Epstein Files => Trump Impeachment & Conviction?

[moes_lotion]

I’m reading mixed signals from your linked article, with Comer sounding like he’d be happy to let her slide. I guess it’s going to be up to the 4 Republican members who voted for the subpoena to remain as vertebrae possessors.

[dtilque]

@DigitalC

Nope, this is 100% based on his expectation of the impossible.

Exactly. Trump wants his enemies prosecuted and Bondi failed to do that. Most of that is because the targets didn’t actually commit the crimes they were accused of, but some was that the prosecutors Bondi hired were incompetent. Will the new AG (Blanche, I assume) be able to hire competent prosecutors? I have doubts.

[DigitalC]

Also probably he wanted her to completely ignore the law and not release the Epstein files.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@DigitalC

Also probably he wanted her to completely ignore the law [and not release the Epstein files].

You could delete the [text] and be spot on.

[DWMarch]

Trump likes the law when he can use it to hurt other people. But he’s certain that there are no laws ever made anywhere by anyone that apply to him.

[Odesio]

@dtilque

Will the new AG (Blanche, I assume) be able to hire competent prosecutors? I have doubts.

The DOJ is having a hell of a time recruiting competent lawyers at this time. It’s so bad, they’re offering to hire lawyers straight out of law school instead of requiring them to have a few years of experience as a practicing attorney. I don’t see the situation changing for the DOJ any time soon.

[Sage_Rat]

DOJ wrote a decision that the Bondi subpoena doesn’t count as an official Congressional subpoena anymore, since she isn’t the AG:

Pam Bondi will not appear at scheduled House hearing on Epstein files, DoJ says

This, my friends, is the ozone smell of innocence.

[bobot]

If she no longer works for the DOJ, and this is a House subpoena, the DOJ’s opinion here is moot. Right?
(Alright, I’ll click the link
I like The Guardian.)

[ThelmaLou]

I posted this in the Clusterfuck thread, but since this thread just popped to the top, it really belongs here.

The question remains: what info about trump could be SO bad in the Epstein files? My speculation:

@ThelmaLou

As you point out, we already know he’s a rapist and a con man, and we already know that he is a lying sack of shit. He doesn’t care about any of that. So I don’t think it’s any of those things.

In his mind, excuse the expression, what is the worst thing that the world could find out about him? Think hard…

That’s right: that he is a loser.

Okay, please excuse the disgusting scenario I’m about to present.

He brags that he can have his way with adult women, that he can even grab them and they let him and even like it, because he’s rich and famous. They want things from him and he can deliver.

Maybe the preteens he met at Epstein functions weren’t impressed by his fame or money. Maybe he just disgusted them and they ran from whatever room he was in. Maybe none of the girl toys that Epstein tried to provide wanted anything to do with him. Maybe he was a complete failure in the, I don’t know what to call it, and I don’t even want to come up with a name for it. But maybe in the world of Epstein he was a complete social LOSER. And maybe people made fun of him because of that. Maybe they laughed, and pointed, and stared, and ridiculed him.

Okay, to go even lower, maybe there was a rating system, public or private. And it’s documented formally and informally in the Epstein papers. And maybe he consistently came out with the lowest score of all time in Epstein World. Now that would be personally humiliating: documentation that Donnie was not the most popular boy at the party. In fact that nobody wanted to hang around with him and people felt free to gossip and make fun of him and criticize everything about his appearance, performance, speech, smell, if he had it back then. Okay I’m going to stop now

I need to go take a shower.

And possibly arrange a lobotomy.

[TroutMan]

@bobot

If she no longer works for the DOJ, and this is a House subpoena, the DOJ’s opinion here is moot

The subpoena specifically refers to her as Attorney General, so I suppose you can make the argument that it no longer applies. I have no idea if that’s a good argument.

But the obvious solution would seem to be to issue a new subpoena to her as former AG with direct knowledge of the investigation and her actions during it, right? They can subpoena whoever they want, can’t they?

[bobot]

I’m no lawyer, but if this is the same country I was born into in 1969 in Joliet IL., then there are no people who are above the law.
If it’s the same country.

[Joey_P]

@TroutMan

But the obvious solution would seem to be to issue a new subpoena to her as former AG with direct knowledge of the investigation and her actions during it, right? They can subpoena whoever they want, can’t they?

Would they offer her immunity in exchange for her spilling everything she knows? Both about the files as well as the pressure from above to make said files go away? Would it even matter?

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@TroutMan

But the obvious solution would seem to be to issue a new subpoena to her as former AG

Just use a sharpie on the original subpoena, and write in “FORMER”. That should be sufficient.

[Joey_P]

Now I’m wondering if there’s any chance Trump fired her to give her a fighting chance at squirming out of this subpoena. All part of the cover up.
I have to assume, one way or another, they’ll make this stick. Even if she doesn’t show up, it won’t be because the subpoena wasn’t considered valid. If not, that could mean that you can get out of a subpoena by quitting your job. Which would be bad both because it would not only mean you could get out of a subpoena, it would also mean subpoenas could be used as a tool to try and get people to resign.
OTOH, maybe this is something that could be fixed by addressing people by their name only and not including their job title or adding that this is their job title as of today’s date and even if they no longer carry that title in the future, the subpoena is still valid.

[enipla]

Can she go to jail for contempt of congress? Could Trump pardon some one for contempt charges?

[Joey_P]

@enipla

Can she go to jail for contempt of congress?

I assume that will depend on whether or not the subpoena is considered valid.

@enipla

Could Trump pardon some one for contempt charges?

I found this page:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/#ALDF_00022681

Which has this as a footnote:

Jump to essay-14Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 122 (1925). Other possible limitations—for instance, whether the President may issue a self-pardon or pardon contempt of Congress—have been the subject of debate but have not been addressed by the Supreme Court. E.g., Paul F. Eckstein & Mikaela Colby, Presidential Pardon Power: Are There Limits and, If Not, Should There Be?, 51 Ariz. St. L.J. 71, 97–100 (2019) (surveying arguments regarding authority to self-pardon); Charles D. Berger, The Effect of Presidential Pardons on Disclosure of Information: Is Our Cynicism Justified?, 52 Okla. L. Rev. 163, 181 (1999) (describing pardon of Dr. Francis Townsend for contempt of Congress, without court challenge, during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt).

Another thought, if Trump were to pardon her, not for a contempt charge, but just a blanket pardon for everything she did while she was AG, could she be compelled to testify without invoking her 5th Amendment right? I guess that could be more of a general question. Does a presidential pardon mean you can’t hide behind the 5th amendment the way an immunity deal does? Can someone reject a presidential pardon?

[kenobi_65]

@Joey_P

I assume that will depend on whether or not the subpoena is considered valid.

As well as whether the Department of Justice (which, AIUI, would be the body responsible for enforcing such a contempt charge) is willing to pursue it. In the current administration, I think that that’s questionable, at best.

[enipla]

@kenobi_65

In the current administration, I think that that’s questionable, at best.

Shit. That would NEVER happen.

What surprises me is why haven’t there been leaks? Oh a couple of women have come forward, but it should be a flood.

And there are dozens that have seen these files, why is nobody talking? Afraid for their lives?

[Joey_P]

I’ve been saying the same thing for a while now. Enough people must’ve had their hands on these files. I would have thought, but I really don’t know, that it wouldn’t be that difficult to leak it. Send a USB drive to someone in another country and have them upload it to wikileaks.

In fact, I posted this last December:

@Joey_P

Hypothetically, if anyone or, preferably, multiple people, have access to these files, this would be the time for someone to leak them. Right now, before the end of the day. I’d like to think whatever is in those files will be such a big deal that looking for the person that leaked them, on the day they were due to be released anyways, would be overlooked. Especially if the person does it in an, at least somewhat, covert way.

Now, regarding Melania’s denial of having anything to do with Epstein. I don’t know if people are joking or not, but I’ve seen comments that Trump has gone full circle and trying to use the Epstein files as a distraction from his war.
I’ve also seen posts suggesting that people in the White House are mad that she did that since the media coverage of the Epstein Files was starting to die down.

[PhillyGuy]

Bill Kristol got it right this time:

Melania Throws Donald Under the Bus

And so she asserted that “I have never been friends with Epstein” and that “I . . . was never on Epstein’s plane.” She also claimed that “My email reply to [Epstein’s imprisoned accomplice Gislaine] Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence. My polite reply to her email doesn’t amount to anything more than a trivial note.”

Left unsaid, but not unimplied, was that none of these claims could be made about her husband. He was a pal of Epstein’s. He was on Epstein’s plane. His relationship with Epstein, as exemplified for example in his contribution to Epstein’s birthday book, was more than “casual” or “trivial.”

I’ve read a claim that Melania’s press conference was because she knows some big new Epstein revelation is about to come out. But maybe her press conference is just because she had a argument with her husband the night before, and wanted to get back at him.