The Mueller investigation leads to a Trump impeachment -- How does it go down?

[snoe]

@begbert2

Is there any reason Trump can’t announce “I pardon everyone I know for all past (federal) crimes!” (Or “everyone everywhere”, even) and have it take?

You have to accept a pardon to have it take, AIUI. Burdick v. United States - Wikipedia

Plus, though I have a very low opinion of Trump’s staff/inner circle, I’m skeptical that he could find someone willing to draft/type up a sweeping pardon of either kind you propose :D. (At this point, these people are all getting professional legal advice, right?)

[Bone]

I now think there is a greater than 50% chance that Trump won’t serve his entire term.

[ElvisL1ves]

That would seem to be a given. It’s less clear if he gets a full *year *in office.

I don’t see impeachment happening in a GOP Congress; rather, there will be enough information from Mueller that charges are about to be filed to induce either them or the Cabinet to decide he’s incapacitated, and go with the 25th Amendment route for the first time outside Hollywood.

[silenus]

@Bricker

No.

The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled testimony being used against a defendant. One jurisdiction in our federal system may not compel a witness to give testimony which might incriminate him under the laws of another jurisdiction. This was made clear in Murphy v. Waterfront Commission.

The state AGs can prosecute any violations of state law, to be sure, but the testimony given by the accused in federal court could not be used against him in state court, not could evidence derived from that testimony be used, and the burden rests on the government to prove the evidence was NOT derived from the testimony (Kastigar v. US).

This is true only in your scenario. If the accused chooses to testify in a federal proceeding, as opposed to being compelled, then his testimony is fair game in state court.

Thank you. That not only answered my question, but the one I was going to ask next.

I’m trying to get my background on the legal issues straight not only for myself, but for my seniors, who go back to school next Thursday. I am sure they will be rather curious.

Addendum: Could a “person of interest” who has gotten a Presidential pardon, during compelled testimony before Congress, just outright admit to committing all sorts of state crimes, giving locations, times, witnesses, evidence, etc. as a way of blocking state prosecution? Seems to me if he were thorough enough, the state would find it very difficult to prove anything they had as evidence wasn’t derived from his testimony. Especially if the guy copped to crimes the state hadn’t even considered yet.

[MEBuckner]

@ElvisL1ves

That would seem to be a given. It’s less clear if he gets a full *year *in office.

I don’t see impeachment happening in a GOP Congress; rather, there will be enough information from Mueller that charges are about to be filed to induce either them or the Cabinet to decide he’s incapacitated, and go with the 25th Amendment route for the first time outside Hollywood.

However, the 25th Amendment route would still (probably*) require Congress to step up and do its damned job:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

If anything, this is a bigger hurdle than impeachment (and conviction); impeachment only requires a majority in the House, and two-thirds of the Senate to convict, whereas the 25th Amendment requires a two-thirds vote of both House and Senate to confirm that the President is truly “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”.

*I say “probably”; I guess Trump could just say “Ah, fuck it!” and just spend the rest of “his” term golfing and pretending to drive big trucks while Mike Pence serves as Acting President. (“But I’m still President, right? He’s just the ‘Acting’ President; but I’m still the President! Did you see how big the crowd was at my inauguration?” We could have our very own American Regency! The Madness of President Trump.) It doesn’t seem very likely; but then again, with this guy, who the hell can tell?

[carnivorousplant]

@MEBuckner

*I say “probably”; I guess Trump could just say “Ah, fuck it!” and just spend the rest of “his” …pretending to drive big trucks

Pretending to drive big trucks?
What have I missed?

[Fretful_Porpentine]

@carnivorousplant

Pretending to drive big trucks?
What have I missed?

The President and the Big Boy Truck.

[carnivorousplant]

Jesus.

Er, thanks!

[k9bfriender]

@begbert2

Is there any reason Trump can’t announce “I pardon everyone I know for all past (federal) crimes!” (Or “everyone everywhere”, even) and have it take?

'Cause if I was Trump, the minute anybody hinted they were going to impeach me, I’d threaten to announce that in the last minutes prior to the impeachment vote. I’d threaten this because I’m an asshole, but he’s one too, so it seems plausible he might do it if he’s able to muster enough brain cells to think of it.

Does pardoning himself get him out of civil liabilities or other financial penalties?

He may think he’s smart, getting out of office without going to jail, but if he is sitting in the shadow of Trump tower in a cardboard box the rest of his short miserable life, he won’t be laughing.

[k9bfriender]

@silenus

Thank you. That not only answered my question, but the one I was going to ask next.

I’m trying to get my background on the legal issues straight not only for myself, but for my seniors, who go back to school next Thursday. I am sure they will be rather curious.

Addendum: Could a “person of interest” who has gotten a Presidential pardon, during compelled testimony before Congress, just outright admit to committing all sorts of state crimes, giving locations, times, witnesses, evidence, etc. as a way of blocking state prosecution? Seems to me if he were thorough enough, the state would find it very difficult to prove anything they had as evidence wasn’t derived from his testimony. Especially if the guy copped to crimes the state hadn’t even considered yet.

The presidential pardon would not cover state crimes, so he would be just confessing at that point.

ETA: That is, if he is admitting to crimes that he was not asked about.

[asahi]

@Bone

I now think there is a greater than 50% chance that Trump won’t serve his entire term.

That thought fluttered through my head yesterday, competing for my attention span with myriad other trivia. But then I immediately reverted back to a thought I had a few weeks ago when Trump first started openly tossing the Mueller red line spaghetti against the wall to see if it would stick. I may be wrong on this - none of us has a crystal ball - but I would be surprised if Trump doesn’t use brute force to stop Mueller and all investigators. It would send massive political shockwaves and I think he gets it on some level, but I also think he can’t help be up at night thinking about the legal jeopardy he and his family are in. He’s a cornered animal.

My guess is that he is going to be doing rally after raucous, populist rally in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Idaho - you name it. I think he tipped his hand weeks before the election when he went out and claimed to his frothy-mouthed supporters that Hillary was going to rig the election and steal their votes from them, and I suspect we’ll be hearing a lot about how congress and the deep state are trying to overturn their elections, trying to allow foreigners to invade, trying to stop him from bringing back steel and coal, trying to murder babies and ban Jesus. If the political crisis gets too close and too personal from him, I suspect his answer will be to do what he can create a political crisis in the minds of his supporters.

Right now, Trump is in danger of losing the senate and he may have already lost it irrevocably (at least for the moment). But he has the House, and the House has elections in a little over a year. He might try to use the House to work the Senate.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@silenus

Seems to me if he were thorough enough, the state would find it very difficult to prove anything they had as evidence wasn’t derived from his testimony. Especially if the guy copped to crimes the state hadn’t even considered yet.

Hopefully Bricker will clarify, but I think you’re maybe misinterpreting what it means for evidence to be “derived” from someone’s testimony.

If the state can show that they would have discovered the evidence anyway, then they can use it.

Imagine if it were otherwise: Upon realizing that you’re being interrogated but haven’t been mirandized, you recount your crime in minute detail. But if, say, you murdered someone in your bathtub and forensics can find blood there, the fact that you told the police about it in a way that your testimony would be excluded doesn’t protect you, because the police are of course going to look for blood in your house if you’re a murder suspect.

[silenus]

I thought it would be too simple otherwise. Guess it was just random thoughts without reasoning it out.

[AlsoNamedBort]

@asahi

My guess is that he is going to be doing rally after raucous, populist rally in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Idaho - you name it. I think he tipped his hand weeks before the election when he went out and claimed to his frothy-mouthed supporters that Hillary was going to rig the election and steal their votes from them, and I suspect we’ll be hearing a lot about how congress and the deep state are trying to overturn their elections, trying to allow foreigners to invade, trying to stop him from bringing back steel and coal, trying to murder babies and ban Jesus. If the political crisis gets too close and too personal from him, I suspect his answer will be to do what he can create a political crisis in the minds of his supporters.

He pretty much did that in WV yesterday:

Russia story is a total fabrication. It is just an excuse for the greatest loss in the history of American politics. That’s all it is. It is just makes them feel better what they have nothing else to talk about. What the prosecutor should be look at are Hillary Clinton’s 33 ,000 deleted e-mails, and they should be looking at the paid Russian speeches. And the owned Russian companies. Or let them look at at the uranium she sold that’s now in the hands of very angry Russians most people know there were no Russians in our campaign. There never were. We didn’t win because of Russia. We won because of you. That I can tell you. We won because we totally out worked the other side. We won because millions of patriotic Americans voted to take back their country. Have you seen any Russians in west Virginia or Ohio or Pennsylvania? Are there any Russians here tonight? Any Russians? They can’t beat us at the voting booths. They are trying to cheat you out of the future and the touch that you want. **They are trying to cheat you out of the leadership that you want with a fake story that is demeaning to all of us and most importantly, demeaning to our country and demeaning to our constitution. I just hope the final determination is a truly honest one. **

[MEBuckner]

@Fretful_Porpentine

The President and the Big Boy Truck.

He also got to play with a Real Life Fire Truck!

He has the Best Job Ever!

[carnivorousplant]

@asahi

Right now, Trump is in danger of losing the senate and he may have already lost it irrevocably (at least for the moment). But he has the House, and the House has elections in a little over a year. He might try to use the House to work the Senate.

How does one lose the Senate, yet keep the House?

[Chimera]

House members are beholden to the people in their districts, which are, for the most part, gerrymandered in red states. They have little to fear.

Senators however, are elected by the vote of the entire state. Republican senators from blue or purple states don’t have a lot of leeway on backing an unpopular president.

[asahi]

@Chimera

House members are beholden to the people in their districts, which are, for the most part, gerrymandered in red states. They have little to fear.

Senators however, are elected by the vote of the entire state. Republican senators from blue or purple states don’t have a lot of leeway on backing an unpopular president.

Not only that, but Senators are elected every six years and this year the Democrats are the ones fighting not to lose ground. Who’s more likely to lose their seat: Ted Cruz (R-TX) or Claire McCaskill (D-MO)? The senators can come out and challenge Trump a little more directly. The gerrymandered House on the other hand is still much closer to Trumpland. If Trump is smart he would probably find a way to align himself with the Freedom Caucus and Paul Ryan and try to whip up districts into a frenzy.

[asahi]

@AlsoNamedBort

He pretty much did that in WV yesterday:

Read an article a few days ago saying that Bureau (and maybe other agency) employees have been told to prepare themselves to be witnesses to obstruction cases against high profile people, even possibly the Donald. I may be off here but it seems like this is part of Mueller’s strategy: don’t just make it Donald Trump against one or two people but President Trump against all of the agencies, one individual after another.

The odds of Trump surviving that not impossible but they are long, if for no other reason than the fact that Mueller and the Bureau could compel smaller fish to testify against the big fish. This is why I think Donald is going to go to the people here. He doesn’t trust the system, but he knows he has millions of fans, and that those fans vote and troll the media and politicians. And as I’ve said in other posts, expect a desperate Trump to find comfort in the company of others who feel desperate: right wing extremists who might not ordinarily see the light of day but who just might under a sympathetic chaos-driven president who’s fighting for his survival.

I also suspect there’s a reason why he wants generals in his cabinet and close at hand. The military is the ultimate lever of power in any government, including a democracy such as ours.

[ThisIsTheEnd]

I don’t know what rule or text in the law covers it, but presumably the Special Counsel publishes his findings publicly in full when he’s done or else what is the point.

So the findings are published.

The House Judiciary Committee decides whether to proceed at all. Of course, their decision isn’t dependent on any report from Special Counsel, they could do it today if they chose to. And once the Special Counsel report comes out, they can go ahead and say “nothing to see here.”

The makeup of the committee is currently 24 space aliens and 17 Dems. On the committee website, the space aliens photos are in color and the Dems are in black & white.

If they proceed, they draft article(s) of impeachment, hold a hearing(s) and vote on each article separately.

Any articles that get through the committee go into a bill that the whole House debates and votes on. House votes on each article separately.

Any articles passed go to the Senate for trial. Senate debates and votes on each article separately.

If convicted on any article, the President is removed from office.

Clinton:
Judiciary passed four articles:
I: Perjury
II: Perjury
III: Obstruction
IV: Obstruction

The whole House passed I and III, which became I and II in the Senate.

Senate voted 45 - 55 on I and 50 - 50 on II.