IG's FISA Probe May Hamper Dems' Impeachment Plans

[Mountain Man]

In other news, Shifty Adam Schiff is demanding congressional oversight of the declassification process and advanced notice of any material that could be politically damaging to his party's interests. Yes, demanding. He apparently doesn't understand separation of powers, because declassification is entirely at the discretion of the executive branch.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ative-content/

Sounds like Democrats are nervous about what might be revealed.

[tabibito]

In other news, Shifty Adam Schiff is demanding congressional oversight of the declassification process and advanced notice of any material that could be politically damaging to his party's interests. Yes, demanding. He apparently doesn't understand separation of powers, because declassification is entirely at the discretion of the executive branch.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ative-content/

Sounds like Democrats are nervous about what might be revealed.

Given that Trump has given them what they demanded - that would seem to be highly probable.

[Mountain Man]

Given that Trump has given them what they demanded - that would seem to be highly probable.

Trump has left it entirely in the hands of the Attorney General.

[Mountain Man]

And now there's this showing just how dirty Mueller really is...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ipt-in-report/

Full details and analysis at the link.

[JimL]

Not according to Mueller's report and the Department of Justice.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...nd-transcript/

If you can not indict, which is the OLC rule Mueller went by, then you can not come to a conclusion. You can't accuse someone if they can not defend themselves against the accusation. Barr can rant on about how Mueller could have come to a conclusion one way or the other, but Mueller didn't see it that way, he followed the DOJ rules and simply gathered the evidence and left it for Congress to grapple with. The Atty Gen decided to step in prior to any one else seeing that report and declared case over. That may be good public relations favoring his client, the president, but it is otherwise meaningless.

[Cow Poke]

If you can not indict, which is the OLC rule....

Policy. So soon you forget.

[Mountain Man]

If you can not indict, which is the OLC rule Mueller went by, then you can not come to a conclusion. You can't accuse someone if they can not defend themselves against the accusation.

False. There was nothing at all stopping Mueller from following Ken Starr's precedent and plainly stating that Trump broke the law (if that's what the evidence showed). And if Trump broke the law, then he would be impeached and removed from office, and then he would be able to face his accusers in court. That's how the system is designed to work. Only Mueller appears to be trying to set up a scenario where a president is removed from office but never formally accused of a crime. That's nothing but dirty politics.

[Cow Poke]

False. There was nothing at all stopping Mueller from following Ken Starr's precedent and plainly stating that Trump broke the law (if that's what the evidence showed). And if Trump broke the law, then he would be impeached and removed from office, and then he would be able to face his accusers in court. That's how the system is designed to work. Only Mueller appears to be trying to set up a scenario where a president is removed from office but never formally accused of a crime. That's nothing but dirty politics.

Besides, of course, turning jurisprudence on its head by creating a scenario in which a person not accused of a crime must prove his innocence.

[Mountain Man]

Besides, of course, turning jurisprudence on its head by creating a scenario in which a person not accused of a crime must prove his innocence.

Dirty cop logic: it's wrong to formally accuse someone who won't have the opportunity to defend himself in court, but it's okay to informally imply that he's guilty anyway... even though he still won't have the opportunity to defend himself in court.

[JimL]

False. There was nothing at all stopping Mueller from following Ken Starr's precedent and plainly stating that Trump broke the law (if that's what the evidence showed). And if Trump broke the law, then he would be impeached and removed from office, and then he would be able to face his accusers in court. That's how the system is designed to work. Only Mueller appears to be trying to set up a scenario where a president is removed from office but never formally accused of a crime. That's nothing but dirty politics.

Congress doesn't need the president to be accused of a crime by the DOJ or anyone else in order to begin impeachment inquiries, so the Special Prosecutor doesn't have to make such an accusation in the first place. Congress has been doing their own investigations and can decide whether or not to impeach based on that alone. A President can do a whole lot of wrong in office without it being illegal, and can be impeached on that basis alone, the Special Prosecutor is simply an aid to that process, a gatherer of info, an investigatory body, not a prosecutorial body. A Presidential trial takes place in Congress, by Congress, not in the criminal justice system.

[JimL]

False. There was nothing at all stopping Mueller from following Ken Starr's precedent and plainly stating that Trump broke the law (if that's what the evidence showed).

Starr alleged in his report to Congress of substantial evidence that Clinton broke the law, an authority granted the Special Council in 1978, and expired in 1999. So, for one thing Staar was operating under different laws. Besides that, one doesn't need a statement from the special council when the report itself does the alleging, and that's all Mueller did, he let the report speak for itself, and there is more than substantial evidence of the Presidents guilt contained therein.

And if Trump broke the law, then he would be impeached and removed from office, and then he would be able to face his accusers in court.

For one thing, you still don't understand that the President doesn't need to break the law in order for Congress to begin impeachment hearings, and then it is also up to Congress to decide whether or not to aquit.

That's how the system is designed to work. Only Mueller appears to be trying to set up a scenario where a president is removed from office but never formally accused of a crime. That's nothing but dirty politics.

You obviously have no idea how the system works. Mueller investigated, he didn't set up any kind of scenario, nor is it up to him to specifically allege criminal activity. His job was to investigate and to present the evidence of that investigation to the proper government body, which is the Congress. It's not up to his Boss, the Atty Gen., to determine guilt or innocence, it's up to Congress.

[Mountain Man]

Congress doesn't need the president to be accused of a crime by the DOJ or anyone else in order to begin impeachment inquiries...

Not according to the Constitution. Impeachment is reserved explicitly for "high crimes and misdemeanors".

[JimL]

Not according to the Constitution. Impeachment is reserved explicitly for "high crimes and misdemeanors".

You have no idea what "high crimes and misdemeaners" even means. Want me to tell you?

[rogue06]

You have no idea what "high crimes and misdemeaners" even means. Want me to tell you?

GIF gonna be good.gif

[RumTumTugger]

You have no idea what "high crimes and misdemeaners" even means. Want me to tell you?

Go ahead and tell us what that phrase means . But make sure you give us your legal citations for your opinion.