Don't disagree with your whole post except there are some key technicalities you mistated that I think is worth pointing out because most people get them wrong, including the "mainstream media" As it pertains to obstruction of justice, attempting obstruction and failing, is in fact obstruction of justice. Trump doesn't get credit for failing to do it if his whole intent was to do so. This is a massively important distinction that shouldn't be downplayed. If you attempted to rob a bank or murder someone and you don't succeed, that's still illegal. Attempted murder is still a crime albeit less severe. As it relates to being fit to serve as president, either he's a crook or not. The report never mentions the word "collusion". That isn't a legal term. It's not 100% separate. This section speaks to Trumps state of mind to support "intent" for the obstruction case. This report made it very clear that he was very cozy with the Russians, more than most of us realized. As such, it became more clear WHY he attempted to obstruct. I mostly agree with everything else you stated but from a different angle. I did not vote for Trump partially on the grounds that he creates an atmosphere of racial tension, which are positions that I morally detest (but acknowledge isn't illegal). Also I don't believe Trump behaves as a role model. I would never teach my children to publicly attack people I disagree with in the way he does. He sets a very poor tone. My personal beliefs. But yes, Dems need to put up or shut up.
Focus on impeachment, fail, and then wonder why you lose 2020 with not viable candidate or realistic platform that most normal Americans want.
This is from a FB friend of mine who is a retired US DoJ Attorney: "I don't expect anything explosive from the Dem meeting on the Mueller report. Educating the public on the extent of tRump's obstruction is a necessary prerequisite because Barr's delay and partisan summary gave tRump the chance to frame the facts in the most favorable light. The truth must limp along long after the lies have sunk in. For example, tRump called McGahan and ordered him to call Rosenstein and tell him to fire Mueller due to conflict issues twice on a Saturday in April of 2017. McGahn knew this was a repeat of Watergate and decided to resign instead. Good move! McGahn called Porter and Bannon the next business day saying he had to resign because the tRump was telling him to do "Crazy ****." McGahn did not tell them about the firing orders to protect tRump. They didn't need to know. Porter and Bannon convinced McGahn to stay, and McGahn did, but did not carry out the orders. That caused McGahn, the author of tRump's signature achievements in office, to become persona non grata to tRump. In June of 2017, tRump was sold by his new lawyers to cooperate with the Mueller inquiry to get it over with faster. McGahn argued against it, but lost. Mueller then interviewed McGahn and McGahn told him of the orders. He had to. It wasn't protected by attorney client privilege and if so, tRump waived it by allowing McGahn to testify. When tRump heard about McGahn's testimony he ordered McGahn to create a back dated memo undermining McGahn's own sworn testimony, indicating tRump did not order McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn again refused. These orders are perhaps the prime obstruction facts in the entire investigation. The orders to fire were intended to obstruct justice by stopping the Russia investigation and the memo is witness tampering. People need to know in stark detail of tRump's corrupt use of his office to save his own skin. He is clearly unfit for office. Bring on McGahn and Mueller to testify. It will be riveting."
Very interesting. Witness Tampering in an ongoing investigation is a new charge I hadn't heard much about.
senator john thune... back when a president lying to the American people was considered, well, bad...
One last point I meant to make, this isn't without precedent. Bill Clinton was of course impeached for an offense that: 1. had absolutely nothing to do with the original investigation (Whitewater) 2. only occurred within the context of grand jury. Prior to that, they had nothing. If they can get Trump to testify under oath, he likely will face the same fate since he can't stop himself from lying every time he opens his mouth.
It sounds like they have enough on obstruction and witness tampering. He should be allowed to defend himself, however. During his defense, it seems perjury will be highly probable. That's my opinion. If he does, makes the case easier.
Only fitting I suppose that he'd have yet another parallel to Andrew Jackson. But, if it's censure or nothing, I'll take nothing. Censure is a pretend conviction. Should the opportunity for real justice come later, his defenders will say he's already been censured for it and we've moved on. So I don't think it's better than nothing. It's a fig leaf for Congress to pretend like they did something while for all practical purposes let Trump get away with everything. History isn't an agent. I'm not there yet, but people, in studying the history, usually see much larger trends going on, and then see these particular moments within the context of the greater narrative. So they may have said at the time that the French Revolution was an episode of national madness that threatened France with utter dissolution, but looking back now we see it as a seminal moment in the democratization of the Western world. I'm starting to understand the Clinton impeachment more in the story of how we've gone from the sexual revolution to #metoo and how we'll hopefully resolve modern sexual predation. I'm still not wholly sure of Clinton's role in it all though. I have no idea with Trump until we see what comes after. He has a spot in #metoo too, but he's probably more important (and whatever dealings with Russia) in the nationalist movement that has been ironically global. In any case, I'd see our failure to remove him as a failure, whether we fail by censure or fail by acquittal.
NOBODY in the Democratic Party is asking to Impeach believing that Success=Removal from office. If folks think that's what impeachment in this case means, they are missing basic facts of what Impeachment is. Impeachment opens up a separate investigative body in Congress with full Constitutional power to all of the evidence regarding the subject of the impeachment inquiry to be made to the Senate who acts as the Jury & the SCOTUS acts as the Judge. Democrats understand that Impeachment means they are simply disclosing a case to the American People & the Senate. Of course any prosecutor bringing a case needs to be FULLY aware of a potential tainted Jury pool which in this case is the biggest issue keeping the House from starting the Impeachment. So if the House opens an Impeachment of Trump they are doing so knowing they aren't likely to win the case, but the evidence is such that it needs to be exposed. I would say that IF they decide to move forward with Impeachment, they'll need to be crystal clear on the messaging here that Success= full disclosure to the American people & a deterrence for future Presidents to engage in this level of Criminality & Corruption. The burden to bare with removal lies at the feet of Mitch McConnell & his Republican Senators... and Joe Manchin who is a pretty staunch Trump supporter on everything but healthcare.
So if you are a prosecutor do you bring a strong case to a known tainted Jury pool?? I honestly do not know... which is why Impeachment is such a difficult decision to make if you are a House Democrat. To me its all about the strength of the evidence. The more they are able to get, the more slam dunk their rationale will be to the American People/Voters in 2020 assuming they still don't have the vote in the Senate (AKA tainted Jury Pool). I think that makes the decision crystal clear to continue to push for more evidence & disclosure of evidence from the Mueller Report & other pending cases that would make the case that much more overwhelming. Under any normal presidency the SDNY Campaign Finances Crimes (per Cohen Case), the Mueller Obstruction Evidence, and the Tax violations, would be more than enough evidence for the American Voter to not take it out on the investigative Congressional body in a coming election. Plus look at Trump's approval rating as evidence that the Voters simply will not care. Trump is historically unpopular. But Trump is graded on a curve, and every little action taken by the Democrats has to be put under the microscope. They have ZERO room for screw ups. The Republicans can screw up over and over again, and they still have the electoral college in their favor.
I think it has to be repeated that with a thirty year span of unchecked expansion of executive powers, someone like Trump will definitely come out and abuse those powers. No one is terribly concerned about this other than to eject Trump and impose some romantic ideal of Lincoln or Washington on his successor. This is partly due to the unpopularity of Congress and the simple belief that the presidency can be fixed by someone different. Indifferent electorate garners indifferent results.
So the Democrats are not showing a spine by continuing investigations? I don't understand this think that impeachment is morally or the courageous think to do nobody has told her what is tangibly a gain of he is impeached. Not has anybody showed what impeachment does that the inventions cannot.
If impeaching, you are showing future potential presidents that criminal behavior will not be tolerated. If you don't impeach you are showing them that Congress can't fulfill their role as a co-equal branch of the government and won't punish criminal behavior. If you impeach you are showing that the Congress is willing to uphold its obligations.
I wanted him removed from office. That required the Russian smoking gun. It doesn't exist. Obstruction and perjury are the same crimes Clinton was impeached with but not removed. Honestly, I don't care if they impeach him or not. He's not getting removed from office. He's not leaving the White House until January 2021 at the earliest. Maybe it back fires on the democrats or maybe it doesn't. That's up to them to decide.
