Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Shadowferal]

Pelosi and company will get the blame if all they do is waste time.

[Draco-Onis]

Pelosi and company will get the blame if all they do is waste time.

Yea democrats need to either shit or get off the pot.

[Mekkle]

This is incredibly frustrating to think about/watch. The dems have nearly anything they could want. but a bunch of fucking cowards.

[Bodakane]

Thats a dangerous game to play. You dont want to head into "election season" with an Impeachment attempt smacked down by Rs in the Senate. You hand the Rs a pretty big free win. Trump will never stop talking about how the corrupt dems failed to impeach him "CUZ NO COLLUSION".

That is literally how the Repubs got Trump elected by failing to prosecute Hillary.

Difference is, this time Trump is actually guilty and significantly so.

[Forogil]

Thats a dangerous game to play. You dont want to head into "election season" with an Impeachment attempt smacked down by Rs in the Senate. You hand the Rs a pretty big free win. Trump will never stop talking about how the corrupt dems failed to impeach him "CUZ NO COLLUSION".

What other tactics should be used then?

Keep investigations going without actually starting impeachment proceedings? I believe that might work - and dragging out the process seems simple, due to all the stalling tactics; but others doubt it.
Just focus on other aspects?

[Beazy]

What other tactics should be used then?

Keep investigations going without actually starting impeachment proceedings? I believe that might work - and dragging out the process seems simple, due to all the stalling tactics; but others doubt it.
Just focus on other aspects?

I really don't know man. The entire situation is fucked up as long as Barr is casting BoP on Trump every cool down.

The only way Trump goes down is if hes beaten in 2020. We have to pick someone better than Biden. Are there no other candidates who are out of left field for dems like Obama was his first time around? I have a really bad feeling about Biden. This needs to be a slam dunk, not a game 7 win.

[DarkTZeratul]

I really don't know man. The entire situation is fucked up as long as Barr is casting BoP on Trump every cool down.

Honestly, Barr is not the impediment here. The actual barrier to unfucking the situation is the Senate Republicans who refuse to hold Trump accountable for anything at all.

[Stormspark]

And it all hinges on Biden winning vs Trump. . . . I have a bad feeling Trump can/will beat Biden.

If he stays, he will keep Barr, no doubt about that.... and then we can all forget about justice for another four more years.

Actually no, if he stays the US will be a dictatorship before the term is up.

[Thepersona]

I disagree. The calculus for moving forward with Articles is dramatic. Pelosi and the Dems have to do this just right or it could backfire. Not doing it at all is also a choice, obviously.

Right now the various House Committees are doing their investigations, which is precisely what they should be doing. The pace of all this kills me inside, but it has to be done both correctly from a procedure standpoint, and timely from a political standpoint.

I will be bold to say that the dems want to start the impeachment hearings in the fall of 2019 (so in 4 to 5 months) in order to deny as much time as possible to Trump, just when the presidential election is in the corner

[cubby]

I will be bold to say that the dems want to start the impeachment hearings in the fall of 2019 (so in 4 to 5 months) in order to deny as much time as possible to Trump, just when the presidential election is in the corner

If the dems can somehow put together a scenario where the people running for President aren't involved at all in the process and don't make any comments on Impeachment, keeping to the issues of Jobs/Healthcare/Law&Order; while the House Committee members can troll him on a daily basis, that would be ideal.

[Bodakane]

If the dems can somehow put together a scenario where the people running for President aren't involved at all in the process and don't make any comments on Impeachment, keeping to the issues of Jobs/Healthcare/Law&Order; while the House Committee members can troll him on a daily basis, that would be ideal.

Again, I think it would be smart if the candidates came out...on the side of law and justice.

Not discussing it, is playing into them being corrupt narrative.

The best way to NOT be part of the swamp is to not be swampy. Speak out on what's right....for once. Trump broke the law, demand he pay for that.

[Skroe]

So good news came today. Remember the Gamble v US case some folks were concerned would give Trump an avenue to pardon his minions and have them escape justice at the State Level too?

Turns out concerns were baseless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.8bea1c50093d

The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed the long-established precedent that allows both state and federal authorities to prosecute a person for the same offense, a ruling that has implications for President Trump’s pardon powers.

The 7 to 2 ruling rejected arguments that allowing subsequent prosecutions violates the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights, which prohibits more than one prosecution or punishment for the same offense.

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote for the majority; Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

Since the 1850s, the court has allowed an exception to the Constitution’s double-jeopardy prohibition on the theory that the federal and state governments are separate constitutional actors with their own sovereign authority.

Alito said that the evidence mounted by challengers that the pratice departs from the founding-era understanding of the Double Jeopardy Clause is “feeble; pointing the other way are the Clause’s text, other historical evidence, and 170 years of precedent.”

The case drew special attention because of Trump’s musings that he might pardon some officials caught up in investigations of the administration. For instance, some states have said they plan to prosecute former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under their own tax evasion laws should Trump pardon Manafort on his federal convictions.

[Manafort indicted in New York state, charges that fall outside Trump’s pardon power]

But Monday’s case, Gamble v. U.S., represented a concerted effort by groups of conservatives and liberals alike to persuade the court that the exception exposes defendants to the potential harassment, trauma, expense and sometimes extra punishment the double jeopardy clause was designed to prevent.

The case was brought by Terance Gamble, who was convicted of robbery in Mobile County, Ala., in 2008 and two domestic violence charges in 2013. Under both state and federal law, such a convicted felon may not possess a firearm.

[DocSavageFan]

Honestly, Barr is not the impediment here. The actual barrier to unfucking the situation is the Senate Republicans who refuse to hold Trump accountable for anything at all.

Hold Trump accountable for what? Being a Russian agent?

[cubby]

So good news came today. Remember the Gamble v US case some folks were concerned would give Trump an avenue to pardon his minions and have them escape justice at the State Level too?

Turns out concerns were baseless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.8bea1c50093d

That is fantastic news. Interesting pair in the dissent - I'll have to read that to see what their issues were. Glad it was held up though - good news for law and order and bad news (as always) for Trumpistas.

[Skroe]

That is fantastic news. Interesting pair in the dissent - I'll have to read that to see what their issues were. Glad it was held up though - good news for law and order and bad news (as always) for Trumpistas.

I mean, Trump issue aside, I can see the argument on both ends.

On the one hand, as part of a federal system, which we still emphatically are (even though we love to pretend we're a unitary state), the States are sovereign in their own right, and this country is one of shared sovereignty between the Federal Government and the 50 states. So criminal liability in one should necessarily not preclude liability in the other, otherwise there is no true shared sovereignty.

On the other hand double jeopardy was forbidden by the Fifth Amendment because exactly that sort of thing was being utilized to squash political dissent in Europe in the late 18th century (and well before of course). And to this very day, double jeopardy is utilized by authoritarian regimes whenever they don't get the outcome they want. Every day people being potentially at risk for having to defend their innocence a second time is a pretty monstrous thing to have to have people to do.

I don't know what the right way through this would be. Way above my paygrade. I'm not even sure how it can be both. From what I'm reading on this topic, it seems like the consensus since the 1850s is that the shared sovereignty principle has been pretty much been allowed to supersede the 5th amendment prohibition. I don't quite know if that's the right balance for the modern era.

Regardless shared sovereignty remains by far one of the founders most brilliant innovations, and also probably the single most complicated. Think about everything that has arisen out of it... good and bad.

[Shadowferal]

7-2 is fairly nailed in..

[Kaleredar]

Hold Trump accountable for what? Being a Russian agent?

Obstruction of justice is the major problem, seeing as he, on numerous occasions, acted and directed individuals to prevent an inquisition into his actions.

[Paranoid Android]

Wow—Paul Manafort Seemed Headed to Rikers. Then the Justice Department Intervened. https://t.co/N7QYZDNIvZ

This whole administration is run just like a criminal organization. From the story it was Deputy AG Rosen who issued. Any of the sources are not tracing this back to Barr, but seems strange.

[Bodakane]

Hold Trump accountable for what? Being a Russian agent?

Legal definition of criminal conspiracy:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

Proving criminal conspiracy enough for conviction in a court of law is incredibly easy. All you need is a crime to have happened or attempt to have happened and an agreement between the parties involved to commit or attempt to commit that crime. The Mueller Report clearly lays out that Trump and his team are guilty of criminal conspiracy, just like they laid out obstruction.

Denying this, because of your Trump lust, means you're not a patriot of the US.

[Shalcker]

Proving criminal conspiracy enough for conviction in a court of law is incredibly easy. All you need is a crime to have happened or attempt to have happened and an agreement between the parties involved to commit or attempt to commit that crime. The Mueller Report clearly lays out that Trump and his team are guilty of criminal conspiracy, just like they laid out obstruction.

The Mueller Report clearly lays out that no agreement between parties involved happened to do it; as such, your definition of criminal conspiracy cannot apply.