Mueller Has Evidence Trump Obstructed Justice

[babylonsister]

https://politicalwire.com/2018/07/31/mueller-has-evidence-trump-obstructed-justice/

Mueller Has Evidence Trump Obstructed Justice

July 31, 2018 at 1:17 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard

Murray Waas: “Previously undisclosed evidence in the possession of Special Counsel Robert Mueller — including highly confidential White House records and testimony by some of President Trump’s own top aides — provides some of the strongest evidence to date implicating the president of the United States in an obstruction of justice.”

“Several people who have reviewed a portion of this evidence say that, based on what they know, they believe it is now all but inevitable that the special counsel will complete a confidential report presenting evidence that President Trump violated the law. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel’s work, would then decide on turning over that report to Congress for the House of Representatives to consider whether to instigate impeachment proceedings.”

“I have learned that a confidential White House memorandum, which is in the special counsel’s possession, explicitly states that when Trump pressured Comey he had just been told by two of his top aides—his then chief of staff Reince Priebus and his White House counsel Don McGahn—that Flynn was under criminal investigation.”

[mercuryblues]

1. tbh

Obstruction of justice is low hanging fruit. It is obvious the R's refuse to do anything over that.

[berni_mccoy]

2. this probably explains Trump's Tantrum yesterday.

[triron]

3. To hell with congression recommendations (of impeachment). Indict the POS.

[TalenaGor]

8. but if 'a sitting president cant be indicted' he needs unseated first?

im ok with impeachment followed by massive crushing indictments lol

[lagomorph777]

11. That myth is explicitly disproven by the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7
Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

Notice there is nothing in there saying that impeachment is a pre-requisite for legal indictment, any more than it would be for you or me. If you can't indict the President, the President is above the law, and that is not America.

[TalenaGor]

15. OH awesome thank you

of all the times I heard that argument - I never got a good reply like that - thanks!

[lagomorph777]

18. Print it out and keep it in your pocket.

Impeachment and legal indictment are completely independent processes.

[TalenaGor]

21. this why I need smart people around me lol

[lagomorph777]

22. My librarian Mom taught me that to look smart, you just have to know

where to look it up. I have taken that advice to heart.

[murielm99]

27. I remember my son saying something similar.

He told one of his friends that his mom did not know everything, but she knew where to find it.

My kids grew up in the library where I worked.

[FBaggins]

24. That's incorrect

"Nothing in there says that impeachment is a pre-requisite for indictment" is true enough as far as it goes (meaning you don't have to impeach before indicting... but leaving office almost certainly is a pre-requisite. He can be indicted after he leaves (on his own or forced).

Any alternative interpretation would mean that a president could be indicted and found guilty... yet remain in office because the way to remove a President is by impeachment and trial. There is no mechanism for the judicial branch to punish him by removing him.

[lagomorph777]

25. Show me the text. It's not in there that I can find.

Sure, a criminally convicted could theoretically rule from his jail cell, but that's a stretch.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

28. The text is the in what you quoted

the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

Does that clause apply if the party is NOT convicted?

It can be argued, no. It could be interpreted that the clause is simply stating the limits of the punishment of impeachment, and stating that the crimes that initially brought up the impeachment could still be pursued through existing legal avenues, after conviction and removal.

Further, conviction of any other crime, including capital crimes, does not remove Presidential power. Presidential power can only be removed through the loss of election, term limits, resignation, impeachment and conviction, death, or removal via the 25th Amendment. That is it. There is literally no other Constitutional way to remove power from the President. With that in mind, it very likely that the courts would find that imprisoning the President would interfere with his duties, which means no prison time for a sitting President.

[lagomorph777]

37. It can be argued "no" but that's not what the text says - I go by what it says.

[FBaggins]

31. You're missing that you're the one missing supporting text

The Constitution is clear on how a president can be removed from office. You provided the text. It's what the Supreme Court called the "Constitutional Remedy" proving that Presidents are not above the law.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

30. I'm certainly no Constitutional scholar, but wasn't this settled re: Bill Clinton

The sitting President can be indicted while in office; however any further prosecution of the matter and any sentencing would have to wait until impeachment & removal or the end of the term. That was my understanding of what was decided back in 1999.

[FBaggins]

32. Long before that really.

It's certainly implied in the debates around creation and ratification of the Constitution (and pretty clear in the document itself)... but was further clarified in Kendall v. U.S. in 1838 and then again in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

[Squinch]

29. Nice. Saving this.

[procon]

4. If its a confidential memo how will we ever know what's in it?

The House Republicans could just toss all of Mueller's work in a safe and just give Trump a free pass to continue his criminal behavior. Unless it is leaked, or Rosenstein has the option of releasing at least parts of the report to the public, the lawless Republicans will make sure this whole investigation will just disappear.

[honest.abe]

5. "a confidential White House memorandum, which is in the special counsel's possession"

If Mueller has it I think it will be released at some point.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. Please let it be over... time to start impeachment proceedings!

[rtracey]

20. naaa

No.. we don't want to stir up shit right now with impeachment talk. lets get through the 2018 midterm elections first. Talk of impeachment might fire up the right wing base and have dire consequences of our elections. Lets regain the hows and possible senate before we go down that road....also remember, the Senate tries the case and most likely the Republicans will remain in charge of the Senate... we need 2/3 majority to win impeachment trial.

[JonLP24]

7. It will be in Rosenstein's call

There is a BY Times article somewhere detailing Miller's options.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/us/politics/trump-mueller-russia.html

Basically we're relying on a bunch of Republicans to save out country which is probably a good thing because if they were Democrats they would consider it biased even though that's what they are already doing.

[lame54]

9. Rosenstein - hold onto it until next year

[lagomorph777]

10. Me too; it's on my DVR.

Kind of a no-brainer. Same for collusion.

[ehrnst]

12. "Obstruction isn't really a crime" from Giuliani in 3...2...1... (nt)

[MGKrebs]

13. Obviously a lot of focus on trump, but...

what happens if Jr, and Jared are in deep shit? Will he fire them? If he doesn't, what happens then? They would presumably get pardoned, but what is trump like without his little family support structure around him?

[Louis1895]

17. If he pardons them...

...could Jared and others still stay?

[jayschool2013]

14. Original story in New York Review of Books

Original story in New York Review of Books

Political Wire is just some guy aggregating stuff from other sites, though his proclamations of self-importance might lead you to believe otherwise.

[LudwigPastorius]

16. Maybe, but I don't expect an indictment.

We must win the House. Trump must be impeached.

We must win the Senate. Trump must be convicted and removed.

Perhaps, after he's gone we'll see a criminal case against him, but Rosenstein has stated that it is not Justice Department policy to indict a sitting president.

[lagomorph777]

19. DOJ policy can/should be changed; it's just policy, not law or the Constitution.

The fate of the world literally hangs in the balance.

[metalbot]

33. "Fate of the world" is a bit of an overstatement

Trump being convicted of a crime in a court of law has absolutely no effect on his being president, so I don't see how that impacts "fate of the world". But aside from the fact that he would _still_ be president if he were convicted of a felony, he and his lawyers can easily drag out any trial for years. Then, if convicted, he'll be free pending appeal. In a worst (best?) case scenario, Trump resigns and Pence pardons him to "help the country to heal".

Congress impeaching him and removing him from office would have a much greater effect on the "fate of the world" than any criminal indictment.

[LudwigPastorius]

34. can/should...

There is no way AG Sessions issues orders to criminally charge the guy who he answers to. (and who hired him in the first place)

Impeachment is the only way Trump is out early.

[bucolic_frolic]

23. Indictment barely describes the layers of charges that will be laid

When it's so massive, rules go out the window.

That said, I doubt they know how to handle it, domestically, internationally, politically. The rolling wave of indictments thus far are good, they are establishing the lay of the land, and will proceed as opportunities present themselves. We can't wallow in this bog for 2 more years, and when the chips fall it needs to proceed apace. Fighting indictments of the rule of law with political gangs in Congress and outside in the streets is controlled and marching anarchy. The powers that be must find a way around this quagmire.

[metalbot]

35. The powers that be do have a way around this quagmire

But it's basically the Nixon approach: resign or bad things will happen, and in exchange, there will be a pardon to "help the country move past this". In this case, they can sweeten the deal by promising to not indict (or to pardon) his kids. I'm not even sure that this would be as politically damaging to the Republicans as Nixon, in the sense that Trump's core will just take it as evidence that "the swamp got him", not that they've done anything wrong.

[spanone]

26. he obstructs justice on a daily basis.

[Scurrilous]

36. K&R