2020 US Election (Part One)

[GoodEnoughForMe]

In polls, a majority of people support the claims I laid out. These are things that a majority or plurality of the public accepts. Furthermore, Trump has, unequivocally:

Told subordinates to break the law
Undermined a federal investigation via pardon
Fired the director of Homeland Security for refusing to break the law
Instructed the CBP commissioner to break the law under the pretense that Trump would pardon him if the authorities came knocking
Ripped apart the emoluments clause

These are well established facts, irrespective of what redacted version of the report we have received.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Mueller didn't make an explicit conclusion regarding guilt solely because official policy is that he cannot do so. In other words, the choices in his findings can only be: not guilty, or not not guilty. In the summary which we have, Mueller's conclusion is the latter, and from the text of the report, it's very clear - at least in the case of obstruction - that he only withholds from an explicit declaration of outright guilt because of the Justice Department's policy regarding whether a president can be declared guilty. Commentary by third party observers, especially the recently-released letter signed by hundreds of current and former federal prosecutors makes that point abundantly clear: were this report on anybody except a sitting president, this would be an open-and-shut case of obstruction.

 

[cardgame]

You opening comment makes no sense. The voting public has not voted since Mueller reported. Further, Mueller's report directly contradicts your statement, "Trump has undoubtedly broken the law, the constitution, and has presented himself as entirely unfit." feel free to have an opinion but this one lacks a factual basis.

J

no you

 

[Kyriakos]

Does anybody remember that the outcome of Clinton's impeachment trial was acquittal? No, they remember the "juicy stuff" that came out about his various encounters with Monica Lewinsky, most of which wasn't even relevant to the question of impeachment.

Why would anyone know that Bill Clinton was impeached but not know there weren't enough votes to kick him out? Did he die before the procedure ended?

 

[onejayhawk]

Mueller didn't make an explicit conclusion regarding guilt solely because official policy is that he cannot do so. In other words, the choices in his findings can only be: not guilty, or not not guilty. In the summary which we have, Mueller's conclusion is the latter, and from the text of the report, it's very clear - at least in the case of obstruction - that he only withholds from an explicit declaration of outright guilt because of the Justice Department's policy regarding whether a president can be declared guilty. Commentary by third party observers, especially the recently-released letter signed by hundreds of current and former federal prosecutors makes that point abundantly clear: were this report on anybody except a sitting president, this would be an open-and-shut case of obstruction.

This is gibberish. Mueller turned official policy on its head.

The report should have been about 40 pages, dealing exclusively with the Russian indictments handed down last year. The portion dealing with candidate/President Trump was worth more than two pages. More time should have been spent on the FISA warrant fiasco, which was not mentioned at all.

This report is a political statement from a supposedly non-partisan source. Compare the Starr report that laid out 11 felony counts and the factual basis for each. The factual basis for other potential charges are covered with an insufficient-factual-basis statement. Volume 2 of the Mueller report turns things upside down by assuming the subject is guilty. In USA legal practice the subject is presumed innocent.

J

 

[cardgame]

Maybe volume 2 assumes guilt because volume 1 found evidence of it.

 

[onejayhawk]

Maybe volume 2 assumes guilt because volume 1 found evidence of it.

That would imply that Mueller was out to get Trump regardless of the facts. You may be right about that.

J

 

[cardgame]

That would imply that Mueller was out to get Trump regardless of the facts. You may be right about that.

J

>regardless of the facts

>>FOUND EVIDENCE OF IT

 

[onejayhawk]

>regardless of the facts

>>FOUND EVIDENCE OF IT

That would be covered by a statement that went, "There is insufficient factual basis to refer charges under [statute citation]." Hence, regardless of the facts.

J

 

[cardgame]

I refer you to Owen's post about Mueller being literally unable to declare guilt.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are two components: there's not sufficient evidence to indict for collusion (this isn't to say that there is no evidence, merely that it wouldn't get a criminal conviction), and there's no authority to indict for obstruction (this would be Congress's job). The voters should be wary of re-electing someone that would try to collude to destroy the democracy, but they won't be.

 

[onejayhawk]

I refer you to Owen's post about Mueller being literally unable to declare guilt.

Why? I refer you to the rebuttal.

Mueller's job was to submit a (theoretically confidential) report on whether any criminal case could be prosecuted. He found squat. The rest is noise.

There are two components: there's not sufficient evidence to indict for collusion (this isn't to say that there is no evidence, merely that it wouldn't get a criminal conviction), and there's no authority to indict for obstruction (this would be Congress's job). The voters should be wary of re-electing someone that would try to collude to destroy the democracy, but they won't be.

It never says that someone is exonerated. That would almost as silly as saying someone wasn't, about which I refer you to the last four words of the report. those four words prove that this whole report is coloring outside the lines.

In any event, if there were a case to be made for obstruction, Mueller would have simply cited the statutory language and the facts proving the violation. Refer to the eleven felony counts in the Starr report. Obstruction is one of them.

J

 

[metalhead]

The voting public has pretty reliably supported these pertinent declarations so far:

Trump lied
Trump obstructed
Trump committed crimes
The Mueller report does not clear him

These were not things that polled originally where they have for the last 6 months, in which a decent majority supports all of the claims. Even on impeachment, recent polls have us pretty close in favor of or against, single digits and sometimes margin of error. This seems like a very winnable public battle.

Well said. I mean sure, I don't think impeachment is a zero risk move. Obviously there are some risks to it, so I at least understand where the anti- group is coming from.

But the facts are on the side of impeachment. The law is on the side of impeachment. And perhaps most importantly - the Mueller report itself signals that Mueller uncovered evidence of other Trump crimes beyond the scope of his investigation. So there is plenty yet to be brought before the public as part of this process.

So while there are risks, they are risks worth taking because they seem to be low. And the sooner they act, the lower the risk becomes that what happens interferes with the 2020 elections. If you get this done before the primaries are underway in earnest, any potential backlash will be long gone by next November.

The "public doesn't care about Russia/Trump crimes" cuts both ways. It means that maybe you don't convince people Trump needs to be removed from office, but it also means people will forget about it as soon as it's finished.

 

[rah]

If part of the risk is it helping Trump win in 2020, and there's no way the senate will impeach, I would say the risk is too high. IMO

 

[metalhead]

If part of the risk is it helping Trump win in 2020, and there's no way the senate will impeach, I would say the risk is too high. IMO

That's not part of the risk.

 

[rah]

In your opinion. There is no fact here. I believe the opposite. I would prefer not to be proven correct.

 

[onejayhawk]

Venturing back to the subject of the thread, UVa has a new article on the House. It's a collection of small comments rather than build up to a conclusion. Tis is one such comment (emphasis in the original)

Republicans need to flip at least 18 House seats to win the chamber. With 31 Democrats in Trump-won seats, Republicans could win the House back just by sweeping all the Democratic House districts where Trump won by three points or more in 2018. That’s easier said than done. For one thing, we could imagine Trump’s performance weakening in some of these districts because they cover some affluent, highly-educated suburban areas that are trending away from Republicans. Also, and to the extent incumbency matters, Democrats have strong officeholders in some of these districts. Still, the districts are there for the Republicans to retake the House, at least on paper.​

Other things to note is that it is much too early to take polling as predictive. This does not mean it's useless, rather that it is likely to change and may change dramatically. That said, things are about where they were two years ago. So, if the Republicans are going to retake the House, they have a hill to climb.
http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/notes-on-the-state-of-the-house/

If part of the risk is it helping Trump win in 2020, and there's no way the senate will impeach, I would say the risk is too high. IMO

I would put that at near certainty. They have already played that game and lost. With his win against Mueller and the state of the economy, Trump is going to be near unbeatable anyway. If they pursue impeachment it means they ran out of ideas.

J

 

[metalhead]

In your opinion. There is no fact here. I believe the opposite. I would prefer not to be proven correct.

Failed impeachment did not prevent the Republican from winning the White House in 2000, and one can pretty easily argue, as @Sommerswerd did, that impeachment helped Republicans win in 2000.

Impeachment proceedings against Nixon caused him to resign and gave Democrats a huge midterm boost in '74, and the presidency in '76.

Those are facts. Both recent impeachments preceded the party out of the White House winning the next presidential election. So, if you want to go with a factual argument, there it is. Hell, if you want to go back to the first impeachment, the Republicans failed to convict Andrew Johnson and then won the next presidential election. The impeachers are 3-3, and 2-2 when failing to convict.

 

[rah]

Past facts don't prove future possibilities. It's still just an opinion. Fact.

 

[metalhead]

Past facts don't prove future possibilities. It's still just an opinion. Fact.

But you said there were no facts here, when there are several relevant facts, all of which support my opinion, none of which support yours. Feel free to handwave that away, but the facts are highly relevant to what is more likely to be correct.

What facts do you have which lead you to conclude that impeachment would help Trump get re-elected?