is there anyone with the authority to charge Trump with the crimes that are listed?

Now that Mueller has declined to do so, the only person who coukd charge him is Bill Barr. And Barr would need to abrogate DOJ OLC guidance in order to indict a sitting president, which we all know he isn't going to do.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 04:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

There is nothing stopping him from being prosecuted after he leaves office.

There is nothing legally stopping him from being prosecuted right now. The DOJ policy is not codified in any existent legal statutes, it has no established legal standing and it's never been brought before any court jurisdiction that provides it standing as a matter of actual law.

It is the opinion of its DOJ author based on the obvious havoc created when a sitting President is brought before courts (and the inherent restraints and obligations) that would reverberate into his use of other powers and distract from the execution of his responsibilities given him under the Constitution.

There is no evidence that this author ever considered this protection could/would be used by a President to shield himself from adjudication for criminal acts which likely facilitated his ascension into the office and those committed in service of keeping him there.

#20 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 04:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Can a state Attorney General press charges against Trump for obstruction?

#21 | Posted by Tor at 2019-05-06 04:59 PM | Reply

Trump has OJ Longstocking's strength of ten BBC's to squirm out from legal repercussions.

Mueller is why the FBI is such a malfunction. Mandates and limitations should never be part of their methodology, imo.

#22 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-05-06 05:05 PM | Reply

The POTUS is not above the law. Nobody is.

#23 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-05-06 05:05 PM | Reply

Can a state Attorney General press charges against Trump for obstruction?

Not a pro in this area, but i believe he would need to obstruct a state-run investigation for a state AG to charge him with obstruction.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 05:10 PM | Reply

This was an anti-Trump nonprofit organization! Not a random survey of all ex-federal prosecutors. Correction: "Hundreds of DEMOCRAT ex-prosecutors claim". Anyone have the breakdown? Good grief.

#25 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-05-06 05:15 PM | Reply

$24

That is correct, and probably why Trump has stayed quiet on the SDNY investigations, because even though those are for violations of Federal law, there are enough State implications for the NY AG to make a colorable argument that State law on obstruction applies.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-06 05:17 PM | Reply

The House can, and should, initiate impeachment hearings based on obstruction of justice charges.

As with Nixon, the Hearing itself may be enough to run this thug out of office.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-06 05:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It is a sick joke that the president is above the law because of a DOJ guideline.

#9 | Posted by rcade

Thanks "party of law and order" Republicans.

You built that.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 05:25 PM | Reply

There is no chance that president bucket of ---- will be indicted
The implications of such could arguably destroy our country
The facts of the matter are that president bucket of ---- is illegitimate
He won by a razor thin margin
Russian interference gave him victory and America cannot face that fact
To do so would make illegitimate all his actions over the past 2 years including scotus appointments
Our elections are compromised your vote is meaningless

Truth hurts

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-06 05:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

There is nothing stopping him from being prosecuted after he leaves office.

Maybe the statute of limitations?

#10 | Posted by JeffJ

If it weren't for the disgusting GOP he would be out of office long before the statute of limitations could wear out.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 05:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Correction: "Hundreds of DEMOCRAT ex-prosecutors claim". Anyone have the breakdown? Good grief.

#25 | Posted by gracieamazed

I was gonna say it looks like you've switched your brain off for the day.

Then I realized you likely never switch it on...

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 05:28 PM | Reply

#25

Among the high-profile [Republican] signers are Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is running against Trump as a Republican; Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush Administration; John S. Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge appointed to his posts by two Republican presidents; Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; and Jeffrey Harris, who worked as the principal assistant to Rudolph W. Giuliani when he was at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

It's useful to have people step forward and tell the truth, and it's encouraging to see some Republicans take a stand against their own president. I think this is their key point:

"All of this conduct -- trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others -- is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions," the former federal prosecutors wrote in their letter.

They wrote that prosecuting such cases was "critical because unchecked obstruction -- which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished -- puts our whole system of justice at risk."

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Is the Attorney General allowed to be Trump's personal lawyer?

Isn't he supposed to represent America?

#33 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-05-06 05:38 PM | Reply

#31 'Signatories have been vetted to the best of our ability.' That's like real official right there!

#34 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-05-06 05:48 PM | Reply

To do so would make illegitimate all his actions over the past 2 years including scotus appointments

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will forever carry the stain of having been appointed by Trump. Gorsuch is particularly illegitimate in light of the actions which led to his open seat.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 05:49 PM | Reply

The country's government is broken.
The only question now is will the millionaire legislators do anything.

#36 | Posted by Docman at 2019-05-06 06:10 PM | Reply

translation: Only because of today's totally corrupt GOP, Trump is not charged with multiple felonies.

#37 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-05-06 06:14 PM | Reply

Is this the thread where the pubs defend the idea of line level Bureaucrats deciding the law rather than elected officials?

#38 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-05-06 06:18 PM | Reply

There comes a time when the worry of the 2020 election be damned. It's time for statesmen. The president is a criminal. Impeach him. Everything else will take care of itself.

#39 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-05-06 06:47 PM | Reply

It is a sick joke that the president is above the law because of a DOJ guideline.

#9 | Posted by rcade

The President is not above the Law. Neither is his latest personal attorney, Bill Barr.

#40 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-06 07:23 PM | Reply

Anyone other than POTUS would face charges.

Here's the thing, it matters that he's POTUS.

There is no obstruction. Trump could have fired Mueller and it wouldn't have been obstruction. Everything Trump attempted fell within the powers of the presidency. The question then becomes, did he abuse his powers?

If yes, it should trigger impeachment. Pelosi and Schumer appear to conclude the answer to that question is no.

Has he fired Mueller and ended the investigation i think the political class would have overwhelmingly viewed that as an abuse of power.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 07:39 PM | Reply

"Right now, the public doesn't support impeachment. "

Buy a clue Jeff. When the impeachment hearings opened for Nixon he was over 50% in the polls, after 2 weeks he was in the low 20's. If the Dems open full blown impeachment hearings Trump is toast and you won't even be able to expert the dishonest Republicans in the Senate to defend him because most of them have to stand for reelection in 2020. But the Dems have to first start the hearings which will enable them to review Grand Jury testimony and subpoena everyone involved including Trump and his evil spawn.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-06 07:41 PM | Reply

#39

Agreed, the Democrats in the House have enough and should commence impeachment proceedings on Obstruction of Justice charges.

But they don't have the cojones to do so.

#43 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-06 07:45 PM | Reply

#41 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Apparently your belief in our Constitutionally based form of government is as faux as your objectivity.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 07:52 PM | Reply

There is no obstruction. Trump could have fired Mueller and it wouldn't have been obstruction. Everything Trump attempted fell within the powers of the presidency. The question then becomes, did he abuse his powers?

Incredible that you would say this...

No one has said he didn't have the power to fire Mueller.

Mueller was investigating the President. That would have been obstruction. And he has obstruction in numerous other ways showing a distinct pattern of behavior intended to block any investigation.

Why is he obstructing if there was no crime?

Because there was a crime.... probably many crimes!! And Trump knows that he must stop any further inquiries before it is too late. Barring that (see what I did there?) it is now Delay and Obstruct. Further adding to the charges.

He already thought it was too late. It may be too late. We have not seen the full report. Mueller and Cohen need to testify.

Then the public support will grow as the investigations grow. Once Trumps lies and Barr's lies for Trump are exposed publicly and repeatedly the choice will be clear... to everyone. And if we don't have time to impeach before the 2020 elections? Then better yet. Let the People decide. As they should anyway.

#45 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-06 07:53 PM | Reply

Also, what danni said in #42

#46 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-06 07:56 PM | Reply

"You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's like incredible," Trump said.

Yup.

Incredible.

#47 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-06 08:04 PM | Reply

#44

What I said was factually accurate.

The question is, did he abuse his powers?

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:04 PM | Reply

Here's the thing, it matters that he's POTUS.

There is no obstruction. Trump could have fired Mueller and it wouldn't have been obstruction. Everything Trump attempted fell within the powers of the presidency.

Jeffy must have never read the Articles of Impeachment filed against Richard Nixon, nor does he understand that utilizing constitutional powers through "corrupt intent" vitiates the legality of said acts committed in bad faith or to stymie duly initiated investigations. What Jeff just wrote is almost verbatim what Nixon tried to imply when he made the same case that Barr just did in Senate testimony.

Article 2

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

When Trump wanted to fire Mueller was he in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed or did he have ANY demonstrable cause outside of his own self-preservation to have Mueller removed from his legally appointed position? The answer is obvious: The only thing that Mueller had done wrong at that point in Trump's eyes was actually and competently doing the job he was hired to do by Rod Rosenstein, hence any action taken by Trump to remove Mueller or impede his investigation was against the law, full stop.

#49 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What did they say about Clintons email server?

#50 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-06 08:13 PM | Reply

My analysis is based on fealty to the Constitution.

Had this been a congressional investigation his attempted obstruction would be obstruction.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:18 PM | Reply

What I said was factually accurate.

What you said is garbage and beneath the intelligence we know that you possess. Either that or you need to make the case that Nixon's Articles of Impeachment violated his powers as well, and that ship sailed 45 years ago.

It's reprehensible that the right wing troglodytes rip pages out of history trying to hide the truth from their gullible consumers while repackaging its settled conclusions.

But that's what propagandists do.

#52 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 08:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#49

Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one, Tony.

I agree regarding corrupt intent when Trump gave an order to fire Mueller.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:20 PM | Reply

If Democrats were to file articles of impeachment they'd use some of the same language that was used in Nixon's.

Nixon wasn't charged with a crime, he was impeached.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:22 PM | Reply

What did they say about Clintons email server?

#50 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

FBI documents from investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server

You're welcome.

#55 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 08:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Dems were to file for impeachment they wouldn't be violating Trump's powers in any way.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:24 PM | Reply

This is one of the reasons I opposed the special counsel. It was an investigation run by the Executive investigating the Executive. That's effed up. And it's why I argue Trump couldn't obstruct. The investigators ultimately reported to him.

Having said that, had he terminated the investigation it would have numbers a clear-cut abuse of power that would have undoubtedly triggered impeachment.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:28 PM | Reply

Nixon wasn't charged with a crime, he was impeached.

Jeff, do the words high crimes and misdemeanors mean anything to you? Impeachment is a PROCESS where Congress can remove a President for committing CRIMES. No one is saying impeachment is supposed to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but to imply that charges aren't crimes is ludicrous. In many cases, they articles lay out crimes against the President's constitutional duties that will never be adjudicated in a court of law, but they are indeed crimes notwithstanding.

Good lord man, what is with you?

#58 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 08:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I hope my clarifications make sense.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:32 PM | Reply

Tony,

Again, impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal remedy.

Obviously my clarifications didn't help. I don't disagree with anything you said in #58.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:34 PM | Reply

What I said was factually accurate.

What you said was your opinion.

We're in very very new ground regarding a POTUS and firing the head investigator of that very POTUS' behavior.

If it was that cut and dried we wouldn't be commenting on a thread about several hundred prosecutors and law enforcement officials signing a letter stating the untested nature of DOJ v POTUS as the thin line between POTUS and criminal charges.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 08:34 PM | Reply

What did they say about Clintons email server?

#50 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

I believe they said you're an idiot who should go f--- themself.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 08:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A president can be impeached and removed even in the absence of a criminal act.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:35 PM | Reply

--A president can be impeached and removed even in the absence of a criminal act.

"The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication"

#64 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-06 08:38 PM | Reply

A president can be impeached and removed even in the absence of a criminal act.

Have Articles of Impeachment ever been brought against a President that weren't based in part on unlawful acts?

While your point may be factual, it's actually moot and irrelevant in the context of Trump's actions. No one is contemplating nor advocating the impeachment of Trump solely on the grounds of non-unlawful acts, so why bring it up?

#65 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 08:42 PM | Reply

#65 Bill Clinton didn't do anything illegal and he was impeached.

#66 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-05-06 08:43 PM | Reply

After all the dust settles and the halls quiet down, the question that begs to be asked is this: when is someone going to do something final about Trump to put him in Federal prison? The DNC are making a huge mistake by comparing him to Nixon. Nixon did not have the power Trump has over his cult following. Trump will not give up his power, even if we have pictures and videos of him in a criminally compromised position. All Trump has to do is get on national TV and order his followers to "protect him and the integrity of the Trump presidency." Do you know how many redneck, hillbilly militia groups would be standing in front of the WH within 24 hours?

Trump is a malignant narcissist. He doesn't care about America. All he cares about is his drug and he is not going to give his addiction up. We can impeach him, do whatever to legally get him out of the oval office, he will use everything in his power to resist. Trump has accomplished what Hitler could not do. Trump owns the lease to America and he is not going to let it go because we said so. And he has his army that will back his power play. Trump will do what Castro did in Cuba and Hugo did in Venezuela. It may be short lived or the allied world will turn against the US in fear of Trump. But America will be at war sooner than we think.

The unthinkable is about to happen in America. We are about to see some next level evil spring out in America. Remember Persia and Rome were mighty empires that fell because of the rot within.

Believe me, I am no Trump fan. But I can't deny what I am seeing, especially in the last couple of weeks. Any one else, even JFK, would have been under the prison right now. No matter what is thrown at Trump, he seems to be made out of teflon.

#67 | Posted by MisterCarajo at 2019-05-06 08:44 PM | Reply

#66

He lied under oath.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:44 PM | Reply

JPW,

What I'm saying is that it's impossible for POTUS to be guilty of obstructing an investigation that is being run by the Executive branch.

Now, POTUS can certainly abuse his powers by acting with corrupt intent, but that's not the same thing.

I don't normally get this pedantic, but I think this distinction is important.

Tony,

I brought it up to illustrate the fact that impeachment is political, not legal. Andrew Johnson's impeachment wasn't based on illegality. The Tenure Act that he supposedly violated was unconstitutional .

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:48 PM | Reply

He lied under oath.

#68 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

About a non crime.

That absolves him. Ask sniper.

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 08:48 PM | Reply

Trump could have fired Mueller and it wouldn't have been obstruction. Everything Trump attempted fell within the powers of the presidency.

#41 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

As Alex Whiting, a Harvard law professor and former federal prosecutor pointed out, Trump did not seek to end the Mueller probe in the open where he could accept the political ramifications of such a move. Instead, he often acted secretly, giving certain orders in private -- including when he cleared the room to talk to then FBI Director James Comey -- and seeking to use rogue agents, such as his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, when officials in his White House refused to carry out his orders. He often changed his story and demanded that others in the administration, like White House Counsel Don McGahn, change theirs. "He didn't act like somebody who was obeying the law. He acted like somebody who was breaking the law," Whiting said.

And finally, Mueller provided plenty of evidence of corrupt motives that were driving Trump: the political embarrassment of the investigation, the fear that it delegitimizing his 2016 election win, the belief that some of the conduct of him and his associates could be perceived as criminal. "If a President is shutting down an investigation because he thinks it will embarrass him politically or undermine the legitimacy of his election, that is corrupt intent," Sklansky said.

talkingpointsmemo.com

#71 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 08:50 PM | Reply

What I'm saying is that it's impossible for POTUS to be guilty of obstructing an investigation that is being run by the Executive branch.
Now, POTUS can certainly abuse his powers by acting with corrupt intent, but that's not the same thing.
I don't normally get this pedantic, but I think this distinction is important.

It's a distinction without a different IMO.

He's only guilty of abusing his power because he obstructed an investigation.

And all that distinction does is minimize the criminal element of the charge.

#72 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 08:50 PM | Reply

#69

Read #65.

#73 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 08:52 PM | Reply

The Senate didn't remove Clinton because the GOP didn't build a strong enough political case against him.

The country was revulsed by Clinton, especially after he went in front of camera and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinski." He made matters worse by his conduct in court.

The GOP took that and turned him into a sympathetic victim by trying to remove him from office over his acts.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:52 PM | Reply

"If a President is shutting down an investigation because he thinks it will embarrass him politically or undermine the legitimacy of his election, that is corrupt intent,"

I agree with this, Tony.

It's a distinction without a different (sic) IMO.

I think the distinction matters but I get what you are saying.

I mostly commented because I wanted to put "sic" after your typo.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:54 PM | Reply

There is no obstruction.

It's amazing how you speak with so much authority on something you're this wrong about. Do you practice that?

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 08:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In the end it won't be any one single action that Trump took or ordered, it will be the totality of his actions and orders taken in combination toward the inescapable unlawful ends he tried mightily to orchestrate upon which he will (and should) be judged.

#77 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 08:56 PM | Reply

I mostly commented because I wanted to put "sic" after your typo.

#75 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

LOL an't argue wit that.

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 08:57 PM | Reply

Had the economy tanked under Trump and his approval rating was in the 30-range, I think Democrats would seriously consider impeachment over abuse of power due to corrupt intent.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:57 PM | Reply

It's amazing how you speak with so much authority on something you're this wrong about. Do you practice that?

#76 | POSTED BY JOE

Retort University PhD. 11/2016 MAGA cum Laude

#80 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 08:58 PM | Reply

It's amazing how you speak with so much authority on something you're this wrong about. Do you practice that?

#76 | POSTED BY JOE

I laid out my reasoning. You need to do better than, "you're wrong."

#77 I agree with you on this, Tony.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:59 PM | Reply

#80 FF!

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:59 PM | Reply

This is not a moral statement, it's a political statement: Trump survived the Mueller probe and he may actually be stronger politically now, than before the report was released.

Dems continuing to push this may end up backfiring.

Having said that, Trump has a much bigger problem in SDNY. If he goes down due to corruption, it's going to be SDNY that accomplishes it.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 09:05 PM | Reply

If he loses, there will be a lot of talk about how he's already been punished by losing and shouldn't be prosecuted.

That's my fear: that the incoming dem president will grant him a pardon. Reporters should get all of the dem candidates on the record as to whether or not they would grant Trump a pardon.

If Trump loses, I expect him to resign shortly after the loss so that Pence can be installed as POTUS. Then I expect that Pence would grant Trump a pardon.

#84 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2019-05-06 09:09 PM | Reply

Trump survived the Mueller probe and he may actually be stronger politically now, than before the report was released.
Dems continuing to push this may end up backfiring.

That's because the right can no longer be considered patriotic, moral people.

They've voluntarily relinquished any claims to those traits.

#85 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 09:10 PM | Reply

Having said that, Trump has a much bigger problem in SDNY.

Trump is already an unindicted co-conspirator in 3 felony charges for which Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to and started a 3 year prison sentence for this very day.

The only reason Trump goes unindicted for these felonies in the SDNY jurisdiction is the same DOJ policy related to all the probable crimes enumerated in the Mueller report.

So felonies for which a conspirator has plead guilty to should have been more than enough for any political party to call for their President's ejection from the White House. Today our kids are learning that this President's actions - who also paid hush money to a porn star that he bedded while married to his current wife, who was suckling his newborn son at the same time, all for the sake of keeping this information from the public trying to decide if he deserves their vote - are now an acceptable norm with America's adults since no one will hold him accountable as would have been done at any other point in US history. And that's just one of the deviant, prurient acts that he's been effectively tied to.

What a legacy to be proud of.

#86 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 09:30 PM | Reply

It's ------- embarrassing, Tony.

That's why it's so hard to parody Trump, the truth is more absurd than anything comedians can come up with.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 09:33 PM | Reply

'Stang,

Our yellow lab was 14 when we put her down. She was a family member, not a pet.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 09:35 PM | Reply

#88 Oops. wrong thread. Sorry about that.

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 09:35 PM | Reply

What a legacy to be proud of.

#86 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Sadly one that's not even necessary.

Little would change with a President Pence policy-wise, but Twitter would become quieter and the overt white supremacy at least more subtle if not gone.

The only thing unique Trump brings to the table is his boorish, undignified, childish, moronic outbursts that are better suited for Jerry Springer than the White House.

#90 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 09:39 PM | Reply

375 Prosecutors: Anyone But Trump Would Have Been Charged

- yet to listen to the right wing hacks, Mueller's report exonerated Trump.

#91 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-05-06 09:42 PM | Reply

I support impeachment. I'm part of the public. No one ever asked me in any poll and I believe there are many more who feel the same way.

#92 | Posted by uncle_meat at 2019-05-06 09:49 PM | Reply

#90

I've said the same once Trump was inaugurated. That's why the notion that wanting Trump impeached is based on Hillary losing is so stupid. If Trump had to vacate his office, Pence would have ascended, not Clinton. And even if Pence got caught up in Trump's mess, Paul Ryan would have become President before 1/19, not nor ever Hillary.

Trump needs to go because TRUMP NEEDS TO GO! Pence would have been far more effective on the political front and that truly is scary considering how much Mitch has gotten done even through Trump's petulance and narcissism. But Trump being unfit for the office never directly had anything to do with Hillary, it always has been based on the danger of Trump in the Oval and the fact he arguably has no legitimate business there and without a doubt has no moral business there.

#93 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-06 09:49 PM | Reply

Pence would at least bring a modicum of respectability to the office.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 09:52 PM | Reply

Pence would have been far more effective on the political front and that truly is scary considering how much Mitch has gotten done even through Trump's petulance and narcissism.

Here's the thing about that, now that Dems have the House Pence wouldn't get anything other than the phone and pen stuff unless it was something that had some bipartisan support, like the First Step Act.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 09:56 PM | Reply

But Trump being unfit for the office never directly had anything to do with Hillary, it always has been based on the danger of Trump in the Oval and the fact he arguably has no legitimate business there and without a doubt has no moral business there.

#93 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

I think Trumpsters know this. They just can't admit out loud that a. they like the childish antagonism that Trump brings and b. they support a morally vacuous man in complete opposition to their supposed moral life style.

It's textbook cognitive dissonance and the "you're just angry Hillary lost" is an easy, low hanging fruit rationalization for it.

#96 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-06 10:09 PM | Reply

I laid out my reasoning. You need to do better than, "you're wrong."

I've explained to you more than once why you're wrong that "there is no obstruction." I have cited the obstruction statute itself. I have pointed to the Mueller report in which the special counsel painstakingly explained how multiple instances of Trump's conduct met every element of the crime of obstruction.

And yet you repeat the same lie, over and over again. And then you fault others for not adequately correcting you every sungle time you tell the lie? Laughable.

#97 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 11:05 PM | Reply

"Pence would at least bring a modicum of respectability to the office."

Respectability no, decorum yes.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-06 11:11 PM | Reply

It's ------- embarrassing

Not embarrassing enough for you to think anything needs to be done about it. Spare everyone your faux pearl-clutching.

People like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham don't support impeachment because they know they have millions of good little cucks like Jeff out there who will continue to support them and support Trump regardless of what he does. That's fhe true embarrassment.

#99 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-06 11:12 PM | Reply

Not embarrassing enough for you to think anything needs to be done about it.

What should be done about it?

People like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham don't support impeachment because they know they have millions of good little cucks like Jeff out there who will continue to support them and support Trump regardless of what he does. That's fhe true embarrassment.

#99 | POSTED BY JOE

Impeachment starts in the House. What is Pelosi's stance on impeachment? McConnell and "cucks like Jeff" have nothing to do with whether or not the House decides to introduce articles of impeachment. This is Schoolhouse Rock Civics101 ----, Joe.

I've explained to you more than once why you're wrong that "there is no obstruction." I have cited the obstruction statute itself. I have pointed to the Mueller report in which the special counsel painstakingly explained how multiple instances of Trump's conduct met every element of the crime of obstruction.

And yet you repeat the same lie, over and over again. And then you fault others for not adequately correcting you every sungle time you tell the lie? Laughable.

#97 | POSTED BY JOE

It's obvious that you haven't read all of my comments on this thread. I understand that. Nobody likes to have their eyes raped like that. I'm in a good mood, so I'll do you a favor, I'll go through my own posts, edit out the BS - translated: I'll redact about 85% of them - and will distill it down to why Trump didn't engage in obstruction.

"Pence would at least bring a modicum of respectability to the office."

Respectability no, decorum yes.

#98 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Well-stated. I like the brevity. NW for that.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 11:58 PM | Reply

Impeachment starts in the House. What is Pelosi's stance on impeachment? McConnell and "cucks like Jeff" have nothing to do with whether or not the House decides to introduce articles of impeachment. This is Schoolhouse Rock Civics101 ----, Joe.

And it's reality 101 that considerations beyond the House are made for political purposes.

This isn't occurring in a vacuum, unfortunately, as the POS GOP is going to back their horse no matter what.

#101 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 12:06 AM | Reply

and will distill it down to why Trump didn't engage in obstruction.

So he didn't obstruct? Or they can't charge him with obstruction?

Because those are two extremely different things and you seem to have posted support for both.

#102 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 12:07 AM | Reply

Joe,

Here you go....

There is no obstruction. Trump could have fired Mueller and it wouldn't have been obstruction. Everything Trump attempted fell within the powers of the presidency. The question then becomes, did he abuse his powers?
----
This is one of the reasons I opposed the special counsel. It was an investigation run by the Executive investigating the Executive. That's effed up. And it's why I argue Trump couldn't obstruct. The investigators ultimately reported to him.
----
What I'm saying is that it's impossible for POTUS to be guilty of obstructing an investigation that is being run by the Executive branch.

All of Trump's attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation fell within the purview of his presidential powers. No obstruction for that reason.

Now, I offered a lot of nuance regarding that during the course of exercising his powers any POTUS may choose to abuse said powers via corrupt intent and that it applies to Trump in this case.

I'm not going to reproduce all of the nuance where I acknowledge Trump's wrongdoing and frame it as an abuse of power due to corrupt intent, but wasn't legal obstruction. You'll have to scroll up and rape your eyes for that context.

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 12:12 AM | Reply

No obstruction for that reason.

So the 500+ signatures on this are....just Democrats? Idiots? Incompetent ambulance chasers?

You're shoveling sand against the tide, Jeff.

#104 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 12:16 AM | Reply

And it's reality 101 that considerations beyond the House are made for political purposes.

Absolutely. How many times have I stated on this thread that impeachment is a political remedy?

This isn't occurring in a vacuum, unfortunately, as the POS GOP is going to back their horse no matter what.

#101 | POSTED BY JPW

The GOP is mostly a collection of political whores (as is the Democratic Party, but I digress). They'd ditch Trump in a heartbeat if he became so unpopular that their potential political future depended on it. Mueller's report didn't deliver that. There's a reason why Pelosi/Hoyer/Schumer/Durbin are shrugging off impeachment talk over the Mueller report.

So he didn't obstruct? Or they can't charge him with obstruction?

Yes. And yes. He didn't obstruct because he couldn't obstruct, therefore he can't be charged for a crime that wasn't committed. The investigation was conducted by the Executive branch which he is the head of. I thought we already covered this. He can't obstruct but he can abuse his powers. Again, I don't like getting this pedantic going deep into the weeds of semantics (that was a cute rhyme, by the way) but in this case I think the distinction matters.

None of his actions - his failed attempts at 'obstructing' - were outside the purview of the office he holds. Hence, no obstruction. This whole thing was handled poorly. It's been treated as a criminal investigation when it was really a counter-intelligence investigation. A Special Counsel was appointed when it should have been a Congressional investigation - has Trump made these same attempts to obstruct a congressional investigation he absolutely would have been guilty of obstruction.

Because those are two extremely different things and you seem to have posted support for both.

#102 | POSTED BY JPW

I'm not 'supporting' anything. When I read the summary of Volume II I found it to be very disturbing and I totally get why it's caused such a ruckus. "Can you describe the ruckus, sir?"

I am simply looking at this from a Constitutional/legal/political standpoint, all at the same time. In no way is my constitutional/legal analysis of what Trump attempted to do is a defense of his actions.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 12:31 AM | Reply

Absolutely. How many times have I stated on this thread that impeachment is a political remedy?

Then why do you keep arguing that he didn't commit a criminal offense? If there's no criminal offense then there's no real reason to impeach.

You seem to be oscillating between two narratives depending on what's being said to you and those two narratives don't jive when held up next to each other.

They'd ditch Trump in a heartbeat if he became so unpopular that their potential political future depended on it.

Gee thanks gerrymandering.

Mueller's report didn't deliver that.

Mueller's report was damaging as hell to anybody with a brain. It's more a statement of how pathetic our electorate has become that it didn't immediately garner public support for impeachment.

There's a reason why Pelosi/Hoyer/Schumer/Durbin are shrugging off impeachment talk over the Mueller report.

Yeah, the deplorable mouthbreathers are dangerous and it's best to knock Trump out of the WH through an election than a "political remedy".

He didn't obstruct because he couldn't obstruct

LOL we're done.

I'm not reading any more of your opinionated, detached from reality ----.

#106 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 12:37 AM | Reply

So the 500+ signatures on this are....just Democrats? Idiots? Incompetent ambulance chasers?

You're shoveling sand against the tide, Jeff.

#104 | POSTED BY JPW

Read the headline:

375 Prosecutors: Anyone But Trump Would Have Been Charged

Let me edit for accuracy:

375 Prosecutors: Anyone but POTUS Would Have Been Charged

I said it upthread - that he's POTUS matters. It matters not because he's above the law but because his actions fell within his presidential powers. See page 12 of Volume II of the Mueller report for clarity.

This is an abuse of power issue; a corrupt intent issue - it is NOT a legal issue because his attempted actions were within the purview of the presidency.

In short, this is a political issue, not a legal issue.

#107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 12:39 AM | Reply

Then why do you keep arguing that he didn't commit a criminal offense? If there's no criminal offense then there's no real reason to impeach.

You seem to be oscillating between two narratives depending on what's being said to you and those two narratives don't jive when held up next to each other.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I am drawing a very clear distinction between a criminal offense and an abuse of power via corrupt intent - they have a lot of similarities but are not the same thing. Impeachment doesn't require criminal offense. It's a political remedy. Again, we discussed this and seemed to reach agreement about this upthread. I'm not sure why you are being combative now.

Mueller's report was damaging as hell to anybody with a brain.

I agree. However, the narrative was conspiracy/collusion with Russia and the report failed to deliver on that. In fact, in its summary it completely destroyed that narrative.

Yeah, the deplorable mouthbreathers are dangerous and it's best to knock Trump out of the WH through an election than a "political remedy".

That comment belies a degree of ignorance regarding how our political system works that I'd normally reserve for the likes of Sniper. The public doesn't support impeachment. Not to the level necessary to reward taking the political risk. Hence, Democrat leadership is opposed to impeachment. It's amazing to me that Pelosi has become the voice of reason within the Democratic Party.

LOL we're done.

I'm not reading any more of your opinionated, detached from reality ----.

#106 | POSTED BY JPW

Again. We talked about this upthread and you demonstrated an understanding of the argument I was making. You even categorized it as a distinction without a difference. I disagreed because I thought the distinction was important, but understood where you were coming from. What changed over the course of a few short hours? Hopefully, it's some good swill.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 12:49 AM | Reply

In fact, in its summary it completely destroyed that narrative.

No, it didn't.

It laid out how a very specific high bar wasn't met while confirming multiple and significant contacts between the campaign and the Russian government/intelligence services. You keep spewing this line of BS and it's demonstrably false.

You even categorized it as a distinction without a difference.

That's a polite way of saying your argument is crap.

What changed over the course of a few short hours?

Watching your argument oscillate to avoid admitting you're wrong in multiple contexts.

You're dancing all over the place making false, unsupportable claims all around.

#109 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 12:57 AM | Reply

I know I'm getting into the weeds on this. I know I'm parsing semantics.

It matters to me because the political left has been hell-bent on controlling the narrative by attempting to control the language by ever-malleable definitions that suit their ends.

Words have meanings.

Legal terms are typically specific and carefully defined.

The left's attempt to redefine words is Orwellian and I push back against it.

The amazing thing about this thread is if we were to create a Venn-Diagram of Jeff/Tony/JPW/Joe on this we'd probably have 85-90% overlap.

The disagreement is all nibbling at the edges - semantics.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 12:59 AM | Reply

Words have meanings.
Legal terms are typically specific and carefully defined.

You mean like spying?

The left's attempt to redefine words is Orwellian and I push back against it.

The right's attempt to simply state what they want to be reality is disturbing, disgusting and dangerous.

The disagreement is all nibbling at the edges - semantics.

Not at all. It isn't semantics to misstate the Mueller report's conclusions over and over and over.

It isn't semantics to simply state your opinion as fact in opposition to hundreds of legal professionals.

It isn't semantics to declare Trump guilty of the effect while innocent (again, against the report and hundreds of professional's opinions) of the cause.

It isn't semantics to claim to believe in a Constitution-based rule of law while declaring the POTUS above said rule of law.

I'm against your arguments for very solid, concrete reasons that are far from semantics.

#111 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 01:07 AM | Reply

In fact, in its summary it completely destroyed that narrative.
---
No, it didn't.

Yes, it did. Would you like me to quote the summary? It's unequivocal.

It laid out how a very specific high bar wasn't met while confirming multiple and significant contacts between the campaign and the Russian government/intelligence services.

The worst offense, and really the only offense (Flynn talking to Kislyak being categorized as an offense is absurd) was the Trump Tower meeting with Jr. A Russian agent proclaimed to have dirt on the Clinton campaign and he jumped at it (and nothing came of it - no dirt was provided) . Bad? Yes. Is it worse than the Clinton campaign trafficking salacious and unverified gossip from second and third-hand Russian sources attempting to smear both the Trump campaign as well as his nascent administration? I'll let you answer that.

That's a polite way of saying your argument is crap.

Actually, it was a sober way of addressing the nuance of what I was saying.

Watching your argument oscillate to avoid admitting you're wrong in multiple contexts.

You're dancing all over the place making false, unsupportable claims all around.

#109 | POSTED BY JPW

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I've been consistent throughout this thread.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 01:07 AM | Reply

Yes, it did. Would you like me to quote the summary? It's unequivocal.

Bluffing me isn't going to work.

The summary lays out the multitude of contacts between the campaign and Russia. It explicitly states there wasn't sufficient evidence found to support criminal conspiracy charges.

Continually lying, acting as if the report in any way redeemed Trump is asinine.

Is it worse than the Clinton campaign trafficking salacious and unverified gossip from second and third-hand Russian sources attempting to smear both the Trump campaign as well as his nascent administration? I'll let you answer that.

LOL I know I have you on the ropes. You're resorting to Clinton whataboutisms.

And yes, it's very different. One was an adversarial foreign government with long standing attempts at business ties. Acting as if they're remotely similar is degrading to yourself.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I've been consistent throughout this thread.

Consistently oscillating.

Your argument boils down to Trump being guilty of the effect but not the cause.

That's ridiculous.

#113 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 01:17 AM | Reply

Words have meanings.
Legal terms are typically specific and carefully defined.
---
You mean like spying?

Yep. Exactly like that. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign and the holdovers spied on his nascent administration. That is undeniable. The only question is whether or not it was justified. I think it probably was and I think (hope) the impending IG report will shed some light on this.

The left's attempt to redefine words is Orwellian and I push back against it.
----
The right's attempt to simply state what they want to be reality is disturbing, disgusting and dangerous.

To the extent that this happens, I agree.

Not at all. It isn't semantics to misstate the Mueller report's conclusions over and over and over.

I haven't done that. Not once.

It isn't semantics to claim to believe in a Constitution-based rule of law while declaring the POTUS above said rule of law.

That may be one of the biggest straw man augments of all time.

It isn't semantics to simply state your opinion as fact in opposition to hundreds of legal professionals.

So, now you are going to play the 'appeal to authority' card? That's intellectually-lazy.

It isn't semantics to declare Trump guilty of the effect while innocent (again, against the report and hundreds of professional's opinions) of the cause.

Arrgghh!!!!

I did nothing of the sort. Not even close.

I'm against your arguments for very solid, concrete reasons that are far from semantics.

#111 | POSTED BY JPW

You're against my arguments because at the bottom of the post you saw: POSTED BY JEFFJ

I never once proclaimed Trump's "innocence". Not once.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 01:22 AM | Reply

Damn, JPW.

Our posting styles are kind of ugly but in tandem you and I have turned this thread into an HTML (mostly italics) eyesore.

I'll respond to your latest post , #113, in a moment...

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 01:25 AM | Reply

You two should just put down your glasses and go ahead and get into the shower together.

Ya'll can use Mattress' loofah. Nulli won't mind.


#116 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-07 01:34 AM | Reply

Yep. Exactly like that. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign and the holdovers spied on his nascent administration. That is undeniable.

It's completely deniable. An investigation is not spying. Unless you're going to play the same nonsense game as believers claiming scientists have "faith".

There was ample reason to being conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Trump's campaign. Period.

To the extent that this happens, I agree.

That's about all the right has these days. The movers that craft the reality and the believers who repeat it without question.

I haven't done that. Not once.

Just every time you've claimed the report blew collusion out of the water.

When in reality it describes plenty of cooperation and contact just not the necessary explicit agreement or --- for tat behavior to make it a criminal conspiracy.

That may be one of the biggest straw man augments of all time.

You're claiming the circular reasoning of Trump can't commit obstruction because he's the head of the executive branch overseeing an executive branch investigation so he has the power to fire the investigators even if they're investigating him.

If you genuinely believe that logical claptrap then you're most definitely saying that Trump is above the law in this instance.

I did nothing of the sort. Not even close.

Dude. That was the entire core of the distinction without a difference exchange. You're saying he didn't obstruct because he can't obstruct and therefore shouldn't be charged with obstruction...but should be impeached for abuse of power. Can you say cognitive dissonance?

I never once proclaimed Trump's "innocence". Not once.

You've never that blunt and seem to prefer more convoluted support.

In this case you're forcing everything through the impeachment door by doing whatever logical travesty necessary to close all others. Why? Because it's a political and untenable solution. It's safe to claim to be for the right thing when that thing isn't going to happen.

#117 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 01:35 AM | Reply

#115 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

At least it's never unclear who said what.

#118 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 01:36 AM | Reply

The summary lays out the multitude of contacts between the campaign and Russia. It explicitly states there wasn't sufficient evidence found to support criminal conspiracy charges.

Yes.

Continually lying, acting as if the report in any way redeemed Trump is asinine.

Volume I absolutely redeemed Trump regarding collusion/conspiracy. Volume II was very damning as it pertained to obstruction. I've laid out that he couldn't obstruct from a legal standpoint given that the investigation was under his purview, but that he could abuse his powers via corrupt intent and I think Mueller did a fine job of establishing that. Please understand that nuance that I'm driving at. In no way is this a defense of Trump. Allow me to illustrate with a hypothetical - obstruction of justice is a crime. So is attempted obstruction. Joe provided the requisite statutes and he's absolutely correct. Manafort was proven guilty, in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal offenses that carry a very long prison sentence. Now, he wasn't convicted at the federal level so this is where I'm going to move into the hypothetical realm....had he been convicted in a federal court, Trump could pardon him or commute his sentence. Would he have been guilty of a crime in doing so? No. Absolutely not - the power to pardon is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.. Would this hypothetical pardon be viewed as an abuse of power - corrupt intent? I think so. But the 2 are NOT the same thing.

#119 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 01:37 AM | Reply

You two should just put down your glasses and go ahead and get into the shower together.
Ya'll can use Mattress' loofah. Nulli won't mind.

#116 | POSTED BY CORKY

You didn't honestly think that that would be funny, did you?

It is rather homophobic though.

#120 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 01:37 AM | Reply

#116 | POSTED BY CORKY

You rarely fail to make me laugh.

Per usual, thanks for that.

:-)

#121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 01:38 AM | Reply

It's really funny from here.

Warning! They don't call Jeffy The Painless Pole for nothing!

#122 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-07 01:38 AM | Reply

Volume I absolutely redeemed Trump regarding collusion/conspiracy.

Nonsense.

Lack of sufficient evidence means just that. It does not mean he's innocent.

Given the backdrop of what the report did state as fact (regarding Trump campaign personnel and Russian connections) it's most definitely not a vindication of Trump.

BTW the fact that Trump Jr claims they didn't get any info during that meeting doesn't change the illicit nature of the meeting. A defense of "I didn't rob the bank because the safe was empty" wouldn't spare you any jail time.

Would he have been guilty of a crime in doing so? No. Absolutely not - the power to pardon is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.. Would this hypothetical pardon be viewed as an abuse of power - corrupt intent? I think so. But the 2 are NOT the same thing.

#119 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Dangling a pardon in front of a man to ensure his silence or lack of cooperation is not written into the Constitution as a power of the POTUS.

#123 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 01:43 AM | Reply

It's really funny from here.

Whatever floats your boat.

BTW mackris is au naturale so her "loofah" isn't what you're expecting...

#124 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 01:46 AM | Reply

TDS leftist "logic": we are sure you are a wife beater but lack sufficient evidence. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies only selectively, not to those we hate.

#125 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2019-05-07 01:54 AM | Reply

It's completely deniable. An investigation is not spying. Unless you're going to play the same nonsense game as believers claiming scientists have "faith".

The activities that the Obama administration engaged it were absolutely spying.

There was ample reason to being conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Trump's campaign. Period.

I agree.

Just every time you've claimed the report blew collusion out of the water.

Which it absolutely did.

When in reality it describes plenty of cooperation and contact just not the necessary explicit agreement or --- for tat behavior to make it a criminal conspiracy.

'Cooperation and contact' isn't criminal. During the transition, it's expected. The only act that was untoward was the Trump Tower meeting and that paled in comparison to the Steele Dossier in terms of attempting to utilize foreign (including Russia) ties to influence an election.

You're claiming the circular reasoning of Trump can't commit obstruction because he's the head of the executive branch overseeing an executive branch investigation so he has the power to fire the investigators even if they're investigating him.

Yes. Welcome to the folly of Special Counsel.

You're saying he didn't obstruct because he can't obstruct and therefore shouldn't be charged with obstruction...but should be impeached for abuse of power. Can you say cognitive dissonance?

Can you say Civics101? You perfectly summarized my position, which is an accurate summation of our civic structure, and then claim "cognitive dissonance"? The self-irony is hilarious.

n this case you're forcing everything through the impeachment door by doing whatever logical travesty necessary to close all others.

In this case there exists only one door - impeachment. If you think other doors exist, please articulate them.

Because it's a political and untenable solution.

Correct. 100%. That's the point I've been making this entire thread - impeachment is a political remedy, and right how it's untenable. It's untenable not only because of the 2/3 Senate super-majority for removal, but because there is little appetite for it in the Democrat-controlled House.

It's safe to claim to be for the right thing when that thing isn't going to happen.

#117 | POSTED BY JPW

Exactly. This is why - and I can't believe I'm about to type this - Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer, Durbin are displaying political courage while certain members of the Democatic Party cast of presidential hopefuls are cynically trying to appeal to their base by calling for impeachment when they know it will never happen.

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 01:56 AM | Reply

#125 | POSTED BY GREATAMERICAN

The more accurate description is we see your wife frequently has bruises and black eyes and flinches every time you move suddenly but refuses to file a police report so we don't have the evidence to throw your ass in jail.

BTW change your moniker. Should be ------------. Or fauxamerican. Or fakeamerican.

#127 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 01:57 AM | Reply

You didn't honestly think that that would be funny, did you?

In a vacuum? No. Coming from Corky, directed at both of us....yeah, it was funny IMO.

#128 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 02:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The activities that the Obama administration engaged it were absolutely spying.

Alright. Fine. Explain how.

Which it absolutely did.

Nope. You can keep asserting it but all you're doing is showing how biased you are and how little you comprehend English despite your claims to the contrary.

'Cooperation and contact' isn't criminal.

Which is all the Mueller report states.

While laying out extensive contacts.

For somebody who's a supposed nonsupporter you seem keen on maintaining the garbage, bottom of the barrel standard of "it's not criminal".

During the transition, it's expected.

Really? Contact with foreign governments with promises or attempts at diplomacy before you're POTUS is "expected"?

The only act that was untoward was the Trump Tower meeting and that paled in comparison to the Steele Dossier in terms of attempting to utilize foreign (including Russia) ties to influence an election.

Oh --------. God it's pathetic how you guys suddenly dream up standards to apply to anybody but your boy.

Yes. Welcome to the folly of Special Counsel.

No, welcome to the folly of your terrible thinking.

I admit it's beautiful circular logic if you want to absolve Trump without stating it outright.]

Can you say Civics101? You perfectly summarized my position, which is an accurate summation of our civic structure, and then claim "cognitive dissonance"? The self-irony is hilarious.

The entire reason this thread exists is because 566 legal professionals disagree with your interpretation. Stop stating your opinion as fact.

In this case there exists only one door - impeachment. If you think other doors exist, please articulate them.

It's been pointed out that the Constitutional concerns are DOJ policy, not settled case law. Charge the SOB.

Exactly. This is why - and I can't believe I'm about to type this - Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer, Durbin are displaying political courage while certain members of the Democatic Party cast of presidential hopefuls are cynically trying to appeal to their base by calling for impeachment when they know it will never happen.

Or they're trying to drum up support while the Dem leadership plays the game of it will never happen.

Pelosi et al are far too long in the political teeth to be so idealistic as the more left folks drumming for impeachment.

Question is, if it came to an actual vote in the house I think most Dems would vote for impeachment because voting against would be a worse record to have.

#129 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 02:08 AM | Reply

If you genuinely believe that logical claptrap then you're most definitely saying that Trump is above the law in this instance.

This is becoming circular. I'll try this a different way.

What I'm saying is that Trump can't be found to illegally obstruct an investigation that he's ultimately in charge of. That would be like saying Mueller obstructed his own investigation.

Having said that, Trump's attempts to obstruct technically don't violate the letter of the law, but per the statutes that Joe has provided was upthread, he violated the spirit of the law, which is an abuse of power due to corrupt intent.

You're a smart guy. To a point I blame poor articulation on my part, but at some point I expect you to grasp the nuance and understand that I pretty much agree with your position on this and am arguing semantics.

#130 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 02:10 AM | Reply

Lack of sufficient evidence means just that.

Correct.

It does not mean he's innocent.

In legal parlance, it does.

Which brings us back to the political argument and the only remedy for it - impeachment. As of now, the Mueller report fails to deliver the requisite political argument to trigger impeachment.

#131 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 02:14 AM | Reply

That would be like saying Mueller obstructed his own investigation.

What if Barr obstructed an investigation into discrepancies in his Congressional testimony? Since he's technically in charge of the investigation is it obstruction for him to impede or stop it?

In legal parlance, it does.

No, it doesn't. It simply means insufficient evidence exists.

As of now, the Mueller report fails to deliver the requisite political argument to trigger impeachment.

I don't think Mueller ventured into the political weeds so he couldn't have done (or not done) what you describe.

#132 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 02:23 AM | Reply

The activities that the Obama administration engaged it were absolutely spying.
---
Alright. Fine. Explain how.

4 FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, for openers.

That's spying and it was probably adequately predicated.

Which it absolutely did.
---
Nope. You can keep asserting it but all you're doing is showing how biased you are and how little you comprehend English despite your claims to the contrary.

This is from Volume I of the Muller Report:

"While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal,"

The legal case against Team Trump was blown out of the water by the release of the Mueller report.

#133 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 02:28 AM | Reply

What if Barr obstructed an investigation into discrepancies in his Congressional testimony? Since he's technically in charge of the investigation is it obstruction for him to impede or stop it?

Excellent question.

He can't obstruct his own investigation from a legal standpoint. Having said that, he can abuse his powers by acting with corrupt intent in order to skew the outcome of the investigation. It's not a distinction without a difference, but it has a lot of overlap. I seriously hope that makes sense.

Again, this is the folly of having an investigation of the Executive Branch being carried out by the....wait for it....Executive Branch.

Had the Mueller investigation been carried out by a Congressional committee, then absolutely his attempts at obstruction would be legally-defined as obstruction.

#134 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 02:35 AM | Reply

4 FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, for openers.
That's spying and it was probably adequately predicated.

That doesn't explain it.

Spying necessitates an adversarial relationship.

Fine. I can see that in the Page instance, but your concern seems to be of the "good people on both sides" line of thinking.

The legal case against Team Trump was blown out of the water by the release of the Mueller report.

Did you think I wouldn't notice the wording change?

I agree. However, the narrative was conspiracy/collusion with Russia and the report failed to deliver on that. In fact, in its summary it completely destroyed that narrative.

It's a little late to be moving goal posts.

#135 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 02:40 AM | Reply

Having said that, he can abuse his powers by acting with corrupt intent in order to skew the outcome of the investigation. It's not a distinction without a difference, but it has a lot of overlap. I seriously hope that makes sense.

It's double speak and I don't think we'll ever move beyond that.

If there's nothing wrong with the actions then you can't also claim it's corruption.

If Barr being AG (or Trump being POTUS) means he gets to smack people in the face with a hammer, you can't claim he's still guilty of attempted murder, but not criminally.

Again, this is the folly of having an investigation of the Executive Branch being carried out by the....wait for it....Executive Branch.

No, this is the folly of electing a known liar, conman and cheater to the highest office in the land with a party of greedy jellyfish behind him.

We, as a country, have simply lost our way. It's that simple. All the bandwidth spent arguing details on this site (and many many many others I'm sure...) because apparently that big picture conclusion is lost on damned near everybody. Most of all on the right, who still cling to the notion of moral superiority despite having shown themselves to be worthless, soulless sellouts.

In any case I'm done for the night. This is going nowhere and it will go nowhere.

Enjoy the rest of your night (morning?).

#136 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-07 02:50 AM | Reply

That doesn't explain it.

Sure it does.

Spying necessitates an adversarial relationship.

Agreed - and said relationship existed. The only relevant question is whether or not the rationale for said spying was adequately predicated. Personally, I think it probably was and my expectation is the impending IG report will validate this.

Did you think I wouldn't notice the wording change?

I am not aware of a wording change. If I inadvertently made one I'll gladly clarify.

It's a little late to be moving goal posts.

#135 | POSTED BY JPW

I made no attempt to move any goalposts. If I inadvertently did so, please point out where and I'll gladly clarify.

#137 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 02:55 AM | Reply

Having said that, he can abuse his powers by acting with corrupt intent in order to skew the outcome of the investigation. It's not a distinction without a difference, but it has a lot of overlap. I seriously hope that makes sense.
---
It's double speak and I don't think we'll ever move beyond that.

It's not double-speak.

Is rolling a stop-sign the same thing as speeding? Of course not. Are they both driving infractions? Of course they are.

Criminal obstruction is not the same thing as abuse of power due to corrupt intent. Are they both infractions? Of course they are - they are simply defined differently and are dealt with differently - criminal obstruction is a legal issue that is handled via the courts and abuse of power is handled politically via impeachment and removal.

I really think I just nailed it and your are a dick of you refuse to compliment me.

If there's nothing wrong with the actions then you can't also claim it's corruption.

I didn't claim there was nothing wrong with the actions. I think this misunderstanding is the root of our failure to communicate.

Again, this is the folly of having an investigation of the Executive Branch being carried out by the....wait for it....Executive Branch.
----
No, this is the folly of electing a known liar, conman and cheater to the highest office in the land with a party of greedy jellyfish behind him.

I agree with you regarding Trump folly, but you moved the goalposts - the folly of Special Counsel is applicable regardless of who occupies the White House, which is what I was saying.

We, as a country, have simply lost our way. It's that simple.

I couldn't disagree more. We have an opposition party acting like an opposing party. We have a constitutionally-protected press acting in an adversarial manner toward POTUS, which is such a refreshing change from the Pravda-like coverage of the last administration. This is the way it's supposed to be.

Most of all on the right, who still cling to the notion of moral superiority despite having shown themselves to be worthless, soulless sellouts.

It's not that absolute, but I do agree that the right has a LOT of sellouts, many of whom who who enjoy varying degrees of prominence on the right.

In any case I'm done for the night...

Enjoy the rest of your night (morning?).

#136 | POSTED BY JPW A

Take care.

Good night and unfortunately it is morning for me. I should have gone to bed a couple of hours ago.

This is going nowhere and it will go nowhere.

I'm surprised you feel that way. I thought this was a pretty good discussion.

#138 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 03:22 AM | Reply

"We have an opposition party acting like an opposing party. We have a constitutionally-protected press acting in an adversarial manner toward POTUS, which is such a refreshing change from the Pravda-like coverage of the last administration. This is the way it's supposed to be. "

You apparently don't even remember when we had the fairness doctrine and an honest news service. Walter Conkite wouldn't spit on Fox News if it was on fire. Today's media is owned and run by the corporations for their own benefit and they simply don't report anything contrary to their core message. And then you use ignorant terms like "Pravda like coverage" of Barrack Obama? You're simply ridiculous. Pravda-like my ass you ignorant bumpkin. You don't know what fair minded news media looks like because you've never seen it. Today's news media is a sad reflection of what the news media used to look like. It used to tell us the truth. Like Dan Rather reporting from a jungle in Vietnam. Fact: Ronald Reagan ended the fairness dotrine so that he could put out his crazy Libertarian philosophies and run this nation deeply into debt. If you don't want to face that fact then you will never be able to actually understand what is going on all around you. Just do't expect those of us, a little older and wiser than yourself. to agree with you because you really don't know what you are talking about.

#139 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-07 06:01 AM | Reply

Impeachment starts in the House.

And it's pointless when you have a Senate that is a tubber stamp for the most despicable person ever to occupy the WH. Like i said, Republicans don't support impeachment because they know, at least for now, that their base largely supports Trump and you're evidence of that here as you parrot their talking points on a daily basis.

All of Trump's attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation fell within the purview of his presidential powers. No obstruction for that reason.

That's not even arguable with respect to witness tampering. But even if your claim were true, the obstruction statute does not make exceptions for the president. It says that "whoever" obstructs justice or attempts to do so is guilty of a felony. Words have meaning, Jeff. Doubly so in the law. You can't write an exception into a statute which does not exist.

#140 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-07 07:47 AM | Reply

Joe...

I believe I kneecapped Jeff's regurgitation of Barr's unsupported belief that a President cannot obstruct because of his legal constitutional powers way back in post #49:

Jeffy must have never read the Articles of Impeachment filed against Richard Nixon, nor does he understand that utilizing constitutional powers through "corrupt intent" vitiates the legality of said acts committed in bad faith or to stymie duly initiated investigations....

When Trump wanted to fire Mueller was he in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed or did he have ANY demonstrable cause outside of his own self-preservation to have Mueller removed from his legally appointed position? The answer is obvious: The only thing that Mueller had done wrong at that point in Trump's eyes was actually and competently doing the job he was hired to do by Rod Rosenstein, hence any action taken by Trump to remove Mueller or impede his investigation was against the law, full stop.

In his entire back and forth with JPW he hasn't presented one scintilla of evidence in support of his contention outside of the favored right-wing narrative echoing Nixon, that if a President does it, it can't be illegal.

The only thing keeping Trump from being indicted for felonies of obstruction and conspiracy to commit election fraud is the DOJ policy memo which has never been tested in court nor is said memo a law or statue. It's a guiding interpretation, nothing more, nothing less. However, it does currently limit what the DOJ feels is its normal power to indict and try the sitting President. That is all that's keeping Trump from multiple criminal indictments as over 500 former federal prosecutors all agree.

#141 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-07 08:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

And then you use ignorant terms like "Pravda like coverage" of Barrack Obama?

The press absolutely was lap-dog in its coverage of Obama.

Then, in whipsaw like action, it went from lap-dog to attack-dog, overnight, with Trump winning the election.

That's mostly a good thing, BTW. The press is supposed to be adversarial, it's not supposed to be a wind-up doll for the likes of Ben Rhodes to manipulate and shape the news on any given day.

If you haven't noticed the drastic change in the way the media covers the White House between Obama and Trump (92% of it is negative even with a strong economy and no foreign policy disasters so far) then you are so blinded by partisanship that you are incapable of seeing it.

#142 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 09:25 AM | Reply

I believe I kneecapped Jeff's regurgitation of Barr's unsupported belief that a President cannot obstruct because of his legal constitutional powers way back in post #49

I didn't regurgitate anything. My analysis was my own and it was based upon Civics101 - the separation of Constitutional powers.

#143 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 09:29 AM | Reply

In his entire back and forth with JPW he hasn't presented one scintilla of evidence in support of his contention outside of the favored right-wing narrative echoing Nixon, that if a President does it, it can't be illegal.

Don't be a hack. I never once said anything remotely to that affect on this thread or any others.

The only thing keeping Trump from being indicted for felonies of obstruction and conspiracy to commit election fraud is the DOJ policy memo...

Wrong. Incredibly wrong. Mueller made no recommendation regarding obstruction and punted to the DOJ which cleared Trump of obstruction - which is absolutely the correct call from a legal standpoint. That issue is dead, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise. As for election fraud...the Stormy Daniels hush-money payout arguably violated campaign finance law due to the way it was structured and carried out. If you want to make a criminal case against Trump that at least has a chance for success - obstruction? Not so much.

#144 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 09:37 AM | Reply

the separation of Constitutional powers.

And a complete ignoring that the use of said powers in service of "corrupt intent" is illegal and subject to the same laws and punishment that govern every other citizen of this nation whose not the President. As Mueller subtly states in his conclusion, while such transgressions may not be indictable by federal law enforcement while said President is in office, once he leaves the immunity derived from the memo's policy is removed and if the statues of limitations have not passed, the President can then be charged and tried for what he did while still President.

Your analysis is wanting and no US court has ever ruled that your interpretation is correct. Just the opposite is true and proven by Nixon's charges of impeachment though he resigned before the process even began in earnest.

#145 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-07 09:38 AM | Reply

My analysis was my own and it was based upon Civics101 - the separation of Constitutional powers.

Your "anaylsis" is...lacking. Mueller addressed it directly and comprehensively in his report, and came out against you. As this is a highly nuanced issue, i highly recommend you read Vol II, pgs 168-180. Suffice it to say that while the Supreme Court has not addressed this directly, their voluminous case law on traditional separation of powers issues dictates that Congress can pass laws that protect the integrity of judicial and congressional proceedings, and that the balance weighs in favor of that over the limited effect that doing so might have on a president's article 2 powers.

#146 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-07 09:41 AM | Reply

Mueller made no recommendation regarding obstruction and punted to the DOJ which cleared Trump of obstruction - which is absolutely the correct call from a legal standpoint.

No he didn't. You truly need to take a reading comprehension class. Just read Mueller's qualifications, they couldn't be more direct as to his intentions and his interpretation that the memo overrode even saying whether or not charges were warranted due to the accused inability to defend themselves from accusation.

This is not arguable.

#147 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-07 09:45 AM | Reply

i highly recommend you read Vol II, pgs 168-180. - Joe

Ok. I'll do that. Thanks for the recommendation, Joe.

#148 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 09:51 AM | Reply

And a complete ignoring that the use of said powers in service of "corrupt intent"...

I've already acknowledged that. Multiple times. I agree with you about that.

#149 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 09:53 AM | Reply

From the report:

Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regard less of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term "corruptly" sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights ofothers. A preclusion of"corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article II powers.

Taking into account that information and our analysis of applicable statutory and constitutional principles (discussed below in Volume II, Section III, infra), we determined that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction-of-justice issues involving the President.

#150 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-07 09:56 AM | Reply

#150

I agree with all of that, Tony.

#151 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 10:03 AM | Reply

Mueller made no recommendation regarding obstruction and punted to the DOJ which cleared Trump of obstruction - which is absolutely the correct call from a legal standpoint. That issue is dead, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise.

If you want to make a criminal case against Trump that at least has a chance for success - obstruction? Not so much.

The issues isn't "dead" it's the subject of the letter from now over 500 former federal prosecutors who say it isn't dead regardless of what AG Barr and Mitch McConnell might say. The law, as illustrated throughout the Mueller report, says it's an open subject until the statutes of limitations expire on the probable acts identified in the report.

These prosecutors are in unanimous agreement that the only way that Barr could "clear" Trump is under the policy memo which may or may not having any true legal standing. The headlines are that "Anyone other than the sitting President would be indicted on multiple charges of obstruction according to 500+ former prosecutors." That means the evidence already compiled supports prosecution - according to these veteran professionals - as it relates to their centuries of collective prosecutorial experience, not that a handpicked AG of the accused can wave his hand and create a reality intimating just the opposite.

#152 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-07 10:28 AM | Reply

The headlines are that "Anyone other than the sitting President...

And I've laid out why that he's the sitting President matters in this context and it's based, in part, by page 12 of Volume II of Mueller's report.

With Mueller punting and Barr/Rosenstein concluding no obstruction, from a legal standpoint this issue is dead.

Democrats will try to make hay with it in some upcoming hearings, but that will mostly be theatrics. Fair or not, it's a dead issue. That is political reality.

#153 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-07 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

OMG, Mueller had him cold and punted? Why?

I mean, the evidence was right there in his report.

#154 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-05-07 11:41 AM | Reply

Nixon wasn't charged with a crime, he was impeached. - #54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-06 08:22 PM
That is false. Only 2 presidents have been impeached, both Democrats.

#155 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-07 01:46 PM | Reply

The only thing keeping Trump from being indicted for felonies of obstruction and conspiracy to commit election fraud is the DOJ policy memo which has never been tested in court nor is said memo a law or statue. It's a guiding interpretation, nothing more, nothing less. However, it does currently limit what the DOJ feels is its normal power to indict and try the sitting President. That is all that's keeping Trump from multiple criminal indictments as over 500 former federal prosecutors all agree. #141 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-07 08:59 AM
This is an untrue statement.

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

He then specifies what he means with that last sentence by including a citation: See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution 24 OP. O.L.C. 222 (2000)

So your statement correctly stated would be 'The only thing keeping Trump from being indicted is the evidence being not sufficient to do so.'

#156 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-07 02:41 PM | Reply

#156

Barr lied moron. Barr's letter was another act of obstruction in service of Trump. That's why over 500 former prosecutors signed on to the reason for this thread.

You are indeed an incorrigible idiot of epic stupidity. Go drown yourself.

#157 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-07 03:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Rudy Giuliani's former deputy explains why Trump's own lawyer ‘would have indicted' the president

"I worked with Rudy on a daily basis for nearly five years in a variety of positions," Harris said. "We were prosecutors together. I have absolutely no doubt that prosecutor Rudy Giuliani would have indicted someone who committed the acts that are put out in the Mueller report in a heartbeat. I am 100 percent confident of that."

www.rawstory.com

#158 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-05-07 11:42 PM | Reply

It is abundantly clear that a case can be made for impeachment and yet the Dems don't have the balls to commence impeachment proceedings.

Pathetic.

#159 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-07 11:53 PM | Reply

Tony,
Again, impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal remedy.
Obviously my clarifications didn't help. I don't disagree with anything you said in #58.
#60 | Posted by JeffJ

NO IT IS NOT.

Elections are the political remedy.

Impeachment is the Constitutional i.e. LEGAL remedy of removing a corrupt president.

#160 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-07 11:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What I'm saying is that it's impossible for POTUS to be guilty of obstructing an investigation that is being run by the Executive branch.
Now, POTUS can certainly abuse his powers by acting with corrupt intent, but that's not the same thing.
I don't normally get this pedantic, but I think this distinction is important.
Tony,
I brought it up to illustrate the fact that impeachment is political, not legal. Andrew Johnson's impeachment wasn't based on illegality. The Tenure Act that he supposedly violated was unconstitutional .
#69 | Posted by JeffJ

Jeff, you're an idiot.

Your argument is like saying Internal Affairs can't investigate a corrupt cop.

#161 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-08 12:01 AM | Reply

"It is abundantly clear that a case can be made for impeachment"

"A case can be made."

Go on...

#162 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-08 12:03 AM | Reply

"A case can be made."

Go on...

The case can be made, but the vast majority of the public does not know nor understand the underlying facts (nor their importance as violations of law and constitutional dictates) at this point in time. Only if/when the public becomes better educated on the totality of Trump's actions will the process of impeachment become the threat to Trump that it should be. At present, he knows the Senate will not convict so he can cry politics on whatever the House does. Once testimony is given and facts and evidence are compiled through hearings then and only then might the process end in Trump's resignation due to pressure from within his own party.

That is the only way impeachment can be successful. But if that point never comes, the Democrats must try to hold him accountable for the sake of our Constitution and laws. No President can snub legal and reasonable requests from a co-equal branch and use LEO as his personal security force. That is not what this nation is about nor should it ever be.

#163 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-08 12:38 AM | Reply

Barr lied - #157 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-05-07 03:35 PM
In what way do you believe that Barr has lied?

#164 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-08 08:18 AM | Reply

Impeachment is the Constitutional i.e. LEGAL remedy of removing a corrupt president.
#160 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

It's a political process, not a legal process.

Your argument is like saying Internal Affairs can't investigate a corrupt cop.

#161 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

What? That makes no sense.

Jeff, you're an idiot.

Projection alert!

#165 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-08 12:24 PM | Reply

"Impeachment is the Constitutional i.e. LEGAL remedy of removing a corrupt president.
#160 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS
It's a political process, not a legal process."

I think you're missing it.
Is the Constitution a political document or a legal document?

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-08 09:19 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort