Nixon didn’t self-impeach until Senator Goldwater visited the white house and said, you’ve lost 7 republican senators’ votes. Tell me which 20 current republican senators are going to vote to convict.
1 Like
–Hmmmmmm. Anyone done a polonium check1 on Three Sticks lately? It ain’t novichok – that’s too quick and obvious.
Never thought about that angle on ol’ (ahem) Hung Jeffrey. It would be … unfortunate for many if he were to, um, “flip.” (Such an uncouth word, I know, I know…)
_______
1Nope, wrong symptoms. Hmm. Looking for something that, uh, slows things down without being too quickly fatal or making you look like, well, a victim of severe radiation poisoning.
Yet, the inquiry began long before that…
1 Like
First, the Trump campaign was a willing recipient of Russian assistance in the 2016 election…
Second, the President repeatedly engaged in obstructive acts to impede Mueller’s ability to conduct his investigation, …
And third, Mueller and his team were restricted by Justice Department policy from even contemplating whether the President should be indicted…
Of these, the first and second were carried out blatantly in public: can you learn things you already know? Ah – Bradley P. speaks only of ‘confirmation’. Is it then only the lunatic third that we’ve actually learned from the fading but ingenious “that’s unconstitional” “my hands are tied and clean” Mueller?
Full of high sentence but a bit obtuse…
“Mueller’s job is finished. He did all that he was arguably permitted to do under the law.”
No.
Regardless of whatever Mueller might have said in testimony or in public statements, and however journalists interpret his statements (and I see the use of the weasel word “arguably” here), there is NO law in the US code, and NO provision in the Constitution that can reasonably be interpreted as barring indictment of a sitting president.
All this nonsense derives from a shaky Justice Department OLC “guideline” issued during the inglorious presidency of Richard Nixon. For any reasonable person to accept the president’s impunity from criminal legal proceedings is to buy into a pernicious propaganda narrative.
Mueller may have been constrained by the guidelines of the corrupted organization he temporarily worked for; that does not mean the rest of us are. I am not saying that that fact diminishes the urgency people feel about impeachment, or its appropriateness. Merely that a functioning justice system’s job is to indict and prosecute criminality without regard to a person’s employment status.
Inquiry by Labor Day (and that’s sooner than most think).
The Town Halls should Get Crackin’
1 Like
Now Congress Must Launch An Impeachment Inquiry.
The effect of the multiple Congressional hearings into the Trump Crime Cabal will be an impeachment inquiry.
Hope you’re right. I do agree that things shifted more to the Nadler point of view, but Pelosi and Schiff aren’t there yet. They still struggle with the politics of it, what they view as the disruptive nature of impeachment. The fall back on the courts is simply about buying time.
1 Like
Pelosi is ecstatic that she can use the excuse of “not enough Senate votes to convict” as cover for not pursuing impeachment. It’s the perfect rationale for doing nothing. What we all need to know is that even if the Senate had 60 Democrats, she’d still come up with an excuse to not impeach. Why? Because the DONOR class has told her not to pursue impeachment. The DONOR class suffers when government is disrupted or cast into uncertainty. “Uncertainty” is the most feared thing to rich people. So, even with a Democratic super-majority in the Senate, we’d be getting some load of crap from Pelosi on why impeachment simply isn’t the way to go.
4 Likes
The Houston Chronicle is calling for impeachment.
1 Like
The “sir” was not directed at you.
Unless you are Mr Moss that is.
I agree. To suggest that we need a political solution (as many pundits do) comforts the Republican notion that the politics of this situation justifies their willingness to condone Trump’s actions and to deny conviction in the Senate. This requires a constitutional solution first, one in which the appointed branch of government does its constitutional duty, not its political will. And yes, then the criminal justice part of this story can play out.
I would still argue it’s not a political solution, but a constitutional one.
1 Like
It can be both? Political and Constitutional?
1 Like
I suppose. But it risks saying the Democrat-controlled House is launching a political investigation (i.e. a partisan one), and it gives rise to the kinds of defenses that Mnuchin offered for refusing what was essentially an non-refusable request for Trumps tax returns, that the request was made for political reasons. It’s political in a sense that we rarely use today, and its ambiguity can be turned against itself. There’s politics and there’s governance, and they no longer evoke the same thing anymore. The business of politics is getting your party re-elected, the business of governance is serving your constituents and fulfilling your constitutional duties.
Trump watch out for MUELLER TIME!
M Times over?
I’m afraid that none will. And they should be remembered when they face re-election.
I’m remembering the similarities and the major differences between the Watergate era and the impeachment of Bill Clinton (on one lie told under oath).
Nixon was driven from office due to his criminality and the threat of impeachment while Clinton’s situation was far more political. I was a young adult when Watergate happened 45 years ago. I have fairly clear memories of both events.
But I agree with your post.
1 Like
Yes. Political AND constitutional. Those are our two main weapons.
AND criminal.
Political, constitutional, and criminal are our THREE main weapons . . .
H/T Michael Palin.
1 Like
When out of office I hope the hammer is lowered on trump.
But as I said I would really like to see the OLC finding parked in the “circular file”. No one should be above the law. If we go there we lose our country.