Donald Trump Impeachment Watch

[RandomGuy]

I’m watching

No, you aren't.

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort

Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[RandomGuy]

I know you don't, WH - it would be worse for your side than him losing in 2020. I should not have done my last post as a reply to your post. I wanna hear this evidence from Spurs Homer.

How about from Mueller?

FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort

Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[boutons_deux]

If Nancy says no, it's no, to a House vote on articles of impeachment.

[RandomGuy]

I've given y'all four clear cases of felonies that easily meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard set forth in the cons ution as the standard for impeachment.

Whether the Republican party in the Senate has the integrity to be honest with the American people about it, not really my concern. Impeachment seems to be the right thing to do at this point.

[RandomGuy]

If Nancy says no, it's no, to a House vote on articles of impeachment.

I guess. She can defer for a while, but the cons utional showdown doesn't look like it is going away. The executive branch stonewalling the legislative branch is not something the Republicans can let stand, because the next Democratic president will get to have the precedent to use.

I guess we will all get to see, won't we?

[Spurminator]

RG, please stop spam quoting. Thanks.

[Winehole23]

Nikki Haley is a moderate Republican compared to who?

[DarrinS]

For RG

[boutons_deux]

Pelosi's delay in bringing Barr's contempt vote to the House floor isn't weakness—it's a plan

The House Judiciary Committee voted on a resolution to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, but Barr is not in contempt.

He won’t be until that resolution is brought to the floor and a citation of contempt is issued by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

And, according to Roll Call, that may not happen anytime soon.

On Thursday, Pelosi suggested that there may be a delay before any vote is held on Barr.

her actions seem to be part of a plan that Democrats have been discussing over the last few days,

one that involves bringing multiple instances of Donald Trump blocking access to information to the courts at the same time.

Pelosi mentioned the efforts to secure testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn that would speak directly to Trump’s efforts to end the Russia investigation.

Efforts are apparently underway to create a “package” that would include

contempt citations against both Barr and McGahn,

as well as statements related to Trump’s massive expansion of privilege and

possible attempts to prevent Robert Mueller from testifying.

All of this could be taken to the Federal District court in a form that is deliberately

tailored to match Article 3 of the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon.

it appears that everyone is cooperating, with Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, and members of the Progressive Caucus all pushing toward the same objectives.

Democrats haven’t moved to begin impeachment hearings.

But everyone, including Democratic leadership, seems to have gotten the message that impeachment may not just be proper, but necessary.

the goal is to build a case that’s strong, informed, and persuasive not just for the House, but the public.

contempt votes could come sooner if it becomes absolutely clear that there is no intention of either man appearing.

If Mueller is stopped from testifying, that clear obstruction will be added to Barr’s and McGahn’s in reporting a pattern of behavior.

She’s making the point that, no matter what’s in the Mueller report,

Trump’s actions in shielding that information, and

his taxes, and

his financial information,

Trump’s stonewalling of Congress

are creating grounds for impeachment that are indisputable.

has made both of them realize that

impeachment may not just be the right move politically, but the only move remaining to protect the Cons ution.

Don’t look for Barr’s contempt citation to emerge from the House today.

But when it comes, it’s going to be part of a bundle.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1856472

[pgardn]

For RG





Dont matter.

The orange liar is going down in a heap.
With or without this, He's an idiot.

[boutons_deux]

Support For Trump Impeachment Rises 5% In Less Than A Month


https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05...iticus+USA+%29

[RandomGuy]

[ignores substance, changes subject with a little effort as possible

]

Can't dispute the facts, lazy-boy.


FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort

Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[RandomGuy]

RG, please stop spam quoting. Thanks.

I guess. What do you make of the multiple felonies, each easily qualifying as a High Crime or Misdemeanor that the president committed?

[boutons_deux]

Probably the best article so far.

Will the feckless Dems suit up and play hard ball? I really doubt it. America is ed and un able


If This Is a Cons utional Crisis, Act Like It

Democrats in Congress need to deploy all their powers, including impeachment.

2018 book “How Democracies Die,” the Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt wrote about

the concept of “cons utional hardball,” in which

politicians “deploy their ins utional powers as broadly as they can get away with.”

however you define cons utional crisis, there’s no question

we’re in a moment of cons utional hardball.

So far, however, only Republicans really seem to be playing.

Democratic fear of divisiveness — even as Republicans gleefully embrace it — is leading to unilateral political disarmament.

contempt votes are a fine first step, but they’re mostly symbolic unless Democrats find a way to enforce them.

A criminal contempt charge would have to be prosecuted by Barr’s own Justice Department, which it will almost certainly not do.

A civil citation could take months or even years to move through the courts.

In the face of an administration that is trying to amass dictatorial powers,

Democrats need to bring to bear all the powers of their own.

Trump’s outright rejection of congressional authority makes impeachment proceedings necessary,

but even impeachment alone is not sufficient.

Congress has the power of “inherent contempt.”

That’s a provision, last used in the 1930s, that allows the body to enforce its own orders, including by sending out the House’s sergeant-at-arms to arrest people.

“People keep saying to me, ‘Well, isn’t that an old law?’ ” he said, but

it’s not a law with an expiration date.

In fact, he argues, “the older it is, the more venerable it is.”

“We are going to dust off some old powers of Congress, and

we are going to exercise all of the powers we have to vindicate the powers of the people,”

There are dangers in increased Democratic combativeness,

but even greater dangers in timidity. (Dems do timidity with excellence)

“Fighting cons utional hardball with cons utional hardball is a high- risk and potentially very treacherous path,”

When an autocrat is in power, he said,

“either the opposition continues to play by the old rules and potentially gets steamrolled, and democratic ins utions themselves may be left vulnerable,

or

the opposition fights back with cons utional hardball and risks escalation into an even worse cons utional crisis.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/o...ateway-stories

[Winehole23]

I guess. What do you make of the multiple felonies, each easily qualifying as a High Crime or Misdemeanor that the president committed?

Mueller gave Congress a roadmap to impeachment. Why do you think the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives hesitates to do its job?

[boutons_deux]

A Cons utional Scholar on the Purpose of Impeachment

According to the professor Michael Gerhardt, Congress has the power to frame Trump’s impeachment on the basis not only of criminal acts but of broader abuses of power.

One of the essential things about impeachment is that

it does not have to be based on an actual criminal violation, and

it does not have to track the elements in a federal criminal statute or state criminal statute.

It’s perfectly well within the power of Congress, in particular the House,

to frame impeachment on the basis of things that are not themselves criminal.

A President lying to the public—that could be a basis for impeachment.

Or a President trying to interfere with an investigation.

Those things could be understood as abuse of power, and

they don’t have to be criminal.

at the Cons utional Convention, and the debate over the impeachment clause, the things that are mentioned are not technically criminal offenses.

with respect to Trump and Putin, all of the ways in which the

President has misled people, or

not disclosed things, or

abused power—

any of those things could be basis for impeachment.

Impeachment is a political proceeding, and

the framers vested this power in political authority, and

therefore it’s consistent with the design of the process for political leaders to make political calculations on whether or not to impeach.

Congress is fully en led, whichever party controls it, to investigate the person in the White House, for abuses of power, lying, or breaking laws.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-cons utional-scholar-on-the-purpose-of-impeachment?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Da ily_051019&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd6795524c17c104 8022fcc&cndid=43758549&esrc=&utm_term=TNY_Daily

Dems have so much non-criminal turd to throw at Trump, but will they?

I'd certainly list Trash holding publicized but SECRET talks with American adversary, cyberwarring Pootin, and denying all access to contents of the meeting to anybody else in govt as 100% impeachable.

Agreeing with Pootin that Russia didn't meddle, while saying US IC saying the opposite, now proven more by Mueller, was a hoax.

[Spurtacular]

For RG

CNN not smart enough to not on itself.

[boutons_deux]

The Impeachment Process Itself Can Thwart Trump’s Obstruction

In the context of an officially declared impeachment process,

House Democrats would have every legislative purpose for

reviewing the tax returns,

the unredacted Mueller report,

as well as any other area where Trump’s behavior appears to rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

There is even an argument that says Democrats need only claim they are contemplating impeachment for the “purpose” threshold to be reached.

The moral and cons utional arguments for impeachment are self-evident

this president cannot be allowed to slap down lawfully issued subpoenas, and

Congress must defend itself from the irrelevance his administration would foist upon it.

Impeaching Trump to thwart his obstructionism, therefore,

is a simple and clever solution, and a delicious one to boot:

Stop his obstruction with impeachment, and

then impeach him for obstruction.

It seldom gets more perfect than that.

https://truthout.org/articles/the-impeachment-process-itself-can-thwart-trumps-obstruction/

[RandomGuy]

Mueller gave Congress a roadmap to impeachment. Why do you think the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives hesitates to do its job?

The presumption is that impeachment is damaging to the party that brings charges, and Trump is an easy target in the general.

Any slow-walking gets it close to the general election though.

After having read the Mueller report, it seems like anyone of good conscience should be pushing for it.

Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

I think the cracks are there.

Trump is a clear and present danger to the office and Democracy itself. We are lurching towards Russian-style fascism, ala Putin. (oddly enough styled on Mussolini)

[RandomGuy]

CNN not smart enough to not on itself.

Haven't read the Mueller report yet, have you?

[boutons_deux]

Democrats have nothing to lose and everything to gain from Trump impeachment: ex-Watergate prosecutor

fears of many House Democrats who are resistant to opening impeachment proceedings into President Donald Trump is that

the public will turn on them, and that the ensuing backlash will carry Trump to a second term in office.

data from former Clinton White House aide Sidney Blumenthal show that political harm to them is unlikely.

“His data decimate the major impediment to holding Trump accountable –

the fear that this president would be strengthened by a House vote for impeachment with no conviction by the Senate,” writes Wine-Banks.

“Contrary to popular belief,

Blumenthal lays out a clear case that

President Clinton did not benefit from impeachment and that comparisons to Clinton are highly misplaced.

Clinton was at 66% approval before and after impeachment. Impeachment neither improved nor diminished his standing.”

“He was popular before impeachment and just as popular afterward, whereas

Trump’s approval ratings are at a stunningly low 39 percent and dropping,”

Trump has never achieved even a 50 percent approval.

This means that fears of holding Trump accountable via an impeachment inquiry are unfounded,

the question of whether the evidence supports proceeding. The answer to that is a resounding, almost deafening, yes.”

“This systematic contempt of Congress combined with

the well-established election interference of the Russians and

Trump’s failure to take action to prevent its recurrence – or even to acknowledge it happened –

is a deadly combination that threatens the role of the first branch of government as a foundational part of our democracy.”

“With the testimony of witnesses who can be evaluated by all Americans, I fully anticipate Trump’s support will further erode.

Public hearings made a difference in the case of Nixon,” she says.

“As Blumenthal says,

‘the more the public knew of Nixon’s crimes through public televised hearings, the more rapidly Nixon’s poll numbers crumbled.’

the more bipartisan support for impeachment grew.”

it is essential to preserving Congress as a co-equal branch of government as our Founders intended and

is essential to Congress fulfilling its cons utional and moral obligations,”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/democrats-have-nothing-to-lose-and-everything-to-gain-from-trump-impeachment-ex-watergate-prosecutor/

[Spurtacular]

Haven't read the Mueller report yet, have you?

A sleeping pill would be more effective.

[Pavlov]

A sleeping pill would be more effective.

derp always proud of his ignorance.

[MultiTroll]

I guess. What do you make of the multiple felonies, each easily qualifying as a High Crime or Misdemeanor that the president committed?

I make that every president from George Washington on committed felonies and nothing Joe Sixpack US Citizen can do about it.
Move on.

[Pavlov]

I make that every president from George Washington on committed felonies

Oh?

List them.