he is saying that the President's actions have to be reviewed by SOMEONE. If not typical procedure, must be congress.

he is saying that becoming president cant be a get out of jail free card, there has to be some process of review. He goes into saying that 5th amendment ONLY deals with criminal proceedings (not covered by impeachment).

So if he cant go through criminal route, he also cant claim the 5th.

Not a lawyer who can address your question, but this has been my prediction for Trump: "Trump has to know all of this, at least if he has decent counsel. Trump may therefore conclude, as Spiro Agnew did before him, he has 1 card left to play: resign and plea to avoid jail time. END"

I got most of that.

My question fixates on the the review. By why does someone have to review it? It seems to me that if the current make up of the House stayed that way for the next term, we might never see it reviewed.

His analysis seems to be devoid the reality of our current political tribes and the desire for those in currently the House criticize, let alone to review, the actions of the President.

---

Suffer Well.

Congress could turn a blind eye, but based on prior rulings it makes no sense to at least make it so congress has to turn the blind eye.

Our system forces people to be accountable in some way. Without being able to be indicted, you have to answer to congress. Congress could most certainly classify the entire report, and then never really provide oversight. But it is vastly different than just saying "welp, nothing we can do. President is king"

Thanks. I think that clarifies it a bit more.

It will be telling if the Mueller report sees the light of day. Making some assumptions of its content based upon the indictments, etc thus far, it would difficult to turn a blind eye should it be available for the public.

But then again, one only has to listen to folks like Orrin Hatch "I don't care, all I can say is he's doing a good job as president," to see how situational ethics and politics affect common sense and good judgment.

---

Suffer Well.

I dont know if the impeachment proceedings have to be public. I think the way things start is that the judicial committee in the house (like 50 people) meet in conference to see if there should be a vote on impeachment.

In Nixon, they had the majority to move forward out of conference. Then he resign before the vote actually happened. The reason he resigned was mostly because he didnt think he had the votes to withstand. Nixon stayed in office until he knew he didnt have the votes (both the GOP leaders told him so).

During the impeachment, I think they televised the first part. Then went in closed session for the rest. Then the judicial televised their conclusion.

So to some degree. If trump stepped down now, everyone was pardoned. I really dont know if it would ever be public.

Seems plausible, but there are many members of Congress on both sides that have said they will press hard for the contents of Mueller's report to be made public. Under the scenario above where the contents remain concealed, after resigning Trump would still claim it was a witchhunt and blahs blah blah, and his base would still think it was a giant conspiracy against him. So the Dems will fight really hard to avoid that scenario.

I have always said I think Trump will resign for a no jail plea deal, or a pardon, and not for conspiracy with the Russians (although that is still very much on the table), but for financial irregularities.

If trump resigns because of fears of impeachment the gop has much more to fear.

That’s why the gop would want it to be public. You can’t impeach without both parties.