So per a Washington Post article tonight, the error in the Buzzfeed story was something fairly central within it: the idea that Trump personally ordered/asked/requested Cohen to lie to Congress.
What likely did happen is that Cohen shared his testimony and discussed it with Trump and Trump lawyers, with a sort of unspoken understanding that the testimony was going to be untruthful, and the White House was aware of that fact. Which is shady as hell…but probably not illegal.
All right, well, there’s another new law we’d better get on the books now that we know we need it. Trump is excellent at exposing all the weaknesses in our system.
How is it not a conspiracy to commit a crime?
Conspiracy is agreement to commit a crime (plus taking a step in furtherance of the crime).
Simply knowing that someone will commit a crime is not conspiracy. Nor is there typically a duty to inform the police or prevent the crime.
So for instance if I told you that I was going to rob a bank and you said and did nothing, that’s not conspiracy.
It very well could be, but it probably relies on interpretations of vagueness that will make it very difficult to prove regarding intent.
Cohan is testifying before Congress in 2 weeks. Just ask him then if Trump insstructed him to lie about a crime he’s pleaded guilty to. That wouldn’t impede Mueller’s investigation would it?
This seems a plausible way to reconcile the Buzzfeed reporting and Mueller’s statement:
It’s a pretty big difference. That conversation is not a smoking gun and not even close to impeachable.
Which is a shame. Knowingly letting your lackeys explicitly lie on your behalf, with your full knowledge and implicit approval (just so long as you don’t tell them to do it out loud and make it explicit) and getting away with it is… horrible.
“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” does not mean criminal acts. It’s a phrase adopted directly from English common law, and it’s very broad. From Wikipedia:
Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery.[5] Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
Any number of Trump’s actions could fit.
So we just need Trump to lose a ship by neglecting to moor it and we can impeach!
Sorry, but Congress can impeach a President for anything or for nothing at all. Knowingly assenting to efforts to mislead Congress certainly qualifies.
He’s clearly stating that there is no way you would get enough votes to impeach a president on that basis, and he’s right.
Yes, this. Let’s move past the “congress can impeach the President for anything” phase, ok? We all know that technicality. But it’s totally meaningless, because they won’t. Even a fully Democratic congress wouldn’t impeach a President for anything less than a major crime with rock-solid evidence. Can you imagine convincing America that Trump simply listening to Cohen tell him that he’s going to give misleading testimony is impeachable? Never going to happen.
It’s going to take more than this.
That was not at all clear, thanks.
They won’t no matter what Mueller finds. I think that’s obvious, and it’s why I misunderstood your comment.
Yeah, I don’t see the Rs doing anything to Trump. It would take a significant shift in the polls where the Rs see Trump’s ardent supporters abandoning him for them to do anything.
Is there any reason why Dems should not call for impeachment?
Yes. If you impeach, but do not convict, you might make his re-election more likely. That is the political calculus Pelosi and Schumer are considering. You may disagree, but realize they have more information than any of us.
Alternatively stated, if you come at the king, you best not miss.
Gotcha. Thanks.