| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63762
Back to top |
 Posted: 11/27/19 12:33 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UvM8grMYPEA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8942
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/01/19 10:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
Last month I swam laps at a public health club in my underwear.
As I approached the pool, the horrified stares from two older women in the whirlpool made my humiliation feel as though I’d accidentally taken a double dose of my daily “skin on fire” niacin.
With each lap, I expected a pool skimmer to hit me on the head before security dragged me out of the pool. But it never happened. And so instead of making a beeline to the locker room when I was done swimming, I was emboldened. I smiled at the same ladies as I joined them in the whirlpool. By this time, their shock had subsided and their expectations recalibrated. They didn’t raise an eyebrow as they shared a hot bath with a stranger in his underwear.
As I walked home it occurred to me: That’s how President Donald Trump gets away with it. |
| Quote: |
| It is one thing for Trump supporters to acknowledge his improprieties and offer continued support by balancing them against polices that align with their beliefs. It’s quite another to be wide-eyed perplexed in the face of democracy’s criminal destruction. |
| Quote: |
| Impeachment is the atomic bomb of formal rebukes. It is a concrete line in the sand — a historic borderline that says “You are not fit to serve.” |
| Quote: |
| But the Senate’s refusal to remove Trump from office will not mean that impeachment has been a failure. If we stand a hope of reclaiming a democracy in which we can place our faith, it will be through the trail of institutional bread crumbs that mark the path home from the back alley we’ve been residing in for the past three years. |
| Quote: |
| And when time puts the tragedy of Trump’s presidency into perspective, impeachment will be the distinguishing mark that separates Democrats from Republicans. |
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/01/impeachment-historic-vital-statement-tragic-trump-presidency-column/4311521002/
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8942
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/01/19 10:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
Last month I swam laps at a public health club in my underwear.
As I approached the pool, the horrified stares from two older women in the whirlpool made my humiliation feel as though I’d accidentally taken a double dose of my daily “skin on fire” niacin.
With each lap, I expected a pool skimmer to hit me on the head before security dragged me out of the pool. But it never happened. And so instead of making a beeline to the locker room when I was done swimming, I was emboldened. I smiled at the same ladies as I joined them in the whirlpool. By this time, their shock had subsided and their expectations recalibrated. They didn’t raise an eyebrow as they shared a hot bath with a stranger in his underwear.
As I walked home it occurred to me: That’s how President Donald Trump gets away with it. |
| Quote: |
| It is one thing for Trump supporters to acknowledge his improprieties and offer continued support by balancing them against polices that align with their beliefs. It’s quite another to be wide-eyed perplexed in the face of democracy’s criminal destruction. |
| Quote: |
| Impeachment is the atomic bomb of formal rebukes. It is a concrete line in the sand — a historic borderline that says “You are not fit to serve.” |
| Quote: |
| But the Senate’s refusal to remove Trump from office will not mean that impeachment has been a failure. If we stand a hope of reclaiming a democracy in which we can place our faith, it will be through the trail of institutional bread crumbs that mark the path home from the back alley we’ve been residing in for the past three years. |
| Quote: |
| And when time puts the tragedy of Trump’s presidency into perspective, impeachment will be the distinguishing mark that separates Democrats from Republicans. |
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/01/impeachment-historic-vital-statement-tragic-trump-presidency-column/4311521002/
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/02/19 9:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So does the House have the sac to call an impeachment vote or has this entire thread become so pointless that it's become bitter cheap shots at the POTUS?
Frankly, I would love to see them do it. Why can't they pull the trigger? Because they're afraid of the Senate? The Senate barely has a majority. We all know Mitt Romney would vote yes. So what's the problem?
If they put it to a vote, it would go to a trial. Isn't that what you all want? Ciaramella, Schiff, Nadler... the list would go on with regards to people who would have to give testimony under penalty of perjury. Wouldn't it be great if the truth was out there?
Vote on impeachment and stop jerking us all around!
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/02/19 10:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| Why can't they pull the trigger? Because they're afraid of the Senate? The Senate barely has a majority. We all know Mitt Romney would vote yes. So what's the problem? |
It takes a 2/3 majority to remove the president from office. They're not getting that without a smoking gun.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/03/19 6:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| Why can't they pull the trigger? Because they're afraid of the Senate? The Senate barely has a majority. We all know Mitt Romney would vote yes. So what's the problem? |
It takes a 2/3 majority to remove the president from office. They're not getting that without a smoking gun. |
I know all of this and that there is no smoking gun, but they have been claiming that they have "all of this evidence," and here we are with this made-for-TV impeachment inquiry. What was the point of all this if they never intended to have a vote? I thought the goal was to give President Trump the black mark of impeachment. I thought they wanted to remove him from office. Surely they must have known the outcome of this whole embarrassment before they wasted more of our money on any of this. Surely they had some real dirt before committing millions on the Mueller investigation. Am I wrong?
Wouldn't they be doing right by their base by at least doing their due diligence and calling that vote? A trial should expose all of the impeachable offenses committed by the POTUS and then they should have their 2/3 majority once all is said and done.
I don't think they even have the votes needed in the house, frankly. THEY KNOW they have nothing.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/03/19 3:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
People have been routinely convicted and sentenced to life in prison in a court of law with less evidence than has been presented here.
The reason they need an unable-to-be questioned "smoking gun" here is that the jury is not unbiased and are not giving the piles of evidence a true weighing.
I have zero doubt that the House will vote to impeach, the question is whether or not they will wait for the courts to force the obstructed witnesses to testify or move on without them. Those are the witnesses who could provide the smoking gun, but by waiting it messes up the timeline.
There is a thought that they might wait and call those witnesses in the Senate after the vote, in which case they could ask John Roberts to compel them to come forward as the impeachment judge. And as it would be the Chief Justice issuing the order, there would be no way for them to continue their disingenuous refusals to testify.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
|
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1900
Location: Here
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/04/19 12:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| Why can't they pull the trigger? Because they're afraid of the Senate? The Senate barely has a majority. We all know Mitt Romney would vote yes. So what's the problem? |
It takes a 2/3 majority to remove the president from office. They're not getting that without a smoking gun. |
I know all of this and that there is no smoking gun, but they have been claiming that they have "all of this evidence," and here we are with this made-for-TV impeachment inquiry. What was the point of all this if they never intended to have a vote? I thought the goal was to give President Trump the black mark of impeachment. I thought they wanted to remove him from office. Surely they must have known the outcome of this whole embarrassment before they wasted more of our money on any of this. Surely they had some real dirt before committing millions on the Mueller investigation. Am I wrong?
Wouldn't they be doing right by their base by at least doing their due diligence and calling that vote? A trial should expose all of the impeachable offenses committed by the POTUS and then they should have their 2/3 majority once all is said and done.
I don't think they even have the votes needed in the house, frankly. THEY KNOW they have nothing. |
To date, the Trump Impeachment Inquiry/hearing has focused largely on the Ukraine "quid pro quo" allegations, than on the Robert Mueller investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 US elections, and possibly collusion from the Trump White House. That does not mean the process won't ultimately involve or include the Mueller findings, but there is an interesting aspect about this.
The Republicans have from the start made claims that the Democratic House-initiated process is "illegal", "unconstitutional", violates Trump's right to "due process", is "unfair" and "partisan-driven".
All of this has been blatant, unabashed lies. I believe the Trump-Republican's motto is that of the old P.T. Barnum saying: "there's a sucker born every minute". Here's something I find interesting:
With the Bill Clinton Impeachment, it involved a Democratic President (Clinton), and a Democratic Attorney General (Reno), against a Republican Independent Counsel (Starr), and a Republican Congress (House and Senate). Starr completed his investigation and then he gave EVERYTHING - EVERYTHING - EVERYTHING - 100% OF IT ALL - to Congress. Dropped it all off at the Congressional Office building's doorsteps, at the feet of the Sergeant-at-Arms' feet: some 35-36 cardboard boxes full of data and evidence - grand jury testimonies, witness lists, video tapes, audio tapes, handwritten notes of investigators, reference materials and data. And a some-450-page Starr Report, un-redacted. EVERYTHING. Congress had need or want for nothing, and if they did, Starr couldn't help them, because he gave everything plus the lint in his pants pockets to them.
Fast-Forward to the Trump Impeachment, and Robert Mueller: the President this time: Republican; The Office of the AG - Sessions/Rosenstein/Barr: Republican; The Special Counsel Mueller: Republican; The Senate: Republican. Only the House is Democratic.
So what does Mueller do? He completes HIS investigation, and drops everything off for the House? Nope. He gives it all to his boss, because this time, his boss is not in the same camp with the House. Barr immediately holds a presser saying that there was nothing there - everyone all go home, return to your lives. Nothing to see here.
Even Republican Bob Mueller couldn't swallow that one down - he protests that this was not true. Mueller makes his case that since he worked for Trump and Trump's DOJ, he could not prosecute Trump, but that the House was the sole entity that could, and it even had a constitutional right. But, can the House build their case? How could they? All they get, is a heavily-redacted Mueller Report. The Trump White House - the very entity that was investigated by Mueller - has all the evidence in their possession. Sort of like the criminal getting to have and hold all the evidence of criminal wrongdoing against him, from the prosecutor.
So the House directs the Trump White House to turn over the documents, and the White House refuses. The House issues subpoenas for the evidence, and the White House refuses to comply. The House then takes the White House to court, and on and on it goes. Mueller himself stated that he could not lawfully present charges of wrongdoing against Trump, and that the House is the only ones who can under the Constitution. So the Trump White House then cuts the legs out from under the House doing their duty, by withholding most all of the evidence. So the House then says, we'll do the investigation work ourselves - at taxpayer's expense, for redundant investigative work - and issue subpoenas for White House officials to come testify. Again, the White House orders the officials to refuse to comply.
So it's no surprise that the next step taken by the House of Representatives - the Impeachment Inquiry - is chosen to be conducted without the use of a Special Counsel, or without full house vote. The Republicans already opened this option by changing the House rules when they were in charge of the House back in 2015. Of course, they say this is illegal and unconstitutional, because anything done that THEY alone disagree with, must be. When they are the ones doing it, then it is fine and legal.
An Impeachment or investigation by Congress typically does not spend a ton of taxpayer money. Congressmen do not receive "hazard pay" bonuses for holding investigations - it's actually part and parcel of their purview of responsibilities. They are already getting paid, even if they sit in their offices day after day. Same with House staff and legal counsel. There is some additional cost for review of documents and testimony, but Congress members do not go outside of the reservation and spend time and money chasing down leads, interviewing fact witnesses, and poring over volumes of documentation that may or may not have anything to do with their investigations, just to find a piece here or there that does.
But special investigations do require all these things, and more. Requests to State Department and DOJ officials to seek out and provide documentation, or to provide legal defense of accusations can run up a sizable bill.
Since Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, there have been 23 federal investigations undertaken. 11 of those investigations involved Reagan and Clinton alone. Prior to the Mueller Investigation and House Impeachment of Trump - that are still not concluded - there have resulted in only two (2) federal officials who have been charged and indicted from those investigations. Does anyone remember Reagan WH Aid Michael Deaver? Clinton HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros may come to mind better.
Those 21 investigations prior to Trump have cost taxpayers a total of $339 million dollars. Most of them, were purely for political purposes.
The Iran-Contra investigations during Reagan's Administration cost taxpayers around $30 million dollars.
The Republicans are no stranger to wasting taxpayer dollars on pointless investigations. They wasted even more time (5 years) and more money (around $64 million in taxpayer dollars) on investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton's 1978 personal dealings with Whitewater Development Corporation scandal. That ended up with 0 charges being made. They did luck out with a civil lawsuit case against President Clinton from Paula Jones, that segued to Clinton's impeachment over his affair and obstruction efforts regarding Monica Lewinski - that lasted only 6 months extra and added an extra $5 million in taxpayer dollars to the total of nearly $70 million.
IMO, Clinton deserved to be impeached for that, but that was only a small portion of the total wasted tax dollars by Kenneth Starr and the Republican Congress.
The Republicans honed their craft on Hillary Clinton, by conducting investigations into the Benghazi and email server scandals conducted during the entirety of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign - and lasted 2.5 years and totaled $30 million dollars. At least the Iran-Contra deal actually sent someone to jail.
The Mueller Investigation into Russia interference and Collusion/Obstruction of the Trump White House lasted 2+ years and cost $32 million.....
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/04/19 7:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| A very good, accurate summation that will fall on too many deaf ears.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/04/19 10:07 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Remarkably eloquent in your concise simplicity, Conway. 
| Quote: |
| All of this has been blatant, unabashed lies. I believe the Trump-Republican's motto is that of the old P.T. Barnum saying: "there's a sucker born every minute". |
Republicans have come to rely upon the constant manipulations by Fox News, etc., til so many "suckers" have crossed the treacherous border between the old thinking, "All politicians lie to some degree", and the place we now find ourselves: "THAT many guys lying about the same thing MUST make it real and true....and it fits what I WANNA believe".
I recently heard Don the Con saying how "several legal experts" had reviewed his Ukrainian calls, and declared them "perfect". You'll notice, none of those "experts" went public to declare this "truth", nor were any names even given. He RELIES on the stupidity of his fans to accept his shit as true. And the beat goes on......
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/04/19 5:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Ahhh, yes. Leave it to Stanford to provide us with such marvelous people, like Myrtle, The O sisters and....Pamela Karlan, testifying today.
| Quote: |
"Put simply, a candidate for president should resist foreign interference in our elections, not demand it. If we are to keep faith with the Constitution and our republic, President Trump must be held to account,” Karlan testified.
As she began her testimony, Karlan, who was called by Democrats to testify with Harvard law professor Noah Feldman and University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt, rebuked Republican ranking member Rep. Doug Collins, who asserted that those who had not reviewed the testimony of prior witnesses had no business testify about it.
“Everything I know about our Constitution and its values and my review of the evidentiary record — and here, Mr. Collins, I would like to say to you, sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts, so I’m insulted by the suggestion that as law professor I don’t care about those facts,” Karlan said. “But everything I read about those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited, indeed demanded foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance.” |
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/04/19 6:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Ahhh, yes. Leave it to Stanford to provide us with such marvelous people, like Myrtle, The O sisters and....Pamela Karlan |
Obama should have nominated her for the Supreme Court
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8942
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/04/19 9:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Maybe she should have stuck to the reason she was there. I was listening to her opening statement and when she went at Collins, I was like DAMN!
Then she ruined it all with her Baron comment. Now I think that it is a HORRIBLE name to give your kid. And I had to laugh at the woman on Fox that said that Karlin was dispicable and in the gutter and what ever else she threw out. (Has she listened to the pres???)
Karlin didn't do the dems any favors with that comment. Actually, I kind of thought that as she got in to her opening statement that she was a poor one to choose. She was no more than a cheerleader for impeachment. I CAN'T STAND Trump, but her statement made me cringe. They would have done better to have someone that was more moderate & less fanatical.
https://www.wthr.com/article/first-lady-lashes-out-impeachment-witness-who-mentions-son-barron
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8942
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/04/19 9:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| NM
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/04/19 11:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
Maybe she should have stuck to the reason she was there. I was listening to her opening statement and when she went at Collins, I was like DAMN!
Then she ruined it all with her Baron comment. Now I think that it is a HORRIBLE name to give your kid. And I had to laugh at the woman on Fox that said that Karlin was dispicable and in the gutter and what ever else she threw out. (Has she listened to the pres???)
Karlin didn't do the dems any favors with that comment. Actually, I kind of thought that as she got in to her opening statement that she was a poor one to choose. She was no more than a cheerleader for impeachment. I CAN'T STAND Trump, but her statement made me cringe. They would have done better to have someone that was more moderate & less fanatical.
|
Oh, pleeez. In hindsight, she could have skipped that part, but really? Talk about the snowflake mentality, if people wanna get their knickers in a twist over something that was used in a most allegorical way. Just NAMING the child isn't a bad thing....she said nothing bad about HIM, but was pointing at Don's foibles (i.e., the "I am The King" mentality) No Barons were harmed in the metaphor.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8942
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/04/19 11:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
Maybe she should have stuck to the reason she was there. I was listening to her opening statement and when she went at Collins, I was like DAMN!
Then she ruined it all with her Baron comment. Now I think that it is a HORRIBLE name to give your kid. And I had to laugh at the woman on Fox that said that Karlin was dispicable and in the gutter and what ever else she threw out. (Has she listened to the pres???)
Karlin didn't do the dems any favors with that comment. Actually, I kind of thought that as she got in to her opening statement that she was a poor one to choose. She was no more than a cheerleader for impeachment. I CAN'T STAND Trump, but her statement made me cringe. They would have done better to have someone that was more moderate & less fanatical.
|
Oh, pleeez. In hindsight, she could have skipped that part, but really? Talk about the snowflake mentality, if people wanna get their knickers in a twist over something that was used in a most allegorical way. Just NAMING the child isn't a bad thing....she said nothing bad about HIM, but was pointing at Don's foibles (i.e., the "I am The King" mentality) No Barons were harmed in the metaphor. |
It's just something that she didn't need to do. It only gives republicans and their base something to use against the dems. To make them look like the bad guys. I think that it hurt the cause more than it helped it.
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/05/19 10:19 am ::: |
Reply |
|
<embed><iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ns74R7zJJZQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
https://youtu.be/Ns74R7zJJZQ
_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
|
|
Genero36
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/05/19 1:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
<embed><iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mvZei-Qbmjk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></embed>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvZei-Qbmjk
_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63762
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/05/19 5:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kn_-80u_0PU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/05/19 7:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Conway Gamecock, the point of your long post is somewhat hard to decipher. To the extent you are saying that Independent Counsel investigations, such as the 8-year one by Lawrence Walsh and the 5-year one by Ken Starr, and subsequent Special Counsel investigations, such as Mueller's, have been extravagant wastes of taxpayer money, I agree with you.
However, you have misstated and conflated several historical and current facts, and I suspect you are not familiar with the legal differences between an Independent Counsel such as Starr and a Special Counsel such as Mueller. So, I'm going to try to correct the record.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| The Republicans have from the start made claims that the Democratic House-initiated process is "illegal", "unconstitutional", violates Trump's right to "due process", is "unfair" and "partisan-driven". |
I'm not aware of any serious Republican claiming that the a House impeachment is illegal or unconstitutional. Of course, they have claimed that the specific process that Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have so far undertaken is entirely politically partisan and ignores due process rights that prior impeachment investigations have historically afforded their targets, which have been presidents and judges. This is accurate. There is no bipartisan support for the Trump impeachment effort, and the House created new rules that minimized the Republican's ability, and deprived the President's ability, to call witnesses. Procedurally, this is unlike any prior impeachment proceeding in history.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| With the Bill Clinton Impeachment, it involved a Democratic President (Clinton), and a Democratic Attorney General (Reno), against a Republican Independent Counsel (Starr), and a Republican Congress (House and Senate). |
The investigations of Bill Clinton by Special and then Independent Counsels had nothing to do with the Republican party or Congress.
Originally, in January 1994, Clinton's own attorney general, Janet Reno, appointed Robert Fiske as a Special Counsel within the DOJ to investigate the Clintons' involvement in the Whitewater affair and the death of Vincent Foster.
In August of 1994, when the (now expired) Independent Counsel Act was reauthorized, the DC Federal Court of Appeals took over the investigation and replaced Fiske with Independent Counsel Ken Starr, who had been a judge on that court. The purpose of the Independent Counsel Act, enacted in 1978 by the post-Watergate Democrat Congress, was to take the investigatory power out of the hands of the Executive Department/DOJ and to put it in the hands of a completely independent investigator supervised by the federal court.
Starr's 5-year investigation, which kept expanding finally to include an impeachment referral, had nothing to do with the Republican Congress. It was instigated, expanded and supervised by the federal court.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| Starr completed his investigation and then he gave EVERYTHING - EVERYTHING - EVERYTHING - 100% OF IT ALL - to Congress. |
True. That was because the Independent Counsel Act, which expired in 1999, specifically required Starr to do that as well as providing all the evidence to the supervising federal court.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| So what does Mueller do? He completes HIS investigation, and drops everything off for the House? Nope. He gives it all to his boss, because this time, his boss is not in the same camp with the House. |
Mueller followed the applicable legal procedures for a DOJ Special Counsel.
Unlike Walsh and Starr, Mueller was not an Independent Counsel acting under the provisions of the Independent Counsel Act. That act expired in 1999 and was not reauthorized by Congress, specifically because Democrats and Republican alike all considered the Walsh and Starr extravaganzas to have been too wasteful, abusive and harmful to the national interest. The act was replaced by the office of Special Counsel, a wholly in-house DOJ investigator who is supervised by the Attorney General who is subject only to the DOJ Special Counsel Regulations.
Those regulations specify that Mueller was to provide a confidential report to the Attorney General and no one else. His investigation is a wholly and confidential internal DOJ investigation, just like every criminal investigation going on in every U.S. Attorney office in the country. The regulations do not require the Attorney General to make any report to Congress, but the AG may choose to do so within certain other legal constraints (such as keeping grand jury evidence confidential).
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| But, can the House build their case? How could they? All they get, is a heavily-redacted Mueller Report. The Trump White House - the very entity that was investigated by Mueller - has all the evidence in their possession. |
That's completely wrong. AG Barr decided to turn Mueller's entire massive report over to Congress verbatim, with very few redactions, mostly to protect grand jury material. It's publicly available and anyone can see the redactions. Barr also provided an even less redacted version to the Judiciary Committees of Congress.
Mueller complied with the current reporting law that governed him, just as Starr complied with the different and expired reporting law that governed him.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| So the House directs the Trump White House to turn over the documents, and the White House refuses. The House issues subpoenas for the evidence, and the White House refuses to comply. |
I don't know what documents you're referring to here. Congress and the public have the Mueller report except for some redacted grand jury material, all of which were provided voluntarily by the Trump administration. As to the Trump-Ukraine phone call, which seems to be the crux of the impeachment inquiry, Congress and the people also have the full phone call transcript, which was also voluntarily provided by the Trump administration.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| So the House then says, we'll do the investigation work ourselves - at taxpayer's expense, for redundant investigative work - and issue subpoenas for White House officials to come testify. Again, the White House orders the officials to refuse to comply. |
What witnesses are you talking about? The administration allowed all the executive branch witnesses who appeared before the Schiff committee to do so. The president has only raised a constitutional appearance privilege on behalf of certain close White House staff such as former White House Counsel McGahn.
Even if he is ultimately compelled to appear by the court, McGahn can't be forced to testify to anything covered by executive privilege or attorney-client privilege. The Democrats know this, so they will proceed with impeachment without his personal testimony, relying instead on the extensive evidence about McGahn in the Mueller Report.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| The Republicans are no stranger to wasting taxpayer dollars on pointless investigations. They wasted even more time (5 years) and more money (around $64 million in taxpayer dollars) on investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton's 1978 personal dealings with Whitewater Development Corporation scandal. |
Again, if you are referring to the Starr investigation, the Republican Congress had nothing to do with that. That was all triggered and authorized by Clinton's own Democrat AG, Janet Reno, and later by the DC court in the judicial branch.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| IMO, Clinton deserved to be impeached |
I agree. The evidence was overwhelming that Clinton committed the crimes of perjury under oath and obstruction of justice by witness tampering. Virtually everyone agreed with that, both Republicans and Democrats. The only issue was whether those crimes, politically, were "high" enough to justify impeachment. All the Democrats in the Senate said no, which was enough to sink a guilty verdict.
But Clinton knew he would likely be convicted of these crimes after he left office. So he brokered plea deal with Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor), whereby he accepted a contempt of court citation from the federal judge for perjury in the Paula Jones case, paid a fine of $90,000, had his Arkansas bar license suspended along with a penalty of $25,000, was disbarred from the U.S. Supreme Court, and made a settlement payment of $850,000 to Paula Jones.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| The Republicans honed their craft on Hillary Clinton, by conducting investigations into the Benghazi and email server scandals |
The lengthy and ultimately controversial investigation of the Hillary Clinton email scandal was undertaken by the Comey FBI entirely under the auspices of the Obama administration. Congress had nothing to do with that.
Again, if your main point is the general wastefulness, airballing and abuse of the Independent Counsel and Special Counsel investigations over the past 40 years, I wholeheartedly agree. Most of them never should have been inaugurated, including Mueller. |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/06/19 12:31 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| The Republicans have from the start made claims that the Democratic House-initiated process is "illegal", "unconstitutional", violates Trump's right to "due process", is "unfair" and "partisan-driven". |
I'm not aware of any serious Republican claiming that the a House impeachment is illegal or unconstitutional. <Really?? How 'bout we start with the #1 Head Honcho, Don the Con: He's described all this as "illegal" and "unconstitutional" repeatedly. Of course, he favors, like other Republicans do, to couch all their publicity of this in phrases like "Hoax, Witchhunt, and Partisan Bickering". And I've heard some previously -considered legitimate people in congress claiming that THIS Impeachment is 'unconstitutional'. This is blatant obfuscation of Truth, in the hopes that The Peanut Gallery Trumpettes will *hear* them saying it's "illegal and unconstitutional". This is public theater at its best, a la, P.T. Barnum.>
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Of course, they have claimed that the specific process that Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have so far undertaken is entirely politically partisan and ignores due process rights that prior impeachment investigations have historically afforded their targets, which have been presidents and judges. This is accurate.Is it?  > There is no bipartisan support for the Trump impeachment effort, and the <REPUBLICAN-LED> House created new rules that minimized the Republican's ability, and deprived the President's ability, to call witnesses. Procedurally, this is unlike any prior impeachment proceeding in history. |
| Howee wrote: |
| Correct. And the Republicans have only their own shenanigans to thank for that....didn't realize it'd come back to bite 'em in their own arses. |
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| So the House directs the Trump White House to turn over the documents, and the White House refuses. The House issues subpoenas for the evidence, and the White House refuses to comply. |
I don't know what documents you're referring to here. Congress and the public have the Mueller report except for some redacted grand jury material, all of which were provided voluntarily by the Trump administration. As to the Trump-Ukraine phone call, which seems to be the crux of the impeachment inquiry, Congress and the people also have the full phone call transcript, which was also voluntarily provided by the Trump administration. <Do they?? What about the phone transcripts/other pertinent records kept in secured places, and not submitted for review?>
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| So the House then says, we'll do the investigation work ourselves - at taxpayer's expense, for redundant investigative work - and issue subpoenas for White House officials to come testify. Again, the White House orders the officials to refuse to comply. |
What witnesses are you talking about? The administration allowed all the executive branch witnesses who appeared before the Schiff committee to do so. The president has only raised a constitutional appearance privilege on behalf of certain close White House staff such as former White House Counsel McGahn. <John Bolton? Mick Mulvaney?....and WHY?? WHY might the president not wish for them to testify on behalf of his highly-touted "perfect" innocence? Whatever might they say, that he'd forbid their appearance?>
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| IMO, Clinton deserved to be impeached |
I agree. The evidence was overwhelming that Clinton committed the crimes of perjury under oath and obstruction of justice by witness tampering. Virtually everyone agreed with that, both Republicans and Democrats. The only issue was whether those crimes, politically, were "high" enough to justify impeachment. All the Democrats in the Senate said no, which was enough to sink a guilty verdict. |
| Howee wrote: |
Likewise, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming, both in what he did and what he DIDN'T do (forbidding called witnesses to testify, etc.)
Yes, BOTH Parties agreed Clinton's deeds were impeachable offenses: Republicans (who disliked the president as much as the Dems have disliked Trump) offered the proof, AND Democrats honored their duty to country and constitution above their party affiliations. Now, however, Dems intend to seek justice on a historically corrupt president, and the Reps--due to their generally blind allegiance to party values, twist it every which way to maintain loyalty to the demagogue. THAT'S the saddest part of this all, imo.
Another interesting fact of comparison between the Clinton/Trump procedures: Clinton testified under oath, and was thereby afforded the opportunity to commit perjury. Little mention has been made of how Trump does NOT testify; his handlers know all too well what a loose-lipped cannon he can be, and perjury is practically inevitable if he were allowed to testify. Rudy said it best during the Muller investigation: "We may as well put him in an orange jumpsuit now!", if he were required to testify in person. |
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Last edited by Howee on 12/06/19 2:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1900
Location: Here
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/06/19 5:02 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
However, you have misstated and conflated several historical and current facts, and I suspect you are not familiar with the legal differences between an Independent Counsel such as Starr and a Special Counsel such as Mueller. So, I'm going to try to correct the record.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| The Republicans have from the start made claims that the Democratic House-initiated process is "illegal", "unconstitutional", violates Trump's right to "due process", is "unfair" and "partisan-driven". |
I'm not aware of any serious Republican claiming that the a House impeachment is illegal or unconstitutional. Of course, they have claimed that the specific process that Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have so far undertaken is entirely politically partisan and ignores due process rights that prior impeachment investigations have historically afforded their targets, which have been presidents and judges. This is accurate. There is no bipartisan support for the Trump impeachment effort, and the House created new rules that minimized the Republican's ability, and deprived the President's ability, to call witnesses. Procedurally, this is unlike any prior impeachment proceeding in history. |
Here is your first stumble - you mis-interpreted my comment, despite actually reading (so you said) and then quoting my comment above: I DID NOT say "a" House impeachment, meaning a general and broad-sweeping position to have over the entire impeachment process, regardless of who oversees it. I did in fact say, "the Democratic House-initiated process", which the logical presumption would be - since I didn't specify to any particular Democratic House-initiated process in the past history of US politics, and since the person I was responding to didn't either - that the particular Democratic House-initiated process I was referring to MUST be the one that is currently taking place this year, and therefore my comment was not in regards to a general position held overall by the Republican Party.
As to such comments made by Republicans in Congress, in the White House, etc., regarding THIS current impeachment process, if you need me to present quotes and links to said quotes, please just ask - there have been dozens, and it will be very easy for me to do for you.
Further, Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Article 1, Section 3 states, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
In Article 2, Section 4, standards on the basis for the House to set their bill on impeachment are as follows:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
As to Section 2 of Article 1, the Constitution gives no guidelines or conditions beyond what was offered in Article 2, Section 4 regarding HOW the impeachment process should be carried out. But it does state this, in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
A "House" in this context involves the bicameral system of two Houses in the United States legislative branch of Government: the lower House known as the House of Representatives, and the upper House known as the Senate.
And that's it. The Constitution therefore, gives the House not only the "sole" power to conduct the prosecutorial phase of an impeachment, but it also gives the House sole discretion on how to proceed with the process, provided the process is in line with the Constitution, which again, doesn't really hold their hand too tightly.
I would be happy to entertain any suggestions you might have on just what makes you think due process rights even apply at this stage of the impeachment, much less that those rights have been violated. I know that you are not in a position to present any: you are not dissimilar to President Trump's Administration, and the Republican Party that parrot them: keep making baseless, dis-proven accusations without ever attempting to back them up with actual fact nor precedent. Because none exists beyond anything other than easily debunked false narrative. But lets go ahead and disprove your assertions anyways, just because its fun for me:
First off, the House's responsibilities are the prosecutorial phase - they act as the prosecutor/grand jury for crimes or offenses alleged to have been committed by the President. And as the Prosecutor, they are tasked with the responsibility of gathering the evidence of said offenses being committed: interviewing fact witnesses, compiling evidence, taking testimony, and issuing subpoenas if necessary to potential witnesses or persons of interest should they refuse the "invitation" to testify.
The House is made up of both the majority party (Democrats) and the minority (Republicans), and both are permitted to participate. Alas, the primary person being investigated - Trump - is Republican himself, so the Republican side has mostly tried to act as foils and obstructionists to the process. They have had opportunities to question the witnesses, to present - to a degree - their own witnesses, and review the testimony depositions and transcripts. But again, the House rules are established by majority vote, and the House majority is the Democrats. That's the rules, and they are NOT illegal nor unfair, just because the Republicans say they are.
Once the House - the prosecutor - finishes their investigation and determines that there is sufficient cause with moving forward with articles of impeachment, they submit their bill to the Senate, who tries the case.
With ANY prosecution of a crime, the accused in the United States does NOT have any "due-process". They do NOT get to challenge the Prosecution then, do NOT get to review the case files, do NOT get to question the witnesses nor present witnesses of their own. For one thing, if they were to question/cross-examine the Prosecution's witnesses prior to the charges being submitted, that would be violation of law, as witness tampering. I'm sure acquiring the Prosecutor's case file evidence prior to charges being submitted is also illegal, as the Prosecutor is supposed to submit the case file to the Court at either before or at same time as it is given to the Defense.
But this House inquiry hasn't denied a single, solitary right from Trump that the United States Constitution grants him in this context. The due process owed to the President is still there, patiently awaiting him and his legal counsel along with the rest of the United States Senate, should the day come that the House moves ahead and submits articles for impeachment, and it results in a Senate trial. There, they will have the Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court preside.
But any argument of unfairness, illegality, or violation of due-process just got shown to be the baseless, cowardly ruse it always was from the beginning: The House Judicial Committee - knowing the Republicans were all bark and no bite in their protestations - did what they didn't legally have to do, and invited President Trump and his counsel to participate in the Hearings. And what happened was what they all knew would happen: the White House refused the invitation.
Of course, we all know these accusations have been total bullshit from the beginning: the House has NEVER prohibited President Trump nor his legal counsel from participating in the Inquiry. They invited them from the beginning: in early October, Trump stated publicly that he would not participate in the Hearings, around when the White House started forbidding WH staff from participating. In late October, the House even passed a Resolution - HR 660 - that officially extended on record their invitation to President Trump and his counsel, and of course they refused it. So there never was any legitimate issue with "due process" - it's just tantamount to a kicking, flailing temper-tantrum by Trump.
Trump, his counsel, and the Republican Party only want to be placed in a position where they get to totally dictate how the House will conduct the impeachment. They want no witnesses questioned, they want no evidence gathered, and they want no Constitution to be defended. Anything less than that, they consider "unfair", "illegal", and "unconstitutional"......
|
|
Conway Gamecock
Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1900
Location: Here
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/06/19 9:31 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
However, you have misstated and conflated several historical and current facts, and I suspect you are not familiar with the legal differences between an Independent Counsel such as Starr and a Special Counsel such as Mueller. So, I'm going to try to correct the record.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| With the Bill Clinton Impeachment, it involved a Democratic President (Clinton), and a Democratic Attorney General (Reno), against a Republican Independent Counsel (Starr), and a Republican Congress (House and Senate). |
The investigations of Bill Clinton by Special and then Independent Counsels had nothing to do with the Republican party or Congress.
Originally, in January 1994, Clinton's own attorney general, Janet Reno, appointed Robert Fiske as a Special Counsel within the DOJ to investigate the Clintons' involvement in the Whitewater affair and the death of Vincent Foster.
In August of 1994, when the (now expired) Independent Counsel Act was reauthorized, the DC Federal Court of Appeals took over the investigation and replaced Fiske with Independent Counsel Ken Starr, who had been a judge on that court. The purpose of the Independent Counsel Act, enacted in 1978 by the post-Watergate Democrat Congress, was to take the investigatory power out of the hands of the Executive Department/DOJ and to put it in the hands of a completely independent investigator supervised by the federal court.
Starr's 5-year investigation, which kept expanding finally to include an impeachment referral, had nothing to do with the Republican Congress. It was instigated, expanded and supervised by the federal court. |
Hmm. Special Counsel Friske had concluded that President Clinton and his White House had not involved themselves in any impropriety, and that Foster's death was via suicide. Starr would initially take over and conduct his own investigation into Whitewater, but despite initially drafting an impeachment referral regarding that matter, he ultimately withdrew it due to lack of sufficient evidence, and concurred with Friske's conclusion of Foster's death. Starr would turn the Whitewater investigation over to Robert Ray as he moved towards the Monica Lewinsky portion of the investigation.
From all inquiries - from Friske to Starr to Ray - neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton were ever charged with any improprieties involving the Whitewater investigation. The Impeachment of Bill Clinton primarily - if not entirely - involved the Monica Lewinsky sexual scandal. Neither Friske nor Ray had much involvement in that investigation. It essentially involved - in the way of Independent Counsel - one Mr. Kenneth Starr, who was most definitely a Republican. So my above statement is actually 100% correct.
Now, on to your other silliness. As per the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Title VI (amendment of Title 28 of U.S. Code), Section 592 states:
| Quote: |
(a) Conduct of Preliminary Investigation.—
(1) In general.—
A preliminary investigation conducted under this chapter shall be of such matters as the Attorney General considers appropriate in order to make a determination, under subsection (b) or (c), on whether further investigation is warranted, with respect to each potential violation, or allegation of a violation, of criminal law. The Attorney General shall make such determination not later than 90 days after the preliminary investigation is commenced, except that, in the case of a preliminary investigation commenced after a congressional request under subsection (g), the Attorney General shall make such determination not later than 90 days after the request is received. The Attorney General shall promptly notify the division of the court specified in section 593(a) of the commencement of such preliminary investigation and the date of such commencement.
(2) Form of notification.—
Such notification shall contain a summary of the information received and a summary of the results of the preliminary investigation.
(c) Determination That Further Investigation is Warranted.—
(1) Application for appointment of independent counsel.—
The Attorney General shall apply to the division of the court for the appointment of an independent counsel if—
(A) the Attorney General, upon completion of a preliminary investigation under this chapter, determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted; or
(B) the 90-day period referred to in subsection (a)(1), and any extension granted under subsection (a)(3), have elapsed and the Attorney General has not filed a notification with the division of the court under subsection (b)(1).
In determining under this chapter whether reasonable grounds exist to warrant further investigation, the Attorney General shall comply with the written or other established policies of the Department of Justice with respect to the conduct of criminal investigations. |
Section 593(a):
| Quote: |
(a) Reference to Division of the Court.—
The division of the court to which this chapter refers is the division established under section 49 of this title.
(b) Appointment and Jurisdiction of Independent Counsel.—
(1) Authority.—
Upon receipt of an application under section 592(c), the division of the court shall appoint an appropriate independent counsel and shall define that independent counsel’s prosecutorial jurisdiction.
(3) Scope of prosecutorial jurisdiction.—
In defining the independent counsel’s prosecutorial jurisdiction, the division of the court shall assure that the independent counsel has adequate authority to fully investigate and prosecute the subject matter with respect to which the Attorney General has requested the appointment of the independent counsel, and all matters related to that subject matter. Such jurisdiction shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute Federal crimes, other than those classified as Class B or C misdemeanors or infractions, that may arise out of the investigation or prosecution of the matter with respect to which the Attorney General’s request was made, including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses. |
And finally, Section 595(a):
| Quote: |
(a) Oversight of Conduct of Independent Counsel.—
(1) Congressional oversight.—
The appropriate committees of the Congress shall have oversight jurisdiction with respect to the official conduct of any independent counsel appointed under this chapter, and such independent counsel shall have the duty to cooperate with the exercise of such oversight jurisdiction.
(2) Reports to congress.—
An independent counsel appointed under this chapter shall submit to the Congress annually a report on the activities of the independent counsel, including a description of the progress of any investigation or prosecution conducted by the independent counsel. Such report may omit any matter that in the judgment of the independent counsel should be kept confidential, but shall provide information adequate to justify the expenditures that the office of the independent counsel has made. |
I think this effectively puts an end to your "investigations of Bill Clinton by Special and then Independent Counsels had nothing to do with the Republican party or Congress". The actual function of the Independent Counsel in the case of Kenneth Starr was to investigate possible wrongdoings by President Clinton for the purpose of possible articles of impeachment to be charged against him. As you should have been educated to by now, only the House of Representatives - the lower House of Congress - can submit those articles. Only the Senate - the upper House - can try them. To say the IC has nothing to do with Congress, is like saying that a brain surgeon has nothing to do with the brain.
In the case of President Clinton's impeachment, it is a simple record of fact that Clinton was Democrat, Starr was Republican, and both Houses of Congress at the time were also Republican. To state those facts have nothing to do with the investigations of Clinton is dead at birth.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| Starr completed his investigation and then he gave EVERYTHING - EVERYTHING - EVERYTHING - 100% OF IT ALL - to Congress. |
True. That was because the Independent Counsel Act, which expired in 1999, specifically required Starr to do that as well as providing all the evidence to the supervising federal court. |
OK, just as long as YOU realize that your "investigations of Bill Clinton by Special and then Independent Counsels had nothing to do with the Republican party or Congress" argument, and this above one, are in violent battle with each other for eternity.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| So what does Mueller do? He completes HIS investigation, and drops everything off for the House? Nope. He gives it all to his boss, because this time, his boss is not in the same camp with the House. |
Mueller followed the applicable legal procedures for a DOJ Special Counsel.
Unlike Walsh and Starr, Mueller was not an Independent Counsel acting under the provisions of the Independent Counsel Act. That act expired in 1999 and was not reauthorized by Congress, specifically because Democrats and Republican alike all considered the Walsh and Starr extravaganzas to have been too wasteful, abusive and harmful to the national interest. The act was replaced by the office of Special Counsel, a wholly in-house DOJ investigator who is supervised by the Attorney General who is subject only to the DOJ Special Counsel Regulations.
Those regulations specify that Mueller was to provide a confidential report to the Attorney General and no one else. His investigation is a wholly and confidential internal DOJ investigation, just like every criminal investigation going on in every U.S. Attorney office in the country. The regulations do not require the Attorney General to make any report to Congress, but the AG may choose to do so within certain other legal constraints (such as keeping grand jury evidence confidential). |
There were real constitutional issues involving Independent Counsel. What you posted above were among them, but were also among the more minor issues. The biggest ones were that Independent Counsel were given too much prosecutorial powers but were not subject to the Department of Justice for reasons of concern of conflict of ethics involving Special Counsel/Special Prosecutors being under the purview of the DOJ, but being charged with investigating the President, who is the high authority of the DOJ, and therefore being in a position of having authority over the individual(s) tasked with investigating him.
But the Office of Independent Counsel concerned both Democrats and Republicans, as well as the highest members of the Judiciary, for having too much unchecked power. Supreme Court Justice Scalia Described the IC as an instrument that grants the Judicial branch of government - in this case, the Court of Appeals who appoints the IC - the powers of the Executive branch, or the investigation and prosecution powers, and therefore violated the constitutional intent of separation of powers.
Which I can agree with this, but it still leaves us with the possibility of violations from within the Executive branch, should the person of federal office being investigated happens to be the President. The thought process goes, for elected officials, the abuse of prosecution was remedied through the framers of the Constitution by the Ballot Box. A Federal judge is not elected, but is appointed, and for life. He/she is therefore forever shielded from the public's votes, and although the IC's purview also included members of the judiciary, if it was someone appointed by them, there's the conflict of ethics again.
In the case of the Mueller investigation, Mueller was tasked with guidelines from the Office of Legal Council within the White House that as a member of the DOJ, he could not prosecute the President. The "sole" constitutional responsibility fell to the House of Representatives. And Mueller carried out his investigation with that understanding, but the House couldn't mount a proper prosecution without all of the fact evidence, thanks to AG Barr.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| But, can the House build their case? How could they? All they get, is a heavily-redacted Mueller Report. The Trump White House - the very entity that was investigated by Mueller - has all the evidence in their possession. |
That's completely wrong. AG Barr decided to turn Mueller's entire massive report over to Congress verbatim, with very few redactions, mostly to protect grand jury material. It's publicly available and anyone can see the redactions. Barr also provided an even less redacted version to the Judiciary Committees of Congress.
Mueller complied with the current reporting law that governed him, just as Starr complied with the different and expired reporting law that governed him.
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| So the House directs the Trump White House to turn over the documents, and the White House refuses. The House issues subpoenas for the evidence, and the White House refuses to comply. |
I don't know what documents you're referring to here. Congress and the public have the Mueller report except for some redacted grand jury material, all of which were provided voluntarily by the Trump administration. As to the Trump-Ukraine phone call, which seems to be the crux of the impeachment inquiry, Congress and the people also have the full phone call transcript, which was also voluntarily provided by the Trump administration. |
The Report is heavily redacted, despite what you contend. I have read it - you apparently not. There are pages that are entirely black, and dozens that are largely if not mostly black. Congress has dealt with confidential issues for generations like on-going investigations, or sources and methods. The question is the interpretation of what is relevant to the Impeachment Inquiry, and what is not. Mueller himself has already shown to strongly disagree with Barr's interpretation of the gravity of his Report, so its understandable for the House to question if what has been redacted truly doesn't impact their Inquiry. The Grand Jury information is something that legally Barr cannot disclose on his own initiative, but something the House could sue for.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Conway Gamecock wrote: |
| So the House then says, we'll do the investigation work ourselves - at taxpayer's expense, for redundant investigative work - and issue subpoenas for White House officials to come testify. Again, the White House orders the officials to refuse to comply. |
What witnesses are you talking about? The administration allowed all the executive branch witnesses who appeared before the Schiff committee to do so. The president has only raised a constitutional appearance privilege on behalf of certain close White House staff such as former White House Counsel McGahn.
Even if he is ultimately compelled to appear by the court, McGahn can't be forced to testify to anything covered by executive privilege or attorney-client privilege. The Democrats know this, so they will proceed with impeachment without his personal testimony, relying instead on the extensive evidence about McGahn in the Mueller Report. |
This is untrue: Several witnesses who testified, also testified that they were advised not to by the White House, but did it anyway. Ambassador Gordon Sondland was ordered not to testify. VP Pense Aide Jennifer Williams was also advised not to. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, former WH Counsel Don McGhan, former Aides Rick Dearborn and Rob Porter, NSC legal advisors John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis, WH Aide Robert Blair, Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, OMB Aide Brian McCormack, Energy Secretary Rick Perry - all have been blocked from testifying, and most have been subpoenaed and are still resisting. On and on and on. And this "constitutional appearance privilege": that's a laugh - you're gonna have to show me a link for that one.....
|
|
|
|
