The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

If the Republicans agree to impeach, they will be setting their own party on fire.

That may be exactly what the country needs to move forward to a politically more functional future. The Democratic Party is in the midst of an identity crisis and the Republican Party is not much different in that regard. The two-party system's flaws were laid bare in the 2016 campaign. Sanders and Clinton represented fundamentally different groups, as did Trump and the establishment Republicans he defeated.

I don't believe two parties provide the flexibility modern-day America needs to breathe. The only reason they survive is the ballot access laws that make it very difficult to run for office as an independent or other-party candidate. Busting apart that artificial structure will give people room to align their political beliefs and deeds. I'd prefer to see multiple parties cooperate to govern instead of two parties working to defeat each other. It's not really two parties anyway, as the Trump/establishment and Hillary/Sanders splits show.

 

[ATeam]

Just heard Trump say tonight that Infrastructure bill is coming soon.

Trump says a lot of things.

 

[ATeam]

Cant argue that. It will be interesting to see how they address the grand jury madness. Still pretty routine but the optics have to be carefully handled.

The formation of a grand jury could be characterized as a routine and expected event in an investigation of this nature. Nothing to get excited about, just part of the game, the White House could say. And initial commentary from Trump spokespeople has been spot on, I think. The statements that they will fully cooperate and are eager to see the investigation concluded as soon as possible are highly effective in neutralizing the critics. Cobb and Kelly may actually be having an effect in that regard.

Nevertheless, when news like this breaks, Trump almost always finds a way to make things worse for himself. We'll find out in the next few days (or hours) if he remains true to form.

 

[muttly]

Fire McMaster. Fire Mueller.

 

[ATeam]

Trump said something at tonight's rally about Mueller should investigate Hillary. I'm not sure that's in his job description but I am at a loss to explain why no one else is. It's a fair point that the Hillary investigation should be looked at if not revived. It strikes me as very strange that this has not happened.

There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to stop Republicans in congress from at least holding hearings if not launching a formal probe. Yet there is little or no action on this front. Trump dropped "lock her up" instantly upon winning the election. Republicans are essentially inactive on this. They have the power. What keeps them from using it?

 

[Turtle]

The formation of a grand jury could be characterized as a routine and expected event in an investigation of this nature.

That's because it is the epitome of routine. Mueller didn't go out and put together some super sekrit Justice League of America Grand Jury, he's simply using one of the several, regular ol', run o' the mill, already-sitting grand juries in the Washington DC area. The first round of subpoenas came out of the grand jury in Alexandria, VA. He could continue to use that one, or use whichever one is most convenient that day. Doesn't really matter.

 

[ATeam]

The formation of a grand jury could be characterized as a routine and expected event in an investigation of this nature.

That's because it is the epitome of routine. Mueller didn't go out and put together some super sekrit Justice League of America Grand Jury, he's simply using one of the several, regular ol', run o' the mill, already-sitting grand juries in the Washington DC area. The first round of subpoenas came out of the grand jury in Alexandria, VA. He could continue to use that one, or use whichever one is most convenient that day. Doesn't really matter.

It started out that way, yes. The reporting now is that this grand jury will not be shared with other prosecutors. It will be dedicated to Muller's investigation(s) alone.

 

[muttly]

It may be routine, but the deck will be stacked against Trump since it is a DC Grand Jury. Probably most if not all voted against Trump in the past election.

 

[ATeam]

It may be routine, but the deck will be stacked against Trump since it is a DC Grand Jury. Probably most if not all voted against Trump in the past election.

If you are looking for bias, you will likely find it but I don't agree that just because one lives in DC one will be biased against Trump. I recently appeared for jury duty in a murder case. I have a bias against murderers. I also have a bias against cocky young men who prance around projecting a white-trash, know-it-all, I'll-intimidate-you, inmate look, which this guy did.

Through the jury selection process, certain facts were made known that made it pretty clear the guy and his partner who was convicted a couple weeks before did it. Yet the judge made it very clear that he was innocent until proven guilty. Our job as jurors would be to judge not the person but the case being made against him.

I was excused from that duty but had I been picked, there is no question that I would have been able to overcome my bias against murderers and done my very best to render a fair decision.

The jurors who served convicted the man after a one-week trial. He got life with no parole. They were likely persuaded by the evidence that was presented.

 

[muttly]

Regarding whether Mueller should be looking at Hillary's email scandal, probably not that specifically, but her campaign should be looked at as well if we are going to have an investigation of Russian meddling in our election. At least according to the Fake News CNN, ( take this with a grain of salt) the focus is all on Trump and his campaign members with four areas they are examining : Paul Manafort's Russian dealings, Flynn, Don Jr's meeting, and Trump's business dealings with Russia some of which is going back 10 years or more.
Yet apparently no interest in examining the Democrat funded fake Russian dossier or Hillary's Uranium deal.

 

[muttly]

It may be routine, but the deck will be stacked against Trump since it is a DC Grand Jury. Probably most if not all voted against Trump in the past election.

If you are looking for bias, you will likely find it but I don't agree that just because one lives in DC one will be biased against Trump. I recently appeared for jury duty in a murder case. I have a bias against murderers. Through the jury selection process, certain facts were made known that made it pretty clear that the guy did it. Yet the judge made it very clear that he was innocent until proven guilty. Our job as jurors would be to judge not the person but the case being made against him.

I was excused from that duty but had I been picked, there is no question that I would have been able to overcome my bias against murderers and done my very best to render a fair decision.

That may be true, but say there were 15 or 21 journalists from the New York Times, The Atantic, and The Washington Post( whatever the grand jury number is) that were empaneled on a Grand Jury. Would you feel confident that they could put their biases aside and look at the evidence objectively?

 

[Turtle]

It started out that way, yes. The reporting now is that this grand jury will not be shared with other prosecutors. It will be dedicated to Muller's investigation(s) alone.

I suppose it's possible, but I don't really trust the reporting. The original reporting had Mueller empanelling a special grand jury, which Virginia didn't even have. In any case, a dedicated grand jury is possible, but they still only sit for 6 months, so unless he's already planning to wrap things up within 6 months, there's no point in having a dedicated grand jury.

It may be routine, but the deck will be stacked against Trump since it is a DC Grand Jury. Probably most if not all voted against Trump in the past election.

The deck is always stacked in favor of the prosecutor when it comes to a grand jury. The grand jury is 100% a tool of the prosecutor. A judge isn't even present during presentation.

The entire concept of a special prosecutor is to find a crime and prosecute somebody for something. That's how they justify their existence. And that's exactly what Mueller and his army of prosecutors plan to do.

Trump ran against the establishment, and the establishment is pushing back. Half the Republican party tried every trick they could think of to prevent him from getting the nomination at the convention. If that wasn't an omen I don't know what was. Now they've got a special prosecutor with a open mandate with virtually no restrictions. Congress is chipping away at his Constitutional authority with the sanctions bill, a bill preventing him from making recess appointments, and a bill preventing him from firing Mueller.

 

[ATeam]

I suppose it's possible, but I don't really trust the reporting. The original reporting had Mueller empanelling a special grand jury, which Virginia didn't even have. In any case, a dedicated grand jury is possible, but they still only sit for 6 months, so unless he's already planning to wrap things up within 6 months, there's no point in having a dedicated grand jury.

Trust it or not, this is an example of the reporting I am talking about. Grand juries operate in secret so there is much we will not know and should not know. That won't keep the press from speculating and digging, so eventually we will probably know with reasonable certainty whether this is a special, Mueller-dedicated grand jury or one of the more traditional variety.

 

[ATeam]

Trump ran against the establishment, and the establishment is pushing back. Half the Republican party tried every trick they could think of to prevent him from getting the nomination at the convention. If that wasn't an omen I don't know what was. Now they've got a special prosecutor with a open mandate with virtually no restrictions. Congress is chipping away at his Constitutional authority with the sanctions bill, a bill preventing him from making recess appointments, and a bill preventing him from firing Mueller.

All true. These developments are part of a trend that lend support to my prediction that the Republicans who have the power to do so will impeach Trump and replace him with Pence, one of their own.

An an additional power center is coalescing and may come to be seen by many populist Trump supporters as anti-Trump. That is "the generals." as this Politico piece calls them. These Trump team members are like-minded and committed to the constitution more than to Trump. They spent their adult lives projecting American power worldwide and are internationalists by training and habit.

Trump's isolationist America first rants are anathema to "the generals" and Trump has vested them with extraordinary power in his administration. By bringing a number of them together on the same team Trump created a natural affinity group that will bond more with each other than with other factions on the same team.

By creating a team of factions, Trump pretty much assures ongoing dysfunction in the team. That strategy worked for him in business where a super-narcissist can make it work and where there is only the top employer and a for-profit company to think about. In the presidency where a nation and world are teaming with stakeholders of all kinds and interests, not so much.

 

[Worn Out Manager]

OK, Newsweek cover may be a little biased, but krap, it's funny

Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[ATeam]

Regarding whether Mueller should be looking at Hillary's email scandal, probably not that specifically, but her campaign should be looked at as well if we are going to have an investigation of Russian meddling in our election. At least according to the Fake News CNN, ( take this with a grain of salt) the focus is all on Trump and his campaign members with four areas they are examining : Paul Manafort's Russian dealings, Flynn, Don Jr's meeting, and Trump's business dealings with Russia some of which is going back 10 years or more....

We know that Mueller has financial investigators on his team. That could mean what you suggest above. It could also mean they are looking into Trump's current businesses and the conflicts of interests they create, especially as it regards the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

Once the investigation follows the leads into into the Trump Organization, it could go any number of ways from there.

 

[muttly]

This whole phony collusion story was just 'a in' so that they could get a SP to snoop around with Trump's finances.

 

[muttly]

I happened to watch Republican consultant Ed Rollins last night on Fox Business channel. He thinks that Mueller should be persuaded to resign( yeah, good luck with that) and instead have one Democrat and one Republican head the investigation.

 

[Ragman]

......instead have one Democrat and one Republican head the investigation.

Good idea....

 

[ATeam]

I happened to watch Republican consultant Ed Rollins last night on Fox Business channel. He thinks that Mueller should be persuaded to resign( yeah, good luck with that) and instead have one Democrat and one Republican head the investigation.

Is there a reason to leave independent voters unrepresented if you are going to politicize the investigation? Why not have it headed jointly by one Dem, one Rep and one Ind? Or if it is objectivity you seek, why not have it headed by a true independent?

Of course, if you are going to open that door, should we include Libertarians and Greens too? What about the Constitution Party?

Best, I think to identify a person of known integrity and repute and have him or her head the investigation, which is kinda what happened, is it not? Mueller was highly praised by Democrats and Republicans when appointed. Congress is very much of a mind these days to protect him from White House interference.

If not Mueller, who would you have? If you picked two people based on their partisan credentials to lead the investigations, how biased should they be.... a little, a lot, not at all? If not at all, what difference does their party affiliation make?