washingtonpost.com [PDF] · #whiterabbit
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
am_Unition · 2048 days ago · link ·
LawfareBlog put out their analysis today. I'd say "finally" put out their analysis, but it turns out that digesting a 400+ page document in an informed and independent way takes a few days. Plenty of room for impeachment, and that's just within the scope of what Mueller focused on. The emoluments clause violations, damage to U.S. geopolitical allies, inhumane immigration policies, and about twenty other issues all add fuel to the fire. But do we want a President Pence instead? I say yes, simply 'cuz a) the nuclear codes and b) he isn't the demigod figurehead of a fucking cult, and he never will be, due to a complete and total lack of charisma.
–
user-inactivated · 2047 days ago · link ·
The calculation isn't President Pence anymore. If they impeach Trump it won't take less than a year, either President Pence won't happen or he won't have time to do anything. Since without the Senate impeachment isn't going to be successful regardless, the calculation is whether tying Trump down with it is worth risking getting him reelected by firing up the wingnuts.
–
am_Unition · 2050 days ago · link ·
Honestly, I don't think that is evidence he's guilty of election interference with the Russians, it's just that he equates special counsel investigations with dirt and bad press. And here we are, with some new dirt, and him pretending to be totally exonerated when it's clear he attempted to obstruct justice on many occasions. We know Barr's view is that a president can't obstruct justice, he was very clear about that in his unsolicited letter/job application to the white house last year. So now Barr is doing exactly what Trump lamented Sessions wasn't - protecting Trump. Obviously, that is not the function of an attorney general, despite Trump et al.'s (very poor) perception of previous relationships between the AG and presidents. It is my opinion that enough evidence exists to impeach both Trump and Barr, but we all know the motion would only pass the house after a vote along party lines, and would die in the senate. If I had to choose between Dems winning the presidency or the Senate in 2020, I'd probably choose the presidency, but only just.
–
Apparently you have to prove intent to commit a crime in a conspiracy(?) charge and the Trump tower meeting with Don Jr is incredibly suspicious but he's too dumb to prove he was malicious. I don't know. That's me recalling an NPR story I probably wasn't even paying attention to I don't think you're wrong though. The investigation apparently led to fourteen other separate investigations. I really just think it's a funny quote. I abandoned any hope that the Mueller Report would do anything substantial a long time ago. It's mostly entertainment at this point
–
johnnyFive · 2049 days ago · link ·
Pretty much. "Conspiracy" in the legal sense requires there to be an underlying crime; you can't conspire to do something that isn't illegal. The report then goes on to say why Mueller wasn't confident that they could prove all the elements of the underlying foreign-interference crime, and your summary of that is basically right as well. The statute in question requires a "knowing and willful" violation, meaning those involved would've had to have known that it was illegal. Not just that, of course, but prosecutors would have to prove that they knew, and that's pretty difficult.Apparently you have to prove intent to commit a crime in a conspiracy(?) charge and the Trump tower meeting with Don Jr is incredibly suspicious but he's too dumb to prove he was malicious. I don't know. That's me recalling an NPR story I probably wasn't even paying attention to
–
am_Unition · 2049 days ago · link ·
I think 'bl00 has said it before, but this really is the Hanlon's Razor presidency.
–
johnnyFive · 2050 days ago · link ·
The thing is, nothing in here tells us anything about Trump we didn't already know. Mueller was not on a crusade, and he did what he is supposed to do. I question the DOJ's position that they cannot bring charges against a sitting president, but that was decided back in 2000 (under W) and isn't up to Mueller to decide. So he was careful to stay within the bounds of what he is legally allowed to do, although I think it comes through pretty clearly that he thinks Trump obstructed justice. But to me, the left's hope in Mueller as somehow causing a great deal of change was always going to be misplaced. No one who supports Trump was going to be convinced no matter what Mueller said, whereas no one else was waiting on Mueller to conclude that Trump had colluded with the Russians. Mueller showed clearly that there was collusion in the common use of the term, but there's enough wiggle room here for any Trump supporters to justify saying that the whole thing was a political ploy. As for what we do? Keep calm and carry on. Vote. Try to not be terrible to each other. Avoid pretending that we have more influence over broader events than we do.
–
There's a whole cottage industry on Twitter of idiots who thought Mueller was some savior. I was probably one of them until I realized the Republicans were going to hold the senate. You're absolutely right though. Just wish I thought Trump losing is a foregone conclusion.
–
johnnyFive · 2049 days ago · link ·
Yeah, there's a subreddit for that too. I'll admit to hoping that he'd find something overwhelming that the Republicans in the Senate would have no choice but to accept, but I always knew it was forlorn.
am_Unition · 2050 days ago · link ·
How is this not clear evidence of obstruction of justice? He asked a legal representative to lie to the special counsel. Maybe his defense strategy will be to claim he's too stupid to know better, but somehow smart enough to run the country.
–
His defense is that he was frustrated and lashing out so all bets are off http://time.com/5573095/mueller-report-william-barr-trump-obstruction-of-justice/ Barr pulling double duty as AG and defense attorney