Trump the Autocrat.

[Teallaura]

I'm dubious the House would even impeach - 40 moderates have to go back to previously red districts to explain what they thought they were doing to constituents who probably don't think they were doing anything important...


Just sayin'...

[JimL]

Jim, you can rephrase it all you like, but the fact is Mueller walked it back - it wasn't just the guidelines - he declined to make a determination.

Wrong, Tea. What he said is that his answer in the affirmative to the question posed, i.e. "that the OLC opinion was the reason he didn't charge Trump" wasn't the correct way to say it. He has made his reason clear for some time now, i.e. that the OLC doesn't permit, in his opinion, the making of a determination, and so he did not even attempt to make a determination. I'm sure in his own mind he came to a determination, just as did over 1000 other former and current federal prosecutors. And their determination was, had it been any one othert than the sitting president, he would be indicted.

There isn't going to be an impeachment - Pelosi isn't insane enough. There won't be an indictment when he leaves office - the Dems will have other concerns by then. Dragging out the end just hurts the Democrats - and there is no way to win this battle. It's over, regardless how much some people want it otherwise.

We shall see. I think you're living in a dream world, Tea. But we shall see. But, I will also say this, you had better pray that the dems do win this, otherwise, another 4 years of Trump and you can kiss your democracy bye bye.

[Cow Poke]

Jim, you can rephrase it all you like, but the fact is Mueller walked it back - it wasn't just the guidelines - he declined to make a determination.

Not only that, but all that crap about exoneration is a steaming pile of horsie poo.

[Cow Poke]

Wrong, Tea. What he said is that his answer in the affirmative to the question posed, i.e. "that the OLC opinion was the reason he didn't charge Trump" wasn't the correct way to say it. He has made his reason clear for some time now, i.e. that the OLC doesn't permit, in his opinion, the making of a determination, and so he did not even attempt to make a determination. I'm sure in his own mind he came to a determination, just as did over 1000 other former and current federal prosecutors. And their determination was, had it been any one othert than the sitting president, he would be indicted.

Perhaps you missed his clarification... I'll make the pertinent part big and bold for ya.

At the beginning of his second congressional hearing Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller walked back a previous response he gave earlier in the morning that indicated the reason why his investigative team did not indict President Donald Trump was due to a memorandum from the Department of Justice limiting the ability to indict a sitting president.

During the morning hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.) questioned Mueller over his team's decision to not indict President Trump.

"I'd like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Lieu asked.

"That's correct," Mueller responded.

Lieu was asking Mueller about a legal opinion from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel which prohibits federal prosecutors from indicting a sitting President.

Prominent liberal writers quickly voiced their approval of Lieu's questioning, pointing to the exchange as a blockbuster moment from the morning hearing.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff said the exchange was "the big news," from the hearing while Washington Post writer Greg Sargent tweeted "Whoa!" after the exchange pointing to it as a revelatory moment between Mueller and Lieu.

But as Mueller began his second opening statement for the afternoon hearing in front of the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller explicitly stated his earlier response had been misconstrued and not totally true.

And before you whine about the source for this, here's the actual video from CNN...

[Teallaura]

Wrong, Tea. What he said is that his answer in the affirmative to the question posed, i.e. "that the OLC opinion was the reason he didn't charge Trump" wasn't the correct way to say it. He has made his reason clear for some time now, i.e. that the OLC doesn't permit, in his opinion, the making of a determination, and so he did not even attempt to make a determination. I'm sure in his own mind he came to a determination, just as did over 1000 other former and current federal prosecutors. And their determination was, had it been any one othert than the sitting president, he would be indicted.

We shall see. I think you're living in a dream world, Tea. But we shall see. But, I will also say this, you had better pray that the dems do win this, otherwise, another 4 years of Trump and you can kiss your democracy bye bye.

Well, one of us is in a dream world - but I'm pretty sure it's not me.

MM already got this so I won't pile on - but I will say you are incorrect about what Mueller said.

Also, if the Dems don't get their collective heads out of this horse poop, there is little doubt 2020 will not be a good year for them.

[JimL]

So, first, the Senate doesn't impeach - the House does. "Impeach" is analogous to "indict." A vote to impeach will be on specific articles of impeachment, and a simple majority in the house on each article means that there will then be a trial in the senate to determine if the president (or whoever is the target) is to be removed from office or not. It only requires a simple majority of the house to impeach, but a 2/3 majority of the senate to convict.

I know all that carpe, but thanks.

There is also no doubt in my mind that the Senate will never convict Trump.

Well, that's what Nixon thought as well, but when his guilt was obvious to the public, then even the republicans were forced to oust him, or force him to resign first.

Every Republican will stand fore-square behind the president for fear of their seats, as they've basically been doing since early 2018. The Republican party is now the Trumpublican party, and anyone standing against the president will be primaried and probably labeled a RINO (shades of the T-party). But that is not the point. The point is to launch the pre-impeachment investigations that will determine if there are any valid articles of impeachment that have an evidentiary basis. Congress has broad investigatory powers and previous courts have recognized the need for this oversight and limited the degree to which the president can claim "executive privilege" in these circumstances (see Nixon and Watergate). So if there is dirt, these investigations stand to uncover them - or Trump will be seen as stonewalling. That will cheer his base, but probably fire up liberals and moderates.

As above, an informed public can even force the unprincipled republicans in both Houses to Impeach and oust the president, ala Nixon.

The investigations are not overnight things. The Nixon investigation lasted 12 months before the house moved to vote on articles of impeachment. If investigations start in the next month or so, they would easily stretch well into the 2020 campaign year, possibly wrapping up just around the time of the conventions. If the investigations find nothing, then Trump will likely win in 2020 and the house will likely revert to Reps.

Find anything, are you kidding me, carpe? Thare is an overabundence of evidence, of proof, that Trump is guilty of impeachable offences. Pelosi just wants more, wants all of it, including the financial aspect of Trumps corruption, and she want it all to be public knowledge. That would force the republicans hand. But they have more than enough to impeach Trump right now if they choose to do so.

If the investigations find criminal behavior (as many of us believe they will), the revelations will emerge in the course of the campaign and likely torpedo Trump's bid.

Already found the criminal behavior, carpe. Did you watch the Mueller hearings, testimony? More revelations are coming whether they begin the impeachment process or not, the investigations are ongoing in either case.

It's possible, if revelations come out soon enough, that it would enhance Weld's bid. That's a long odd, however. Trump's base is not going to abandon him for anything short of a murder on the White House front lawn - and I'm not even convinced they'd abandon him then. He'd probably be "justified" in one way or another, as pretty much everything he has said and done has been rationalized and justified since he took office.

Trumps base may never abandon him, they're a tad bit nutty, but that base, the ones Hillary dubbed the "basket of deplorables" isn't all that big. Trump can't win with just his base. I think there are probably even some conservatives on this site who, excluding MM of course that when the evidence becomes overwhelming, unrationalizable, will be able then to face facts and do the right, or should I say, do the left, thing.

However, if there is dirt (and I will be amazed if there is not), there's a good chance that the Dems would hold the house and also take the Senate in the aftermath.

Again, the dirt is already there, there is plenty more coming concerning this case, but also with Trumps financial dealings, which weren't, as Mueller put it, in his purview.

This is the calculus I believe Pelosi is missing. Instead, the focus was placed on Mueller, who did exactly what he said he was going to do. IMO, bad call on the Dems part.

Well we will just have to disagree about that then. Pelosi is on the one hand, trying to make sure that this criminal president doesn't get 4 more years in which to destroy democracy, but she also has the principled duty as a member of Congress, not to mention the Speaker of the House, to act in the face of a criminal presidency.

[Mountain Man]

Another way to say it, the correct way to say it, is that under the DOJ guidelines, a determination of guilt can not be made by a Special Prosecutor.

No, that's not what it means at all.

Barr said there is nothing in the guidelines that would prevent a special counsel from plainly stating that laws were broken and recommending indictment. The fact is, Mueller had no case, but he and his team tried to weasel around it by inventing a new legal standard and giving prosecutors the power to "exonerate" the innocent in direct contravention of our best legal practices.

Sorry, Jimmy, but you're cheering for the bad guys.

[Cow Poke]

Also, if the Dems don't get their collective heads out of this horse poop, there is little doubt 2020 will not be a good year for them.

Are Democrats Trying to Get Trump Re-Elected?
John Podhoretz, New York Post

[JimL]

Perhaps you missed his clarification... I'll make the pertinent part big and bold for ya.

At the beginning of his second congressional hearing Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller walked back a previous response he gave earlier in the morning that indicated the reason why his investigative team did not indict President Donald Trump was due to a memorandum from the Department of Justice limiting the ability to indict a sitting president.

During the morning hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.) questioned Mueller over his team's decision to not indict President Trump.

"I'd like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Lieu asked.

"That's correct," Mueller responded.

Lieu was asking Mueller about a legal opinion from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel which prohibits federal prosecutors from indicting a sitting President.

Prominent liberal writers quickly voiced their approval of Lieu's questioning, pointing to the exchange as a blockbuster moment from the morning hearing.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff said the exchange was "the big news," from the hearing while Washington Post writer Greg Sargent tweeted "Whoa!" after the exchange pointing to it as a revelatory moment between Mueller and Lieu.

But as Mueller began his second opening statement for the afternoon hearing in front of the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller explicitly stated his earlier response had been misconstrued and not totally true.

"I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘you didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion,'" Mueller said near the end of his opening statement.

"That is not the correct way to say it," he added. "As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime."

And before you whine about the source for this, here's the actual video from CNN...

Nope, didn't miss it at all. He couldn't make a determination because of the OLC guidelines, get it. So, if he can not make a, if he is forbidden to make a determination, then he obviously could not "reach a determination." So, he didn't charge the president because, due to the OLC guidelines, he was forbidden to make a determination, therefore he did not "reach a determination." The fact that he answered in the affirmative to the question originally posed by Rep. Ted Lieu should tell you. He's also said the same many times in the past. What would be the point in coming to a determination of criminality, if the only body who can actually make that determination is the Congress.

[JimL]

No, that's not what it means at all.

Barr said there is nothing in the guidelines that would prevent a special counsel from plainly stating that laws were broken and recommending indictment. The fact is, Mueller had no case, but he and his team tried to weasel around it by inventing a new legal standard and giving prosecutors the power to "exonerate" the innocent in direct contravention of our best legal practices.

Sorry, Jimmy, but you're cheering for the bad guys.

Wrong, you can not affirm that laws were broken without a trial, or in this case without an impeachment process. As far as having no case, anyone who watched those hearings and came away saying Mueller presented no case, is blind, deaf and dumb.

[Cow Poke]

Nope, didn't miss it at all.

Yeah, ya did. And still do.

[Cow Poke]

Wrong, you can not affirm that laws were broken without a trial, or in this case an impeachment process...

Hey Jimmy! GREAT NEWS! At least 96 Democrats still wanna impeach, according to CNN!

[JimL]

Hey Jimmy! GREAT NEWS! At least 96 Democrats still wanna impeach, according to CNN!

Way ahead of you, CP. But thanks anyway.

[Mountain Man]

Wrong, you can not affirm that laws were broken without a trial...

What?!

[Teallaura]

Hey Jimmy! GREAT NEWS! At least 96 Democrats still wanna impeach, according to CNN!

Now, if they can just talk the other 139 into political suicide...