Politico: "Pelosi rebuffs Nadler on impeachment after Mueller flop"

[Laura PourMeADrink]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/pelosi-nadler-rebuff-impeachment-mueller-hearing-1432925

By JOHN BRESNAHAN, HEATHER CAYGLE and KYLE CHENEY 07/24/2019 08:08 PM EDT
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler pushed to launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump during a closed-door meeting Wednesday, only to be rebuffed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to four sources familiar with the discussions.

At a caucus meeting following the hotly anticipated testimony of special counsel Robert Mueller, Nadler suggested that several House committee chairs could begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump. Pelosi called the idea premature, said the sources.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler pushed to launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump during a closed-door meeting Wednesday, only to be rebuffed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to four sources familiar with the discussions.

At a caucus meeting following the hotly anticipated testimony of special counsel Robert Mueller, Nadler suggested that several House committee chairs could begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump. Pelosi called the idea premature, said the sources.

Mueller's appearance was a disappointment to many Democrats, as the former FBI director stumbled at times, even seeming unsure of the contents of his 448-page report on Russian election interference and Trump's efforts to obstruct the investigation.

More at link

[CentralMass]

1. Well she is getting good at stamping out all of those wildfires that are popping up.

[FirstLight]

2. Will someone please tell me

Why she's so adamant about This?

For Christs sake, where is the fucking rule of law...

[myohmy2]

3. +1

...

[Cary]

27. Will someone please tell me why alleged Democrats insist on bashing Democrats?

It is getting really old.

[Vinnie From Indy]

51. And you are the arbiter of what constitutes "bashing"?

Please share.

[Cary]

84. What if I am?

[FirstLight]

79. Not bashing...just frustration on my part.

I love Nancy, BUt I also want the House and not just Dems to take some fucking real action.

Though I also understand that Mueller and testimony etc is all part of getting it ON RECORD

[Cary]

85. Yes, and it is not a reality show.

[Nuggets]

7. Because the Senate is controlled by

Republicans will not convict Trump.
It truly is baffling how many on here don’t understand this. Both Schiff and Pelosi say it’s not time.
It’s been posted on this site probably a few hundred times.

What I would like to know is, why is this so difficult for some to understand ? How else can it be explained to help people understand?

[standingtall]

9. How can it be explained to you that we know the senate will not convict Trump

and we don't care. The house should have the courage to impeach him regardless of the senate.

[Nuggets]

10. So you support Trump getting away with all this and you want to help?

Great.

It takes more courage to stand up to those foolishly pushing for impeachment when they have all been informed that:

1 Schiff doesn’t see impeachment as an option at this time, and said they refuse to play politics and be pushed into such a bad move.

2 Pelosi says impeachment not an option at this time.

3 Both say they are following the best plan possible for a conviction of Trump.

4 Impeachment proceedings at this time ensures Trump gets away with his crimes. Exactly how does that equate to doing the right thing?

[standingtall]

11. Not impeaching Trump is letting him get away with his crimes.

Losing an election is not a substitute for justice. Neither Pelosi or Schiff have anything to do with convicting Trump and it highly unlikely he will ever be indicted on criminal charges anyway. Btw impeachment is not a criminal trial and therefore is not subject to double jeopardy Trump could still be indicted after he is impeached, but like I said he will likely never be indicted anyway.

[Nuggets]

12. Thus it is impeachment which is the political move because

you think it’s unlikely Trump will be convicted, yet impeachment definitely leads to no convictions.

Once the Senate acquits it’s a done deal.


Dems don’t need to start impeachment proceedings to get information or serve subpoenas.

If people refuse to vote Dems because they stubbornly refuse to stop pushing for Trump to go free-by pressing for impeachment, they will get the president they deserve and those who led the fight against Dems now will be responsible. Not that they’ll accept it as is usually the case.

[standingtall]

13. Impeachment is a form of political justice

and the only kind of justice we can reasonably get. We can either impeach Trump and hold the senate accountable for clearing a crook or we could impeach Trump and not refer it to the senate. Either way Trump would go down as an impeached president in the history books.

[SunSeeker]

14. THIS

[Nuggets]

15. Pelosi and Schiff and the committees working on this disagree.

So no it is simply a feel good political move. And an unwise one. It doesn’t get any justice.

Not to mention starting a political move like that now is too early for the election and will work against us.

How long do you think it would be before Republicans and their MSM start screaming about how this is being dragged out and looks like a political stunt?

[standingtall]

16. Ever occur to you maybe Pelosi and Schiff aren't always right?

and there are people on committees that agree with me. My position is not a fringe position by a long shot.

[Nuggets]

17. Sure

But they are privy to info you aren’t thus I trust them more than emotional commenters on an Internet site.

Has it ever occurred to you that you and anyone pushing for impeachment are wrong?

How was the right thing to simply let him go without trying to convict?


Has it ever occurred to you that pushing for impeachment right now sounds like a right wing talking point as it would set Trump free?

[standingtall]

19. because we have no control over a criminal conviction

if we are talking about a senate conviction then we are talking out both sides of our mouth. First we say we shouldn't impeach Trump, because the senate will never convict and then turnaround and say we need more time to convince senate republicans who are committed to defending a criminal to change their minds. Never going to happen not in a million years.

[Nuggets]

21. And then there's this:

Yes, You Can Indict the President

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/opinion/indict-president-trial.html


One of the perplexing questions of constitutional law is what to do about a sitting president who is suspected of having committed a crime. This much is clear: A sitting president should not be required to submit to a criminal trial, an undertaking that would be incompatible with the duties of the nation’s chief executive.

That should not, however, preclude a grand jury from indicting a president when the facts and the law warrant, even if the trial itself has to be postponed until he or she is no longer in office.

An indictment in this context serves a critically important purpose: Without it, the usual five-year statute of limitations for most federal crimes would elapse, forever precluding a president from being held accountable for potentially serious crimes. Thus, a president should be indictable unless he agrees to waive any future defense that the statute of limitations expired during the president’s term.

There is nothing in the constitutional text or judicial precedent that provides for a categorical bar to the indictment of a sitting president. The closest the Supreme Court has come to addressing the question was in Clinton v. Jones in 1997, in which the issue was whether a president could delay until the end of his term a civil suit by a private individual. I argued Clinton v. Jones for the United States, urging the court to hold that a civil trial would unduly impair a president’s ability to carry out his duties. The court unanimously rejected that position.
In Clinton v. Jones the entire court agreed that the fact that a federal court’s exercising of its constitutional power to hear a case “may significantly burden the time and attention of the chief executive is not sufficient to establish a violation of the Constitution.” Mere indictment of a president would not meet the stringent standard in Clinton v. Jones for presidential immunity from ordinary legal processes.

An indictment would, of course, place a cloud over a presidency, even if all further proceedings were postponed. But in many such instances there will already be a cloud over the Oval Office. And a president has a uniquely powerful platform for publicly responding to charges.

No one should be above the law. Barring indictment could even provide a powerful incentive for presidents to seek a second term to insure that the time for all possible criminal charges elapsed while they were in office.

>snip<

Whether indicting a sitting president would facilitate or inhibit the pursuit of justice is a question calling not just for logic but for wisdom and judgment as well. The exercise of that judgment, however, should not be inhibited by an assumption that indictment is categorically barred by the Constitution.

In any event, before a prosecutor declines to indict a president, he should seek an agreement that the president will not subsequently seek to bar prosecution based on deadlines that expired while he was in office. The White House should not be a sanctuary from justice.




——-Walter Dellinger was an assistant attorney general and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice from 1993 to 1996 and was acting solicitor general from 1996 to 1997.

[standingtall]

23. True nothing in the constution barring a sitting President from being indicted,but guess

who will get to decide rather a sitting President can indicted? The republican supreme court. Would be up to a state prosecutor to challenge the DOJ on this anyway not congress. Federal prosecutors couldn't bring this case, because they are bound by DOJ policy. Congress can impeach and if some state prosecutor wants to challenge rather a sitting President can be indicted there is nothing stopping them.

[ehrnst]

50. This AG has the discretion as to whether or not the DOJ will indict. He will not.

Congress can impeach and if some state prosecutor wants to challenge rather a sitting President can be indicted there is nothing stopping them.

To what end? It won't remove him, and will force Democratic Senators from red states to choose between voting with Democrats or keeping their seat. See also: Heidi Heitkamp. See also Dem congresspersons in swing districts.

A costs benefits analysis is important.

We need to take back the senate and keep congress if we are to even have a chance to undo his damage.

I'll take that over impeachment that will not shorten his time in office by a single minute.

[standingtall]

52. There is zero chance of taking back the senate without impeaching Trump

If we are going to take back the senate than the base needs to stay fired up and we will not do that if we refuse to impeach Trump. A Presidential election is exactly the time when red state senators can afford to vote to impeach Trump, because Democratic turnout is always higher during Presidential election years.

[renate]

78. This should be its own OP

[ehrnst]

26. +1000. (nt)

[ehrnst]

49. False dillema AND attacking a straw man.

False dillema:

When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices.

Example: You can disagree with Pelosi and Schiff on this issue/ OR you think Pelosi and Schiff are INFALLIBLE.

Attacking a straw man:

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

Example:

- Pelosi and Schiff, along with their commitees, feel this is the right thing to do.

- You think Pelosi and Schiff are infallible and my opinion is a fringe one, shared by no other Democratic leader in congress!


However, did it ever occur to you that Pelosi, Schiff and their commitees might know more than you do about this, have a great deal more experience and skill? Or more than the others who publicly state that they disagree with them.

They weren't given those jobs by lottery - they earned those positions.

[standingtall]

53. Jerry Nadler and Maxine Waters

were not given their jobs by lottery either.

[ehrnst]

66. So?

I was addressing your false dillema that anyone who agrees with Pelosi on this issue = thinking she's 'infallible.'

When you resort to logical fallacies to make your point, maybe your point needs to be re-examined.

But in any case, Nadler and Waters voted her to be their leader in fighting Trump.

[ehrnst]

48. So why don't we impeach Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh ASAP as well?

If it's the only "kind of justice we can get."

Because doing that right now would create much, much bigger problems. Do you understand why that is?

Do you now also understand that timing can be the difference between gettting justice and handing the GOP a long term victory?

[standingtall]

60. According to this logic we should've never fought Kavanaughs nomination

because there was no chance of stopping it Republicans thought his appointment would demoralize our base for the 2018 midterms it didn't. If anything it fired up the base even more. Good things happen when we fight for our base. Same thing with impeachment.

[ehrnst]

62. That's a big straw man you're attacking there.

There were those on DU who said that Democrats should just boycott his confirmation hearings out of protest.

I thought that was batshit crazy, and rather self absorbed, as well as ignorant of the Constitution. So clearly, you're very wrong about my point.

You see, there was a SCOTUS confirmation hearing, and Senators have the responsibility to question the candidate. Confirmation hearings are public job interviews. Unless of course, the Senate Leader refuses to allow hearings. The SCOTUS confirmation hearings that go forward are a constintutional requirement forSenate to participation... unlike impeachment proceedings. We don't just let the GOP have hearings without us being there.. That's just plain stupid, and there is nothing whatsoever to be gained by not being there.

Still with me?

If Democrats weren't there, the GOP would have taken all of five minutes to vote him in. There would have been no opportunity to hear Christine Blasey Ford under oath, in front of the nation, describe what many women went through, and display the rank cruelty and misogyny of the GOP Senators. The Senate will simply vote on impeachment after deliberating in private. The point of public Senate confirmation hearings is to thoroughly hash out qualifications and pitfalls of someone who will be in office for the rest of their life.


Still with me?

Kavanaugh was not a known entity - Trump is. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony served other positive purposes than to make a case about Kavanaugh's fitness for office. It gave women in the US a clear picture of who is on their side - Democrats. And while Kavanaugh was popular with Trump supporters, there were GOP senators - mostly female - who publicly considered voting against his confirmation. And there were many judges and law professors who came forward to oppose his nomination with petitions and letters to editors.

They learned their lesson about dissent, however, when the backlash did come.

Still with me?

There were definite gains and positive outcomes to be made by cross examining Kavanaugh - and nothing whatsoever for Senate Democrats to lose by doing so. There was everything to lose by Democrats "boycotting" the hearings.

You are under the impression that there is nothing for Democrats to lose with impeachment. As I've shown you, that is not the case.

If it was the GOP deciding to have hearings to exonerate POTUS, then hell, yes, we participate. But that's not what impeachment is.

Is that clearer?

[standingtall]

63. There is no evidence that impeaching Trump will hurt us politically

and no you haven't shown that it would you've only stated an opinion.

[ehrnst]

65. Proving a negative fallacy....

I guess you didn't see what happened to Heidi Heitkamp after the Kavanaugh hearings. That's a point in my favor.

You don't want to see any evidence, so you think it doesn't exist. You bat it away with Straw men fallacies.

And you are still evading my question about why we shouldn't just impeach Thomas and Kavanaugh asap, if impeachment is the one tool for "political justice."



Speaker Pelosi knows way, way more about this than either you or I do. Decades of experience and the confidence of her peers to lead them against Trump.

That's a fact.

Why should I give your opinion more weight than Pelosi 's far more expert one? She's the one that Nadler and Waters voted to be their leader.

[standingtall]

70. You have evidence that Heidi would've won if it were not for Kavanaugh?

I doubt it.


And you are still evading my question about why we shouldn't just impeach Thomas and Kavanaugh asap, if impeachment is the one tool for "political justice." False equivalence

[ehrnst]

80. Still avoiding the question....

Because it makes a point that doesn't support your opinion. Yes?

And still demanding evidence from others that you can't even produce. I debunked your theory that impeachment was the only reason that those POTUS's party lost the WH the following election, didn't I?

And you continue to resort to proving a negative fallacy, when you are out of actual arguments to defend your opinion as having the weight of fact.

[katmondoo]

77. also Mitch McConnell

[ehrnst]

25. Impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. It's a political one. It will do zero about his crimes.

[standingtall]

55. I never said impeachment was a political proceeding you must be confusing me with someone else

it is however a form of political punishment which is why it needs to happen.

[ehrnst]

56. "letting him get away with his crimes."

That was you, yes?

I never stated that you said it was a 'political proceeding....'

Are you confused about what you wrote? What I wrote?

I assume you meant to type that you "never said that it was a 'criminal' process," rather than what you wrote.




You referenced that impeachment would somehow address or stop him 'getting away with crimes"... and I pointed out that it would not, because it's not a judicial process... it can't even remove him from office, let alone stop him from doing anything in office... The Senate is the one who would remove him after impeachment is done, and they're not even brave enough to call his tweets racist.

Is that clearer?

[standingtall]

58. Not impeaching Trump is letting him get away with crimes

again impeachment is a form of political punishment. An indictment of Trump is not going to happen and indictment while he is still in office is pure fantasy. A measure of political justice by impeaching him is the only kind of judge we can realistically get.

[ehrnst]

59. How does it 'stop' him?

And if impeachment is the solution to any injustice, why have we not impeached Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh already?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12315481

What does "political justice" mean? That you got to see hearings? That which makes you feel personally validated no matter how inconsequential it is to actual justice or harmful to our chances to take back the Senate?

What kind of 'political justice' will be available to us if we don't get the Senate?

[standingtall]

61. it is a form of political justice the founders of our country and the krafters of our constitution

did not intend impeachment of a President to be solely for removal that is why founders such as George Mason thought corrupt Presidents should be impeached even if the President would not be removed by it. You think Clinton enjoys having impeachment on his record? Neither will Trump it will drive him crazy and therefore yes a punishment. As far as the senate goes I said earlier not impeaching Trump will do far more damage to our chances of taking the senate than impeaching him will.

[ehrnst]

67. So again... why aren't you demanding the impeachment of Thomas and Kavanaugh ASAP

if impeachment only leads to positive outcomes?

it will drive him crazy and therefore yes a punishment.

Or he does what he's done in the past and lash out when he feels cornered, perhaps a military strike to deflect. Who the fuck cares what he thinks once he's out of office - he will ALWAYS say that he was the "winner!" and so will his fans, no matter what the facts are. FFS, he doesn't care what the facts are - he's unstable. Who cares what he thinks when he's out of office? He's a paranoid unstable asshole, and impeachment will be just a blip to him and his supporters.

Trump will do far more damage to our chances of taking the senate than impeaching him will.

You haven't given any evidence whatsoever that's the case. That's just your opinion. (See what I did there?)

Why should I give your opinion more weight than Speaker Pelosi, who has far more experience and was selected by our leadership to lead them? Please explain that without more logical fallacies, please.

[standingtall]

69. why are you deflicting

Fact no impeached Presidents party has ever won the following Presidential election therefore there is more evidence that impeaching a President does more damage to the party of the impeached than the opposite.



"Why should I give your opinion more weight than Speaker Pelosi, who has far more experience and was selected by our leadership to lead them? Please explain that without more logical fallacies, please."

If I have to be the speaker of the house for my opinion to have any value. Then why are we ever bothering having a discussion?

[ehrnst]

72. Still avoiding telling me if you support impeaching Kavanaugh and Thomas ASAP?

I can see why.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that a party is statistically unlikely to hold the WH for more than 2 consecutive terms.

All of the POTUS's who were impeached were in a party that was in it's second term in the WH.

If I have to be the speaker of the house for my opinion to have any value. Then why are we ever bothering having a discussion?

And bingo - we have a repeat of the combo attacking a straw man/false dillema fallacy Can I call 'em or what?

Is it so hard to just admit that you just want to believe what you believe, and it's based on feelings about something? Can you just own that it's an opinion?

Straw man - "If you disagree with my opinion, You're saying my opinion has NO VALUE!"

False Dillema - You say that my opinion on impeachment in this situation is equally informed or relevant to the Speaker of the House/ you are simply dismissing anything I say because I am not Speaker, not because of what I'm saying."

You see, there is a difference between an expert opinion, and the opinion of someone who is not an expert. If I want an opinion on why my shoulder hurts, I go to a doctor, not a neighbor who is a math teacher. That doesn't mean that my neighbor's opinion has NO VALUE, but if my neighbor and my doctor disagree about my shoulder - especially if that doctor is considered by their peers to be the best doctor around, Imma go with the doctor. .

Wouldn't you? I really hope so.

And before you attack that straw man - that is NOT the same as saying that doctors are infallible. Just better qualified than those who are not doctors to diagnose my shoulder.... If my neighbor was to start whining that trusting the highly respected doctor's opinion more than their opinion was insulting to them, then I'd have to wonder what their personal issues with the medical profession were.

You got upset when I pointed out that yours is not an expert opinion, and Speaker Pelosi has far more tools and experience than anyone - including those in congress. That's why she's speaker - I didn't endow her with false expertise in my imagination in order to rationalize my opinion about impeachment. I looked to this person, who happens to be Speaker because of her expertise, in order to form my opinion on impeachment.

I don't trust her because she was elected Speaker - she was elected Speaker for the same reason I trust her judgement - because she's an expert on political matters and congressional procedure and she delivers the goods.

[Autumn]

54. He's declaring victory this morning. Nancy needs to stop giving him ammunition to use

against our house members who are doing their jobs. .

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

68. FFS, he does that whatever she says or doesn't say...

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2019, 07:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Since when do we let Trump's tweet decide what Speaker Pelosi does or says? I don't recall people accusing Obama of 'giving the GOP ammunition" when he wore a tan suit, or put his feet up on the desk.

Are you also going to complain about AOC "giving him ammunition" whenever the RWers go after her on social media for something she said? Somehow I doubt that...

The GOP targets Dems who are doing the most damage to them. They always have. It's sad when Democrats get duped into joining in and do their job for them.

I think those Democrats are forgeting who the real enemy is. Do we really want a repeat of 2016?

[AncientGeezer]

75. It's likely math..she can count votes...

[Dan]

5. Wondering,

why did the people give her the majority in the House, if she is afraid of the power that goes with it?

Hasn't she figured out what Trump will say:

No impeachment = Trump, if they had anything they would have impeached me and they didn't do it.

Impeachment = Trump, no removal by GOP Senate will confirm that he did nothing wrong.

It doesn't matter, he is going to attack the Democrats, regardless. God help us all, if he is re-elected and the House swings back to the GOP.

[FirstLight]

8. Right?

So what if it doesn't pass the senate...it is still their responsibility to uphold the Constitution...

Ffs, just do your fucking jobs!!!

[Grasswire2]

6. There is some rumbling on twitter about what a GREAT speaker Adam Schiff would be....

[Sunsky]

20. I said this yesterday to my husband

but then he echoed her talking points. I was an avid Pelosi supporter but I now believe it was a mistake to choose her as speaker.
This moving the goalposts scheme isn't working for me. It is weak and ineffective.

[Skittles]

24. I have thought that for a long time

[MrsCoffee]

30. So he supports impeachment at this time?

Didn’t think so.

[ehrnst]

41. If his fellow Dems in the House think so, and he's interested, they'll select him.

Pelosi keeps on getting chosen, though, so it appears that they think she's a better Speaker than anyone.

But he is a man, so there's that.

[StarfishSaver]

71. I wonder, then, how the "Schiff for Speaker" brigade will react to this:

Schiff downplays impeachment

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212315857

[Hugin]

18. Not sure premature equals rebuff, but, politico needs their clicks.

[klook]

34. Exactly. Exiting rabbit hole. (nt)

[SouthernProgressive]

28. Reality.

They are going to begin narrowing down and outlining the articles they want to run with. Subpoenas will be issued for people who won’t show. Articles will come to the house floor and the inquiry will start.

Politico and other outlets will be trying to drive a wedge between us for no other reason than their profits. Some will oblige.

Recognize those who get worked up over such a questionable article that contains so little.

[DonaldsRump]

29. Nothing major is going happen until after Labor Day, IMHO

This gives a bit of time for the judicial process on subpoenas, contempt action etc to progress. Plus everyone in DC gets their well-deserved summer break.

Remember that both the Nixon and Clinton (joke) impeachments took just a few months. There is plenty of time left (assuming the Speaker really does want to keep all options open. I think she does.)

I do think the House should move towards impeachment and not worry about the Senate. The dirt that will come out will be stunning to right-thinking Americans, which is the clear majority of people in this country.

All total speculation on my part, so...

[DeminPennswoods]

33. Agree

And Politico's a rag founded by a rw conservative, Jim VanderHei, and Mike Allen, a journalist with a very checkered career.

[DonaldsRump]

36. Just to add, the Nixon case is far more relevant

There were similar issues with Nixon and Trump. With Nixon, both the Special Prosecutors and Congress were trying to get a hold of Nixon's tapes. It took SCOTUS's July 24, 1974 decision in US v. Nixon, where SCOTUS unanimously ordered Nixon to turn his tapes over to the Special Prosecutor. This caused one tape's transcript (the "Smoking Gun" tape of June 23, 1972) to be released by Nixon about 2 weeks later and Nixon resigned a few days after that.

In other words, just like now, it's critical for the court cases to progress as much, and as quickly as possible. I think the D has the much stronger hand, as Trump and his minions' flat refusal to give required information to Congress will cut the heart out of our form of government. It basically means Congress has no powers of oversight, and I cannot believe the federal courts will allow this.

If it does.....well, just wow.

[former9thward]

47. The Nixon case is not really relevant.

In the Nixon case there were relevant documents investigators did not have. As you stated the case went to the SC. There are no contested documents here. No one, Mueller or anyone else, has said Trump has withheld documents. All of what Mueller requested were turned over. As far as testimony everyone subpoenaed by House committees testified to Mueller's investigators. Anyone who thinks congress can get facts that Mueller's investigators couldn't is living in a fantasy world.

Finally, when Nixon's impeachment hearings were occurring in a year when he was not going to be on the ballot. The closer to 2020 we get the more political it will seem to voters because Trump will be on the ballot. It will seem a purely political stunt. That is why the Speaker is not going forward.

[DonaldsRump]

81. Beg to differ.

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2019, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

It's highly relevant.

First of all, the House or committees thereof are seeking the Mueller grand jury materials that have not been turned over, putting aside Trump's tax returns. I believe that's under judicial review. Second, baseless assertions of privilege like Trump's keeping Don McGahn and others such as Hope Hicks from testifying are or will be going to the courts. It was Nixon's generalized assertion of executive privilege that was the heart of US v. Nixon, much like it is here. Nixon effectively said "I decide what I turn over", and SCOTUS unanimously said "wrong!" Directly on point to Trump.

In addition, one of the three articles of impeachment approved by the HJC against Nixon was as follows:

Article III alleged in part that Nixon:

failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas.

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

Moreover, Robert Mueller very clearly said in the afternoon session yesterday that Trump was not forthcoming in his responses. In addition, he made a veiled reference to documents that were destroyed and not provided, saying something like "you can't know what you don't know."

Finally, Mueller is not the HJC's investigator. The House will conduct its own investigation. Failing to produce documents alone was impeachable in 1974, and I don't think it's any different now. It goes right to the heart of the US Constitution.

There's no stunt here. Robert Mueller did what he did yesterday because he couldn't do anymore. He clearly did not want to talk about impeachment, as it's not his business to impeach. He bent over backwards to avoid using the word, and it's clear why. It is solely a political question for the House. The Speaker seems clear to me that she's not ruling anything out, but needs more information and the court process to move forward before the House takes this on. That is exactly the right approach.

To me, it is unthinkable for the House to fail to pursue this. The issues are mind-boggling, and failing to provide documents alone (including Trump's tax returns) might very well be an impeachable offense standing alone (although I doubt they would ever impeach only on this; instead, it would be one of several articles). Failing to provide documents required by the House or its committees would gut our tripartite system of checks and balances, so this is a major issue by itself.

Russia is a whole other ball of wax.

There are NUMEROUS analogies to Nixon. The one thing I will concede is that this makes Watergate look like nothing.

[DeminPennswoods]

83. Well said, thank you

There are many, many similaries to Watergate.

[former9thward]

86. You are basically saying the House investigators can find more than Mueller.

Not my view.

[DonaldsRump]

88. Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

There are several documents that are from the grand jury that the House hasn't seen. That's the stream of document requests to the DOJ. There are many other streams ongoing (e.g., subpoena for Trump's federal taxes).

Mueller was clear as he could be that the OLC opinion about not indicting a sitting President was why he didn't make a charge against a sitting US President. His walk-back from Ted Lieu's question had to do with charging Trump with a crime. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/mueller-testimony-ted-lieu-donald-trump-cnntv/index.html.

Again, Mueller is not an investigator for the House, and it is not his job to wade into an impeachment inquiry by making a criminal charge against a President (and, as the HJC found in 1974, it does NOT have to be a criminal offense. Abuse of power, one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon, is not a crime).

Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski's transmittal of the Watergate grand jury material to the HJC was made in a totally non-accusatory manner. It just stated the facts based on the investigation, as Jaworski did not want to be involved in the impeachment inquiry, which is the solely the province of the House. Mueller acted exactly like Jaworski, but did something Jaworski didn't do: testify before Congress.

I posted Jaworski's transmittal to the HJC in another post. Read that and compare it with Mueller's report. Mueller's report is stunning in how far he went compared to the Special Prosecutor in 1974.

There is a significant amount of documentation and oral testimony (e.g, McGahn, Hope Hicks, etc etc) that the House does not have. Trump is making blanket assertions of privilege (executive, legal, etc), without a basis, to withhold documents and testimony. It is the Judiciary alone that will make that determination as to whether the House will get it. In my view, they will; if they don't, Congress is no longer a co-equal branch. That cannot happen.

Remember that in 1974, the HJC was essentially the last investigative body to get Nixon's tapes. It was because of the Special Prosecutor's transmittal of evidence (which has been blocked by the DoJ) and the SCOTUS opinion in US v. Nixon that the HJC eventually got them, leading to Nixon's resignation just a few days later.

It all depends now on the courts. If they compel Trump to provide the document AND he complies, Trump is sunk. It's imperative for the House to fight in the courts, and it is imperative that the courts rule in the House's favor. Otherwise, we have no Constitution and no functioning federal government anymore.

As Gerald Ford said before becoming Vice-President and then President, an impeachable offense is what a majority of the House says it is. That's not reviewable by any court or the Executive Branch or the Senate. Of course, the Senate has its own obligation to decide on the impeachment conviction, once it receives it.

[DonaldsRump]

89. It occurred to me that there's a good reason why impeachment has not yet started

During the oral arguments in US v. Nixon, Nixon's counsel Jim St. Clair kept making the argument that if Nixon was compelled by the courts to turn over his tapes, the courts would be dragged into the impeachment inquiry. The Special Prosecutor's case against Nixon before SCOTUS solely related to his need for the tapes for the criminal trials of Nixon's henchmen like Haldeman and Ehrlichman, but NOT against Nixon. At that stage (and ultimately never, because of Nixon's being pardoned), the Special Prosecutor had no criminal case pending against Nixon, who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator under seal.

That could be the reason that the House has not started an impeachment inquiry against Trump: the courts would say that compelling Nixon to turn over his tapes was a "non-justiciable political question", since impeachment is solely a political and legislative function of the House where the judiciary has no standing. If that's the case, it's pretty wise of the D's not to start impeachment, as it gives Trump the ability to make this argument.

Rather, the House's best argument is to make its case as a matter of law that it has the right to see the documents that it has subpoenaed and that it has nothing to do with impeachment. If the courts find against the House, Congress is no longer co-equal to the Executive Branch. That is a winning argument in my view. By contrast, requiring production of the documents/testimony while a pending impeachment inquiry is ongoing gives Trump the ability to greatly muddy the waters and allow the courts to back away from compelling him to produce.

Just a thought.

[MFGsunny]

92. FWIW, I've had the same thought.

Seems to me that only about releasing grand jury testimony, might there be greater legal import if an impeachment inquiry/process is underway.

I will have to leave it to constitutional scholars!

[former9thward]

90. You didn't listen to the beginning of the afternoon session.

Mueller retracted his morning statement about the OLC ruling. He said that was not the reason for a lack of indictment. The House has not seen the grand jury material but Mueller did.

[DonaldsRump]

94. Thank you for letting me know about what I did yesterday!

I most certainly did listen to the beginning of the afternoon session, as well as all of that session plus the morning. Mueller clearly answered the question in the morning, but walked it back in the afternoon.

In fact, I put a link in my post that you just responded to from CNN that addresses this very point, which is the reason I put in to begin with. It doesn't seem to be working, but just google "Ted Lieu walkback" and it should be one of the first stories. If you can't get it, here's the title of the article: "Ted Lieu: Mueller walked back obstruction answer to avoid calling Trump 'a felon'".

Here's another link from NBC that gets to the same thing: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/did-mueller-mean-trump-could-be-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901.

Clearly, Robert Mueller said the OLC opinion was key in his mind. He clarified his answer in the afternoon because taken literally, he would have admitted that Trump was indictable for a crime, which is something that he believed he couldn't do under the OLC opinion.

I was as taken aback as anyone when Mueller "walked back", but I think was a walkback in the most technical terms. Barr probably flooded Mueller's phone with angry texts.

[stonecutter357]

31. Impeachment is not going to happen !

[Farmer-Rick]

32. Characterizing the Mueller hearing as a 'flop' is a right wing talking point

It's funny how Politico, rated center Left(?), so often follows the GOP memes and publish the RepubliCON spin.

[StarfishSaver]

35. This story is bullshit

First of all, it's highly unlikely any committee chairs asked for Pelosi's go-ahead to draft articles of impeachment at this point because, among other things, the chairs know that articles of impeachment are prepared and voted on after and based on hearings and other impeachment inquiries, not before. And even if the committees wanted to quietly begin preparing draft articles for some reason, they have every right and ability to do so and don't need the Speaker's permission. Their staffs would just start working on them for internal discussion purposes. That's not something the Speaker would have any say over, unless and until it was time to mark them up for a vote in committee, which, as I said, wouldn't occur until after impeachment inquiry is completed.

Moreover If Pelosi really wanted to "rebuff" anyone on impeachment, we wouldn't be hearing about impeachment because she'd have shut it down. We wouldn't have heard from Mueller in two committees. yesterday. There'd be no subpoenas. Nadler wouldn't be going to court to get grand jury materials. She wouldn't be sending her Members out to their districts with Mueller Report Cliff Notes, talking points, messaging strategy and media plan.

On the one hand Pelosi is supposedly so powerful, she can singlehandedly block an impeachment inquiry and could, if only she wanted, force 100+ Members to support it against to their will, but on the other hand, she is completely powerless to stop Members of her Caucus from loudly calling for impeachment, holding hearings, going to court, introducing impeachment bills, etc.

[DeminPennswoods]

37. Yesterday when committee members were interviewed on

MSNBC, several of them said there were a "few more steps" before impeachment. None of them said that with an air of exasperation, though. It was said with what I sensed as the attitude of inevitability that impeachment would begin sooner rather than later.

Also there was a recent thread here that reported Pelosi has had all the significant points of SCO report boiled down in a 6 page memo and distributed to her caucus members for them to take home for use in meetings with constituents. And that Dems have developed a social media campaign to support it. I'd guess that's why Pelosi met with AOC a few days ago, not to "dress her down", but to get her advice on how to use social media more effectively.

Then there is the 2 year budget and debt ceiling deal. That eliminates any potential hostage taking. Yes, there will still be battles of some of the individual appropriation and authorization bills, but that's normal.
The deck now is cleared for impeachment to take center stage.

[StarfishSaver]

40. Thank you

Nice to see that someone's paying attention to what's actually happening and not listening to the likes of John Heileman who claimed that "unnamed" Democrats told him impeachment is "dead" as of yesterday.

It doesn't look dead to me.

But I love how these pundits spin their "sources." I wonder how many unnamed Democrats Heilmean spoke with? Two, three, five? I doubt he spoke with many more than that considering he spent most of his day sitting in the MSNBC studio either on camera or waiting to go on camera. But even if he talked to 10 unnamed Democrats, that's fewer than 5% of the Caucus, so how are his pronouncements dispositive of anything?

[DeminPennswoods]

42. When Heilman appears, he always got his phone or laptop

set up in front of him and is constantly checking it. He must get a ton of texts. Who Heilman probably heard from were Dems who are strategists or pollsters or other ancillary people. He's got a lot of contacts from his show "The Circus", which, by the name tells us a lot.

I like Heilman and I think his reads are generally pretty good, but he was caught on Deadline:WH saying Dems didn't ask a question he wanted answered, then after a break had to correct himself after being told Dems did indeed ask it. He wasn't having a good day.

[StarfishSaver]

44. I should have been clearer. He said he spoke to unnamed Democratic Members

But I sincerely doubt that a significant number of Members of Congress told him yesterday telling him that impeachment was dead.

[DeminPennswoods]

45. My $s on Heilman exaggerating

nt

[bluestarone]

39. I have to absolutely agree with this

There is a plan i'm sure. I'm willing to give it all time for the plan to come forward. I want impeachment inquires to start but the DEMS. know best as to HOW and WHEN.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

38. The Senate will acquit Trump from all impeachment charges. Then it's completely over.

Are you guys ready for that?

[DeminPennswoods]

43. Once hearings start, it is completely unpredictable what

will happen. That's basically what Elizabeth Holtzman said last night on one of the MSNBC shows. She said they had no idea how the Watergate Hearings would turn out, they just started. FTR, if you watch the tapes of both the Senate Select Cmte and Judiciary Cmte Watergate hearings, the Republicans defended Nixon then just like they are doing now. When the final vote came on articles of impeachment, only 4 Rs voted yea on them, and only 1 (Hogan) voted yea on all 4 articles.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

46. Nah. Republicans have shown they'll protect Trump no matter what.

It's mostly because he feeds their racist sensibilities.

They will never forsake him.

[DeminPennswoods]

82. Nixon was no different, his "southern strategy"

divided the country just like now. The only difference was Nixon used dog whistles while Trump uses a bullhorn. Howard Baker played the role of Devin Nunes as WH mole on the senate Watergate Committee, keeping the WH informed of all that was happening.

The Rs didn't turn against Nixon until the very end, after the smoking gun tape was made public.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

87. Richard Nixon was nowhere near as savvy as Trump regarding conning people.

[DeminPennswoods]

91. Nixon was plenty savvy and his chief of staff, Haldeman,

had been an executive at J Walter Thompson Ad Agency. Nixon was a far smarter campaign tactician and politician than Trump could ever hope to be in 10 lifetimes.

Furthermore, Trump isn't "conning" anyone. He is just a vessel for the grievance politics of his supporters.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

93. Yeah, I'm totally disagreeing with that.

Trump may be a total idiot on almost everything but he's a master con man.

Hell, he had to develop that skill since he can't outsmart people on an even playing field. Nixon was actually very intelligent.

[Blue_Tires]

57. Mueller didn't "flop"

[Kid Berwyn]

64. Politico was started by Bush Crime Family chum.

Robert Allbriton did many nice things for conservative causes, big time.

[emulatorloo]

73. are you aware Politico is funded by right-wingers? Anything you read there should be taken

with a huge Boulder of salt.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

74. FFS, people haven't even digested the Mueller testimony yet!

Give it a few days, at least, for word to spread and the M$M to get chided by REAL journalists about the idiotic spin.

[awesomerwb1]

76. Politico

Meh