You do impeachment in the House to set up 2020.
The impeachment consists of basically reading the entire Mueller report out loud in the form of questions to witnesses in Judiciary.
And then you do the same thing in the whole House as debate without witnesses.
And again in the Senate.
I’ve been skipping through the actual report, speculating on some of the redactions. The page numbers I’m using are the actual page numbers printed at the foot of each page. The document readers number them differently.
Let’s see…on page 12 volume 1 they say their initial mandate had the OSC “authorized to investigate the pertinent activities” of 5 ( or possibly 6 ) individuals. There are 3 unredacted names -Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Richard Gates. I’m wondering who the others are — there is one redacted block that I’m pretty sure is one name and another that could be one or two names, depending on length. Kellyanne Conway is kind of a long name. Steve Brannon could be the other. I’m not sure why Manaforts name doesn’t appear ( I don’t think they would redact it ) but they had a special addendum just for him IIRC.
And there appears to be a LOT of stuff redacted as Harm to Ongoing Matter around hacking and WikiLeaks. It may be pertinent to Stones case. Or maybe something new.
There is a little bit of redaction around the Trump Tower meeting that appears to be with regard to the campaign finance violations.
Page 179 volume 1 is interesting, it’s a mostly redacted page explaining the decision to decline prosecution of an unidentified person for a section 1030 (computer hacking) violation. Because, it seems, they couldn’t prove it wasn’t an accident.
“Evidentiary hurdles to proving falsity” is a great phrase that appears right at the start of page 199 Volume 1.
There seem to be some HOM redactions around descriptions of the President running is big fat mouth ( or tiny twitter fingers ) These can be found on pages 120 and 128 of Volume 2 and seem to be associated with accounts of Trump chastising Cohen for flipping or dangling a pardon for Manafort. I find these extremely interesting that the redactions appear around the most egregious obstruction accusations and I wonder what the ongoing matter is.
I wonder what the 12 unknown ongoing matters are. Time will tell.
One thing that I find interesting is that as contentious as this is, there doesn’t seem to be much dispute around the actual factual findings.
And you make it last, with big McGAHN SAYS TRUMP LIED type headlines, for 18 months - if need be.
I always hope that Trump is reading this thread (and the clusterfuck, of course): Hey! Donnie-boy! He means Earl Warren is calling for your impeachment.
When you’ve sunk that low, it’s time to sneak out of the country…
Finally getting some time to read through the actual report. One of the things that strikes me about the Introduction to Volume II, and I don’t think has gotten sufficient play, is the extent to which Mueller essentially says that their interpretation of the OLC opinion on not indicting the President (and the reasoning it is based on) is that they not only can’t indict but can’t essentially accuse him of a crime; however, they can exonerate him.
And, they pointedly note that they are neither accusing him nor exonerating him of obstruction of justice. Hence, this means that they definitely haven’t found him innocent and they might even have strong feelings that he is guilty or they might truly be conflicted.
Or, to put it another way, the question could be asked: “If they had concluded that the President was probably (or even almost certainly) guilty of obstruction of justice, how would the report have been any different than it is now?” And, the answer is that it apparently wouldn’t be because of their interpretation of the OLC opinion as meaning that it is unfair for them to essentially imply that he is guilty without him having the normal judicial process to exonerate himself. All they can do is lay out the evidence on both sides.
So, Mueller’s lack of a stated opinion on the obstruction of justice question can only be read as saying that they could not exonerate him. It cannot be read as saying that they had insufficient evidence to indict him. It may be that they truly are conflicted as to whether he is guilty or it may be that they pretty much believe he is in fact guilty.
As most will recall, Barr’s stated categories for redactions were:
Reports indicate that Barr will fight tooth and nail to keep anyone in Congress from seeing the unredacted report. And if so, we will never know if Barr was honest in his labeling of the redactions.
In other words, masses of what are marked as “harm to ongoing matters” redactions might actually be Category 4, ‘stuff that could embarrass Trump or his family members’ (to paraphrase the official wording a tad).
Some will say “Barr would never do that, because he’d know that Mueller could speak up* to say that the redactions were dishonest.” But look at what happened yesterday. Barr shamelessly lied about the contents and conclusions of a report that he knew was going to be released to the public that same day.
Barr is absolutely fine with lying, and* he doesn’t care a whit if he’s caught doing it.*
And, undeniably, labeling vast swathes of redactions as “harm to ongoing matters” serves to pacify and placate the public. We think ‘oh, at least investigations into this awful Administration are still going on, and if we’re just patient…’
*Counting on Mueller to speak up to contradict his boss seems unwise. It’s a nice fantasy, but it’s unlikely to happen.
…Continuing on with my previous post, this casts Barr’s exoneration of Trump on the obstruction of justice charge in a different light than he is trying to frame it. He is trying to frame it essentially as “Mueller’s report left the call to me”. However, the actual fact is that Mueller’s report made the call: He does not believe the justice department can exonerate Trump on the obstruction of justice charge. End of story, since apart from this no other conclusion is appropriate for them to draw.
So, Barr’s exoneration should be seen for what it is: Clearly contradicting the conclusion of the Mueller report that such an exoneration cannot be made.
If Mueller believed that Justice Dept. could not indict a sitting President, why would he think that the AttyGen could? Therefore, there is no chance that he was acknowledging Barr’s power to make that decision and placing the evidence humbly before him.
Giuliani: Counter-report Will Deal With Barr’s Decision on Obstruction
So, in other words, the President’s personal attorney is going to be interpreting what the Attorney General of the United States is saying.
Newsmax! Aaaiieeee! Unclean! Unclean!
I figured this one out. They are just redacting references to POTUS obstruction of Roger Stone’s case. Because they actually redacted Stone’s name out of the text of a rambling Trump speech (or maybe it was a tweet). And it was easy to find the original. And if they are redacting everything relevant to Stones upcoming trial I think we will find that explains a LOT of the redactions.
This is OT for this thread but is there a thread here or article somewhere that really gives helpful suggestions about how to try to change things as just a lowly citizen who is now an unpaid and unwilling employee of the United States of tRump.
Because all I ever see is call your representatives (not likely to do much since I’m in Texas and nothing will detach the GOP’s lips from tRump’s butt anyway). Vote - doesn’t make a difference in Texas. Run for local office - how am I supposed to do that? Etc.
Over 30% of the Texas delegation to Congress is Democrats. They didn’t get elected by Republicans. If you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain.
I’m wondering what law school Giuliani attended.
“The law is how can you possibly have an obstruction when you didn’t commit a crime. You’re being investigated for a crime you didn’t commit, and all of the things they’re accusing you of, you did in order to defend yourself.”
So, if, say, a friend of mine commits a murder and I bribe a juror at his trial to find him not guilty, it’s okay because I’m not accused of murder and he owes me a thousand bucks he won’t be able to pay back 'cause he’s in prison. That’s some pretzel logic, there.
Why doesn’t he just come out and say the president can do whatever he wants and that the rule of law in this nation is now null and void? Some animals are more equal than others. It’d stir up the rubes but at least it’d be honest.
Yeah, Texas is one of the most active states in terms of political churning currently happening. There are some super exciting progressive movements in Texas at the moment—and no, they’re not going to make Texas majority Democratic in the immediate future, but they can make some changes.
One tarnished-silver lining in the current political cloud is that the Trump administration is pursuing so many bad objectives that hurt so many people so seriously as to make it possible for a quite limited pushback effort to have a positive effect on real people’s lives. Skypist, look for a local “resistance” group near you and see what they’re up to, whether it’s protesting at individual deportation hearings or a letter-writing campaign or whatever.
When Trump was elected, and so many were freaking out about the end of the country as we know it, I predicted that it would be the best thing to happen to the democrats and progressvies in years.
I support Bernie. Even if he got the nomination and lost to Trump, and I think he could win, Trump winning again would not be the worst thing ever. He will be the lamest lame duck ever, he will have no broad support for anything he says or does, even the more moderate Republicans know he’s an idiot, and maybe the Dems will take the Senate. With perhaps a few more progressives in both the House and Senate. It’s a gamble. If Bernie runs and loses, we won’t see another progressive candidate for years. It’s a chance worth taking.
Trump will be like Nixon, completely isolated in the White House. But instead of talking to pictures of past Presidents, he will be talking to Sean Hannity, and further dividing the Republcian Party. Any Republican who supports him will look like an idiot to moderate Republcans and Democrats, and those who don’t will be looked upon as traitors by the Tea Partiers.
Now if the Republicans take back the House, game over.
Here’s a color-coded chart of Trump’s possible obstruction offenses and Mueller’s analysis of the three prongs of the statute: obstructive act, nexus and intent.
The five-year statute of limitation on obstruction means that if Trump is re-elected he is safe, unless impeached, but if he loses in 2020, then he faces obstruction charges, unless pardoned.
I vote but it always goes down the toilet. We’re overrun by Repubs in this state. Our governor is awful and so was the one before him and the one before him (you might have heard of the latter two…). Somehow people in this state love a governor who rejected the Medicaid expansion because he hates the populace. And of course we get Ted Cruz over and over again too.
What I mean is voting is not enough, but I’m not sure anything else is, either.
I hear ya, Skypist, especially about Abbott, but consider this: yes, Ted Cruz was re-elected, but it was close. Much closer than it would have been 10 years ago. Dan Patrick’s re-election was very close as well. Neither of them have any scandals in their backgrounds (unlike Ken Paxton) and yet they had to fight hard to win. I think it’s because they are both loathsome individuals and that R was just barely enough to save them. And I will offer you this small data point. When the primary of 2008 came to Texas, the race was still up in the air between and Obama and Clinton. Democrats were warned to be prepared for long lines at the polls. I walked into my precinct polling location and there was one person ahead of me. I said to the poll worker, “I thought there were supposed to be long lines at the Democratic locations.” She laughed and said, “Not in this precinct.” Ten years later, in 2018, my district ousted Pete Sessions and elected Colin Allred. I’m not saying Texas is turning blue, not in the next two years anyway, but I am saying that the R’s have to try now. Obnoxious candidates like Cruz and Patrick struggle and Trump is even more obnoxious and loathsome than both of them. Texas probably won’t be blue in November of 2020, but stranger things have happened (like Trump winning in the first place), so it’s worth trying.
Has anyone seen an explanation on why the statute of limitations clock continues to run, even though the ‘alleged perpetrator’ CANNOT be charged?
I thought that in cases where charges must be delayed for some valid reason (such as being President + the DoJ rule), the clock would be stopped for that period of time, then resume when the valid reason no longer applies.
For some reason my searches aren’t coming up with this.