DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

So sticking with the theme that Mueller believes certain actions are outside of his purview and must be left to others...


This decision would seem to indicate he believes another group, perhaps an independent branch of government that is constitutionally-endowed with the power and duty to provide checks and balances on the other branches, should then interview Trump, correct?

The answers they gave were inadequate. He didn't believe it was his job (or worth the fight) to force Trump to interview under oath.

I've been called nuts recently for believing this, but it still seems to me we're slowly cruising towards an eventual testimony, under oath, by the president in front of Congress. Is that nuts?

 
"Under OLC's analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions. The Constitution does not authorize the President to engage in such conduct, and those actions would transgress the President's duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'"

Does Mueller golf? Because he sure does tee things up well!

 
Danny Bateman said:
So sticking with the theme that Mueller believes certain actions are outside of his purview and must be left to others...


This decision would seem to indicate he believes another group, perhaps an independent branch of government that is constitutionally-endowed with the power and duty to provide checks and balances on the other branches, should then interview Trump, correct?

The answers they gave were inadequate. He didn't believe it was his job (or worth the fight) to force Trump to interview under oath.

I've been called nuts recently for believing this, but it still seems to me we're slowly cruising towards an eventual testimony, under oath, by the president in front of Congress. Is that nuts?
Click to expand...




It is nuts, because you’re forgetting how many Republicans are in Congress and how Congress has shown there are no repercussions when Trump says no. The Republicans refuse to override any of his vetoes, so there’s now way they’re going to get him to come and testify. If he says no they’ll do nothing to him. They’ve proven they won’t do anything to him, so he has no reason to say yes. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's really not surprising if the Report didn't turn up enough irrefutable evidence to recommend prosecution for Collusion and Obstruction. That's a high bar in murky waters. 

But how do you call 34 indictments, 7 convictions, and 100% confirmation that Russia intervened in the U.S. election to benefit Donald Trump "nothing?"

I actually wish Russia would go away so we could concentrate on the hundreds of other disturbing and more direct examples of how both Trump and the GOP are staging a coup against America's supposedly beloved system of checks and balances and basic human decency.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If someone is combing through the report to find a single smoking gun that will prove Trump's criminality, it's not going to be there. But as most of us who have paid attention over the past 3 years have already gathered, and what the Mueller report is confirming, is that the sheer totality of lies, obstruction, depravity, corruption, etc adds up to an overwhelming damnation of this horrible man and his horrible administration. The grounds for impeachment are there. Hell, they have been there all along.

However, the important question is: will this information change the minds of any Republicans or Trump's base? Comprehending truth and fitting together the pieces of a massive puzzle do not seem to be things that the R's are capable of or interested in. Without the GOP members of congress, especially the Senate, turning on Trump, where does impeachment go? What will it take to change their minds?

 
Moiraine said:
It is nuts, because you’re forgetting how many Republicans are in Congress and how Congress has shown there are no repercussions when Trump says no. The Republicans refuse to override any of his vetoes, so there’s now way they’re going to get him to come and testify. If he says no they’ll do nothing to him. They’ve proven they won’t do anything to him, so he has no reason to say yes.  
Click to expand...


He doesn't have to say yes. If he refuses to testify, the House can serve him up a subpoena which requires his testimony. If he does not comply, they can direct the Seargeant At Arms of the House Senate to go get the president and literally bring him to Congress to testify. If Trump still refuses he can entirely lawfully be locked up until he is compelled to comply.

I mean, at this point, you'd have Republicans lighting torches and grabbing pitchforks, screaming overreach. But this would be pretty dystopian territory anyway, only because the president refuses to follow our norms and rules.

Edit: Oops, it's the Senate Sergeant at Arms that can detain anyone, including the president. That probably means it's a no-go under Mitch McConnell's  longstanding "Don't let anything bad happen to Trump" policy.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top