I hadn’t heard about that yet. Very buoying news indeed. 
It specifically requires Congressional review for the president to change it. That’s not a vote of confidence!
That said, the White house has apparently been trying to weaken the sanctions for some unknown treason.
The 2018 mid-terms will be very interesting…they could turn into a referendum on impeachment. “Either get rid of this clown, or we’ll find someone who will.”
I see what you did there.
The timing of this will be interesting. The GOP senate doesn’t have much to worry about right now-- their control of the senate is probably pretty safe. But if they lose the House, it’s a bad sign for them in 2020, especially since they really don’t know how bad this Trump scandal can get. Trump is of no use to the Senate if they lose the House.
That’s why you see the Senate furiously trying to get something - anything - done on an Obamacare repeal. Mitch McConnell has been pounding the podium for 7 goddamn years about repealing Obamacare – and his congressional now very likely going to have to go back to his home districts and say that they’ve got nothing. Not to mention there are now legions of people who are finally speaking up and saying “Get your hands off my Obamacare!”
I think the months between August and January will be critical for Trump, for several reasons. One, as mentioned, is that the Congress needs to pass some meaningful legislation, or at least be in the process of it, by August or early September. In the meantime, Trump had better hope that there isn’t more scandal between now and then, and that the economy holds. I don’t think they would wait until after 2018 to ditch Trump. For one thing, that’s too late to save their asses in congress, and for another, that’s too late for President Pence to gain footing for re-election. If it happens, I think it happens around the end of this year or early next.
Innocent typo. I swear. But not under oath.
You could always claim potential executive privilege for maybe-future executive privilege. I hear that works these days.
Along comes Trump and says, “Y’all are too MEAN! Make it better!” As I posted elsewhere:
Would that be somewhere left of Czar Nicholas II and to the right of Calvin Coolidge?
Philip Rucker, the WaPo’s White House bureau chief, got hold of the RNC’s talking points in response to the WaPo story.
They’re really kind of hilarious. First RNC bullet point:
“There is no case for obstruction of justice. This point has been made by legal scholars from both sides of the aisle over and over again.”
Numero uno, that’s why you have an investigation. To see if there’s a case, and nail down the evidence. Duuuh.
Numero two-o, Trump’s already said on multiple occasions that he fired Comey to shut down the Russia investigation. He even told the freakin’ Russians that! Given that underlying fact, if your best talking point is that legal scholars say that’s not sufficient evidence to prove obstruction of justice, you’ve already lost.
Second RNC bullet point:
“This story is nothing more than an example of even more leaks coming out of the FBI and special counsel’s office in an effort to undermine the President. These leaks are inexcusable, outrageous, and illegal. The leaks are the only crime here.”
Numero uno, if this is really a leak, then apparently this IS where the special prosecutor is going with this. Sure, let’s fight the PR battle on that terrain!
Numero two-o, leaks aren’t illegal in and of themselves. What law has been broken here?
Third RNC bullet point (no really, I’m not making this up!):
“Why is no one investigating Attorney General Lynch’s Department of Justice for obstruction of justice in the Clinton email investigation?”
Um, ask President Trump and AG Sessions. Your team has the ball now. Demand a full investigation, and if they don’t come through, demand that Congress impeach them, since they’re clearly part of the obstruction of justice! 
And that’s their first three bullet points. I didn’t cherry-pick. That’s their best foot forward.
Seth Abramson just posted a 100 (!) post Twitter thread on that very subject. That link goes to it.
Yah, the talking points are pretty much all bullshit.
No…
I started this reply to agree with you, but then I read your point (2).
So, point (1) is exactly correct. The evidence at present does not constitute obstruction of justice, but it certainly could be that an investigation would reveal additional evidence that WOULD.
But (2) does not work. The fact is that what he’s said is not sufficient to prove obstruction of justice, as you implicitly acknowledge above in point (1).
None that I’m aware of. Now, if there were a grand jury in session, then leaks arising from testimony would be illegal. But at present, I know of no law prohibiting these leaks.
I’m discussing RNC talking points. And I’m discussing them as talking points.
Sure, what Trump’s already said isn’t enough to convict him of obstruction of justice in a court of law.
But if that’s the best talking point the RNC has to convince the public that there’s nothing to see here, they’re screwed.
I suspect you may have misunderstood that talking point.
I believe they’re not saying here that there’s not enough “evidence” to prove that Trump obstructed justice. That’s not a matter for “legal scholars”. What they’re saying is that various legal scholars (e.g. Dershowitz et al) have asserted that even if Trump deliberately ordered various Russia investigations closed down or fired people for failing to do so, that does not constitute “obstruction of justice”, because he is the ultimate authority over the DOJ and under the law can do all these things. If this is correct, then investigating the facts to determine whether or not Trump ordered the Flynn investigation shut down or why he fired Comey is legally moot.
I believe other legal experts may disagree, but that’s apparently the position the RNC is taking, and your ostensible rebuttal seems to be a non-sequitor.
That’s one reading of the talking point, but it assumes that Mueller is only investigating these specific allegations, and not the possibility of other ways to obstruct justice that may have occurred.
The beauty in all this "investigating is two fold. It keeps the media taking about things negative to Trump, instead of his agenda, and it keeps Trump’s little mind busy defending himself instead of doing anything that can screw up the [del] country[/del] world. Keep the yam on the defensive for the next 3 1/2 years please.
Well there could always be bad things happening all over the place. You never know.
But pointing out that legal scholars have said that nothing hitherto alleged to have taken place amounts to obstruction of justice is a pretty good point as talking points go.
But there could be tons about the investigation we don’t know about. It’s only a good talking point if one presumes that pretty much everything about Mueller’s investigation is already public knowledge, which to me is a pretty silly presumption.
Depends what legal scholars you listen to. I’ve heard other scholars say that the president can tell the FBI “let’s lay off prosecution of marijuana offenses” and be within his rights but if he says “lay off prosecution of my friend” is too much even for a president.
You may well have heard legal experts say this is not obstruction. I have heard some say that it is a textbook example. I personally see very close parallels with Watergate with Comey playing the role of Archibald Cox.