Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Bogative]

Okay, the section is too big for me to quote. It starts on page 368, or Volume II page 156, with the heading Overarching Factual Issues, which summarizes the behavior described in the previous 156-ish pages. Then, on page 371 or VII p159, the report begins a lengthy legal justification for (1) how Congress can use it's impeachment powers to deal with Presidential obstruction of justice and (2) how the statute of limitations applies to Presidents once they are no longer in office. It's under the heading LEGAL DEFENSES To THE APPLICATION OF OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE STATUTES To THE PRESIDENT. The section concludes with, page 392 or VII p180,

tl;dr: Congress can investigate and prosecute obstruction charges against the President without the problems caused if the DOJ did it.

It's very considerate of Mueller to give Congress a refresher on their constitutionally delegated powers and responsibilities considering the type of politicians the electorate has sent to DC lately, but that does not support what was claimed earlier. Which was the reason Mueller did not find a crime was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting presidents.

 

[wareyin]

It's very considerate of Mueller to give Congress a refresher on their constitutionally delegated powers and responsibilities considering the type of politicians the electorate has sent to DC lately, but that does not support what was claimed earlier. Which was the reason Mueller did not find a crime was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting presidents.

I think you meant the reason Mueller didn't charge Trump was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting presidents. Because obstruction of justice is a crime, and Mueller explicitly said he couldn't exonerate Trump of that.

 

[Paul2]

I agree that all of these are true. However, this does not prove Mueller would have indicted the president only but for he was not allowed to by DOJ policy. As the prestige said earlier, Mueller's report only says that they are not going to bring charges, not why they are not going to bring charges as claimed earlier.

It would be odd if the reason that Mueller did not bring charges was because there were no crimes committed given that Mueller identified 4 or 5 incidents in which he shows all three elements necessary for the crime of obstruction are present, even if he never comes out and says, "The President committed crimes." Isn't the duck quacking and walking at that point?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree that all of these are true. However, this does not prove Mueller would have indicted the president only but for he was not allowed to by DOJ policy. As the prestige said earlier, Mueller's report only says that they are not going to bring charges, not why they are not going to bring charges as claimed earlier.

Is this according to Barr?

Or according to the actual report?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...the reason Mueller did not find a crime [bring criminal charges] was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting presidents....

ftfy

...because that was the job of Congress and impeachment.

I don't suppose you see the difference?

 

[Upchurch]

As the prestige said earlier, Mueller's report only says that they are not going to bring charges, not why they are not going to bring charges as claimed earlier.

That is demonstrably not true, as I outlined in my response to theprestige's post.

 

[Upchurch]

Which was the reason Mueller did not find a crime was because of the DOJ's policy of not indicting presidents.

You haven’t read the report or my citations, have you?

 

[newyorkguy]

...The point of the Nixon comparison is that the argument that Trump shouldn't be impeached because "it would divide the country" is spurious, at best...

I'm not sure I agree with that and I have read opinions of people who do not agree at all. The Republican-elected president previous to Nixon was Dwight Eisenhower. The Republican-elected president after Nixon was Ronald Reagan. I think it can be argued that Watergate -- and Nixon essentially being forced out of office -- left a bitterness and a resentment among Republicans that continues to this day. I think it can be argued that post-Nixon/Watergate the Republican Party became noticeably more callous and cynical. Some of the most partisan Republicans, like Gingrich, Cheney, Rumsfeld, all entered politics in that era.

Below is a quote from Geoffrey Kabaservice, an author and research director of the Republican Main Street Partnership.

Nixon was, despite the popular conception of him today, a centrist Republican—and because of Watergate, he may have been the last one. Nixon’s sensibilities were populist-conservative, but operationally he acted as a moderate and even occasionally as a progressive, for example when he created the Environmental Protection Agency and proposed national health insurance that would have covered more people than Obamacare. In 1997, I interviewed Elliot Richardson, who as attorney general played a key role in bringing down Nixon but felt history had wrongly remembered the 37th president. “Most people don’t really get the fact that the Nixon administration was to the left of the Clinton administration,” Richardson told me. Politico link

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's the theory. The reality is that it does.

How so? Do you think they will decide not to vote for Trump if the Dems do not impeach him?

The reality is that Trumpkins will support DJT no matter what. Independents are the ones who will decide the election, and the majority of them want DJT impeached.

 

[alfaniner]

As much as I despise The PDJT and what he's done, I don't really want to see him get impeached and then not ousted. Especially when all that time and effort could be put to other purposes.

I'd rather see him self-implode.

 

[newyorkguy]

Polling has found Trump's approval ratings have dipped but support for his impeachment are also falling. This is from a Morning Consult/Politico weekly tracking poll, "which surveyed 1,992 registered voters April 19-21 and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points."

• 39% of voters approve of President Donald Trump’s job performance; 57% disapprove.
• 34% said Congress should begin impeachment proceedings, compared with 48% who said it shouldn’t.
• Support for impeaching Trump has dropped 12 points among Democrats since January.

Link

I don't think it's going to happen.

 

[Lurch]

I agree that all of these are true. However, this does not prove Mueller would have indicted the president only but for he was not allowed to by DOJ policy. As the prestige said earlier, Mueller's report only says that they are not going to bring charges, not why they are not going to bring charges as claimed earlier.

If Mueller had explicitly stated that if not for his being President Trump would be indicted, that would go against the DOJ guidelines. It would be tantamount to indicting, for it would indicate a legal opinion. But no such opinion is permissible, the remedy being a political one via the impeachment process.

You and your fellow Thrumpists keep misreading, misinterpreting, or plain old selectively choosing your 'outs' that fly in the face of that which is most plainly there to read in the Mueller report.

Mueller lays out numerous obstructive acts which meet all criteria for a legal reckoning.

But because a sitting President cannot be indicted--and not even be accused in the legal sense--the remedy is the political process of impeachment, as stipulated in the Constitution.

All the Barr quotes and selective trawling of the Mueller report Thrumpists trumpet cannot alter that indisputable state of affairs.

 

[alfaniner]

But because a sitting President cannot be indicted--and not even be accused in the legal sense--the remedy is the political process of impeachment, as stipulated in the Constitution.

I understand that it is not DOJ policy to indict a sitting President, but is it actually a law? Or just a precedent or tradition? As The PDJT has demonstrated, precedent and tradition don't mean a thing.

 

[Upchurch]

I understand that it is not DOJ policy to indict a sitting President, but is it actually a law? Or just a precedent or tradition? As The PDJT has demonstrated, precedent and tradition don't mean a thing.

From what I’ve read, it’s a policy with some strong legal theory behind it. You can’t charge someone and not give them an opportunity to clear their name, usually in criminal court. You can’t tie up the President in criminal court because the President has to be available to perform his duties as President and, anyway, the Constitution gave the power to remove a President to Congress, not the Judiciary.

 

[acbytesla]

From what I’ve read, it’s a policy with some strong legal theory behind it. You can’t charge someone and not give them an opportunity to clear their name, usually in criminal court. You can’t tie up the President in criminal court because the President has to be available to perform his duties as President and, anyway, the Constitution gave the power to remove a President to Congress, not the Judiciary.

I'd say it's pretty weak legal theory. What it is, is the DOJ knowing who their boss is. This policy was written first by the Nixon DOJl. The argument is about practicality not any law. There IS NOTHING in the Constitution or any other legislated law that says a President can't be indicted.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's an untested legal theory.
And it is very shaky.

But if we ask the current SC, we will provide probably get an answer we don't like.

EDIT: stupid auto correct.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's an untested legal theory.
And it is very shaky.

But if we ask the current SC, we will provide get an answer we don't like.

Yep. The current SCOTUS will likely side with Trump, as Republicans love the idea of an all-power executive.... as long at that executive is a Republican.

 

[BobTheCoward]

From what I’ve read, it’s a policy with some strong legal theory behind it. You can’t charge someone and not give them an opportunity to clear their name, usually in criminal court. You can’t tie up the President in criminal court because the President has to be available to perform his duties as President and, anyway, the Constitution gave the power to remove a President to Congress, not the Judiciary.

The president can fire the attorneys for interfering with the functioning of government. If they charge him, and the president doesn't fire them, I don't think there is a question for a judge to answer. The president is fine with the trial in that case.

Revealed preferences

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is a simply question to ask those who think the Mueller Report means Trump is in the clear:

do you think that, based on Mueller's findings, Trump cannot reasonably be charge with Obstruction once out of office?

 

[Belz...]

The reality is that Trumpkins will support DJT no matter what. Independents are the ones who will decide the election, and the majority of them want DJT impeached.

Yeah, that's the point. How about the rest? Talking or taking action on impeachment might not change minds on the extremes, but what about the moderates?