Support NeoGAF

[DonShula]

Trump will not be impeached. That much is clear at this point.

Doesn't matter how many pictures of jenga you post, this whole thing is a leftist wet dream at this point.

It's foolish to say this given how much has happened in the last 7-8 months. Impeachment happens when the House GOP feels reelection is in jeopardy. Given how much has transpired, it's impossible to assert that Trump won't do something so stupid and toxic (or hasn't already, yet to be revealed) that the GOP will turn on him. It's been a short relationship to this point, in spite of it feeling like decades.

And all that aside, you have the possibility that the House swings left in 2018.

Impeachment may be largely irrelevant (Bill Clinton style, or Trump resigning first more likely), but it's still very much on the table.

 

[Steejee]

Another day another dozen stupid tweets.

Corrected.

I does feel like he's spewing more twitter diarrhea on any given day than he used to. Guess the investigations are getting too close to the truth...

 

[Eidan]

Trump will not be impeached. That much is clear at this point.

Doesn't matter how many pictures of jenga you post, this whole thing is a leftist wet dream at this point.

If Dems take back the House of Representatives in 2018, impeachment is almost guaranteed.

 

[Ultryx]

If Dems take back the House of Representatives in 2018, impeachment is almost guaranteed.

Special elections haven't really been an indicator of that happening. So I hope I'm wrong in 2018 and there's a blue wave, otherwise we're fucked.

 

[Sheroking]

Special elections haven't really been an indicator of that happening. So I hope I'm wrong in 2018 and there's a blue wave, otherwise we're fucked.

Nobody knows about these special elections, though. The entire political narrative is on Trump and Russia, not flipping a handful of red states.

The midterm elections are going to be as visible and as well covered as they've been since 2006. Turnout is not going to be an issue.

 

[TheCochese]

Special elections haven't really been an indicator of that happening. So I hope I'm wrong in 2018 and there's a blue wave, otherwise we're fucked.

Special elections are in safe R districts, and they have been extremely competitive.

 

[brau]

Forget impeachment.

At this rate, he's on pace to have a nervous breakdown by the end of the year.

He's showing a complete lack of discipline even when it causes serious consequences to his own self-interests. He has the temperament and self-control of a 5 year-old. I can't imagine how Trump will begin to behave if the walls begin to close around him even further. Clearly his handlers are completely incapable of stopping Trump from his worst instincts. Trump simply doesn't trust anyone of them to defend him properly.

He'll just ignore everything and go to his desk and pretend to look at paperwork when all he is doing is shuffling them.

 

[Eidan]

Special elections haven't really been an indicator of that happening. So I hope I'm wrong in 2018 and there's a blue wave, otherwise we're fucked.

All of the special elections have been in safe Republican districts, and the votes have heavily moved towards the Democrats. Special elections have so far been a great indicator of the House flipping.

 

[Cake Boss]

Forget impeachment, can he get arrested from this investigation? Its a criminal one right?

 

[Shadybiz]

All of the special elections have been in safe Republican districts, and the votes have heavily moved towards the Democrats. Special elections have so far been a great indicator of the House flipping.

Correct. No D victories, but they've come a LOT closer than they should have.

 

[Tovarisc]

Forget impeachment, can he get arrested from this investigation? Its a criminal one right?

He can't as long he is president. He needs to resign or be fired first before he can be charged.

Impeachment is needed.

 

[KernelPanic]

He can't as long he is president. He needs to resign or be fired first before he can be charged.

Impeachment is needed.

Isn't there means where he can be removed if he's deemed unfit for office?

 

[Laevateinn]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/875321478849363968

He just keeps on digging / setting up that rope. Attacking IC and Mueller directly, not smart man.

He became president in that moment.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Special elections haven't really been an indicator of that happening. So I hope I'm wrong in 2018 and there's a blue wave, otherwise we're fucked.

....seriously?

Montana, a blood red state, came within 6 points of a Democrat winning. Tom Price, the original rep for Georgia, won by 23 points originally and now Ossoff and Handel are neck and neck, with Ossoff pulling ahead in most polls.

To think that just because Dems didn't immediately win these elections in deep republican areas immediately means we have no chance of winning swing states is absurd.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

A small part of me wants him to stop tweeting.
But a larger part of me wants him to keep going as he's only giving himself more rope.

The GOP talking points won't help much either now that they leaked and everyone is prepared to take them on. I kind of want someone to pull a Joseph Joestar.

"The real story here is-"
"Next you'll say 'the leakers and how they need to be arrested'. Am I right?"
"-the leakers and how they need to be arrested. WHAT?!"

This made me laugh unreasonably at my desk, thanks.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Brian Stelter‏Verified account
@brianstelter

Breaking: CNN is suing the FBI in federal court -- seeking copies of the Comey memos.

lol

 

[brau]

lol

what??

 

[smokeymicpot]

lol

Why lol? Its a legal move and other outlets do it as well.

 

[Schucky Ducky]

lol

Why are they doing this?

 

[Ac30]

lol

CNN jelly they don't have WaPo's sources?

 

[Kensation]

Jesus, just let them do their jobs.

 

[RPGCrazied]

what??

Why are they doing this?

CNN jelly they don't have WaPo's sources?

I'm guessing cause the Senate Intel Committee has been asking for these for 3 weeks and getting no answers from the FBI.

But why CNN is doing it, no clue.

 

[Tovarisc]

Isn't there means where he can be removed if he's deemed unfit for office?

Yes, impeachment.

Why are they doing this?

To try and get hands on non-classified memos so they read and share them with public?

CNN jelly they don't have WaPo's sources?

WaPo never saw and read those non-classified memos. They were read to from them. CNN wants to read them for themselves.

 

[jay]

Forget impeachment, can he get arrested from this investigation? Its a criminal one right?

What planet would this happen on? Presidents can be war criminals and no charges have been or ever will be brought.

 

[maquiladora]

Isn't there means where he can be removed if he's deemed unfit for office?

25th Ammendment

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President

 

[Ac30]

Yes, impeachment.



To try and get hands on non-classified memos so they read and share them with public?



WaPo never saw and read those non-classified memos. They were read to from them. CNN wants to read them for themselves.

I'm aware, I'm just always impressed at WaPo's links with just about every IC member organisation.

 

[Zyae]

Forget impeachment, can he get arrested from this investigation? Its a criminal one right?

technically a president can be charged but its never been done before and would probably result in a constitutional crisis.

 

[Tovarisc]

I'm aware, I'm just always impressed at WaPo's links with just about every IC member organisation.

Also possible that WaPo and NYT are getting more reach outs now that they landed few big stories while showing they protect sources well and can write good factual stories out of leaks.

 

[TheCochese]

CNN can try, but if they are part of an investigation (which they are), the FBI will rightly tell them to fuck off.

 

[BriGuy]

Sorry if it's already been addressed, but what happens if Mueller needs to interview Rosenstein? The latter said he would need to recuse himself if he was swept up in the investigation. Wouldn't that create all new kinds of fuckery?

 

[Ac30]

Also possible that WaPo and NYT are getting more reach outs now that they landed few big stories while showing they protect sources well and can write good factual stories out of leaks.

True. Reality Winner being outed almost immediately probably resulted in quite a few more people being careful with who they info dump to.

 

[Tovarisc]

Sorry if it's already been addressed, but what happens if Mueller needs to interview Rosenstein? The latter said he would need to recuse himself if he was swept up in the investigation. Wouldn't that create all new kinds of fuckery?

Oversight of Mueller goes to third highest in DOJ. Her names escapes me atm, but she is good people.

 

[Mac_Lane]

Oversight of Mueller goes to third highest in DOJ. Her names escapes me atm, but she is good people.

The Associate Attorney General, Rachel L. Brand I believe.

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

Nice.

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump‏ (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017​

Nice.

I'm guessing cause the Senate Intel Committee has been asking for these for 3 weeks and getting no answers from the FBI.

But why CNN is doing it, no clue.

Maybe some kind of FOIA request.

edit:

Yup FOIA request:

Despite high public interest in the content of the memos, Comey's testimony that the records are not classified and a ruling from the Justice Department that the FBI should expedite CNN's FOIA request for the memos, the FBI has not provided either the documents or a reason to withhold them, according to the lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
That constitutes a violation of the federal Freedom of Information Act, the lawsuit alleges. CNN asked the court to require the agency release the documents "unredacted, and without further delay."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/cnn-lawsuit-comey-trump-memos/index.html

 

[manakel]

technically a president can be charged but its never been done before and would probably result in a constitutional crisis.

Well Trump has continuously done shit that's never been done before, so I don't know why they should hold back just because it's long standing norm when the president of the United States has shown he clearly doesn't care about that.

 

[BobTheFork]

Sorry if it's already been addressed, but what happens if Mueller needs to interview Rosenstein? The latter said he would need to recuse himself if he was swept up in the investigation. Wouldn't that create all new kinds of fuckery?

Needing to talk to RosenStein feels like a given. Doesn't mean he's part of the investigation but if it comes up, it goes down to the next person in line *can't remember) at the DOJ and they carry the responsibility if Trump asks for a firing.

 

[Gutek]

technically a president can be charged but its never been done before and would probably result in a constitutional crisis.

I've seen that thrown around a lot. What does that even mean? The constitution will spontaneously combust into flames? The Supreme Court rules the constitution unconstitutional?

 

[SuperEpicMan]

How feasible would it be for Trump to replace Rosenstein with someone who will fire Mueller? I am beginning to think Trump will do this the moment he thinks it will prolong the inevitable.

 

[Kinyou]

Nice.

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump‏ (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017​

Jeez, Donnie. It's almost like you fired the head of the fbi while he was leading an investigation on your campaign,

 

[mclem]

...is outrageous, inexcusable, illegal, indefensible, magical, fantastical, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

Most sensational, inspirational, celebrational, Muellertational, this is what we call a grand shitshoooooooow!

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

I've seen that thrown around a lot. What does that even mean? The constitution will spontaneously combust into flames? The Supreme Court rules the constitution unconstitutional?

Basically means we would be in uncharted waters and there is no proper guide to what steps will be taken for such actions.

Nobody would know who has what powers to do what, the legality of actions and what not.

An example would be when states started to leave the union before the outbreak of the civil war. Nobody knew the legality of such actions were, and we ended up fighting a war over it.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

How feasible would it be for Trump to replace Rosenstein with someone who will fire Mueller? I am beginning to think Trump will do this the moment he thinks it will prolong the inevitable.

I know never to discount such silly prospects at this point, but this almost seems like something that has to be out of bounds. And I don't mean that in any sort of sense of questioning Trump's ability to be brash and short-sighted, or even his ability to abuse power. But I feel like this has to be something where logic would prevail among his aides and an avalanche of people would stand in his way from such a political disaster.

So I don't doubt that left to his own devices he could do it. But it's just a question of why? Firing Comey was clearly a terrible misfire. Quite possibly his worst mistake in a young presidency riddled with mistakes. You'd think we'd be in "fooled once can't get fooled again" territory in terms of listening to voices advising him that firing the person investigating him/his campaign is a good call.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I've seen that thrown around a lot. What does that even mean? The constitution will spontaneously combust into flames? The Supreme Court rules the constitution unconstitutional?

It just means that no one really knows what to do. There is no precedent set. Legally speaking the President is just as vulnerable to arrest and prosecution for crimes the same as any other citizen. However, it's never been done since the Secret Service became presidential bodyguards (Grant was arrested for speeding, but just fined and released).

Some questions that would be asked in a situation where say the NYPD goes to arrest Trump for financial crimes would be:

Is the Secret Service required to allow the arrest? Will the Secret Service fight any police that attempt to arrest the President?

What happens if the President is arrested and arraigned? Can he still execute his duties from a jail cell? Or would the 25th Amendment kick in? Would he be considered a flight risk and denied bail? Could an impartial jury ever be selected?

 

[CrunchyFrog]

I've seen that thrown around a lot. What does that even mean? The constitution will spontaneously combust into flames? The Supreme Court rules the constitution unconstitutional?

It means there are no constitutional rules which govern what we would need to do in such a situation. We'd be in completely uncharted territory, setting precedent at the most fundamental levels of constitutional principles, possibly adding new de facto amendments. Examples would be stuff like the Stamp Act, the secession of southern states prior to the civil war, the election of 1876, and to an extent the Watergate crisis.

 

[SuperEpicMan]

I know never to discount such silly prospects at this point, but this almost seems like something that has to be out of bounds. And I don't mean that in any sort of sense of questioning Trump's ability to be brash and short-sighted, or even his ability to abuse power. But I feel like this has to be something where logic would prevail among his aides and an avalanche of people would stand in his way from such a political disaster.

I absolutely agree that it would be a political disaster, but I think there may be a point where they feel his investigation is closing in, and they feel they would rather take their chances with firing him in the hopes of giving themselves some extra time.

 

[boiled goose]

Special elections haven't really been an indicator of that happening. So I hope I'm wrong in 2018 and there's a blue wave, otherwise we're fucked.

Huh? All the elections have had a massive point swing even if Democrats didn't win.

 

[Steel]

I know never to discount such silly prospects at this point, but this almost seems like something that has to be out of bounds. And I don't mean that in any sort of sense of questioning Trump's ability to be brash and short-sighted, or even his ability to abuse power. But I feel like this has to be something where logic would prevail among his aides and an avalanche of people would stand in his way from such a political disaster.

So I don't doubt that left to his own devices he could do it. But it's just a question of why? Firing Comey was clearly a terrible misfire. Quite possibly his worst mistake in a young presidency riddled with mistakes. You'd think we'd be in "fooled once can't get fooled again" territory in terms of listening to voices advising him that firing the person investigating him/his campaign is a good call.

He's got Bannon and Miller whispering in his ear about how the deep state is out to get him, so, I think he'd do it. Hell, from all reports the only thing stopping him is his aides constantly telling him not to atm. Things get any deeper and he'll blow a gasket.

 

[MogCakes]

If he does try to fire Mueller, i hope Mueller and co refuse and it gets taken to litigation. I don't think that even if he tried firing him, that it would succeed.

 

[Tovarisc]

If he does try to fire Mueller, i hope Mueller and co refuse and it gets taken to litigation. I don't think that even if he tried firing him, that it would succeed.

Trump would need to go through Rosenstein afaik so it's very possible in response Rosenstein could make Mueller immune to being fired before his work is done.

 

[SJurgenson]

How feasible would it be for Trump to replace Rosenstein with someone who will fire Mueller? I am beginning to think Trump will do this the moment he thinks it will prolong the inevitable.

There are two ways Trump can fire Mueller:

1. Order Rosenstein to do it. If he refuses, fire him. Continue down the line of succession for DAG until someone agrees to, Robert Bork style.
2. Sign an executive order repealing the Justice Department regulations protecting Mueller from being fired by the President, or even the entire special counsel regulations. You cannot have a special counsel investigating Trump if there is no such thing as a special counsel.

To people claiming Trump 'cannot' fire Mueller, that is not strictly correct. Trump is the head of the Executive Branch. Mueller is now an employee of the Justice Department, an Executive department -- therefore, without anything additional restricting him, Trump can fire Mueller.

The only thing protecting Mueller is the Justice Department Special Counsel regulations that do restrict who can fire the SC (the AG/acting AG) -- but since they are internal Executive Branch rules and not laws, Trump can just issue an executive order to change or repeal them in part or entirely.

As a sidebar, this is also why Kamala Harris' grilling of Rosenstein about the exact protections given to Mueller was kind of pointless -- the SC regulations are just that, regulations. Rosenstein could have used any language Harris wanted, and Mueller is still ultimately fireable by Trump.

All that said, since the SC regulations could never actually fully protect a SC, they are designed not to make it legally impossible to interfere with a SC, but to make it extremely politically damaging to do so. There is no way for Trump to make the SC go away quietly without anyone noticing -- to order someone to fire him under the regs, or to repeal the regs requires a paper trail that alerts Congress and the public as to what happened immediately. Think of SC regs less like a padlock on a gate, but more like a safety seal on a pill bottle -- it's not going to stop tampering, but it makes it obvious when that happens.

So, what happens if Trump does fire Mueller?

First, remember the shitstorm that got us here, from firing Comey? That, times a couple orders of magnitude. Sessions/Rosenstein have been presenting a technically plausible excuse for firing Comey (that no one believes). Firing Mueller would not even have the veneer of a plausible cause, it would be all but impossible to claim it was anything but obstruction.

Second, as Adam Schiff said on Twitter the other day, Congress could just pass a law re-establishing the SC (but under congressional or judicial control) and re-hire Mueller. That would require 2/3 of both Houses to do, but I'd imagine the Republicans would do it just to lessen the flames from the ongoing hellstom that would be erupting.