I hope they impeach the one we have first. When the top lawyer in the land can’t even follow the law and the US Constitution, we’ve got a problem. Bill Barr is such a disgrace. If we can’t impeach him maybe the American Bar Association can vote to take away his law license or however they do it. They took away Bill Clinton’s. Why not Barr’s?
I’m glad to see Sally Yates has resurfaced.
This week is going to be another wild ride with congress (thank gawd) back is session. Derby week here in the 'Ville so more mint juleps will be required than usual with this twofer.
Why do you think Trump should violate the Constitution?
The vaporous DOJ policy that you defend is not sufficient.
DOJ policy protects the Pres anytime,unless it is amended.
There is nothing remarkable in Yates’ statement. She only stated directly what the Mueller report clearly infers.
Give the a-holes some credit for Extraordinary Achievement in Political Ratfuckery because the Barr letter seems to have worked. Barr’s preemptive framing and the delayed release of the report let the no obstruction spin get a big head start in the media while no one could mount a counter argument.
If not for that, the narrative could very well have followed Yates’ assessment: Trump would be indicted if he weren’t President. That’s the most reality-based interpretation of Mueller’s conclusions on obstruction. The report said the SCO would have cleared Trump if the evidence supported that - but it didn’t! So, if you can’t clear him, but can’t indict or even accuse him because he’s President…then you would indict him if he weren’t President, right?
1: Political solution = defeat at the ballot box.
2: Criminal prosecution = indictment and conviction after defeat.
GOTMFV (Get Out the Mother F&cking Vote) is the only avenue.
That is what they do with other elected officials. As I have pointed out - Ken Paxton, Texas AG, has been under two criminal indictments for at least 3 years now. He got re-elected. So the indictments don’t seem to slow him down any alas.
Impeach Bill Barr!
I think they should impeach him first. It will scare the everloving shit out of Trump and if anyone deserves it besides Trump, it’s Barr.
I’m not holding out for style points but the irony would be particularly delicious if Yates ended up playing an active role in pulling Trump down.
It would be a nice warm up.
We all need to play an active roll. Call your congress critters and put the pressure on.
I sure think so. Plus who knows what would come out in hearings that we could use in Trump’s impeachment?
You too.
It’s best to remember both OLC memos were written during periods when the Justice Department’s party was under the impeachment gun, Nixon and Clinton.
The House needs to do its job under the Constitution.
Impeachment Now!
I wish they would. I just read that AG is contemplating refusing to testify before Congress because he doesn’t like the “format of the questioning.” Since when is testifying before Congress optional for anyone in government?! These guys really don’t give a damn about the separation of powers.
It is a structural, organizational and systemic argument and a valid, undecided legal issue that the Constitution creates by not addressing the issue directly despite crrating coequal branches. Congress has ceded the issue to the Executive branch for years by failing to act and allowing DOJ policy to determine the issue. What they need to do is define specific criminal behavior that ONLY a POTUS can commit, even in the exercise of his powers if done corruptly, especially that actually, and thereby force the issue.
The counterargument would be, however, that it is not necessary because impeachment exists and he can be prosecuted after, which to me suggests that the appropriate fix is enacting specific legislation that preserves criminal liability, including for acts within his power while POTUS when done corruptly and otherwise a crime, for after impeachment. It is a less assailable position.
45* wants to see Sally Rand as the next Attorney General
That’s a state constitution issue though.
That’s an intriguing argument given that the Constitution specifically empowers one branch of government, the Congress, to remove the head of another co-equal branch of government, the Executive, through impeachment. Apparently the Congress is more co-equal than the Judiciary.
And a 25th Amendment that provides a specific remedy in the event “the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
Lindsey Graham and Rudy Doody have already explained the difference between criminal crimes and process or insignificant crimes, which as best as I can tell is a direct function of the political party of the president in question.