Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Zambo]

Deleted because double post due to time lag

 

[Cabbage]

Thanks much. This is just about what I was thinking as well.

After all, while I sure do despise Trump, I really do not want to see him dealing with dozens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of legal challenges while he is in office because such actions could make the Executive branch nonfunctional. Also, I expect that any future President would have the exact same problems since it is nearly certain that some sort of legal challenge could be provided to any President.

Therefore, a better approach is to impeach Trump then throw him out of office, or not re-elect him. In either case, Trump would become a private citizen and as such he could be forced to deal with all of the illegal things that he has done while he was the President and/or before he became the President.

"Could make"? You mean the Executive branch could be less functional than it is now?

 

[Zambo]

And? Congress still has the constitutional power (and obligation) to remove him if they think he's unfit for office, or has committed some sort of crime or offense. They're elected as well.

I posted about waiting until after Trump has left office (for whatever reason) and then charging him with crimes. I don't dispute what you state. How that will work out I do wonder in the odd lonely moment.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

What i am "trying to say" is that waiting until Trump (or any other head of state or head of government) is a private citizen and then charging him with crimes when the other party in a 2 party state is in control stinks.

Do you not see the consequences of NOT investigating and/or charging a President for crimes committed while in and out of office? Said consequences would involve a president having carte blanche to be as lawless as he or she saw fit, with no fear of repercussion.

I think that stinks far worse.

 

[Crossbow]

Thanks much for the clarification. It is a big help.

What i am "trying to say" is that waiting until Trump (or any other head of state or head of government) is a private citizen and then charging him with crimes when the other party in a 2 party state is in control stinks.

Well, it is not necessary for an opposing party to be in control of things when the president in power is no longer in power.

My concluding sentence, the 3rd one, merely pointed out that although not the majority many voters voted for him. I suggest they knew well what they voted for, indeed they wanted exactly what they have received.

I expect that you are quite correct here. After all, it was well known that Trump was a turkey long before anyone actually voted for him.

 

[Zambo]

Do you not see the consequences of NOT investigating and/or charging a President for crimes committed while in and out of office? Said consequences would involve a president having carte blanche to be as lawless as he or she saw fit, with no fear of repercussion.

I think that stinks far worse.

Yes investigate, charge, impeach whatever you want. But all I am saying is that if that seems somehow difficult or politically inexpedient then is it wise to wait until he is out of office and then "lock him up"

 

[Crossbow]

"Could make"? You mean the Executive branch could be less functional than it is now?

Actually, the current Executive branch can be quite functional when it wishes to do so.

After all, just take a look at how Trump has radically changed the make-up of the court system with a large series of expedited appointees. Also, please review the recent Trump tax-cuts which got pushed through in short order.

 

[Zambo]

Well, it is not necessary for an opposing party to be in control of things when the president in power is no longer in power.

.

I watched a video of Bill Weld jogging in front of a motorcade during an election a few years ago. I believe in days gone by he was the real deal and looked the part, those days may be gone. Romney, no chance. Jeb Bush crushed by Trump, Rubio likewise and lying Ted no chance from day 1. So while your premise may be correct you are wrong.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Retweeted

Rep. Jim Jordan
@Jim_Jordan
Peter Strzok told us that he would “love to answer each and every one of [our] questions" once the Mueller investigation concluded.
The investigation is over. Time to bring Strzok and the rest of the Comey Cabal back in to get those answers.

It’s time to figure out what the Comey Cabal did at the start of the fake “Russia collusion” investigation.
Comey, Andy McCabe, Jim Baker, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok need to be held accountable for launching this hoax.
Each of them were either fired or demoted and left the FBI.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Retweeted

Mark Meadows
@RepMarkMeadows
Reminder: Democrats demanding an unredacted Mueller report (exposing even classified info) spent a year attacking myself, @Jim_Jordan, @DevinNunes + others for wanting FISA docs WITH national security redactions. They're not interested in transparency. They want a political foil.

We knew they wouldn’t give up.
The collusion delusion fell flat, and now reports say House Democrats are preparing to “ramp up” their investigations of President Trump.
Not “move on”—“ramp up.” They’re doubling down. This is a myopic obsession with politically targeting POTUS.

 

[Crossbow]

I watched a video of Bill Weld jogging in front of a motorcade during an elaction a few years ago. I believe in days gone by he was the real deal and looked the part, those days may be gone. Romney, no chance. Jeb Bush crushed by Trump, Rubio likewise and lying Ted no chance from day 1. So while your premise may be correct you are wrong.

Sorry, but once again I really cannot determine just what it is that you are trying to say.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Retweeted

Rep. Matt Gaetz
@RepMattGaetz
Volume 1 of the Mueller Report is based on evidence, while Volume 2 seems to rely heavily on the reporting of news outlets. The report cites the media more than 125 times. It seems like they spent their time watching and reading the news instead of actually investigating!

 

[Zambo]

Sorry, but once again I really cannot determine just what it is that you are trying to say.

Quite interesting, the first time i thought it was you failing to understand my point for little reason. Now i do think I wasn't very clear.

You said, and I use my words (correct me if I am wrong) that it might not be Democrats in control after Trump leaves office. At present apart from Democrats only Bill Weld opposes him so likely it is either Trump or a Democrat for 2020.

 

[Cabbage]

Actually, the current Executive branch can be quite functional when it wishes to do so.

After all, just take a look at how Trump has radically changed the make-up of the court system with a large series of expedited appointees. Also, please review the recent Trump tax-cuts which got pushed through in short order.

I was being tongue in cheek, of course, but I will point out another side to the concern that indicting a president hampers a president's ability to do his/her job: Depending on the nature of the corruption, it may actually be beneficial to interfere with his actions as president.

 

[Cabbage]

Trump Retweeted

Rep. Matt Gaetz
@RepMattGaetz
Volume 1 of the Mueller Report is based on evidence, while Volume 2 seems to rely heavily on the reporting of news outlets. The report cites the media more than 125 times. It seems like they spent their time watching and reading the news instead of actually investigating!

It seems like Trump spends his time watching TV instead of actually presidenting.

 

[Zambo]

I was being tongue in cheek, of course, but I will point out another side to the concern that indicting a president hampers a president's ability to do his/her job: Depending on the nature of the corruption, it may actually be beneficial to interfere with his actions as president.

And if that was the case I strongly suggest that both Democrats and Republicans would support the action. They don't. And you voted for him.

 

[Crossbow]

Quite interesting, the first time i thought it was you failing to understand my point for little reason. Now i do think I wasn't very clear.

You said, and I use my words (correct me if I am wrong) that it might not be Democrats in control after Trump leaves office. At present apart from Democrats only Bill Weld opposes him so likely it is either Trump or a Democrat for 2020.

Sorry, but for the third time I really cannot determine just what it is that you are trying to say.

Even if Trump were to be re-elected, then that does not mean he is out of legal jeopardy.

For example, Nixon was re-elected in 1972 by record breaking margins, and yet he resigned the presidency less than two years later.

 

[Crossbow]

I was being tongue in cheek, of course, but I will point out another side to the concern that indicting a president hampers a president's ability to do his/her job: Depending on the nature of the corruption, it may actually be beneficial to interfere with his actions as president.

OK.

Thanks much for the clarification.

 

[Segnosaur]

Looks like there are some opinions that Trump's actions since the Mueller report was released could be considered 'new' crimes....

From: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/24/mueller-report-trump-evidence-1288798
Team Trump’s bellicose tweets and public statements in the last few days are potentially exposing Trump to fresh charges of witness intimidation, obstruction of justice and impeding a congressional investigation...Already, a fusillade of verbal assaults aimed at former White House counsel Don McGahn, a star witness in the Mueller report, have sparked questions about obstruction and witness intimidation as Democrats fight the Trump White House to get McGahn’s documents and testimony. “This is risky,” said William Jeffress, a prominent Washington defense attorney who represented President Richard Nixon after he left the White House. “I find it surprising because he’s taking these shots at witnesses who gave information to Mueller, and I think he’s got to be careful because there’s an explicit federal statute punishing retaliation against witnesses.”

So, to paraphrase:

Mueller: There is evidence Trump did illegal stuff
Trump: I was exonerated. Now hold my beer while I do more stupid stuff.

ETA: In theory Trump can be charged on these crimes after he leaves office. But, there is a 5 year statute of limitations on many of these crimes. The problem is, Trump KEEPS committing the same crime.

 

[dasmiller]

Mueller: There is evidence Trump did illegal stuff

In Trump's mind, the fact that Mueller didn't indict him simply proves that Trump's bullying tactics are legal and acceptable.