Rachel Maddow: 'How Is The President Not Being Impeached For Obstruction Of Justice Right Now?'

[babylonsister]

Thu, May 16th, 2019 by Sean Colarossi
Rachel Maddow: ‘How Is The President Not Being Impeached For Obstruction Of Justice Right Now?’


Rachel Maddow only had one question following the explosive news that former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn told investigators that people connected to the White House and Congress reached out to him as a way to obstruct the Russia investigation.

“How is the president not being impeached for obstruction of justice right now?” an exasperated MSNBC host asked on Thursday.

Maddow said the interactions that Flynn had with people in Trump’s orbit to interfere with the Russia probe were “like the stuff that gets cut out of a B-movie because it’s a little too ham-handed in terms of explaining to the audience how this particular crime family does its business.”

Link to tweet

Rachel Maddow said:

Just a little personal aside here: How is the president not being impeached for obstruction of justice right now? I mean, that episode alone — I realize there’s a lot of equities involved in terms of whether or not the president is going to be impeached for stuff like this, but this is the president’s personal counsel calling up Flynn and being like, ‘You know, it might be a national security issue if you said anything about the president. You know how much the president likes you, wouldn’t want me to tell him you turned hostile on him, would you? I’m going to go ahead and tell him. I’m going to tell him you’ve become hostile to him if you go ahead and cooperate, you sure you want to cooperate?’ This is like the stuff that gets cut out of a B-movie because it’s a little too ham-handed in terms of explaining to the audience how this particular crime family does its business. You sure you want to cooperate? Oh, you’re going to go ahead and cooperate? Well, I’m going to tell my client about your hostility to him. This was made public today.

more...

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/16/rachel-maddow-president-obstruction-justice-impeached.html

[EffieBlack]

1. I love Rachel but also love the fact that Pelosi and Dems don't take orders from talk show hosts

They're not letting tv pundits and online "keyboard quarterbacks" bait them into jumping the gun before they have all their sh!t lined up.

Leadership is about doing what you know is right, even if it means getting yelled at by your friends in the crowd.

[ehrnst]

13. Thank you. (nt)

[DemocracyMouse]

56. Think about it... Rachel and Pelosi are actually teaming up. Here's how:

1) Trump and Co. keep obstructing.

2) Rachel and other news outlets point it out and hint (or shout) that impeachment isn't a bad idea.

3) Impeachment starts to seem pretty good (and "normal" –the average American likes "normal&quot .

4) Trump and Co. obstruct some more.

5) Mueller and others testify.

6) Pelosi says, "I really didn't want to do this for the sake of national unity, etc., etc., but it's time to begin impeachment proceedings. We're about to turn into a god damned authoritarian shithole."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. Agree with one thing...leaders should do what's right.

Sure Rachel would love being called a mere "talk show host"

[FailureToCommunicate]

26. Well it was hardly an "order" And maybe Rachel's only a cable show host, but she's

smarter and more well informed that most of them out there.

She has said she's more of a 'conversation starter'... especially for important topics that are being ignored or overlooked.

[EffieBlack]

38. I totally agree

I just think he's wrong about this.

[forgotmylogin]

29. True, this literally just broke yesterday!

I'm sure there are forms and paperwork to fill out!

[samnsara]

2. because apparently all of the Senate is on the take...

.....and they are protecting the crooked Sheriff....

[lagomorph777]

72. All Senate Reptilians are on the take.

Let's be specific.

[ancianita]

3. because his lawyers did it, not 45. She KNOWS Gahn, Mueller testimony moves us toward impeachment.

This wasn't up to her standards of clear thinking, imo.

[watoos]

5. Did you listen to the audio recording?

Did Trump's lawyer when speaking to Flynn implicate Trump? Trump's lawyer threatened a witness, correct? Subpoena Dowd, if that's who it was, and ask him if Trump directed him to make that call. There is no executive privilege, no attorney client privilege when a crime is involved. Force Dowd to tell the truth or perjure himself.

[ancianita]

9. Right. But my point is that this lawyer's statements are not grounds for impeaching.

[StarfishSaver]

10. He's not subject to impeachment. Impeachment inquiry is not necessary to do what you are demanding

[StarfishSaver]

6. She's usually pretty keen-eyed, but she's been a little fuzzy on impeachment

Last week she kept asking why they didn't start impeachment because it would make it easier to get documents and testimony. But when Adam Schiff shut her down, explaining that impeachment proceedings doesn't give Congress any additional power to obtain these things, she dropped that particular argument but is now on to a different "Why aren't they impeaching NOW?!" strain.

[watoos]

7. That's not what Schiff said,

he said it "shouldn't" matter, but in fact it does matter. An impeachment hearing carries more clout with the courts.

What about Barr's statement that he would release the grand jury testimony for an impeachment hearing?

Of course an impeachment hearing carries more clout, it would give another reason to request that the courts expedite their decisions.

Adam Schiff did not shut her down.

Now we have gone to the extreme of bashing Rachel Maddow who has done more work investigating the Trump criminal enterprise than anyone who posts here, myself included. You're fu**ing right I listen to Rachel, I only listen to her and Nicolle Wallace on cable news.

When do we start bashing Nicolle?

[StarfishSaver]

15. Schiff said exactly what I described

He said that a subpoena is a subpoena and it doesn't make any difference whether it's issued in an impeachment hearing or other oversight matter. He did say it's possible that a court might be more easily convinced of the urgency of a request, but he did not say that impeachment definitely carries more clout with the courts has, as he knows, any any sense of urgency is completely up to an individual judge.

And as judge Emmett Sullivan showed yesterday, and impeachment inquiry is not a prerequisite for any judge to put the hammer down on these people.

That said, I'm puzzled why you think that my saying Rachel is "brilliant" and "keen-eyed" but I think she's wrong in this instance is the equivalent of "bashing" her - or that my respectful response to you deserved such a rude and foul-mouthed retort.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. Welcome to DU!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/congress-subpoena-fight-trump-impeachment-mueller-john-roberts.html

An impeachment proceeding, however, might break the logjam. Here’s how.

First, the House, without calling a single witness or demanding a single document, could impeach the president based on the current record alone. There is little doubt that Volume II of the Mueller report, even as redacted, suffices to prove multiple acts of obstruction of justice. More than 800 former federal prosecutors—myself included—have signed on to a letter explaining how the Mueller report proves an indictable case of obstruction. Coupled with the allegations of complicity in campaign finance crimes against “Individual 1” in the Southern District of New York, as well as Trump’s resistance to House subpoenas—which was an impeachment count against President Richard Nixon

[StarfishSaver]

21. "Might" being the operative term.

[EffieBlack]

35. Maybe you should share your "research" with Speaker Pelosi

since surely none of this has occurred to her, her committee chairs, the House lawyers, or anyone her caucus, before now.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. Yes! Will send her copy if Slate where it was published!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

48. Bona fides of author

Lawrence S. Robbins is a trial and appellate litigator who handles both criminal and complex civil litigation and government investigations. Larry has tried dozens of criminal and civil cases in federal and state courts across the country. In addition, Larry has argued eighteen cases in the United States Supreme Court, and some fifty others in the federal circuit courts of appeals. Larry also has an active practice representing companies and individuals before Congress and in other government investigations, as well as on appeal from criminal convictions.

Larry served as Law Clerk for the Honorable John Gibbons of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1978 to 1979, an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York from 1983 to 1986, an Assistant to the Solicitor General from 1986 to 1990, an Associate Independent Counsel from 1990 to 1992, a partner in the Washington office of Mayer Brown from 1992 to 2001, and a founding partner of Robbins Russell from May 1, 2001 to the present.

[Chin music]

45. +1

[Farmer-Rick]

17. Now we have gone to the extreme of bashing Rachel Maddow?

Yeah, exactly, I've seen it on other posts too. There is this creeping anti-Maddow-ism on DU that comes out to boo her every time someone says something about the journalist. I don't get it. She is doing better reporting than 99% of the journalists out there. It reminds me of Greenwald.

Greenwald can't say enough mean and nasty stuff about Rachel. I feel he and people like him, who were all so eager to claim Trump didn't collude and jumped on the bandwagon with Barr and his lies, support Putin's control of the US through Trump and want to silence his critics. Rachel is one of his most vocal and intelligent critics. Plus she is entertaining. It's a combination the Greenwalds and Barrs of this world can't fight. So, they resort to nasty asides.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Oh please.

Saying "Rachel is brilliant but I think she's wrong on this" is "bashing"?

Don't be ridiculous.

[Farmer-Rick]

25. I was merely quoting Watoos

Give me a break, I know bashing when I see it.

[EffieBlack]

41. Riiight

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. Something doesn't ring true here. If you look

at all this logically. It makes logical sense that people might be passionate about holding trump to justice. Timing, political strategy are fair game for debate for sure. But to be so singularly focused and adamant against impeachment and those who speak out like Rachel, WITHOUT any mention of justice being a high priority is highly suspect.

[Farmer-Rick]

27. Yeah, I see what you mean.

[Kurt V.]

59. +1 I'm pretty sure i know what it is. but it's not going to change any real outcome

[Chin music]

49. Couldn't agree more.

When we lose Rachels daily wrap-up, we are in deep deep shit. She's correct almost always. Imagine being her? Delivering the goods everyday, and nothing is ever enough.
We aren't russian and I for one, never will be. trumps ok being russian. I'm not.
People here get real defensive when the next step is, turning off the computer, and going outside to gather and march against injustice. Fear and laziness is what it looks like to me. It's time to do this. imho.

[watoos]

4. Thank you for posting this

I talked about her in other threads. There are only 2 people I watch on cable news, Rachel and Nicolle Wallace.

No one has worked harder than Rachel to expose the Trump crime family. Many times she has led the way in exposing the lawlessness of the Trump criminal enterprise. Thank god for what Rachel has done these past 3 years, too bad we don't have more like her leading the way.

Every day we acquire more evidence of why Trump should be impeached, when is enough going to be enough?

The longer we allow Trump to violate our Constitution, our rules, our laws, our norms, the more we normalize what he is doing. This fall the debates for president begin, then it will be too late to impeach.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. You made a great point. She and her staff researchers

have performed a public service and worked very hard to expose Trump's crooked regime. They must be truly disappointed.

[StarfishSaver]

20. So, Rachel and her team are experts whose opinions are infallible

and anyone disagreeing with her is "bashing" her. But the Speaker of the House, who has more information about this than anyone including Rachel and her team, is clueless, wrong and must be challenged and criticized at every turn.

[Chin music]

50. And too cold to march outside.

Spring and summer is the time to Occupy The Streets. Let's go!

[EffieBlack]

52. "Too cold to march outside"?

Wow. Activism's great as long as it's no trouble ...

[malaise]

8. As we say

Soon come! Justice is coming

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. Hope you are right Malaise!

[Baltimike]

14. Because he'll be acquitted in the Senate. Pull stop. nt

[watoos]

24. It won't be relevant

I fully expect an impeachment hearing to be lengthy. Right now Trump is controlling the narratives which are, immigration, abortion, Iran, the investigation into the FBI and Democrats who overreached and carried out a witch hunt against Trump. Barr appointed a special prosecutor when we have an IG who is supposed to carry out these kinds of investigations. Barr did this because a special prosecutor reports directly to him and he can control the findings.

An impeachment hearing would turn the narrative back where it belongs, on the Trump criminal enterprise.

[Chin music]

33. +1

[Baltimike]

34. Yes...it will be VERY relevant as the SENATE does the trial...we can investigate w/o

handing the reigns and narrative to Moscow Mitch McConnell.

[uponit7771]

65. Its not relevant to the goal of exposure and the party of the impeached has never fared well

... post impeachment.

- Dems got their buts kicked by a little less in 98 and still in the end didn't control anything and then Gore ran away from Clinton because of Clinton's honesty numbers were in the pits.

Contrary to the BS spin on the 98 mids despite Clinton's rise in popularity post impeachment because of substance of the impeachment, dems didn't fare well

[Baltimike]

66. who said the goal was exposure? nt

[uponit7771]

67. The minimum expectations did, what else we got? tia

[Baltimike]

68. Ummm...yeah...Oooo-kay.

The goal is to save our nation...

..."what else ya "got"?" Good. grief.

[uponit7771]

69. We can save our nation by exposing Red Don's crimes to independents via impeachment process ....

... and tying him closely to Russia making a point of this election about America vs team Trump Russia but keeping healthcare and economic parity on the front.

There's more benefit to the impeachment process than removal, I don't see we have much else to expose Trump Russia in 2020.

[Baltimike]

73. we can do those investigations anyway (and are) nt

[uponit7771]

74. I honestly don't know if we go do those investigations without red don obfuscating everything

[Baltimike]

80. it's certainly better than letting Moscow Mitch exonerate him.

[uponit7771]

84. Doesn't impeachment give access to a different level of documentation and priority by the courts?

I'm not believing that impeachment affords congress nothing in the way of investigations etc ... if that's so then I'll acccept but no one is coming straight out and saying impeachment affords congress nothing ... those are the words I would need to read to believe there's no advantage of impeachment.

If impeachment does bring congress so extra authority than investigations that WILL NOT be worth anything because Moscow Mitch will stonewall them into oblivion, then ... yes... impeachment is worth it even with the chance that Moscow Mitch wont convict or remove him.

Day light in this case would be the best disinfectant

[StarfishSaver]

86. No, it doesn't

As several House Members, including Adam Schiff, have pointed out, when it comes to subpoenaing documents and testimony, an impeachment proceeding is no different than any other Congressional oversight proceeding. The fact that it's an impeachment, rather than, for example, a House Oversight Committee investigation or Financial Services Committee hearing, makes no legal or procedural difference.

In fact, there are some things that can be gotten more easily outside of the impeachment process, such as tax returns, which can be obtained upon request only by the Ways and Means Committee - the House Judiciary Committee has no statutory authority to demand such material without a subpoena or court order.

That said, there is a provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that authorize a judge to order the release of grand jury materials "preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding," which includes an impeachment inquiry. Some have incorrectly read that to mean that, once an impeachment inquiry is opened, grand jury materials must be turned over. But that's not how it works. This provision simply means that a court MAY, at its discretion order grand jury materials be given to an impeachment panel, but there's no requirement that he or she does so and the impeachment panel is not automatically entitled to them.

Moreover, this provision applies not just to the judicial proceeding itself, but to proceedings "preliminary to" it, which means that a court can also turn over materials to an oversight investigation if it's deemed to be preliminary to an impeachment inquiry. So, while it may seem like an impeachment proceeding is the only way to get grand jury materials, that's just not the case. Such materials are just as available in other Congressional investigations, not just impeachment.

[uponit7771]

89. OK, from what I'm reading NO impeachment procedures of any kind bring any difference in the

... way procedures work at all in the house?

If the answers is no then oh well, there shouldn't be impeachment of any kind then.

Either way ...

Why call any actions related to impeachment .. impeachment ... if the constitution or any house rules or any laws lend no difference to just regular house actions?

thx in advance

[StarfishSaver]

90. Impeachment is a process intended to censure and lead to the removal of a president

It is the only process that can do this. Therefore, it serves a specific unique purpose that is separate and distinct from (although related to) Congress' oversight responsibility.

So impeachment is very different than the oversight processes in many respects, it is NOT different from those other processes in terms of an impeachment panel's legal authority to compel documents and testimony.

[uponit7771]

91. Got it, sounds like impeachment investigation is just another investigation with a panel ...

... that doesn't have any more inherent power than any other panel.

My understanding was the impeachment panel were like a grand jury in finding out information

[StarfishSaver]

92. Yes

The extent of an impeachment committee's power is only as broad as Congress' inherent power. Congress can grant power to an impeachment panel the fullest extent of Congressional powers - it can also restrict its powers if it chooses. But Congress can't confer upon an impeachment committee - or any other committee - any power that Congress does not already have. Any power available to an impeachment committee is already available to any other House committee. And there are few, if any, independent, outside sources of expanded powers that can be exercised by a committee solely by virtue of the fact that it is looking into impeachment.

[uponit7771]

85. Doesn't impeachment give access to a different level of documentation and priority by the courts?

I'm not believing that impeachment affords congress nothing in the way of investigations etc ... if that's so then I'll acccept but no one is coming straight out and saying impeachment affords congress nothing ... those are the words I would need to read to believe there's no advantage of impeachment.

If impeachment does bring congress so extra authority than investigations that WILL NOT be worth anything because Moscow Mitch will stonewall them into oblivion, then ... yes... impeachment is worth it even with the chance that Moscow Mitch wont convict or remove him.

Day light in this case would be the best disinfectant

[Baltimike]

88. No, it doesn't. nt

[Baltimike]

36. The narrative is controlled by the conservative press

ever notice how they control every narrative? Because they OWN all of the media.

[Chin music]

42. But not the story, or the facts, Mike.

Rachel is 100% right. The hearings expose the facts. Without the facts, the media decides what we focus on. Sounds like you're giving up.

[uponit7771]

63. +1

[Chin music]

37. Maybe 'full stop' to you, but not to me.

'We don't choose to go to the moon and other things bc they're easy. We choose to do these things bc they are hard."
Fortune Teller posts cripple our endeavor, and kill our righteous soul as a party. It doesn't matter what will happen in the Senate. The law calls for impeachment. Izt's way past time. Let's go.

[Baltimike]

39. Moscow Mitch controls it once impeachment starts. PULL stop. nt

[Chin music]

44. You don't know everything. I choose to stick w Rachel Maddows analysis.

It's time to hold our noses, be brave, and do this bc our country needs us.
Maybe Mitch has a heart attack during the thing? How do we know the future? We don't. WE make our futures.

[treestar]

54. that was based on science

this is based on the idiocy and craven greed of Republican Senators.

[Chin music]

57. The point is the same though right? Sounds like folks are giving up around here.

To say it's disappointing, is an understatement.
What would Ted Kennedy do?

[uponit7771]

62. Not relevant to the goal, Full stop.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. How not? Trump-RepubliCON Senators. That's how not. . . . nt

[JoeOtterbein]

28. Cause our journalist are braver than our politicians. nt

[EffieBlack]

30. Certainly

Because it takes so much more courage to be paid millions of dollars to sit in a television studio talking about what other people should do than it does to actually have to figure out what to do and then do it.

[rzemanfl]

51. Great response. n/t

[JoeOtterbein]

60. Way wrong, most journalists do not make much money at all.

It's easy to be be politician when you don't have to do your job!

[Kurt V.]

61. this argument, being repeated over and over, ignores the dozens (probably

way more than that) of print journalists, academics, political and governmental experts that are never on tv but saying the same thing.

[treestar]

53. They can afford to be

They will keep their show if they have the ratings. Not the same as serving the constituents in such as way as to have them vote for you again.

[Mike Nelson]

31. I saw that and...

… thought, well, it's a great question and will be all over the news this morning - bombshell! But, it was a small blip, and nobody is really reacting much differently, today... often, that happens when I watch Rachel explain a bombshell breaking-news story - next day, it's a dud. She does ask good questions, though.

[Chin music]

32. Impeach. If for no other reason, bc if he thinks it won't happen, he'll only get worse.

I don't care what the Senate will or won't do. We aren't fortune tellers. Maybe THEIR dirt will come out too? If impeachment doesn't happen, life as we know it is over. Do your jobs Congress. Impeach. We are handing this cretin the next 4 years if not longer.

[zaj]

40. Because the entire GOP has abandoned Democracy

[ffr]

58. embracing fascism instead.

It's time to call them what they are.

[wiggs]

43. Why did the 'gang of eight' leave an FBI debriefing meeting 'ashen-faced' and stunned

early in presidency?

They were told things...what were they and why haven't we heard from them? Probably classified, but not even a reminder that the meeting happened? A reference to how much they knew back then?

If the info was in the Mueller report or out in the public since then, wouldn't one of them verify that's what they heard in 2017? Or was it stuff we haven't yet heard about?

How much do we still not know?

[wiggs]

47. links

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/19/mccabe-gang-of-eight-counterintelligence-investigation-trump-1173821

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/fbi-director-james-comey-meets-with-congress-gang-of-eight/index.html

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/324194-fbi-director-briefs-top-senators-on-russia

[Chin music]

55. One thing is for sure, we SURELY won't know it, if people like Rachel Maddow throw

Last edited Fri May 17, 2019, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)

in the towel. We are all just human beings. Imagine her having to go through all this every day? SO grateful for Ms Maddow.

[Initech]

64. Because he's being aided and abetted by a party that is currently drunk with power.

And they won't give it up easily.

[MFM008]

70. It comes down

To RM being as incredulous as many of us are
When SO many offenses are staring us in the face
And next to nothing is being done.

[StarfishSaver]

71. And many of us are incredulous that anyone paying attention actually believes "next to nothing is

being done."

What exactly do you think would be happening in an impeachment inquiry that's not occurring now through the oversight process?

(I've asked this question before and never get a good answer. Maybe you can come up with one.)

[coti]

75. The word "impeachment" would be getting used. That's what you're scared of, right? nt

[StarfishSaver]

76. I'm not scared of the word. I'm also not so mesmerized by it that I think it has magical powers

[MFM008]

77. Except

This "oversight" you speak of is being blocked
At every turn by Individual 1.
There is NO oversight being done.
There is your answer.

[EffieBlack]

79. Actually, it's not all being blocked

But please explain to us how impeachment proceedings will prevent Individual #1 from blocking anything he's currently withholding.

For example, please tell us exactly how impeachment will force:

- Mnuchin to turn over the tax records

- The White House to waive executive privilege and permit McGahn and Mueller to testify

- the White House to unredact the entire Mueller report

- the White House to allow Deutsche Bank to turn over Trump's financial records

[MFM008]

81. it wont

that's why the investigation is being blocked.
There is enough evidence laid out in P2 of the Mueller
report to START impeachment proceedings. (lets call it what it is).
Everything you mentioned is also Obstruction of justice.
They impeached Bill Clinton with dubious evidence.
Did Lewinsky testify?
Impeachment is the duty of the congress.
It is their JOB to find out how to do it.

[StarfishSaver]

82. If you believe that "no oversight is being done," you're not paying attention

[bdamomma]

78. I don't know

why they just go ahead and start. Impeachment takes a while, they better start before he goes off his head and passes marital law or the Insurrection Act

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-to-use-tremendous-powers-of-the-insurrection-act-to-combat-illegal-immigration


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act



whose to say he won't do this to American citizens??

[StarfishSaver]

87. How would starting impeachment proceedings - or even impeaching him - tomorrow

prevent him from passing martial law or the Insurrection Act or doing anything else he pleases?

[Vinca]

83. In other Steve Mnuchin news, did you hear about the Jeff Koons "sculpture" that sold recently

for about $90 million (81 plus buyer's premium, but who's counting)? Mnuchin's father bought it. I put sculpture in quotes because that's my closest guess to what you'd call a 3 foot object that looks like a kid's party balloon rabbit. Some people have way too much money.