Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
thaiboxerken said:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...ed-learn-about-key-mueller-report-revelations

Cathy Garnaat, a Republican who supported Amash and the president said she was upset about Amash’s position but wanted to hear his reasoning. She said that she will definitely support Trump in 2020 but that Tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the Mueller report didn’t completely exonerate the president.

“I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before,” she said. “I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated.”
Click to expand...

"That surprises me. I thought that by getting my news from biased, pro-Trump sources, I'd get accurate facts!"
 
PhantomWolf said:
Two more things:

1) If Trump's attempt to get Don McGahn to have Mueller fired was on the up and up, and perfectly legal and acceptable, then why did McGahn refuse to do it and ultimately resign over it?
Click to expand...

As we are seeing right now, in a climate like this one, a lot of people can get caught up in something and whether or not it's legal, bad things can happen to them. I can't read McGahn's mind, but the source of the problem is that there's some real ambiguity in the law, such that it's hard to say when perfectly legal interactions become illegal interference. McGahn didn't want to even go near the grey areas.

However, what was really happening with the McGahn situation was that Trump thought Mueller was on a "witch hunt". Trump thought Mueller was biased and was being unfair. He thought the investigation was a waste of time and money. Now, in the course of this investigation and the media coverage thereof, we have heard it said many times that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. I want to flip that around, and note that no American's constitutional rights can be denied, not even those of the President of the United States. How could President Trump express his opinion that Mueller was off the rails? What would it be legal to do? What he actually did was to tell his lawyer that his lawyer ought to talk to the Deputy Attorney General, and tell that official that it was the President's opinion that Mueller had gone too far, and that the Deputy Attorney General ought to replace Mueller with somebody else.

That's really what happened. That's exactly what happened. When you explain that, the average Joe will look at it and say that it isn't illegal interference. It's freedom of speech. However, in this climate, a lot of people want to turn that into a crime, and McGahn knew that, and stayed away.


When it comes to the subsequent attempt to get McGahn to lie about the story, once again it's pretty ambiguous. Did Trump "try to get Mueller fired", as was being reported? Well, sort of. He couldn't have tried very hard, could he? Why do I say that? Because Mueller wasn't fired. The President could have made that happen, but he didn't. I'm old enough to remember the "Saturday Night Massacre", and some people have forgotten, and some people aren't old enough to remember that Nixon was not impeached because of that. Trump didn't do it. What Trump did was to tell his lawyer to go talk to someone and tell Trump's side of the story, and express Trump's opinion that Mueller was doing a terrible job and ought to be let go. Is that the same as "trying to get McGahn fired"? It's a matter of spin, not of black and white differences.


Trump had no power to fire Mueller directly, and he didn't fire Rosenstein, and he didn't even threaten to fire Rosenstein, or even tell McGahn to threaten to fire Rosenstein. He asked his lawyer to go and present his side of the story to Rosenstein.

That's not a crime.

2) If you don't think that Trump's behaviour is enough to be Impeached, what would it actually take for you to recommend the Impeachment of a President?
Click to expand...

I thought Reagan should have been impeached over the funding of the contras.
 
Meadmaker said:
What he [Trump] actually did was to tell his lawyer that his lawyer ought to talk to the Deputy Attorney General, and tell that official that it was the President's opinion that Mueller had gone too far, and that the Deputy Attorney General ought to replace Mueller with somebody else.

That's really what happened. That's exactly what happened. When you explain that, the average Joe will look at it and say that it isn't illegal interference. It's freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
1. To make this a freedom of speech issue is risible.

2. At best you are spinning the actual facts, and I won't say what the worst is. In any case, page 86 of volume II of the Mueller report says this:

"McGahn recalled the President telling him 'Mueller has to go' and 'Call me back when you do it.' McGahn understood the President to be saying that the Special Counsel had to be removed by Rosenstein."

3. You rationale would escape a fatal problem if we ignored the fact that the subject of the investigation that Trump was trying to obstruct was Trump himself; add that fact in, and your rationale falls apart. There should be a wall of separation between the DOJ and the President in order to remove political considerations from law enforcement, and nowhere is this more important than when the subject of an investigation is the President, for blinding obvious reasons that you seem to ignore.
 
Paul2 said:
There should be a wall of separation between the DOJ and the President in order to remove political considerations from law enforcement, and nowhere is this more important than when the subject of an investigation is the President, for blinding obvious reasons that you seem to ignore.
Click to expand...

Should there be such a wall? Perhaps. Is there such a wall? I'm not sure there is. In fact, I'm not sure such a wall would even be constitutionally permissible. The president is the head of the executive branch, I don't think Congress can take that authority away from him.
 
The framers of the Constitution didn't put every blindingly obvious thing in the Constitution.

"The President can't use the fact that he's head of the executive branch, and therefore technically the top tier of the hierarchy of any investigation the Federal Government of the United States undergoes, to prevent this own self from being investigated" isn't in the Constitution for the same reason that "You don't get sympathy from the judge for being orphan if you're the one who killed your parents" isn't in there.

But even beyond that the Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact. Let's not Bob ourselves into "Well even if we all agree that outcome would be disastrous, we have to do what the piece of paper says."
 
Paul2 said:
2. At best you are spinning the actual facts, and I won't say what the worst is. In any case, page 86 of volume II of the Mueller report says this:

"McGahn recalled the President telling him 'Mueller has to go' and 'Call me back when you do it.' McGahn understood the President to be saying that the Special Counsel had to be removed by Rosenstein."
Click to expand...

Sometimes this just gets bizarre.

Did Trump have the power to fire Mueller? No.

Given that he had no power to fire Mueller, I can't even make sense out of what people seem to think was going on. He can't order his lawyer to fire Mueller. He can't order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. So, what is the issue?

He can, and did, order his lawyer to tell Rosenstein that he (Trump) thought Mueller ought to be removed, but that's not a crime. He could, but did not, fire Rosenstein if Rosenstein didn't fire Mueller. Whether firing Rosenstein would be a crime would be debatable, but since it didn't happen, the question is moot.
 
Meadmaker said:
Sometimes this just gets bizarre.

Did Trump have the power to fire Mueller? No.

Given that he had no power to fire Mueller, I can't even make sense out of what people seem to think was going on. He can't order his lawyer to fire Mueller. He can't order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. So, what is the issue?

He can, and did, order his lawyer to tell Rosenstein that he (Trump) thought Mueller ought to be removed, but that's not a crime. He could, but did not, fire Rosenstein if Rosenstein didn't fire Mueller. Whether firing Rosenstein would be a crime would be debatable, but since it didn't happen, the question is moot.
Click to expand...

You said you've looked at the Mueller report, but did you actually read it? Especially Volume II?

Because, if you did, you need to give it another read, because you missed a few bits in there.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The framers of the Constitution didn't put every blindingly obvious thing in the Constitution.

"The President can't use the fact that he's head of the executive branch, and therefore technically the top tier of the hierarchy of any investigation the Federal Government of the United States undergoes, to prevent this own self from being investigated" isn't in the Constitution for the same reason that "You don't get sympathy from the judge for being orphan if you're the one who killed your parents" isn't in there.

But even beyond that the Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact. Let's not Bob ourselves into "Well even if we all agree that outcome would be disastrous, we have to do what the piece of paper says."
Click to expand...

If you only follow rules when they are convenient then you don't have a system of rules.

If the Constitution as written is a suicide pact, wishing it is isn't one does not have a legal basis.
 
Crossbow said:
Try writing a post that is coherent.
Click to expand...

Why do we use the phrase "the Constitution is not a suicide pact?"

If it is obvious it isn't, the phrase is redundant.

If it is in response to a part of the Constitution that looks like a suicide pact, it isn't a logical retort.
 
Upchurch said:
You said you've looked at the Mueller report, but did you actually read it? Especially Volume II?

Because, if you did, you need to give it another read, because you missed a few bits in there.
Click to expand...

I read the part about mcgahn. I skimmed other parts. I thought there might be something impeachable in the McGahn section, because people were making a big deal about it, even if they were being pretty vague about the actual crime. After I read that part, I concluded there was nothing.

I guess I missed it, eh?
 
Meadmaker said:
Sometimes this just gets bizarre.

Did Trump have the power to fire Mueller? No.
Click to expand...
We can at least agree that this is bizarre.
Meadmaker said:
Given that he had no power to fire Mueller, I can't even make sense out of what people seem to think was going on. He can't order his lawyer to fire Mueller. He can't order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. So, what is the issue?
Click to expand...


It's a crime when you do - or merely seek to do, when you're talking about obstruction of justice - something that you don't have the authority to do.


Meadmaker said:
He can, and did, order his lawyer to tell Rosenstein that he (Trump) thought Mueller ought to be removed, but that's not a crime. He could, but did not, fire Rosenstein if Rosenstein didn't fire Mueller. Whether firing Rosenstein would be a crime would be debatable, but since it didn't happen, the question is moot.
Click to expand...
I think this issue is hinging on whether he was merely relaying to Rosenstein, through McGahn, the results of his extensive researches into the history and practice of the Special Council and its authorizing legislation (/snark) whether Mueller was handling his duties properly; or, if he was relaying an order to Rosenstein, through McGahn, to, and I quote, "do it," where McGahn understood "it" to mean "Mueller going [being fired]."
 
Meadmaker said:
What he actually did was to tell his lawyer that his lawyer ought to talk to the Deputy Attorney General, and tell that official that it was the President's opinion that Mueller had gone too far, and that the Deputy Attorney General ought to replace Mueller with somebody else.
Click to expand...

McGahn is not his lawyer. He was a government official. That is what makes it so much worst than if he asked Rudy to do it
 
JoeMorgue said:
"The President can't use the fact that he's head of the executive branch, and therefore technically the top tier of the hierarchy of any investigation the Federal Government of the United States undergoes, to prevent this own self from being investigated" isn't in the Constitution for the same reason that "You don't get sympathy from the judge for being orphan if you're the one who killed your parents" isn't in there.
Click to expand...

You have conflated the federal government with the executive branch. This is wrong. Congress is part of the federal government, the President is not the head of Congress, and Congress has investigative powers. It also has the power to apply remedies to Presidential misbehavior.

But even beyond that the Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact.
Click to expand...

We are not facing suicide. Not by Trump, at any rate.

Let's not Bob ourselves into "Well even if we all agree that outcome would be disastrous, we have to do what the piece of paper says."
Click to expand...

If everyone agrees that the president has done substantial wrongs, impeachment is pretty easy to achieve, so your hypothetical isn't even internally consistent. Impeachment is a dicey proposition right now precisely because we don't all agree that the outcome is disastrous.
 
Paul2 said:
It's a crime when you do - or merely seek to do, when you're talking about obstruction of justice - something that you don't have the authority to do.
Click to expand...

Good luck with the jury on that, even if the jury isn't made up of Republican senators.
 
Meadmaker said:
I read the part about mcgahn. I skimmed other parts. I thought there might be something impeachable in the McGahn section, because people were making a big deal about it, even if they were being pretty vague about the actual crime. After I read that part, I concluded there was nothing.

I guess I missed it, eh?
Click to expand...
Yep. you read one section, came to the wrong conclusion, and then made arguments based on being wrong. I do not recommend doing that.

You really should read the whole thing, but the parts that lay out, in excruciating detail, how Trump broke the law is Volume II, Section II. I mean, that's the bulk of Volume II. The rest of it is an explanation of how a country deals with a law-breaking President and legal justification for those methods.

And just because you seem to have missed this at some point, I will re-iterate it loudly: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A CRIME. DOING OBSTRUCTION MAKES ONE A CRIMINAL, EVEN IF THAT ONE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

(That's laid out in Volume II as well.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom