The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Zaxxon]

Compromise is the cornerstone of democracy.

And here I could swear you lived in America.

[GreenGoo]

Compromising your ethics is *not* the cornerstone of democracy.

There seems to be some confusion.

[hepcat]

Compromise is the cornerstone of democracy.

And here I could swear you lived in America.

I do...in the part called "Reality USA". Some of you folks should come visit sometime.

[Smoove_B]

I'm all for compromise, but you can't compromise with terrorists - and that's exactly what the GOP has become. That's why I get nervous with those whole process. I completely understand the arguments for a slow roll towards justice, but I completely believe that philosophy is assuming the other side is also playing by the rules. They (Mitch McConnell in particular) are not.

[Alefroth]

Compromise is the cornerstone of democracy.

I clicked on that thinking it was an Onion article.

[hepcat]

Try it again, I just fixed the link.

[Kraken]

I just don't like the "impeachment will do nothing" argument. How does he know? Everybody's assuming the outcome of the game before the players have even entered the field.

Yeah, we have very few examples of presidential impeachment to go by, and those are not great analogies to today's crisis.

For now, I believe (god help me) that Nancy Pelosi is as concerned about the survival of our republic as she is about her party's grip on power, and I'm sure that she understands the stakes of both better than I do. I have my opinions, but I'll defer to her. For now.

[Pyperkub]

I just don't like the "impeachment will do nothing" argument. How does he know? Everybody's assuming the outcome of the game before the players have even entered the field.

The reason Trump has gotten away with all the shit he has is because people just threw up their hands and said "Well that's just the way he is." And now you're asking the Democrats - the same ones that were elected to put a stop to Trump's power - to do the same.

It's actually worse.

Impeachment rushed into and/or done poorly will do more to hurt our Nation than not Impeaching (which is saying a lot, but it's where we are). Partisan divides will get worse, trust will erode further and Red vs. Blue tensions (including already breaking ones driving some people to horrific acts) will rise if Impeachment isn't done thoroughly.

[Holman]

This is going to be such a duplicitous shitshow, and Fox will be running it 24/7.

[hepcat]

The real danger here is that while Dems argue that the president is dangerous, Trump declares that all Dems are the enemy. The temper tantrum he threw in a speech earlier today was truly deplorable. He’s doing more to divide this country than any single event or person in the history of this country.

[Kurth]

I just don't like the "impeachment will do nothing" argument. How does he know? Everybody's assuming the outcome of the game before the players have even entered the field.

The reason Trump has gotten away with all the shit he has is because people just threw up their hands and said "Well that's just the way he is." And now you're asking the Democrats - the same ones that were elected to put a stop to Trump's power - to do the same.

It's actually worse.

Impeachment rushed into and/or done poorly will do more to hurt our Nation than not Impeaching (which is saying a lot, but it's where we are). Partisan divides will get worse, trust will erode further and Red vs. Blue tensions (including already breaking ones driving some people to horrific acts) will rise if Impeachment isn't done thoroughly.

I couldn't agree with this more. It's why I scratch my head when I see people on here arguing that impeaching Trump now, given the current state of play, is a long-game approach while doing everything we can to vote him out of office in 2020 is somehow short-sighted. It's baffling to me.

[GreenGoo]

Because drumpf and crew represent an existential threat to the American democracy and politics long after they're gone. The next election is the next election.

It is unlikely that you will have a stupider grifter in the white house ever again. It is very likely you will have a much smarter one. The next one will be way, way tougher to handle than this incompetent band of misfits and America will have normalized around this sort of consequence free behaviour, resulting in a new set of norms and practices that are far less ethical, bipartisan and honest than what drumpf is currently destroying. The next grifter will know where the line isn't drawn, and it isn't drawn with drumpf. Drumpf got himself elected and then got voted out. Great. He never wanted the job in the first place. That's just a normal election cycle. This is all normal now. No press briefings? Normal. AG in the bag? Normal. Obstruction? Normal.

Winning one election is about as short sighted as it gets in politics. It is literally a thing we criticize politicians all the time for, no long term planning, no long term vision, just...get elected. What then?

With that said, it's not an either/or situation, and it's weird that you and others would frame it as such. Of course the dems are going to try to vote him out. That's what they do with every single Republican president who ever existed. That scenario exists irrespective of impeachment proceedings. You know what's cool though? You could impeach him AND win the next election. Wouldn't that be a (im)peach?

[Kraken]

Impeaching Trump is risky. So is refusing to do so. An unabashed argument for impeachment for those (like me) who are on the fence.

Some Democrats might fear a repeat of the mistakes Republicans made when they impeached Clinton two decades ago, but this suggests a lack of faith in their own leadership. Clinton was impeached for covering up sex with an intern. Were Trump to be impeached, it would be for covering up his entanglements, financial and otherwise, with a hostile foreign power, blatantly profiting from his office, declaring himself above the law, and demanding freedom from oversight as the price of fulfilling ordinary presidential responsibilities. If Democratic politicians don’t believe they can make the public see the difference between these two impeachment scenarios, perhaps they are in the wrong line of work.

Besides, the notion that Republicans suffered a devastating rebuke as a result of the Clinton impeachment is overblown. Republicans kept the House in the 1998 midterms, though Democrats gained five seats. Clinton was damaged enough that his vice president, Al Gore, held him at a distance while running to succeed him. In the 2000 election, Republicans won the presidency, kept the House, and narrowly took the Senate, giving them trifecta control of government for the first time in nearly half a century. Can this really be the cautionary tale that’s frightening Democrats from doing all they can to hold a lawless president to account?

I think Pelosi knows that impeachment is inevitable, and she is waiting for the optimum time. She's more qualified than I am to figure out when that is.

[GreenGoo]

I think Pelosi knows that impeachment is inevitable, and she is waiting for the optimum time. She's more qualified than I am to figure out when that is.

For the record I don't know what will happen if the Dems try to impeach him. I do know what's right though, and I know that not doing what's right because it might bite you in the ass is a cowardly way to live. I expect more from my leaders and am disappointed if I don't get it.

But they're your leaders, so whatever.

[Remus West]

The trouble is that tRump is only the most obvious symptom of our problems so impeaching him is basically taking an aspirin. We need enough that the entire syncophantic Republican shit show tumbles down with him. We need to address the sickness not only the symptom. If we remove him and in doing so open the door for the next, smarter grifter, then what?

[hepcat]

Calling everyone who doesn't agree with you "cowardly" is a very Trump like thing to do.

[Holman]

Impeaching Trump is risky. So is refusing to do so. An unabashed argument for impeachment for those (like me) who are on the fence.

I agree with this.

Impeachment brings crimes to light. NOBODY aside from the politically hyper-engaged is reading the Mueller Report. More and more of the country believes it says NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION every time he and Fox repeat it, which on the hour every hour.

Investigate. Hold hearings. Make it unavoidable. Make it constant. Make the truth plain.

Trump and Barr are already launching a farcical counter-investigation that will suck up all the available oxygen in the room. We have to fight back with what's real.

[hepcat]

Investigate away. But don't impeach unless you have incontrovertible evidence.

[malchior]

Impeaching Trump is risky. So is refusing to do so. An unabashed argument for impeachment for those (like me) who are on the fence.

I agree with this.

Impeachment brings crimes to light. NOBODY aside from the politically hyper-engaged is reading the Mueller Report. More and more of the country believes it says NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION every time he and Fox repeat it, which on the hour every hour.

Investigate. Hold hearings. Make it unavoidable. Make it constant. Make the truth plain.

Trump and Barr are already launching a farcical counter-investigation that will suck up all the available oxygen in the room. We have to fight back with what's real.

This is my take as well. Their slow roll cedes the propaganda narrative. This is largely an outcome of the media *being fucking terrible* at dealing with Trump. Large portions of the media act as a megaphone for his lies. The Democrats need a big story that indulges in the media's relentless pursuit of horse race coverage unfortunately; otherwise this all gets lost in the noise.

[LawBeefaroni]

Impeachment brings crimes to light. NOBODY aside from the politically hyper-engaged is reading the Mueller Report. More and more of the country believes it says NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION every time he and Fox repeat it, which on the hour every hour.

If no one is willing to engage in democracy, maybe no one wants it. Or deserves it.

[Holman]

Impeachment brings crimes to light. NOBODY aside from the politically hyper-engaged is reading the Mueller Report. More and more of the country believes it says NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION every time he and Fox repeat it, which on the hour every hour.

If no one is willing to engage in democracy, maybe no one wants it. Or deserves it.

Leaders are elected to lead.

[LordMortis]

If no one is willing to engage in democracy, maybe no one wants it. Or deserves it.

[LawBeefaroni]

Impeachment brings crimes to light. NOBODY aside from the politically hyper-engaged is reading the Mueller Report. More and more of the country believes it says NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION every time he and Fox repeat it, which on the hour every hour.

If no one is willing to engage in democracy, maybe no one wants it. Or deserves it.

Leaders are elected to lead.

Leader should be elected to lead. Ours are elected to maintain party loyalty vote according to their promises. We vote them out when they fail on those points, or when the other party takes majority, not when they fail to lead. We let the party select leaders.


But more to the point, if no one can be assed to read a report that supposedly makes the case for impeachment, how can they call for their "leaders" to call for impeachment?

[GreenGoo]

Calling everyone who doesn't agree with you "cowardly" is a very Trump like thing to do.

Just your leaders, and only when they avoid doing what's right for what's expedient. It's not like American politicians have a monopoly on it, but we're talking about yours because this is an American forum and that's the current subject.

That you agree with them doesn't make you a coward (it's not your ass on the line).

[Combustible Lemur]

Calling everyone who doesn't agree with you "cowardly" is a very Trump like thing to do.

Just your leaders, and only when they avoid doing what's right for what's expedient. It's not like American politicians have a monopoly on it, but we're talking about yours because this is an American forum and that's the current subject.

That you agree with them doesn't make you a coward (it's not your ass on the line).

I think this is missing the picture.

The democrats are impeaching Trump right now they're just not calling it that. There are twelve investigations. Three supeonas were just reinforced this week. Barr has started to pony up documents. It's not that dem leadership is balking at impeachment. They are deliberately starving the administration of the impeachment talking point. I didn't really see it till this week. But the repetition is starting to take hold.
Dems: We're just doing our jobs, we're trying to negotiate infrastructure, we're passing equal rights protections, we're going on TV, and calling out tantrums and suggesting he's unhinged, AND we're winning in the courts. There is not constitutional crisis because we're right, it's our right to demand all these witnesses and document, we're just doing our jobs. Impeachment may be necessary in the near future but let's get all the evidence and ducks lined up before the big show.

They have both the facts, and Judicial rulings to prove it.

White house: They're impeaching me! I'm a victim, I refuse to do my job while congress does theirs. Waaaah. Let's go start a war! Investigate the investigators!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GreenGoo]

If Pelosi is slowly gathering the thunder to unleash when it's most effective and devastating, great. I support that.

That said, impeachment is a trial and discovery is a powerful tool that is only enforceable after the trial starts. Seems like they are leaving a pretty powerful tool on the table. Although if the targets are simply going to ignore the law and refuse to comply, that's a whole different line of damage to the rule of law.

[El Guapo]

If Pelosi is slowly gathering the thunder to unleash when it's most effective and devastating, great. I support that.

That said, impeachment is a trial and discovery is a powerful tool that is only enforceable after the trial starts. Seems like they are leaving a pretty powerful tool on the table. Although if the targets are simply going to ignore the law and refuse to comply, that's a whole different line of damage to the rule of law.

That's the part where the metaphor breaks down a bit. They already have subpoena and contempt power. The subpoenas are being disregarded right now, but they *should* have enforceable court orders in support of them in relatively short order. And if the administration is going to disregard court orders, then we're at a whole new level and would be a pretty logical point to start impeachment procedures (and at that point it's basically two branches of government against one).

[GreenGoo]

Well it's not really a metaphor as it is a trial. If they already have all the power that discovery conveys (maybe more, as they don't have to ask the court's permission) and they're using them, fantastic. It feels tentative. We'll see how it plays out, obviously.

I'm less "impeach this very second" vs "impeachment is better than arguing against impeachment".

If those arguing against impeachment are simply saying do your homework *then* impeach, well, ok. I definitely don't get that vibe from some however, Kurth being just one example.

[El Guapo]

Well it's not really a metaphor as it is a trial. If they already have all the power that discovery conveys (maybe more, as they don't have to ask the court's permission) and they're using them, fantastic. It feels tentative. We'll see how it plays out, obviously.

I'm less "impeach this very second" vs "impeachment is better than arguing against impeachment".

If those arguing against impeachment are simply saying do your homework *then* impeach, well, ok. I definitely don't get that vibe from some however, Kurth being just one example.

I mean, they've sent quite a few subpoenas. They're holding hearings. I'm not sure (other that beginning impeachment) what they could do to be less tentative.

I don't think there are many people here who are on the fence about getting Trump out of office, nor on vigorously investigating him. The debate is more about whether to start impeachment now, vs. whether to keep investigating (but not labeling it impeachment), with the option of impeaching later perpetually on the table. I think there is real debate about whether to impeach at all (understanding that removal is unlikely to happen) vs. focusing on the 2020 election to get him out, though I think that most people who are more skeptical on impeachment would favor it under some set of circumstances (depending on what comes out and what Trump does).

Hopefully that all makes some kind of sense.

[LawBeefaroni]

If Pelosi is slowly gathering the thunder to unleash when it's most effective and devastating, great. I support that.

That said, impeachment is a trial and discovery is a powerful tool that is only enforceable after the trial starts. Seems like they are leaving a pretty powerful tool on the table. Although if the targets are simply going to ignore the law and refuse to comply, that's a whole different line of damage to the rule of law.

They don't need discovery though. That's the whole thing. They have the Mueller report. It flat out says, no collusion. It also says there was likely obstruction and that it would be a matter for Congress since the AG can't/won't indict a sitting president.

So either they pursue obstruction it or they don't. Or I guess they hope there are more crimes of obstruction committed while they dither. Maybe that's the strategy?

[malchior]

I think it is also important to note that Trump is spinning up his own counter-narrative by letting the AG off the chain to de-classify intelligence to attack political opponents. Eventually the reckless, hopeless media will amplify the investigations that pop up around this and make it the primary focus.

To put a point on it, we are in deep shit here and people are worrying about 2020 when I can't help but think that the effects on the election in 2020 is the least of our problems at this point. Things are out of control *now*. This dick-ing around while everything is crumbling around us is just not enough. Heck - they don't have to commit to a vote on impeachment now. If they just say they are holding impeachment investigations it will laser focus the story on Trump and his crimes. Unfortunately, I suspect they believe they missed their opportunity and need more dirt to make the case...hence Pelosi making noise about 'potential' impeachment.

[El Guapo]

If Pelosi is slowly gathering the thunder to unleash when it's most effective and devastating, great. I support that.

That said, impeachment is a trial and discovery is a powerful tool that is only enforceable after the trial starts. Seems like they are leaving a pretty powerful tool on the table. Although if the targets are simply going to ignore the law and refuse to comply, that's a whole different line of damage to the rule of law.

They don't need discovery though. That's the whole thing. They have the Mueller report. It flat out says, no collusion. It also says there was likely obstruction and that it would be a matter for Congress since the AG can't/won't indict a sitting president.

So either they pursue obstruction it or they don't. Or I guess they hope there are more crimes of obstruction committed while they dither. Maybe that's the strategy?

Well, it doesn't flat out say no collusion. It says that there were Russian intelligence efforts to help the Trump campaign, and that the Trump campaign welcomed that assistance. It said that they couldn't prove criminal violations related to that. There were also a couple leads that they couldn't reach resolution on (Manafort giving polling data to Russian intelligence, Roger Stone coordinating with Wikileaks).

So there are still Russia angles as well.

[malchior]

Well, it doesn't flat out say no collusion. It says that there were Russian intelligence efforts to help the Trump campaign, and that the Trump campaign welcomed that assistance. It said that they couldn't prove criminal violations related to that. There were also a couple leads that they couldn't reach resolution on (Manafort giving polling data to Russian intelligence, Roger Stone coordinating with Wikileaks).

So there are still Russia angles as well.

This is why Barr published his bullshit 4-page summary. They needed the lie to get out well before the truth and they succeeded. Most people just remember the headline - 'NO COLLUSION!'

[LordMortis]

i honestly don't have a clue about "most people* but for me the memory will be "Barr ignores subpoena". It was the day I changed from hold the iine until election to impeach is on the table. I am, quite frankly, disappointed The House did not go after Barr that day, having him arrested for contempt. That was the day protecting the fabric of the nation first, last, and always lost its importance. I'm hoping my disappointment is founded in my ignorance.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, it doesn't flat out say no collusion. It says that there were Russian intelligence efforts to help the Trump campaign, and that the Trump campaign welcomed that assistance. It said that they couldn't prove criminal violations related to that. There were also a couple leads that they couldn't reach resolution on (Manafort giving polling data to Russian intelligence, Roger Stone coordinating with Wikileaks).

So there are still Russia angles as well.

This is why Barr published his bullshit 4-page summary. They needed the lie to get out well before the truth and they succeeded. Most people just remember the headline - 'NO COLLUSION!'

When I say no collusion, I mean that the report didn't find actionable evidence of collusion by Trump (Donald). Not that there wasn't any at all. But for the purposes of impeachment, obstruction is the route to take. They have a recommendation (I'd call it a mandate) from the report on obstruction. They do not on collusion. Collusion is murky enough to prove on a good day (as an aside, this is because Congress loves huge giant campaign funding loopholes).

Collusion is a road to go down outside of impeachment. There was undoubtedly provable collusion though maybe not on the part of Trump.

[Unagi]

Collusion, as the report first sets out to get clear - is not a legal term and isn't something the report was looking at, IIRC.

[hepcat]

I think it is also important to note that Trump is spinning up his own counter-narrative by letting the AG off the chain to de-classify intelligence to attack political opponents. Eventually the reckless, hopeless media will amplify the investigations that pop up around this and make it the primary focus.

To put a point on it, we are in deep shit here and people are worrying about 2020 when I can't help but think that the effects on the election in 2020 is the least of our problems at this point. Things are out of control *now*. This dick-ing around while everything is crumbling around us is just not enough. Heck - they don't have to commit to a vote on impeachment now. If they just say they are holding impeachment investigations it will laser focus the story on Trump and his crimes. Unfortunately, I suspect they believe they missed their opportunity and need more dirt to make the case...hence Pelosi making noise about 'potential' impeachment.

Will there be ANY oversight of Barr to ensure he doesn't selectively release information that is misleading when isolated from surrounding events and data? The precedent for blatant misdirection is there considering what that shitheel Nunes did with his "blockbuster report".

[Enough]

https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance/status ... 1266895872

[Holman]

i honestly don't have a clue about "most people* but for me the memory will be "Barr ignores subpoena". It was the day I changed from hold the iine until election to impeach is on the table. I am, quite frankly, disappointed The House did not go after Barr that day, having him arrested for contempt. That was the day protecting the fabric of the nation first, last, and always lost its importance. I'm hoping my disappointment is founded in my ignorance.

They did take action against Barr: the Judiciary committee voted in favor of contempt, and now the House is scheduling the full vote on it. (They can't just have him arrested. Committee and then full votes are required first.)

Guess what? It looks like it worked.

In response--although for some reason this isn't making headlines--Barr has caved, promising to turn over the unredacted Mueller report and the underlying materials.

[LordMortis]

i honestly don't have a clue about "most people* but for me the memory will be "Barr ignores subpoena". It was the day I changed from hold the iine until election to impeach is on the table. I am, quite frankly, disappointed The House did not go after Barr that day, having him arrested for contempt. That was the day protecting the fabric of the nation first, last, and always lost its importance. I'm hoping my disappointment is founded in my ignorance.

They did take action against Barr: the Judiciary committee voted in favor of contempt, and now the House is scheduling the full vote on it. (They can't just have him arrested. Committee and then full votes are required first.)

Guess what? It looks like it worked.

In response--although for some reason this isn't making headlines--Barr has caved, promising to turn over the unredacted Mueller report and the underlying materials.

Well then, my disappointment is founded in my ignorance....

(Also I did see that but I guess I didn't put two and two together that this was in relations to Barr's call to testify)