H2O Man (61,597 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212473210
Impeach Trump
Washington (CNN)In a previously undisclosed secret mission in 2017, the United States successfully extracted from Russia one of its highest-level covert sources inside the Russian government, multiple Trump administration officials with direct knowledge told CNN.
Jim Sciutto; September 9, 2019
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics/russia-us-spy-extracted/index.html
While reports on the CIA asset in Russia shifted slightly – including the anticipated denials from both sides – the nature of the genesis of the “Trump-Russian Scandal” has come into clearer focus for those who have been following it closely. Many people, including a number on this forum, knew that it had not started with George Papadopoulos – although that is likely when the FBI officially became involved.
The Steele dossier came after Papadopoulos's involvement, despite the Trump administration's claim that it started the intelligence investigation. It contains “raw” intelligence – the type of information that typically leads to closer examination to verify potential evidence needed in counterintelligence investigations. Parts of it remain unverified, and one section found inaccurate. Yet it indicates that people involved in intelligence were interested in the Trump campaign's connections with Russia in a manner far different than mere campaign opposition research.
The spy was extracted shortly after Trump fired FBI director James Comey. Trump then had the meeting with two Russians in the Oval Office, where he bragged about this. He would then tell Lestor Holt on national television that he fired Comey due to “the Russia thing.” The result of this was not limited to the CIA taking its emergency action to extract the spy: acting FNI director Andrew McCabe opened an investigation to consider the possibility that Trump was an active Russiian asset, while Rod Rosenstein of the Justice Department appointed Robert Mueller to head its expanded investigation.
The significance of this cluster of activity by intelligence agencies should not be overlooked. Also, that while those in the White House often say that the administration cooperated fully with the investigation, that Mr. Mueller reported that some individuals refused to be interviewed, and others lied to investigators. Several of the liars were indicted and convicted. And most significantly, Trump refused to be interviewed.
The Mueller Report was divided into two sections: the first regarding the Russian operation, and potential conspiracy with the Trump campaign, the second on Trump's obstruction of justice during the investigation. Part one concluded that, based upon the evidence, prosecutors were not confident that they could get a conviction for a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. It did not conclude that there was no coordination between them, including the infamous Trump Tower meeting led by Donald, Jr. More, it is important to recognize that information that intelligence agencies other than the FBI had gathered would be too sensitive to use in a domestic prosecution.
Part two of the report detailed Donald Trump's on-going efforts to obstruct the Mueller investigation. The report clearly stated that while DOJ guidelines do not permit the indictment of a sitting president, the report did not clear Trump of potential charges of obstruction of justice. Rather, the report provided a road map for Congress to investigate Trump.
After issuing the report, Mr.Mueller remained in his position to complete his contribution to the counterintelligence report. This report has not been made public, of course, as it is highly classified. Only a very few members of the House and Senate intelligence committees are aware of a limited amount of the information contained in it.
Several House committees are currently investigating the “potential” crimes of Donald Trump. As we have seen over the past months, the White House is refusing to cooperate with the House as it fulfills its constitutional duties. Attorney General Barr is playing point for the stonewalling. Indeed, Barr is attempting to abuse the powers of the Justice Department by investigating Trump's “enemies.” It appears that this includes a failed attempt to get a grand jury indictment of Mr. McCabe. The curious timing of Sciutto's report suggests that the intelligence community is sending Barr a message to stop his nonsense.
Yesterday, we were subjected to Corey Lewandowski's performance before a House committee. It provided a glaring example not only of the administration's on-going attempts to obstruct the investigation by claiming the right to claim privileges it is not legally entitled to, but of the willingness of Trump's true believers to lie while under oath. In the last half-hour, we were treated to the dismantling of Lewandowski when questioned for more than five minutes by a prosecutor.
The Trump administration's refusal to follow the law also includes its refusal to provide the head of the House Means and Ways Committee with the president's tax returns. The law is crystal clear regarding their legal obligation to provide these. As we all know, the law states the administration “shall” provide them, and Democrats agree on the meaning of the word “shall.”
I've said all of this, in order to focus now on the issue of if the Democrats should impeach Trump. The Constitution clearly states that in instances where the president commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the Congress “shall” impeach the president. The majority of Democrats in the House recognize that the word “shall” is consistent in federal law and in the Constitution. And they know that the Constitution does not include a clause that recommends delaying this duty for political purposes.
I do appreciate that others are entitled to opinions that differ from my own on a whole host of issues. But the need to impeach Trump seems glaringly obvious to me. What do you think?
Peace,
H2O Man
Time for a little civics course.
Impeachment
noun
the impeaching of a public official before an appropriate tribunal.
(in Congress or a state legislature) the presentation of formal charges against a public official by the lower house, trial to be before the upper house.
demonstration that a witness is less worthy of belief.
the act of impeaching.
the state of being impeached.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/impeachmentImpeach
verb (used with object)
to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.
Chiefly Law. to challenge the credibility of:
to impeach a witness.
to bring an accusation against.
to call in question; cast an imputation upon:
to impeach a person's motives.
to call to account.
noun
Obsolete. impeachment.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/impeachIt means to accuse and bring charges. Does accuse mean removal? It does not mean removal. I do not see the word removal anywhere. So Impeach Trump means to Accuse Trump.
