[Discussion] The Mueller Report's Case For Impeaching Trump

With the Mueller Report now available, and I believe it makes the case for bringing articles of impeachment against Donald J. Trump now, and for Congress to decide his fate. This thread is intended to discuss whether the Mueller Report is a road map to impeachment.

The only reasons for impeachment to be discussed in this thread are cases of obstruction that Mueller believes meets the threshold of being a chargeable crime. Nothing going on in the SDNY or other investigations is relevant to this topic. This is only relevant to the Mueller Report's findings.

The Mueller Report makes a case that Trump repeatedly tried to obstruct justice, and provided a road map for congress to adjudicate these offenses. I believe this theory has merit, and we need to break this down to understand what Mueller is really telling us. The key to the theory are the three points that need to be proven to bring obstructions charges, as laid out by Mueller, and whether Mueller identifies acts that meet all three points.

From Slate:

The crime of obstruction of justice depends on proof of three basic points: first, actions intended to obstruct or impede an investigation; second, a nexus to an official inquiry; and third, a corrupt motive. Although a president may lawfully limit or even halt investigations for reasons genuinely related to the national interest, doing so to advance one’s partisan political prospects or to protect oneself or one’s family or friends from criminal exposure or personal embarrassment is to act corruptly.

The second volume of Mueller’s report lays out 10 different sequences of events that might amount to obstruction—from Trump’s efforts to convince FBI Director James Comey to let go of the investigation of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, to his repeated attempts to stop or limit the Mueller investigation, to his public and private efforts to induce witnesses Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Michael Cohen not to testify or to hew to Trump’s preferred view of reality.

Space precludes a blow-by-blow analysis of each of these categories, but Mueller’s conclusions—though guardedly, even opaquely, phrased—are evident and damning. He concludes that on multiple occasions Trump engaged in behavior that either did, or was intended to, obstruct or impede criminal investigations. As to some of the enumerated categories, Mueller concludes that, even if obstructive conduct occurred, there was insufficient evidence of “corrupt” motive. But as to at least five sequences of events, Mueller unmistakably believes that there is persuasive evidence of obstructive conduct, a nexus to an investigation, and corrupt motive. These included repeated efforts to remove special counsel Robert Mueller; an attempt through Corey Lewandowski to induce Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the scope of the Mueller probe to future Russian interference in elections; a brazen attempt to convince White House counsel Don McGahn to lie about the fact that Trump had ordered him to arrange the firing of Mueller; Trump’s efforts to influence the cooperation and testimony of Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort; and Trump’s efforts to induce Michael Cohen not to cooperate or to shade his testimony in Trump’s favor.

Quinta Jurecic (@qjurecic) provided a nice spreadsheet for how this plays out in the report. I think it helps illustrate the case Mueller is making. These are not just random facts, he is showing how each action meets or fails to meet each standard.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4xUiDpW0AAFtnb?format=jpg&name=large)

A perfect explanation of this theory comes from Rachel Maddow. I highly recommend this breakdown, as she is pretty thorough. Also, in this case, she has a lot to get to, so you are not going to spend time waiting for her to get to the point. This segment is dense and informative and feels like one perfectly made argument for impeachment based on Mueller's finding.

Edit: Wrong video. I just swapped it to the correct one.

I feel like I'm living in Crazy Town where this is even a question. The guy has done everything openly to obstruct the investigation. He has done so many nakedly criminal and vile things that should be impeachable. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter because Republicans are complicit. They won't forsake their God Emperor. And come 2020 Republican cheating and foreign powers WARRING (yes, war) upon us through election interference will likely seat Trump for a second term.

This is what they all want. They want autocracy and are openly pushing for it. We aren't getting off this ride unless it wrecks. And that won't be pretty either.

Waiting for the election would be the Democratic Representatives choosing party over country.

Agreed. Who cares if it dies in the Senate? Have the Republicans on record for it.

Something Maddow brings up is an important aspect to this. Obstruction of justice carries a 5 year statute of limitations. Nearly all of these actions happened in 2017. That means he could have to face charges when he leaves office. If he loses.

If impeachment is not started, and he wins re-election, it's the absolute wort case scenario for the country, and the world, really. He skates on the charges. He understands he just needs to hire criminals now, who will do his bidding for an eventual pardon later.

But I think we need to be careful before we unload on any Dems that are still taking this slow. We need both. We need Dems like Warren pushing for this, making a case for it, laying the groundwork. We also need Dems urging a bit more caution, waiting to see what the hearings offer. That gives the hearing more impact, because those undecided voters are going to discount the hearings if they are too politicized.

The hearings really are the key at this point. They will drive the narrative. The stories and the observations of Mueller, McGahn, Flynn, and so many others will help find the right notes to play together the public on our side. Then we can hope to find those 20 Republican Senators to flip. They will not flip today. We have to undo the spin Barr got away with, and we need public pressure.

But more than that, the hearings will start to pressure on Trump. We need Dems to scare the crap out of him. We need to see Ivanka and Don Jr avoiding questions and feeling uncomfortable as they are under real threat of prison time. Because the truth is, we need Trump to resign. So we need to bring it in a way that scares him.

Jayhawker wrote:

But I think we need to be careful before we unload on any Dems that are still taking this slow.

I'm just concerned that they are going to dismiss impeachment out of hand, before the investigation really gets started.

Having Muller on the case made a lot of people feel complacent and like it'd all be taken care of when he finished. Though it's obvious now that was never in the cards: he specifically interpreted his role as being unable to bring charges and only able to recommend things to Congress.

Though I also they should impeach Barr right away, just based on his attempt to lie to all of us.

Gremlin wrote:

Waiting for the election would be the Democratic Representatives choosing party over country.

In a country where the next election will be between two parties, when the Republican Party has mounted no significant resistance, choosing the Democratic Party *is* choosing the country.

Of course we can question the wisdom of waiting for the election, but wisdom is different from loyalty.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Of course we can question the wisdom of waiting for the election, but wisdom is different from loyalty.

You mistake my point: what I mean to say is that if the House fails to move towards impeachment out of fear that they will lose the election if they try, then they are literally choosing the Democratic Party over the Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold.

If winning the election is more important than following our laws, then so be it. But in my view that will place both parties outside of the Constitution.

I'll still vote for them mind you--I'd vote for an old shoe over Trump at this point, since the shoe wouldn't be trying to indirectly kill my family and friends--but we won't have a democracy if it gets to that point. And there's no saying that the next election won't be rigged outright: if there's no punishment for breaking the law this time, what, exactly, is stopping them next time?

NY Mag: If Impeaching Trump Is Pointless, Then Bipartisanship Is Worthless

The president of the United States routinely orders his subordinates to subvert the law. He believes that the Justice Department should comport itself as his personal detective agency — and that the attorney general’s first responsibility is to protect the White House from legal accountability. And he has used one of his office’s most extraordinary powers — the authority to pardon convicted criminals — to undermine a federal investigation.

These realities were already apparent before Robert Mueller’s report was released Thursday. But they have now been formally confirmed by federal law enforcement. The branch of government responsible for enforcing the rule of law is led by a man with contempt for that very concept. Congress’s constitutional obligation in this circumstance is unambiguous. The president swore to “faithfully execute” the duties of his office. He has not. Thus, Congress should evict him from that office.

This would be true even if Donald Trump displayed no inclination to persist in his lawlessness. But he is displaying the opposite. Impeachment is therefore required not merely to punish the president for his past indiscretions — or to deter a future president from emulating them — but to halt the rampage of a serial offender

All of this said, if House Democrats are taking the position that the Republican Party is so corrupt — and our system of checks and balances so obsolete — it isn’t even worth trying to uphold their constitutional responsibility to impeach a lawless president, then they need to acknowledge the radical implications of that stance.

NY Review of Books: The Mueller Report’s ‘Smoking Gun’ on Obstruction of Justice

It is only two sentences in a report of some 448 pages. As yet unnoticed, these lines provide the strongest new evidence uncovered by Robert Mueller’s investigators that President Donald Trump may have indeed obstructed justice. Two people directly involved in the case told me that several of the special counsel’s prosecutors privately considered this information to be a “smoking gun” suggesting that the president acted criminally.
Gremlin wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Of course we can question the wisdom of waiting for the election, but wisdom is different from loyalty.

You mistake my point: what I mean to say is that if the House fails to move towards impeachment out of fear that they will lose the election if they try, then they are literally choosing the Democratic Party over the Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold.

You're mistaking my point: choosing the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at this point in history is choosing the Constitution.

If winning the election is more important than following our laws, then so be it. But in my view that will place both parties outside of the Constitution. I'll still vote for them mind you--I'd vote for an old shoe over Trump at this point, since the shoe wouldn't be trying to indirectly kill my family and friends--but we won't have a democracy if it gets to that point.

I think your view is wrong. One party, for all its faults, is within the Constitution. One party is not. When it comes to that, Democrats winning the election is the prerequisite to the laws even being laws in the first place.

And there's no saying that the next election won't be rigged outright: if there's no punishment for breaking the law this time, what, exactly, is stopping them next time?

You think there will be punishment? How? How do you get a Republican Senate to Impeach Trump?

Like I said, you can question the wisdom of not Impeaching. Just make sure to present your plan for what happens after your attempt Impeachment. Don't just walk up to Impeachment and hope for the best after that.

For instance, iIf you want to make the case that Impeachment will either work or it will politically wound Trump enough that he's even more certain to lose the election like some have been pointing out about Watergate and how the real political damage came after the hearings, then okay.

But, that's why I said that's a matter of questioning wisdom, not loyalty, and certainly not commitment to the Constitution or Democracy. Don't go cloaking your position in 'defending the Constitution' when that's also what people who disagree with you on Impeachment think they are doing when they have a valid point.

edit: and yes, Bipartisanship *is* worthless--the past nine years have proven that, haven't they? The Republican Party we are dealing with is a death cult, looking to sacrifice long-term prospects for short-term power.

No, Cheeze. Trump broke the law. Mueller identified the exact violations, showed the three standards that were met for each violation, and then laid out how congress can carry this out.

Letting Trump walk is ignoring the constitution. Letting him walk so that you have an easier time getting elected is ignoring the constitution for selfish political reasons.

That's it.

If you want to go on a tangent about the risks of failing, fine But it is not relevant to the post you are arguing with.

Jayhawker wrote:

No, Cheeze. Trump broke the law. Mueller identified the exact violations, showed the three standards that were met for each violation, and then laid out how congress can carry this out.

Really? Tell me how Mueller laid out how to get enough Republicans on board with this.

Letting Trump walk is ignoring the constitution. Letting him walk so that you have an easier time getting elected is ignoring the constitution for selfish political reasons.

That's it.

edit: eh, this edit went too far, too quickly.

Ignoring the real world as if the Constitution is a self-executing beast that will just rise up as soon as you convene an Impeachment hearing and lay out a well-argued case is just another bullsh*t abstract thought experiment.

If you want to go on a tangent about the risks of failing, fine But it is not relevant to the post you are arguing with.

Any post that does not deal with the risks of failing is an irrelevant post to people who have to live in the real world.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

No, Cheeze. Trump broke the law. Mueller identified the exact violations, showed the three standards that were met for each violation, and then laid out how congress can carry this out.

Really? Tell me how Mueller laid out how to get enough Republicans on board with this.

I'm saying it doesn't matter--if the House doesn't act because they think that the Senate won't convict, then they've abdicated their responsibility and we deserve the shambles of democracy that we'll be left with. The rule of law is replaced with de facto "you can do illegal things and the Democrats will be too afraid of you to even try to investigate you."

If the House impeaches him and the Senate declines to convict him, that's a problem (and I'm more than willing to hang it on the GOP's corrupt necks). If the House categorically rules out the possibility of impeachment, then that's a bigger problem.

I'm not saying they need to have an impeachment vote this week. I'm saying that they need to be visibly taking a stand that these accusations are serious and deserve a serious investigation, with impeachment fully on the table and the White House forced to comply with the subpoenas. If they are unwilling to do that, if they shove it off on the elections, then they might as well stop pretending that they care about the Constitution at all.

I don't think the Constitution is self-executing--instead, that's exactly why I'm saying this: we need to turn the crank to operate the machine. I think the law only exists so far as it is respected and enforced. We coasted on the respect part for a long, long time, and now Trump is trying to call the republic's bluff. If our politicians are actually bluffing about caring about what the law says, then the rot has set in.

My position is that a failed impeachment is vastly preferable to deciding not to attempt an impeachment due to concerns that they might lose an election. You can disagree with that premise, but that's where I'm coming from.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

No, Cheeze. Trump broke the law. Mueller identified the exact violations, showed the three standards that were met for each violation, and then laid out how congress can carry this out.

Really? Tell me how Mueller laid out how to get enough Republicans on board with this.

Letting Trump walk is ignoring the constitution. Letting him walk so that you have an easier time getting elected is ignoring the constitution for selfish political reasons.

That's it.

edit: eh, this edit went too far, too quickly.

Ignoring the real world as if the Constitution is a self-executing beast that will just rise up as soon as you convene an Impeachment hearing and lay out a well-argued case is just another bullsh*t abstract thought experiment.

You can double down on not getting it, but it still ignores the basic premise.

We don't impeach Trump because it will work, we impeach because we will set the standard for what is expected, and what the GOP will allow.

Ignoring Trump's actions in order to get elected is not different than what the GOP is doing now.

Any post that does not deal with the risks of failing is an irrelevant post to people who have to live in the real world.
Scope of Discussion wrote:

With the Mueller Report now available, and I believe it makes the case for bringing articles of impeachment against Donald J. Trump now, and for Congress to decide his fate. This thread is intended to discuss whether the Mueller Report is a road map to impeachment.

The only reasons for impeachment to be discussed in this thread are cases of obstruction that Mueller believes meets the threshold of being a chargeable crime. Nothing going on in the SDNY or other investigations is relevant to this topic. This is only relevant to the Mueller Report's findings.

This discussion can happen without worrying about GOP support, and forcing everyone to play your semantic games, forcing every conversation down the path you have decided is crap.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

And there's no saying that the next election won't be rigged outright: if there's no punishment for breaking the law this time, what, exactly, is stopping them next time?

You think there will be punishment? How? How do you get a Republican Senate to Impeach Trump?

In this case, I'm not sure you can.

I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but the Constitution only says that the Senate is the one who has "the sole power to try all impeachments", and I could see McConnell simply refusing to hold the trial (see also: Merrick Garland).

Then not only does he protect Trump from having to go on trial, but he also shields the rest of the GOP in the Senate from having to actually put their votes against the Constitution on the record.

Edit: I just want to throw out there that, despite this, I do think the Democrats should try it anyway.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

For instance, iIf you want to make the case that Impeachment will either work or it will politically wound Trump enough that he's even more certain to lose the election like some have been pointing out about Watergate and how the real political damage came after the hearings, then okay.

This deserves a fair response. Because I do think that holding impeachment hearings will keep the spotlight on this.

One of my long-term contentions is that most people are following the just world fallacy, which leads them to believe that if no punishment has happened then he must not be guilty. If they really thought he had done all that, they would have started the impeachment process, after all. Most people are paying much less attention than you or I--and I can't really blame them, following this whole thing is bad enough without the additional drain of paying attention to the day to day details. Therefore, until visible consequences start appearing for Trump (which has basically never happened in his life up until now, at least not in a way that made the stick) people will go on ignoring it.

Ignore impeachment and I think people will assume he's innocent. Go through the investigation--and look into his finances, tax fraud, bribes accepted, ties to Saudi Arabia, and so on--and people will eventually pay attention.

But regardless, I'm taking a view of ethics here that the impeachment process is both the right thing to do for its own sake and that even if it fails, the consequences of not attempting it at all is worse than attempting it and failing. You may disagree with one or both of my premises, which will naturally lead you to different conclusions.

Jayhawker wrote:

You can double down on not getting it, but it still ignores the basic premise.

We don't impeach Trump because it will work, we impeach because we will set the standard for what is expected, and what the GOP will allow.

Ignoring Trump's actions in order to get elected is not different than what the GOP is doing now.

Any post that does not deal with the risks of failing is an irrelevant post to people who have to live in the real world.
With the Mueller Report now available, and I believe it makes the case for bringing articles of impeachment against Donald J. Trump now, and for Congress to decide his fate. This thread is intended to discuss whether the Mueller Report is a road map to impeachment.

The only reasons for impeachment to be discussed in this thread are cases of obstruction that Mueller believes meets the threshold of being a chargeable crime. Nothing going on in the SDNY or other investigations is relevant to this topic. This is only relevant to the Mueller Report's findings.

This discussion can happen without worrying about GOP support, and forcing everyone to play your semantic

Jayhawker has evolved into Jaytroller, so that's that.

Gremlin wrote:

My position is that a failed impeachment is vastly preferable to deciding not to attempt an impeachment due to concerns that they might lose an election. You can disagree with that premise, but that's where I'm coming from.

I hope it's okay to skip the rest to boil it down to this, because it is what I think is the fundamental disconnect. Where you're coming from is wrong in how you're describing the people you disagree with.

It's not just concerns about losing an election.

It's concerns about how losing that election means losing Democracy, the Constitution, rule of law, and all the things you've cited as reasons for Impeaching, win or lose.

Keldar wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

And there's no saying that the next election won't be rigged outright: if there's no punishment for breaking the law this time, what, exactly, is stopping them next time?

You think there will be punishment? How? How do you get a Republican Senate to Impeach Trump?

In this case, I'm not sure you can.

I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but the Constitution only says that the Senate is the one who has "the sole power to try all impeachments", and I could see McConnell simply refusing to hold the trial (see also: Merrick Garland).

Then not only does he protect Trump from having to go on trial, but he also shields the rest of the GOP in the Senate from having to actually put their votes against the Constitution on the record.

Edit: I just want to throw out there that, despite this, I do think the Democrats should try it anyway.

This is one reason why I don't think Cheeze's attempts to derail this thread about the should or should not's is relevant. The other is, this thread is meant to shed light on how persuasive the Report is, and how to redirect the narrative.

We don't need to carry Trump's water in this thread.

My position is that if the Democratic party wins the election but fails to attempt the impeachment we've already lost the republic and the election win will just be a temporary stopgap.

I guess if they don't impeach, win the election, and then turn around and conduct through criminal investigations then we might stand a chance of recovery. But that would be a future where we've already ignored the law because it was convenient. (And anyway I'd bet on the Democratic politicians saying its water under the bridge and time to go back to bipartisanship. Might pardon Trump too.) Either way, the next time a Trump comes around we might as well just hand him the keys.

I guess part of why I keep trying to explain my premises is that I think that the obstruction of justice case is very obvious and the two pieces that the report lacks are the authority to prosecute (hence referring it to Congress) and some of the evidence that would be required to be provided to a Congressional investigation.

If nothing else, there's a lot of people in the administration who are in violation of the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014. And can probably also be charged with destroying evidence.

Jayhawker wrote:

The other is, this thread is meant to shed light on how persuasive the Report is, and how to redirect the narrative.

Great--then keep questions of whether Impeaching or not is a matter of putting party over country out of the discussion whether you agree with the person or not.

I look forward to your noble, impartial dedication to the scope of the thread.

Gremlin wrote:

My position is that if the Democratic party wins the election but fails to attempt the impeachment we've already lost the republic and the election win will just be a temporary stopgap.

That's a valid point. My position is you can argue that without accusing people who disagree with you of putting party over country.

edit: in other words, you can tell people they are wrong because they've got the analysis wrong without accusing them of some improper motive.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

My position is that if the Democratic party wins the election but fails to attempt the impeachment we've already lost the republic and the election win will just be a temporary stopgap.

That's a valid point. My position is you can argue that without accusing people who disagree with you of putting party over country.

edit: in other words, you can tell people they are wrong because they've got the analysis wrong without accusing them of some improper motive.

Ah, maybe I should clarify, because it's a nuanced distinction: I'm not trying to accuse you of putting party over country or anything like that. I'm saying that the Democratic politicians are putting party over country every time they talk about the election as a reason not to impeach. As private citizens, we are free to discuss the strategy and tradeoffs--but they're not private citizens. They have obligations, obligations that they swore to uphold. Taking impeachment off the table is literally saying that they would rather win an election than do the thing their office requires them to do.

Unless you're secretly a member of Congress I think it's perfectly fine for you to be skeptical of the chances. I think it's fine for the politicians to be skeptical--in private. But not in public, not unless they, as I said, literally decided that their party is more important than the country. It's like a judge saying that there's no reason for a trial before it starts, because the judge has already decided who will win.

(The other problem is we have this terrible first-past-the-post system with two broken parties and so on that makes strategic voting a thing in the first place. We've got a lot of problems in this country that contributed to the widespread feeling of disenfranchisement, and that's one of them.)

*mod*

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Jayhawker has evolved into Jaytroller, so that's that.

Jayhawker created this thread with a specific scope and made a post to remind you what that is. Given you've already sunk down into name calling because you disagree and the two of you can't seem to get along, I think it's best you don't participate in this thread further.

Folks, when the scope is specific, please try to stay in the lane.

Gremlin wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

My position is that if the Democratic party wins the election but fails to attempt the impeachment we've already lost the republic and the election win will just be a temporary stopgap.

That's a valid point. My position is you can argue that without accusing people who disagree with you of putting party over country.

edit: in other words, you can tell people they are wrong because they've got the analysis wrong without accusing them of some improper motive.

Ah, maybe I should clarify, because it's a nuanced distinction: I'm not trying to accuse you of putting party over country or anything like that. I'm saying that the Democratic politicians are putting party over country every time they talk about the election as a reason not to impeach. As private citizens, we are free to discuss the strategy and tradeoffs--but they're not private citizens. They have obligations, obligations that they swore to uphold. Taking impeachment off the table is literally saying that they would rather win an election than do the thing their office requires them to do.

Okay, but I'd still say Democratic politicians who say this are not automatically in the wrong, because I see them as not putting party over county either.

I see them as facing a dilemma where they need to remove someone who has no regard for the Constitution. If they think an election is the best way to do that, it's at least a question where rational and loyal people can disagree.

Unless you're secretly a member of Congress I think it's perfectly fine for you to be skeptical of the chances. I think it's fine for the politicians to be skeptical--in private. But not in public, not unless they, as I said, literally decided that their party is more important than the country. It's like a judge saying that there's no reason for a trial before it starts, because the judge has already decided who will win.

No, if we're going with a legal system analogy, it's more like a prosecutor saying there's no reason to take things to trial, and such prosecutorial discretion is well within the understood loyalty of prosecutors to the Constitution.

If anything the decision to bring Impeachment is even *more* of an area for discretion.

(The other problem is we have this terrible first-past-the-post system with two broken parties and so on that makes strategic voting a thing in the first place. We've got a lot of problems in this country that contributed to the widespread feeling of disenfranchisement, and that's one of them.)

Man, the whole thing is a mess--including prosecutorial discretion--but there's a difference between thinking something is bad policy, and saying something is a violation of the Constitution.

Removed. Your criticism is noted, PM if you'd like to discuss further. - Certis

I haven't had a chance to read Mueller's report yet, but from what commentary I've read, the most sympathetic but accurate read of the report is that Trump’s contacts with the Russians didn't reach the threshold of criminal activity but that he felt politically threatened by the investigation and attempted to interfere in it multiple times but was simply disobeyed by his subordinates.

I'm having a hard time seeing how that doesn't lay out a case for criminal obstruction of justice, and Mueller clearly laid out the legal case against Trump. It's hard to believe that if the report hadn't have been about the President that it wouldn't have resulted in an indictment.

I would add that Mueller also noted that the amount of evidence destroyed and hidden by members of his campaign also prevented evidence that may have shown coordination from being accessed.

But, you are right that Mueller makes clear that obstruction for any reason, even just embarrassment, meets the standard.

Starting impeachment proceedings against Trump should be the Democratically-controlled House version of the what the Republicans did with voting to repeal Obamacare. There should be dozens of impeachment attempts, each with Republicans having to go on record saying they believe Trump did nothing wrong while new information about Trump's guilt and incompetence comes to light from the related Congressional, federal, and state investigations.

Behind the Bastards just dropped a special, extra long Mueller Report episode. Robert Evans (the other one) has read the full report and digs into a lot of details that I haven’t seen reported in many other places, including the very specific ways Mueller couches his language around the criminal obstruction evidence throughout the report.

ruhk wrote:

Behind the Bastards just dropped a special, extra long Mueller Report episode. Robert Evans (the other one) has read the full report and digs into a lot of details that I haven’t seen reported in many other places, including the very specific ways Mueller couches his language around the criminal obstruction evidence throughout the report.

Great. Haven't got to that one yet but look forward to it.

Someone posted a much better chart that helps explain the obstruction crimes that Trump will need to answer for. I think this lays out the crimes and how Mueller found that Trump's actions met the three standards.

I replaced the originals one, which is still in the hero pic, with this new one, because it is much more clear.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4xUiDpW0AAFtnb?format=jpg&name=large)

I posted this in the Russia thread, but I think it belongs here. The case for impeaching or charging the president is getting stronger and more people come to understand (read) the report.

WaPo: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert

More than 370 former federal prosecutors whoworked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.

Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I haven't had a chance to read Mueller's report yet, but from what commentary I've read, the most sympathetic but accurate read of the report is that Trump’s contacts with the Russians didn't reach the threshold of criminal activity but that he felt politically threatened by the investigation and attempted to interfere in it multiple times but was simply disobeyed by his subordinates.

I'm having a hard time seeing how that doesn't lay out a case for criminal obstruction of justice, and Mueller clearly laid out the legal case against Trump. It's hard to believe that if the report hadn't have been about the President that it wouldn't have resulted in an indictment.

All of those career attorney's and government officials Clockyhausered WEEKS ago.