Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians, according to US officials

[Sage_Rat]

@ThisIsTheEnd

Wonder if he can be called as a witness.

28 CFR 600.8
(c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

I assume that he can be, but I also assume that there are laws about what sorts of things he is allowed to reveal, based on the information he has seen. You could ask him if he’s seen Trump’s finances, and it would probably be legal for him to say, “Yes.” But if you ask him to describe Trump’s finances, he would probably cite privacy laws.

Maybe you could ask him something to the effect of, “Are Trump’s statements about his personal finances broadly truthful?” And maybe Mueller could justify a yes/no response if the line of questioning was to establish Donald Trump’s character in an ethics hearing. I don’t know that you would be able to get much more than that. (Though, I’m not a lawyer, so take that description with a grain of salt.)

[Defensive_Indifference]

@Little_Nemo

But taking outright bribes? That’s where a lot of people are going to draw the line. That’s where you go from working with the Russians to working for the Russians.

I fear that disappointingly few people will in fact draw the line there. With the benefit of a larger sample size, I think we’ve learned that the Crazification Factor is, depressingly, closer to 40% than to 27%.

[ThisIsTheEnd]

@Sage_Rat

I assume that he can be, but I also assume that there are laws about what sorts of things he is allowed to reveal, based on the information he has seen. You could ask him if he’s seen Trump’s finances, and it would probably be legal for him to say, “Yes.” But if you ask him to describe Trump’s finances, he would probably cite privacy laws.

Maybe you could ask him something to the effect of, “Are Trump’s statements about his personal finances broadly truthful?” And maybe Mueller could justify a yes/no response if the line of questioning was to establish Donald Trump’s character in an ethics hearing. I don’t know that you would be able to get much more than that. (Though, I’m not a lawyer, so take that description with a grain of salt.)

Yeah. Most of the time, the value is in the insinuation in the questions rather than the answers anyway.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

I clicked on this thread expecting a flurry of very recent activity.

[Sage_Rat]

A curious question that I would wonder about Mueller is where he lands on the question of crime versus impeachment.

Again, the people over at Lawfare have made a number of explanations in impeachable offenses and they have made the general statement that criminality and impeachability are two different and only loosely linked things.

Impeachability means that you are not honorable and cannot be expected to fulfill your oath of office.

Certain crimes (and certainly all violent crimes and many white collar crimes) are implicitly impeachable. They demonstrate that you are not honorable and cannot be expected to safeguard the rule of law, given that you clearly think nothing of the law.

But there are a slew of things outside of crime that still tell us that this person is not able, willing, or interested in serving their oath.

It may well be that there was no secret Russian collusion. But there was public Russian collusion.

Protecting the integrity of the national vote against foreign influence is a really central component of national security. Running the Department of Justice in a manner that focuses on the rule of law, rather than on petty grievances and political strategy, is integral to the basic oath of office. Reporting crimes when you are aware of them to the relevant authorities is a basic expected action of a man who cares about the law.

In the realm of impeachable offenses, DJT is an easy target. There’s no shortage of things to take him up in front of the Senate for that are clear and obvious indications that the President is not concerned with the rule of law, is not concerned with his oath of office, doesn’t care about the democratic process, and only cares about national security to the extent that it matters to his personal security.

And so it would be interesting to know how Mueller is looking at this.

Is he purely and exclusively looking at criminal behavior as sides to a national security investigation, and where the “national security” side of things is limited to Russia interference? Or, is he talking the larger view that national security includes the expectation of an Executive who can be expected to preserve the rule of law, and if that is in danger then that merits investigation in the realm of “impeachability”. It would be in the same sense that he’s investigating crimes only because they became apparent during an investigation into unrelated matters and the law allows that. In this case, he would be investigating impeachable offenses simply because they became apparent as part of an unrelated investigation.

Does Mueller consider those to be similar things? Would he go that extra step?

Unfortunately, I feel like he wouldn’t unless Rosenstein, Burr, McConnell, or someone told him to do so as part of his work.

I don’t know that I trust that they did so.

[ThisIsTheEnd]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

I clicked on this thread expecting a flurry of very recent activity.

You talking about his tweet about Flynn?

You can’t expect everybody to stay on top of that when there are Peter Griffin-vs-Chicken type fights going on over whether you can fill a hole with another hole.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@iiandyiiii

I think that was the thing he plead guilty for lying about, but based on what I’m seeing on TV, he will testify that he was ordered to contact the Russians during the campaign (thus long before December).

But haven’t seen confirmation of this.

Surprised (OK, maybe not all that surprised :)) that there’s been no follow up on this in this thread. Turns out that this report was incorrect enough that the guy who made it was suspended for 4 months over it. Been reported all over the place, Trump tweeting like mad about it, etc.

Random cite: Brian Ross suspended by ABC after erroneous Trump report - The Washington Post

[RickJay]

Honestly I didn’t even notice that report. You cannot keep up with the scandals if you so much as sleep in one morning.

@Sage Rat

n the realm of impeachable offenses, DJT is an easy target. There’s no shortage of things to take him up in front of the Senate for that are clear and obvious indications that the President is not concerned with the rule of law, is not concerned with his oath of office, doesn’t care about the democratic process, and only cares about national security to the extent that it matters to his personal security.

And so it would be interesting to know how Mueller is looking at this

But I don’t think it’s Robert Mueller’s job at all to decide if the President should be impeached. It is his job to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.

Mueller could of course inform the correct persons and committees in Congress that there is evidence the President has committed crimes, and that he feels obliged to present them with that evidence in the appropriate manner. However, I do not believe it would be appropriate for him to recommend impeachment. As you alluded to, “high crimes” as mentioned in the Constitution does not mean “really serious crimes.” It means “wrongdoing that is specific to a person in a position of authority,” and such a wrongdoing might be a criminal offense, but it could quite conceivably not technically be a criminal offense. Quite frankly, there is already publically available evidence Trump has committed high crimes for which he could be justifiably impeached.

It still comes down to the fact that Congress decides what an impeachable offense is, not Robert Mueller. That’s not his job.

[ElvisL1ves]

@RickJay

But I don’t think it’s Robert Mueller’s job at all to decide if the President should be impeached. It is his job to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.

It wasn’t Ken Starr’s job either. But that’s the precedent now, along with the anti-Constitutional notion that impeachment is just the criminal-justice process for Presidents.

[RickJay]

But Starr didn’t decide to impeach Bill Clinton. Congress did. Starr filed the report he was commissioned to file, and it was the House that chose to pass articles of impeachment.

[Sage_Rat]

@ElvisL1ves

It wasn’t Ken Starr’s job either. But that’s the precedent now, along with the anti-Constitutional notion that impeachment is just the criminal-justice process for Presidents.

Yep. Damn that independent counselor who investigated Obama/Bush/Bush!

[ElvisL1ves]

@RickJay

But Starr didn’t decide to impeach Bill Clinton. Congress did. Starr filed the report he was commissioned to file, and it was the House that chose to pass articles of impeachment.

He filed that $40 million porn novel, er, “report” with the House, not a court. Just barely in time to let them get the impeachment done in a lame-duck session while the Republicans could still scrape the votes together.

And we don’t even need to get into his collaboration with the Scaife/Jones team, but you could Google “midnight Denny’s” if you want to.

[John_Mace]

Yeah, that Ken Starr, obeying the law and shit by submitting reports to Congress.

BTW, it does appear to be (have been?) the IC’s job to inform the House about impeachable offenses:

(c)Information Relating to Impeachment.—
An independent counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible information which such independent counsel receives, in carrying out the independent counsel’s responsibilities under this chapter, that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. Nothing in this chapter or section 49 of this title shall prevent the Congress or either House thereof from obtaining information in the course of an impeachment proceeding.

[ElvisL1ves]

He was going to file criminal charges any day now, right? :rolleyes: I think you know better.

“Impeachable offenses”, as you know, can be anything at all; deciding what they are or are not is not a prosecutor’s purview but the House’s.

[John_Mace]

So, the IC is charged with informing the House of what might be impeachable offenses, but he can’t decide what he thinks such offenses might be. That makes sense.

Of course the final decision is that of the House. But the law (at the time; not sure it’s still in effect) was clear. I don’t understand what you are arguing about.

[ElvisL1ves]

Maybe it will help us clear up your problem if you tell us what you think the job of a prosecutor is, then.

[John_Mace]

If you want to comment on the law I already cited, that might be of interest. As it is, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, so I’ve said all I intend to say on this matter, unless Ravenman has something he’d like add or comment about.

[ElvisL1ves]

@John_Mace

If you want to comment on the law I already cited, that might be of interest.

Are you under the impression that a special prosecutor is not there to prosecute, but to rationalize impeachment? Seriously?

you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing

so I’ve said all I intend to say on this matter, unless Ravenman has something he’d like add or comment about.

It’s an interesting topic that you admit you don’t understand, but if you’d rather flounce off than clear it up, that’s your right.

[Sage_Rat]

@John_Mace

Yeah, that Ken Starr, obeying the law and shit by submitting reports to Congress.

BTW, it does appear to be (have been?) the IC’s job to inform the House about impeachable offenses:

That is a different mission statement than the one given to Robert Mueller though. He would basically need to decide to do that on his own, unless we are to assume that Rosenstein gave him more orders beyond the written order.

My guess would be that Rosenstein did not, but if he’s getting regular reports on the investigation and hears about things that sound just horribly fishy, he could ask Mueller to include a general impeachable offenses folder beyond the criminal folder.

[John_Mace]

@Sage_Rat

That is a different mission statement than the one given to Robert Mueller though. He would basically need to decide to do that on his own, unless we are to assume that Rosenstein gave him more orders beyond the written order.

My guess would be that Rosenstein did not, but if he’s getting regular reports on the investigation and hears about things that sound just horribly fishy, he could ask Mueller to include a general impeachable offenses folder beyond the criminal folder.

I believe that was the US code that applied to Ken Starr (who was being discussed as well). IIRC, the law either expired or changed, which is why I was hedging as to whether or not it applied to Mueller.