I think that the House should begin its impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump or STFU about it and it should do so as quickly as possible. I do not know what another investigation would accomplish. I also think that impeaching a president with an approval rating over 30% would be political hara-kiri for the Democrats.
Keep in mind that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are whatever the House thinks they are.
That said and harkening back to things I’ve said previously I think that lots of politicians, mostly lawyers who should know better, are playing fast and loose with some serious accusations, e.g. “treason”. Whatever you think Trump did or did not do there is no case for treason.
However, in this post I want to ask a question about obstruction of justice. Is it possible for the President of the United States to obstruct justice solely by exercising his legal authority? It’s hard for me to believe it is.
The second half of the Mueller report is a glorified op-ed. Indict, or don’t. But don’t throw a bunch of innuendo and, as you point out, legally permitted acts, to the kangaroo courts of hostile media and rabid Democrats.
As I’ve said many times: Mueller is not an honest man. He stacked the staff. And now we start hearing about redactions or selective text quotes (selectivity seems to be a pattern with this guy) all designed for political benefit. Mueller is a disgrace to the profession.
Thank God Mueller was an honest investigator* who fleshed out his findings so that we could know what he really found out. It would be nice if we could see the report minus the selective redactions made by Barr.
Out of curiosity, you seem offended by a Democrat using the word treason here, but Trump has been making that accusation against people who oppose him. Is this just part of the Trump desensitization effect. He says so many awful things that you just dont have the time and energy to go after each instance?
” I do not know what another investigation would accomplish.”
Seriously? The GOP had 8 Benghazi investigations, never finding anything to support their conspiracy fantasies. But, they kept it in the news until the elections. I have no idea if the Dems really think they can impeach (I suspect not) but it looks like going after Hillary for 4 years with repeated investigations helped the GOP so I think you would expect the Dems to do the same thing.
* One of the key ways to support this is to look at all of the conflicting statements about him by people on both sides. Trump tries to get him fired, then says he is a great guy because he cleared Trump, then he goes after Mueller again because Mueller reports out the behaviors of Trump and his staff. The Dems love the guys because they think he will nail Trump, then hate him because he didnt indict, then decide he is OK because he reported what he found in the course of his investigation, rather than hide it like conservatives would have wanted. Mueller just reported out what he found, didnt find evidence of a conspiracy (he didnt consider collusion) and reported the facts so that other people could decide about obstruction of justice. If only Starr had had one iota of the integrity and honesty of Mueller.
Steve
or, said another way, the evidence supports my position. The investigations didn’t accomplish anything.
Would agree with Steve, the goal is pay back and electoral victory in 2020. That the end result is lots of smoke, mirrors and neck vein throbbing, eyeball popping must see TV, is a gimme.
The “neck vein throbbing, eyeball popping” caucus of the Democratic Party is a lot smaller than the “neck vein throbbing, eyeball popping” caucus thinks it is. Most people, Republican or Democrat, are more interested in their daily lives than they are in Trump’s shenanigans.
“The investigations didn’t accomplish anything.”
Both the Democrats and the GOP think they hurt Hillary. I think that you are too narrowly focused on the investigations accomplishing what they were supposedly doing. After the first investigation the GOP knew the claims about Hillary and Obama were sorted out. The other 7 investigations had the real purpose of hurting Hillary, undermining Obama and generating donations from their base.
Steve
The key is political hara-kiri for which Democrats?
Some, maybe a majority, of Democrats may boost their fortunes by supporting impeachment.
“Most people, Republican or Democrat, are more interested in their daily lives than they are in Trump’s shenanigans.”
I think that’s true. It will be interesting to see if the same holds for what is coming down the pike. My guess is that the first indictments will be one or all of Yates, Comey and McCabe.
On the posts question; it depends on if one define obstruction by its legal definition in the Federal statute book or its “folk†meaning as understood by potentially the House.
I have read posts that persuade me that the Trumps behavior doesn’t fit any of the defined categories for obstruction in Federal Law, and novel legal theories never tested in Court must be used to make it fit one of the categories.
But in the “folk†definition – firing Comey, or ordering McGahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had conflicts and take action based on that fact; could be seen as hindering or obstructing an investigation. And Congress is entitled to its own interpretation of the obstruction statute; indeed even its own definition – one that does not take into account the motive of the President – just the effect of the action.
“Is it possible for the President of the United States to obstruct justice solely by exercising his legal authority? It’s hard for me to believe it is.”
By “obstructs justice” I assume you mean doing so in a way that would be criminal. On that, I think it depends.
Exercising the power of the pardon is something that definitely obstructs justice, but it could never be criminal obstruction because the pardon power is absolute.
On the other hand, I’m not so sure about other cases that are less clear cut. I suppose the crux is defining the scope of a President’s “legal authority.”
Trump won despite all the innuendos and slander and October surprises hurled at him. Made a peace offering. Which was rejected. The surveillance crowd decided he threatened their interests not to mention their safety, because in his position they would have ground their opponents into the dirt, and thus continued to try to pin a fraud on him to force him from office any way they could, after which they would drive him into the gutter. They’re still trying. They won’t give up until some of them are charged and punished. They are narcissistic children. Who’ve never grown up because they’ve not only never been punished for this misdeeds but rewarded and celebrated. Then they might learn to be civil.
“Trump won despite all the innuendos and slander and October surprises hurled at him. Made a peace offering.”
What was the October surprise?
What was the peace offering? Seriously, the guy has never done anything except try to make his base happy. What compromises did he offer that would please the left while risking unhappiness among his base?
Steve
“Is it possible for the President of the United States to obstruct justice solely by exercising his legal authority? It’s hard for me to believe it is.”
That would be my view.
As an aside Smollett could have been charged with obstructing justice charges, but the matter was too insignificant to pursue.