I don't think he can order state LEOs.That's ridiculous. As the chief federal law enforcement officer the Prez can order any federal LEO who tries to arrest him to cease & desist. Basic chain of command. There's no legal way to take a sitting Prez into custody.
I don't think he can order state LEOs.
I think they will push for the grand jury information as if they are smart their goal will be a steady stream of hearings and revelations from today up through November 2020.
Not a full court press, not the most important thing they are doing, just something so that like once a month we find out something new and ugly about Trump. (They can combine this with other investigations too) You basically make it into an ‘oh Christ, what now?’ situation. That’s exactly what the Benghazi investigation was all about and it was really effective.
About Romney though I 100% agree, although I think he wouldn’t have won the 2016 primary. I have a lot of problems with Mitt Romney but he appears to be intelligent, hardworking, sane, and not corrupt. That’s a lot more than I can say for Trump.
I want to move to where you live.I'm hearing people I used to consider Trump mouthpieces now admit it's probably time to impeach.
Holy crap. Someone pinch me.
Oh, and the Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time, so we will be pushing a lot of bills that people want, that will go to die in the Senate, and we will be also reminding the voters about that also.
Are you talking about McConnell's antics. Seriously?Like the Green New Deal with zero "yes" votes?
It should also be noted that this is how your media sources make sure you stay perpetually misinformed, Glenn. They feed you bad information like this over and over because they know millions of conservatives like you are either unable and/or unwilling to verify that they are not misleading you. No matter how many times you get caught like this, you still gobble the next sound bite like it never happened.It should be noted that you are talking about S.J.Res.8 That was written and sponsored by Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY].Like the Green New Deal with zero "yes" votes?
Best part is he never finished that thought. It’s like someone tackled him and stole the phone and took off with it.
In the end, there was clearly criminality here: criminality on the Russian side and criminality on the U.S. side in lying about interactions with Russian actors. And there was also activity that was plainly innocent. Between those two extremes, there was also a large quantity of engagement that was apparently not chargeably criminal but that did involve covert attempts to engage with a hostile foreign government for the benefit of Trump’s campaign and business.
Whether one calls it collusion or calls it something else, it isn’t pretty.
For present purposes, the critical point is that in six of these episodes, the special counsel’s office suggests that all of the elements of obstruction are satisfied: Trump’s conduct regarding the investigation into Michael Flynn, his firing of Comey, his efforts to remove Mueller and then to curtail Mueller’s investigation, his campaign to have Sessions take back control over the investigation and an order he gave to White House Counsel Don McGahn to both lie to the press about Trump’s past attempt to fire Mueller and create a false record “for our files.” In the cases of Comey’s firing, Trump’s effort to fire Mueller and then push McGahn to lie about it, and Trump’s effort to curtail the scope of the investigation, Mueller describes “substantial” evidence that Trump intended to obstruct justice. Only in one instance—concerning Trump’s effort to prevent the release of emails regarding the Trump Tower meeting—does the special counsel seem to feel that none of the three elements of the obstruction offense were met. It is not entirely clear how Mueller would apply his overarching factual considerations, discussed above, to the specific cases, but he does seem to be saying that the evidence of obstruction in a number of these incidents is strong.
It should be noted that you are talking about S.J.Res.8 That was written and sponsored by Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY].
I think they will push for the grand jury information as if they are smart their goal will be a steady stream of hearings and revelations from today up through November 2020.
Not a full court press, not the most important thing they are doing, just something so that like once a month we find out something new and ugly about Trump. (They can combine this with other investigations too) You basically make it into an ‘oh Christ, what now?’ situation. That’s exactly what the Benghazi investigation was all about and it was really effective.
About Romney though I 100% agree, although I think he wouldn’t have won the 2016 primary. I have a lot of problems with Mitt Romney but he appears to be intelligent, hardworking, sane, and not corrupt. That’s a lot more than I can say for Trump.
In case people are interested here is a long, but very thorough analysis of Mueller's findings by Lawfare, which is one of the most well known and highly respected nonpartisan legal blogs out there. Their analysis ranges from merely 'this is pretty bad' (Russian collusion) to absolutely catastrophic as it relates to obstruction (it appears likely Muller concluded Trump committed six felonies).
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis
Their basic conclusion on Russian collusion:
Their basic conclusion on obstruction of justice:
Are you sure you want to double-down again, sir?And basically says “it’s the joint resolution of Congress to enact the New Green Deal.” It’s not like McConnell’s bill completely changed the goals of the AOC proposal.
In case people are interested here is a long, but very thorough analysis of Mueller's findings by Lawfare, which is one of the most well known and highly respected nonpartisan legal blogs out there. Their analysis ranges from merely 'this is pretty bad' (Russian collusion) to absolutely catastrophic as it relates to obstruction (it appears likely Muller concluded Trump committed six felonies).
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis
Their basic conclusion on Russian collusion:
Their basic conclusion on obstruction of justice:
The musing in the report over the possibility of innocent motives - which are remote at best with many of the acts - are really just a reminder that sometimes it can be hard to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. However, I seriously doubt it would be a hurdle in this particular case. Trump admitted on TV that he fired Comey over the Russia investigation. And he told McGann to lie about his attempt to fire Mueller. Innocent motive?
If there's a Constitutional issue involved related to Trump's exercise of executive power, charge him and let the courts figure that out.
After he's out, of course. We first need to vote him out.
I noticed you omitted the word "duty," I wonder why that is.And basically says “it’s the joint resolution of Congress to enact the New Green Deal.” It’s not like McConnell’s bill completely changed the goals of the AOC proposal.
That's how I read it too. Given that Mueller was tasked with making charging recommendations, it's a little odd in that the report basically says Trump committed obstruction multiple times but we're going to let another prosecutor decide whether to press charges.
The musing in the report over the possibility of innocent motives - which are remote at best with many of the acts - are really just a reminder that sometimes it can be hard to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. However, I seriously doubt it would be a hurdle in this particular case. Trump admitted on TV that he fired Comey over the Russia investigation. And he told McGann to lie about his attempt to fire Mueller. Innocent motive?
If there's a Constitutional issue involved related to Trump's exercise of executive power, charge him and let the courts figure that out.
After he's out, of course. We first need to vote him out.
British politicians keep punting back to the people something they should handle as elected officials.After he's out, of course. We first need to vote him out.
Yes, 'fire the person investigating me, lie to people about it, and make up fake records that back up your lie' is not something that someone lacking corrupt intent says.
They should start an impeachment process for one of the charges in the Mueller report. When that dies in the Senate, note that everyone that voted no is saying it is okay for a Republican or Democratic President to do "x". Then immediately start the process again for the next charge. Continue doing so until they run out of charges. Start with the least objectionable and work their way up to the most objectionable if possible. If they manage to exhaust the list before 2020 (doubtful) then start again with various combinations of the charges.British politicians keep punting back to the people something they should handle as elected officials.
Not starting impeachment proceedings is an abdication of constitutional responsibility.
What it sets as precedent is that 10 counts of obstruction are fine for a president that already likes to bully and play victim at every turn.
If the House doesn't start the impeachment process and control that process for the next X months owning the narrative of every week with Trump's morons under oath explaining their bullshit, then we all lose.