Bill Of Impeachment: Article I, Obstruction Of Justice

[rubato]

Nixon resigned when Republicans started saying they would vote to convict. Pelosi is exactly correct which is why the GOP hates her.

1974, he resigned in the face of almost certain impeachment and removal from office—the only time a U.S. president has done so.

Nixon had been told of the White House connection to the Watergate burglaries soon after they took place, and had approved plans to thwart the investigation. In a statement accompanying the release of what became known as the "Smoking Gun Tape" on August 5, 1974, Nixon accepted blame for misleading the country about when he had been told of White House involvement, stating that he had had a lapse of memory.[227] Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon soon after. Rhodes told Nixon that he faced certain impeachment in the House. Scott and Goldwater told the president that he had, at most, only 15 votes in his favor in the Senate, far fewer than the 34 needed to avoid removal from office.[228]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

Pelosi did a brilliant job protecting the ACA as the leader of the minority party.

yrs,
rubato

[ex-khobar Andy]

Тяцмр

Saw that in a comment somewhere and thought I'd pass it on.

[Econoline]

Here's a little snippet from Five Dollar Feminist over at Wonkette:
“Yeah, we're a long way away from impeachment. Hours and hours and hours of excruciating, news-dominating, Trump-baiting hearings away. Take your time, Congressmen. Take your time.”

[Econoline]

[BoSoxGal]

I am SO conflicted; obviously my gut says the Mueller Report demands impeachment of the President, and if we don’t impeach him it sets the bar so incredibly low for future presidents that we will most certainly see our republic begin to unravel.

BUT - we just CANNOT have another term of this criminal hate monger in the WH. So winning in 2020 is fundamental.

Can the Democrats walk and chew gum at the same time? Can they impeach him and also run on the issues - not the ‘I’m not Trump so of course you’ll vote for me’ approach of Clinton’s campaign?

I really hope Bill Weld runs against Trump - and maybe another Republican or two, like Flake or Kasich.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Impeach Trump and the Senate will vote it down. That's a fact, absent some new shocking revelation and there can't be anything worse than we've seen in the last couple of years. (Mind you I've said that before and I've been wrong.)

Can you imagine Trump and his supporters after being declared innocent by the Senate?

There is no upside to impeachment. Even if successful (it won't be) we get President Pence and he could serve for two full terms after the year or so left in the Trump presidency.

[Econoline]

Again:

• Here's the only question that matters:
  
  Do we uphold the rule of law in this nation or not?
  
  Our Constitution is designed to create a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. Congress is charged with oversight on the Executive Branch.
  
  Do we want Congress to do its duty? Or surrender to a false perception of political practicality?
  

[Lord Jim]

Trump at war with Democrats: 'We're fighting all the subpoenas'

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump vowed on Wednesday to fight "all the subpoenas" issued by House Democrats investigating his administration, reinforcing his administration's increasingly combative posture toward congressional oversight.

Trump lasered in on the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena of his former White House counsel Don McGahn, calling it "ridiculous." The White House has already instructed former White House personnel security director Carl Kline not to comply with a subpoena for his testimony and officials have said the White House may seek to exert executive privilege to block McGahn from testifying.

"The subpoena is ridiculous," Trump said of the demand for McGahn to testify about his obstruction of justice testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller. "I thought after two years we'd be finished with it ... I say it's enough."

House Democrats have lambasted the White House's stonewalling of their requests.

In a statement Tuesday, Nadler said "the moment for the White House to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed."

"I suspect that President Trump and his attorneys know this to be true as a matter of law -- and that this evening's reports, if accurate, represent one more act of obstruction by an administration desperate to prevent the public from talking about the President's behavior,"[Ya think? Trump really hoisted himself on his own petard with this one. He didn't invoke Executive Privilege to prevent McGahon from testifying because he just assumed, like every other lawyer he'd had, that Don would just go in and lie his ass off for him. Imagine his surprise when he discovered that the no good note takin' bastard actually told Team Mueller the truth!

Nadler is absolutely right on this one; Trump just wants to try to stop the spectacle of seeing the White House Counsel's testimony to Mueller's investigators repeated in the middle of the day live on 10 different TV channels simultaneously. Tough titty. He may be able to delay McGahon's testimony but any effort to prevent it will fail; having already allowed McGahon to testify on these matters without invoking Executive Privilege he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.] that Nadler said of reports that the White House would invoke executive privilege to keep McGahn from testifying. "The Committee's subpoena stands. I look forward to Mr. McGahn's testimony."

While Democrats insist they are conducting legitimate oversight, Trump accused Democrats of pursuing their investigations for purely political purposes.

"These aren't, like, impartial people. [ Apparently King Donald is as badly in need of a basic American Civics course as his Constitutionally ignorant royalist followers. Yes, the Congress is a partisan institution, (So is the Presidency for that matter; at least so long as we have a President who is associated with a party) But this fact does not render unto His Majesty the right to decide what Congress does and does not have a right to investigate under its Article I powers..]The Democrats are trying to win 2020," Trump said. "The only way they can luck out is by constantly going after me on nonsense, but they should be really focused on legislation, not the things that have been."

Trump insisted on Wednesday that he and his administration have been "the most transparent ... in the history of our country" [Well, maybe Trumpty does have a point with this one...His administration has certainly been the most transparently criminal, corrupt, dishonest, and vile behaving administration in the history of our country. Much of his criminality, corruption, dishonesty and vile behavior takes place right out in plain sight. At times he seems to actually relish and take pride in it. But I suspect this may not be what he's referring to here...] and called on Democrats to drop their investigations.

In the wake of the release of the redacted Mueller report, Trump has vacillated between claiming vindication and fuming about the report and some Democrats' calls for him to be impeached.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/politics ... index.html

[ex-khobar Andy]

Again:

• Here's the only question that matters:
  
  Do we uphold the rule of law in this nation or not? Yes of course.
  
  Our Constitution is designed to create a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. Congress is charged with oversight on the Executive Branch. Certainly.
  
  Do we want Congress to do its duty? Or surrender to a false perception of political practicality? Yes: one chamber of that congress could do its duty by starting the impeachment process; the other chamber will, however, abandon its duty by ignoring the evidence.
  

Maybe we differ on a definition of political (in the sense of political practicality) but I don't think any prosecutor will indict someone, for any crime, unless the prosecutor (DA or whatever applies in the specific jurisdiction) sees a probability of success. Will a jury buy the evidence? In this case I think Pelosi has it exactly right: there is no way the Senate will convict so let's not waste time.

We now have a binary world: we see this in Trump taking Muelller's reluctance to come to a conclusion on the obstruction evidence as vindication. We saw it with Trayvon Martin: I never saw all the evidence as presented, but I am not sure that, were I a juror, I could have said that I was 95% or better certain that Zimmerman was guilty. Of course, once he was declared not guilty, all the Limbaughs of ths world decided that Martin was a punk who had attacked Zimmerman. Based on the evidence we have (and, FWIW I think it's enough for conviction) and the make-up of the jury, Trump will go scot free.

I don't think that I have a false perception of political practicality in seeing no chance of conviction and every chance that Trump and his hangers-on will see acquittal by the Senate as justification of all he has ever done and effective permission to do more of it.

[Big RR]

I agree it makes little sense to bring impeachment to the Senate in the current climate (just as it was with Clinton), but holding open hearings to air the misdeeds of Trump et al. before the election makes a lot of sense if (and this is a big if) it is done correctly (so the partisanship charges can be avoided). When the public is repeatedly confronted with solid evidence, they can make their own choice next year (and it will be hard for Trump to pay the innocent victim except to his most rabid base), and who knows what the disclusre of the evidence may do to hsi comfortable margin in the Senate.

But along with this Congress must keep on doing its other job and attend to addressing problems through legisalation. It must address important issues; impeachment is not a be all and end all.

[Econoline]

Yes: one chamber of that congress could do its duty by starting the impeachment process; the other chamber will, however, abandon its duty by ignoring the evidence.

...and, if it happens, that—THAT right there—would be a significant piece of information for voters to consider in 2020. No, the ~30% that are brain dead hard-core Trump supporters will never vote against Trump or his supporters in Congress. But that still leaves a significant number of potential voters who deserve to know, and might appreciate knowing, the evidence against the pResident presented to the Senate by the House Judiciary Committee, and which Senators will abandon their Constitutional duty for partisan political reasons.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is not going easy on President Trump.

In a scathing op-ed and accompanying video published Thursday, Napolitano said that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election and Trump’s efforts to cover it up showed a clear pattern of criminal behavior.

“When the president asks his former adviser and my former colleague K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter to the file knowing the government would subpoena it, that’s obstruction of justice,” Napolitano said in his video. “When the president asks Cory Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asks his then-White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that’s obstruction of justice. When he asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and then change his testimony, that’s obstruction of justice. When he dangled the pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him, that’s obstruction of justice. Why not charge him?”

https://www.aol.com/article/entertainme ... /23717457/

[Big RR]

Yes: one chamber of that congress could do its duty by starting the impeachment process; the other chamber will, however, abandon its duty by ignoring the evidence.

...and, if it happens, that—THAT right there—would be a significant piece of information for voters to consider in 2020. No, the ~30% that are brain dead hard-core Trump supporters will never vote against Trump or his supporters in Congress. But that still leaves a significant number of potential voters who deserve to know, and might appreciate knowing, the evidence against the pResident presented to the Senate by the House Judiciary Committee, and which Senators will abandon their Constitutional duty for partisan political reasons.

If the general American public is convinced of his guilt by what comes out during the hearings, then it would be helpful. On the other hand, if they are not (or if they are convinced it is much ado about nothing), then the spin will be how the dems used up time investigating and prosecuting the poor president for something they knew would not result in impeachment, ignoring all the pressing problems to persecute the man.

[Econoline]

Oh, yeah...it's much more important to introduce, debate, and pass legislation that the Senate Majority Leader won't allow the Senate to even consider, right? </sarcasm>

The general American public certainly *WON'T* be convinced of his guilt by what comes out during the hearings if they don't even hold the hearings!

FWIW I'm pretty sure that the House can walk and chew gum at the same time: they can pass other bills which the Senate won't pass while at the same time considering an impeachment on which the Senate won't convict. (And if the house passes a bill of impeachment and McConnell refuses to hold a trial and refuses to let the evidence be presented—which, given his previous conduct, he very well might do—I think that would make it abundantly clear just who is abandoning their Constitutional duty.)

Do we uphold the rule of law in this nation or not? Congress is charged with oversight on the Executive Branch: Do we want Congress to do its duty?

[Econoline]

[Big RR]

FWIW I'm pretty sure that the House can walk and chew gum at the same time: they can pass other bills which the Senate won't pass while at the same time considering an impeachment on which the Senate won't convict. (And if the house passes a bill of impeachment and McConnell refuses to hold a trial and refuses to let the evidence be presented—which, given his previous conduct, he very well might do—I think that would make it abundantly clear just who is abandoning their Constitutional duty.)

And IMHO, this is what is essential; the House can hold open hearings and publicize the results, and at the same time MUST continue to address pressing matters for legislation, whether the Senate passes them or not.

And as for McConnell refusing to hold a trial if the articles are voted by the House, I do not believe that would be legal under the Consitution (although the crisis might be difficult to resolve), and would be a mistake for the senate to try. My guess is this could get a lot of th epublic behind impeachment if the evidence is clear, and the individual senators would not ignore the House vote. It would be far easier to just hodl a hearing and clear Trump.

[Econoline]

• Trump thinks the Supreme Court can save him from impeachment (it can’t)

  • 04/24/19 12:45 PM
    By Steve Benen

  Now that he’s placed two far-right jurists on the Supreme Court, Donald Trump seems convinced that the nation’s highest bench will effectively serve as a rubber stamp, clearing the way for everything he wants.
  
  The White House agenda on DACA? The president expects the Supreme Court to rule his way. Birthright citizenship? The president expects the Supreme Court to rule his way. Redirecting funds through an emergency declaration? The president expects the Supreme Court to rule his way. Tearing down his own country’s health care system? The president expects the Supreme Court to rule his way.
  
  Two senior administration officials told NBC News in November that “with Justice Brett Kavanaugh now on the Supreme Court,” the White House “expects to win.”
  
  With this mind, consider Trump’s latest mini-tantrum on Twitter.
  
  

  • “The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    
    “Not only are there no ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ there are no Crimes by me at all. All of the Crimes were committed by Crooked Hillary, the Dems, the DNC and Dirty Cops - and we caught them in the act! We waited for Mueller and WON, so now the Dems look to Congress as last hope!”

  Much of this is gibberish, including the assertions that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings uncovered no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Reality tells a different story, especially as it relates to obstruction of justice.
  
  It’s also bizarre that the erratic president believes his opponents have been “caught in the act” of committing crimes – misdeeds that exist only in Trump’s mind.
  
  But what may matter most is Trump’s intention to “head to the U.S. Supreme Court” if congressional Dems launch an impeachment effort.
  
  We’re occasionally reminded of just how little our amateur president understands about the basics of American governance and civics. We’re also reminded that Trump doesn’t feel the need to ask anyone for clarifications about how the system works, since his misplaced confidence overshadows his ignorance.
  
  But as someone really ought to let the president know, Congress is responsible for initiating, overseeing, and executing the impeachment process. Lawmakers, and no one else, determine whether a president has committed impeachable acts.
  
  Trump could “head to the U.S. Supreme Court,” but there’s literally nothing justices could do for him, even if they wanted to. The judiciary has no authority to help or hinder the impeachment proceedings.
  
  The president doesn’t know that, and while that’s embarrassing, he nevertheless seems eager to let everyone know just how confused he is.
  
  In the process, Trump is also offering a peek into his perspective on problem-solving. When he finds himself in a jam, the president seems to instinctively look for a fixer: Trump has spent his tenure assuming that everyone from his attorney general to his congressional allies to his White House counsel can simply make his problems go away for him.
  
  As of this morning, the president seems to think the Supreme Court can even rescue him from the threat of impeachment.
  
  It cannot.

[Burning Petard]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... b0ca0263c2

WaPo, and other sources, report that POTUS is now saying Robert Mueller should not testify before Congress, after recently stating it was OK by him, but up to Attny Genl Barr to decide yes or no.

How/Why? Mr. Mueller is no longer an employee of the Executive branch of the US government. He was appointed Special Prosecutor by Rosenstein (who is no longer employed by Justice dept.) and that Special Prosecutor position has been abolished/ended when he turned in the report.

How does the head of the Justice department or the Chief Executive have any power over how Mr. Mueller responds to an invitation or a subpoena from the Legislative branch?

snailgate.

[RayThom]

... How does the head of the Justice department or the Chief Executive have any power over how Mr. Mueller responds to an invitation or a subpoena from the Legislative branch?
snailgate.

sg, I was just discussing this elsewhere. I feel it would be almost impossible that Trump, and his balls washer, Barr, could stop Mueller from appearing. (I'm hoping the House will subpoena his testimony.) I guess the WH could stall the Mueller appearance giving them time to limit what he might say. But preventing it? I can't see how.

[Econoline]

From a comment thread over at Lawyers, Guns & Money: "Yeah, let's ask President Gore how impeachment is bad for the impeaching party."