97 thoughts on “High Crimes or Misdemeanors?”

  1. Dr. Throckmorton,
    I came across a deeply informative article published online July 25, “Unfree at Liberty” by senior editor Rod Dreher at The American Conservative. Dreher writes in response to Will Young’s recent Washington Post account of Liberty University’s culture of abuse and fear-mongering that have destroyed Liberty University’s campus newspaper and Department of Communications. A fascinating glimpse of how to kill an educational institution in real time.

  3. This is more than enough for me, and it should be for any American. Some of these same lawmakers crucified Bill Clinton in their support for his impeachment over lying under oath about a personal relationship. How can you support that but deny the need in the case of Donald Trump? It is hypocrisy of the highest order. What really scares me is that we can’t all just agree on this objective fact.

    There is no room for opinion here. If you want to say, “I am a hypocrite but I want the power”, well fine. But at least don’t drag our entire nation down in the pit by pretending this isn’t what it is. Doing so is ultimately what will sign our collective epitaphs. Donald Trump will go one way or another, but the damage being done here now will remain.

    Impeachment is probably not the best move politically for the Democrats, I acknowledge that. But if not in this situation, when? How low do we want to set the bar? What kind of president will we have next or later if we allow this? Impeachment is what is demanded here by the Constitution, the rest is just not important.

  4. It’s enough for me, too, Dr. Throckmorton. Added to all Trump’s other lies, cover-ups, co-operation with and encouragement of other countries to interfere in the 2016 election in his favor, obstruction of justice on many occasions, flouting of our laws, mistreatment of asylum-seekers, and other high crimes and misdemeanors that it would take all day to list, I cannot imagine what is preventing Speaker Pelosi from at least beginning an impeachment inquiry. Finding Trump guilty and removing him from office is impossible with the present Senate make-up, but publicizing the reasons for his impeachment from now until election day is entirely possible. We don’t need to hand the matter to the Senate until after the next election, if at all.

    1. What exactly is the point of this, i.e. what are you trying to address with it? What I see is what I saw from most of the GOP side of these sessions. They treated a well respected (by all sides), intelligent, fair-minded public servant and decorated veteran like a threat to their political power, and not someone doing their assigned duty under the oversight outlined in the Constitution. It was a pitiful and sad display.

      As someone who watched the Watergate hearings in their entirety, I have to say that compared to then, the Grand Old Party has left the building. They are willing to badger a man like Mueller this way, but overlook a camel’s worth of wrong in Donald Trump. They want the power at ALL COSTS. This wasn’t always how it was. I think there is a point at which we may sink so low that we can’t get back up again.

      1. I doubt Big K will be able to offer a cogent argument in support of his sophistry.

          1. Sophistry, deception, obfuscation, and blatant lies are the theological foundation of those lusting after power. The Evangelical world of Trump/Putin/Butina Prayer Breakfasts is crumbling. I am thankful for Dr. Throckmorton, along with other voices of integrity in the U.S., who are able to see a future that is not determined by Evangelical lust for a select few living in power at the direct expense of everyone else.

      2. The point is simply that the Mueller Report says the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Russians. It contradicts what Warren posted.

        Andy Biggs asked Robert Mueller: “You guys you’re team wrote in the report quote this is the top of page 2 volume 1 also on page 173 by the way you said that you’d come to the conclusion that quote the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it’s election interference activities closed quote that’s accurate statement right?”

        Robert Mueller responded: “That’s accurate”

        1. The point is simply that the Mueller Report says the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Russians.

          No, it does not say that. What it actually says is the far weaker “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated …”

          1. FYI: Volume I is very strong in favor of Trump from a legal perspective. Charge may have lacked probable cause and/or would have fallen victim to directed verdict. The obstruction case is theoretically stronger, but was not likely to win because of various legal defenses. Dershowitz is the best source on this. See https://www.buzzsprout.com/422392

          3. … I believe that doc assumes two things: that the person being charged isn’t the president; and that it only concerns prima facia elements. Defenses are things in law that excuse conduct. Let me give you a quick example: Self defense. Suppose prosecutors say that x could be charged with battery. This only means that a prima facie case exists for the charging elements. But if a defense applies — e.g., self defense — then the conduct, through proven, is excused. That is what affirmative defenses in criminal law do: they permit the charged conduct. Trump would have several affirmative defenses if the obstruction case were charged, and the defenses are probably strong enough to get the case thrown out, at least where it concerns the legal right of the executive to fire the special counsel. Again, see Dershowitz or the link I posted.

          4. Again, there does not need to be an underlying criminal act for impeachment.

          5. Let’s see, Dershowitz or or a thousand federal prosecutors. Decisions, decisions.

          6. Let’s see, Dershowitz or or a thousand federal prosecutors. Decisions, decisions.

          7. Let’s see, Dershowitz or or a thousand federal prosecutors. Decisions, decisions.

          8. The mistake you (and the people in that audio clip you gave) are making is you are assuming there has to be a criminal act in conjunction with the act of obstruction and that isn’t the case.

            If you lie to a federal investigator during the course of an investigation, that is obstruction of justice. Even though it isn’t perjury or any other crime. Similarly, even though Trump may have the authority to fire someone, if he did it in order to interfere with the an investigation, that too would be obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is the deliberate attempt to impede an investigation. Trump clearly made such attempts, that fact that he was too inept to be successful it irrelevant.

          9. … you don’t have my point exactly right. I’m not saying that obstruction must be predicated upon something being a crime elsewhere. I’m saying that, in the Trump case, the complained conduct is both: (a) not a crime elsewhere; and (b) specifically protected by statute and constitutional law (elsewhere). If you charge someone with a theory of obstruction that relies only upon “official acts” licensed elsewhere, like hiring and firing people, the defense of legal impossibility is in play (as is the claim of immunity).

            George H.W. Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger for the specific intent of stopping a prosecution. Nixon fired the special prosecutor with the specific intent of stopping an investigation. George W Bush fired US attorneys with the specific intent of them not pursing investigations that would have hurt democrats. All of these acts were understood to be sanctioned by statutory or constitutional law, though politically odeious. Watergate’s fix was to create a special counsel that could not be fired, which was the regime in place until the fiasco of the Clinton impeachment, which was purely political. Both parties decided to put that fix to bed. They did not renew the statute.

            So, you cannot commit obstruction by (a) not otherwise violating a law; AND (b) having permission in the law elsewhere to do the act or ommission complained of.

            On the lying to the federal investigators thing, you will note that Trump surrogates went to jail for that reason. Trump himself avoided that trap by not agreeing to be interviewed. His lawyers screened the answers to the written questions. That was done on purpose. There is no statutory or constitutional permission for the president to lie, like there is to hire and fire. The lawyers wanted to protect him.

          10. “If you charge someone with a theory of obstruction that relies only upon “official acts” licensed elsewhere, like hiring and firing people, the
            defense of legal impossibility is in play”

            Nonsense. If you fire an investigator in order to derail an investigation, even if you have the authority to fire him, then you have obstructed justice and abused the authority of your office.

            Further, you keep taking about how you would defend in a criminal trial. However, this is about an impeachment/removal process NOT a criminal trial the standards are different. A sitting president CANNOT be charged with a crime. Thus (in this case) it is up to congress to determine if their is sufficient evidence to charge Trump with the crime (not convict) and to remove him so he can be charged. I.e. the impeachement/removal process is far more like a grand jury trial, not a criminal one.

            “you cannot commit obstruction by (a) not otherwise violating a law;”

            this is a false statement I already gave you an example of how you can obstruct justice without committing any other crime (i.e. lying to a federal agent or the police or other criminal investigator). Firing an investigator to derail an investigation would be another example. As is ATTEMPTING to fire an investigator, because obstruction of justice doesn’t require you to be successful in stopping the investigation.

          11. … thanks for discussing, I’m out after this. You are starting to misquote me, and I’m not into anything other than serious discussion. So this is my last one.

            What I said was true. The obstruction thesis is legally problematic. Not just affirmative defenses, and good mental state defenses at trial, but, if predicated upon hiring and firing, not a proper read of 18 usc 1512(c)(2). See Dershowitz, page 10-11, in the Mueller Report (skyhorse publishing). This is one reason why Mueller wouldn’t reach a conclusion one way or another. Barr also concurred that “unique problems” existed with the thesis, and he DID make a proper conclusion (page 24). The thing would be subject to legal dismissal before the trial could ever occur anyway, if predicated upon hiring/firing.

            You are right that impeachment can still occur. That is a political question which I was never addressing. I was addressing whether a prudent mind would say that a crime occurred.

            I don’t care about impeachment; I care about the truth. I do think that the political climate will continue to deteriorate if we start prosecuting political enemies and impeaching our rivals when having poor legal reasons. I was against the Clinton impeachment. I was against the legal overreach used against Hillary (emails). And so I am against the obstruction thesis because it requires too much legal imagination and overreach.

            (Thanks and I am out now)

          12. I do think that the political climate will continue to deteriorate if we start prosecuting political enemies and impeaching our rivals when having poor legal reasons.

            I disagree with your assessment here, however it is (again) important to understand that impeachment does not require an actual crime to have been committed. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founding Fathers. If you truly believe that Trump did not attempt to obstruct this investigation, then we have a serious difference of opinion.

            I think the political and ideological climate will continue to deteriorate if we can’t agree on basic reality.

          13. I do think that the political climate will continue to deteriorate if we start prosecuting political enemies and impeaching our rivals when having poor legal reasons.

            I disagree with your assessment here, however it is (again) important to understand that impeachment does not require an actual crime to have been committed. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founding Fathers. If you truly believe that Trump did not attempt to obstruct this investigation, then we have a serious difference of opinion.

            I think the political and ideological climate will continue to deteriorate if we can’t agree on basic reality.

          14. I don’t see how I misquoted you, I cut and pasted exactly what you wrote. I do note earlier in your post you claimed the opposite (that there didn’t need to be an additional criminal act in conjunction with the obstruction), but then you appeared to contradict that with the text I quoted. It seems you are deliberately obfuscating the issues.

            I don’t currently have access to your cite from Dershowitz, but I’m willing to bet it is just his opinion, i.e. he doesn’t cite actual law or a court ruling that says the ability to fire an investigator means it can’t be obstruction. I’ll give you that Deshowitz is a smart guy, but it is still only his opinion.

          16. Also, you have your history wrong. Nixon never fired Archibald Cox. He ordered AG Richardson to do it, who refused and resigned. Then Nixon ordered Deputy AG Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, who also refused and resigned (although there were reports Nixon claimed he fired Ruckelshaus, not that he resigned). Finally, Nixon ordered SG Bork to do it, who did fire Cox. Note, Bork also considered refusing and resigning, but both Richardson and Ruckelshaus urged him not to as it would cause too much chaos in the dept if the top 3 attorneys left Justice all at once.

          17. I believe that doc assumes two things: that the person being charged isn’t the president; and that it only concerns prima facia elements.

            Except they [the former prosecutors] specifically wrote

            Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. [bolding mine].

            Further, under Section III in Volume 2, page 159, the Mueller team wrote

            But [Trump’s] counsel has made a categorical argument that “the President’s exercise of his constitutional authority here to terminate an FBI Director and to close investigations cannot constitutionally constitute obstruction of justice.” (citation omitted)

            And then report goes into lengthy reasons of why the President’s interpretation may not be accurate:

            In analyzing counsel’s statutory arguments, we concluded that the President’s proposed interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2) is contrary to the litigating position of the Department of Justice and is not supported by principles of statutory construction.

          18. I think my posts may be getting deleted, which is okay. I can’t see the last one. You can click my name to see them on Disqus, if you care (if not, no worries).

            It is true, of course, that that there are dueling theories. Dershowitz speculates that the Mueller team was conflicted, and Volume II does evidence a back-and-forth format. The point is that you have to get selective (and creative) to say, without fail, that the thing is a violation of the law.

            Also, remember that prosecutors only charge (allege) violations; they don’t tell us whether a violation occurred. To secure a determination of guilt here would require resolving many legal issues and defenses that are hardly frivolous and that, frankly, seem likely to prevail. This is why the DOJ policy was not the cause for not reaching a conclusion on obstruction. It was because the thesis was problematic. Mueller said this and Barr noted this too. I do admit, like Dershowitz, that the conduct was not exemplar on the part for the President. Contesting McGhan’s recollection is where most lawyers would begin to see exposure. But the hiring-and-firing stuff is pretty solid in favor of Trump in terms of historical practice and existing legal understanding.

          19. Just FYI, deleted comments leave behind a “this comment was deleted” or similar. Disqus is hardly an optimal system, so who knows what might be happening. It is unlikely your comments are being deleted, certainly not by Warren. Your conduct would have to be rather odious (and persistent) to warrant that, not simply an opposing point of view.

          20. I think my posts may be getting deleted, which is okay. I can’t see the last one.

            If you’re referring to the post written at 11:56 AM, I can see it. Sometimes you have to refresh several times before Disqus gives it up.

            I understand the legal problems (mostly) that you are referring to, although your reliance on Dershowitz alone is problematic. However, it seems the Mueller team was well aware of the problems they would have in order to prevail in the federal court system, and that’s why they strongly suggested the best way to resolve them would be through Congressional action, i.e. impeachment.

          21. I guess I should have added that the most interesting part the Mueller team brought up in discussing certain statues that OLC has delivered are the the ones that can be applied to the President because they do not raise questions on the Separation of Powers, such as the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201 “…because the Constitution confers no power in the President to receive bribes.”

            Likewise, under this interpretation, “Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions”. (p.170)

          22. … I’m not relying upon “Dershowitiz alone.” I’m relying upon premises which Dershowitiz is offering. The truth value of any premise comes to us unrelated to who is offering it (ad hominem). Ray Monk is the gold standard for Wittgenstein. Golden Wood is the gold standard for colonial history. We don’t ever appeal to them in reverence, we simply say that, of this basket of premises, there is quite a lot of truth coming forth in this work. That is the way that someone gets their status — not because we idol them; but because so many premises that they offer bear out in truth. So we can’t ever dismiss something merely because only one person says it; we can only dismiss it for whether the premises offered are true or false. What makes Dershowitz special here is that he has a high degree of accuracy in the number of premises put forward.

            (You are probably right that Mueller thought that the best way to handle obstruction was to send it through the impeachment process. But I’m old school on this: I think folks should vote Trump out of office if they find him odious. And if impeachment HELPS in this regard, I’m officially agnostic. As a Wittgensteinian, I simply hate instrumental politics, though I admit it fully functions in the world we live in. We might be close to agreement now. Perhaps it is that I hate the world, the time in which we live, and you do not. I don’t like instrumental impeachment. But I cannot sit here and say it will not work. It may, it may not. As an academic, truth and not “cause” (or justice) is always what my concern is. I preach over and over again to a deaf audience that we must graduate from our politics. But no one hears this message in any way that makes a difference).

          23. Politics is in itself not evil, though like any human interaction can lead to divisive extremes (and our current situation certainly reflects that). Your focus seems so laser like that I’m not sure you are able to address the overall issue practically. This is not an academic exercise, but a multi-faceted, real world issue. The Founding Fathers seem to have provided for such.

            Whether or not you believe that an effective legal defense could be cobbled together if this were to go to court is, frankly, irrelevant to whether Congress could find that he has committed impeachable offenses in his attempts to obstruct the investigation. That he did seems rather obvious to me.

            This investigation was never going to lead to a prosecution in the courts, at least not while Trump is in office. The only remedy is resignation, or impeachment. Politically, the ramifications of impeachment are not good. I’m just not sure how we can ethically avoid it. That’s my opinion after wrestling with this myself.

            Those ramifications are, possible backlash against democrats, Mike Pence as president, loss of the next cycle to another extreme republican, Congress again under republican majority (a party in great distress), or even a boost to Trump’s reelection. None of this is acceptable to me, but how can I use the “ends justify the means” argument when I chastise the GOP for the same?

            It is possible that I am doing something similar to what I believe you are, being too focused on one aspect and disregarding the bigger picture. My guess is that impeachment will not happen. I’m just concerned about where this country is headed if we don’t at least seriously consider it. The corruption of this one man has been amplified to affect us all. It is an untenable situation.

          24. Politics is in itself not evil, though like any human interaction can lead to divisive extremes (and our current situation certainly reflects that). Your focus seems so laser like that I’m not sure you are able to address the overall issue practically. This is not an academic exercise, but a multi-faceted, real world issue. The Founding Fathers seem to have provided for such.

            Whether or not you believe that an effective legal defense could be cobbled together if this were to go to court is, frankly, irrelevant to whether Congress could find that he has committed impeachable offenses in his attempts to obstruct the investigation. That he did seems rather obvious to me.

            This investigation was never going to lead to a prosecution in the courts, at least not while Trump is in office. The only remedy is resignation, or impeachment. Politically, the ramifications of impeachment are not good. I’m just not sure how we can ethically avoid it. That’s my opinion after wrestling with this myself.

            Those ramifications are, possible backlash against democrats, Mike Pence as president, loss of the next cycle to another extreme republican, Congress again under republican majority (a party in great distress), or even a boost to Trump’s reelection. None of this is acceptable to me, but how can I use the “ends justify the means” argument when I chastise the GOP for the same?

            It is possible that I am doing something similar to what I believe you are, being too focused on one aspect and disregarding the bigger picture. My guess is that impeachment will not happen. I’m just concerned about where this country is headed if we don’t at least seriously consider it. The corruption of this one man has been amplified to affect us all. It is an untenable situation.

          25. I think I understand what you are saying about Dershowitz. (On Wittgenstein I have nothing to say and shall keep my silence 🙂

            What Dershowitz is saying, that the Pres. cannot be indicted or impeached for the constitutional exercise of his duties, including firing anyone, even if it obstructs justice and is done with that intent. And that does appear to be a Constitutional Truth. On the other hand, how does that square with the revolutionary precept that ‘no one is above the law, even the President’? I don’t see how both arguments can be valid at once.

            Where does that leave us when we have a President who consistently denigrates the premises of democracy with a questionable commitment to democratic rule, toleration of violence, and a high willingness to limit civil liberties and the media? Are we better off sticking with Dershowitz or the concept of no one is above the law, even the President?

          28. Actually, I did see the reply because I hadn’t refreshed, but Disqus wouldn’t take my reply because the original was gone and it’s not showing up under your name either. But for what it’s worth – here is my reply. I’ve enjoyed this.
            ______
            I’m calling foul on #1, specifically: Remember it was Lindsey Graham and other Republicans who told Trump not to fire Mueller. If he did, they warned, impeachment would occur. They would turn on him.

            On July 27, 2017, Lindsey G and other Republicans warned Trump about firing Sessions, their recent and former colleague. Mueller was secondary.

            “If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay,” Graham said to reporters at the time. “Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency, unless Mueller did something wrong.”

            Of course, Lindsey changed his mind the next year, but whatever.

            However, your claim #1 of political checks doesn’t square with the “a president can hire and fire anybody he wants” to “if you fire so and so, impeachment would occur.”

            It doesn’t take a lot of reading behind the lines to see Trump’s motivations were all about money and Russia. It may be that much of that has been passed to the SDNY. But I don’t think any sentient human being would deny that Trump’s attempts at total obstruction of the Mueller investigation and his attempts at total obstruction of Article 1 prerogatives regarding his tax returns and subpoenas means he has a lot hide.

          29. … the way Mueller would get fired is by directing the atty general to do it. Firing Sessions would have been the way that got done. Also enough Republicans did not want the investigation halted. This provided a political check against abuse of power. So if a president uses his or her firing power egregiously, the system has a theoretical response (check).

          30. … the way Mueller would get fired is by directing the atty general to do it. Firing Sessions would have been the way that got done. Also enough Republicans did not want the investigation halted. This provided a political check against abuse of power. So if a president uses his or her firing power egregiously, the system has a theoretical response (check).

          31. If the president used his firing power to stop an investigation (of the presidents own actions) (“egregiously”) would that or would that not be “obstruction of justice”?

          32. … no. See Richard Nixon. See George H.W. Bush’s pardon of Casper Weinberger. See George W. Bush’s firings of us attorneys. If you want to fix this, get the independent counsel statute back (that expired). That was the whole Watergate fix. It expired. With the statute expired, your only check against a self-interested yet authorized executive authority (under Article II) is the political check. You have to hope that the senators of the same party turn on the president, or you have to hope that public condemnation and political baggage make the firings irrational. One thing that can sweeten the deal is that only the surrogates go to jail.

            Look, we are at cross purposes here. You are talking fairness and justice; I am talking about what the law is. With the current statute expired, hiring and firing at the level of attorney general is, basically, political. That’s the law. So you only have political checks against abuses. Can’t you at least take some solace that those checks, however imperfect, appeared to stop the firing of Mueller in this case?

          33. Richard Nixon resigned and was pardoned by Ford, which is why he didn’t face any charges (and I suspect the pardon was part of the resignation deal).

            H.W. Bush’s pardoned Wienberger, he didn’t fire him.

            Who did W. Bush fire that was at the time investigating W. Bush?

            “I am talking about what the law is.”

            No you are not. You aren’t actually citing any law or court rulings. You are just giving irrelevant examples.

            “Can’t you at least take some solace that those checks, however imperfect, appeared to stop the firing of Mueller in this case?”

            No, because there is still someone in the Oval office who is completely unfit to hold the office of president of the US. Someone who is abusing his authority as president. further, you keep trying focusing on the attempted firing of Mueller as if that was the ONLY example of Trump trying to obstruct justice and it isn’t.

          34. @disqus_PE3qZCCtMu:disqus

            Peter Irons, author of “A People’s History of the Supreme Court” has a fascinating history of Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, including Article 10 in the Articles of Impeachment that referred to Johnson’s racism.

            Johnson’s deep-rooted racism, along with his verbal excoriation of his congressional foes as “treasonous” — something our current president has also done — led to his impeachment.

            See: Trump's racism is an impeachable offense. The precedent of Andrew Johnson proves it.

          35. Moreover, even though the Senate saved Johnson, he was crippled in the the last two years of his presidency from the investigations that led the House to impeach.

          38. It’s an obscure cryptocoin news site (Crypto Coins News). They post some rather click-bait stuff from other topics to try to get their search engine position back to where it was before one of Google’s last algorithm shifts. The use of the term “Ex-Obama Cronies” is a rather obvious tell that this is not serious reporting. It’s based in Norway of all places, but that is because of the crypto.

          39. Yes indeed. Hardly a bastion of politics, never mind non-partisan politics. Now we know where K gets his misinformation.

        2. The exchange Warren posted doesn’t say he conspired. It says he and his campaign “welcomed & encouraged” the interference.There is a difference.

          1. So where is the High Crimes or Misdemeanors? Even liberal news said it was a “disaster” and didn’t move towards impeachment.

          2. What liberal news said that?

            And I don’t need the liberal media to tell me what to think about a president who encouraged Russian interference and then lied about it and tried to cover it up.

          6. Again, what difference could it make to this discussion, to the evidence in the Mueller report or the case for impeachment? Try to stay focused.

          7. I’m focused, watch the video again.

            “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it’s election interference activities closed quote that’s accurate statement right?”

            Robert Mueller responded: “That’s accurate”

          8. And this pertains to an anchorman’s opinion or obstruction how? Again, focus.

          9. but you are ignoring the part where they did ENCOURAGE russian interference. And failed to report russians attempts to interfere in the elections to the appropriate authorities (i.e. the FBI)

          11. You do, but you aren’t engaging. You just drop by occasionally to take potshots. It’s fine to have an opposing point of view, but if you aren’t willing to seek any common ground, or at least have an actual conversation then you aren’t adding any substance to the debate.

            You divert the focus of the discussion, you don’t address most of the points in a comment, and you seem far more partisan than is necessary. You are showing that you simply don’t care, that you just want someplace to argue now and then.

          13. That’s not how it works on an open forum. If you want a private conversation, email him.

          14. That’s not how it works on an open forum. If you want a private conversation, email him.

          15. I’m not sure what you consider “liberal” news, but what I have read didn’t frame it as such. I think Mueller was fair in restricting additional information to both sides. The report is more than enough, and it is up to Congress to do the rest.

            If we are to restrict this to what is in the report, the obstruction is more than enough for me. However, the number of associates and former actors in the administration who have been charged also indicates to me the corruption of this President – as does the fact that Mueller said Trump’s answers to him were “generally untruthful.”

            If you add to that Trump’s denial that Russia and others had anything to do with his getting elected, and therefore his lack of interest in preventing such interference again, the case for impeachment becomes even stronger.

          17. They still go to the character and nature of his choice of associates, but even so, what about the obstruction, the lies, etc?

          19. I’m not playing this anymore. Read the report, though I doubt there is anything the man could do which would change your mind. It was worse than I thought it would be.

          21. Not crime, investigation. Now do you want to have a serious discussion instead of posting doggy videos or using attrition to muddy the issue?

          23. Actually, it’s “fallacies” not “fallacy’s” but who really cares.

          26. This may come as a surprise, but people are not charged for obstructing crimes, because that makes no sense. The charges come from obstructing investigations. For the president, who was under investigation, to demand that the White House Counsel fire the Lead Investigator is an example of obstruction.

          27. He hired them without that knowledge… A decorated General and someone that was hired by several presidents he hired on resume. Flynn’s case isn’t over…

          28. He was warned by many not to hire Flynn. When Flynn was head of the DIA, his people used to warn each other about “Flynn’s facts” and real facts and the differences in between. He was not hired on resume. Where do you get this stuff?

            ETA: Flynn facts were part of what got him fired.

          29. There is no such thing as a ‘process crime’. The legal name for a ‘process crime’ is ‘crime’.

          30. It is shocking that Big K requires spoon-feeding of even the most elementary of facts. His digital footprint won’t age well.

          31. High crimes and misdemeanors are whatever Congress says they are. About 10 of them are listed in Mueller’s volume II report. Of those 10, about 4-6 are worthy enough for the House to consider impeachment.

    3. This is my congressman. He is so many things, but smart is not one of them. He is completely in Trump’s thrall.

  6. And yet, hard on Mueller’s testimony, the Senate GOP did this:

    https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/454635-gop-blocks-election-security-bills-after-mueller-testimony

    Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cyber security measure on Wednesday in the wake of former special counsel Robert Mueller warning about meddling attempts during his public testimony.

    Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign assistance offers, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staffs.

    But Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) blocked each of the bills. She didn’t not say why she was objecting or if she was objecting on behalf of herself or the Senate GOP caucus. A spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Hmmm. Perchance Vlad’s check’s haven’t yet cleared? This whole thing stinks.

    1. Did you watch the hearings? I would swear one of the Republicans told Mueller that despite his warnings of Russian interference that the Democrats were responsible for blocking legislative efforts to fix election security. That surprised me and then last night I read the same article you just posted.

      I think it was the Intelligence hearing, but I can’t remember.

      1. OK. I checked thru the Intelligence hearing transcript and couldn’t find where Republicans made that accusation, so I’ll withdraw it (so to speak).

        I did find this statement from Stanley McChrystal and David Eichenbaum in a Politico article about our (un)preparedness for the 2020 election and why the GOP may be blocking legislative action: Politicians who win elections on the basis of false narratives promoted by malicious actors will never have an incentive to expose the origins of that misinformation.

Comments are closed.