That’s the thing I like best about Mueller. It’s reasonable to assume he knows what he’s doing. He and his team might be the only people in Washington of whom that can be said.
Screw that. If Trump leaves office in, say, mid-2019, that gives Pence and other halfway-competent Republicans a year and a half to cement the “gains” and put a semi-professional gloss on what many on the right see as a successful administration.
This is not a successful administration. It’s a dumpster fire on a train crashing into a radioactive cesspool. If Trump can be linked criminally to the crimes Mueller seems to be closing in on, he and every scumbag who helped put him in office deserves to suffer the full civil, financial, criminal and political consequences. The nation will survive.
It’s the survival of the nation I’m worried about. Pence would be a bad President but he wouldn’t destroy the country. Trump might.
Fine. But he only gets the pardon if he confesses, under oath, to everything. And Hillary gets to piss on him.
That is beautiful. Sir, you are a poet.
I think that Pence is so implicated in this situation that he is not going to be the efficacious right wing avenger we envision if he gets in. It will be a long mess. Lets face it: the last thing on his resume was this.
I can just imagine Donald twitter-threatening to withdraw his resignation if the caretaker does not have one of those round-the-table Praise Trump sessions before the pardon announcement… “So very disrespectful…”
But then again, no way he quits. He’s getting carried out of the WH on a stretcher, or dragged out by his succesor’s security detail.
And what if Trump and Pence both go down? President Paul Ryan? Three years ago, I might have thought that didn’t sound so bad.
You misspelled “Pelosi”.
Does jeopardy attach in the event of a pardon?
I read an article recently by someone who seemed to know what he was talking about that claimed that Manafort could be tried in New York on state charges essentially identical to the federal charges on which the jury was hung because jeopardy was not attached. This makes sense to me because he could be retried at the federal level on those counts.
I guess my question is: Would the state of New York consider that a pardon for a crime that was never tried on the federal level mean that the defendant had been legally in jeopardy for that crime?
How about now?
Indeed. As I said in another thread, if House investigators are able to verify the Buzzfeed story, how can the House not impeach?
Because Clinton!
And also, fuck you, make me!
At this point it’s not getting the House to impeach, it’s getting the Senate to convict, and the silence is deafening over there right now.
There has to be some official imprimatur, some inescapable conclusion from an official source, preferably the Mueller Report and even more preferably the bringing of an actual criminal indictment of Individual-1, to make the process inevitable and any other conclusion look irresponsible. But not Buzzfeed.
Anything short of that would look like impeachment is already decided as soon as a basis for it can be found or manufactured, as it was with Clinton. That only lets it all look like partisan spite, lets the Regressives and the Bothsidesers handwave it as such, and delegitimizes the gravest tool of statecraft in the Constitution.
Hence “if House investigators are able to verify the Buzzfeed story.”
Sure, the Senate’s ultimately the real obstacle, but we still need to get the House past the “why bother to impeach, if nothing’s going to happen in the Senate” mindset. If the evidence justifies serious charges, it’s essential for the health of our democracy that the House impeach, regardless of what the Senate might or might not do. The House would have to put this baby on the Senate’s doorstep; what the Senate would do then is on Mitch’s head.
Yes, put the evidence out there and let the Senate Republican either vote to remove, or force those Senators to go on record supporting criminal activity.
Sure, being impeached helped Clinton’s numbers with the general public. But there is no way Trump’s popularity will likewise be improved by an impeachment trial. Most of the country dislikes the guy, seeing all of the evidence laid out in front of them won’t help.
I’ve been hesitant to support impeachment, but if this Buzzfeed article is true, that’s criminal shit, and I suspect that’s just the tip o’ the iceberg.
I’m generally against impeachment unless there is fairly good evidence that the Senate will convict (or at least get close - so 10+ GOPers looking like patriots).
But I don’t think the Clinton parallels are all that strong. He was fairly popular going in, and he was being impeached (in the pre-#METO era) for lying about what was apparently a consensual blowjob.
Trump is being chased for thing that are crimes on their own, and is not generally popular. It will probably prop him up with his base, but given good external evidence, I don’t think he’ll see a Clinton bump even if not convicted.
I get that. But it would still be House (Pelosi, Democratic) investigators doing it, and could still be dismissed as partisan by the deniers.