Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

[Officer of Engineers]

If you believe unleashing chemical weapons on the people who's rights under the law is legal or justifiable fine; I beg to differ.

Strawman. This has nothing to do with Trump.

I never claimed to have any legal authority over Trump - I said it was outside my jurisdiction and power to act against that traitor. I do have the right of free speech though or perhaps you are with Trumpets and Brexiteers who seem to think anyone who voices a view they do not share is some sort of criminal - a 'fascist' or whatever.

And yet you called Trump a traitor WITH NO EVIDENCE. Not a single one of your claims about the evidence you've seen has any truth to them. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that anyone with inside knowledge would let you know anything, especially after you gave up your clearance, if you ever had any.

No my question regarding Caesar was not answered; who can kill more people does not make any side right, Caesar attacked the Republic when he unlawfully crossed the Rubicon. Might does not equal right. Read some Plato.

Who cares? Plato is nothing more than fiction. The REALITY was Caeser's death resulted in a Roman Civil War. Plato had nothing to do with it.

If I took a plane to Moscow tomorrow I would be arrested getting off it.

Those willing to do something find ways. Those who don't find excuses. Chechens with far more disadvantages than you managed to deliver bombs into Moscow herself. Getting on a plane. Talking about laughable. How about walking across the border?

I have and do fight as best I can in the ways open to me. There is no lack of conviction on my part to win this war - I have seen and collected the bodies and their pieces. Unlike you I have not sat an ocean and half a continent claiming I know everything and have tried to avoid criticising you but sticking to the point under discussion. You know absolutely nothing about me so it is laughable for you to misjudge my conviction.

I know you alright. You pretend to drop names and spout red herrings to cover up that you know aboslutely nothing about this subject. You have ZERO PROOF and then PRETEND to quote some inside information that you never had about Trump in a consipracy. After a year of investigations, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT TRUMP has proven true. You know nothing.

You sticking to a single point? This thread shows when you're in trouble, you go all around to do anything but stick to the point. I'm not the one bringing up Assad, Caeser, whatever. You did. Pot, meet kettle.

We have one thing in common. We're both in front of a keyboard. Unlike you, I don't claim to be willing to do something that I have absolutely zero interest in doing. If you really want to go after Putin, you would be seeking ways out to do so, instead of grandstanding on the internet.

If you want to stick to the point. The POINT is that after a year of investigation, NOTHING has been found that Trump broke any laws. Don't go off tangents with Assad, Caeser, or Putin WHICH YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THESE SUBJECTS, not anyone else on this thread.

The POINT is that Trump is Innocent Until Proven Guilty AND THUS FAR, nothing has even been found that can even accuse Trump of a crime. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE to accuse Trump of ANYTHING. You have NOTHING!

[astralis]

interesting what a firestorm of a topic this is!

OoE, JAD, bfng:

again, impeachment is a political act, not a legal one. Bill Clinton ultimately wasn't removed from office simply because Republicans didn't hold a supermajority in the Senate.

similarly, were there enough Republicans from 2009-2016 I have no doubt that Obama would have been impeached.

legal rationale? if there's the political will and the numbers, legal rationale can be -made-. the only question is if whether or not that rationale will prove popular with the voters.

in Clinton's case, it was not, and the GOP paid a price for it; in Obama's case, while you had individual Congressmen from hard-right districts talking about it, GOP leadership explicitly made clear that they did not want to do so because they knew 1.) it would not go through Congress and 2.) the voters would punish them for it, like the Clinton case.

similarly, the Dems talking about impeachment now are from safe-Dem districts, while the leadership is leery-- although not as leery as the GOP was for Obama, because Obama's popularity vastly exceeded Trump's.

===

so, Klein's article is not JUST about "Trump should be impeached", although that is his hook to get all you guys to read it. :-)

this is the main point of the article, as far as i can tell:

But perhaps more importantly, the Founding Fathers envisioned a political system without parties, where the salient political competitions would be between states and between branches rather than between Democrats and Republicans. “There was an assumption that the different branches check each other because they all have different politics,” says Julia Azari, a political scientist at Marquette University.

Instead, parties share the same politics across branches; congressional Republicans today see their fates as intertwined with Trump’s, and so they protect him, because to protect him is to protect themselves. Believing that the American political system would resist parties and then designing our mechanisms of accountability around that assumption was, Azari continues, “the most important constitutional failure.”

To date, serious impeachment proceedings have only been carried out when Congress is controlled by the opposing party to the White House. “Impeachment is dysfunctional,” Azari says. “It’s proven to be a partisan tool and nothing more.”

in short, if you're President and there's a supermajority of the opposing party, watch out...and if you're President and there's NOT a supermajority of the opposing party, in the words of our current President, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

Trump is currently testing out the latter prospect.

[snapper]

Strawman. This has nothing to do with Trump.

Sir this started with me quoting a Jesuit interpretation of INRI "Justum Necare Regis Impius". I never mentioned Trump. See post #77.

And yet you called Trump a traitor WITH NO EVIDENCE. Not a single one of your claims about the evidence you've seen has any truth to them. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that anyone with inside knowledge would let you know anything, especially after you gave up your clearance, if you ever had any.

Well first I think there is already pretty good evidence of conspiracy made public and secondly you do not know what clearance I have had and do have now.

Who cares? Plato is nothing more than fiction. The REALITY was Caeser's death resulted in a Roman Civil War. Plato had nothing to do with it.

Plato matters because killing people does not make your view right. Suppose the flat earthers decided to start a war and kill all round earthers? Would the earth be flat?

Chechens managed to deliver bombs into Moscow herself.

What the appartment bombing? You are joking right?

I know you alright. You pretend to drop names and spout red herrings to cover up that you know aboslutely nothing about this subject. You have ZERO PROOF and then PRETEND to quote some inside information that you never had about Trump in a consipracy. After a year of investigations, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT TRUMP has proven true. You know nothing.

Trump has been in bed with the Muscovites for years. Quite alot of the Steele dossier is proven correct.

You sticking to a single point? This thread shows when you're in trouble, you go all around to do anything but stick to the point. I'm not the one bringing up Assad, Caeser, whatever. You did. Pot, meet kettle.

Considering that it started it about a Jesuit view of justification and now you are telling me how well you know and trying to justify Trump I am not sure how it is I am guilty here.

Chechens found ways to deliver bombs with even more disadvantages than you. Getting on a plane. That's laughable. How about walking across the border?

And then what? I had a friend who tried to get into the Ozero 'Collective' Estate... You know what is right? 12 yrs he got, dead now. You know where Putin is going to be? You know how to find out. We actually have had these debates and the view of the West in general has been "Better the Devil you know". I beg to differ - if the next is as bad or worse whack him too. The absurdity of suggesting I "lack conviction" because I have not myself disobeyed my own instructions and gone after Putin personally is a bit like calling a British Civil Servant in WW2 who advocated the assassination of Hitler of being hypocrital because he was doing so personally. I came to Ukraine in December 2014 and by and large have been here since and given up my British and Polish passports. My colleagues do not question my conviction and I am not sure those who do not know me or what I have done or where I come from have the ground to questions it.

We have one thing in common. We're both in front of a keyboard. Unlike you, I don't claim to be willing to do something that I have absolutely zero interest in doing. If you really want to go after Putin, you would be seeking ways out to do so, instead of grandstanding on the internet.

You know nothing of what I have done. We differ also in that I do not claim to know everything about countries I have not visited and their wars. Also I find insulting people to be missing the point. I do not know your record and do not critisise you on it. You do not know mine but critisise me nonetheless constantly - entirely missing the point of the discussion. Then you accuse me of changing the subject! If you wish trade insults I am afraid I cannot oblige you. I have more constructive things to do.

If you want to stick to the point. The POINT is that after a year of investigation, NOTHING has been found that Trump broke any laws. Don't go off tangents with Assad, Caeser, or Putin WHICH YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THESE SUBJECTS, not anyone else on this thread.

I think that is for Mueller to discover - unless as I expect, he is fired - then obstruction of justice. Comey and Mueller and no obstruction is a hard case to make.

The POINT is that Trump is Innocent Until Proven Guilty AND THUS FAR, nothing has even been found that can even accuse Trump of a crime. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE to accuse Trump of ANYTHING. You have NOTHING!

Ukraine has passed evidence to the FBI as has the UK and others. Mueller will get him.

[JAD_333]

My interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors is any crime committed by a person in high (public) office, abusing the power of that office with corrupt intent.

Your interpretation of HIGH is correct. Some people think it means big crimes when, in fact, it means crimes, abuses, and dereliction of duty committed by high level officials and judges in violation of their oaths of office. The founding fathers were familiar with the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English usage. Failure to obey Parliament was one among several other acts considered high crimes.

When the US Constitution was created there was little debate over the wording of the impeachment clause, but all the leading men of that time agreed there had to be a method for removing a president and other high officials. I think they fell back on the English interpretation of an impeachable offense precisely because there was precedent to guide its meaning.

I personally think a credible case can be made for obstruction of justice with regards to the Trump-Comey-Russia investigation matter.

I doubt you could make a credible case in a court of law, which in any event is not where the case would ever be brought, but Congress is not bound by the same rules of evidence as the courts, except to the extent it chooses to be. Thus, barring a smoking gun, Congress would be interpreting events as it saw them. In short, it would be making a political decision, not a judicial one.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir this started with me quoting a Jesuit interpretation of INRI "Justum Necare Regis Impius". I never mentioned Trump. See post #77.

And Trump is no tyrant. Deal with it.

Well first I think there is already pretty good evidence of conspiracy made public

All you think you have is evidence that Trump, the business man have dealings, shady or not, in Russia. You have NOTHING that even suggests that Trump, the Candidate, and certainly not Trump, the President-Elect, consipired with Moscow.

and secondly you do not know what clearance I have had and do have now.

Those who have it don't talk. Those who don't brag. You've been bragging mighty big. At best, you had Class-B access which allows you access to personal information such as HQ addresses and phone numbers but certainly nothing sensitive nor actionable intel. And you lost that once you become an Ukrainian citizen.

Of all the people who had or held Class Protected access on this forum, not one spoke of anything that is not open sourced. We even gone so far as not to quote Wilkileaks. The tust that our governments and the people who shared info with us is paramount and we don't drop names and info that cannot be verified through open source. You, however, drop names and info like a waterfall.

Plato matters because killing people does not make your view right.

Plato did not and could not have stopped Octavian and Mark Anthony. Philosophical debate vs staying alive. Guess which mattered more.

Suppose the flat earthers decided to start a war and kill all round earthers? Would the earth be flat?

The earth is flat because the universe is flat.

What the appartment bombing? You are joking right?

What? You only know that one? The Metro bombings.

Trump has been in bed with the Muscovites for years. Quite alot of the Steele dossier is proven correct.

Oh wow, an American businessman doing business in Russia.

Considering that it started it about a Jesuit view of justification and now you are telling me how well you know and trying to justify Trump I am not sure how it is I am guilty here.

I have been on point since post 1 on this thread. You have ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE to prove to the American people that Trump is guilty of a crime.

And then what? I had a friend who tried to get into the Ozero 'Collective' Estate... You know what is right? 12 yrs he got, dead now. You know where Putin is going to be? You know how to find out.

Strawman. I never said it was easy nor would you be successful. Only that those with conviction will find ways. Those without find excuses.

We actually have had these debates and the view of the West in general has been "Better the Devil you know". I beg to differ - if the next is as bad or worse whack him too. The absurdity of suggesting I "lack conviction" because I have not myself disobeyed my own instructions and gone after Putin personally is a bit like calling a British Civil Servant in WW2 who advocated the assassination of Hitler of being hypocrital because he was doing so personally. I came to Ukraine in December 2014 and by and large have been here since and given up my British and Polish passports. My colleagues do not question my conviction and I am not sure those who do not know me or what I have done or where I come from have the ground to questions it.

You've provided plenty here on this forum to question you. 2014? THAT MEANS YOU HAD NO CLASS PROTECTED ACCESS SINCE 2014 AND ALL YOUR NAME DROPPING SINCE THEN IS PURE HORSE PUCKEY!

And YOU'RE THE ONE BRINGING HITLER ONTO THIS NOW!

You know nothing of what I have done. We differ also in that I do not claim to know everything about countries I have not visited and their wars. Also I find insulting people to be missing the point. I do not know your record and do not critisise you on it. You do not know mine but critisise me nonetheless constantly - entirely missing the point of the discussion. Then you accuse me of changing the subject! If you wish trade insults I am afraid I cannot oblige you. I have more constructive things to do.

Oh horse puckey. You've been on this thread telling the Americans to lynch Trump.

I think that is for Mueller to discover - unless as I expect, he is fired - then obstruction of justice. Comey and Mueller and no obstruction is a hard case to make.

Ukraine has passed evidence to the FBI as has the UK and others. Mueller will get him.

You know something? A simple google revealled NOTHING Ukraine has passed to the FBI with evidence of Trump's wrong doing. Since Mueller has yet to bring charges after a year with this "evidence" in his procession. I call bullshit.

[JAD_333]

interesting what a firestorm of a topic this is!

OoE, JAD, bfng:

again, impeachment is a political act, not a legal one. Bill Clinton ultimately wasn't removed from office simply because Republicans didn't hold a supermajority in the Senate.

I agree, and never said it was wholly a legal act. See my response to Ironduke. WRT to Clinton, true the GOP didn't have the votes to impeach, even with what little dem help they had, but the real reason he didn't get convicted was because Clinton's offense was relatively minor. There wasn't a large hue and cry across the nation for his hide .

similarly, were there enough Republicans from 2009-2016 I have no doubt that Obama would have been impeached.

legal rationale? if there's the political will and the numbers, legal rationale can be -made-. the only question is if whether or not that rationale will prove popular with the voters.

Well, I can't argue with your doubts or lack of of them. I can only offer you my view as a Republican that Obama would not have been impeached even had the GOP held a super majority in Congress. Why? Because there wouldn't have been any offenses on which to impeach him. Think about it: With such a majority, Congress could have blocked all his legislation and passed resolutions thwarting his Executive Orders. Besides that, the optics of impeaching the first black president for purely political reasons would pretty much do in the GOP once and for all.

so, Klein's article is not JUST about "Trump should be impeached", although that is his hook to get all you guys to read it. :-)

this is the main point of the article, as far as i can tell:

But perhaps more importantly, the Founding Fathers envisioned a political system without parties, where the salient political competitions would be between states and between branches rather than between Democrats and Republicans. “There was an assumption that the different branches check each other because they all have different politics,” says Julia Azari, a political scientist at Marquette University.

Instead, parties share the same politics across branches; congressional Republicans today see their fates as intertwined with Trump’s, and so they protect him, because to protect him is to protect themselves. Believing that the American political system would resist parties and then designing our mechanisms of accountability around that assumption was, Azari continues, “the most important constitutional failure.”

To date, serious impeachment proceedings have only been carried out when Congress is controlled by the opposing party to the White House. “Impeachment is dysfunctional,” Azari says. “It’s proven to be a partisan tool and nothing more.”

in short, if you're President and there's a supermajority of the opposing party, watch out...and if you're President and there's NOT a supermajority of the opposing party, in the words of our current President, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

Trump is currently testing out the latter prospect.

Klein is welcome to make up history. While it's true that G.Washington disliked "factions" (parties) and did his best to steer his administration away from them, the founding fathers had no such compunctions. Jefferson, his own Secretary of State, worked at cross purposes with him, eventually creating through Madison the Democratic party (no relation to today's party), while John Adams and his supporters formed the Federalist party. All were founding fathers.

And by way of footnote, the election of 1800 (held a year after Washington died) is on record as one of the nastiest in US history. The lies hurled at each other by the competing campaigns would make Trump's pale by comparison, not to mention fake news, which was rampant, as each side financed leading newspapers of the day.

No. It's clear what Klein is up to. He's a modern day intellectual attempting to extend the original concept of impeachment to a president he doesn't agree with.

The few dem Congressmen openly calling for impeachment are grandstanding for their constituents. Politically, it makes no sense as things stand now. They stand a better chance of defeating Trump in the next election so long as his behavior and policies continue to generate low approval ratings.

[JAD_333]

... view of the West in general has been "Better the Devil you know". I beg to differ - if the next is as bad or worse whack him too. The absurdity of suggesting I "lack conviction" because I have not myself disobeyed my own instructions and gone after Putin personally is a bit like calling a British Civil Servant in WW2 who advocated the assassination of Hitler of being hypocrital because he was doing so personally.

All this talk of whacking Putin and Trump has got to stop. Now.

[Ironduke]

Jefferson, his own Secretary of State, worked at cross purposes with him, eventually creating through Madison the Democratic party (no relation to today's party), while John Adams and his supporters formed the Federalist party. All were founding fathers.

A tangential nitpick, but they called themselves Republicans.

[JAD_333]

A tangential nitpick, but they called themselves Republicans.

I stand half-corrected. They labelled it the Democratic-Republican party.

[zraver]

let's say we use OoE's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"-- "XXX may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office", or JAD's definition, "Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office,"...allow me to ask you, did Bill Clinton's actions fit either definition?

Clinton was an oath breaker. He lied under oath in an attempt to deny an American Citizen their day in court. He was impeached for breaking an oath, and disbarred for it as well.

[zraver]

My interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors is any crime committed by a person in high (public) office, abusing the power of that office with corrupt intent. I personally think a credible case can be made for obstruction of justice with regards to the Trump-Comey-Russia investigation matter.

Let's say, hypothetically, Mueller finds evidence of tax evasion or financial crimes committed by Trump before he became President. Those wouldn't constitute, in my opinion, high crimes or misdemeanors. They would simply be ordinary crimes, committed by a private citizen prior to his taking high office. I believe they would be indictable, but not impeachable offenses.

There is zero evidence of obstruction. Comey was doomed regardless of who won the election. The President has all executive power, he delegates to the executive agencies and political appointees serve at his pleasure.

[Ironduke]

I stand half-corrected. They labelled it the Democratic-Republican party.

A retronym, kind of like the Byzantine Empire. They just called themselves Republicans.

[Ironduke]

There is zero evidence of obstruction. Comey was doomed regardless of who won the election. The President has all executive power, he delegates to the executive agencies and political appointees serve at his pleasure.

18 U.S.C. Section 1505:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

In my book, leaning on Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn in the matter of the Russian probe, in which Trump already knew Flynn committed a federal crime by lying to the FBI, is classic obstruction.

The key word in the statute being corruptly. A President may otherwise legally exercise any executive power, but when he does so corruptly, it becomes a criminal act.

[Ironduke]

Regarding the ability to indict a sitting president.

AAG for Legal Counsel was asked and answered in 1973

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc..._president.htm

Here is the money shot.

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


Randolph D. Moss
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

At the end of the day, that's just an individual's opinion, it's not law and not a part of the Constitution, and not the final authority on the matter.

[Officer of Engineers]

At the end of the day, that's just an individual's opinion, it's not law and not a part of the Constitution, and not the final authority on the matter.

Not law but policy, at least at the time. It meant in 1973, the DOJ determined that it did not have the authority to prosecute a sitting President.