• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller indicates he will likely seek interview with Trump - Washington Post today

JacksinPA said:
He has obstructed justice at least twice. Once when he asked Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, and twice, when he fired Comey for not complying. The evidence is there: Comey's sworn testimony, Comey's notes written right after his dinner with Trump, and Andrew McCabe who Comey told about it.
Click to expand...

They will never get 67 Senators to agree that Trump was not acting within his rights to do what he did.
 
USViking said:
Impeachment is performed by the House of Representatives, and requires only a simple majority to pass.

However, conviction and removal from office is performed by the Senate, and requires a 2/3 majority: 67 votes if every Senator votes. There is no possibility of the Democrats winning enough Senate seats this year to obtain anything close to a 2/3 majority.

In 1974 there was a "smoking gun" tape recording of Nixon authorizing a Watergate obstruction conspiracy, and that was all it took to convince enough Republicans that Nixon had to go. It will take something like that 1974 tape to get enough Republican Senators on board to convict Trump.
Click to expand...
I tend to doubt that even with a smoking gun enough of the GOP will cross the party line. Sure, a few would flip on Trump, but I'm not sure even enough to send a trail to the Senate.
 
USViking said:
I hope there is evidence, but I disagree that it has yet been discovered.


Trump may be able to pardon himself. If he is indicted I think he will certainly try to.

However, even self-pardon cannot prevent impeachment, and as I understand it, if Congress wants to, it can impeach and convict you for anything it wants: "high crimes and misdemeanors are not defined in the constitution, so it is up to Congress to define them at will.
Click to expand...
You can't pardon yourself.

The SCOTUS would never uphold such a nonsensical idea, as it undermines the concept of every man being accountable to the law.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's there, but hasn't yet been presented, till the biggest fish are in the net.
Click to expand...
What kind of evidence?

I doubt any tape or hard copy evidence has ever existed, but maybe those sneaky Russians got a wire on a few people and lured Trump into fatal self-incrimination, and maybe Trump will piss the Russians off enough to get them to turn the tape over to Mueller. That's a bit far-fetched, though, isn't it?

Otherwise it will take more than just two or three eyewitnesses, subject to cross examination, to get to those 67 Senators needed for conviction.
 
USViking said:
I think he probably has constructed justice. I do not think there is now enough evidence to get him impeached for it.
Click to expand...

Constructed justice? Really? Did you vote for Hillabeans?
 
day 225, Mueller and the buttsore losers have nothing and will have nothing. Because there is nothing, on Trump. Now Barry and Hillabeans that's a different story.
 
USViking said:
They will never get 67 Senators to agree that Trump was not acting within his rights to do what he did.
Click to expand...

I may have to agree but are you really saying that we live under an autocrat in a lawless society? Remember the Nixon doctrine: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMt8qCl5fPk) So Trump can do whatever he wants without fear of being held to account for his actions?
 
Last edited:
MovingPictures said:
I tend to doubt that even with a smoking gun enough of the GOP will cross the party line. Sure, a few would flip on Trump, but I'm not sure even enough to send a trail to the Senate.
Click to expand...
Say the 2019 Senate is 52 Democrat to 48 Republicans.

I think that certainly at least 14/48 (~31%) Republicans would be convinced by "Smoking Gun" caliber evidence.
 
It's true that the firing of Comey alone will not constitute obstruction of justice.

However, there are other instances of Trump possibly obstructing justice, that are absolutely not within his rights.

1) Directing Michael Flynn to lie to the FBI.
2) Helping his son craft false statements to investigators and Congress.
3) Asking NSA director Mike Rogers and DNI head Dan Coatz to clear him publicly in front of Congress.
4) Asking James Comey for loyalty to him during an ongoing investigation.
5) Firing James Comey upon his refusal of 4.
6) Pressuring AG to not follow DOJ guidelines and recuse himself, to help protect his campaign.

Yes, that is all obstruction of justice and abuse power, much worse than Clinton during Lewinsky, or even Nixon in Watergate. And if Trump does not tell the truth to the grand jury, he can find further charges of false statements and obstruction of justice -- assuming nothing else comes up.

Whatever Mueller concludes, we should all respect.
 
JacksinPA said:
He has obstructed justice at least twice. Once when he asked Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, and twice, when he fired Comey for not complying. The evidence is there: Comey's sworn testimony, Comey's notes written right after his dinner with Trump, and Andrew McCabe who Comey told about it.
Click to expand...



I agree that technically that is true. However going from there to A a charge and B impeachment is a long hard road and I don't think its enough. Trump's numb than Nixon's and they were afraid to impeach HIM when they had a smoking.

Sorry, I wish it were not the case but the US hasn't got the balls...at least the Republican party doesn't
 
USViking said:
Say the 2019 Senate is 52 Democrat to 48 Republicans.

I think that certainly at least 14/48 (~31%) Republicans would be convinced by "Smoking Gun" caliber evidence.
Click to expand...
A half a dozen maybe, no more.
 
USViking said:
They will never get 67 Senators to agree that Trump was not acting within his rights to do what he did.
Click to expand...

And that is where the GOP will sink themselves. If shown and they don't act, they will lose their majority. Bringing Trump to a lame duck presidency. I can deal with that assuming the twit doesn't start a war or two like Bushy did.
 
MovingPictures said:
You can't pardon yourself.

The SCOTUS would never uphold such a nonsensical idea, as it undermines the concept of every man being accountable to the law.
Click to expand...



I've seen predictions both ways. However there are at least two precedents where a sitting president defied SCOTUS; Lincoln ignored their ruling that his declaring marshal law was illegal and I am certain FDR did as well but I forget why. It either had to do with the depression or the war.

I can see this guy defying SCOTUS
 
MovingPictures said:
You can't pardon yourself.

The SCOTUS would never uphold such a nonsensical idea, as it undermines the concept of every man being accountable to the law.
Click to expand...

The constitution places no limits on the President's power to pardon, and it is not safe to assume that SCOTUS would pull something out of a hat to limit those powers.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I've seen predictions both ways. However there are at least two precedents where a sitting president defied SCOTUS; Lincoln ignored their ruling that his declaring marshal law was illegal
Click to expand...
Lincoln was facing actual rebellion, and probably had legitimate constitutional grounds for his action. He also would have appreciated what Justice Roberts' said much later in a different context: the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

None of the above applies at all to the Trump issues, though, and furthermore Lincoln and FDR had the sure legislative support which Trump might not be able to count on.


Fearandloathing said:
and I am certain FDR did as well but I forget why. It either had to do with the depression or the war.
Click to expand...
WWII Internment of Japanese Americans was flagrantly illegal.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I've seen predictions both ways. However there are at least two precedents where a sitting president defied SCOTUS; Lincoln ignored their ruling that his declaring marshal law was illegal and I am certain FDR did as well but I forget why. It either had to do with the depression or the war.

I can see this guy defying SCOTUS
Click to expand...
Trump has a business to run once he leaves office, he's not going to fight for it nearly as hard in crisis as some think he would.

If the heat turns up, he'll run like a bitch from the WH, and take a pardon from Pence for any charges.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8d48830c54d_story.html?utm_term=.81e33a272d3d

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has raised the likelihood with President Trump’s legal team that his office will seek an interview with the president, triggering a discussion among his attorneys about how to avoid a sit-down encounter or set limits on such a session, according to two people familiar with the talks.

Mueller brought up the issue of interviewing Trump during a late December meeting with the president’s lawyers, John Dowd and Jay Sekulow. Mueller deputy James Quarles, who oversees the White House portion of the special counsel investigation, also attended.
=======================================================================
It will be interesting to see how this develops. Trump gets very funny when he is forced to be off-script.
Click to expand...
If this is true, then it would seem to indicate that the investigation is nearing the end.
 
MovingPictures said:
It's true that the firing of Comey alone will not constitute obstruction of justice.

However, there are other instances of Trump possibly obstructing justice, that are absolutely not within his rights.

1) Directing Michael Flynn to lie to the FBI.
2) Helping his son craft false statements to investigators and Congress.
3) Asking NSA director Mike Rogers and DNI head Dan Coatz to clear him publicly in front of Congress.
4) Asking James Comey for loyalty to him during an ongoing investigation.
5) Firing James Comey upon his refusal of 4.
6) Pressuring AG to not follow DOJ guidelines and recuse himself, to help protect his campaign.

Yes, that is all obstruction of justice and abuse power, much worse than Clinton during Lewinsky, or even Nixon in Watergate. And if Trump does not tell the truth to the grand jury, he can find further charges of false statements and obstruction of justice -- assuming nothing else comes up.

Whatever Mueller concludes, we should all respect.
Click to expand...

(1) and (2) would be obstruction, but it will take more than Flynn's word to establish (1), and I wonder who could be in a position to establish (2)

3-4-5-6 are IMO not close to enough for an obstruction case, and I am quite sure 34 Senators would agree.
 
USViking said:
The constitution places no limits on the President's power to pardon, and it is not safe to assume that SCOTUS would pull something out of a hat to limit those powers.
Click to expand...

To insist on that is to insist that the POTUS is above the law.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
To insist on that is to insist that the POTUS is above the law.
Click to expand...

To a large extent he is, if he can pardon himself.

However, presidential pardon does not apply to impeachment and subsequent removal from office. Also, it can be applied only in Federal cases, so maybe one or more states can get in on the act.
 
USViking said:
(1) and (2) would be obstruction, but it will take more than Flynn's word to establish (1), and I wonder who could be in a position to establish (2)

3-4-5-6 are IMO not close to enough for an obstruction case, and I am quite sure 34 Senators would agree.
Click to expand...
They'll always be enough GOP for support for Trump to avoid impeachment, so your point has more to do with politics than anything else.

Yes, asking other intelligence agencies to interfere in an FBI investigation in order protect yourself is obstruction. It's exactly what got Nixon in so much trouble.
 
USViking said:
The constitution places no limits on the President's power to pardon, and it is not safe to assume that SCOTUS would pull something out of a hat to limit those powers.
Click to expand...

So then should Bill Clinton have been impeached by BOTH the house and senate, you would have approved him to pardoning himself?
 
Praxas said:
So then should Bill Clinton have been impeached by BOTH the house and senate, you would have approved him to pardoning himself?
Click to expand...
You do not have a grasp of the process, which is:

(1) The House of Representatives impeaches. Only it can do so in the case of Federal officals.

(2) The Senate tries the accused. Only it can do so.

(3) If convicted by the Senate the accused is removed from office.

(4) Pardon can NOT shield a person from Impeachment-Trial-Conviction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom