Mueller turns up the heat on impeachment

[Town Heretic]

Yeah. About which roughly a third of the country doesn't care. 5th. Ave. and all.

Leave it to Stephen King to put it in the fewest words:

"Trump asked the Russians to help him get elected. They did. Now he owes them."

Seems about right.

 

[ok doser]

Good post!

Good post!

 

[Town Heretic]

This one's so good I'll probably have to return to it every so often. Until I'm sure I've gotten it out of my system. I may even start posting these in my thread and elsewhere, if you don't mind.

From the excellent Connie Schultz:

So, No Oscar for Mueller?

Minutes after Robert Mueller III had completed his first round of Wednesday's congressional testimony, journalists and pundits started weighing in — on his acting abilities.

Mueller was "boring" and "phlegmatic."

His performance was "a disaster," "painful" and "deeply unsatisfying."

Some compared his testimony to the bombastic pathology of Donald Trump — and even the conversational theatrics of former FBI Director James Comey — and found him wanting.

Mueller had expressed not one partisan viewpoint. He refused to be political. He even stumbled at times, failing to remember every reference in the 448 pages of his published report.

In this time of crisis in our country, with the most dangerous president in the United States history, they wanted former special counsel Robert Mueller to be entertaining.

Look at what we've become.

Better yet, look at what Mueller did say during his seven hours of testimony.

Let's start with the Judiciary Committee, and Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler's questioning:

NADLER: "Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?"
MUELLER: "Correct, that is not what it said."
NADLER, after reading an excerpt of Mueller's report: "Does that say there was no obstruction?"
MUELLER: "No."
NADLER: "Did you actually totally exonerate the president?
MUELLER: "No."

Next time you hear Donald Trump bray that Mueller exonerated him, and we all know that he will, please remember that boring exchange.
On to the Intelligence Committee hearing, and an exchange with Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier.

SPEIER: "Would you agree that it was not a hoax that the Russians were engaged in trying to impact our election?"
MUELLER: "Absolutely. That was not a hoax."

Republican Rep. Will Hurd of Texas pressed Mueller about Russia's future intentions.

HURD: "In your investigation, did you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election? Or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again?"
MUELLER: "It wasn't a single attempt," he said. "They're doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign."

Democratic Rep. Peter D. Welch asked Mueller about future foreign interference with our elections.

WELCH: "I ask if you share my concern... Have we established a new normal from this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns? So that if any one of us running for the U.S. house, any candidate for the U.S. senate, any candidate for the presidency of the United States, aware that if a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report it to the FBI or other authorities?"
MUELLER: "I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is."
WELCH continued his questioning: "And that there would be no repercussions whatsoever to Russia if they did this again, and as you stated earlier, as we sit here, they're doing it now. Is that correct?"
MUELLER: "You're absolutely right."

Finally, try to stay awake for this exchange with Democratic Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff about the Trump campaign's partnership with Russia.

SCHIFF: "Apart from the Russians trying to help Trump win ... Donald Trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in Moscow?"
MUELLER: "You're talking about the hotel in Moscow? Yes."
SCHIFF: "When your investigation looked into these matters, numerous Trump associates lied to your team, the grand jury and to Congress?"
MUELLER: "A number of people we interviewed in our investigation, it turns out did lie."
SCHIFF: "When the president said the Russian interference was a 'hoax,' that was false, wasn't it?
MUELLER: "True."
SCHIFF: "In short, your investigation found evidence that Russia wanted to help Trump win the election, right?"
MUELLER: "That would be accurate."
SCHIFF: "Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?"
MUELLER: "You're talking about the computer crimes charged in our case? Absolutely."
SCHIFF: "Trump campaign officials built their messaging strategy around those stolen documents?"
MUELLER: "Generally, that's true."
SCHIFF: "And then they lied to cover it up?"
MUELLER: "Generally, that's true."

This was one of Donald Trump's tweets after Mueller's testimony: "NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION!"

If any of word of this strikes us as boring, we have our own question to answer: When did we give up on America?

 

[Town Heretic]

We should expect the impeachment in days then, right?

No. That takes political backbone. You aren't going to find that in the actual leadership of the Democratic Party these days.

They'll use it during the election cycle, but they won't bring charges. First, because they know the Republican controlled Senate won't really go after Trump, so the effort would be symbolic. Second, because they understand the president's base lives for the sense of persecution. Heck, they felt it with both houses of Congress, the Court, and the White House in their back pocket. Having lost the House it's amazing they can even drag themselves into work every day, as exhausted as they must be from howling. So all that would do is give the hard right a cross to bear publicly.

The Dems are right about all of that, but they should move forward anyway, simply because it's the right thing to do.

That alone tells you it won't happen.

Party politics rarely manages to see (let alone do) that.

 

[ok doser]

Eric Swalwell: Mueller 'Gave Us Everything We Need' To Impeach Donald Trump Right Now
"We must stop this lawless president from tearing down our democracy," the former Democratic 2020 candidate wrote in an op-ed for NBC News.
By Lee Moran
07/26/2019 06:35 AM ET

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) argues in a new op-ed for NBC News that Congress must launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump “immediately.”

The former Democratic presidential candidate, who dropped out of the 2020 race earlier this month, wrote in the opinion article published Friday morning that former special counsel Robert Mueller’s congressional testimony this week has “left us with no other rational course of action.”

“Doing so isn’t about partisan advantage in 2020; it’s not even about Trump,” Swalwell wrote in the piece, titled “It’s time for Trump’s impeachment. Mueller’s report gave us everything we need.”

“Impeaching him is about protecting America,” he added

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eric-swalwell-impeach-donald-trump-now_n_5d3ac87ae4b0c31569e97d73

"It's time for trump's impeachment" :darwinsm:

 

[annabenedetti]

You know how you know when you're bothering the other side?

They got nothin. I know it, they know it.

 

[annabenedetti]

No. That takes political backbone. You aren't going to find that in the actual leadership of the Democratic Party these days.

They'll use it during the election cycle, but they won't bring charges. First, because they know the Republican controlled Senate won't really go after Trump, so the effort would be symbolic. Second, because they understand the president's base lives for the sense of persecution. Heck, they felt it with both houses of Congress, the Court, and the White House in their back pocket. Having lost the House it's amazing they can even drag themselves into work every day, as exhausted as they must be from howling. So all that would do is give the hard right a cross to bear publicly.

The Dems are right about all of that, but they should move forward anyway, simply because it's the right thing to do.

That alone tells you it won't happen.

Party politics rarely manages to see (let alone do) that.

There's a lot at play right now, some Dems are disappointed in Pelosi, they want impeachment yesterday, some say she knows what she's doing, we need to let it play out. I think we should've already begun the hearings. For the public record, for history, for justice, for the good of the country and all it stands for.

Because right now, too many on the right are fine with Putin pulling Trump's strings, sowing division, hacking elections.

 

[annabenedetti]

Hmmm.....

Manu Raju‏Verified account @mkrajuFollowFollow @mkraju

Nadler announces that their new suit to get grand jury info from Mueller probe argues they need the info to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment. I asked him if there could be a point where he calls for impeachment without Pelosi’s support, and he sidestepped it

Verified account

Language from the suit makes clear that impeachment under consideration. “Articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of the Committee’s investigation, although no final determination has been made.”

Verified account


More: “The Committee seeks key documentary evidence and intends to conduct hearings with Mr. McGahn and other critical witnesses to determine whether the Committee should recommend articles of impeachment or any other Article I remedies, and if so, in what form”
Manu Raju‏Verified account @mkraju


Pelosi has signed off on this language, Dems say

Verified account

Just asked Nadler if what they’re doing now is the same thing as an impeachment inquiry, and he said: “In effect.” And then he said the distinction is that impeachment inquiry is just about impeachment. His probe is a bit broader but could lead to recommendation of impeachment

 

[ok doser]

.... His probe is a bit broader but could lead to recommendation of impeachment ....

...but more likely to a continuation of the dashed hopes of those obsessed with hating the president

 

[Town Heretic]

There's a lot at play right now, some Dems are disappointed in Pelosi, they want impeachment yesterday, some say she knows what she's doing, we need to let it play out. I think we should've already begun the hearings. For the public record, for history, for justice, for the good of the country and all it stands for.

Because right now, too many on the right are fine with Putin pulling Trump's strings, sowing division, hacking elections.

Not enough votes to do the right thing though, without regard to potential fallout and with the prospect of gaining a lot of usable political capital. I'll be very, very surprised if they make the effort, though I agree with you that it should be done.

 

[Town Heretic]

Taking this piece by piece then.

From the excellent Connie Schultz:

So, No Oscar for Mueller?

Minutes after Robert Mueller III had completed his first round of Wednesday's congressional testimony, journalists and pundits started weighing in — on his acting abilities.

Mueller was "boring" and "phlegmatic."

His performance was "a disaster," "painful" and "deeply unsatisfying."

Takes me right back to the tweet by Evan Shapiro:

Mr. Mueller was clear. Ten Counts of Obstruction. Invitations and acceptance of foreign interference. Lies to cover that up. Only the OLC rule stopped indictment.

Oh yeah, he’s also old.

If you choose optics over facts, you get the cult you deserve.

 

[ok doser]

Yeah. About which roughly a third of the country doesn't care.

I don't care

 

[Stripe]

Not enough votes to do the right thing.

And there you have it. Democracies care more about votes than about justice.

 

[jamesdyson]

The 51st State of the USA will be~~

For all practical purposes Israel is America’s 51st State. The US gives Israel 10’s of $billions of dollars each year and yet American Citizen’s did not vote for this.

What’s up?

I think it is time for a national vote on this.

Either we bring in Israel as our 51st State and they pay their fair share or we stop the $billions in handouts.

How do you vote-?

This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past aid programs, data on annual assistance, and analysis of current issues. For general information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim Zanotti. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.

BTW We, as in American citizens owe Israel nothing, nada, zip so I as---

In Jerusalem Israeli’s spit on Christians and the US press never reports it.

What’s up------?

 

[Stripe]

What’s up------?

Dunno. :idunno:

But you appear to be high.

 

[jamesdyson]

We all know what’s happening next
You can stall to obey your handlers ]
Or.,..,..,,.,. be the human you are--?
As a bystander, which is it--?
Human or republicon-0?

 

[ok doser]

In Jerusalem Israeli’s spit on Christians ....

That's just the way they talk

 

[annabenedetti]

This one's so good I'll probably have to return to it every so often. Until I'm sure I've gotten it out of my system. I may even start posting these in my thread and elsewhere, if you don't mind.

I missed this earlier. Post it wherever you can get it some visibility, she's very good, and she's reminding us what's important.

 

[annabenedetti]

Not enough votes to do the right thing though, without regard to potential fallout and with the prospect of gaining a lot of usable political capital. I'll be very, very surprised if they make the effort, though I agree with you that it should be done.

I think it might get there. I hope so. Here's another perspective:

Breaking news out of the capital. The House Judiciary Committee filed papers in court that it was conducting an inquiry into whether to open impeachment hearings. In other words, an impeachment inquiry.

Why is this important? Because an impeachment inquiry is a different kettle of fish than regular oversight. Donald Trump and his minions can stall and obfuscate and refuse to respond to subpoenas and tie the process up in the courts. With an official inquiry, that goes out the window. Unless judges want to upend completely our system of governance, Judiciary subpoenas will now be enforced by the courts because they’re part of an impeachment inquiry. This move by chairman Jerry Nadler relates specifically to grand jury records. Those will now be provided to the committee.

In one fell swoop, Democrats have kneecapped the Trump regime. It was always bound to come down to this, because this regime cares nothing for constitutional norms. Now we’ll see if conservative judges do. My guess is that most of them won’t want to go down in infamy.

Strap in, kids. We’re getting there.

 

[Stripe]

We’re getting there.

It's about time! :thumb: