Based on the Mueller Report I believe Trump committed Obstruction of Justice.

[Mister Mets]

Yes, that is why impeaching Clinton (who was a better president and was guilty of much less) led to the resounding Gore victory in 2000.

Gore lost a very close election (537 votes in Florida), under circumstances that have been unfavorable in the last sixty+ years (trying to win a third term in the White House for a party.)

Up for debate. I'd agree with "Something You Can Try To Get A Conviction On..." This certainly doen't look like it constituted a clear felony offense.

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/...edwards-077398





Edit:

Another piece from the time...

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/...tumbled-076942





So, yeah. It seems like there is a precedent for that you can take a run a getting a felony conviction on this sort of thing.

On the other hand, the results in court don't exactly spell out "These Things Are Felony Violations..." clearly.

There are several measures of legal standards. It's much easier to get a grand jury to agree to go forward on a case than it to get a regular jury to determine beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.

Any questions the potential prosecutors have are questions that any half-decent lawyer would be able to exploit.

[Malvolio]

Here's the problem regarding impeachment and comparing it to a criminal court case. In a regular criminal court, the prosecutor has some say in the make-up of the jury. In fact, there's a phase of the trial literally called, "jury selection." The prosecutor can throw out any jurors he or she feels are biased or may become biased. The prosecutor can even ask the judge for a change of venue if he or she feels that twelve unbiased jurors can't be found from the current jury pool. But none of that is possible in impeachment. The jury is the US Senate. Period. The best the prosecutor could ask for is for a Senator to recuse him or herself if said Senator has a conflict of interest. Good luck getting even a single Republican Senator to do that.

[Mister Mets]

Are there any particularly good write-ups of the Mueller report?

Not true.

Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction because they thought there might be insider trading. If there is enough to start an investigation, obstruction can then ensue.

The meeting at the trump Tower and the ties numerous Trump officials had with foreign countries was enough to start an investigation. That Trump then tried to obstruct it is what is illegal, even if the very, very narrow definition of collusion could not be applied. (They did in fact, coordinate with the Russians)

I am not arguing the "shot a gun" scenerio you hate. I am talking the facts on the ground in this case.

Your argument is that if they ignored all the interplay between the Russians and Trumps and didn't investigate, he wouldn't have been able to obstruct.
That doesn't fly. I can't muster the sympathy you have for Trump.

Martha Stewart altered evidence and lied to investigators.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/b...struction.html

No you don't. You just need reasonable cause to start an investigation. You don't need evidence for a crime to start an investigation because most crimes could not be investigated if you did.

And to that end, it was suspected if not known that there was a Russian influence on the Trump campaign. That leads to the Muller investigation because while there was no direct evidence of a crime in the case of Russia helping a knowing Trump get elected, in conspiracy you cannot guarantee there will be any sort of smoking gun. Conspiracy does not mean you will have direct evidence of a crime which is why an investigation is needed. An investigation is done to prove ones guilt or innocence and while Trump may be fine for now, during that period of investigation you had criminal charges levied against people who worked with and for Donald Trump. Even if he wasn't an accomplice or the bad actor itself, during the investigation it raises many red flags which is very much why this is/was necessary.

Investigations are typically not done to prove one's innocence. The difficulty in establishing innocence is why the final standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that people who are more likely than not to have committed a crime but have a dice's roll chance of being innocent are supposed to go free.

Here's the problem regarding impeachment and comparing it to a criminal court case. In a regular criminal court, the prosecutor has some say in the make-up of the jury. In fact, there's a phase of the trial literally called, "jury selection." The prosecutor can throw out any jurors he or she feels are biased or may become biased. The prosecutor can even ask the judge for a change of venue if he or she feels that twelve unbiased jurors can't be found from the current jury pool. But none of that is possible in impeachment. The jury is the US Senate. Period. The best the prosecutor could ask for is for a Senator to recuse him or herself if said Senator has a conflict of interest. Good luck getting even a single Republican Senator to do that.

Wouldn't Democratic Senators also have a conflict of interest? At least six are running for President against the potential defendant.

[Malvolio]

Are there any particularly good write-ups of the Mueller report?



Martha Stewart altered evidence and lied to investigators.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/b...struction.html



Investigations are typically not done to prove one's innocence. The difficulty in establishing innocence is why the final standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that people who are more likely than not to have committed a crime but have a dice's roll chance of being innocent are supposed to go free.



Wouldn't Democratic Senators also have a conflict of interest? At least six are running for President against the potential defendant.

Oh, of course. And Trump's defense team would try to get them to recuse. But the Prosecution would only be interested in getting Republican Senators to recuse.

[Toreador]

The freshmen Democrat congressmen/women need to tamp down their cry for impeachment. Even if it goes through Congress (which it will) there'll never get enough votes from a Republican controlled Senate for an impeachment. Even if some Republicans start to waver and cross sides McConnell will likely prevent from getting to the floor for a vote.

The better plan is to hammer all of Trump's mistake to the public and make sure Trump is defeated in 2020. And once he's out go full force into his probable illegal dealings because Trump is not go to fade away quietly into presidential retirement. He's too addicted to the limelight and will continue to fire up whatever base he has left of his anti-media, non-white agenda.

[Tendrin]

The freshmen Democrat congressmen/women need to tamp down their cry for impeachment. Even if it goes through Congress (which it will) there'll never get enough votes from a Republican controlled Senate for an impeachment. Even if some Republicans start to waver and cross sides McConnell will likely prevent from getting to the floor for a vote.

The better plan is to hammer all of Trump's mistake to the public and make sure Trump is defeated in 2020. And once he's out go full force into his probable illegal dealings because Trump is not go to fade away quietly into presidential retirement. He's too addicted to the limelight and will continue to fire up whatever base he has left of his anti-media, non-white agenda.

Bluntly: If you can't impeach Trump, who CAN you impeach? If you only impeach if you're sure you can pull it off, you're effectively conceding a lot. Impeachment is the right thing to do. It may or may not be the most /effective/ thing or path ahead, but it is ethically the correct process.

[Mister Mets]

Oh, of course. And Trump's defense team would try to get them to recuse. But the Prosecution would only be interested in getting Republican Senators to recuse.

For sure. But this gets to a difference between Impeachment proceedings and any normal trial. In any normal trial, anyone who is a Senator would not be allowed to be in the jury for the President due to conflict of interest and likely connections (IE- friends in common). In an impeachment, the people who should recuse themselves because they might be biased in favor of the President are balanced out by the people who should otherwise recuse themselves because they might be biased against the President.

The freshmen Democrat congressmen/women need to tamp down their cry for impeachment. Even if it goes through Congress (which it will) there'll never get enough votes from a Republican controlled Senate for an impeachment. Even if some Republicans start to waver and cross sides McConnell will likely prevent from getting to the floor for a vote.

The better plan is to hammer all of Trump's mistake to the public and make sure Trump is defeated in 2020. And once he's out go full force into his probable illegal dealings because Trump is not go to fade away quietly into presidential retirement. He's too addicted to the limelight and will continue to fire up whatever base he has left of his anti-media, non-white agenda.

An impeachment proceeding shouldn't be about whether they can get the Republican Senate to vote a particular way, but about whether the argument is clear enough that it can sway enough of the public (which would probably coincide with getting Republican Senators on-board).

A complicating factor is that we don't know what'll come out during the impeachment process. The smoking gun against Richard Nixon was when the courts ruled to release a tape in which he was recorded ordering the CIA to lie to the FBI that the Watergate burglars could not be investigated due to national security concerns. This occurred well into the impeachment proceedings.

It seems to me that impeachment would currently be a bad idea because the arguments aren't as simple as Democrats were hoping prior to the release of the Mueller report. I don't see people being persuaded by the argument that because Trump wanted to fire Sessions and didn't, and wanted to fire Mueller and didn't, he obstructed justice. The rationale for impeachment proceedings could change if new material comes to light, which can happen with Democrats controlling the House and Trumo's home state having an attorney general who he wouldn't be able to blackmail.

[Mr.Majestic]

Contrary to conventional wisdom, impeaching Bill Clinton in 1998 didn’t actually backfire on Republicans.

They failed. What happens if the Democrats succeed? Mike Pence becomes the new President. Every person that voted for Trump will feel that they were robbed of their voice and anyone that has ever identified as Republican of Libertarian will make the Dems pay in 2020.

Why would anyone with two working brain cells to rub together have the back of a loathsome shitstain like Trump is a mystery to me.

Because Middle America should have a voice. Because there are a lot of people out there that believe that their condition has been worsening in the last 20 years. Because that orange clown had the cojones to say what a lot of Americans have been told to stay silent about. Because Obamacare doesn't work(without tort reform). Because illegal immigration IS a problem. Don't mock scared people, don't crap on their fears while county hospitals throughout America have been shutting down. That's what Hilary did. The deplorables spoke their peace. Did Hilary realize that if she won the election that she'd have to be the President to ALL Americans?

The freshmen Democrat congressmen/women need to tamp down their cry for impeachment.

The Big Two really have to tone it down. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar are mobilizing lots of Democrats but they are absolutely electrifying the GOP base against them.

Impeachment is the right thing to do. It may or may not be the most /effective/ thing or path ahead, but it is ethically the correct process.

Do you want do what is ethically/morally right or do you want to win in 2020? Choose, American politics isn't for Greek philosophers.

[worstblogever]

Are there any particularly good write-ups of the Mueller report?

Yeah, the summary Mueller and his team wrote.

[jetengine]

Because Middle America should have a voice. Because there are a lot of people out there that believe that their condition has been worsening in the last 20 years. Because that orange clown had the cojones to say what a lot of Americans have been told to stay silent about. Because Obamacare doesn't work(without tort reform). Because illegal immigration IS a problem. Don't mock scared people, don't crap on their fears while county hospitals throughout America have been shutting down. That's what Hilary did. The deplorables spoke their peace. Did Hilary realize that if she won the election that she'd have to be the President to ALL Americans?
.

Its almost like the Democrats would have been able to solve that if the reoublicans weren't hell bent on obstruction and middle america realised it needs to change. Small towns will never get big, money is leaving, coal mines are a failing industry that requires "socialist" practices they claim to abhor to keep alive.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Because Middle America should have a voice. Because there are a lot of people out there that believe that their condition has been worsening in the last 20 years. Because that orange clown had the cojones to say what a lot of Americans have been told to stay silent about. Because Obamacare doesn't work(without tort reform). Because illegal immigration IS a problem. Don't mock scared people, don't crap on their fears while county hospitals throughout America have been shutting down. That's what Hilary did. The deplorables spoke their peace. Did Hilary realize that if she won the election that she'd have to be the President to ALL Americans?

Oh, PLEASE! Trump wasn't and isn't that voice for anyone except for billionaires and racists. If those Middle (white) Americans were scared, it wasn't because of any economic or health woes, but rather they feared being no longer atop the societal food chain in a country growing increasingly diverse. If you think Trump, born into the sort of wealth 99 percent of Americans will NEVER even imagine, forget about acheiving is a president to all Americans who aren't white, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Yeah, the summary Mueller and his team wrote.

There was the Buzzfeed deal which is ...a bit off in a way. Where we see why Mueller didn't take Cohen's word on Trump instructing him to lie to Congress. As I explained to a Trump supporter who was like..."See...see , Trump is innocent fully !" . Cohen felt Trump and his lawyers wanted him to lie. But Mueller couldn't go on this without pure fact of it. So he couldn't take Cohen's word.


Its one of those rare things where we will never know honestly . Its the rare thing in report Trump wasn't seen as a liar.

[numberthirty]

There was the Buzzfeed deal which is ...a bit off in a way. Where we see why Mueller didn't take Cohen's word on Trump instructing him to lie to Congress. As I explained to a Trump supporter who was like..."See...see , Trump is innocent fully !" . Cohen felt Trump and his lawyers wanted him to lie. But Mueller couldn't go on this without pure fact of it. So he couldn't take Cohen's word.


Its one of those rare things where we will never know honestly . Its the rare thing in report Trump wasn't seen as a liar.

From what I read of the new piece Buzzfeed ran that was essentially "Now That The Dust Has Settled...", they stuck buy that their people had seen notes that their sources assumed would lead to something.

Turned out that they guy heading up the investigation decided otherwise.

[Kusanagi]

A nice summary how massive incompetence and disobedience likely saved Trump.

Warning NSFW due to language.

[Mr.Majestic]

Its almost like the Democrats would have been able to solve that if the reoublicans weren't hell bent on obstruction and middle america realised it needs to change. Small towns will never get big, money is leaving, coal mines are a failing industry that requires "socialist" practices they claim to abhor to keep alive.

This is the wrong kind of attitude. I am in no way shape or form a Republican or White but I am from a small town and only moved to the city for college. Don't tell Middle America what's good for them, listen to them for chrissakes. One of the first things I learned when working in customer service is the client must be heard. Assuage their fears make them feel like someone's in their corner. I once got into an argument with some young people online over seal hunting in the Arctic. I was explaining to them that it was one of the few opportunities that the Inuit had to make their own money. They replied that maybe then the Inuit shouldn't be living there... I was dumbfounded, I replied are you advocating for moving out Aboriginals? They answered yes. Thinking you know what's right for someone gave us Mao Ze Dong type solutions.

Oh, PLEASE! Trump wasn't and isn't that voice for anyone except for billionaires and racists. If those Middle (white) Americans were scared, it wasn't because of any economic or health woes, but rather they feared being no longer atop the societal food chain in a country growing increasingly diverse. If you think Trump, born into the sort of wealth 99 percent of Americans will NEVER even imagine, forget about acheiving is a president to all Americans who aren't white, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

Which is what's crazy. That's how desperate Middle America was at wanting to be heard. They were willing to back an orangutan-looking clown in a 3000$ suit because he was the only guy saying what they wanted to hear. If Hilary had not called scared people deplorables, if she had chastised those calling Middle America flyover states... Jeez she herself is from Arkansas. Just listen and pay them lip-service and she woulda won.

Goddamn madness I tells ya.