Is Trump Exonerated?

[Lucky]

His Attorney General thinks so. The Mueller report left it to Congress to pursue, but that's a surprisingly chicken shit decision. Mueller was appointed to investigate and make findings. He punted instead.

Just my opinion as of today.

[RA1]

Isn't it true that only the Congress can actually do anything and that thing is impeachment (followed by possible conviction)?  I don't know if Mueller punted but a lot of folks fumbled.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

I think Mueller made a very pointed statement:

There is not enough here to convict in a court of law, but there is a sewer-load enough for a Congress to impeach, if it had any balls (not to add integrity) at all.

[MsGuy]

Consider three things, Lucky.

1) Any substantial actions by Mueller since Barr's appointment required  the AG's approval.

2) We don't really know exactly what Mueller actually put in his report (yet?). We only have Barr's version of Mueller's report And that good man has made it perfectly clear where his loyalties lie.

3)  Mueller considered himself bound longstanding Justice Dept. policy against indicting a sitting president and by the limited portfolio of his initial appointment.

[AdamSmith]

The Mueller report reads like an impeachment referral

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/18/mueller-report-reads-like-an-impeachment-referral/?utm_term=.aca0085f20e1

[RA1]

Go ahead and impeach.  That worked well with Clinton.  The Demos made the most during the elections after the Repubs impeached him.  And, what is the point, other than dividing the country more?  The Senate will never convict.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

I kinda agree, RA1. Short of multiple HD recordings of him butt fucking his daughter, I don't see how any Republican senator wishing to seay in office could afford to vote for impeachment.

But please consider this: the written document is maybe 30/35% of what we think of as our constitution. The rest are the customs, habits, traditions and mutual expectations we have of each other. These are the real restraints on an overbearing POTUS. Trump is a malignant cancer on those restraints. I won't speculate on his mental state but it's clear that he simply can not abide any attempt by anyone to restrict his behavior and that he is unable to concieve of a reality wherein officers of our government should have loyalties beyond those to his person. With an executive as institutionally powerful as ours has become since the Civil War, the traditions and customs have even greater significance.

Do you really want a POTUS of the type Trump is creating? A master unrestrained by rule of law? W/O congressional supervision? With the power to divert unlimited funds to any damn fool project he might dream up? Picture such a White House occupied by one of the whackier clowns currently competeing for the Democratic nomination.

I promised I wouldn't comment on Trump's mental problems but, damn it...

something  just aint right about this guy

PS. Think through Trump's latest defense a bit more. Basically he's saying what he did (is doing) is irrelevant to an impeachment because you can't get a conviction. Kinda like Al Capone pointing out that it was pointless to indict him because he had the power to intimidate any jury from convicting him.

[RA1]

Interesting comments.  The absolute restraints are elections.  However, even these require the participation and agreement of the candidates.  There was talk with Clinton, Bush II and Obama that they would not leave of their own accord.  Apparently they all did.  In other cases there is a refusal to concede when the vote is overwhelming. 

What you suggest as customs, habits, traditions, etc. is actually the difference between so called liberal and conservative interpretations of the constitution.  I lean toward a literal interpretation although I certainly agree we no longer have slaves, women have the right to vote, etc.  I object to judicial attempts to change the constitution.  Plenty of room for disagreement and discussion here. 

Best regards,

RA1 

[AdamSmith]

8 hours ago, RA1 said:

I lean toward a literal interpretation

This is not a smarty-pants English-major question (actually on reflection it is  ), but what exactly does ‘literal interpretation’ mean?

The respective sense and meaning of those two words would seem to be in direct conflict with each other.

[MsGuy]

AS, don't be an ASS. You know perfectly well RA1 means he perfers that judges stop acting like Hassidic Kabbalahists on hashish  conjuring truly insane meanings from the text of the Constitution. 

Take abortion just for instance. I know you think it's in the Constitution somehow but put the 14th Amendment under an electron microscope and you will still spend the rest of your life looking.  The path of absolutely essential precedents runs through protecting the privacy of rich folks from the then new technology of easy, portable camaras through keeping advertisers from using the likeness of  Hollywood types w/o paying for it first. Honestly, Three Stooges movies have more sensible plot lines.

RA1, oddly enough I have yet to discover a conservative originalist legal scholar who does not whole heartedly endorse the whacky judge made law the gives Corporations the near full fledged status and rights of a flesh and blood American citizen. That one tracks back to an erroneous note by a private commercial editor attached to a private edition of Supreme Court opinions. And yes LOL,, ir'that pesky 14th Amendment again.

In the end neither the liberals nor the consevatives have demonstrated much integrity in this interpetation business. In the end it's all in whose ox is getting gored.

---------

RA1, no I wasn't talking about how legal types go about interpeting the Constitution. I was talking about the expectations folks running the government have of each other when they go about the business of running the country. And the expectations of ordinary folks about what constitutes legitimate action by government types when dealing with them and their families, friends, neighbors.

Again, just for instance, consider that currently an office holder losing an election can reasonably expect lucrative employment in the lobbying industry or, at the very worst, a return to whatever he was doing before he ran for office. Mow consider the results on changing those expectations to being stripped of all his wealth, prison and quite possibly death for himself and maybe his family members. Think Kazakhstan.

Quite honestly, I'm a little worried that the Kazakhstan alternative may (quite reasonably) be in Trump's mind when it comes to the 2020 election. And Trump aint exactly the type to go quietly into that good night.

-------

Oh, and no elections are not an "absolute restraint." They only work in conjusnction with all those other formal and informal restrainsts. Russia actually has a fairly reasonable constitution and runs elections regularly. It's just that shit tends to happen to folks who complain too loudly about the kleptocracy that runs the place.

 

 

 

[RA1]

I am not a legal scholar but I do not agree that corporations should have "citizenship" rights.  I agree the constitution has nary a mention of abortion but I do think women should have control of their bodies.  I can only hope whatever decisions are made are informed.

I am not happy with Congress critters and other government ne'er do wells running to lucrative lobbying jobs after hitting a bump in the road. Mr. David Crockett had the right idea when he opined that Congress should be in session for a few weeks and then the members should go home and look after their "real" employment and families.  

As far as literal interpretation, I suppose one could spend time considering what "the" means.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

  I am not happy with Congress critters and other government ne'er do wells running to lucrative lobbying jobs after hitting a bump in the road.

Truly a regretable state of affairs but, perhaps, better than them directing government thugs to kick in your door and beat you to death in front of your loved ones for complaining too loudly.

[AdamSmith]

On 4/28/2019 at 4:06 PM, MsGuy said:

 

Truly a regretable state of affairs but, perhaps, better than them directing government thugs to kick in your door and beat you to death in front of your loved ones for complaining too loudly.

’Hitting bottom.’

Oneself can attest that a still lower bottom can ever be located, in need.

[AdamSmith]

On 4/26/2019 at 11:42 AM, RA1 said:

Go ahead and impeach.  That worked well with Clinton.  The Demos made the most during the elections after the Repubs impeached him.  And, what is the point, other than dividing the country more?  The Senate will never convict.

Best regards,

RA1

Agree today’s Senate will not convict.

But do you really equate Bill’s fooling around with Monica with the Trumps’ fooling around with Russia?

[RA1]

I don't think I equated anything other than impeaching a sitting President can and likely will backfire.

Best regards,

RA1