The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by El Guapo »

GungHo wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:40 pm Why isn't he simply arrested again? I really don't get how DOJ policy supercedes US law. There's no way trump(or any other person in this country) isn't arrested if they walk into a school with an uzi and start shooting everyone, so clearly a president can be both arrested and charged with crimes. So this DOJ policy (again policy, not a duly enacted law) is about degrees of crime for which the president cannot be charged. Which is fn stupid.
Just bc an additional means of removing the president from office exists doesn't mean that other means cease to exist. Does DOJ policy prohibit the president from dying as well?
The policy doesn't supercede U.S. law. Mueller or Barr (lol) could have concluded that the policy is wrong, and proceeded with an indictment of the President (presuming sufficient evidence). The President would immediately move to dismiss the charges based on some type of presidential immunity while in office, which would rest on constitutional principles superceding statutory law.

And the idea, while less ironclad than people in the media often seem to think, isn't crazy. The worry is you wind up with some zealous partisan prosecutor de facto overturning an election, as nearly happened with Ken Starr (who considered indicting Clinton). I think this type of argument is particularly strong as to state attorneys general (presumably one deep blue or deep red AG is going to have a vested interest in charging Presidents of opposing parties). And as to the President shooting someone, in theory the remedy for that is for Congress to impeach and remove, *and then* for the President to be indicted. In theory.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Holman »

El Guapo wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:14 pm The policy doesn't supercede U.S. law. Mueller or Barr (lol) could have concluded that the policy is wrong, and proceeded with an indictment of the President (presuming sufficient evidence). The President would immediately move to dismiss the charges based on some type of presidential immunity while in office, which would rest on constitutional principles superceding statutory law.

And the idea, while less ironclad than people in the media often seem to think, isn't crazy. The worry is you wind up with some zealous partisan prosecutor de facto overturning an election, as nearly happened with Ken Starr (who considered indicting Clinton). I think this type of argument is particularly strong as to state attorneys general (presumably one deep blue or deep red AG is going to have a vested interest in charging Presidents of opposing parties). And as to the President shooting someone, in theory the remedy for that is for Congress to impeach and remove, *and then* for the President to be indicted. In theory.
In the case of a violent crime (e.g. president caught red-handed murdering his wife) I suppose the POTUS could be arrested but not immediately indicted. The expectation would be for congress to proceed through removal from office very quickly, at which point charges could be filed.

What if (in some bad-novel version of America like the one we're living in) the president's senate refused to convict and remove? Would he spend the rest of his term presidenting from jail?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by ImLawBoy »

Holman wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:37 pm
El Guapo wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:14 pm The policy doesn't supercede U.S. law. Mueller or Barr (lol) could have concluded that the policy is wrong, and proceeded with an indictment of the President (presuming sufficient evidence). The President would immediately move to dismiss the charges based on some type of presidential immunity while in office, which would rest on constitutional principles superceding statutory law.

And the idea, while less ironclad than people in the media often seem to think, isn't crazy. The worry is you wind up with some zealous partisan prosecutor de facto overturning an election, as nearly happened with Ken Starr (who considered indicting Clinton). I think this type of argument is particularly strong as to state attorneys general (presumably one deep blue or deep red AG is going to have a vested interest in charging Presidents of opposing parties). And as to the President shooting someone, in theory the remedy for that is for Congress to impeach and remove, *and then* for the President to be indicted. In theory.
In the case of a violent crime (e.g. president caught red-handed murdering his wife) I suppose the POTUS could be arrested but not immediately indicted. The expectation would be for congress to proceed through removal from office very quickly, at which point charges could be filed.

What if (in some bad-novel version of America like the one we're living in) the president's senate refused to convict and remove? Would he spend the rest of his term presidenting from jail?
You can't hold someone indefinitely without charging.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19317
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Jaymann »

What about declaring him mentally incompetent? What is the threshold for that?
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Isgrimnur »

Jaymann wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:45 pm What about declaring him mentally incompetent? What is the threshold for that?
Amendment 25, Section 4
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by hepcat »

YellowKing wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:57 am I know it's fun to throw up your hands and say we'll never get rid of him, but let's look at reality.
We tried that back in 2016. Reality kicked us in the balls and then made sweet, sweet love to Trump's hairpiece on the night of November 8th.
em2nought wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:13 am Probably still your best option since the only counter idea to "actual" prosperity :mrgreen:
Image
Covfefe!
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Holman »





Third tweet is the kicker: investigating the president is a very serious crime and maybe Treason.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30125
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by YellowKing »

Trump's tweets alone should be enough evidence that he is mentally unfit for the office.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Smoove_B »

His response is exactly why Congress needs to continue to interview associated actors, call for hearings, investigate, etc...

He is unfit for the office, full-stop. I will repeat - the idea that he is allowed to act this way unchecked is damaging the fabric of our democracy.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Holman »

ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:40 pm
Holman wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:37 pm
El Guapo wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:14 pm The policy doesn't supercede U.S. law. Mueller or Barr (lol) could have concluded that the policy is wrong, and proceeded with an indictment of the President (presuming sufficient evidence). The President would immediately move to dismiss the charges based on some type of presidential immunity while in office, which would rest on constitutional principles superceding statutory law.

And the idea, while less ironclad than people in the media often seem to think, isn't crazy. The worry is you wind up with some zealous partisan prosecutor de facto overturning an election, as nearly happened with Ken Starr (who considered indicting Clinton). I think this type of argument is particularly strong as to state attorneys general (presumably one deep blue or deep red AG is going to have a vested interest in charging Presidents of opposing parties). And as to the President shooting someone, in theory the remedy for that is for Congress to impeach and remove, *and then* for the President to be indicted. In theory.
In the case of a violent crime (e.g. president caught red-handed murdering his wife) I suppose the POTUS could be arrested but not immediately indicted. The expectation would be for congress to proceed through removal from office very quickly, at which point charges could be filed.

What if (in some bad-novel version of America like the one we're living in) the president's senate refused to convict and remove? Would he spend the rest of his term presidenting from jail?
You can't hold someone indefinitely without charging.
Right. I assume that the DOJ would in this case reassess its policy that a POTUS cannot be indicted.

Further question: are states bound by this DOJ policy? If NY state decides they have evidence of Trump committing financial crimes in their jurisdiction, do they have to wait until he is out of office before indicting him?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 5306
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by em2nought »

hepcat wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:46 pm
em2nought wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:13 am Probably still your best option since the only counter idea to "actual" prosperity :mrgreen:
Enlarge Image
Maybe prosperity for the leaders of Iran. LOL He'd be too far to the right for your party now though. :wink: They better find a cheaper way to grow meat on a plant leaf pronto. :mrgreen:

Image
Technically, he shouldn't be here.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Pyperkub »

ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:40 pm
Holman wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:37 pm
El Guapo wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:14 pm The policy doesn't supercede U.S. law. Mueller or Barr (lol) could have concluded that the policy is wrong, and proceeded with an indictment of the President (presuming sufficient evidence). The President would immediately move to dismiss the charges based on some type of presidential immunity while in office, which would rest on constitutional principles superceding statutory law.

And the idea, while less ironclad than people in the media often seem to think, isn't crazy. The worry is you wind up with some zealous partisan prosecutor de facto overturning an election, as nearly happened with Ken Starr (who considered indicting Clinton). I think this type of argument is particularly strong as to state attorneys general (presumably one deep blue or deep red AG is going to have a vested interest in charging Presidents of opposing parties). And as to the President shooting someone, in theory the remedy for that is for Congress to impeach and remove, *and then* for the President to be indicted. In theory.
In the case of a violent crime (e.g. president caught red-handed murdering his wife) I suppose the POTUS could be arrested but not immediately indicted. The expectation would be for congress to proceed through removal from office very quickly, at which point charges could be filed.

What if (in some bad-novel version of America like the one we're living in) the president's senate refused to convict and remove? Would he spend the rest of his term presidenting from jail?
You can't hold someone indefinitely without charging.
What part of Guantanamo Bay don't you understand?
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by hepcat »

em2nought wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:19 pm
Maybe prosperity for the leaders of Iran. LOL
Now we spend all our cash trying to buy North Korea and Saudi Arabia’s love. Trump must be livid that they aren’t asking him to the UN prom! :mrgreen:
Covfefe!
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by El Guapo »

Holman wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:57 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:40 pm
Holman wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:37 pm
El Guapo wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:14 pm The policy doesn't supercede U.S. law. Mueller or Barr (lol) could have concluded that the policy is wrong, and proceeded with an indictment of the President (presuming sufficient evidence). The President would immediately move to dismiss the charges based on some type of presidential immunity while in office, which would rest on constitutional principles superceding statutory law.

And the idea, while less ironclad than people in the media often seem to think, isn't crazy. The worry is you wind up with some zealous partisan prosecutor de facto overturning an election, as nearly happened with Ken Starr (who considered indicting Clinton). I think this type of argument is particularly strong as to state attorneys general (presumably one deep blue or deep red AG is going to have a vested interest in charging Presidents of opposing parties). And as to the President shooting someone, in theory the remedy for that is for Congress to impeach and remove, *and then* for the President to be indicted. In theory.
In the case of a violent crime (e.g. president caught red-handed murdering his wife) I suppose the POTUS could be arrested but not immediately indicted. The expectation would be for congress to proceed through removal from office very quickly, at which point charges could be filed.

What if (in some bad-novel version of America like the one we're living in) the president's senate refused to convict and remove? Would he spend the rest of his term presidenting from jail?
You can't hold someone indefinitely without charging.
Right. I assume that the DOJ would in this case reassess its policy that a POTUS cannot be indicted.

Further question: are states bound by this DOJ policy? If NY state decides they have evidence of Trump committing financial crimes in their jurisdiction, do they have to wait until he is out of office before indicting him?
No, but I think the legal arguments for immunizing a president from state criminal prosecution are far stronger than immunizing him from federal criminal prosecution. Both federalism-type arguments, and that the practical consequences of that could well be extreme (not out of the question that pretty much every president would have to deal with a criminal investigation, even frivolous, driven by some nut partisan AG somewhere.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Kurth »

Holman wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:11 pm



Third tweet is the kicker: investigating the president is a very serious crime and maybe Treason.
Sure, so what exactly are we investigating and holding hearings on?

I’m not understanding the call for more hearings and congressional investigations. Once again, nearly everything Trump has done has been done in the play light of day (or in the light shined on it by the “fake” news). We’ve all watched him obstruct. We’ve all read his tweets. Now we have 450+ pages of the Mueller report basically adding some detail and color to what we already knew. Combining the Mueller report with everything we observe from Trump on a daily basis, please tell me what we expect these hearings and investigations are likely to uncover.

And in terms of the doomed impeachment (which I understand Warren is now calling for), what is that going to accomplish? Is it going to convince people on the fence to become never Trumpers? I highly doubt it, at least in part because I think fence sitters are unicorns at this point. Will it energize the Dem base? More than it already is? Hard for me to see that. I do think, however, that it will energize Trump’s base, especially if the Dems fuck it up, which I’m pretty sure they’ll end up doing.

No. Win.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GreenGoo »

Nothing. Your democracy is healthy and working as intended.

Enjoy.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Holman »

Kurth wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:46 am Sure, so what exactly are we investigating and holding hearings on?
We still don't know all of the facts. Even at 448 pages the report is a summary of what Mueller did, not a complete accounting of what we can know about all of this and what they chose not to act upon.

Everything needs to be brought into the light and needs to be considered by the people's representatives.
I’m not understanding the call for more hearings and congressional investigations. Once again, nearly everything Trump has done has been done in the play light of day (or in the light shined on it by the “fake” news). We’ve all watched him obstruct. We’ve all read his tweets. Now we have 450+ pages of the Mueller report basically adding some detail and color to what we already knew. Combining the Mueller report with everything we observe from Trump on a daily basis, please tell me what we expect these hearings and investigations are likely to uncover.

And in terms of the doomed impeachment (which I understand Warren is now calling for), what is that going to accomplish? Is it going to convince people on the fence to become never Trumpers? I highly doubt it, at least in part because I think fence sitters are unicorns at this point. Will it energize the Dem base? More than it already is? Hard for me to see that. I do think, however, that it will energize Trump’s base, especially if the Dems fuck it up, which I’m pretty sure they’ll end up doing.

No. Win.
This is still political thinking. Congress has a constitutional duty here.

If we hadn't suffered a month of Barr and Trump spinning the unseen report as exoneration, we wouldn't even be having this debate. Mueller's report was sent to congress with the express recommendation that it take up the president's conduct. It's very clear.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Holman »

Here's a very good long summary at Lawfare of what the report says and what it doesn't.

What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis

On Collusion:
This conclusion is far from the full vindication that chants of “no collusion” imply, a fact driven home by the detailed factual record the Mueller report puts forward. In some cases, there was indeed a meeting of the minds between Trump campaign officials and Russia, just not in pursuit of a criminal objective. In others, members of the Trump campaign acted criminally—as evidenced by the guilty pleas and indictments that the Mueller team secured—but did so on their own. At times, these efforts even worked toward the same objective as the Russian government, but on seemingly parallel tracks as opposed to in coordination. None of this amounted to a criminal conspiracy that the Mueller team believed it could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But the dense network of interactions, missed opportunities, and shared objectives between the Trump campaign and the Russian government remains profoundly disturbing.

This report shows that the Trump campaign was reasonably aware of the Russian efforts, at least on the hacking side. They were aware the Russians sought to help them win. They welcomed that assistance. Instead of warning the American public, they devised a public relations and campaign strategy that sought to capitalize on Russia’s illicit assistance. In other words, the Russians and the Trump campaign shared a common goal, and each side worked to achieve that goal with basic knowledge of the other side’s intention. They just didn’t agree to work toward that goal together.
On Obstruction:
This is not, in short, a circumstance in which Mueller summed up all the evidence for obstruction and all the evidence against it and just couldn’t make up his mind—or decided to defer to the attorney general for judgment. Mueller’s decision not to reach a traditional prosecutorial judgment in no sense indicates that the evidence of possible obstruction by the president was weak—“No Collusion, No Obstruction,” as the president tweeted. To the contrary, the more time one spends with the obstruction section of the report, the more it suggests that the Mueller team believed the evidence of obstruction to be very strong.
For present purposes, the critical point is that in six [out of ten] of these episodes, the special counsel’s office suggests that all of the elements of obstruction are satisfied: Trump’s conduct regarding the investigation into Michael Flynn, his firing of Comey, his efforts to remove Mueller and then to curtail Mueller’s investigation, his campaign to have Sessions take back control over the investigation and an order he gave to White House Counsel Don McGahn to both lie to the press about Trump’s past attempt to fire Mueller and create a false record “for our files.” In the cases of Comey’s firing, Trump’s effort to fire Mueller and then push McGahn to lie about it, and Trump’s effort to curtail the scope of the investigation, Mueller describes “substantial” evidence that Trump intended to obstruct justice. Only in one instance—concerning Trump’s effort to prevent the release of emails regarding the Trump Tower meeting—does the special counsel seem to feel that none of the three elements of the obstruction offense were met. It is not entirely clear how Mueller would apply his overarching factual considerations, discussed above, to the specific cases, but he does seem to be saying that the evidence of obstruction in a number of these incidents is strong.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Smoove_B »

Yeah, I keep seeing various comments/articles/discussions focused on what the political fallout might be or how this could impact the upcoming elections. We're beyond politics at this point (even if the GOP is comfortable doing nothing) and instead at a juncture where we need to (collectively) decide whether or not a President can act in the way Trump has without recourse or if our system of government should be pushing back (as intended by the founding fathers).

To be clear, I'm not saying he needs to be impeached at this point. I'm saying the idea that even after everything he's said and done so far, for our government to just stand back and do nothing? Trouble. With so many other norms and traditions bent or broken after 2+ years, I'm not sure this is one that can go unchecked. As pointed out by RM9 earlier, the idea that so many American citizens just don't care either way is probably one of the most frightening elements to come from all of this.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by El Guapo »

Kurth wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:46 am
Holman wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:11 pm



Third tweet is the kicker: investigating the president is a very serious crime and maybe Treason.
Sure, so what exactly are we investigating and holding hearings on?

I’m not understanding the call for more hearings and congressional investigations. Once again, nearly everything Trump has done has been done in the play light of day (or in the light shined on it by the “fake” news). We’ve all watched him obstruct. We’ve all read his tweets. Now we have 450+ pages of the Mueller report basically adding some detail and color to what we already knew. Combining the Mueller report with everything we observe from Trump on a daily basis, please tell me what we expect these hearings and investigations are likely to uncover.

And in terms of the doomed impeachment (which I understand Warren is now calling for), what is that going to accomplish? Is it going to convince people on the fence to become never Trumpers? I highly doubt it, at least in part because I think fence sitters are unicorns at this point. Will it energize the Dem base? More than it already is? Hard for me to see that. I do think, however, that it will energize Trump’s base, especially if the Dems fuck it up, which I’m pretty sure they’ll end up doing.

No. Win.
There are at least a few things we still don't know.

Some of the big things:

(1) Trump's finances. We know about the Trump Tower Moscow deal (though I don't know that we know the full story) - what other financial ties does / did Trump have with the Russian oligarchy? As Frum puts it - who does the president owe and what does he owe? Part of this will involve getting Trump's tax returns (finally).

(2) Get the senior Trump people on the record as to what they knew about Russian interference efforts at the time. In particular, call Trump Jr. for testimony centered on (among other things) the infamous Trump Tower meeting. One big hole in the Mueller report is that he didn't get a lot of these people on the record on this stuff.

(3) The other big step the House could do would be to subpoena Trump himself to testify at a hearing. Presumably first invite him to come voluntarily, but then issue a subpoena when he inevitably refuses. As the Mueller report says, it's hard to establish for sure what Trump's intent was with a lot of this stuff without getting him on a sworn, on-the-record interview.

Thinking about it more, I kind of like the last option. It's something the House could do unilaterally, it's entirely appropriate given the facts of the matter, and it would (if successful) actually advance public knowledge on what the fuck happened. And yeah, it would be a court battle over whether the House *can* subpoena a sitting President, but no options have guaranteed success, and this seems like one of the better ones.

And "we need to hear from the President on this, if he's truly claiming exoneration here" seems like a pretty solid talking point as well.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
msteelers
Posts: 7157
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by msteelers »

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Kraken »

I am conflicted.

Impeachment is clearly the right move in terms of trying to right our system. It is not the smart thing to do if it won't purge the rot at the top, and might even make it worse.

We can't reverse our country's decline, not as long as the oligarchs remain in control...which they will do with or without Trump. We do have some limited control over the trajectory and pace of decline, and how history will tell its story. I think I would rather see us do the right thing and let the consequences fall where they may. But I'm too pragmatic to be comfortable with that yet.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30125
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by YellowKing »

Yeah I want to clarify my opinion on what WILL be done vs what I WANT to be done.

My thought is that they won't impeach due to the election as noted in my previous post.

My preference is that they nail his ass to the wall with everything they have. Because I do see a tremendous danger in standing back and doing nothing. That would be essentially setting the precedent that as long as the sitting President's party has control of at least one house, he cannot be held liable for any misconduct. And Mueller essentially spelled out in black and white that the obstruction charge was a Congressional responsibility.

It's a really bad situation to be in, no matter how you slice it.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Blackhawk »

We're in that 'die for your ideals, or win through compromise and fix it later' scenario.

I am starting to think that the best course (not the ideal course, not the 'right' course, but potentially the best) would be to bide our time, do what we can to win. In the meantime, keep this in the news by investigating what we can, loudly and publicly. After 2020, when he no longer has 'executive privilege', turn him into a cautionary tale that makes every political hopeful for the next century cry themselves to sleep.

Then again, I'm politically naive, and I know it, so I'm likely full of shit.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Kurth »

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:11 am Nothing. Your democracy is healthy and working as intended.

Enjoy.
You know that no one is suggesting this. Far, far from it, in fact. So I’m not sure where your comment here gets us. Certainly does not seem to advance the discussion.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Kurth »

El Guapo wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:20 am There are at least a few things we still don't know.

Some of the big things:

(1) Trump's finances. We know about the Trump Tower Moscow deal (though I don't know that we know the full story) - what other financial ties does / did Trump have with the Russian oligarchy? As Frum puts it - who does the president owe and what does he owe? Part of this will involve getting Trump's tax returns (finally).

(2) Get the senior Trump people on the record as to what they knew about Russian interference efforts at the time. In particular, call Trump Jr. for testimony centered on (among other things) the infamous Trump Tower meeting. One big hole in the Mueller report is that he didn't get a lot of these people on the record on this stuff.

(3) The other big step the House could do would be to subpoena Trump himself to testify at a hearing. Presumably first invite him to come voluntarily, but then issue a subpoena when he inevitably refuses. As the Mueller report says, it's hard to establish for sure what Trump's intent was with a lot of this stuff without getting him on a sworn, on-the-record interview.

Thinking about it more, I kind of like the last option. It's something the House could do unilaterally, it's entirely appropriate given the facts of the matter, and it would (if successful) actually advance public knowledge on what the fuck happened. And yeah, it would be a court battle over whether the House *can* subpoena a sitting President, but no options have guaranteed success, and this seems like one of the better ones.

And "we need to hear from the President on this, if he's truly claiming exoneration here" seems like a pretty solid talking point as well.
I could get behind 3. I’ve always felt the chances of the Mueller investigation generating real momentum to change the calculus took a nose dive when they decided to forego interviewing Trump. He’s so often his own worst enemy. I would love to see him have to testify in front of Congress.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Smoove_B »

Kurth wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:12 pmI could get behind 3. I’ve always felt the chances of the Mueller investigation generating real momentum to change the calculus took a nose dive when they decided to forego interviewing Trump. He’s so often his own worst enemy. I would love to see him have to testify in front of Congress.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but my take on this (based on what I've heard others say) is that there was a question as to whether or not Mueller could have compelled an interview with Trump. I have no doubts Mueller would have loved to sit him in a room and question Trump in person for the very reason you mention. But from what I understand no one is really sure if he could have done it (legally). Trump should absolutely be pulled in front of Congress and made to answer for any number of things. The sooner the better.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Kraken »

This back-and-forth from various Slate staffers mirrors our discussion here and sums up why I'm still conflicted.

At the moment, the most compelling argument (to me) is that we cannot acquiesce in establishing the precedent that a sitting president is above the law, and Democrats are shirking their constitutional duty if they don't bring charges, even if they are futile and politically risky. I'm leaning pro-impeachment, and I am not happy about it. But my mind is not made up.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30125
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by YellowKing »

The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced the downside (motivating Republicans against the witch-hunting Democrats) is as bad as I initially feared.

Forget the GOP base, they're going to vote for Trump anyway. And forget the left, they're going to vote against him. That leaves the independents and fence-sitters, and I think they're going to be far more persuaded by the dirt on Trump that comes to light than in the idea that this is a Democratic vendetta. The Democrats have a substantial piece of evidence on their side in the Mueller Report, after all.

So yeah, I'm leaning pro-impeachment as well, and damn the consequences. It's the job of this House to curtail this behavior.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Holman »

One interesting question is whether, supposing the House impeaches Trump (and they will do so if the process is begun), statesman and pillar of the senate Mitch McConnell would ever actually begin the trial.

If so much dirt has been turned up during House proceedings that it could be politically embarrassing to acquit the president, does anything force McConnell to move forward?

I believe the old answer is "norms," but we know much he respects those.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GreenGoo »

Kurth wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:06 pm
You know that no one is suggesting this. Far, far from it, in fact. So I’m not sure where your comment here gets us. Certainly does not seem to advance the discussion.
You are couching the discussion in specific terms and how it affects a single election. It's bigger than that. You might be advancing *your* discussion, but that's not the only one to be had, and arguably the least important one.

Without consequences for what happened and continues to happen, foreign powers will be emboldened to continue to manipulate American elections, and elected officials will be emboldened to continue to push norms and legalities.

With this report out in public and literally zero actions even attempted to be taken, it well illustrates just how consequence-free the American political arena is. That could and probably will have a grave future consequences for the future of American politics.

So do nothing and hope the Dems win the next election. Hell, they probably will. Hopefully the winner is not a smarter, more competent grifter. I'm sure the results of this administration have been very educational.
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19317
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Jaymann »

Holman wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:33 pm One interesting question is whether, supposing the House impeaches Trump (and they will do so if the process is begun), statesman and pillar of the senate Mitch McConnell would ever actually begin the trial.

If so much dirt has been turned up during House proceedings that it could be politically embarrassing to acquit the president, does anything force McConnell to move forward?
I'm not so sure that would be a terrible result. GOP goes into the election supporting an impeached President, but refusing to follow the constitution. Sort of a reverse coup. Not a good look.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by GreenGoo »

I should point out I'm not optimistic about any outcome. The Mueller report is about as damning as expected without actual smoking guns and charges, and nothing.

It's pretty clear that a complicit party in power is untouchable. Since nothing has changed to allow this, it means this has always been the case. Quite frankly I'm amazed the US hasn't seen 3rd world levels of corruption before now. It's a testament to "norms" having enormous power if everyone agrees to follow them. This administration has shown how fragile those are however, especially when you elect an emotionally stunted bull into the China shop.

The thing about norms though, is once they're gone, they're gone. I expect some dark days in the near future. Canada's politics have already started to taken on a level of partisanship and rhetoric that has been happening in the US, presumably because it works. Works to get elected I mean. It has very real and negative consequences when it comes to actual governance.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Alefroth »

I think I've now reached the point where if the cost of doing the right thing is four more years of Trump, so be it. The Dems could still take the Senate and makes things very difficult for Trump.
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16433
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Zarathud »

Holman wrote:One interesting question is whether, supposing the House impeaches Trump (and they will do so if the process is begun), statesman and pillar of the senate Mitch McConnell would ever actually begin the trial.
Mitch's response is a CNN opinion that this is all Obama's fault for letting the Russians interfere with the election. The bullshit hypocrisy of this charge when Mitch resisted efforts is mind-boggling.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Blackhawk »

Alefroth wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:36 pm I think I've now reached the point where if the cost of doing the right thing is four more years of Trump, so be it.
The more I read and the more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to this point of view.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Unagi »

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:49 pm
Alefroth wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:36 pm I think I've now reached the point where if the cost of doing the right thing is four more years of Trump, so be it.
The more I read and the more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to this point of view.
pretty much where I'm landing too.

I've gone back-n-forth. This is what's right, IMO. And I can only hope that having it going on helps voters not vote for Trump and/or GOP Senate in 2020. I have to let go of the strategy of it.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30125
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by YellowKing »

And there's the valid point that the Senate failing to impeach Trump will be something the GOP has to live with going into 2020. It's going to be very difficult for them to continue to paint this as a witch hunt with so much evidence laid bare. It's right there in black and white. The Dems can also make very clear that Mueller left it in Congressional hands to deal with the obstruction issue, and it is their duty to do so.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Smoove_B »

Quick, someone ask Mitch McConnell what his thought are:
Mitch McConnell wrote:Following his deposition, the president had to decide what to do with his loyal secretary, Ms Betty Currie. And, again, the undisputed evidence shows that the president took the path of lies and deceit.

Contrary to federal obstruction of justice laws and contrary to judge Wright’s protective order … President Clinton left the deposition, went back to the White House and called Ms Currie at home to ask her to come to the White House the next day, which, I might add, was a Sunday.

… I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors.

Senate floor, 12 February 1999
But I guess that was in 1999 so his opinion has evolved. Also F Mitch McConnell. F him hard.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Post by Holman »

If you believe that impeachment is justified but that it would hurt Democrats in November 2020, ask yourself why you think so. Can we be certain that not doing the right thing is somehow safer than doing the right thing?

We're in territory where political prediction is iffy at best. Politically, all we know for sure is that this congress was elected in a wave election predicated on holding Trump accountable.

Polling supports this as well. Trump's approvals have actually fallen since Barr declared him exonerated, and I don't think we've yet had polling that reflects the redacted report's availability.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
Post Reply