So in a going-forward impeachment scenario, the House [D] will conduct the investigation and (presumably) bring charges, after which the Senate [R] will prosecute the case, which latter part will be a joke, is what I thought the point was.
The Senate does NOT prosecute the charges; the House provides its own group of prosecutors to try the case on the Senate floor. (This was the role played by then South Carolina congressman Lindsey Graham during the Clinton impeachment trial.) The senators merely sit as the jury in an impeachment trial.
We'll just have to disagree, I think. Anyone who thinks the Senate still has the best interests of the country at heart is living in a dream world, and can't be convinced otherwise. Anyone with a brain cell in their head knows the Senate is corrupt and their shutting impeachment down is irrelevant. (I'm not attacking you; I'm speaking of the generic John Q. Public).
Thank You! Lots of comments on Twitter today to the effect of 'Well if people are too stupid/lazy to read the report then that’s on them'. Completely spacing out that public opinion matters. So not real until on TV and 428 pages of LEGALESE are most appreciated. 🍰
Somebody on Twitter said there needs to be the moment whereNadler: Does your report exonerate Donald Trump?Mueller: No.
And I’d addNadler: If Trump we’re not president and had done the same thing would he have been indicted for obstruction of justice?Mueller: Yes.
And then someone makes the Mueller Yes GIF and we would at least know everything that could be done had been done.
Ok, so that actually makes me think, what if Mueller specifically dropped those words to say in essence, "hey, if you invite me to testify, I will bring my magic redaction remover and we can look at the stuff that got covered up..." <-- literally covered up in this case.
Exactly. For Mueller to say that he has done his part, now Congress needs to read the report and proceed where the SC left off, is ridiculous on its face because the various investigative committees are not being being allowed to even see the full and unredacted report by Mueller's good friend, the AG.
Now that he's a public citizen, he's certainly subpoena-able to testify as to what he knows, behind closed doors. There's no executive privilege claim and the (redacted) report by no means "speaks for itself."
Also, he has things to testify about which are not related to the content of the report.... but related to the PROCESS around the investigation and release of information.
1) Was there any abuse of warrants or other judicial proceedings during the investigation that could in any way 'taint' the evidence gathered? (The answer will of course be 'No'....)2) Did any members of the investigation break any laws while gathering, compiling or interpreting evidence gathered in the investigation? (again, a 'No' answer expected here...)3) Were there any discussions with either acting Attorney General Whitaker (aka 'Meatball) or Attorney General Barr where he advised or ordered you to 'speed up the process' or 'wrap up the investigation'?4) Were there any changes to the makeup of the investigation team (i.e. personnel reassigned) or the budget of the investigation (i.e. scheduling an end to funding) by either acting Attorney General Whitaker or Attorney General Barr.5) Did Attorney General Barr have any discussions with you PRIOR to releasing his YA Fantasy novel (er... I mean summaries) of the report, and if so, did you object to his trying to gaslight the country?6) Would a deliberate attempt to characterize the outcome of a legally empowered investigation constitute Obstruction of Justice, and if so, why did you not LOCK HIM UP Attorney General Barr instead of just sending him a 'snitty' letter?
I've always wondered why the Chinese didn't speed up that whole process. Throw a bucket of water in the prisoner's face.... BOOM! Should logically have the exact same effect as 682 continuous hours of one drip per 30 seconds.... and think of the savings on food, housing, etc. for the prisoner.....
So in a going-forward impeachment scenario, the House [D] will conduct the investigation and (presumably) bring charges, after which the Senate [R] will prosecute the case, which latter part will be a joke, is what I thought the point was.
Benjamin Wittes argues otherwise.
https://www.lawfareblog.com...
The Senate does NOT prosecute the charges; the House provides its own group of prosecutors to try the case on the Senate floor. (This was the role played by then South Carolina congressman Lindsey Graham during the Clinton impeachment trial.) The senators merely sit as the jury in an impeachment trial.
We'll just have to disagree, I think. Anyone who thinks the Senate still has the best interests of the country at heart is living in a dream world, and can't be convinced otherwise. Anyone with a brain cell in their head knows the Senate is corrupt and their shutting impeachment down is irrelevant. (I'm not attacking you; I'm speaking of the generic John Q. Public).
Is Biden really the "frontrunner" by any standard except media adoration?
exactly what I was going to point out.
Agree. The public already has access to the overwhelming body of Mueller’s work.
Through Mueller's "speaking indictments".
Trump has only gotten MORE popular, up to 44% approval.
Because Putin's FIREHOSE OF PROPAGANDA strategy makes him more popular UNCONSCIOUSLY.
MERELY PUTTING ON A SHOW ON CSPAN is not gonna cut it, kids.
We need to counter by with a "wall of sound" strategy to use the Grateful Dead analogy.
That's gonna be difficult with no Al Gore TV channel. 😏
Thank You! Lots of comments on Twitter today to the effect of 'Well if people are too stupid/lazy to read the report then that’s on them'. Completely spacing out that public opinion matters. So not real until on TV and 428 pages of LEGALESE are most appreciated. 🍰
Somebody on Twitter said there needs to be the moment whereNadler: Does your report exonerate Donald Trump?Mueller: No.
And I’d addNadler: If Trump we’re not president and had done the same thing would he have been indicted for obstruction of justice?Mueller: Yes.
And then someone makes the Mueller Yes GIF and we would at least know everything that could be done had been done.
Ok, so that actually makes me think, what if Mueller specifically dropped those words to say in essence, "hey, if you invite me to testify, I will bring my magic redaction remover and we can look at the stuff that got covered up..." <-- literally covered up in this case.
Not being impeached is not pissing him off.
Exactly. For Mueller to say that he has done his part, now Congress needs to read the report and proceed where the SC left off, is ridiculous on its face because the various investigative committees are not being being allowed to even see the full and unredacted report by Mueller's good friend, the AG.
Now that he's a public citizen, he's certainly subpoena-able to testify as to what he knows, behind closed doors. There's no executive privilege claim and the (redacted) report by no means "speaks for itself."
Also, he has things to testify about which are not related to the content of the report.... but related to the PROCESS around the investigation and release of information.
1) Was there any abuse of warrants or other judicial proceedings during the investigation that could in any way 'taint' the evidence gathered? (The answer will of course be 'No'....)2) Did any members of the investigation break any laws while gathering, compiling or interpreting evidence gathered in the investigation? (again, a 'No' answer expected here...)3) Were there any discussions with either acting Attorney General Whitaker (aka 'Meatball) or Attorney General Barr where he advised or ordered you to 'speed up the process' or 'wrap up the investigation'?4) Were there any changes to the makeup of the investigation team (i.e. personnel reassigned) or the budget of the investigation (i.e. scheduling an end to funding) by either acting Attorney General Whitaker or Attorney General Barr.5) Did Attorney General Barr have any discussions with you PRIOR to releasing his YA Fantasy novel (er... I mean summaries) of the report, and if so, did you object to his trying to gaslight the country?6) Would a deliberate attempt to characterize the outcome of a legally empowered investigation constitute Obstruction of Justice, and if so, why did you not LOCK HIM UP Attorney General Barr instead of just sending him a 'snitty' letter?
I've always wondered why the Chinese didn't speed up that whole process. Throw a bucket of water in the prisoner's face.... BOOM! Should logically have the exact same effect as 682 continuous hours of one drip per 30 seconds.... and think of the savings on food, housing, etc. for the prisoner.....
Upfist for the Dragnet reference alone.
And THAT is why you, sir or madam as the case may be, are the Leftflank. Salute!