[RD] Justice Department appoints Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor for Trump Case

[Gori the Grey]

On the flip side, Dershowitz has made a pretty good point that it is actually withing presidential authority to outright tell the justice department "stop investigating this," or "I have pardoned Mike Flynn," so asking for the investigation to be stopped is well within his authority. Such actions might be politically untenable, but they actually aren't criminal.

That's why some people (Lawrence Tribe? honestly, I've got to start taking notes) have been stressing that criminal offenses are not the only grounds for impeachment, in fact, not even the primary ones.

Before this is over he may very well tweet out an actual confession in a fit of bluster.

I think he may already have done so:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/trump-comey-russia-thing/index.html

 

[Zkribbler]

Were taking abut Title 18 of the U.S. Code:

Section 1503 proscribes obstructions of justice aimed at judicial officers, grand and petit jurors, and witnesses. The law makes it a crime to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against these participants in a criminal or civil proceeding. In addition, section 1503 makes it illegal to attempt the Bribery of an official to alter the outcome of a judicial proceeding.

Besides these specific prohibitions, section 1503 contains the Omnibus Clause, which states that a person who "corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice" is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice. This clause offers broad protection to the "due administration of justice." Federal courts have read this clause expansively to proscribe any conduct that interferes with the judicial process.

To obtain a conviction under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.

In the final quoted paragraph "...under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding..." There is not as yet any judicial proceeding.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

An investigation is a "judicial process."

But that doesn't matter, because there is no definite clarity that the US code applies to the president. The congress can impeach him if he appears to have committed what would be a crime if someone else did it, but that isn't the same thing as charging him with that crime.

 

[Lexicus]

The impeachment process is inherently political, it's not a matter of criminal justice or of specific law. There is, as Tim points out, no law that says if the President does thus and so they must be impeached.

 

[Gori the Grey]

This principle is going to be very important, because the ever-narrowing space that Republicans are going to try to tap dance within is this: 1) a sitting US president cannot be tried in a criminal court, 2) since he hasn't been convicted of any crime, Trump can't be impeached.

Tucker Carlson interviewed Eric Swallwell today and thought his trump card was "what crime are you saying the president is guilty of?"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

After the dust settled today the Senate Intelligence Committee unfortunately had to prepare for their big starring roles tomorrow. But the more I review Dan Coats openly saying "I don't know that I have any legal grounds, but under oath no I'm just not going to answer you" the more I think that even the Republicans on the committee just cannot give that a pass. I wouldn't be surprised if the four stooges get subpoenas saying "This is the question you have been asked. All possible legal grounds for not answering have been examined and found not applicable. You will appear and answer the question."

 

[Gori the Grey]

At some point it's going to occur to some Republican presidential contender (Rubio?) that being the first to dramatically break with Trump and for "the good of the country" is going to be in 2020 or 2024 what not voting for the Iraq War was to the 2008 election.

 

[Zelig]

At some point it's going to occur to some Republican presidential contender (Rubio?) that being the first to dramatically break with Trump and for "the good of the country" is going to be in 2020 or 2024 what not voting for the Iraq War was to the 2008 election.

That should have happened to over a year ago. It was perfectly clear what Trump was at the time, and nothing he's managed to do since then has been unexpected, unless the observer is as unintelligent as he is.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Cruz tried at the convention. But he didn't hold to it. Someone's going to have to take the gamble. There's some risk (but I don't think much, really). But you only get credit if you're first.

 

[El_Machinae]

There doesn't need to be a criminal conviction to impeach. Impeachment is merely an overwhelming statement that the President is no longer deemed fit to govern by the representatives of the people.

The accepting of emoluments from China in the form of trademark protection is impeachable.

Libelous accusations about Obama's 'sickness' and 'wiretapping' are impeachable.

Having a series of allies get too close to him, while also being compromised by Russian influence, is impeachable.

He's not shown basic competence in doing the job he was hired to do. Lots of people get fired within the first three months of a new job after they lie their way through the various interviews.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Cruz tried at the convention. But he didn't hold to it. Someone's going to have to take the gamble. There's some risk (but I don't think much, really). But you only get credit if you're first.

You only get credit if you are first, and make a difference. As of today the guy who might be that is Richard Burr. Guy has impeccable Republican chops (in other words, he's as bad as Mike Pence would be for the country). He has a long career in the house and senate without any notable scandals that could derail him. And most importantly he could have his very telegenic face on TV as chairman of the committee that outright torpedoes Trump. He's the one that can start chucking subpoenas and citing members of the administration for contempt of congress.

 

[onejayhawk]

Why don't you just say he impeachable because you cannot stand him. That's what you mean.

J

 

[Hrothbern]

Whatever the traditions or rules (that appear not to be that clean cut reading all the different opinions),
an impeachment is a heavy surgery in your nation.
I think that it should have the support of the majority of the people and the political majority.

With Nixon the numbers were:
"Shortly before the committee undertook its impeachment votes, a Harris Poll showed that 53 percent of Americans supported an impeachment of Nixon by the House. The same poll showed that 47 percent thought he should be convicted in a Senate trial, 34 percent thought he should be acquitted, and the rest were unsure.[74] A Gallup Poll taken around the same time revealed that Nixon's favorability rating had fallen to 24 percent".
and
Thee Judiciary Committee, with six Republicans joining the Democratic majority, passed three of the five proposed articles of impeachment
On July 27, 1974, the Committee voted 27–11 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the president: obstruction of justice.The Committee then recommended the second article, abuse of power, on July 29, 1974.[87] The next day, on July 30, 1974, the Committee recommended the third article: contempt of Congress".

An earlier attempt to impeach on moral grounds was never put to vote:
(too bad for Nixon that this did not happen )
"Representative Robert Drinan of Massachusetts on July 31, 1973 called to introduce a resolution calling for the impeachment of Nixon, though not for the Watergate scandal. Drinan believed that Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia was illegal, and as such, constituted a "high crime and misdemeanor".[4] The resolution was received with little enthusiasm by the House Democratic leadership. As the House Majority Leader, Tip O'Neill, later stated, "Morally, Drinan had a good case. But politically, he damn near blew it. For if Drinan's resolution had come up for a vote at the time he filed it, it would have been overwhelmingly defeated - by something like 400 to 20. After that, with most of the members already on record as having voted once against impeachment, it would have been extremely difficult to get them to change their minds later on."

So far Trump has still a good support of many american people.
They are the ones to be convinced that something is wrong.
What happens now is that the discussion is taking place too much on the one side of the fench between the establisment and engaged ones.
Preaching for the choir.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Why don't you just say he impeachable because you cannot stand him. That's what you mean. J

The first 3000 dead americans dont count if you are a Republican you mean.
All this talk of Impeachment is pointless, Republican controled congress no scandal is impechable offense. All the Liberals are deluding themselves

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

The first 3000 dead americans dont count if you are a Republican you mean.
All this talk of Impeachment is pointless, Republican controled congress no scandal is impechable offense. All the Liberals are deluding themselves

Republicans also began to turn on Nixon once it was clear there was a cover-up. They'll need to produce hard evidence for anything to begin. When you start seeing Republicans turning on him like rats running from a sinking ship that's when it happens.

 

[onejayhawk]

Republicans also began to turn on Nixon once it was clear there was a cover-up. They'll need to produce hard evidence for anything to begin. When you start seeing Republicans turning on him like rats running from a sinking ship that's when it happens.

Even then it's dicey. Reagan and Clinton also covered up but both skated.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

The first 3000 dead americans dont count if you are a Republican you mean.
All this talk of Impeachment is pointless, Republican controled congress no scandal is impechable offense. All the Liberals are deluding themselves

I'm on the fence with respect to whether I'd prefer to see him lose in 2020 or get impeached before then, but I agree that it won't happen with a Republican Congress, even if they have him on tape asking Putin to get him elected so he can do great things for Russia, and on tape saying that they need to get rid of Comey before he gets to the bottom of the Russia collusion they committed.

I do think there is an angle where this investigation turns so sour for Trump that the 2018 election basically becomes a referendum on impeaching him, but I'm not sure how that plays since running on pure anti-Trump messaging didn't work in 2016. Maybe midterms are more about a specific cause (ala Obamacare), and the Democrats can really rally the base around that?

 

[Kozmos]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?429381-1/former-fbi-director-comey-say-president-obstructed-justice

Mr. Comey is pretty slick.

 

[Gori the Grey]

"Slick" is the word the right has settled on to color people's responses to Comey's testimony. It's very cleverly chosen. You'll get my rhetorical analysis of it in time. Gotta get back to the hearing itself, though.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Are you guys watching? I can't watch cause I'm at work, so I demand updates... and loyalty...

to the truth

and the United States

and me