The Russia Investigations and other Trump-related cases

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The House Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Barr in contempt. It now goes to the full House for a vote.

Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the one somewhat bipartisan entity conducting investigation into these issues, has supboenaed Donald Trump, Jr. to testify to explain certain anomalies in his testimony. He will likely either plead the Fifth, or more likely just not show up. Whether the GOP chairman of the committee will take it any further than that remains to be seen.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

Many Presidents have claimed executive privilege, so that in itself is not unique, and Nadler's claims that it represents a constitutional crisis seem hyperbolic to me. I recall hearing it said many times in commentary that Trump could legitimately have claimed executive privilege earlier in this process but chose not to. It has also been pointed out that it was legitimately AG Barr's prerogative how much of the report should be released, and that he could legitimately have refused to release any of it (although obviously that would have been politically problematic).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not aware of any situation in which a president has asserted executive privilege over material that he or she has already explicitly waived executive privilege over. That's what's so bizarre about this. There are much better arguments that they can make, primarily that Nadler is seeking grand jury material that simply can't be released without a court order.

As for as I am concerned, both sides are acting ridiculously.

[yovargas]

What do you think Congress should do at this point (if anything)?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't say this lightly, and it probably is the wrong move politically, but I think they should immediately begin impeachment proceedings. I say that for two reasons.

First, and most importantly, I agree with the now more than 800 former federal prosecutors (as well as most independent legal experts) that there is more than ample evidence that Mr. Trump has committed multiple felonies that would justify impeaching him. There are basically two arguments that Trump defenders such as Alan Dershowitz make, and neither of them are legally valid. First is that since there is no underlying crime, he can't be guilty of obstructing justice. But there are many, many examples of people charged and convicted of obstruction of justice without being charged with any underlying crime. The important questions are whether the person took actions that interfered with the investigation and whether that person believed in taking those actions that they did they were protecting themselves from the investigation. In multiple cases, Mueller found that both of those things were true about Mr. Trump with regard to actions that he took. The other argument that Dershowitz and others make is that Mr. Trump can't be charged with obstruction for taking action that he was legally entitled to do, such as firing Comey. But there is no legal basis for that argument; again the question is whether the action was taken with the express purpose to interfere with an investigation in order to protect himself from the investigation; whether it was an action that he was otherwise legally entitled to do is irrelevant. Moreover, many of the actions cited by Mueller in the report (and referenced in the former federal prosecutors' statement) don't even fall into that category, since it is a moot point.

The second reason I think they should begin impeachment proceedings is that it appears to be the only way that they may get all of the information that is available in order to make a determination as to what really happened. That sounds bass ackwards, but the fact of the matter is that Mr. Trump, Mr. Barr, and Mr. Mnuchin have made it clear that they will not provided any information that otherwise should be provided. The only way that they are going to get all of the information and underlying evidence in the Mueller report, particularly grand jury information (and probably Mr. Trump's tax returns and other financial information that may or may not show how deeply compromised he is due to financial connections to Russia) is to begin a quasi-judicial proceeding. And the only quasi-judicial proceeding that they can institute is a impeachment proceeding.

[yovargas]

Being no legal expert, I certainly can't speak to whether or not impeachment is legally justified, but politically, it seems almost certain that it would be both pointless in a practical sense (Trump will not be removed from office or be otherwise punished) and politically insane, as it would be an enormously unpopular move for the Democrats. The best punishment we can expect for Trump at this point is to beat him in the election. Spending the next year and a half talking about how terrible Trump is is not the way to do that.

[Cerin]

My opinion about what Congress should do is tied in with my perception that the investigation was illegitimate to begin with, being based on disapproval of Trump as a person, disapproval of his stance on Russia and alarm at the prospect that he might actually become President.

So with that in mind, I think Congress (meaning, the Dems) should immediately drop all proceedings related to the Mueller report, get back to dealing with real issues, and begin communicating with the electorate on things like the Trump administration's assault on the environment. I fear that the Dems are once again thinking that 'I'm not Trump' is going to be enough to win them the Presidency.

[yovargas]

That position might make sense if there was some actual evidence to support that claim of the investigation being "politically" motivated, as opposed to being motivated by the evidence, but since there isn't, I'm gonna go ahead and say that's ridiculous.

[Cerin]

There was never any evidence. The investigation was based on the FBIs aversion to Trump, which led them to put undercover people around the Trump campaign in the hope of enticing them into unsavory behavior (the very same tactic they use to produce terrorism plots which they then thwart), and the Steele dossier, which everyone knew was unverified anti-Trump 'research' paid for by the Clintons. I am hoping this will all come out with the Inspector General's report and Barr's investigation into the origins of the investigation.

[yovargas]

There was never any evidence.

There was never any evidence for the stuff you just said and yet you still believe it.

PS - there was a bunch of evidence and it's all in the Mueller report. You can choose to pretend it doesn't exist if you so choose, I suppose.

[RoseMorninStar]

Liars bank on people presuming what they are told is the truth and that people will not follow up/check the facts. That is how liars get away with their lies. Some people in positions of trust really take advantage of this 'presumption of truth' (I've seen this in churches, for example) where they can get away with lying because few people will bother to question what they say.

[River]

So I rarely if ever get pushback on what I state as fact at work. It's a situation I earned and a level of trust I'm not wired to abuse. But, standing in that position as The Senior Authority, I can understand why/how people of a certain character would be able spew forth total b.s. that won't be challenged and still admire their faces in their mirrors and get a sound night's sleep as well.

[RoseMorninStar]

So I rarely if ever get pushback on what I state as fact at work. It's a situation I earned and a level of trust I'm not wired to abuse. But, standing in that position as The Senior Authority, I can understand why/how people of a certain character would be able spew forth total b.s. that won't be challenged and still admire their faces in their mirrors and get a sound night's sleep as well.

Exactly.. generally speaking, people in a position of trust have earned it and deserve our trust. That is how a functioning society/family works. But that is also how some (lairs, narcissists, psychopaths/sociopaths, etc..) get away with what they do. They are naturally excellent students of behavior and take advantage of trust.

[elengil]

So the origins of the Trump investigation are yet again going to be investigated. I wonder when we'll be investigating the origins of the Clinton investigations.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

First GOP member of Congress to call for Mr. Trump's impeachment.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/justin- ... uct-2019-5

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If that was not an invitation to begin impeachment proceedings, I don't know what it was.

[RoseMorninStar]

The question is: should Congress do their due diligence if it's likely to go nowhere? In my opinion (and not just in this case, but in most situations where there is a question of duty over result/effectiveness) the answer is yes.

[Cerin]

So Mueller made a brief statement today.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... pt-1346453

My impression is, the main reason for the statement was to get out of testifying before Congress. He said outright that he does not want to testify, and that he has nothing to say beyond what his report says -- that the report speaks for itself and he wants the report to be his last word on the matter. I don't know if this means that Congress will desist in its efforts to get him to testify, or if it means that he will ultimately refuse if they persist.

Another thing Mueller reiterated, which I've never understood, is that if they were certain Trump had committed no crime, they would have said so. Since when is it our system for an investigator to conclude that no crime was committed? Isn't this normally the job of judge or jury after crimes have been charged? This statement has seemed unfair to me since the first time Mueller made it.

There was one other point that I thought was quite finely parsed and so I expect the media to get it wrong. Mueller said that under Justice Department policy, a sitting President cannot be indicted. Mueller said that therefore, they concluded that they would not make a determination as to whether or not the President committed a crime. I think the media will report this as, 'Mueller says they would have indicted Trump if not for rule stating a President can't be indicted.' But that isn't what he said. He said they deliberately reached no conclusion about whether or not the President committed a crime.

[yovargas]

Mueller: "And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple systemic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American."

The American People: "Eh, whatever."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Another thing Mueller reiterated, which I've never understood, is that if they were certain Trump had committed no crime, they would have said so. Since when is it our system for an investigator to conclude that no crime was committed? Isn't this normally the job of judge or jury after crimes have been charged? This statement has seemed unfair to me since the first time Mueller made it.

That statement means different things depending on whether you have actually read volume 2 of the report. If you haven't read the report, it seems like a gratuitously unfair statement. If you have read the report then it is impossible to interpret it in any way other than as saying "we believe that the president committed crimes but we can't say so because we are not allowed to charge him."

Overall I thought the basic point of Mueller's statement today was to say to Congress: "we did our job, now you do yours."

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk