The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Kurth]

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.

Serious question: When exactly did impeachment become justified?

[GreenGoo]

Somebody should have asked him under oath about blowjobs. But that's a mighty high bar to reach. Maybe congress could look into these obstruction allegations that Mueller left for them to look into.

[Victoria Raverna]

Doing the right thing can backfire and cause Trump to win the next election. Not doing the right thing and Trump can also use that to win the next election.

To me the answer is clear.

[Unagi]

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.

Serious question: When exactly did impeachment become justified?

honestly? long before the release of the report.

[malchior]

The report compiles evidence of crimes that only Congress can address. Impeachment is more than justified by that alone but there is more.

[Unagi]

Serious question: When exactly did impeachment become justified?

I'd say around the time he started letting Russian spies into the country.
Or when he admitted to obstruction of justice regarding his interview with Lester Holt.

[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.

Serious question: When exactly did impeachment become justified?

He's been doing impeachment-worthy things in plain sight since very early on. I'd say firing Comey to shut down the investigation was among the first to cross the bar unambiguously.

But now we've a report from the SC that is sent as a clear case for obstruction of justice and predicated on the idea that only congress may make the actual accusation. *Not* impeaching Trump at this point means ignoring the investigation's findings.

Incidentally, the fact that Mueller could not charge conspiracy does not put collusion below the bar for impeachment either. Mueller several times points out that the conspiracy requires a very high standard of proof and that his investigation faced uncooperative witnesses and a lack of accessible evidence. He details activity with and in response to foreign actors that (though no charges can be brought) can very reasonably be seen as intentional failure to protect the country from that influence.

[Holman]

And here's Rudy, asking for more...

[YellowKing]

That brings up another valid case for impeachment proceedings. Left unchecked, there's no doubt that Trump will welcome any foreign election aid in 2020. This might be our only chance to protect the sanctity of the election.

[Pyperkub]

Yeah, it is very important to remember that all of these crimes are related to accepting foreign, totalitarian aid.

[GreenGoo]

Yeah, it is very important to remember that all of these crimes are related to accepting foreign, totalitarian aid.

At some point they might decide it's time for a regime change.

Or did Russia already do that in 2016?

[GungHo]

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.

Serious question: When exactly did impeachment become justified?

As soon as you could get 268 members of the house to vote for it. Impeachment is/has been/always will be a political question which is why it's bs that Mueller refers to that as the means for removing a president from office. For a country that was founded on the belief that no one is above the law there sure has been a lot of effort expended on trying to make sure the president is.

[Holman]

I go to David Rothkopf when I worry that I'm not depressed enough about the American experiment.

Thread:

[YellowKing]

This whole "sitting President can't be indicted" thing is bullshit. We have a means to continue a smooth transition of government - hand it off to the VP.

You're seriously saying we can handle a President being assassinated, but we can't handle one being under indictment? Seriously?

[Holman]

This whole "sitting President can't be indicted" thing is bullshit. We have a means to continue a smooth transition of government - hand it off to the VP.

You're seriously saying we can handle a President being assassinated, but we can't handle one being under indictment? Seriously?

It's nothing constitutional, and it isn't even law. It's merely DOJ policy.

[Zarathud]

DOJ Policy -- set by people who report to the President.

[LordMortis]

Serious question: When exactly did impeachment become justified?

While not necessarily a thing that we wanted to pursue it became justified the moment he started closing the doors and asking for loyalty to his person from the DoJ and then when he and his compatriots declined to cooperate with the investigation. At that point Congress is justified at stepping in. Of course they closed their own investigations a long time ago. Like five or six times. It seemed like there were a few months where you couldn't a week without Congress announcing they were just now closing the investigation.

But being Justified is what do the call it, a necessary conditional. It's not, itself, sufficient and necessary. When the housing market collapsed in 2008, we were all justified in walking away from our mortgages. It was part of our collective contracts. The house was collateral on an agreement. I stop paying, you get the house. But the more people that walked away because who needs credit you can walk out of your $300000 mortgage and get an identical house across the street for $140000 because the guy across the street walked away.

[GungHo]

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.

OK, maybe I need some lawsplaining 101...

1) Assuming investigators(e.g. the police) find evidence of a crime are the police then obligated (by law) to arrest the suspect? What discretion are they given here?

2) In case of a federal crime, I assume the AG in charge of that particular district decides whether or not to indict a suspect. But what if they decide not to? Can the AG be arrested, charged, and indicted for 'dereliction of duty' or something equivalent? Who decides that?

The point I guess I'm driving at here is, it certainly seems like Mueller uncovered evidence of a crime by trump(obstruction of justice) but explicitly says in his report he chose not to indict due to existing DOJ policy...but couldnt the Washington DC AG indict trump? Are the police in DC obligated to arrest trump? Can Barr face any legal consequences for not indicting trump? All seems like shit gets REAL murky, real quick when the authorities start bypassing the law based off of policy.


I get the argument you laid out particularly as it relates to state AGs and I agree that seems like a real avenue for abuse...BUT, my counter to that would be, dont we have laws that would hold state AGs accountable for recklessly indicting people(i.e. the president) on BS charges? ISnt that a better, albeit much messier, way of handling things than treating our president like a king? If the hammer gets brought down hard on the first AG that tries to go political with an indictment, e.g. disbarment, jail time, etc. and I feel like that problem is solved. And given the amount of time trump spends golfing and/or vacationing, I'd say the argument that an indictment(bogus or not) occupies too much of the president's time is bogus, too.


And just to dredge up 20+ year old fights, I thought Clinton shouldve been indicted. He committed a felony and there should be consequences for that. He never should have, nor been compelled to, testify, but that's a different argument.

[Holman]

As I understand it, police are never -required- to arrest anyone. Arrest is just what they do if they believe public safety requires it (or if it's a slow day, or they're trying send a message, or etc). Many crimes are charged without an arrest being made, and the perpetrator is only taken into custody in court at a guilty verdict.

As for charging crimes, there's a huge amount of leeway allowed to AGs and DAs and etc. Sometimes they decline to prosecute when the case would be hard to prove or for other reasons (including political and corrupt ones).

[Remus West]

And just to dredge up 20+ year old fights, I thought Clinton shouldve been indicted. He committed a felony and there should be consequences for that. He never should have, nor been compelled to, testify, but that's a different argument.

Ironically, the investigation into Clinton really was a witch hunt while the investigation into Trump has proven to be spot on. Had the first never happened (as it was purely a politically motivated procedure, IMO) this one would be taken much more seriously by all parties (again, IMO).

[noxiousdog]

And just to dredge up 20+ year old fights, I thought Clinton shouldve been indicted. He committed a felony and there should be consequences for that. He never should have, nor been compelled to, testify, but that's a different argument.

Ironically, the investigation into Clinton really was a witch hunt while the investigation into Trump has proven to be spot on. Had the first never happened (as it was purely a politically motivated procedure, IMO) this one would be taken much more seriously by all parties (again, IMO).

Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment and he committed perjury and obstruction of justice with regards to the suit. It wasn't a witch hunt.

[LordMortis]

While the investigation into Clinton may have been grossly overdone partisan hackery, how was it a witch hunt? It was by independent council approved by Janet Reno, and the McDougal's were found guilty as well as several Arkansas governors and a number of political conspirators.

OtOH, Clinton did things like testify and yield to independent investigation and at least kinda sorta co-operated to protect the integrity of the office.

What's I find interesting looking that wiki page to refresh my memory, of the 15 convictions, Clinton pardoned four. I'm not sure what that says but it is interesting.

[Pyperkub]

This whole "sitting President can't be indicted" thing is bullshit. We have a means to continue a smooth transition of government - hand it off to the VP.

You're seriously saying we can handle a President being assassinated, but we can't handle one being under indictment? Seriously?

One of our principles is Innocent until proven guilty. 25th amendment doesn't work here.

[Pyperkub]

And just to dredge up 20+ year old fights, I thought Clinton shouldve been indicted. He committed a felony and there should be consequences for that. He never should have, nor been compelled to, testify, but that's a different argument.

Ironically, the investigation into Clinton really was a witch hunt while the investigation into Trump has proven to be spot on. Had the first never happened (as it was purely a politically motivated procedure, IMO) this one would be taken much more seriously by all parties (again, IMO).

Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment and he committed perjury and obstruction of justice with regards to the suit. It wasn't a witch hunt.

That wasn't part of Starr's mandate however.

[LawBeefaroni]

If no one went to jail for 2008, not a single engineer of one of the biggest financial frauds in history, why do we think a sitting president who has committed obstruction and election fraud has a chance in hell of getting anything other than a stern look from some partisan congresspeople?

It's all already bought and paid for. You can only hope it gets better when some other chosen one gets stuck in the White House.

[LordMortis]

It's all already bought and paid for. You can only hope it gets work for it to get better when some other chosen one gets stuck in the White House.

Hope isn't at play now. Effort is. Hope comes after, where you hope your effort and diligence were good enough, in this instance to counteract the machine Trump in place and the machine McConnell put in place that allowed Trump to do so. I have become a sort of Trump in my attitude. In order to "make us great again" we have to first undo everything his presidency has done. He has literally changed the norm and not for the better.

[Remus West]

And just to dredge up 20+ year old fights, I thought Clinton shouldve been indicted. He committed a felony and there should be consequences for that. He never should have, nor been compelled to, testify, but that's a different argument.

Ironically, the investigation into Clinton really was a witch hunt while the investigation into Trump has proven to be spot on. Had the first never happened (as it was purely a politically motivated procedure, IMO) this one would be taken much more seriously by all parties (again, IMO).

Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment and he committed perjury and obstruction of justice with regards to the suit. It wasn't a witch hunt.

The investigation was into Whitewater and yeilded nothing. Paula Jones suit yeilded nothing. Clinton committed a crime during cooperation with that investigation. That crime did not exist before the investigation began. He absolutely abused power before then but that wasn't what they were looking into.

To be clear, the impeachment of Clinton was not a witch hunt, it was a reaction to his perjury. The investigation was a witch hunt.

[Remus West]

It's all already bought and paid for. You can only hope it gets work for it to get better when some other chosen one gets stuck in the White House.

Hope isn't at play now. Effort is. Hope comes after, where you hope your effort and diligence were good enough, in this instance to counteract the machine Trump in place and the machine McConnell put in place that allowed Trump to do so. I have become a sort of Trump in my attitude. In order to "make us great again" we have to first undo everything his presidency has done. He has literally changed the norm and not for the better.

Whole heartedly agree.

[Holman]

If we're going to have a president and a party who batter limits and norms in ways the constitution never imagined, we should at least use every constitutional remedy available.

Otherwise we're just letting the constitution go down without a fight.

[noxiousdog]

The investigation was into Whitewater and yeilded nothing. Paula Jones suit yeilded nothing. Clinton committed a crime during cooperation with that investigation. That crime did not exist before the investigation began. He absolutely abused power before then but that wasn't what they were looking into.

To be clear, the impeachment of Clinton was not a witch hunt, it was a reaction to his perjury. The investigation was a witch hunt.

Whitewater resulted in 15 people being convicted of 40 crimes.
Paula Jones settled for $850,000.

[LordMortis]

Whitewater resulted in 15 people being convicted of 40 crimes.

This. It was partisan. It was a colossal "independent" expense to tax payers. Clinton may have been wholly innocent with investments while politicians and influence peddlers he surrounded himself with were embezzling and defrauding. It was not a witch hunt.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's all already bought and paid for. You can only hope it gets work for it to get better when some other chosen one gets stuck in the White House.

Hope isn't at play now. Effort is. Hope comes after, where you hope your effort and diligence were good enough, in this instance to counteract the machine Trump in place and the machine McConnell put in place that allowed Trump to do so. I have become a sort of Trump in my attitude. In order to "make us great again" we have to first undo everything his presidency has done. He has literally changed the norm and not for the better.

Whole heartedly agree.

So what is one supposed to do, other than vote at prescribed dates? All my federal reps are "opposition party". All my local officials are "opposition party".


Edit to add: my CFO always tells me that "hope is not a strategy." I get that. But it is an outlook. You do what you can and either have hope or you don't. It might not change the outcome but it could keep you from abject despair in the face of a crumbling democracy.

[Remus West]

It's all already bought and paid for. You can only hope it gets work for it to get better when some other chosen one gets stuck in the White House.

Hope isn't at play now. Effort is. Hope comes after, where you hope your effort and diligence were good enough, in this instance to counteract the machine Trump in place and the machine McConnell put in place that allowed Trump to do so. I have become a sort of Trump in my attitude. In order to "make us great again" we have to first undo everything his presidency has done. He has literally changed the norm and not for the better.

Whole heartedly agree.

So what is one supposed to do, other than vote at prescribed dates? All my federal reps are "opposition party". All my local officials are "opposition party".

Get involved in the campaigns of those who are not "opposition party". Support those who act in a manner you believe in with your time as well as your vote in an effort to increase support for them in the community and the ballot box.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's all already bought and paid for. You can only hope it gets work for it to get better when some other chosen one gets stuck in the White House.

Hope isn't at play now. Effort is. Hope comes after, where you hope your effort and diligence were good enough, in this instance to counteract the machine Trump in place and the machine McConnell put in place that allowed Trump to do so. I have become a sort of Trump in my attitude. In order to "make us great again" we have to first undo everything his presidency has done. He has literally changed the norm and not for the better.

Whole heartedly agree.

So what is one supposed to do, other than vote at prescribed dates? All my federal reps are "opposition party". All my local officials are "opposition party".

Get involved in the campaigns of those who are not "opposition party". Support those who act in a manner you believe in with your time as well as your vote in an effort to increase support for them in the community and the ballot box.

I'm confused. By opposition party, I mean the Democrats. I'm not aware of an opportunity to get another one in. "Getting out the vote" for Democrats in Chicago is like campaigning for Trump at a Qanon convention.

[Skinypupy]

Apologies if this is a re-post (I scrolled back a couple pages and didn't see it), but it's worth watching Lindsey Graham's justification for impeaching Clinton back in 1999.



As someone mentioned in that thread, I would love for one of the House Dems to give that exact same speech - word for word - and watch the conservative reaction of exploding heads.

[LordMortis]

I don't have great answers. For me right now: It's stay informed, which I hate. Information is draining my soul. It's keeping things factual and repeating those facts through the noise. It's accepting that "mainstream media" is not great at divorcing their agendas from those facts and it's on my get Izzy with it source things until the facts are more clear than our twitter driven editorialized news allow for. It's finding the right candidate. For me in the end it may be swallowing my pride and voting for someone I may actively not want over tacitly supporting an entire an entire party that is riding a path too dangerous.

At some point it is likely I will need to get grassroots. Get involved in the community. I have no idea how. At the end of work day I don't have what it takes to maintain a house. Being part of my community? Going to a rally? Being a volunteer? I have no idea where that will come from.

[Pyperkub]

Whitewater resulted in 15 people being convicted of 40 crimes.

This. It was partisan. It was a colossal "independent" expense to tax payers. Clinton may have been wholly innocent with investments while politicians and influence peddlers he surrounded himself with were embezzling and defrauding. It was not a witch hunt.

the expansion of Starr's powers by the Republican Congress *was* a Witch Hunt. the Whitewater portion was (mostly) not.

[LawBeefaroni]

I don't have great answers. For me right now: It's stay informed, which I hate. Information is draining my soul. It's keeping things factual and repeating those facts through the noise. It's accepting that "mainstream media" is not great at divorcing their agendas from those facts and it's on my get Izzy with it source things until the facts are more clear than our twitter driven editorialized news allow for. It's finding the right candidate. For me in the end it may be swallowing my pride and voting for someone I may actively not want over tacitly supporting an entire an entire party that is riding a path too dangerous.

At some point it is likely I will need to get grassroots. Get involved in the community. I have no idea how. At the end of work day I don't have what it takes to maintain a house. Being part of my community? Going to a rally? Being a volunteer? I have no idea where that will come from.

The more I pay attention, the worse it gets. Both sides are off the rails now and the only place I feel I can have any impact is in my neighborhood where I'm already pretty active. So as I was taught, it's hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

[YellowKing]

As someone mentioned in that thread, I would love for one of the House Dems to give that exact same speech - word for word - and watch the conservative reaction of exploding heads.

I'm not sure they'd bat an eye. This is a party that is completely immune to their own hypocrisy.

[Pyperkub]

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.

Serious question: When exactly did impeachment become justified?

Historically, with Andrew Johnson's interference with and refusal to enforce Reconstruction laws in the wake of the Civil War after Lincoln's assassination, and then cemented with Nixon's abuses of power.

It was turned into a sham by the GOP in the 90's. They would have impeached Obama if he hadn't been squeaky clean or was less popular.

Now we have the repercussions of that partisan sham to deal with in a case which demands impeachment.