The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump

Lemme just ask the room: what would happen to you if you were caught having sex with a subordinate at your place of work, during working hours? What would the people paying you for your time do to you? 'Cause we've had mandatory training here about the consequences of such things, and I know of two incidents where people were fired.

Interesting angle, but very hard to see how it is to be applied to a leading political position. For one thing, there are explicitly absolutely no working hours, nor a clear distinction of functionality according to which room or building you're in. So you're left with consensual sex with a subordinate, period. Not good, but I have seen it happen without secrecy and without consequences.

But let's also apply the same angle to the current President. Here, his claim is that his employers are not allowed to ask whether he is committing crimes against them, and that his subordinates should lie of management asks them. How would employers usually react to that kind of behaviour?

Not a damn thing if I were the CEO.

Oh, don't think I have any regard for the current asshole-in-chief.

If you were CEO over the guy that got caught, or if you were the CEO who got caught?

And that's not what Trump did. At. All.

McGhan is, or was, White House Counsel, and as such he can be covered from testifying. He provides legal advice to the president and he can't do that properly if he's constantly got Congress demanding to know what he said to the President. His advice in such a situation would be tainted by the knowledge that he would have to divulge such discussions. In this case the client isn't Trump but the office of the President itself.

Now Trump is still probably going to lose on this issue because he gave McGhan clearance to talk to Mueller but Trump asserting that the White House Counsel not talk to Congress is a valid thing that all Presidents would do.

Executive privilege also applies to a presidents top aides. Congress can't just call these people up anytime it wants to find out what was said to the President or what the President said without a court fight. POTUS would be unable to function in such a scenario and as such POTUS has the right to say no and Congress has the right to say, "okay see you in court" on whatever the issue is.

And contrary to what the news is saying McGhan has not yet been told to not to testify to Congress. The White House is still deciding on that. They may block everything or they may allow him to speak on certain issues. Once they make a decision than of course the Democrats will take it to court.

I don't see how Trump can win on this issue given that McGhan testified to Mueller for over 30 hours but perhaps the White House is going to direct McGhan to only talk about his testimony to Mueller and not to go beyond that if the Democrats start asking questions outside of what McGhan testified to Mueller.

Yeah no.

Are you the majority shareholder and can prevent yourself from being fired?

If not you probably are getting fired. Especially if lawsuits come up.

CEO’s are not untouchable.

Where I work, they fired the guy who reported it, not the managers who were doing it.

Well either that guy was bullshitting or you work for a crap company.

You're fine with not enforcing the law in Sanctuary cities. Why stop there.

As to the topic, if you have hard evidence . Present it. If not, end this ridiculous charade.

Every President for the past twenty years has had members of the opposition party screaming for impeachment and you guys wonder why the public is so blase about it?

Seriously? The name Mueller rings no bells for you?

What part of Federalism do you need help understanding?

You had the same Civics teacher Federal Farmer does, huh?

What part of the supremacy clause do you not understand?

There is a reason your complete lack of reasoning ability almost caused you to fail the Praxis.

The CEO who got caught.

"And I think calling him that is an insult to the gangster and bully community."

Not bullshit. Half the management in the division is pushing retirement age, so they’re just running the clock out, the other half literally rode the same bus to school together and got hired at the company when they graduated from high school.

I had a boss once who was clearly fucking his Admin in the motel next door during long lunches, and literally got a contractor rep fired because she wouldn't fuck him. Yet a couple rocking their custom van in the parking lot on their own time got fired. Ain't no justice.

Yes, it rang and the sound was "no collusion."

And no obstruction.

I don't want him impeached. I want him to continue to have meltdowns - the more public, the better - until he makes Nixon look like a paragon of self-control. I want him to keep firing people until he's the last man standing.

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The report concludes that Trump did not commit a crime. Therefore since one is innocent until proven guilty the report DID exonerate Trump.

The only part of that sentence you quoted that matters is the one I put in bold.

That you're falling for the gobbledygook in the rest of the sentence is your problem.

Yeah we've been through this.

When a special prosecutor has been granted unlimited resources and time, and spent years of his life consumed with a single purpose, and that purpose culminates in a 400 page prosecutorial report that says "we can't prosecute" - then it's pretty much game over for most of the country (excluding Maddow's million).

The only thing new we learned is Trump has a sketchy character and really hated what he knew was a fraudulent investigation; oh wait, not really new, was it?, he was saying the same thing practically every day on twitter, and he was already kind of dodgy when he won the election.

If Mueller had actually found evidence of a crime he wouldn't write this: "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

He would write this: "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intents show that while there was no conspiracy between the President and/or his staff and Russia he conclusively obstructed justice as shown in section two of this report. Under current Department of Justice regulations we can not charge the president with a crime."

Mueller would not, if there was evidence of a crime, say the report does not conclude that the President committed a crime. He would say the President did commit a crime but he, Mueller, can not charge the President for the crime because of DOJ regulations.

No, it really wasn't.

No, not at all.