[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.

OG_slinger wrote:

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.

Why haven't they?

LeapingGnome wrote:

Why haven't they?

You'd have to ask the Democratic leadership.

My guess would be that it's because impeaching a president is a slightly more serious matter that probably shouldn't be turned into political grandstanding like the Republicans did with their numerous House votes to repeal Obamacare.

That and things move a lot slower than we'd like.

Take the timeline for Nixon's impeachment. The Senate Watergate Committee was formed in February 1973, didn't hold hearings until May 1973, and didn't issue it's report until June 1973. Then there were months of House politicking (and Nixon doing dumb things like the Saturday Night Massacre in October) before impeachment charges were formally filed in February 1974. The subsequent impeachment inquiries lasted for months and the official impeachment hearings ran from May to the end of July of 1974. Then it all ended a week later when Nixon resigned on the eve of the House impeachment vote. All together it took a year and a half for the House to investigate Nixon and gather the political support needed to impeach him.

I don't know where we stand with Trump in relation to Nixon's impeachment process, but it's clear the House needs to do more work.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Why haven't they?

Polls have shown only about a third of Americans support impeachment efforts. Impeaching Trump would probably take about as much time as just voting him out of office, and all the time spent on impeachment proceedings could instead be spent on health care, immigration, climate change, deficit reduction, and all the things people care about more and that would give Democrats something to point to during the 2020 election.

LeapingGnome wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

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.

Why haven't they?

Impeachment requires a relatively lengthy process to ultimately get to where the Senate votes on a guilty/not guilty status. The eleventity billion ACA repeals were only single voting events.

I imagine also it is not clear to me if articles of impeachment could be reintroduced for a set of actions again, i.e. would some kind of double jeopardy attach.

Guys, this is really not a "should they or shouldn't they" thread. It's not even about the other things that will likely factoring a Trump impeachment, such as the Inaugural scandal. the shut down Trump Foundation, and the SDNY cases in which Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator. That is what the Trump, Russia, and the 2016 Election thread is for. The Mueller Report is just one portion of the case to impeach Trump, but it is a long and complicated document that worth it's own thread.

This thread is supposed to help understand the Mueller Report. It's a place to ask questions and clarify things. It's a place discuss what parts of it mean and what they don't mean. Barr successfully spun the Report so that a too many Americans think it either cleared Trump, or failed to show any of his wrong doing. That's clearly not the case for people who have read the report.

I do think this is a good place for the story on the prosecutors, as it lends credence to idea that Barr's conclusion about the report is not shared by processionals that charge criminals for a living.

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

More than 450 former federal prosecutors who worked 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 holds.

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.

Many legal analysts have wondered since Mueller’s report was released whether the special counsel believed he had sufficient evidence to charge Trump and was just unwilling to say it out loud.

By the report’s account, Trump — after learning he was being investigated for obstruction — told his White House counsel to have Mueller removed. And when that did not work, according to Mueller’s report, Trump tried to have a message passed to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the scope of Mueller’s authority. Of that episode, Mueller’s team wrote there was “substantial evidence” to indicate Trump was trying to “prevent further investigative scrutiny” of himself and his campaign.

“All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions,” the former federal prosecutors wrote in their letter.

hope you don't mind a tag post, curious where this goes with today's news of executive privilege

Mostly, I think the report stands on its own. I would like to see more, but, there is plenty in the report to make the case for impeachment.

One thing that I think its lost in the discussion, and this goes to how many view impeachment, is that both volumes are essential to understanding why Trump needs to be impeached. We get caught up in Vol. 2, because that is where the charges are. But the people we need to move, not Trump supporters, but those moderate voters that swing elections, are being sold that it's "just" obstruction" and there is no underlying crime.

But there was an underlying crime. How anyone can read Vol. 1 and not be scared of the future of our country is beyond me. Kushner didn't get called out nearly hard enough for his "few facebook ads" comment. It goes so far beyond that. Things like fake political groups posing as blacks that hated Hillary, pushing for no votes, or voting for Jill Scott, setting up rallies on both sides of an issue just to get sh*t started, as well as pushing fake news stories from thousands of troll accounts.

Trump obstructed the investigation into Russian meddling. The Mueller report explains that it really doesn't matter why, but it does not that Trump seemed to be afraid that the investigation would reveal other crimes he had committed, even if he never entered into a criminal conspiracy with Putin.

All Trump is doing now is trying to keep the story from being told in open hearings. The report has the information he is trying to revoke. It's why, in the end, none of what he is doing will work. It's hard to call evidence in the public purview can be considered privileged. The cat is out of the bag.

NY Times: White House Asked McGahn to Declare Trump Never Obstructed Justice

WASHINGTON — White House officials asked at least twice in the past month for the key witness against President Trump in the Mueller report, Donald F. McGahn II, to say publicly that he never believed the president obstructed justice, according to two people briefed on the requests.

Mr. McGahn, who was the president’s first White House counsel, declined, one of the people said. His reluctance angered Mr. Trump, who believed that Mr. McGahn showed disloyalty by telling investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, about Mr. Trump’s attempts to maintain control over the Russia investigation.

The White House made one of the requests to Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, before the Mueller report was released publicly but after the Justice Department gave a copy to Mr. Trump’s lawyers to read. Reading the report, the president’s lawyers saw that Mr. Mueller had left out that Mr. McGahn had told investigators that he believed Mr. Trump never obstructed justice.

Mr. McGahn initially entertained the White House request. But after the report was released, detailing the range of actions Mr. Trump took to try to impede the inquiry, Mr. McGahn declined to put out a statement. The report also included comments Mr. Trump made to aides about how he believed Mr. McGahn leaked to the news media to make himself look good.

White House officials asked Mr. McGahn again to put out a statement saying he believed the president had not obstructed justice, but he rebuffed the second request, as well.

Around that time, the president’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, began publicly attacking Mr. McGahn and questioning his credibility, saying that he had a bad memory. “It can’t be taken at face value,” Mr. Giuliani said of Mr. McGahn’s account a day after the report was released. “It could be the product of an inaccurate recollection or could be the product of something else.”

I know it's far from the first time, but this obsession with "loyalty" is really disturbing.

Could be a big day. Robert Mueller will be speaking to the press about the Russia probe today at 11am ET. It will be a statement only, and he will not take questions from the press.

NBC News: Robert Mueller to make public statement about Russia probe on Wednesday

Jayhawker wrote:

Could be a big day. Robert Mueller will be speaking to the press about the Russia probe today at 11am ET. It will be a statement only, and he will not take questions from the press.

NBC News: Robert Mueller to make public statement about Russia probe on Wednesday

Prediction: The report speaks for itself. There’s fine people at FBI and DOJ.

Reaper81 wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Could be a big day. Robert Mueller will be speaking to the press about the Russia probe today at 11am ET. It will be a statement only, and he will not take questions from the press.

NBC News: Robert Mueller to make public statement about Russia probe on Wednesday

Prediction: The report speaks for itself. There’s fine people at FBI and DOJ.

Yarp. I'm not expecting much.

Reaper81 wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Could be a big day. Robert Mueller will be speaking to the press about the Russia probe today at 11am ET. It will be a statement only, and he will not take questions from the press.

NBC News: Robert Mueller to make public statement about Russia probe on Wednesday

Prediction: The report speaks for itself. There’s fine people at FBI and DOJ.

Pretty much this. Anything to preserve the veneer that we have a functional government with checks and balances that are all working fine.

Maybe he’s running for president.

Report speaks for itself and he’s retiring.

Edit:

“Bobby, we really think it’s time for you to retire. You’ve done our nation a great service in a difficult time.”
“You know Bill, I disagree with how you portrayed my report.”
“I know, I know. But, we’ll clean this up. We always do.”
“Yes, we do. And I am ready for a break.”

Edit 2: NYT is using the word “retire” and CNN is using the word “resign.”

And that it was under DOJ policy that they couldn't charge the president with a crime, not on the merits.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...

Fox judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano: "Effectively, what Bob Mueller said is, we had evidence that [Trump] committed a crime, but we couldn't charge him because he's the President ... This is even stronger than the language in his report. This is also a parting shot" at Barr.

Worth watching the whole clip at the link.

It’s starting to sink in at Fox that the endgame is on.

Jayhawker wrote:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...

Fox judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano: "Effectively, what Bob Mueller said is, we had evidence that [Trump] committed a crime, but we couldn't charge him because he's the President ... This is even stronger than the language in his report. This is also a parting shot" at Barr.

Worth watching the whole clip at the link.

It’s starting to sink in at Fox that the endgame is on.

The endgame? The Senate will never act.

DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...

Fox judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano: "Effectively, what Bob Mueller said is, we had evidence that [Trump] committed a crime, but we couldn't charge him because he's the President ... This is even stronger than the language in his report. This is also a parting shot" at Barr.

Worth watching the whole clip at the link.

It’s starting to sink in at Fox that the endgame is on.

The endgame? The Senate will never act.

The goal is not removal by impeachment. It is to force resignation in order to avoid jail time. What the Dems will do this summer is lay out all the crimes Trump and family will be charged with. Like so many of Trump's surrogates, the Dems will soon be tasing to an audience of one.

And I saw at least 6 different pundits on Fox yesterday saying exactly what Napolitano is saying. The biggest takeaway from Mueller's statement is that it really did lay bare the spin and lies Barr told. The simple act of Mueller standing up and reading his report has changed the narrative.

What Mueller did was put the Report back front and center, instead of Barr's interpretation of the Report. I saw, over and over again, Fox hosts getting corrected, because they viewed so much of Mueller's statement as new information, when it was almost 100% quoted from the report. I even saw a legal analyst have to explain to one host, that was trying to say that Mueller was just spinning his views on the OLC now, making clear they never read the Report.

I really think yesterday might have been a turning point, in that I think the report is now going to start speaking for itself. Too many people found yesterday to be revelations. but, that works in the report's favor. I think the report is going to get a much better look in the upcoming days than it got from Barr.

What I will say about the Report now is that Mueller was too smart for his own good. He placed a heavy limitation on himself, that he could not, as a federal prosecutor, formally accuse the president of a crime if he had no means to offer Trump to clear his name. So he wrote a report that is a logically sound impeachment referral, but you have to actually do a lot of the heavy lifting yourself. And that is a tough ask of the American public, and makes it too easy for the GOP to spin. But here we are.

This is how I try to explain the significance, and some of this hit me yesterday, as Mueller reported his findings as he saw them.

I. The Russians launched a concerted and systematic, run by the Russian military intelligence.
>A. This event required a massive investigation to find out who, what, why, and how in order to protect the country from future attacks.
>B. The Russians specifically favored Trump and reached out to his campaign early and often.
>>1. Many campaign officials rebuffed these attempts.
>>2. Many campaign officials welcomed these attempts.
>>3. Many campaign officials deleted and destroyed evidence, lied to investigators, and intimidated witnesses.
>C. Mueller found a lack of sufficient evidence to charge the campaign with a criminal conspiracy.

>>1. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that coordination was happening.
>>2. Mueller believes evidence of coordination may have existed, but he was prevented access by the actions of those in the campaign.
>D. Regardless of who could be charged, the effort to get to the bottom of the wedding was something Mueller believes every American should be concerned with.

II. Trump systematically obstructed justice from the beginning, and continues to do so to this day.
>A. Mueller found 10 acts that met the three requirements of an obstructive act, an obstructive act, an intent to obstruct, and a nexus to a an investigation.
>>1. Unlike the conspiracy charges, Mueller does not say that he lacks sufficient evidence to charge a crime.
>>>a. Mueller believes he is not allowed to formally accuse the president, so this is as close as he will get to saying he found evidence Trump committed a crime.
>>>b. He states that if he was able to say that the president did not commit a crime, he would. Hint, hint.
>>>c. At the very least, with the conspiracy as an example, we would expect Mueller to also tell us there was a lack of sufficient evidence to charge Trump, but he does not do this.
>>2. The Report lays out that an underlying crime is not necessary to charge obstruction for multiple reasons.
>>>a. It would make no sense to find a person innocent of obstruction just because they obstructed successfully.
>>>b. Even if the obstructer is not guilty of a crime, their obstruction could prevent others that did commit crimes from being caught.
>>>c. Obstructing to avoid evidence of an unrelated crime, or even embarrassing information, still obstructs justice.
>>3. In addition to an underlying crime not being necessary, obstructive acts are often legal acts that require intent to be considered criminally obstructive.
>B. Most of the Trump's obstructive acts appeared to be unsuccessful, but that does not make them any less illegal.
>>1. The number of attempts implies that there could be others that were successful, and were successfully concealed.
>>2. The pattern itself is enough to be concerned that the president will continue to obstruct.
>C. The OLC memo prevents Mueller from charging the president.
>>1. Mueller decided he would not even consider whether to charge the president in this case.
>>2. Mueller wrote that even a sealed indictment would not be secure enough.
>>3. Mueller noted that the constitution does allow for the investigation of a sitting president, while memories are fresh and evidence and be preserved.
>>4. The president will not be immune from prosecution once he leaves office.
>>5. Congress has the option of waiting for him to leave office, or starting an impeachment inquiry that remove him and make him available for prosecution sooner.

Every element in this outline can be sourced to the Report. I should go in and add page numbers, but I am lazy. Maybe later.

But I feel like, from watching Fox News yesterday afternoon, that most of that reasoning got through. And yes, their primetime lineup came in to spin it all away. But their desperation was noted. More conservatives are seeing the lies more clearly.

I would hope, naively, that yesterday encouraged more people to read the Report, and now have the context to understand how it all works together.

Remember, the rightwing spin was that Russian meddling was a hoax. But the report is very blatant about all of the details they have of Russian meddling. As the reality of what Russia did becomes more real, the obstruction of the president becomes more ominous. It no longer matters if he conspired or not. He was preventing our nation from responding to a clear and present danger.

That was something I said after Trump was elected. Russia's actions were severe enough to warrant an actual shooting war, but we had just elected a man that was not going to even acknowledge it. And that is what the report lys bare, that Trump, even if he was 100% innocent of any kind of conspiracy, continued to put out nation in jeopardy in order to protect his reputation or to hide other crimes he thought might be discovered (like campaign finance and stealing the inaugural funds).

More people may actually read it now. It doesn't have to be anywhere near 100% of the population reading it to be effective.
Speaking of which, I have only skimmed it. If not me, who? If not now, when? Right?

Jayhawker wrote:

II. Trump systematically obstructed justice from the beginning, and continues to do so in public to this day.

Fixed!

Republican Justin Amash stands by position to start impeachment proceedings despite criticism

Cathy Garnaat, a Republican who supported Amash and the president said she was upset about Amash’s position but wanted to hear his reasoning. She said that she will definitely support Trump in 2020 but that Tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the Mueller report didn’t completely exonerate the president.

“I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before," she said. "I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated."

Cheryl Wanless, a Republican who has supported Amash, said she was confused by his position but after hearing him speak, doesn't “have a problem proceeding with" impeachment.

“Though in the back of my mind, I know it is not going to pass the Senate most likely," she said. "But if the process has to go this far, I think that’s fine — go ahead."

Some Trump supporters are not Deplorables, and we can reach them. The goal is to get the report's facts into as many moderate minds, both conservative and liberal, as possible. These are the folks that have been most swayed by Barr's misinformation campaign.

Jayhawker wrote:

the Dems will soon be tasing to an audience of one.

Which voice recog do you use? It’s awesome.

Do we have the full Muller report now?

Drazzil wrote:

Do we have the full Muller report now?

No, still just the redacted one. Which is damning enough, but the DOJ has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid complying with the subpoenas to release the unredacted report to Congress.

The latest development is that the House Judiciary Committee is finally holding a hearing today, at 2pm Eastern:

PBS: WATCH LIVE: House committee reviews Mueller report findings on ‘presidential obstruction’

Gremlin wrote:
Drazzil wrote:

Do we have the full Muller report now?

No, still just the redacted one. Which is damning enough, but the DOJ has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid complying with the subpoenas to release the unredacted report to Congress.

The latest development is that the House Judiciary Committee is finally holding a hearing today, at 2pm Eastern:

PBS: WATCH LIVE: House committee reviews Mueller report findings on ‘presidential obstruction’

Huh... Wow.

Justice Dept. Agrees to Turn Over Key Mueller Evidence to House

NYT wrote:

The Justice Department, after weeks of tense negotiations, has agreed to provide Congress with key evidence collected by Robert S. Mueller III that could shed light on possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power by President Trump, the House Judiciary Committee said on Monday.

The exact scope of the material the Justice Department has agreed to provide was not immediately clear, though the committee signaled that it could be a breakthrough after weeks of wrangling over those materials and others that the Judiciary panel demanded under subpoena. The Trump administration’s blockade of the material had ground the Democratic investigations of Mr. Trump’s possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power to a halt.

These documents will allow us to perform our constitutional duties and decide how to respond to the allegations laid out against the president by the special counsel,” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the committee chairman, said in a statement.

Mr. Nadler said he expected the department to begin sharing some of the material Monday afternoon and that all members of the committee would be able to view it privately.

The agreement appears to have been foreshadowed in an exchange of letters in recent weeks between the committee and the department. In a May 24 letter outlining a proposed compromise Mr. Nadler wrote that he was “prepared to prioritize production of materials that would provide the committee with the most insight into certain incidents when the special counsel found ‘substantial evidence’ of obstruction of justice.”

Those incidences include Mr. Trump’s attempts to fire Mr. Mueller, the special counsel; his request that Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel, create “a fraudulent record denying that incident”; and Mr. Trump’s efforts to get former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to undo his recusal and curtail the scope of the special counsel inquiry.

After weeks of objections, the Justice Department said it found the proposal reasonable and would work with the committee to share the materials in question, but only if the House would back off holding Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress for his defiance of the subpoena in question.

Democrats were willing to do so. The House still plans to vote on Tuesday to authorize the committee to go to a federal court against Mr. Barr to seek full enforcement of its subpoena and to petition a judge to unseal grand jury secrets related to the case for Congress. But in a sign of the newfound cooperation, the House will not formally vote to hold Mr. Barr in contempt of Congress, leveling a criminal accusation against him. Mr. Nadler hinted that Democrats could hold off on filing a lawsuit for now, as well.

OG_slinger wrote:

Justice Dept. Agrees to Turn Over Key Mueller Evidence to House

NYT wrote:

The Justice Department, after weeks of tense negotiations, has agreed to provide Congress with key evidence collected by Robert S. Mueller III that could shed light on possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power by President Trump, the House Judiciary Committee said on Monday.

The exact scope of the material the Justice Department has agreed to provide was not immediately clear, though the committee signaled that it could be a breakthrough after weeks of wrangling over those materials and others that the Judiciary panel demanded under subpoena. The Trump administration’s blockade of the material had ground the Democratic investigations of Mr. Trump’s possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power to a halt.

These documents will allow us to perform our constitutional duties and decide how to respond to the allegations laid out against the president by the special counsel,” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the committee chairman, said in a statement.

Mr. Nadler said he expected the department to begin sharing some of the material Monday afternoon and that all members of the committee would be able to view it privately.

The agreement appears to have been foreshadowed in an exchange of letters in recent weeks between the committee and the department. In a May 24 letter outlining a proposed compromise Mr. Nadler wrote that he was “prepared to prioritize production of materials that would provide the committee with the most insight into certain incidents when the special counsel found ‘substantial evidence’ of obstruction of justice.”

Those incidences include Mr. Trump’s attempts to fire Mr. Mueller, the special counsel; his request that Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel, create “a fraudulent record denying that incident”; and Mr. Trump’s efforts to get former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to undo his recusal and curtail the scope of the special counsel inquiry.

After weeks of objections, the Justice Department said it found the proposal reasonable and would work with the committee to share the materials in question, but only if the House would back off holding Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress for his defiance of the subpoena in question.

Democrats were willing to do so. The House still plans to vote on Tuesday to authorize the committee to go to a federal court against Mr. Barr to seek full enforcement of its subpoena and to petition a judge to unseal grand jury secrets related to the case for Congress. But in a sign of the newfound cooperation, the House will not formally vote to hold Mr. Barr in contempt of Congress, leveling a criminal accusation against him. Mr. Nadler hinted that Democrats could hold off on filing a lawsuit for now, as well.

Why cant we get it all?

What is being hidden?

Why cant we get it all?

What is being hidden?

Part of it is because over a dozen still-active secondary investigations spun off this one and it likely contains information that could compromise them.
Another part of it is probably because it contains embarrassing and/or incriminating information that the administration doesn’t want public until it’s no longer relevant.