Joy Reid: Shouldn't white people be offended that Trump thinks they're so racist that

the only way for him to win is to be racist?

Excellent question.

I'm really glad to see so many white people on Democratic Underground holler about Trump's racism. We need more of that. This isn't something that should be left to people of color to draw attention to. The more white people who say loudly, "Awww HELL no!" the more likely we are to overcome this man's toxic hate.

I hope you're not just venting online (although that helps, too), but are also a screaming to the rooftops against this in real life, in your communities, to your friends, families, neighbors and co-workers.

We have a racist in the White House. And if anyone who's still supporting him is likely a racist, too. And if they're not, they shouldn't be offended if they're mistaken for one because, at this point, it's impossible to tell them apart.

Do you ever say, "WTF white people"?

Democrat Bashers Last Week vs. This Week

Last Week: Who CARES if there aren't enough votes to pass a resolution to open an impeachment inquiry? You can't not do the right thing just because a majority doesn't want to! Do it ANYWAY!

This Week: So what they started an impeachment inquiry? They didn't get a House resolution authorizing it which means it's not OFFICIAL, so it doesn't count!

Last Week: Nadler is dying to start an impeachment inquiry but he won't/can't do it without Pelosi's permission and she won't let him.

This Week: Yay! Nadler's a hero. He singlehandedly started an impeachment inquiry. But we can't give Pelosi any credit because she didn't have anything to do it. And she STILL doesn't want to impeach

House Judiciary says it's "Investigating Whether To Recommend Articles of Impeachment"

It's official.

Beginning on p. 26

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A485d6f81-74d7-4fc4-a33b-b472d636e03b

Yet Chuck Todd is still babbling that Pelosi is refusing to move forward and is trying to "run out the clock."

Has John Heilemann backed off his claim that impeachment is dead?

Sheesh!

Y'all do realize what happened today, right? And can we give Speaker Pelosi some props for it?

Nadler and the other Judiciary Committee Members made clear that they have opened an impeachment inquiry that could lead to Articles of Impeachment against Trump.

And this has been managed brilliantly.

As many have pointed out, if a vote were taken today on the House floor on whether to open an impeachment inquiry, it would fail and fail badly. Pelosi and Nadler have very skillfully and expertly worked around that possibility. And this didn't just start today.

A month and a half ago, Nadler announced a series of hearings he promised would pursue “targeted legislative, oversight and constitutional remedies designed to respond to these matters.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/nadler-plans-mueller-report-hearings-starting-with-john-dean

In his announcement, Nadler very specifically stated that the hearings wouldn't be limited to legislative and oversight purposes, but also are targeted toward "constitutional remedies." The only constitutional remedy available to the House to respond to the behavior described in the Mueller Report is impeachment.

This language was very intentional. Among other things, it positioned the Committee to request grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)'s provision that allows a court to release grand jury materials in connection with a proceeding "preliminarily to" an impeachment inquiry.

Today, the Committee announced not only that it is indeed conducting an impeachment inquiry, Nadler and the others said that this inquiry didn't start today, but has been going on for some time - but this is the first time they have come out and said it.

So we are now exactly where many people have been demanding we be. The House is conducting a full-blown impeachment inquiry. They are about to get a court order compelling Don McGahn to testify or face jail and fines. They are in court seeking the grand jury materials.

And they pulled this off without a House vote that would have gone down in defeat. This was a brilliant move by Pelosi to move the inquiry forward while protecting the more vulnerable and conservative members of her caucus from having to vote for one.

Nicely done, Madame Speaker and Chairman Nadler.

Make no mistake about it. Impeachment is in play, y'all.

Anyone thinking Pelosi and Nadler aren't strategizing this carefully and together should consider

they have been laying he groundwork for today's activity for nearly two months - and probably much longer than that:

Looks like Pelosi and chairs are maneuvering to give committees standing to access grand jury info prior to opening a formal impeachment inquiry.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212159168
June 3, 2019

Today, when the House Judiciary Committee announced hearings on the Mueller Report, Chairman Nadler promised the hearings would pursue “targeted legislative, oversight and constitutional remedies designed to respond to these matters.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/nadler-plans-mueller-report-hearings-starting-with-john-dean

This language is very interesting.

As has been discussed a lot on this board, grand jury proceedings are closely guarded and cannot be disclosed except in very specific circumstances set forth in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Among them, Rule 6E provides for limited exceptions to the secrecy rules that gives courts discretion (but does not require them) to allow the release of grand jury material "preliminarily to or in connection with judicial proceedings." The federal courts have held that impeachment inquiries fall within the definition of "judicial proceedings," so an impeachment panel has standing, under the rule, to request grand jury materials; although the rule doesn't guarantee an impeachment panel access and it does not completely prohibit other types of investigations (such as oversight) from getting such materials, an impeachment inquiry is in a stronger position to obtain them than is a regular oversight panel.

However, less often discussed is Rule 6E's "preliminarily to" language, which also permits a court to release documents to a non-impeachment inquiry, if that inquiry is "preliminarily to" an impeachment inquiry.

Chairman Nadler's statement, in this context, is very revealing. He very specifically stated that the hearings announced today aren't limited to legislative and oversight purposes, but also are targeted toward "constitutional remedies." The only constitutional remedy available to the House to respond to the behavior described in the Mueller Report is impeachment, so he signalled today that impeachment is one of the remedies these hearings are intended to pursue.

This language isn't accidental. I think it clearly indicates that Nadler is laying the groundwork for characterizing the hearings as preliminary to impeachment, therefore, putting them squarely within the exception set forth in 6E - meaning the committee will have legal standing to request and obtain access to the grand jury materials, even without the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry. Legal standing doesn't mean that they're entitled to them or will automatically get them but means that they have the legal right to ask for them and for the court to provide them, if it so chooses.

I wouldn't be surprised if, as other committees' investigations move forward, they, too, will be framed using the same language, thereby giving them standing to also request and obtain grand jury materials for their purposes prior to the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry.

I hope I'm right. If so, nicely played Madame Speaker and Chairman Nadler!

Judiciary Committee petitions Court for grand jury material

Jennifer Rubin nails it - and us

Jeffries: We didn't invite Robert DeNiro to testify. We invited Robert Mueller. And he delivered

Many people here seem to think other people need to convince other people to support impeachment

That's the basis of much of the consternation about Mueller's testimony and other hearings - that they need to be presented a certain way so that OTHER people will understand Trump's criminality, rise up and demand his impeachment.

The people making these arguments certainly don't need to be convinced. They feel they already know everything they need to know about Trump, the Mueller Report, etc. But it's OTHER people who need to be educated and convinced. But that education and persuasion must be done by Pelosi or the House Democrats or Mueller. And when they think they aren't doing it right, they blame them.

Example - last month, when the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing featuring Joyce Vance, John Dean and Barbara McQuade, some people here complained up and down - why these witnesses? Who is John Dean, anyway? Why didn't cable air it live instead of the midtown Manhattan helicopter crash. There was handwringing all over this board. But the anger had nothing to do with people feeling like they weren't getting the information they needed - they felt they already had all the information they needed. They were upset because they were sure that if only the hearing had better witnesses and was shown live in the middle of the day, "other people" would watch them and be persuaded to change their minds about impeachment.

The same thing is happening regarding opening an impeachment inquiry. Some people here truly believe that if an inquiry is opened right now, not only will witnesses and documents suddenly flow forth freely, those witnesses and documents will so rivet the general public that they will lead a groundswell of support for impeachment.

And today, many of these same people are furious because they believe that Robert Mueller didn't do a good enough job explaining his report to "other people."

It all seems to be about what "other people" will think and do.

Which leads to the question - what are YOU doing to persuade those "other people"? First, have you actually read the Mueller Report? If you haven't, I suggest you stop reading this post and go read the report. It's long but it's well written and very digestible. If you just read 30 pages a day - which should take about as long as reading and writing numerous posts on DU - you can finish it in less than two weeks.

If you have already read it, are you talking to friends and family about it? What else are you doing to help "other people" understand it? even if you communicated with 5 people a week about the report, that would be huge.

But relying on other people to convince other people just isn't useful, in my opinion, especially if you think those other people are doing such a horrendous job of educating other people. If you think that other people need to be educated, you should do your part to get them educated.