• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Impeachment

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,855
3,081
136
Repubs are going to hang on to Trump as long as it's politically possible for fear of getting primaried out by Trump's base of loonies. Most Repubs in Congress are completely silent about Trump's self-inflicted travails and with good reason. Yet they will rally around him like how a herd of elephants will rally around their youngsters when the predators are trying to get at them.

It seems when they couch themselves in the anonymity of the herd they get really brave and bluster about to and fro, yet when they're singled out and asked to be held personally accountable for aiding and abetting Trump's trampling of the rule of law, Hillary's name pops out of nowhere like a lightning bolt out of clear skies.

For the Repubs it doesn't matter at all that Trump is Putin's bitch, that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator, that he is a pathological liar, an adulterer, a welsher and a tax evading crook. Nor do their supporters. What would be fatal to most any other president, Trump has managed to dodge and fake his way through many fatal moments of his own making.

In Trump lay the very survival of the GOP's diminishing hold over the nation. Their backs are against the wall and the party will tolerate anything that Trump screws up because as Trump goes, so does the party.

Methinks Pelosi realizes this and also understands that the GOP is a cornered wounded beast that will do anything, say anything no matter the long term consequences it may suffer. She needs to get this shot at Trump clear of any obstacles that the Repubs have planned to throw up around Trump because she has only a single shot to ding Trump bad enough for him and the party to give it all up.

Play the long game for a sure shot or spray and pray. I lean toward the 'ol "find'um, fix'um and finish'um" strategy rather than the banzai charge into the fray.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
4,940
4,400
136
As soon as Barr is held to account, the full report is presented to Congress and Mueller testifies.
This..All three have to happen first..Get the information out to the American people first...

It's important for Democrats to focus on the election issues. Impeachment could dominate the headlines, which is one thing, if the president's popularity among his supporters takes a shit. But when only 29% of the people support impeachment, it's clear that this is not the issue to campaign on.

Look at Trump's behavior. He's basically taunting the Democrats, almost as if he wants to be impeached, and that's probably because he views it as working to his advantage. The Democrats are better off attacking republicans on issues that resonate with working class Americans and staying focused on that. Being too heavily focused on impeachment misses the real story here, which is connecting with people and selling them a new vision for how our country should operate. If all we talk about is impeachment between now and November 2020, we will badly, miss an opportunity to explain to the masses of Americans why The the Democrats have better ideas for how to run this country. I don't give a fuck what Russia does short of cutting out the power to all blue states, this past election proved that, Russia involvement or not, if enough people want to put a stop to this nonsense, they can.

I don't like this position, but...Impeachment would actually play right into the hands of Trumpland, because what it would do is to send the message to his voters that their country and their vote is being taken away from them, that their country is being stolen from them. On some level, they already believe that their country is being stolen from them in the figurative sense, but if they see his detractors, women and minorities trying to use political power to impeach and remove their beloved leader from office, we could very well go beyond polarization and into radicalization. And again, the Russians would absolutely be more than willing to involve themselves and offer some guidance, and they have a lot of experience playing this game. That is why impeaching the president right now, absent of any major crash in his popularity is a dangerous idea.

It seems that the Republicans and their propagandists won this battle in the in this information war so far. Out on the street it is very likely that people think the report exonerated Trump of any wrongdoing, and it's the Democrats that were intent on impeachment no matter what.

If Mueller decides to use the voice that God gave him to actually enter the public debate and push back against that idea of "The report completely exonerated Trump" ..then, my position changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,339
2,034
136
Mueller definitely kept things extremely narrow in scope. However, we don't actually know what limits the DoJ imposed upon him. Regardless, I think the big deal here is AG Barr's covering for Trump. If Muller assumed Barr would essentially release his summary material and deliver the rest to Congress and a more redacted version to the public, then there would be basically no option right now but impeachment.

Mueller may also have been quite wary of the narrative Trump could spin surrounding bias. If he went to far in scope or recommendation of action, then he might have anticipated division along those lines without examining the evidence.

Turns out we're there anyway.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,281
643
126
Honestly this is what I am most afraid of.
I'm not feeling good about it. Fucking lawfareblog is now running manure for this admin.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-barr-and-mueller-report

I think Mueller made a mistake, one that diminishes the perception of his independence and the credibility of his report, in failing to make a prosecutorial judgment one way or the other on obstruction, and especially in his extra-prosecutorial insistence that he was not “exonerating” the president. (Mueller opened himself up to this powerful rebuttal from the president’s special counsel, Emmet Flood.) Mueller’s action seems inconsistent with what the regulations tried to accomplish, which was to prevent extra-prosecutorial editorializing. In effect Mueller made an impeachment referral that the regulations do not contemplate, though he followed the regulations in leaving it to Barr to make the report public, which he knew Barr had pledged to do.

Seriously. lmao. Flood's "rebuttal" was damning against Barr, not Mueller.

And THIS was Goldsmith's previous opinion (edit: right side of the tweet), which is totally contradictory with the article:


But that's not even the worst part about it. There's more!

"The enormous criticism of Barr’s March 24 letter seems greatly exaggerated to me. The letter purported to state the Mueller report’s “principal conclusions.” It did that, and it specifically noted Mueller’s damning conclusion, which the public later learned Barr thought was inappropriate, that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

In this light, and especially in light of subsequent events, I fail to see how Barr warrants the super-harsh personal criticism he has received over the letter. Those subsequent events include (i) publicly clarifying that he, Barr, did not purport to capture or summarize everything in Mueller’s report; (ii) working around the clock to get the relatively lightly redacted report made public—something Barr had no legal duty to do; (iii) testifying twice before Congress to explain his reasoning; and (iv) allowing Mueller to testify before Congress if he wants. These are not the actions of a man trying to mischaracterize the report or hide the ball. And they cured any objections that might have properly been lodged against the quickly written original letter."

I'm not optimisitc AT ALL about Mueller being harsh on Barr, especially if Barr's reporting of the interaction with Mueller is accurate. if it is, Mueller will frame it similarly to this guy and probably will shy away from giving an opinion on obstruction even though Barr claims Mueller should have made a charging decision.
 
Last edited:

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,728
2,244
136
Methinks Pelosi realizes this and also understands that the GOP is a cornered wounded beast that will do anything, say anything no matter the long term consequences it may suffer. She needs to get this shot at Trump clear of any obstacles that the Repubs have planned to throw up around Trump because she has only a single shot to ding Trump bad enough for him and the party to give it all up.

Play the long game for a sure shot or spray and pray. I lean toward the 'ol "find'um, fix'um and finish'um" strategy rather than the banzai charge into the fray.
Yeah if we were to impeach today, it'd be a partisan issue in the senate and fail. There just isn't enough motivation for the 22 senate GOP members to ditch Trump. And I said 22 because there will be a few dems who will flake out.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,669
13,748
136
I'm not feeling good about it. Fucking lawfareblog is now running manure for this admin.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-barr-and-mueller-report

I think Mueller made a mistake, one that diminishes the perception of his independence and the credibility of his report, in failing to make a prosecutorial judgment one way or the other on obstruction, and especially in his extra-prosecutorial insistence that he was not “exonerating” the president. (Mueller opened himself up to this powerful rebuttal from the president’s special counsel, Emmet Flood.) Mueller’s action seems inconsistent with what the regulations tried to accomplish, which was to prevent extra-prosecutorial editorializing. In effect Mueller made an impeachment referral that the regulations do not contemplate, though he followed the regulations in leaving it to Barr to make the report public, which he knew Barr had pledged to do.

Seriously. lmao. Flood's "rebuttal" was damning against Barr, not Mueller.

And THIS was Goldsmith's previous opinion (edit: right side of the tweet), which is totally contradictory with the article:


But that's not even the worst part about it. There's more!

"The enormous criticism of Barr’s March 24 letter seems greatly exaggerated to me. The letter purported to state the Mueller report’s “principal conclusions.” It did that, and it specifically noted Mueller’s damning conclusion, which the public later learned Barr thought was inappropriate, that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

In this light, and especially in light of subsequent events, I fail to see how Barr warrants the super-harsh personal criticism he has received over the letter. Those subsequent events include (i) publicly clarifying that he, Barr, did not purport to capture or summarize everything in Mueller’s report; (ii) working around the clock to get the relatively lightly redacted report made public—something Barr had no legal duty to do; (iii) testifying twice before Congress to explain his reasoning; and (iv) allowing Mueller to testify before Congress if he wants. These are not the actions of a man trying to mischaracterize the report or hide the ball. And they cured any objections that might have properly been lodged against the quickly written original letter."

I'm not optimisitc AT ALL about Mueller being harsh on Barr, especially if Barr's reporting of the interaction with Mueller is accurate. if it is, Mueller will frame it similarly to this guy and probably will shy away from giving an opinion on obstruction even though Barr claims Mueller should have made a charging decision.
Meh. Given DoJ policy, Mueller came as close as possible to indicting Trump as he could w/o actually doing so. It never was possible for him to do so in the first place. He did give Congress a roadmap to impeachment, however.

How in the fuck anybody accepts the AG acting as Trump's attorney is a disgrace. The right answer for any AG at this juncture would simply be to send Congress whatever they want & let them handle it at the higher Constitutional level of impeachment. That oath he swore to defend the Constitution? Forget that. Defend Trump instead.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,451
4,967
136
Meh. Given DoJ policy, Mueller came as close as possible to indicting Trump as he could w/o actually doing so. It never was possible for him to do so in the first place. He did give Congress a roadmap to impeachment, however.

How in the fuck anybody accepts the AG acting as Trump's attorney is a disgrace. The right answer for any AG at this juncture would simply be to send Congress whatever they want & let them handle it at the higher Constitutional level of impeachment. That oath he swore to defend the Constitution? Forget that. Defend Trump instead.
Strongman Trump has surrounded himself with right-wing authoritarians who sign NDAs. He owns the content of their minds.

Always keep an eye on whomever is acting/nominated SecDef. Right now, acting SecDef is Grover Norquist's brother.

Swamp: Drained.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
4,940
4,400
136
I'm not feeling good about it. Fucking lawfareblog is now running manure for this admin.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-barr-and-mueller-report

I think Mueller made a mistake, one that diminishes the perception of his independence and the credibility of his report, in failing to make a prosecutorial judgment one way or the other on obstruction, and especially in his extra-prosecutorial insistence that he was not “exonerating” the president. (Mueller opened himself up to this powerful rebuttal from the president’s special counsel, Emmet Flood.) Mueller’s action seems inconsistent with what the regulations tried to accomplish, which was to prevent extra-prosecutorial editorializing. In effect Mueller made an impeachment referral that the regulations do not contemplate, though he followed the regulations in leaving it to Barr to make the report public, which he knew Barr had pledged to do.

Seriously. lmao. Flood's "rebuttal" was damning against Barr, not Mueller.

And THIS was Goldsmith's previous opinion (edit: right side of the tweet), which is totally contradictory with the article:


But that's not even the worst part about it. There's more!

"The enormous criticism of Barr’s March 24 letter seems greatly exaggerated to me. The letter purported to state the Mueller report’s “principal conclusions.” It did that, and it specifically noted Mueller’s damning conclusion, which the public later learned Barr thought was inappropriate, that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

In this light, and especially in light of subsequent events, I fail to see how Barr warrants the super-harsh personal criticism he has received over the letter. Those subsequent events include (i) publicly clarifying that he, Barr, did not purport to capture or summarize everything in Mueller’s report; (ii) working around the clock to get the relatively lightly redacted report made public—something Barr had no legal duty to do; (iii) testifying twice before Congress to explain his reasoning; and (iv) allowing Mueller to testify before Congress if he wants. These are not the actions of a man trying to mischaracterize the report or hide the ball. And they cured any objections that might have properly been lodged against the quickly written original letter."

I'm not optimisitc AT ALL about Mueller being harsh on Barr, especially if Barr's reporting of the interaction with Mueller is accurate. if it is, Mueller will frame it similarly to this guy and probably will shy away from giving an opinion on obstruction even though Barr claims Mueller should have made a charging decision.
Assuming my understanding of his position (toward the end of the article) is correct, it's interesting that the same Jack Goldsmith who apparently believes that there needs to be some investigation into the FISA process and how it was implemented by the FBI in 2016 appears to be the same Goldsmith who helped implement and defend warrantless wiretaps on American civilians in 2004. Didn't seem to have a problem with FISA and "spying" then.

Goldsmith is another person who seems incapable of understanding why Mueller chose the path that he did. If you are going to criticize that path, you have to explain what Mueller's other option is. I.e., you have to engage Mueller's argument for doing what he did. He hasn't engaged it; like, Barr he is just pretending it isn't there (although I am willing to entertain more innocuous motives in his case, whereas in Barr's case it is pretty clear why he is pretending it isn't there).

Is Goldsmith, like Barr, also playing dumb?

I don't think this could or would happen, but I'd really like to see Mueller call Barr's bluff on this whole thing. "You want me to make a prosecutorial judgement in spite of the DOJ opinion, then hey, you are the attorney general so issue a new opinion overturning that one and we'll go back and render my prosecutorial judgement."
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,337
1,391
126
If impeachment can get the tax returns and force the people to testify and get the entire original Mueller report, THEN DEMOCRATS MUST IMPEACH!
Impeach Donald Trump, not because Donald would actually get impeached. After all, Trump has his protectors i.e. the US republican senate to resist. STILL.... Democrats can impeach and get those documents and get the witnesses they want.
House Democrats need to step up and do their duty.
If Nancy keeps this up, her namby-pamby resistance, people will start to wonder if Michael Cohen did not pay off Nancy $130,000 to keep quiet.
Or..... FOR SEX WITH DONALD. o_O
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,669
13,748
136
Poop or get off the pot.
Not quite yet. I figure Dems will move ahead once they have all the evidence being withheld by Barr (or a court order to give it up) & some dynamite testimony by the people who wrote the report...
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,187
3,201
136
Yeah if we were to impeach today, it'd be a partisan issue in the senate and fail. There just isn't enough motivation for the 22 senate GOP members to ditch Trump. And I said 22 because there will be a few dems who will flake out.
I see it as a quest bound for failure at this moment. Trump needs to be systematically investigated, and let the provided evidence weaken him.

Impeachment can only serve as the coup de grace, not the entire battle plan.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
Treasury refusing to hand over Trump's taxes.

They've broken the government.

Fuck these assholes.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
In a clear, unambiguous violation of the plain wording of the statute.
What it comes down is where to metaphorically stab the Administration first. Mnuchin and the DOJ's response cannot stand as it is entirely based on fantasy, Trump has been impeachable for a very long time and obstruction happened per Mueller. I won't bet the farm on them doing so but the SDNY can indict as there is no regulation or law that forbids it, just a memo which isn't anything but unsettled opinion. Barr can take the indictment to the SCOTUS if he likes or do the seemingly impossible and make him and his boss look even worse, not that they care, but someone might.

In the meantime get Mnuchin now as he has the worst excuse in memory by responding to an order based on what the DOJ and he wished the House had used. Right now I think he's the weakest link and hammering away at him may cause him to break, but in any case, he'll be shit on a shingle.

Keep at Barr and others with contempt citations and emphasizing that Mnuchin's fate can be theirs as well.

Time to put the fear of God into these people who think they are immune to the consequences of attacking Constitutional rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
McConnell obstructed Obama for 8 years so they're obviously down for more.
Mitch obstructed Obama's policies. Trump and his are guilty of obstruction, a violation of the law. These things are not the same, not that I think Mitch is anything but a cancer in the Senate.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
17,841
1,891
126
Not quite yet. I figure Dems will move ahead once they have all the evidence being withheld by Barr (or a court order to give it up) & some dynamite testimony by the people who wrote the report...

Barr has been way more transparent than the law requires. As I understand it they have a copy of the report that is less redacted that they can go read, but they refuse to do so. The one issues for the general public is from what I read way less than 10% redacted.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,162
20,865
136
Barr has been way more transparent than the law requires. As I understand it they have a copy of the report that is less redacted that they can go read, but they refuse to do so. The one issues for the general public is from what I read way less than 10% redacted.
No, the Constitution requires him to share the full, unredacted report with congress.

The idea that the executive branch could hide evidence of executive branch misconduct from the only branch of government that can hold the executive branch accountable for misconduct is bafflingly silly.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,659
8,789
136
Barr has been way more transparent than the law requires. As I understand it they have a copy of the report that is less redacted that they can go read, but they refuse to do so. The one issues for the general public is from what I read way less than 10% redacted.
If you think the issue is simply about transparency then you haven't been paying attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brycejones

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,313
1,157
136
No, the Constitution requires him to share the full, unredacted report with congress.

The idea that the executive branch could hide evidence of executive branch misconduct from the only branch of government that can hold the executive branch accountable for misconduct is bafflingly silly.
Bullshit, in fact the law forbids his releasing Grand Jury testimony, but lie away fskihole.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,337
1,391
126
Again.... seems Pelosi is afraid to impeach or to start the process because it will most likely fail, certainly in the senate.
I don't think that is a good excuse or the best reasoning, from Pelosi.
Always remember, if Obama were accused of doing a fraction of what Trump is accused, you know... we all know.... that republicans would right now be conducting impeachment hearings.
And remember too, republicans were not shy attempting to kill off OBAMACARE, many many times republicans voted to kill it despite their assured failed attempts. Failing was never the issue. It was the act of putting the vote down on paper.
So republicans did that attacking Obamacare, and they did it A LOT.
Republicans were never shy going after Obamacare.
So what the hell is going on with the democrats?
Why do they not act?
Who cares if impeachment fails, at least democrats went thru the process.
Just as republicans went thru the process against Obamacare.

One never knows where impeachment hearings will lead.
Maybe, just maybe some new information will come out. Very damaging information for Donald Trump.
Hell.... maybe some crap will be uncovered indicating collusion within the republican controlled senate itself, and within the house when under republican control.
Just maybe the impeachment process would expose more than we can imagine.
After all, knowledge is power, as they say. Not to impeach is to forfeit the power.

Then, take Donald Trump.
A president under impeachment or had gone through impeachment whether efforts were successful or not, just having that process certainly would damage Donald Trump and his chances for a second term.
Even if acquitted, people can be funny when choosing their president. Just the stench of impeachment might turn off enough Trump supporters to change the game. Then, to create a loss for Donald Trump.

So as for Nancy Pelosi..... COME ON GIRL. Just do it!!!
You have not a clue where such proceedings might lead or what further dirt impeachment hearings might uncover.
No one can deny that Donald Trump and those around him are engaging in a cover-up.
Impeachment hearings were made to uncover that which has been covered up.
Come on Nancy.....
As GW once said, you're either WITH US or AGAINST US.

Frankly, I'm not convinced Nancy Pelosi is in fact WITH US.
It looks to me that Pelosi has a higher agenda than to go after Donald Trump.
It looks like Nancy Pelosi number one priority is to PROTECT THE ESTABLISHMENT.
THE ESTABLISHMENT which all of them benefits from, both republicans and democrats.
Pelosi protecting THE ESTABLISHMENT is the most important concern for her.
And the number one reason why WE THE PEOPLE must vote these old farts out of congress.
Pelosi, McConnell, Grassley, Feinstein, all of the fossils on both sides who obstruct the progress.
They may "act" as if they are on opposing sides, but they are as one when t comes to protecting their establishment butts.
And so, impeachment is not that important for Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy is just one of many in congress. Just another bitch from the litter. Litter and bitch as in the animal reference.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY