How Congress could use the Special Counsel report as a road map for impeachment

PLizzy · Apr 21, 2019

There is a thread that demonstrates ways the House of Representatives could use the Watergate Articles of Impeachment against Nixon, as well as the Special Counsel's report as a road map to possible impeachment or censure of Trump's conduct

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment
Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index - The New York Times

1.Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings

Special Counsel said:
In analyzing the President's intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness, there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen's information would shed adverse light on the Presidents campaign-period conduct and statements.
i. Cohen's false congressional testimony about the Trump Tower Moscow project was designed to minimize connections between the President and Russia and to help limit the congressional and DOJ Russia investigations goal that was in the President's interest, as reflected by the President's own statements. During and after the campaign, the President made repeated statements that he had no business in Russia and said that there were no deals that could happen in Russia, because we've stayed away. As Cohen knew, and as he recalled communicating to the President during the campaign, Cohen's pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow project cast doubt on the accuracy or completeness of these statements.

Special Counsel said:
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 further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation

2.Interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Special Counsel said:
Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsels investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the Presidents and his campaigns conduct.

Special Counsel said:
Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsels oversight of investigations that involved the Presidents conduct and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.

Special Counsel said:
There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President's conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope.

3. Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses.

Here, an impeachment article should be made in reference to Trumps hush money bribes to mistresses, where he conspired to commit wire fraud (just like Felicity Huffman Lori Loughlin) and defraud the campaign-finance laws of the FEC.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000167-a496-df35-adef-fdf76fa30001

Michael Cohen said:
I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with Individual 1, Cohen said, reading from his prepared statement. And for the record: Individual 1 is Donald J. Trump.

4. Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

Special Counsel said:
Evidence concerning the President's conduct towards Manafort indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government.

Special Counsel said:
The President intended Manafort to believe that he could receive a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary.

PLizzy · Apr 21, 2019

CONTINUED.

The Special Counsel also produced evidence of possible jury tampering.

Special Counsel said:
We also examined the evidence of the President’s intent in making public statements about Manafort at the beginning of his trial and when the jury was deliberating. Some evidence supports a conclusion that the President intended, at least in part, to influence the jury. The trial generated widespread publicity, and as the jury began to deliberate, commentators suggested that an acquittal would add to pressure to end the Special Counsel’s investigation. By publicly stating on the second day of deliberations that Manafort “happens to be a very good person” and that “it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort” right after calling the Special Counsel’s investigation a “rigged witch hunt,” the President’s statements could, if they reached jurors, have the natural tendency to engender sympathy for Manafort among jurors, and a factfinder could infer that the President intended that result. But there are alternative explanations for the President’s comments, including that he genuinely felt sorry for Manafort or that his goal was not to influence the jury but to influence public opinion. The President’s comments also could have been intended to continue sending a message to Manafort that a pardon was possible. As described above, the President made his comments about Manafort being “a very good person” immediately after declining to answer a question about whether he would pardon Manafort.

The report from the Special Counsel also found that the evidence support the conclusion that Trump attempted witness intimidation towards Michael Cohen.

Special Counsel said:
Finally, the President’s statements insinuating that members of Cohen’s family committed crimes after Cohen began cooperating with the government could be viewed as an effort to retaliate against Cohen and chill further testimony adverse to the President by Cohen or others. It is possible that the President believes, as reflected in his tweets, that Cohen “ma[d]e[] up stories” in order to get a deal for himself and “get his wife and father-in-law ... off Scott Free.” It also is possible that the President’s mention of Cohen’s wife and father-in-law were not intended to affect Cohen as a witness but rather were part of a public-relations strategy aimed at discrediting Cohen and deflecting attention away from the President on Cohen-related matters. But the President’s suggestion that Cohen’s family members committed crimes happened more than once, including just before Cohen was sentenced (at the same time as the President stated that Cohen “should, in my opinion, serve a full and complete sentence”) and again just before Cohen was scheduled to testify before Congress. The timing of the statements supports an inference that they were intended at least in part to discourage Cohen from further cooperation.

There is also this line from the Nixon articles of impeachment, where in the presidents failure to report crimes and corruption was seen as a betrayal of the public trust and his oath to uphold the law.

"Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies."

I’d say concealing what he knew about the crimes of Flynn, Manafort, Gates, and Cohen, and using his office to try and protect them, certainly meets this standard.

There’s also the matter of Trump refusing to turn over lawfully requested documents, much like Nixon’s refusal to produce records requested by Congress, for the what is the obvious purpose of delay.

"In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has 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 ..."

TrumpMAGA2020 · Apr 21, 2019

Impeachement! :rofl

Not a SINGLE subpeona will even be considered, they will all be justifiably ignored. William Barr has come to twon to clean house. Dems are done. Obama and spying deep state players are about to start being indicted en masse!

Barr will soon close the nonsense SDNY witch hunt and prosecute those Dim bad actors as well!:lamo

Winston · Apr 21, 2019

Notwithstanding the absolute nonsense of post #3.

I don't think the House leadership has the balls to impeach. They are sitting on a bit of political capital right now. I don't think they are going to spend it on a failed impeachment attempt.

PLizzy · Apr 21, 2019

Winston said:
Notwithstanding the absolute nonsense of post #3.

I don't think the House leadership has the balls to impeach. They are sitting on a bit of political capital right now. I don't think they are going to spend it on a failed impeachment attempt.

I think so, too.

I see the situation as different in that by sitting silently, with no impeachment or censure, they are no different than the Republicans.

Republicans had similar metrics to deal with in 1998, they impeached Clinton anyways, and it later was a factor in their victories.

Winston · Apr 21, 2019

MovingPictures said:
I think so, too.

I see the situation as different in that by sitting silently, with no impeachment or censure, they are no different than the Republicans.

Republicans had similar metrics to deal with in 1998, they impeached Clinton anyways, and it later was a factor in their victories.

The relevant Committee heads are not going to do nothing, I just don't think they have enough to impeach.

Yes, we have law breaking in plain sight. Yes, that would and should end any other politician. But, the law breaking isn't nefarious enough for the GOP base. They enjoy the law-breaking we have, since, they see it as Trump fighting back against Deep State Democrat actors who were breaking laws behind the scene to end Trump. They justify the law breaking by thinking the Dems must be breaking even worse laws, villains that they are.

But, then again the Committees could sway public opinion, it's a longshot but they could. I think the harder they dig, the more each side will dig in. Unless something huge is uncovered.

Mycroft · Apr 21, 2019

Well, nothing wrong with living in a fantasy world and trying to justify it, I guess.

PLizzy · Apr 21, 2019

Winston said:
The relevant Committee heads are not going to do nothing, I just don't think they have enough to impeach.

Yes, we have law breaking in plain sight. Yes, that would and should end any other politician. But, the law breaking isn't nefarious enough for the GOP base. They enjoy the law-breaking we have, since, they see it as Trump fighting back against Deep State Democrat actors who were breaking laws behind the scene to end Trump. They justify the law breaking by thinking the Dems must be breaking even worse laws, villains that they are.

But, then again the Committees could sway public opinion, it's a longshot but they could. I think the harder they dig, the more each side will dig in. Unless something huge is uncovered.

There's nothing "nefarious enough" for Republican voters.

As far as they're concerned, a crime is not a crime when a Republican does it. There isn't any offense other than insulting Jesus or the NRA, that could change their minds about Trump, so it's pointless to try and appeal to them.

It's more important that the moderates understand that Trump has crossed a line, then it must be reflected in the political record via an impeachment, or even censure. Doing nothing will empower Trump's narrative that he's done nothing wrong, and he will use the lack of rebuke against Democrats in the elections.

Winston · Apr 21, 2019

MovingPictures said:
There's nothing "nefarious enough" for Republican voters.

As far as they're concerned, a crime is not a crime when a Republican does it. There isn't any offense other than insulting Jesus or the NRA, that could change their minds about Trump, so it's pointless to try and appeal to them.

It's more important that the moderates understand that Trump has crossed a line, then it must be reflected in the political record via an impeachment, or even censure. Doing nothing will empower Trump's narrative that he's done nothing wrong, and he will use the lack of rebuke against Democrats in the elections.

Republicans do value strict adherence to their political dogma. It's like in their mind they can't reconcile this: "No actually bad person would advocate for low taxes, low regulation, killing the environment, and hating immigrants." Long as you tell the GOP their politics are right, they will give you a pass to be a scumbag. Hey! I saw Roy Moore is leading in Alabama!

Xelor · Apr 21, 2019

How Congress could use the Special Counsel report as a road map for impeachment

Mueller essentially details lists the statements that fundamentally demonstrate the principal elements (actus reus and mens rea) of obstruction. Congress thus need only use his narrative to structure, bolster and supplement their efforts to obtain the evidence and testimony he did, that is, if they can't subpoena and obtain the evidence Mueller has already gathered.
Because impeachment is a political, not legal, process, Congress also may simply use Mueller's report to compose the specific articles of impeachment. All that need be done is copy and paste sentences from the report. Alternative, several of Muellers sentences/ideas can, as it appears done in the OP, summarized, so to speak, into discrete yet "aggregate" articles.
Mueller's report can also be used to apportion the workload of having the hearings that precede drafting (or not) articles of impeachment.
Congress can draw from Mueller's report the nature and extent of legislative and procedural obstacles that precluded Mueller from bringing charges himself. Such insights thus obtained, Congress can use them to craft legislation that removes those obstacles with regard to either Mueller's findings or future findings other federal prosecutors may reach.

That's four ways. Is that enough?

Hypothetical · Apr 21, 2019

MovingPictures said:
There's nothing "nefarious enough" for Republican voters.

As far as they're concerned, a crime is not a crime when a Republican does it. There isn't any offense other than insulting Jesus or the NRA, that could change their minds about Trump, so it's pointless to try and appeal to them.

It's more important that the moderates understand that Trump has crossed a line, then it must be reflected in the political record via an impeachment, or even censure. Doing nothing will empower Trump's narrative that he's done nothing wrong, and he will use the lack of rebuke against Democrats in the elections.

sure there is. for example... conspiring to rig an election with Russia would be quite nefarious enough. I would ask for whoever did that's head on a platter.

fortunately though that isn't what happened, according to Mueller.

trying to find obstruction in acts that weren't even carried out because its all they have left? nope, not getting behind that.

yankintx · Apr 21, 2019

TrumpMAGA2020 said:
Impeachement! :rofl

Not a SINGLE subpeona will even be considered, they will all be justifiably ignored. William Barr has come to twon to clean house. Dems are done. Obama and spying deep state players are about to start being indicted en masse!

Barr will soon close the nonsense SDNY witch hunt and prosecute those Dim bad actors as well!:lamo

ya,

you and Sean Hannity can keep that wet dream.

jimbo · Apr 21, 2019

MovingPictures said:
CONTINUED.

The Special Counsel also produced evidence of possible jury tampering.

The report from the Special Counsel also found that the evidence support the conclusion that Trump attempted witness intimidation towards Michael Cohen.

There is also this line from the Nixon articles of impeachment, where in the presidents failure to report crimes and corruption was seen as a betrayal of the public trust and his oath to uphold the law.

"Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies."

I’d say concealing what he knew about the crimes of Flynn, Manafort, Gates, and Cohen, and using his office to try and protect them, certainly meets this standard.

There’s also the matter of Trump refusing to turn over lawfully requested documents, much like Nixon’s refusal to produce records requested by Congress, for the what is the obvious purpose of delay.

"In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has 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 ..."

Before Barr, President Trump was not going to be impeached. Now after Barr, Trump is not going to be impeached.

jimbo · Apr 21, 2019

Xelor said:
Mueller essentially details lists the statements that fundamentally demonstrate the principal elements (actus reus and mens rea) of obstruction. Congress thus need only use his narrative to structure, bolster and supplement their efforts to obtain the evidence and testimony he did, that is, if they can't subpoena and obtain the evidence Mueller has already gathered.

Because impeachment is a political, not legal, process, Congress also may simply use Mueller's report to compose the specific articles of impeachment. All that need be done is copy and paste sentences from the report. Alternative, several of Muellers sentences/ideas can, as it appears done in the OP, summarized, so to speak, into discrete yet "aggregate" articles.

Mueller's report can also be used to apportion the workload of having the hearings that precede drafting (or not) articles of impeachment.

Congress can draw from Mueller's report the nature and extent of legislative and procedural obstacles that precluded Mueller from bringing charges himself. Such insights thus obtained, Congress can use them to craft legislation that removes those obstacles with regard to either Mueller's findings or future findings other federal prosecutors may reach.

That's four ways. Is that enough?

First, as liberals today are using it, there's impeachment and removing the President by impeachment. For the first, you have to get by Nancy, who has said no.

For the second, you have to get by Nancy and the Senate. Not likely.

Barnacle · Apr 21, 2019

MovingPictures said:
There is a thread that demonstrates ways the House of Representatives could use the Watergate Articles of Impeachment against Nixon, as well as the Special Counsel's report as a road map to possible impeachment or censure of Trump's conduct
Watergate Articles Of Impeachment
Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index - The New York Times
1.Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings

2.Interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

3. Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses.

Here, an impeachment article should be made in reference to Trumps hush money bribes to mistresses, where he conspired to commit wire fraud (just like Felicity Huffman Lori Loughlin) and defraud the campaign-finance laws of the FEC.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000167-a496-df35-adef-fdf76fa30001
4. Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

Hearsay, speculation, hyperbole ...

Mueller was hired to find "collusion", followed by proving "obstruction of justice".

Collusion could not be established, as quoted by Mueller.

Mueller's report on Obstruction-of-justice is filled with intended-to on Trump's part, but nothing that actually obstructed justice.
In other words, Trump discussed in various ways and with various people how to stop what he believed to be a witch hunt.

Discussed is the key word, as Trump didn't follow up with actions that hindered or obstructed the witch hunt led by Mueller and his 20(?) angry henchmen.

It would be a sad day for Americans if one can be accused of a crime and shouting from the roof-top: "I am innocent! You are lying!" is now considered "obstruction of justice".

Xelor · Apr 21, 2019

jimbo said:
First, as liberals today are using it, there's impeachment and removing the President by impeachment. For the first, you have to get by Nancy, who has said no.

For the second, you have to get by Nancy and the Senate. Not likely.

What has any of that to do with how Congress might use the Mueller Report, a document, as a "roadmap for impeachment?"

The things you've noted pertain to the steps in realizing impeachment. The question asked necessarily pertains only to one or two of those steps.

btthegreat · Apr 22, 2019

Xelor said:
Mueller essentially details lists the statements that fundamentally demonstrate the principal elements (actus reus and mens rea) of obstruction. Congress thus need only use his narrative to structure, bolster and supplement their efforts to obtain the evidence and testimony he did, that is, if they can't subpoena and obtain the evidence Mueller has already gathered.

Because impeachment is a political, not legal, process, Congress also may simply use Mueller's report to compose the specific articles of impeachment. All that need be done is copy and paste sentences from the report. Alternative, several of Muellers sentences/ideas can, as it appears done in the OP, summarized, so to speak, into discrete yet "aggregate" articles.

Mueller's report can also be used to apportion the workload of having the hearings that precede drafting (or not) articles of impeachment.

Congress can draw from Mueller's report the nature and extent of legislative and procedural obstacles that precluded Mueller from bringing charges himself. Such insights thus obtained, Congress can use them to craft legislation that removes those obstacles with regard to either Mueller's findings or future findings other federal prosecutors may reach.

That's four ways. Is that enough?

The emboldened is the one which will eventually be politically viable down the road. None of the others is plausible either because the institutional impediments are too large, or the political obstacles are insurmountable.

We need to understand how very different the republican PARTY is now, from the days of Watergate. The party is very different both from the bottom upwards and from the top downwards , but mostly from the bottom upwards.

Xelor · Apr 22, 2019

btthegreat said:
The emboldened is the one which will eventually be politically viable down the road. None of the others is plausible either because the institutional impediments are too large, or the political obstacles are insurmountable.

We need to understand how very different the republican PARTY is now, from the days of Watergate. The party is very different both from the bottom upwards and from the top downwards , but mostly from the bottom upwards.

I think extant the challenges you describe as hindrances, and I think they are thus due to a dearth of will not a shortage of wherewithal.

I agree re: the nature of present-day "grass roots" GOP-ers. They are a vile and surly bunch.

btthegreat · Apr 22, 2019

Xelor said:
I think extant the challenges you describe as hindrances are thus due to a dearth of will not a shortage of wherewithal.

I agree re: the nature of present-day "grass roots" GOP-ers. They are a vile and surly bunch.

I don't think politicians were more courageous back then, so much as they were allowed to be more courageous back then. As the power of the political parties as institutions which came up with the 'grand compromises' that lead to legislation, and which provided more financing, more protection in election challenges , has weakened, the forces of special interest/ lobbies and the power of the 'base' has strengthened.

Cardinal · Apr 22, 2019

Winston said:
The relevant Committee heads are not going to do nothing, I just don't think they have enough to impeach.

Yes, we have law breaking in plain sight. Yes, that would and should end any other politician. But, the law breaking isn't nefarious enough for the GOP base. They enjoy the law-breaking we have, since, they see it as Trump fighting back against Deep State Democrat actors who were breaking laws behind the scene to end Trump. They justify the law breaking by thinking the Dems must be breaking even worse laws, villains that they are.

But, then again the Committees could sway public opinion, it's a longshot but they could. I think the harder they dig, the more each side will dig in. Unless something huge is uncovered.

I really don't think it's useful to worry over what sort of crimes are "nefarious enough for the GOP base." This is populism -- a level of nefariousness too much for them doesn't exist. The obstruction of justice laid out by Mueller, and clarified by the OP, are enough to consider impeachment, and in a way the Republicans' recalcitrance makes the decision easier for me. We know they're not a factor, so we can make the call based on what is right, rather than on what is politically strategic.

tres borrachos · Apr 22, 2019

TrumpMAGA2020 said:
Impeachement! :rofl

Not a SINGLE subpeona will even be considered, they will all be justifiably ignored. William Barr has come to twon to clean house. Dems are done. Obama and spying deep state players are about to start being indicted en masse!

Barr will soon close the nonsense SDNY witch hunt and prosecute those Dim bad actors as well!:lamo

Hi there, and welcome to the board! You seem so nice. Look forward to more of your pearls of wisdom.

Oh wait. You're already banned. Nice knowing you.

How Congress could use the Special Counsel report as a road map for impeachment

PLizzy

Formerly, MovingPictures

PLizzy

Formerly, MovingPictures

TrumpMAGA2020

Winston

the enemy within

PLizzy

Formerly, MovingPictures

Winston

the enemy within

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

PLizzy

Formerly, MovingPictures

Winston

the enemy within

Xelor

Hypothetical

yankintx

jimbo

jimbo

Barnacle

Xelor

btthegreat

Xelor

btthegreat

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

tres borrachos

HoHoHo