TO BEGIN LET ME LINK TO HE CALL FOR TRUMPUTIN’S IMPEACHMENT…FROM TRUMPUTIN HIMSELF:
Trump just invited Congress to begin impeachment proceedings
George T. Conway III is a lawyer in New York. Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University, previously served as the acting solicitor general of the United States.
Much ink has been spilled about whether President Trump committed a criminal and impeachable offense by obstructing justice. That question deserves extensive debate, but another critical question — the ultimate question, really — is not whether he committed a crime, but whether he is even fit for office in the first place. And that question — the heart of an impeachment inquiry — turns upon whether the president abuses his power and demonstrates an unfitness to serve under the defining principles of our Constitution.
On Tuesday, Trump gave us direct evidence of his contempt toward the most foundational precept of our democracy — that no person, not even the president, is above the law. He filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office. Trump’s brief is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced.
THAT IS TODAY (JUNE 12, 2019). BUT LEADING UP TO THIS HAS BEEN THE GROUND WORK OF A PARTICULAR TRIO OF PATRIOTS I FOLLOW CLOSELY ON TWITTER. WE SHALL LOOK AT THEM PRESENTLY, BEFORE WE DO LET ME LINK TO OTHER ARTICLES WITH MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE, QUOTES, EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS, AND EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT WILL HELP BUILD AND HOLD THE FOUNDATION TOGETHER.
THE DARK SECRETS OF THE TRUMP-PUTIN TIES
“Where-the-Rubber-Meets-the-Road” Truth About DT’s ties to Putin and Russian Mob
K.S.N./V.N.D. :More Fun And Treason With Trump And Putin
AND ONE MORE,
NUNESBURGER: The Tale of Nothing to See Here
NOW MY THREE FAVORITE PATRIOTS FROM TWITTER, FIRST UP JENNIFER TAUB REPORTING ON THE MUELLER REPORT HEARING:
Here we go. The Mueller Report hearing begins. Chairman Nadler gaveling in a bit late. 2:12 p.m. 1/
Nadler begins with opening statement. Said we now know the Russian government was engaging activities including hacking and influence campaign to benefit the Trump campaign and harm the Clinton campaign. Direct attack on our democratic process 2/
Although not enough evidence to charge Trump or campaign with conspiracy, did find meetings and links. Wants to call Robert Mueller to testify. Ten separate incidents Mueller identified where the president attempted to interfere with the investigation. 3/
We must follow the fact where they lead. Now identifying the four panelists who will testify today. Mentions House Rules that prevent making “inappropriate personal” comments about the president. But shouldn’t prevent discussing “serious misconduct.” 4/
Said former White House counsel Don McGahn will testify before the committee before long. We were attacked. Trump’s campaign took full advantage of the attack. The obstruction go to the heart of our legal system. 5/
Ranking member Collins. “If we were attacked. Then the priority should be to go to the battlefield of the attack.” What’s to know “how can we firm up our elections?” Complaining that this is really about the election of Trump. 6/
Collins said he doesn’t think he should hear from people who appear on television who are not part of the Mueller investigation. Also complaining about John Dean. “The 70s star of obstruction.” 7/
Collins now calls Dean “the Godfather.” Suggests Comey et al are like Dean was when he worked for Nixon 8/
Collins claims that the committee does not want to hear from Mueller. “I believe the priorities are wrong.” 9/
John Dean begins: Last time he was there was July 1974. Not here as a fact witness, but providing some perspectives. Likens Mueller Report to the Watergate Roadmap. 10/
Dean will focus on one parallel. Laid out six examples in his written statement which he called illustrative, not exhaustive. He will speak to the 6th. 11/
Dean is discussing whether the president dangled pardons before witnesses including Manafort, Cohen, and Stone. Was he seeking to keep their silence. 12/
Dean said Richard Nixon who used the pardon power in a similar way recognized that it was improper to do so. 13/
Dean recanted convos with Nixon concerning granting pardons. Nixon knew it was wrong. Nixon told him “in a very peculiar manner” in a “stage whisper.” Said “I made a mistake talking to Colson about clemency for Hunt, didn’t I?” And Dean replied, yes that was obstruction 14/
Joyce Vance is speaking now. Said she will cut to the chase. Prosecutors will only recommend indictment on obstruction if the can prove three elements: (1) obstructive act; (2) nexus with an official proceeding; (3) corrupt intent. 15/
THIS : “The facts contained in that report would be sufficient to . . .charge multiple counts of obstruction.” Not a close call. “I would have confidence that the evidence would be sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict” and stand up on appeal. 16/
Now Vance is presenting the details. EVERYONE should go back and watch her statement. It is clear and powerful. 17/
“If anyone other than the president of the United States had committed this conduct he would be under indictment for obstruction of justice.” 18/
Vance: It doesn’t take a law degree to know that in this country, no one is above the law. If you or I had committed this same conduct we would be indicted. 19/
John Malcolm is speaking. Like his written testimony, he criticizes Mueller and also claims Trump was cooperative. 20/
Malcolm says Trump was not acting corruptly because either “naked self-interest” and to protect office of the presidency. Here Malcolm suggests obstruction prohibition does not apply to President 21/
Note that Mueller wrote that law did apply to President but that the DOJ policy and Constitution prevents prosecution while in office 22/
Now is testifying. Multiple crimes of obstruction of justice.” It threatened our national security. 23/
McQuade lists specific examples. Then she focuses on Trump’s repeated pressure to get Sessions to unrecuse and to focus the interference investigation on future elections 24/
McQuade reminds us that evidence was destroyed. Also says if he’d been successful in curtailing investigation to future elections the indictments would not have been issued and our national security at risk 25/
Now questions begin. Starting with Nadler asking McQuade. Do you agree Congress has independent duty. McQuade said she would not call it a “do-over” but a separate inquiry 26/
Nadler read to language from the first page of Volume II (the obstruction part). She explains that Mueller recognized he was restricted by DOJ policy but contemplated future prosecutors etc could use this report. 27/
President is required to faithfully execute the law said McQuade 28/
Collins asked McQuade whether she and Rachel Maddow has evidence of collusion. She tried to politely remind him that Mueller (on page 1 of Volume I) said explicitly that he looked at crime of conspiracy not the broader non-legal term collusion 29/
Congresswoman from California is focused on McGahn. He told President to speak to his personal lawyer and not him about his complaints about supposed Mueller conflicts 30/
McQuade said Trump felt threatened by Mueller early in investigation because didn’t know Mueller would ultimately conclude insufficient evidence to charge conspiracy 31/
Congresswoman Lee recounts that Mueller report describes the President twice called WH counsel McGahn at home to get Rosenstein to fire Mueller 32/
When asked Vance said these facts show obstruction of justice. Further McQuade said McGahn wanted to resign 33/
THE ENTIRE REPORT IS 110 TWEETS LONG, AGAIN, HERE IS THE LINK TO THE WHOLE REPORT.
LINKS TO 2 MORE REPORTS BY JENNIFER TAUB:
[RESPONDING TO TRUMP]
Sir, let’s be honest.
The Mueller investigation exposed crimes and the cover up.
Crimes: Russian hacking and disinformation campaign.
Coverup: Your obstruction of justice, including telling staff to fire Mueller. The hearings will further explore the crimes and the cover up
NOW, LET’S LINK TO SEVERAL OF BILL PALMER’S REPORTS:
[SAME DAY AS DAY 1 OF THE MUELLER REPORT HEARING.]
Donald Trump’s day so far:
–House Republicans humiliate themselves as John Dean Slam Dunks Trump
– John Dean testifying that
– William Barr caves to Jerry Nadler
– Jared Kushner foreign money scandal
– Elaine Chao financial scandal
– Trump CNBC meltdown
– Impeachment is coming
– Trump is going to prison
–TRUMP GIVES INSANE INTERVIEW ON ABC AND VOWS TO COMMIT MORE TREASON
– It’s still only 1pm
Donald Trump’s day so far:
– Hope Hicks is testifying against him
– His poll numbers nosedive
– Trump vows to accept foreign help in 2020 election
– Attacks the FBI Director
– Trump is a traitor
– Impeach the **CENSORED** now! –
Trump is going to prison
– It’s still only 8pm
MUELLER NOT THE ONLY INVESTIGATION.
[BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH DETAIL THAT IS PERTINENT I AM REPORTING THIS AGAIN.]
NEXT, JUSTIN AMASH OFFERS A 4-PRONGED RATIONALE FOR IMPEACHING TRUMP:
[FOR WHOLE THING GO HERE.]
1. They say there were no underlying crimes.
In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.
2. They say obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime.
In fact, obstruction of justice does not require the prosecution of an underlying crime, and there is a logical reason for that. Prosecutors might not charge a crime precisely *because* obstruction of justice denied them timely access to evidence that could lead to a prosecution.
If an underlying crime were required, then prosecutors could charge obstruction of justice only if it were unsuccessful in completely obstructing the investigation. This would make no sense.
3. They imply the president should be permitted to use any means to end what he claims to be a frivolous investigation, no matter how unreasonable his claim.
In fact, the president could not have known whether every single person Mueller investigated did or did not commit any crimes.
4. They imply “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” requires charges of a statutory crime or misdemeanor.
In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.
Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.
I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.
In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.
Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.
Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.
Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.
In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.
Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.
While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.
Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.
We’ve witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees—on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice—depending on whether they’re discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.
Few members of Congress even read Mueller’s report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation—and it showed, with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report’s conclusions within just hours of its release.
America’s institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it.
CONGRESS MUST REMOVE TRUMP AND HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION!
RUSSIA, WITH TRUMP KNOWING AND HELPING, COMMITTED AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE U.S.A. !!
TRUMP HAS THEN COMMITTED MULTIPLE CRIMES OF OBSTRUCTION, PERJURY, FRAUD, BRIBERY, AND BLACKMAILING!!
enough is ENOUGH!!!
-Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.