Can I offer a sobering note on impeachment?

[louis c]

I have been on this board saying that impeachment proceedings are a bad idea. I am for continuing the investigation through the various committees in Congress and concentrate on the 2020 election.

However, my opinion is not set in stone, and neither should the "impeach now" crowd be set in stone. One of my concerns is that too many of my friends here at DU are assuming Bob Mueller will back us up if and when he testifies under oath. Well, I'm not so sure. I've read the report and it is incomprehensible to me that Donnie Jr. wasn't indicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States, violating Campaign Finance laws, obstruction of justice and lying to Congress. On top of that, he was not indicted because Mueller couldn't prove knowledge and intent of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, yet he never subpoenaed DJT Jr. I understand that the President of the Untied States can avoid a subpoena and challenge it up to the Supreme Court and can not be indicted under the 1973 finding of the OLC by virtue of his office, but that curtesy is not extended to his off-spring and their spouses. And, if as I suspect, Don Jr. would have pled the fifth to avoid testifying, that, alone would have spoken volumes.

So, I am not convinced that Mueller won't bend over backwards to appear evenhanded and fair to a flaw. Sometimes I feel as though Trump has used reverse psychology on Mueller. By insulting the special counsel, Mueller may want to make sure he appears as fair as possible to Trump and his family as to not be accused of bias. This is just a theory, but every close call in the report went to Trump and his Family and I can't figure out why.

I just don't want our candidates having their asses hanging out until and unless Mueller gives us the ammunition we need. I've been down this road before (remember "Merry Fitzmas"?).

Let's be a little cautious. If Mueller proves to be the hero we all hope he will be, there will be plenty of time to impeach, and I'll be on board. But until then, I like Kamala's strategy of waiting until we hear from Bob Mueller.

[rzemanfl]

1. I find myself wondering about "no admissible evidence" and fruit of the

forbidden tree. Was someone wearing a wire in the Trump Tower meeting?

[RockRaven]

10. I think "no admissible evidence" means hearsay more often than not.

In which case it is likely people (like Rick Gates or Hope Hicks) telling Mueller what Don Jr/Jared/Manafort said in their presence about that meeting. But Jr et al aren't going to offer those same statements to a prosecutor, they'll just invoke the 5th.

[rzemanfl]

13. Those folks would invoke their right not to incriminate themselves.

That would make what they told people who weren't there hearsay. I would be nice to know what people who were there and talked to Mueller had to say.

[KPN]

2. I'm not sure there's a huge difference between calling on Mueller to testify under oath before

one or more of the sitting House investigative committees, and starting the process of impeachment. I'm not sure that anyone would disagree with that order of proceeding.

Is anyone actually calling for a House vote on impeachment without any further investigation whatsoever? I'm not convinced anyone is.

My conclusion: you make a good case for impeachment.

[LakeArenal]

3. Sobering yes. But I agree

I think the Senate as it currently stands will support trump

Let the investigations keep them busy until we can vote them all out.

[FakeNoose]

4. Mueller believes the law prevents him from indicting a sitting president

He has the evidence, and he thinks Chump should be charged with crimes. The problem is Mueller can't do it now. It seems (to me) that Mueller has decided that the remedy is impeachment, but it's not in his authority to initiate it. Only the House of Representatives can begin impeachment proceedings.

If Chump isn't impeached, we can still vote him out of office and THEN the indictments will fly as soon as he is no longer in the White House.

[louis c]

5. Let him say that under oath, publicly.

I need to hear that from him.

[FakeNoose]

7. Agreed

I hope Mueller trashes Barr's reputation for good.

[Poiuyt]

35. It's not a law, just DOJ policy

[boston bean]

6. I agree. Anyone stating we have enough for impeachment right now with the Mueller Report

is talking shit.

We do not have enough.

We don't have the entire report.

We don't have grand jury testimony.

We could be inviting calamity until we know exactly what it is we have.

[barbtries]

20. if you don't consider this presidency

a calamity, i don't know what. caging people at the border, kissing ass to foreign adversaries, stealing public lands, emoluments, self dealing, lies, lies, and more lies. propaganda splitting the country in two. flouting the rule of law! we need to reclaim that.

[uponit7771]

25. We can start impeachment PROCEEDINGS and get those artifacts, there's no thing to stop

... impeachment proceedings just because of what we don't have.

Impeachment allows Americans to start investigations with the judiciary commitee as prosecutors and not depending on external prosecutors to bring up charges.

[boston bean]

26. Isn't it best to know first?

[uponit7771]

27. We can know ... DURING ... proceedings, I don't know why the answer can't be "both" impeach and

... get MORE evidence and if they're stonewalled put the people stonewalling in jail.

Right now we have ... ENOUGH ... evidence to impeach Red Don right now.

Even beyond the Mueller report.

Politically Clinton impeachment hurt democrats its a RWTP at this point to claim otherwise relative to the facts.

I don't know why any democrat at this time are considering ... NOT ... impeaching Trump seeing the "impeachment managers" become those of the judiciary and they're given prosecutor abilities and one of the reasons why people don't just screw around with impeachment proceedings.

[boston bean]

37. And what if it isn't what we need to get the job done? or is somehow bad for us?

[uponit7771]

42. We get the job done by spreading the light, I don't see how that can be bad for any political party

... seeing after Clinton's impeachment democrats win control of either congressional houses and lost the 2000 election in part running away from Clinton.

[better]

32. You're still incorrectly conflating not knowing everything with not knowing enough.

We don't know everything about everything Mueller investigated, or about things he didn't even consider. We do know enough for impeachment right now, though. We have, as I understand it, a very compelling roadmap for proving each of the three elements of Obstruction of Justice, for each of 10 different instances. That, in and of itself, is enough to not only merit, but to demand impeachment. What we need to consider much more carefully is that we have a political imperative for impeachment, by sheer virtue of the Constitution very explicitly saying so. This remains true regardless of whether or not pursuing impeachment aligns with partisan imperatives. We should not equate political and partisan carelessly, because they do not always align.

You are falling into exactly the trap Republicans want to lead us with justifications for delay like "we don't have the grand jury testimony". What we need to understand is that an authorized impeachment inquiry is what permits grand jury information to be released to Congress, in that the authorized impeachment inquiry itself is the judicial proceeding preliminarily to or in connection with which the Rule 6e exceptions permit disclosure.

We need to stop and pay close attention to this and understand the significance of the word "judicial". Regular hearings in House are not judicial proceedings, and thus they do not qualify for disclosure under Rule 6e exceptions. Hearings that are part of an authorized impeachment inquiry, on the other hand, ARE judicial proceedings, and not insignificantly, ones which the Congress is explicitly empowered to convene by the Constitution.

Barr himself has already quite clearly indicated that he will only release grand jury materials in the context of impeachment, and this is why.

[Nevermypresident]

33. Exactly!

[abqtommy]

9. I appreciate your summary.

[rzemanfl]

14. Gotta wash socks. BBL. n/

[dchill]

11. No one could have imagined that impeachment...

could be so complicated.

[harumph]

15. If the democratic leadership doesn't start impeachment proceedings -

they will be accused (and not unjustifiably so) of standing for nothing. Through hearings, evidence of
wrongdoing on the part of Trump will then filter out to people who
aren't as politically tuned in as most are here at DU and who would never actually read the
report. Kamala can take these bastards apart.

[Karadeniz]

17. Several pundits have said that it's common practice to not interview people whose lawyers

have informed the authorities that their clients will plead the fifth. So, asking someone who's read the report, did Mueller report who didn't cooperate with this as the reason?

[BlueWI]

18. Didn't you just call supporting impeachment a Custer strategy?

At least that's done.

Time for more debate and deliberation as to whether we stand up for the rule of law. There's always time, right?

[louis c]

22. You know, I stopped using that term because...

...it will definitely be purposely misinterpreted as an insult to one of our candidates and I will be alerted on.

But, it is an extremely risky strategy unless and until Mueller supports his findings publicly. Can you imagine if we file impeachment motions and then in the hearings Mueller backs off?

To quote the Godfather movie, "I don't want my brother coming out... with just his dick in his hand."

[barbtries]

19. since day one,

every day, trump commits impeachable acts. we know this from the public record; we know this from the Mueller Report, redacted as it is. i believe Mueller is begging congress to act. full disclosure; I've been for impeachment since forever anyway.

I expect Mueller will be circumspect in his testimony. That is not a reason to forego impeachment.

[stopdiggin]

21. Does Mueller actually deliver?

Do we know for sure that Mueller is going to offer the kind of support that a lot of people are assuming? If/when called to testify, is this guy going to offer a full throated endorsement for impeachment? It seems a lot of people are (prematurely) putting their eggs in that basket, and I have to admit I'm exceedingly skeptical. Given what we have seen thus far, I think we could expect Mueller testimony that is frustratingly opaque .. and riding "down-the-middleism" to the very last breath. The idea that questioning will elicit either opinion or recommendation is really unlikely. For one thing, the guy's a lawyer! Second thing, Mueller deliberately kicked this down the road to the playing field he thought it should be in. Now that it's in their court ... The idea that this career lawyer is gong to pick a side and be drawn into a political scrum at this point ... I'm just not seeing it.

In short .. Democrats that think that R.Mueller is going to ride in on a white horse, and deliver them the keys to the kingdom .. are being very credulous at best. I may be pleasantly surprised, but ... I think we need to wait and see.

[lark]

29. Mueller is not our friend, he is a loyal REPUG soldier and followed orders.

His was not some quest (as I hoped) to stop the creeping dictatorship drumpf and PUtin are endeavoring to install, he was an employee of a corrupt justice dept. and followed their orders to the T. Which meant totally ignoring the treachery from the presidents' kids and even Cheetolini himself nd excusing the plain conspiracy with Russia by saying they were too stupid. This is probably the biggest disappointment of my life. Yes, he showed many of drumpfs criminal activities, but hid others and didn't explore the treason in plain sight. Mueller failed America by excusing treason and our democracy is now measurably weaker as a result. Once a relieved Roberts gets the Executive Order to break the constitution approved, we will be well down the path to a dictatorship. He's now been shown that treason and criminality are ok and will have little reason to hurt his standing with the party to back the constitution and stop the illegal Emergency Order when no other repug cares one bit.

[better]

34. We don't need Mueller to offer a full-throated endorsement for impeachment.

Mueller will uphold his obligation to provide truthful sworn testimony, and provided we ask the correct, simple fact-based questions, that will give us what we need. For example:

As a matter of law, does X plus Y plus Z equal obstruction of justice?

We do not need his opinion on whether or not the president should be impeached.
We only need clarification that conduct establishing the facts such as he laid out in his report constitute obstruction.

He has already laid out 10 times that the president did X, Y and Z.

All we really need to do is separate the question of whether specific conduct constitutes obstruction, by legal definition, from whether the president can be charged with or found to have committed obstruction, by the DoJ. We know both that he cannot, and that that is completely irrelevant to whether or not he can be impeached for it.

[watoos]

23. C'mon people, Mueller can't deliver because he already did,

He won't be able to deliver a smoking gun when called to testify because the grand jury information where all of the good stuff is is redacted. Mueller won't talk about the grand jury stuff. The only way we get the grand jury stuff is through impeachment and time is growing short. Barr won't give it up via subpoena, he will fight it to the SC.

Time is growing short to impeach and get that grand jury testimony because elections are fast approaching.

[solara]

24. I have a question

Isn't it possible that Mueller handed off an indictment of jr? No one knows for sure whose names are on the indictments that were sent to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York

Just wondering

[better]

30. No, it is not, at least by my understanding.

Mueller didn't hand off indictments, from what I understand. He handed off investigations, and it is at the discretion of the prosecutors to whom he handed off those investigations to seek indictments based on their findings.

[solara]

40. Ahh, ok thanks n/t

[DinahMoeHum]

28. Meanwhile, we should do everything to DESTROY the GOP. . .

. . .in the 2019 and 2020 elections.

Just sayin'.

[PeeJ52]

31. I don't understand this fear of the "don't impeach" crowd of those that want to impeach...

I get the feeling like you think we want to run up to the White House today, drag tRump out by the collar and down to the Capitol and put him on trial immediately. Calm down... It's going to take time. I'm expecting we're going to have to hear from Mueller. We're going to have to hear from Don Jr.. We're going to have to hear from Jared. We're going to have to hear about tRump's taxes. We're going to have to let all the committees do their work. There are many crimes and misdemeanors that need to be uncovered and more thoroughly laid out for presentation. Calm down...

[better]

36. Well I , for one, am not arguing against any of that.

I am merely stating the impeachment proceedings are the correct and appropriate vehicle by which to undertake those investigations, for the dual reasons that the Constitution says so and that they afford us more power to forcibly get at and expose the truth than any hearings outside of impeachment proceedings ever will.

We can argue for starting impeachment proceedings now without in any way advocating drafting articles of impeachment and voting on them any time soon. We need to stop mistaking the beginning of an impeachment inquiry for the culmination of conducting one.

[PeeJ52]

38. I get what you're saying, I just don't want to peak too soon...

Would hate for the Republicans to force our hands and end the hearings before the evidence was thoroughly gathered and prepared.

[better]

39. Well then please, let's both raise our voices in support of sensible action.

I'm not worried about our hands being forced. Quite simply, they can't force our hands any more than we could force theirs during the ridiculous Benghazi inquisition. We control the House, and the Senate doesn't get a say on impeachment until we say so. The key thing is that we need to educate the voters on our side as to that fact, and making the case for starting an impeachment inquiry now (or very soon), separate and apart from any notion that said inquiry will result in a vote anytime soon, and quite possibly not even before the election.

They can't vote on articles of impeachment before they exist.
We won't draft articles of impeachment until the investigations are done.
The investigations that are part of an impeachment inquiry will be done WHEN WE SAY SO.

Understand those three things, and the case against starting an inquiry withers and dies.

[PeeJ52]

41. I agree... and quit stating that it's off the table. That crap makes me as mad as impeach now!!!

This is only the beginning. There is a ton of work to do.

[Byte606]

43. Somebody should ask Putin his reaction to impeachment

Putin is running this administration.

He kicked Mueller's ass.

Putin is Trump's 2020 campaign manager.

I wonder what Putin thinks about impeachment?

Would it help his 2020 Trump campaign?

[pecosbob]

44. Can I remind anyone that there is no such thing as immediate impeachment?

Does anyone actually think it could be done before the next election? Any impeachment would require a year or more of hearings before a determination is reached to refer the case to the Senate. The GOP controlled Senate would not be able to intervene in any way unless a call for impeachment is eventually delivered to them by the House. This give the Dems carte blanche to investigate anyone or anything they wish to investigate for the next eighteen months and McTurtle can't do shit about it.

After eighteen months or so of exposing GOP criminality to the American people running up to the election, a referral for impeachment can be made prior to the election and the GOP members in the Senate that refuse to impeach made to pay for their votes in the impending election, or the attempt could be shelved or abandoned if impeachment proves unreachable. It's vastly more important to address the criminal enterprise that is the GOP than to impeach Trump.