re: Obama DOJ Official: Mueller Doesn't have Authority to Indict or Impeach Trump

quote:

---

There is zero chance the Senate votes to impeach by a 2/3 supermajority

---

I agree. It's unlikely they'd get the Senate votes but like I say, that's not the main goal for Dims. It's about the optics and narrative of the impeachment.

quote:

---

And I think the American public would find it ridiculous that Trump should be impeached for firing someone who was an officer of the very branch of government of which he is the chief sovereign, especially given Comey's universal dislike for numerous reasons.

---

Don't over estimate the understanding the average American has of this process. It's complex and it's rare. It's something we don't see much so a lot of people are unfamiliar with how it works. So they turn to the media to walk them through it. A rabid anti-Trump media who's been working to get him out of office since before he took the oath. The media is friendly to the Democrats cause here. The image and the media narrative helps to undercut Trump's presidency. Innocent or not, it's not a good look to go through impeachment precedings.

Mueller is laying the groundwork, but ultimately it is Rosenstein's call about whom to indict ( LINK):

quote:

---

Rosenstein is effectively Mueller’s boss. Although, under the special counsel regulations, Mueller does not have to report to Rosenstein day to day, he does need to check in with the DAG three months before the end of the fiscal year with a status report on the progress of the investigation, and Rosenstein has the power to “determine whether the investigation should continue.” Separately, Rosenstein has the power to require Mueller to “provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step” and can prevent Mueller from pursuing any action if, in his view, he believes that it is “inappropriate or unwarranted” under departmental practices. If he does so, he must report this decision to both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. The fact that, six months into Mueller’s appointment, no such report has been made, and Mueller continues to take significant investigative and prosecutorial steps (including, most recently, obtaining tens of thousands of transition-team emails from the General Services Administration) suggests that Rosenstein is on board with the breadth, scope, and direction in which Mueller is taking the investigation.

---

Undoubtedly, we know that Mueller is investigating possible obstruction of justice charges against Trump, and has multiple grand juries for the overall investigation. It is highly unlikely that Mueller will prosecute Trump without Trump first being impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate. However, a state AG like Schneiderman would be free to prosecute even without a federal impeachment.

Under the Mensch-Taylor theory, which is a bit bizarre, Schneiderman already had a EC/RICO case in progress on Trump from before the election, and had at some point taken this case to a federal jurisdiction, because it touched upon national security matters that required a FISC to approve FISA warrants and SCIF grand juries. So the indictment would be originally based on state charges for enterprise corruption / racketeering / money laundering with the Russian mafia, but might be used to form a basis for impeachment hearings in Congress. Thus you get the strange theory of a federal indictment that would be used only as support for impeachment proceedings, rather than as a basis for launching an independent prosecution. According to Mensch-Taylor, the federal part of the indictment was only made possible when Al Green declared charges of impeachment on the House floor on May 17, 2017.

All of that, while crazy to think about, is ultimately a red herring, and not really important in terms of thinking about where this investigation is eventually heading. With or without the current existence of a weird, in-limbo indictment of Trump personally, Mueller is gathering the evidence for multiple grand juries with charges that can certainly be used against the President, and that will ultimately be decided upon by Congress.

It's true that Rosenstein can be fired, and a replacement could silence the Mueller investigation; but Congress still has enough of a backbone at this juncture to where this would probably just trigger a much more intrusive independent counsel investigation, similar to Ken Starr's.

I wouldn't favor an indictment until after removal from office as I mentioned to Boosie above.

quote:

---

I wouldn't favor an indictment until after removal from office as I mentioned to Boosie above.

---

Oh...so simply something that has never happened in the country's history. At least you aren't holding out for a long shot. That would be silly.

quote:

---

Oh...so simply something that has never happened in the country's history. At least you aren't holding out for a long shot. That would be silly.

---

Oh, I don't know. Nixon admitted a pardon which I'd consider a technical admission of guilt although he never admitted responsibility for conspiracy although he was caught on tape. It was best for the country. We would probably see a pardon here too unless they uncover something really heinous. The norm of not prosecuting former political leaders is a generally positive norm that avoids cycles of recriminations (though Trump himself doesn't seem to value it).