Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
liberty
Posts: 4406
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by liberty »

Econoline wrote:From a comment thread over at Lawyers, Guns & Money: "Yeah, let's ask President Gore how impeachment is bad for the impeaching party."
But the impeachment and trial of Clinton was justified; he did commit a crime and there was sufficient evidence to prove it. Democrats and liberals in the senate refused to convict on the grounds that it did not rise to the level of impeachment. So some crimes are not impeachable offenses. Wasn’t Clinton also charged with encouraging people to commit perjury, wouldn’t that be obstruction of justice?
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

From the Mueller Report: (page 187 for those of you following the score from home)

“On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful.
The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar
with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context."

June 9th meeting was the Trump Tower 'adoption' meeting with the Russians. Jared Kushner JD was one of the participants.

How is not knowing that their conduct was unlawful any kind of defense? Can I get away with that next time I am stopped for speeding? "Sorry officer, I didn't see the sign."

I'll let you know how well that works.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Bicycle Bill »

And you have no idea how many Americans there are, not all of whom are liberals or Democrats, who would like to know the answer to that question.

Or is everyone OK with the status quo — that it's acceptable to be able to see the First Lady's naked photos, but *NOBODY*, not even Congress, is allowed to see the POTUS's tax forms?  Makes me wonder just who are the people with the super-duper-ultra-top-secret-need-to-know-matter-of-life-or-death security clearances at the IRS who dealt with the forms in the first place — and just what they had to do to obtain such a rare privilege, one that is apparently far too precious to be granted to mere mortals like Congresscritters, law enforcement officials like the FBI, or even the Department of Justice?
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Scooter »

GOP Rep. Amash becomes first Republican to call for Trump's impeachment

Washington (CNN)Michigan GOP Rep. Justin Amash said Saturday he had concluded President Donald Trump committed "impeachable conduct" and accused Attorney General William Barr of intentionally misleading the public.

Amash's comments recommending Congress pursue obstruction of justice charges against Trump were the first instance of a sitting Republican in Congress calling for Trump's impeachment.

Amash is a rare GOP critic of Trump and previously said Trump's conduct in pressuring then-FBI Director James Comey could merit impeachment. In a Twitter thread on Saturday, Amash said he believed "few members of Congress even read" special counsel Robert Mueller's report and that the report itself established "multiple examples" of Trump committing obstruction of justice.

"Contrary to Barr's portrayal, Mueller's report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment," Amash said in a string of messages on Twitter.

While many Democrats have called for impeachment proceedings against Trump, many members of the GOP have agreed with Trump's assertions about the Mueller report and defended his conduct. For his part, Barr said the report established no conspiracy between Trump and Russia and that he and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did not believe its findings sufficient to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

Amash's comments on Saturday with regard to impeachment went further than even many members of House Democratic leadership. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last Thursday that "every day gives grounds for impeachment," while at the same time arguing that she doesn't want to impeach, though she did not rule out the possibility.

Amash -- a libertarian conservative elected during the Tea Party wave of 2010 -- was a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, a key bloc of Republicans who worked to shift the GOP caucus to the right on many issues, but in the Trump era, he has found himself breaking with his conservative allies who have embraced the President.

Amash said on Saturday that he made his conclusions "only after having read Mueller's redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis."

He said Barr misled the public in a range of venues regarding the Mueller report, a charge Democrats and others have made repeatedly that the attorney general has disputed.

"Barr's misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice," Amash said.

Amash said "contrary to Barr's portrayal," Trump's actions "meet the threshold for impeachment" and that anyone without the unique legal protections of the presidency would be facing an indictment.

He argued that it was Congress' role to move forward with impeachment and accused people on both sides of the aisle of political motives, saying they had shifted "their views 180 degrees ... depending on whether they're discussing (former President) Bill Clinton or Donald Trump."

"Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch's jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution," Amash tweeted. "When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law -- the foundation of liberty -- crumbles."
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

I saw that on the news a little while ago; good on him...

As I recall he was also the only Republican on the HJC to ask Michael Cohen relevant questions ...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Scooter »

Someone on S.E. Cupp was saying that, he was the one who asked Cohen about what Trump would want to be keeping secret.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Scooter »

Cue wes to accuse him of treason and sedition in 3...2...1...
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by BoSoxGal »

A tiny spark of ethics in the GOP. Now let’s see if anyone steps up to join him.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Crackpot »

He’s an interesting character a tea partier who actually believes in working in government. I’d respect him if I could be sure that he wasn’t the same MI rep that has said some really vile shit in the past.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by BoSoxGal »

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

I have been one of those who has believed that it wasn't necessary for the House to formally open an Impeachment inquiry at this point, provided that the HJC (and other investigating committees) could proceed forward exactly as they would if an Impeachment inquiry were opened...

Calling important witnesses, and laying out the evidence before the American people in open hearings on national television...

However, because of the unprecedented wholesale obstruction of justice operation being carried out by this White House, (and abetted by the feckless Attorney General) I'm hearing strong arguments being made that it may be impossible for Congress carryout it's Constitutional investigative role without formally opening Impeachment proceedings...

You have the President's legal team, the AG (and also the Sec. of the Treasury) all advancing this bizarre, invented legal doctrine that it is somehow the prerogative of the Executive branch to determine what is or is not a legitimate "legislative purpose" for the Congress to pursue, and to decline to honor lawfully issued subpoenas accordingly.

The reasoning I'm hearing is that the the quickest and surest way to knock back this loopy argument in the courts, would be to open an Impeachment inquiry, since Impeachment is indisputably a "legitimate legislative purpose" given that it is a specifically enumerated Constitutional power of the Legislative Branch. This would also put the Congress on the strongest legal footing to get the judicial decision making process regarding its subpoenas put on the fast track.

Pelosi has said that Trump is trying to "force" the creation of a formal Impeachment process, and that may be the case, but he should be careful what he wishes for...

As I pointed out in another thread, there is no way to know where this will go in terms of public opinion once all the evidence of Trump's corruption and criminality is made real and accessible for the American people through live witnesses in televised public hearings...

Trump himself obviously understands this and lives in mortal terror of it...Preventing the American people from being educated about the depth and extent of his malfeasance clearly lies at the heart of the complete obstruction strategy his Administration has launched...

I know there are a lot of Democrats on the Hill who are very uneasy about formally opening an Impeachment process, and worried about potential political costs, but it's looking more and more like we are rapidly approaching the day (if we are not there already) where the Congress is going to be faced with a very stark choice:

Either formally open an Impeachment inquiry, or bow down and accept being relegated to being a de facto subordinate rather than coequal branch of government. Subordinate to an Executive Branch that will be empowered to determine what the Congress may and may not investigate.

I submit that whatever the short term political risks of doing the former may be (and as I keep saying, it is by no means certain that pursuing Impeachment, even if the removal vote ultimately fails to reach the 2/3 threshold in the Senate, will redound to the political disadvantage of those who support it) the long-term damage to the country of accepting the latter far outweighs it...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

I've had an idea that I doubt she would do but I think would be very useful...

If Nancy Pelosi finally decides that enough is enough and it's time to pull the trigger on opening a formal Impeachment inquiry, I would suggest that she make a prime time speech for the announcement, and that she ask the broadcast networks to carry it...

They wouldn't have to grant it, but there's no law that says that only a President can request airtime from the networks for a speech. And frankly given the subject matter (to announce and explain the opening of a formal Impeachment inquiry into the President of The United States) I think there's a very good chance that the major networks would grant The Speaker Of The House 20 or 30 minutes of air time to carry it live...

She could use that time to explain how Impeachment is a process, not a result, and layout in a somber and methodical fashion how Trump's efforts to thwart the Congressional investigation process into the serious conclusions of Presidential wrong doing in the Mueller Report necessitated this step. She could then go on to reassure the American people that this doesn't mean that the other work of the Congress on their behalf will grind to a halt, and then tick off the major pieces of legislation the House has already passed and sent to the Senate (where the leadership is refusing to allow them to be considered) and mention others that will be forth coming.

Trump will of course request and receive time to respond, which he will no doubt use to repeat his shrill and dishonest "WITCH HUNT!" "HOAX!" "COUP!" "NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION!" refrain...

But hell, he's going to continue to use his Presidential-sized media megaphone 24/7 365 to do that anyway, whether a formal Impeachment is launched or not. Pelosi should at least take one good shot to get the counter message out in a way that will give her the largest possible megaphone...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Lord Jim wrote:Trump will of course request and receive time to respond, which he will no doubt use to repeat his shrill and dishonest "WITCH HUNT!" "HOAX!" "COUP!" "NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION!" refrain...
And of course he would be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Since when is a procedure or surgery to remove a cancer considered a "witch hunt" or a "coup"?
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Scooter »

Judge rules Trump can't block subpoena of his financial records by Congress

A federal judge in Washington has ruled against U.S. President Donald Trump in a financial records dispute with Congress.

Judge Amit Mehta's ruling says Trump cannot block the House subpoena of his financial records.

The decision is a setback for the Trump administration amid a widespread effort by the White House and the president's lawyers to refuse to co-operate with congressional requests for information and records.

Trump and his business organization had sued to block the subpoena issued in April to Mazars LLP, an accountant for the president and Trump Organization.

Mehta also denied a request by Trump to stay his decision pending an appeal.

Last Tuesday, Mehta heard oral arguments on whether Mazars must comply with a House of Representatives oversight committee subpoena.

Mehta said at the time that financial records from Trump's long-time accounting firm would be part of a "proper subject of investigation" by Congress, appearing to side with Democratic lawmakers seeking more oversight of the president.

It was the first time a federal court had waded into the tussle about how far Congress can go in probing Trump and his business affairs.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by BoSoxGal »

Hopefully the first of many judicial bitch slaps Trump will endure on the subject of documents and witnesses subpoenaed by Congress.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Econoline »

Image
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

Post by Lord Jim »

House Judiciary Committee sets hearing on Mueller report with Nixon White House counsel John Dean

The House Judiciary Committee on Monday announced a “series of hearings” related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report, beginning with a June 10 hearing featuring President Richard Nixon’s former White House counsel, John Dean.

The Democrat-led committee revealed its new schedule as calls to impeach President Donald Trump grew louder from a growing list of Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates.

The hearing with Dean, titled “Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes,” was announced less than a week after Mueller, in his first public remarks since becoming special counsel in May 2017, said that he would not go beyond the details in his 448-page report if he is forced to testify before Congress.

Dean, who was a central player in the Watergate scandal, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in 1973. He also cooperated with the Watergate special prosecutor and testified against other Watergate figures.

The upcoming hearing will focus on Trump’s “most overt acts of obstruction,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. in a press release. It will also feature other former U.S. Attorneys and legal experts, according to the House Judiciary Committee.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/03/house-d ... -dean.html



I'm sorry, but I'm not at all on board with this one...

I think it looks weak, smells of desperation, (desperation which is unnecessary) and plays into the hands of Il Boobce's obstruction collaborators on the HJC...

John Dean is completely irrelevant to this inquiry; and moreover has been nothing but a liberal author and cable news pundit for nearly 20 years...(Back when 43 was President, he was trying to make a case for his impeachment... :roll: )

Having John Dean sitting there trying to explain the significance of the Mueller Report findings wont attract much of a TV audience, and probably wont move one single persuadable person on Impeachment. It will however, give the GOP members of the committee ample opportunity to ridicule the seriousness of the inquiry, portray it as a "circus" and discredit Dean as a messenger...

Why on earth would you tee up such an easy target for the diversion seekers to create a diversion with? :shrug

In fact I think this is such a bad idea, that it could backfire and turn people off towards the investigation; I would really like to see this show hearing cancelled ...

I fully understand (and share) the frustration that Nadler and others on the committee are feeling about getting relevant witnesses testifying in front of it, but there really is no substitute for that...

Mueller himself needs to be Witness # 1, and if he is unwilling to testify publicly then he needs to be subpoenaed...(Reluctant as he is about testifying publicly, there's no indication that he would fight such a subpoena.)

And the other relevant witnesses who are fighting subpoenas at the behest of Trump's full court press obstruction operation, (Don McGahn, Hope Hicks, etc.) need to be pursued relentlessly through the courts in as expedited a fashion as possible...

There really is no substitute for this in terms of successfully educating the broader public on the breadth and depth of Trump's criminality, corruption, and abuse of power...

There may be some serious value to having the others testify; the "former U.S. Attorneys and legal experts" that are mentioned in the article...(though ideally you would have those types of expert witnesses after Mueller testifies, not before)

But a dog and pony show with a "celebrity witness" like Dean who has neither any connection whatsoever to the crimes involved nor any recognized Constitutional or legal expertise in this area ain't gonna cut it...

They might as well bring in Kim Kardashian...
ImageImageImage

Post Reply