I find the house investigations to be a waste of time at this point. Mueller has a microscope up Trump's butt with indictment and subpoena powers. Why can't we get that report first and go from there? It's just political theater for 2020. The house is going to do what? Maybe impeach him but he won't be removed from office, or they will send recommendations to the attorney general that Trump hand picked. It will go nowhere just like all the republican hearings when Obama was in office.
Mueller will likely not indict and prosecute. SDNY is more likely, but certainly not a given. Individual One should be scared shitless about his life after the Presidency.
The Special Counsel can only investigate in a criminal/counter-intelligence capacity. They can't make political decisions. The House is a political body, so their investigation can come to political conclusions (like impeachment). So, while it is true the House won't be able to equal Mueller on investigatory efficacy, they also have a different and unique role. Obviously, having the Mueller report in hand would make their own job easier, but they can't abdicate their responsibilities toward oversight to the special counsel, who is at the end of the day a creature of the Presidency. It is a shame in some ways that Mueller is employed by the DOJ and not the House. The House should probably hire their own version of Mueller at least -- something like the 9/11 Commission that can make its own report on what happened. I don't think legislators have the right skillset to do this.
Here's the problem I see. The house ramps up these investigations. Then the Mueller report comes out and doesn't have any real teeth to it... the Republicans will just stonewall the house investigations and call it a witch hunt saying Mueller already cleared him. It could backfire on the democrats. Obama's Attorney General took the 5th in a Congressional hearing and the previous Obama Attorney General, Eric Holder, was held in contempt by the Republican house. NOTHING came of that. No reason for Trumpsters to cooperate. I would wait for the Mueller report. That's all.
I agree with you. The House investigation -- at least the one on conspiring with a foreign power and covering it up -- would probably die an ignominious death if Mueller doesn't find anything worthwhile. The other investigations as well would probably be painted with the same brush -- presidential harassment because the Democrats couldn't find anything on the conspiracy front. I don't think that means its not worth doing. I think it is their job and they should do it regardless, even if it does backfire electorally.
[Premium Post] So you admit that the Democrats are using the legal process to "get revenge" and settle partisans battles and elections gone bye. They are launching investigations to find crimes, not investigating legitimate crimes. This is the absolute worst abuse of the judicial system in modern history. This is truly third world-style political persecution of politicians with opposing views. Not only is this grossly unfair to President Trump and his advisers, but it will also serve to suppress those interested in going into politics, leaving us with a far smaller and worse pool of future candidates. The Democrats have proven that they will stoop to never-before-seen depths in order to get revenge against their political opponents. Can't find a crime, no problem, turn up every aspect of the politician's life to FIND one!. Then make their life miserable once they leave office! How can any reasonable person justify this behavior? They simply cannot. And I predict this will backfire spectacularly just like the Brett Kavanaugh character assassination by Dr. Baby Voice. GOOD DAY
Axelrod is surprised that he’s criticized of course but he and his old school Dem approach is why Dems lose elections and partially why Obama had bad counsel that probably lost them the House and Senate. Rule #1 that Democrats need to know when making a decision: NEVER make a decision or make a non decision based on fear of what Republicans and their media will say about that move. Be strong in your convictions. Republicans will ALWAYS go ape sh$& crazy over any and everything you do regardiess. You doing nothing will be criticized. So do the right thing and always makes sure YOUR electorate feels like you have their backs. Creating a public facing follow up to the Mueller/SDNY investigations is the right thing to do. Democracy dies in darkness. Be strong about that need and be methodical about how you deliver the results of this investigation. Go about the work like Mueller did but in the end you have the ability to go public with your findings unlike Mueller’s handcuffs of the Trump DOJ. So yeah... Axelrod... nice guy, but he’s too weak to be a voice we pay much attention to in the Trump/Fox propaganda era.
WSJ Editorial Board today: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nadlers-obstruction-quest-11551833245?mod=hp_opin_pos1 Nadler’s ‘Obstruction’ Quest The examples he cites as crimes are legal presidential actions. 1233 Comments By The Editorial Board March 5, 2019 7:47 p.m. ET Well, we’re off on the march to impeachment, as we predicted last year even as Democrats said it wasn’t on their minds. With Chairman Jerry Nadler’s subpoena swarm from House Judiciary this week, and his assertions that President Trump obstructed justice, the articles of impeachment are apparently awaiting only the collection of the readily available details to fill in the blanks. *** “Do you think the President obstructed justice?” asked ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. “Yes, I do,” replied Mr. Nadler. “It’s very clear that the President obstructed justice. It’s very clear—1,100 times he referred to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt, he tried to—he fired—he tried to protect [Michael] Flynn from being investigated by the FBI. He fired [FBI director Jim] Comey in order to stop the Russian thing, as he told NBC News.” Credit Mr. Nadler for candor that Democrats didn’t display when they campaigned last year. Then they talked only about holding the President “accountable.” Now they claim they already have enough to impeach Mr. Trump, though as Mr. Nadler admitted Sunday, “you have to persuade enough of the opposition party voters, Trump voters . . . that you’re not just trying to steal the last—to reverse the results of the last election.” That may be harder than he imagines, and not only because of Mr. Nadler’s Freudian slip there of “steal.” Based on the public evidence so far, Mr. Trump hasn’t obstructed justice in any of the examples Mr. Nadler cited. Mr. Nadler wants to turn the President’s exercise of his normal constitutional powers into impeachable offenses. The case against Mr. Nadler’s obstruction theory has been made in these pages by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and appellate lawyer and our contributor David Rivkin. Attorney General William Barr also made the case in his 2018 memo to the Justice Department when he was still in private life. A President can obstruct justice while in office but only if he is committing a per se illegal offense. That is, if he suborns perjury or destroys evidence, or commits “any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence,” as Mr. Barr put it. Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton committed such acts in Mr. Barr’s view, but Mr. Trump has not as far as we can see. On the other hand, a President cannot obstruct justice when he takes actions that are consistent with his Article II powers under the Constitution. That includes in particular firing inferior executive-branch officers such as Mr. Comey. Such acts may be politically stupid, but they aren’t obstruction. Mr. Trump’s motive in firing Mr. Comey doesn’t matter. If a President commits a legal act but can be accused of a crime because of his motive, then any presidential action can be called into question based on an accusation of motive. This would open a Pandora’s box that would leave any political officer vulnerable to charges of obstruction. That would include an Attorney General who declined to prosecute someone whom Members of Congress wanted him to indict. Congress could essentially rule the executive branch. Mr. Trump’s comments to Mr. Comey about Mr. Flynn also aren’t obstruction for similar reasons. The President is the chief law enforcement officer and can advise on cases as he wants. Such meddling is unwise and politically dumb, but it isn’t obstruction. “On their face, the President’s comments to Comey about Flynn seem unobjectionable,” Mr. Barr wrote in his 2018 memo. “He made the accurate observation that Flynn’s call with the Russian Ambassador was perfectly proper and made the point that Flynn, who had now suffered public humiliation from losing his job, was a good man. Based on this, he expressed the ‘hope’ that Comey could ‘see his way clear’ to let the matter go. The formulation that Comey ‘see his way clear,’ explicitly leaves the decision to Comey. Most normal subordinates would not have found these comments obstructive.” In any event, nothing was obstructed. Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate what Mr. Nadler calls “the Russian thing,” and Mr. Flynn was prosecuted. As for Mr. Nadler’s attempt to criminalize Mr. Trump’s charges of a “witch hunt,” try selling that to the public. *** Perhaps Mr. Mueller will report new facts that are damning. But it’s notable that Mr. Nadler and other Democrats are now saying they will expand their probes beyond Mr. Mueller’s ambit. They seem to be expecting a factual and political disappointment. Democrats seem hell-bent on impeaching Mr. Trump, and most of the media will be cheering them on. We’ll wait to see all of the facts they assemble. But the legal bar should be high, the crimes real, and the Constitution protected if they want to “steal,” er, reverse, an election. Appeared in the March 6, 2019, print edition.
Hows this for a ramble from republican senator grassley... Mind you, every president for the last 40 years provided their tax returns.
