Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Meadmaker]

McConnell will neuter any hearings.

That is also not how it works. McConnell isn't the arbiter.

The House of Representatives, which does not include Mitch McConnell, must pass articles of impeachment. Normally, this would be preceded by a vote in the House Judiciary Committee, but that's part of House rules. In the case of Richard Nixon, the Judiciary Committee had been meeting for months investigating allegations against Nixon, and then debating the actual impeachment articles. Some impeachment articles were passed by the committee, which prompted Nixon's resignation.


In the case of Bill Clinton, the House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations, and debated the articles of impeachment for a total of four hours before voting on, and passing, those articles. Those then went to the House floor 8 days later, where they passed.


At that point, it moves to a trial in the Senate. The Constitution doesn't specify much about the trial phase, except that the Chief Justice presides over the proceedings. John Roberts is the closest thing to an arbiter in the process. Other than that, the Senate rules dictate exactly how the trial goes, but it's the Chief Justice, not Mitch McConnell or the President of the Senate, which is Mike Pence, that directs the proceedings. In other words, Mitch really can't do much about it. He could, in theory, recommend a rules change to conduct the trial differently, and if the GOP senators went along with the rules change, then the Chief Justice would preside over the trial, conducted by whatever the Senate rules were in effect at the commencement of the trial.


The other arbiters, in some sense, are the senators, because they eventually take a vote. Each senator, including Mitch, gets one vote. 2/3 are required to pass.


Suppose a president did something truly horrendous, which darned near everyone agreed would justify throwing him out. The House could pass articles in an afternoon. The Senate could vote on a rule change that says the trial would consist of just a vote. If the rules change passed, they could then immediately hold a removal vote. If it passed, the president wouldn't be the president any more as soon as they declared that a 2/3 majority voted him out. The whole thing could be done in an afternoon.


Needless to say, that isn't going to happen, but the point is that the actual process may involve months of hearings, but it doesn't have to. What it really requires is a majority of the House, then 2/3 of the Senate. Everything else is dictated by rules of the House and Senate, which can be changed if they think it beneficial.

 

[Craig4]

Here, I will explain it to you...
Trump’s extreme popularity comes from him not being a Washington politician. He is absolutely correct that he can pretty much do whatever he wants with no repercussions. He is enormously popular. He is viewed as a maverick, so when he says or tweets something offensive, it doesn’t matter because it is all about him not playing by political rules; it’s all about him being different than all the other politicians. He is going to win 2020 by a landslide.

No, it just means Biden has to get 80,000 swing voters in the rust belt to vote his way.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So what was the Mueller investigation trying to accomplish? ...

Have you read the Mueller report? Or let Barr spoon feed a little of it to you?

Are you afraid what will happen if the House makes the report public in a way people hear more than Barr's whitewash?

What are you afraid of that you post pages and pages here trying to get people not to look at the Mueller report?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

How soon until this thread gets moved to CT?

I mean I was skeptical about the precise nature of the electronic intrusions when all we had was a pamphlet with a dude in a hoodie on a red background, but that was several convictions and a few thousand pages of evidence ago.

 

[Bob001]

Here, I will explain it to you...
Trump’s extreme popularity comes from him not being a Washington politician. He is absolutely correct that he can pretty much do whatever he wants with no repercussions. He is enormously popular.
......

No, he is not and was never "enormously popular." He was winning primaries with 20% of the vote because the 80% of Republicans who wanted somebody else were split 16 different ways. Three million more people voted for his opponent than for him. His basic approval rating hovers in the low 40% range. Trump could well win again, but it will be because of the Electoral College, gerrymandering and aggressive voter suppression, not because he is popular or successful. Trump's appeal is that he hates the people his fans hate. And hate is a powerful force.

 

[Bob001]

.....
At that point, it moves to a trial in the Senate. The Constitution doesn't specify much about the trial phase, except that the Chief Justice presides over the proceedings.
.....

That is precisely the point. There is no Constitutional requirement that the Senate take up an impeachment trial immediately, or ahead of any other business, or even on any schedule at all. Just as McConnell ignored the Constitutional requirement that the Senate "shall" advise and consent on Supreme Court nominees, nothing but public opinion would prevent him from ignoring the Constitutional requirement to conduct a trial.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Republicans held 11 Benghazi hearings and I can't even remember how many Clinton email investigations. It didn't hurt them now did it? No.

What are Democrats afraid of? Trump is corrupt as hell. He oversteps his position. He lies constantly. Congressional hearings can inform more people.

 

[Aridas]

What false beliefs do I have due to "right-wing" disinformation?

The whole post right before that line pointed out a couple, to start? As had previous posts. Given that, it's pretty much impossible to take this as a good faith request.

Even so -

Now imagine if a politician from the Russian Duma attended and spoke at a campaign rally for Trump. The Left would go into an apoplectic rage, demanding investigations, impeachment and treason trials. They would certainly want to ban all Russian politicians from campaigning on behalf of American politicians.

This is a fine example of utter and complete crap. It would certainly make for a fine reason to tell voters that they probably shouldn't vote for Trump, but that's as far as it would go. Seriously. What's more, of course, is that anti-Russia sentiment among Republicans was quite high at that point.

But then, the kind of thing that actually happened was worse. For example, Trump literally gave a speech about his intended foreign policy written by a lobbyist for Russia. He literally asked Russia to do illegal things to help him... and made it perfectly clear right after that he wasn't joking at all (and they immediately started trying to do exactly what he asked). He did start claiming that it was a joke later, of course, after a bunch of backlash. Republicans were mostly happy with that, however unbelievable it was on actual inspection. That Trump apparently instructed a number of the members of his campaign repeatedly to try to make those illegal things happen makes it even less believable.

Incidentally, on Mifsud, from the Mueller report, since you seem excessively focused on that...

Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.

It sure sounds like you're trying to split hairs, focusing specifically on the lack of the word "Russian agent" there. The relevant connections are later described in more detail, of course. Perhaps it's worth bearing in mind that this is what's said after Papadopoulos' lies to the FBI and uncooperativeness allowed him to enough time to get out?

Papadopoulos's false statements in January 2017 impeded the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Most immediately, those statements hindered investigators' ability to effectively question Mifsud when he was interviewed in the lobby of a Washington, D.C. hotel on February 10, 2017. See Gov't Sent. Mem. at 6, United States v. George Papadopoulos, No. 1: 17-cr-182 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2017), Doc. 44. During that interview, Mifsud admitted to knowing Papadopoulos and to having introduced him to Polonskaya and Timofeev. But Mifsud denied that he had advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of emails damaging to candidate Clinton, stating that he and Papadopoulos had discussed cybersecurity and hacking as a larger issue and that Papadopoulos must have misunderstood their conversation. Mifsud also falsely stated that he had not seen Papadopoulos since the meeting at which Mifsud introduced him to Polonskaya, even though emails, text messages, and other information show that Mifsud met with Papadopoulos on at least two other occasions-April 12 and April 26, 2016. In addition, Mifsud omitted that he had drafted (or edited) the follow-up message that Polonskaya sent to Papadopoulos following the initial meeting and that, as reflected in the language of that email chain ("Baby, thank you!"), Mifsud may have been involved in a personal relationship with Polonskaya at the time. The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos's January 2017 interview undermined investigators' ability to challenge Mifsud when he made these inaccurate statements.

 

[Meadmaker]

That is precisely the point. There is no Constitutional requirement that the Senate take up an impeachment trial immediately, or ahead of any other business, or even on any schedule at all. Just as McConnell ignored the Constitutional requirement that the Senate "shall" advise and consent on Supreme Court nominees, nothing but public opinion would prevent him from ignoring the Constitutional requirement to conduct a trial.

That's an interesting question, and it's kind of uncharted territory. I don't think it's correct. I think that the trial has to happen, in accordance with the rules of the Senate. The Chief Justice could order that they follow their own rules. If they went too far afield, I think the House could go to the Supreme Court and demand that the Senate go along.

It's really untested territory. I think at the very least, the Senate could vote to change their rules to say that the trial consists only of a vote, and then vote, and that would be that.

 

[Aridas]

That is also not how it works. McConnell isn't the arbiter.

Indeed. A question that I haven't heard answered, though, is if McConnell has any say over when a trial would take place. After the BS he pulled with Merrick Garland and pretty much every Judge that Obama nominated, it's actually a real concern. Would it be Roberts or McConnell who decides when?

 

[Aridas]

The Republicans held 11 Benghazi hearings and I can't even remember how many Clinton email investigations. It didn't hurt them now did it? No.

What are Democrats afraid of? Trump is corrupt as hell. He oversteps his position. He lies constantly. Congressional hearings can inform more people.

Mmm. I think that "What are Democrats afraid of?" is a slightly misguided question there. Democrats have opened up quite a few investigations - ones that the Republicans absolutely should have done before, had they any inclination to put country over short-term party concerns. The big story there right now, of course, is Trump's instructions to withhold everything.

 

[smartcooky]

That's an interesting question, and it's kind of uncharted territory. I don't think it's correct. I think that the trial has to happen, in accordance with the rules of the Senate. The Chief Justice could order that they follow their own rules. If they went too far afield, I think the House could go to the Supreme Court and demand that the Senate go along.

It's really untested territory. I think at the very least, the Senate could vote to change their rules to say that the trial consists only of a vote, and then vote, and that would be that.

We have already seen that scumbag McConnell prevent the Senate from voting to publicly release the full Mueller report after the House voted 420-0 to do so.

What makes you think this is any different?

 

[Aridas]

We have already seen that scumbag McConnell prevent the Senate from voting down Trump's lifting of sanctions on a company belonging to his best buddy's best buddy (Oleg Deripaska) after the House voted 362 to 53 to stop Trump lifting them,

What makes you think this is any different?

...Any mention of this event would likely be better off including the part where McConnell was effectively bribed? A Deripaska company lobbyist informed him of a large potential investment in Kentucky that would require the sanctions to be lifted to be allowed to happen shortly before the vote.

ETA: Mmm. As for the edited version...

We have already seen that scumbag McConnell prevent the Senate from voting to publicly release the full Mueller report after the House voted 420-0 to do so.

Potentially a court order could make this different. Having to force the issue, though, would be a delay tactic itself.

 

[Bob001]

That's an interesting question, and it's kind of uncharted territory. I don't think it's correct. I think that the trial has to happen, in accordance with the rules of the Senate. The Chief Justice could order that they follow their own rules. If they went too far afield, I think the House could go to the Supreme Court and demand that the Senate go along.

It's really untested territory. I think at the very least, the Senate could vote to change their rules to say that the trial consists only of a vote, and then vote, and that would be that.

Here's a former White House counsel:

The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

McConnell could say "Thank you, House. We'll look into this when we have a chance."

 

[jeremyp]

Suppose a DA had a police report that showed that a powerful person in his district had committed some serious crimes, and the DA decided not to pursue it because he believed that it would politically costly for him. We'd consider him a bad person for putting career considerations above his duty to the public.

Why is it different for Congress? If they (in this case, House Democrats) believe that there's sufficient evidence that Trump committed significant crimes, how can they ethically not impeach?

Of course, the Senate may simply ignore it or vote that Trump is really a great guy, and that would be unethical of the Senate, but the House can't control that. If the House doesn't impeach, then the House Democrats are being unethical so that the Senate Republicans can ethically ignore Trump's crimes.

Impeachment isn’t really a trial. It’s just a vote to decide if the President should be sent before the Senate to see if he should be fired. We all know the Senate is not going to fire him.

In fact, as the President was hired by the separate states, you could argue that it is unethical for anybody to fire him except the same separate states I.e. in a general election.

Impeachment is not a judicial process, it is a political process. As such, there is nothing unethical about deciding not to do it for political reasons.

 

[Aridas]

Impeachment isn’t really a trial. It’s just a vote to decide if the President should be sent before the Senate to see if he should be fired. We all know the Senate is not going to fire him.

In fact, as the President was hired by the separate states, you could argue that it is unethical for anybody to fire him except the same separate states I.e. in a general election.

Impeachment is not a judicial process, it is a political process. As such, there is nothing unethical about deciding not to do it for political reasons.

I think that we have distinctly different views on ethics. There is nothing illegal about any particular vote or outcome. Ethics and legality are very frequently not the same, though. For example, if, as has been claimed by some prominent Republicans, the Senate Republicans know that Trump is thoroughly unfit for office and the likely charges are true, substantial, and criminal, but vote not to remove Trump (with the understanding that Pence would become President if they did, a Republican who is reasonably likely to be notably better than Trump as President), that would likely be a pretty clear example of them being unethical in nigh every reasonable usage of ethics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
McConnell could say "Thank you, House. We'll look into this when we have a chance."

Which is why the decision to impeach should be about the court of public opinion, not about removing Trump from office.

What we need to do is not let the GOP convince us impeachment would be a losing proposition. Of course they are going to promote that narrative. Are we stupid enough to believe them?

 

[phiwum]

Hold your horses. That may be the case in NZ, but here in the US a warrant must be obtained before anyone starts getting their phones tapped or any surveillance goes on.

What warrantless wire tapping or surveillance went on?

Some conversations with Russian diplomats were caught up in the usual bugging, which does not require a warrant. Is this what you mean?

 

[phiwum]

Rather than getting into a hypothetical debate I'd just prefer to wait and see what documents are declassified and released. We can then discuss the facts of the case rather than wasting time by swapping hyptotheticals that do not apply.

Chris B.

You claimed that "obstructing injustice" is not a crime. The facts of this case really aren't relevant in determining whether that claim is true or false. That claim is not limited to these particular circumstances.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Here, I will explain it to you...
Trump’s extreme popularity comes from him not being a Washington politician. He is absolutely correct that he can pretty much do whatever he wants with no repercussions. He is enormously popular. He is viewed as a maverick, so when he says or tweets something offensive, it doesn’t matter because it is all about him not playing by political rules; it’s all about him being different than all the other politicians. He is going to win 2020 by a landslide.

You have to wonder if the Secret Service are less vulnerable to being compromised than has been the case on several occasions over the years. Generally speaking, if you can't be destroyed via "l'infamie" in the press, it's lights out.

Was it Bill Hicks who conjured a vision of an unnamed president-elect being taken into a room with a bunch of 'advisors' and senior spooks, the lights dim and 30 seconds of crystal clear 35mm footage of a car on Elm Street, Dallas, November 22nd 1963 plays out, the lights come up and someone says; "any questions, mr. president?"