The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[hepcat]

If you're going to try and pretend that the decision to not work with Dems and walk out of a meeting was impromptu and based on statements made shortly before said meeting, perhaps you should rethink having a sign ready for your "equally" impromptu speech immediately after that reality show skit.

Orange fat ass speaks:

And I just saw that Nancy Pelosi, just before our meeting made a statement that we believe that 'the President of the United States is engaged in a cover-up.' It turns out I'm the most — I think most of you would agree to this — I'm the most transparent president probably in the history of this country.

Then release your taxes and prove it, dipshit.

Sometimes I have to agree with others that his supporters really are bottom dwellers.

[pr0ner]

He even had a sign made up for the podium for his whine fest.

[Skinypupy]

Good lord, what a whiny little bitch.

He seems to have left the number of convictions and sentences off his "impromptu" sign.

[Smoove_B]

We're about 4 months away from him wearing a gold-plated "No Obstruction, No Collusion" necklace everywhere, aren't we?

[hepcat]

We're two months away from him making his kids get matching "No collusion, no obstruction!" tattoos on their arms, and then being forced to wear sleeveless t shirts to all public events.

I also believe he's trying to get the Mar-a-Lago pool boy to have another kid with Melania so they can name it "NoCollusionNoObstruction Trump".

[GreenGoo]

But again - is impeachment and acquittal holding the President accountable? It just seems like impeachment plans are mostly a mix of "he deserves it" along with a hope and a prayer, but they're not really plans that have a reasonable prospect of achieving anything substantial.

Even if it's just in the history books, I'd consider it a win for American democracy.

Imagine if your forefathers were like "well, he's a king, and England is pretty powerful, and we might not win, and even if we do win it will devastate the country for years" or the North was like "you know what? Keep your slaves. The political fallout is extreme, and millions are going to die. Also, we want some of those deplorable votes, so let's not rock the boat too much unless we're sure we can win and we're sure we will get something out of it".

I mean, come on. There's practical, there's realpolitik, there's optics, and then there's whatever the fuck the Dems are doing...

On the plus side, people can tell their grand children that once upon a time America had a cheat and swindler for a president and did nothing about it, and the country was stronger for it. It was the right decision. Doing nothing and hope everything works out is always the right decision when faced with malfeasance and corruption.

[hepcat]

The precedents he's setting are going to bite the GOP hard in the ass someday soon.

[Zaxxon]

I just want to jump in once more to point out that this is totally normal behavior by someone who's completely innocent.

[Jaymann]

The precedents he's setting are going to bite the GOP hard in the ass someday soon.

Without a doubt. The next Democrat President will attempt to get away with wearing a tan jacket AND slacks.

[Sepiche]

You know... I'm starting to suspect the Mueller Report DIDN'T actually exonerate him.

It's almost like he told everyone that, but was LYING!

[El Guapo]

But again - is impeachment and acquittal holding the President accountable? It just seems like impeachment plans are mostly a mix of "he deserves it" along with a hope and a prayer, but they're not really plans that have a reasonable prospect of achieving anything substantial.

Even if it's just in the history books, I'd consider it a win for American democracy.

Imagine if your forefathers were like "well, he's a king, and England is pretty powerful, and we might not win, and even if we do win it will devastate the country for years" or the North was like "you know what? Keep your slaves. The political fallout is extreme, and millions are going to die. Also, we want some of those deplorable votes, so let's not rock the boat too much unless we're sure we can win and we're sure we will get something out of it".

I mean, come on. There's practical, there's realpolitik, there's optics, and then there's whatever the fuck the Dems are doing...

On the plus side, people can tell their grand children that once upon a time America had a cheat and swindler for a president and did nothing about it, and the country was stronger for it. It was the right decision. Doing nothing and hope everything works out is always the right decision when faced with malfeasance and corruption.

I mean, the odds of success of the American Revolution and the Civil War were above 0%. They didn't just fight the American Revolution in order to make sure that the history books regarded George III as being held "accountable".

In any event, in the short term we're just arguing over whether the hearings are called "investigatory hearings" or "impeachment hearings" since no one is advocating doing nothing. One thing I'm uncertain about in that regard is that I've heard (here and elsewhere) that calling the hearings "impeachment hearings" may give the House additional powers, but I haven't heard any real detail about whether that's true and the materiality of the difference. If there is a significant difference that would weigh in favor of starting some type of impeachment proceedings.

[YellowKing]

My understanding is that in a nutshell, the White House can currently frame these investigations as a political fishing expedition. Under an impeachment proceeding, however, they can't use that argument because impeachment powers are Constitutionally guaranteed to Congress. There's still plenty of gray area on how much this would strengthen Congress' power, but it does remove an avenue of defense for the administration. There's also precedent for court decisions to be expedited for impeachment proceedings. There would be some historic weight to getting this show on the road and negating the administration's stonewalling.

[Alefroth]

The precedents he's setting are going to bite the GOP hard in the ass someday soon.

Without a doubt. The next Democrat President will attempt to get away with wearing a tan jacket AND slacks.

Better to hide the Dijon mustard they spill.

[El Guapo]

My understanding is that in a nutshell, the White House can currently frame these investigations as a political fishing expedition. Under an impeachment proceeding, however, they can't use that argument because impeachment powers are Constitutionally guaranteed to Congress. There's still plenty of gray area on how much this would strengthen Congress' power, but it does remove an avenue of defense for the administration. There's also precedent for court decisions to be expedited for impeachment proceedings. There would be some historic weight to getting this show on the road and negating the administration's stonewalling.

Why would impeachment proceedings remove the White House's ability to frame it as a political fishing expedition? Does anyone think that the administration would say "oh, ok, now that these are impeachment proceedings, we will regard them as valid and comply fully"?

Also courts are already going to put all of these cases at the front of the line. There's too much scrutiny and front page coverage of this stuff to kick the can down the road.

[YellowKing]

Why would impeachment proceedings remove the White House's ability to frame it as a political fishing expedition?

That was probably worded badly. It doesn't remove the White House's ability to frame it as a fishing expedition, but it weakens their legal standing. There's historical precedent for courts to be more generous with Congressional requests during formal impeachment proceedings vs a standard investigation.

[GreenGoo]

I mean, the odds of success of the American Revolution and the Civil War were above 0%. They didn't just fight the American Revolution in order to make sure that the history books regarded George III as being held "accountable".

Luckily the consequences of doing the right thing here are less than subjugation or millions of lives. And it is guaranteed, GUARANTEED that many, many people were suggesting both of those wars were unwinnable. i.e. not above 0%

But the point was not that 2 majors wars and impeachment proceedings are comparable, but that history has many examples of America doing the right thing despite all odds. Hell, even Nixon's stain on history is mitigated by the fact that he bailed before being forced out, but the wheels were in motion. Where's the pressure on drumpf to resign? Not coming from his own party and not coming from the opposition party. Hell, even Clinton was impeached and his sins were insignificant comparatively. He got a blowjob then lied about it under oath. That doesn't even register on the current administration's radar as far as wrong doing is concerned.

If doing what's right when there are near zero consequences involved is too scary to pursue, imagine how the Dems are going to play out a future scenario that has a real chance of hurting them. Personal sacrifice is starting to look like a flaw, not a virtue.

In any case, the impeachment is almost 100% certain to succeed, so I'm not sure why you're breaking out the 0% reference.

[Remus West]

In any case, the impeachment is almost 100% certain to succeed,

In the house

so I'm not sure why you're breaking out the 0% reference.

because of the Senate.

They are worried about the blow back from failing similar to what happened to the Reps after they impeached Clinton. Imagine tRump getting a second term with hard-core fanatics taking over in both parts of Congress along with those already installed in the Judiciary and Justice Departments. You mention the subjugation of millions and I'll tell you, as an American who disagrees with very nearly everything tRump has done, I feel like they are simply setting the stage for it already and keeping a part of the government out of their hands may be the only hope of stopping them.

The Senate is broken.
The Legislative branch is broken.
The judicial (at the top) is broken.
The House is the only thing remaining to stem the tide.

[GreenGoo]

In any case, the impeachment is almost 100% certain to succeed,

In the house

so I'm not sure why you're breaking out the 0% reference.

because of the Senate.

So what? That's exactly what happened to Clinton, and he didn't do half the damage to the US that drumpf is doing. What sort of wrong doing is necessary before imagined "blow back" becomes secondary?

[Pyperkub]

The judicial (at the top) is broken.

This is TBD. Roberts has shown some spine here. I'm actually more worried about the rest of the judiciary, given that that's about all Trump and the Senate will be doing until at least January 2021.

[YellowKing]

The problem with comparing the blowback from Clinton's impeachment to the blowback from a Trump impeachment is that in numerous respects it's apples and oranges. Clinton was a popular President; Trump is not. As GreenGoo pointed out, Clinton's crime was miniscule in comparison to Trump's, and had the farcical sex angle that made it the brunt of late night comedy monologues. Trump's crimes are numerous and varied.

We're essentially comparing a speeding ticket vs a Mob boss here in terms of scope. Will the public dismiss the massive amount of evidence on Trump as easily as they dismissed Clinton lying about a blowjob under oath? I'm not convinced.

[Holman]

The difference is that what Clinton did wrong could be handled in a single news item, almost even in just a headline. There wasn't enough meat on that carcass to support days of televised hearings. IIRC, there were none.

In Trump's case, the crimes of obstruction were multiple and complex, and the patterns of collusion--even though (in fact because) Mueller couldn't access the evidence--mean that lots of Trump people still have a lot to answer for. They can and should be made to do it publicly, alongside hearings on the actual Russian attack and the ongoing counterintelligence investigation that isn't even detailed in the Mueller Report.

The Mueller report *is* an impeachment referral. To treat it as anything less is to fail the House's constitutional duty.

[Isgrimnur]

Axios

A district judge in New York has declined to issue a preliminary injunction preventing Deutsche Bank and Capital One from complying with a congressional subpoena for President Trump's financial records.

"Put simply, the power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process."
— Judge Edgardo Ramos
...
The decision by Judge Edgardo Ramos follows a similar ruling earlier this week in a case involving Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., declined to block a House subpoena for 8 years of Trump's financial records, ruling that the public's interest in "maximizing the effectiveness of the investigatory powers of Congress" was greater than any damage to Trump or his businesses.

[GreenGoo]

The Mueller report *is* an impeachment referral. To treat it as anything less is to fail the House's constitutional duty.

Plus I think it's important to get every senator's vote on record. If McConnell never lets it come up for vote, well at least he'll be on record. If nothing comes of any of this, I still think cataloguing misdeeds and documenting those who put their party above country is also important.

You need to make the Senate choose. If you never ask a liar a question, who's going to believe you when you call them a liar?

[Combustible Lemur]

Why would impeachment proceedings remove the White House's ability to frame it as a political fishing expedition?

That was probably worded badly. It doesn't remove the White House's ability to frame it as a fishing expedition, but it weakens their legal standing. There's historical precedent for courts to be more generous with Congressional requests during formal impeachment proceedings vs a standard investigation.

They currently have no legal standing. They're losing every court battle they come to. Impeachment right now is perception. Some think it pushes the narrative towards the dems with judges, others think it doesn't matter.
I tend to be on the pessimistic side when it comes to the chess match but optimistic when it comes to the outcome.
The admin at this point is utterly nihilistic about law and a functional democracy. Until a man with a gun puts someone in actual jail why would they stop? There have been zero repurcussions for the core management. The senate has guaranteed he can't be found guilty in an impeachment, the DOJ has ensured he can't be indicted while still in power. And he's ready and able to start dropping pardons. Giving in at any level exposes them. The only thing protecting them is the system they are burning down in home of building their new order in the middle of of the wreckage. Weirdly that's also the only thing that threatens them. I understand and envy the idea that impeachment adds leverage, but I lean towards Pelosi as a sounds strategist and the idea of building a bullet proof Trump Trap.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Kraken]

We're essentially comparing a speeding ticket vs a Mob boss here in terms of scope. Will the public dismiss the massive amount of evidence on Trump as easily as they dismissed Clinton lying about a blowjob under oath? I'm not convinced.

...and forcing the Senate to endorse his crimes in a roll call vote should cost some senators their seats, if there is any justice left in the US. Conventional wisdom says impeachment will likely cost the Dems the House; I think it might gain them the Senate.

If McConnell never lets it come up for vote,

Is that McConnell's decision to make? I suppose that once you've stolen a SCOTUS appointment you can pretty much flaunt the Constitution at will, but still...it's pretty clear about the process.

[GreenGoo]

Is that McConnell's decision to make?

It was my understanding that if he doesn't want a vote, there's no vote. I wouldn't say I'm knowledgeable on the topic.

[Holman]

The Mueller report *is* an impeachment referral. To treat it as anything less is to fail the House's constitutional duty.

Plus I think it's important to get every senator's vote on record. If McConnell never lets it come up for vote, well at least he'll be on record. If nothing comes of any of this, I still think cataloguing misdeeds and documenting those who put their party above country is also important.

You need to make the Senate choose. If you never ask a liar a question, who's going to believe you when you call them a liar?

The good part is that the first step--the investigations, the hearings, presentations of evidence, etc--are all under Pelosi's control. McConnell doesn't get to affect a thing until Pelosi decides there has been enough investigation and it's time for the House to vote.

If I understand the process, McConnell can't then rush through a quickie exoneration. There's a process by which representatives from the House (even though the trial is in the senate) act as a sort of attorney for each side of the case. Also, the Chief Justice presides over the trial, so a lot of it is out of McConnell's hands. (Unless, of course, he does decide not to have the trial at all, but it would be hard for Americans not to see that for what it is.)

[Pyperkub]

...Aaaaand he just announced that he won't be working legislatively with the Dems until they stop investigating him.

Which is to say, "never." My understanding is that an impeachment investigation means that the courts can't rule against various subpoenas and requests as fishing expeditions. An impeachment investigation does not obligate the House to vote on impeachment. So starting it would speed up and solidify the evidence of Trump's crimes without necessarily compelling action against him -- although it would be hard not to take that step once overwhelming evidence is in.

Trump clearly believes (probably correctly) that he is untouchable, and he is goading the Dems to impeach.

IMHO, you proceed with the Mueller Interview(s?), as well as Barr/Hicks/other, and if things go the way they appear to be going, and Barr stonewalls or in some other fashion obstructs the investigation, he gets impeached and that becomes the springboard to the rest (in addition to the parallel Tillerson, IRS, you name it... investigations).

[Zarathud]

...Aaaaand he just announced that he won't be working legislatively with the Dems until they stop investigating him.

This needs to be played over and over. The public needs to see that Trump will sell out the national interest to protect himself, his financial empire, his family, and Russia.

Watch old Watergate coverage on YouTube. People wanted Nixon to resign because the political battles were a "distraction" to solving national economic problems. No one believed Nixon was as corrupt as history has shown. The same thing is happening for Trump, but he's more corrupt and has less shame.

The messaging is a Trump coverup must be hiding something in addition to Mueller.

[Pyperkub]

...Aaaaand he just announced that he won't be working legislatively with the Dems until they stop investigating him.

This needs to be played over and over. The public needs to see that Trump will sell out the national interest to protect himself, his financial empire, his family, and Russia.

Watch old Watergate coverage on YouTube. People wanted Nixon to resign because the political battles were a "distraction" to solving national economic problems. No one believed Nixon was as corrupt as history has shown. The same thing is happening for Trump, but he's more corrupt and has less shame.

The messaging is a Trump coverup must be hiding something in addition to Mueller.

Pro for some, Con for most: Trump is also only governing for a single party (and that's just a generous interpretation, one can argue it's just for his narcissism). He has no interest in the rest of the country.

[GungHo]

The Mueller report *is* an impeachment referral. To treat it as anything less is to fail the House's constitutional duty.

Plus I think it's important to get every senator's vote on record. If McConnell never lets it come up for vote, well at least he'll be on record. If nothing comes of any of this, I still think cataloguing misdeeds and documenting those who put their party above country is also important.

You need to make the Senate choose. If you never ask a liar a question, who's going to believe you when you call them a liar?

The good part is that the first step--the investigations, the hearings, presentations of evidence, etc--are all under Pelosi's control. McConnell doesn't get to affect a thing until Pelosi decides there has been enough investigation and it's time for the House to vote.

If I understand the process, McConnell can't then rush through a quickie exoneration. There's a process by which representatives from the House (even though the trial is in the senate) act as a sort of attorney for each side of the case. Also, the Chief Justice presides over the trial, so a lot of it is out of McConnell's hands. (Unless, of course, he does decide not to have the trial at all, but it would be hard for Americans not to see that for what it is.)

How many substantive issues has McConnell pigeon holed? How many votes has he not allowed to happen? how many legitimately nominated supreme court justices has he refused to hold hearings on? Doesn't seem like any of those things have ever come back to bite him or his party because the American people are a willfully ignorant bunch. But he's not going to refuse to give trump what trump and his cronies will tout as a 'Not Guilty!' Stamp of Approval from Congress right before the election.

[Holman]

How many substantive issues has McConnell pigeon holed? How many votes has he not allowed to happen? how many legitimately nominated supreme court justices has he refused to hold hearings on? Doesn't seem like any of those things have ever come back to bite him or his party because the American people are a willfully ignorant bunch.

That's all C-Span.

Impeachment is Prime Time.

But he's not going to refuse to give trump what trump and his cronies will tout as a 'Not Guilty!' Stamp of Approval from Congress right before the election.

House Impeachment proceedings will set the stage by putting Trump's crimes and slime in full view every day for as long as it takes. This all comes first. It establishes the narrative and shapes the discussion. After months of the Mueller Report (which, what 3% of Americans have seen as text?) becoming a fully watchable and talkable miniseries, McConnell will have a much harder time pretending it means nothing.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, it's not all McConnell's show. John Roberts presides, and House members from both sides manage the process in the role of attorneys even in the Senate.

The Senate is a jury here, not the judge and not the court system. They'll acquit Trump because they're the GOP, but they'll do it after months of the House bringing the issues and evidence to stark light. This will be McConnell's trial as much as Trump's.

And, anyway, what's the alternative? How does refusing to act on the evidence help anything at all?

Even if Trump were polling 65% and looking to coast to re-election in a Red Map year, the House would still have this duty. The Constitution calls for it.

[Pyperkub]

How many substantive issues has McConnell pigeon holed? How many votes has he not allowed to happen? how many legitimately nominated supreme court justices has he refused to hold hearings on? Doesn't seem like any of those things have ever come back to bite him or his party because the American people are a willfully ignorant bunch.

That's all C-Span.

Impeachment is Prime Time.

But he's not going to refuse to give trump what trump and his cronies will tout as a 'Not Guilty!' Stamp of Approval from Congress right before the election.

House Impeachment proceedings will set the stage by putting Trump's crimes and slime in full view every day for as long as it takes. This all comes first. It establishes the narrative and shapes the discussion. After months of the Mueller Report (which, what 3% of Americans have seen as text?) becoming a fully watchable and talkable miniseries, McConnell will have a much harder time pretending it means nothing.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, it's not all McConnell's show. John Roberts presides, and House members from both sides manage the process in the role of attorneys even in the Senate.

The Senate is a jury here, not the judge and not the court system. They'll acquit Trump because they're the GOP, but they'll do it after months of the House bringing the issues and evidence to stark light. This will be McConnell's trial as much as Trump's.

And, anyway, what's the alternative? How does refusing to act on the evidence help anything at all?

Even if Trump were polling 65% and looking to coast to re-election in a Red Map year, the House would still have this duty. The Constitution calls for it.

Supreme Court Justice is Prime Time too.

This impeachment would be the Super Bowl however. I wonder if the house could hold him in contempt for refusing lawful impeachment referral...

[GungHo]

How many substantive issues has McConnell pigeon holed? How many votes has he not allowed to happen? how many legitimately nominated supreme court justices has he refused to hold hearings on? Doesn't seem like any of those things have ever come back to bite him or his party because the American people are a willfully ignorant bunch.

That's all C-Span.

Impeachment is Prime Time.

But he's not going to refuse to give trump what trump and his cronies will tout as a 'Not Guilty!' Stamp of Approval from Congress right before the election.

House Impeachment proceedings will set the stage by putting Trump's crimes and slime in full view every day for as long as it takes. This all comes first. It establishes the narrative and shapes the discussion. After months of the Mueller Report (which, what 3% of Americans have seen as text?) becoming a fully watchable and talkable miniseries, McConnell will have a much harder time pretending it means nothing.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, it's not all McConnell's show. John Roberts presides, and House members from both sides manage the process in the role of attorneys even in the Senate.

The Senate is a jury here, not the judge and not the court system. They'll acquit Trump because they're the GOP, but they'll do it after months of the House bringing the issues and evidence to stark light. This will be McConnell's trial as much as Trump's.

And, anyway, what's the alternative? How does refusing to act on the evidence help anything at all?

Even if Trump were polling 65% and looking to coast to re-election in a Red Map year, the House would still have this duty. The Constitution calls for it.

I just watched the finale of GOT so the quote is fresh in my mind, 'Nothing is more powerful than a story' and trump spins a better story than the Democrats.

I understand the argument that it's a Constitutional Duty and I agree it is; I just believe that the bigger threat to the Constitution is trump, not the House's failure to impeach him. And the way to get rid of trump is the 2020 election and you win that by not throwing him into the briar patch he so desperately wants to be thrown in to.

[Remus West]

I saw a poll on the morning news (disclaimer, it was while my 6 year old was flipping channels so I'm not sure the source) saying 53% of Americans want the investigations dropped while 73% of Democrats want them to continue. She changed the channel before I saw more but to me that was really telling that folks do not see enough to impeach right now (as unbelievable as that seems) and going that route before amassing enough evidence to bury him is only going to bolster his position. The nation and world can not risk that.

[GreenGoo]

Constitutional decisions should absolutely be based on polling. In fact polls are great for making policy too. Particularly when a 3% change would swing things in the exact opposite direction.

The UK is making major changes to it's existence based on a popular vote, and they're doing great.

[Unagi]

Yeah, I agree (with the sarcasm).

Putting this to a Poll is just the politicians skirting their own responsibility.

OF COURSE they should impeach him, since they CLEARLY feel he is involved in 'a cover up', etc. It's a no brainer and Nancy needs to get her shit together.

This is what they were just all put into the majority power for. Start using the power you have, Dems, or watch as those with power walk all over you.

[hepcat]

She changed the channel before I saw more but to me that was really telling that folks do not see enough to impeach right now (as unbelievable as that seems) and going that route before amassing enough evidence to bury him is only going to bolster his position. The nation and world can not risk that.

Yup. It sucks, but the more we keep this impeachment talk going, the more Trump uses it to fire up his base and seed doubt in the minds of those who aren't. Pelosi knows this and also realizes we need to play the long game and convince shaky voters that the Dems aren't a party of extremists focused on revenge only. Sure, the Dems could impeach. But then...well...what? He'd stay in office, he'd be able to play the outraged victim some more, and he'd probably lock down 2020 after playing that up in numerous rallies and Fox interviews.

Pelosi is on the right track.

[Isgrimnur]

I saw a poll on the morning news (disclaimer, it was while my 6 year old was flipping channels so I'm not sure the source) saying 53% of Americans want the investigations dropped while 73% of Democrats want them to continue. She changed the channel before I saw more but to me that was really telling that folks do not see enough to impeach right now (as unbelievable as that seems) and going that route before amassing enough evidence to bury him is only going to bolster his position. The nation and world can not risk that.

CNN reporting, link to poll is broken.

[malchior]

53% want investigations *stopped*? Leaving aside the methodology - results of polls like that make me question the nation surviving. Sure it is only +13% from Trump's moronic base support but that is still another 13% who are fools of a different stripe.

She changed the channel before I saw more but to me that was really telling that folks do not see enough to impeach right now (as unbelievable as that seems) and going that route before amassing enough evidence to bury him is only going to bolster his position. The nation and world can not risk that.

Yup. It sucks, but the more we keep this impeachment talk going, the more Trump uses it to fire up his base and seed doubt in the minds of those who aren't. Pelosi knows this and also realizes we need to play the long game and convince shaky voters that the Dems aren't a party of extremists focused on revenge only. Sure, the Dems could impeach. But then...well...what? He'd stay in office, he'd be able to play the outraged victim some more, and he'd probably lock down 2020 after playing that up in numerous rallies and Fox interviews.

Pelosi is on the right track.

To expand on the above, it looks like we are in a no win place. Either pursue "investigations" and Trump grandstands about the "endless" investigations, open an impeachment inquiry that leads to Trump playing the aggrieved party, or do nothing and Trump wins there too. Mostly because the American people are asleep at the wheel. Talk about depressing.