Mitch "America be Damned" McC

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

"With an exhaustive investigation complete, would the country finally unify to confront the real challenges before us," asked McConnell. "Would we finally be able to move on from partisan paralysis and breathless conspiracy theorizing? Or would we remain consumed by unhinged partisanship, and keep dividing ourselves to the point that [Russian president Vladimir] Putin and his agents need only stand on the sidelines and watch as their job is done for them?"

When I read "unhinged by partisanship" I threw up a little. This would be the same Mitch that stopped down all Obama appointees and has been firing "impartial judicial nominees" into the bench nonstop for three years? Is this the same Mitch that blocked a resolution to have the full report released he's claiming exonerates his client, err umm, I mean the President? Same Mitch that could have overridden the President multiple times (shutdowns, override non-existent emergencies) making Trump somehow more untouchable than the great Reagan?

Gasbag, - here's why we're not impeaching Trump. The Republican party has proved short of having incontrovertible proof (and even then) they will rally to protect themselves whether it's there's no collusion case, whether or not collusion is a crime, now that it's not a crime and its remanded to Congress there's no collusion. Don't get me wrong - the Dems CAN do it. But what's the point? Seriously, I know a lot of Dems are frustrated with them not opening a case, but why bother? To prove you're the bigger party? Yea that's not gonna do it. All you're doing is wasting taxpayer money when your friends across the aisle have shown a recurrent pattern to not act in good faith on these issues. Don't waste my money doing it. I'm fine with the investigations. But Mitch, the fact there isn't a case right now is an indictment on you, not the contents of that report.

What we do know from this affair is though, if a Democratic candidate asks umm China for aid and it's given AND we can see how both China and the candidate benefited, we can't touch it. We know that Congress WILL NOT ACT, because congress (or at least Republicans) do not view themselves as American first - they view themselves as Republican first. It's only this year I would have said this btw. I've been able to at least see the Republicans Constitutional logic in a lot of things before this event. But there's a big difference between dancing around the legality to benefit your party and flat out abdicating your Constituational role.

Between the Lewandowski and trying to get McGahn to fire the special counsel, WE KNOW he committed crimes even if we go "fine, there's no specific law that prevents general requests to a foreign power where both the ask and the payoff are visible so we'll forget conspiracy." Sure, let's just pretend a sitting Attorney General acting as White House Counsel is normal behavior. That's a smart move when you're worried about personal liberty and Government overreach.

I just don't get it - people are asking Republicans to imagine "what if a Democrat did this..." It doesn't matter. They're not the same rules and it's gone from irritating to dangerous. I don't know how you recover from enabling a criminal whose crimes are now public record (obstruction is a crime) to ever compromise on any thing or expect it from someone else. It's just so maddening - how do we get through to these people? Do they not get what they're subverting is DESIGNED to prevent armed insurrection? Is that the game here? They want fighting?

[mjr]

What you said above is why I am completely in favor of passing stricter laws to control our elected officials better (as well as those running for office). As well as those who hold positions within our government. But that's better left for a different post.

The thing about the Mueller report is, Congress apparently can't legally see the full, unredacted report, even if they want to. I would assume that people like Jerry Nadler, who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I believe, have clearance and also know this. So there's the usual political grandstanding going on. Although I don't blame Nadler or the Democrats for wanting to see the "underlying evidence".

And I do believe that I read (I'd have to try to find the source) that collusion in and of itself is not a crime. That does not mean that crimes weren't committed.

I haven't read the Mueller report, but I do know that people are going to read into it what they want to. And I think that's part of the problem as well.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

IMO - it's worth your (and anyone else who plans on voting's time.) If you want to deep dive you can, but the executive summaries of each only takes about 10 minutes to read in each of the two volumes and it answers your questions or at least where you're fuzzy.

Vol. I is about Russia and firmly establishes the campaign tried to contact AND use information from Russia. What saves the Trump camp on this, is that every time that channel attempted something, either a meeting didn't happen or the promised payoff wasn't there. A payoff happened, just never the one explicitly asked. Hence there is no Conspiracy charge, which is the only statute applicable. But it also firmly establishes that Russia is actively working and attempting to deliver on things Trump said publicly. Herein is the constitutional problem - by requesting in a vague sense and in public and the other side acting, there isn't a law against it. So as you or I may very well realize this is a bad, bad, thing for a Republic (unless we want Dems and Republicans forming international "understandings"). By Congress doing nothing, as long as the Quid Pro Quo doesn't "match up" properly (which would break the law), foreign governments can actively and legally seek to install candidates. So in this sense it's up to Congress to determine what "Collusion" is - because what I've just described makes a mockery of Article I, Section 9 (Emoluments) and skates in an uncomfortable intepretation of Article II, Section 4 (bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors).

VolII is more clear cut. He is in violation of statute and Mueller makes no recommendation and remands to congress. Here, Trump attempts to obstruct justice multiple times. Again, his saving grace is his subordinates, being smarter than him, either refuse or resign. His Comey firing's intent is obvious. He has violated these laws (well, in so much as you would prosecute and let a peer of juries determine the supporting facts).

But again - this is the problem. Every Senator has probably read this document and THIS is what Mitch is saying publicly and what Barr skipped over. So again, there's no upside to even trying to impeach EXCEPT for the theater. We'd need 13 Republicans to "defect" (or as I'd call it, do their f'ing job) and it's just not a calculus I think any Democrat looks at and goes - yea, THAT's a good idea.

By all means they should investigate, but my take away from this is you're going to have to amend the constitution to be more specific regarding Article 2 Sec. 4. And we need to start addressing the elephant (puns!) in the room of political radicalization in this country. I'm not sure if that's amending Amendment 1 or bringing back equal time laws, but if we need prima facia evidence these pockets of insular/conspiratorial thought are caustic to the constitution, it's playing out in prime time right now.

BTW - to your point in the other thread that is "payback", etc. I don't necessarily disagree. But that's being compounded by the rhetorical silos that have been built. When a government fails to function (pass laws, execute them, and maintain rule of law), humans revert to... well, lesser instincts. Antifa, Proud Boys, et. al are a symptom of the problem. But the only group that can "fix" the problem right now are the Republican Party - they're holding the cards and they're not interested. The conspiratorial entrepreneurship, the winner take all behavior - it's despotic behavior and it's conditioning that electorate to not only tolerate, but protect out in the open criminality.

That's my frustration. I CAN'T speak as a Republican to fix it. I CAN point to the constitution and say what is going on right now is not in it's spirit and it's arguable that it was ever a Republican value prior to 1990. Transgender Athletes, liberal colleges - these are the side show.

Redacted Report: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf