I agree that removal through the 2/3 Senate vote is all but impossible. That scenario would pretty much have to involve some crazy scenario like Fox News making a sharp pivot and full-scale turning against Trump, since that's the only possible avenue I can see where Republicans could get enough political cover to turn against him also.

That said, I just can't make this connection where a failure to get a conviction in the Senate comes anywhere close to guaranteeing re-election for Trump, and I actually think it's a very open question as to whether it helps or hurts his re-election prospects. Unlike what happened with Clinton, I have a difficult time seeing Trump look more sympathetic as a result of impeachment proceedings. I'm sure there would be some swing voters who would see the Dems as sore losers, but I don't necessarily think these same people would make the jump to believing that Trump was a victim of a baseless and overzealous prosecution.

370 (now 459, per the article) out of how many. As stated by someone else above, lol WaPo. Very biased.

We should be talking about details from the report if we are talking about impeachment. Anything less is lol.

Edit: Oh, and here is the WaPo article if anyone wants it.

I think a lot will depend on the IG report on the FISA application. If that report is bad for the FBI, I personally think that a trial in the Senate including FBI abuses in the start of this case is not something that will help the Democrats.

Right now the Democrats can pick and choose who to call in congress and keep momentum with a group of helpful witnesses. The Senate really does not have time to waste on that nonsense. In that they want to continue the pace of appointing judges. But if forced to a trial then the FBI abuses and impartial agents will be front and center.

Why do you mention lol wapo? Do you think it didn't happen? Do you dispute some of the facts reported? I gave other outlets that reported it. I believe it's a real story.



out of how many

How rare is it for even one to state something like that publicly?

No, I believe the letter was written and sent. The WaPo added lots of color that was biased. Perhaps I should have said, lol letter signer who plans to run against Trump. Or other letter signers who are former Dem politicians.

To be clear, I don't know whether Trump did anything impeachable in terms of obstruction, though we now know that nothing related to Russia was impeachable, or chargeable or whatever. The obstruction question is complex and I don't know if any of what he did is reasonably impeachable, though I doubt it.

I would like to read the report, but I confess I will likely not take the time to do that.

I agree that the letter itself with 459 signers is meaningful/significant. That said, who are they (biased?) and much more importantly, what are their arguments? What did Barr say and how do we square that against what the letter says? Let's look at the specific assertions of obstruction.

Sorry if the lol WaPo comment through you off, but my main point is what about the actual facts/obstruction. The letter is essentially an appeal to authority. I admit that is sometimes valid, but then who is this authority.

My point about "out of how many" was, how many candidates in the United States are there that could have signed the letter. 10,000? 1,000? I don't know, but it matters. Specifically, is 450 of this class of people (former prosecutors who could have some claim to sign such a letter) a lot out of the total? Basically, 450 sounds like a huge number, but I'm not sure if it is. Part of WaPo's bias is in not calling that fact out. Did anyone refuse to sign? Did 1,500 former prosecutors refuse to sign? Leaving that whole question as an unknown, even obscured issue, in the article is a form of bias.

Since you seem to genuinely want to know these things I figured I'd spend the 15 minutes it took to find and lay out some answers to these questions for you.

Who signed:

• Appointees from every president since Johnson
• People with everything from 1 year to 37 years served in the DOJ (including over 100 who served at least 25 years in the DOJ)
• People who served a variety of roles inside the DOJ, including as Special Council and many Senior Trial Attorneys

Full list here (it was an open letter and now has over 800 signatories): https://airtable.com/shrZ3dJWgziXNqS...Gu?blocks=hide

Their arguments consist of 3 major points:

As evidence for each of these they lay out their specific reasoning and cite specific sections of the report in the open letter.

1.
“Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

2.
“[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct”

3.
Ruby Giuliani (Trump's lawyer) to Michael Cohen via private message: “[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”

If you want to read the full open letter and see more information about their arguments then it was published here: https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statem...s-8ab7691c2aa1

I think their best play is to continue as they have been with the tax returns and similar. This information is all a disaster for Trump but if they try to bring him to impeachment it will not end well. The sting of 'exoneration' will have long faded if the Dems work on their message and put all the bull**** that Trump promised in his initial campaign on tv. The main question in my mind is whether the corpratists in the democratic party will throw the election or not. I'm not totally convinced that they are trying to win. Non-0% chance they will move forward with an unsuccessful impeachment due to their russia-in-sanity fit. The Blue Dogs are an abomination.

This, my first observation from reading the OP.

This was obviously not a random survey, but an effort to promote a POV. Not that there is anything wrong with that but, without understanding the numbers of those who may disagree with the assertion of the letter, it appears disingenuous.

And, he is president. The assertion should be "he should be charged with obstruction as president."

Former prosecutors with the opposing POV could always sign a similar letter opposing charging him with obstruction, if, of course, anyone would agree with Guiliani.

Kellyanne Conway's husband.

We know this because because TRUMP waived attorney client privilege and executive privilege permitting McGahn to turn over his notes. So TRUMP cooperation in the investigation was to show that he obstructed justice? Mueller was actually not fired as McGahn actually doesn’t have the authority to do so,C’mon

Evidence that actually stands up in a criminal proceeding undergoing the adversarial process rly? Sessions recused himself. TRUMP could have fired Rosenstein but he didn’t. In fact Rosenstein briefed TRUMP on the status more than once.

GTFO with this standing up as evidence in an obstruction of justice case. Btw Cohen trashed TRUMP in testimony. Cohen is currently serving a prison sentence.

failed obstruction of justice is a crime known as obstruction of justice

First elected GOP defector

I'm happy that Amash posted that Twitter thread. Unfortunately, the fact that he's a consistent Trump critic still leaves me feeling like he's a voice in the wilderness who won't get much traction. He's of Trump's party, but this isn't a full-on defection.

Did you actually read the letter or any part of the full report? There is other evidence for each of the 3 main claims these are just the specific direct quotes from Mueller's report that they chose to include in the letter because they most clearly showed direct support for their arguments.

Also, as noted by Max Cut, failed attempts to obstruct justice still satisfies the legal definition of obstruction of justice. Trump directly telling his counsel to lie and put an on-record letter with the lie is obstruction, even if McGahn refused to do it. Attempting to get Sessions to restrict the investigation to avoid further investigation of his campaign is obstruction even if Sessions recused himself. Trumps lawyer suggesting to Cohen that he would get a pardon if he if refused to testify against Trump is still obstruction even if Cohen testified against Trump.

In the report Mueller essentially told congress that they should investigate further into whether Trump obstructed justice:

Between all of this and the fact that Mueller clearly thought that Barr's summary of the report was inaccurate I honestly think it would be neglect of duty for congress not to investigate further. Whether or not it should result in impeachment is a more difficult question, but anyone who thinks that there is no basis for further investigation has fallen for the Trump administration's propaganda.

Can Trump be tried for crimes committed in office (or prior) while out of office? I just keep thinking that if he loses the next election that he'll be arrested the minute he's no longer officially POTUS.

I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Nixon would've likely been subject to criminal prosecution after he resigned had Ford not granted him a blanket pardon.

But there are a lot of legal issues which probably would not be satisfied until the Supreme Court hears the case. Circuit Courts have found that FBI investigations are not proceedings falling under the majority of obstruction statutes. The one exceptions is the statute that Barr wrote his memo on which up to this point has only been used where the actual evidence is impaired.

Telling his counsel to lie, is maybe one of the few things Mueller report listed that would fall into the impairment of evidence. Most do not get that far. The rest would require a novel and untested reading of the obstruction statutes. The reason Barr did not find it as obstruction seems to be 3 fold. 1) He is not sure that Trump actually asked him to lie. He believes that Trump actually wanted to have Mueller removed for cause, do to the conflicts Trump perceived that Mueller had had which does not meet he intent and can argue there is a difference from that and firing. 2) Trump allowed McGhan to testify with Mueller and reiterated that he should tell the truth. The actual statement from McGhan was to be made to the public and amounted to spin. see one above. It did not impair the evidence. 3) the whole head of the executive branch and knowing that your subordinates are wasting tax payers money on a worthless investigation is probably something the Supreme Court would have to deal with eventually.


Again no obstruction statute has been interpreted to include FBI investigations and those in the chain of command unless evidence is impaired. Your really pushing the envelope on obstruction where your trying to include a discussion of 2 lawyers about what is best for their clients. Though that is not Trump and if Mueller actually thought he had a case he could have brought a obstruction case against Trump's counsel. Kinda believe that Mueller knows how far that would have gone and probably why he did not bring it.



Think this is actually where you and Barr agree, That the constitution does not allow the high jacking of the executive branch from the President. Rather congress should be the one investigating. Though I think everyone knows it is going no where.

I certainly wouldn't claim to be familiar with the intricacies around the obstruction statute, but wasn't article 1 of Nixon's impeachment for exactly this? As I understand it the situation is very similar - a special investigation was set up and Nixon actively interfered with that investigation, often in very similar ways to how Trump attempted to (e.g. firing the special counsel). Obviously there are significant differences between the two situations, but I don't see how they differ at all when it comes to specifically the validity of the president's actions being seen as obstruction of justice.

But Trump and Barr are seemingly doing everything they can to prevent the investigation, up to and including disobeying subpoenas from congress. Again this has similarities to Nixon's impeachment - article 3 was specifically for Contempt of Congress in that he "failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives ". As with obstruction the situations aren't identical and there may be arguments about the specifics of this instance but to claim that Barr agrees that congress should be investigating, when to all outward appearances he seems to be saying there is nothing to investigate, is a bit ridiculous.

Charging Trump for obstruction or saying he committed a crime and congress impeaching him are 2 different things. Think everyone seems to be in agreement that congress can impeach him for any offense they have enough votes to say it is impeachable. Sure if they want to vote on articles of impeachment the House will pass and then they will not get 2/3 of the votes in the Senate. That could be due to the Senate a) not believing a crime happened or b) the actions should not warrant an impeachment.

Barr has nothing to do with the investigation. He is not a principle witness. He can not provide the unredacted report due to the law. The Democrats contempt has to be the worst political stunt in the history. Barr gave his opinion of the law and if Trump should be charged after he leaves office. Others may disagree with Barr but if ever filed, it will most certainly end up being sent to the higher courts.

Mueller did a two year investigation and gave a report, if that is not enough of a investigation for the house to rely on, I am not sure what else they need. This is all just politics or do you truly believe that the house is going to find something besides what Mueller did? Trump has every right to litigate congresses subpoena powers. You may want to pretend that is obstruction but it is not. The courts shall decide.

The bolded implies that you don't really understand what the argument for impeachment is. It is not that there is more to be found than Mueller did, but that what Mueller found is impeachable.

Mueller explicitly stated that he was not going to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgement" regarding whether anything Trump illegally obstructed the investigation. His investigation into obstruction only involved finding out the facts "in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available. "

The only thing in Mueller's report that offers an opinion as to whether Trump acted illegally in regard to obstruction of justice is to say that he can't exonerate him. The issue of whether or not he did commit a crime and therefore should be impeached needs to be investigated by congress based on the factual information that is available in Mueller's report.

In my not-so-objective opinion, aided from reading a lot of more knowledgable people's insights, is that the evidence laid out in the report would be enough to convict anyone who is not the president of obstruction of justice. I would argue that the political aspect is what is preventing impeachment proceedings and that if senior Democrats were more concerned about fulfilling their role of congressional oversight than they are about how impeachment will play out in the press/future elections then hearings would have already begun.

Your last argument said the House needs to investigate everything (But Trump and Barr are blocking that ) to determine if there is something to impeach on and now your saying they have enough evidence, frankly I do not care which but make up your mind. Do they need to hear from everyone or can they use the report to decide if they are going to impeach? Personally I do not think Pelosi is going to impeach but wants to have a hearing after hearing bashing Trump. Which is fine but do not pretend that the hearings are an actually necessary to decide or gather evidence concerning the issue of impeachment.

As for knowledgeable people, Personally I think Barr's legal memo is correct. Unfortunately I do not think anyone is ever going to charge Trump with the crime of obstruction so we will never know on legal side of things. That would be a fascinating trial and possible appeal.

By saying congress needs to investigate I was simply saying that congress needs to look in detail at the facts laid out in the report and approach the investigation of those facts from a judicial standpoint, which Mueller explicitly did not. The argument for impeachment comes from the belief that such an investigation would determine that a crime was committed.

As for Barr's legal memo, do I take that to mean that you think it is impossible for a president to be convicted of obstruction of justice and therefore think that Nixon would (or should) not have been found guilty on that account had it actually gone to trial? If not then in what way do you think this case differs so as to be legally distinct?

Regarding Nixon what trial are you talking about? The trial in the Senate on the impeachment that did not happen or the criminal trial on charges never filed due to the pardon. Think I have said the House can with enough votes file impeachment and the Senate can by 2/3 convict. The House in the impeachment can include any actions they think warrant impeachment. I do not think the Supreme Court would step in and disagree with any decision that they reach. But that is not a criminal conviction. Just because the House included language in the articles of impeachment does not mean that it automatically means he would be convicted of a similar statutory crime. ie the failing to turn over evidence to congress = obstruction just because the House said it was.

But regarding Nixon 1) think there is evidence that he was a co-conspirator in the actual crime, 2) paid hush money to witnesses, 3) manufactured fake evidence 4) directing the actual interference with the FBI.

Now regarding possible criminal charges your dealing with a whole different set of statutes then were in place under Nixon. You need to show the actual criminal statute happened. Barr never said it was impossible for a President to be convicted of obstruction. But simply if your talking about an FBI investigation and not a judicial proceeding you need the actual impairment of evidence ie destroying evidence tampering with witnesses, manufacturing evidence .. Not the firing of Comey ....which are constitutional powers of the President. Which unlike Nixon's situation, your also dealing with a President who knows the underlying crime of collusion with Russia is BS. So the issue of whether the President shutting down a BS investigation can ever be corrupt comes into play. Trump's actions were far from shutting it down.

This is not a reason to not do the right thing.

Especially now that the call for impeachment includes a republican.