The Mueller Report is an Impeachment Referral

It absolutely is a referral of impeachment. In numerous places, Mueller essentially says "I can only go so far with this, given OLC policy. It's up to you guys now, Congress. Here's the ball... now run with it."

I hope Mueller does go before Congress and make this abundantly clear (in his by-the-book, low-key way) to anyone who doesn't realize how clear he makes this in the report.

Any hopes I had, by the way, during his confirmation that Barr would be anything but a Trump Toady were thoroughly shattered in the past month. He said things at that presser yesterday that he KNEW would be contradicted by the report itself just hours later.

But the calculation is obviously that Trump's base won't care. Barr did that presser not just for Trump himself, but to provide a clip for Fox News. Now for the next week or so, there will be an endless loop on Fox of a). Barr looking all official saying that Trump is "cleared;" b). Trump himself crowing the same; c). Kellyanne Conway saying the same; d). Some Republican pol du jour saying the same; e). a quick clip of some Democrat saying otherwise, for "balance," f). the host saying "See, we told you he'd be cleared."

And this, in various incarnations, will play over and over. And the Fox News audience will confirm their bias and think it's now "official." Case closed, nothing to see here.

And when Democrats say "not so fast" and continue to investigate, the response will be "Ugh! Those Dems! They were proven wrong and they still won't let it go! They hate America!" And there will be no consensus on the facts (as usual for the past 2 years, we'll have facts and "alternative facts"), which is all they want, really.

I don't think Democrats will pursue impeachment based on the Mueller report alone. They certainly could, just on obstruction. Even on collusion (really, conspiracy, as "collusion" is not a legal term), Mueller did not clear Trump or the Trump campaign, though plenty of people are incorrectly saying so; he said he couldn't establish (a.k.a. prove) that the campaign and the Russians had a formal agreement. Even so, Trump and the campaign knew the Russians were interfering in order to help Trump, so at best they knew a hostile foreign government was interfering in our election and did not alert the authorities - they let it go on, accepted the help, encouraged it, and all the while denied publicly that it was happening at all (i.e. lied through their teeth). If this doesn't rise to provable technical coordination, to many people this seems like a distinction without a difference. The by-the-book Mueller has to play it by the book, but if this were a criminal trial, a lot of people would call this Trump getting off on a technicality.

Still, I don't think the Democrats will pursue impeachment on the report alone. They know the Senate doesn't have 2/3 that will vote for removal at this point, and they don't want to lose this fight if they start it. So really, I think the Democrats' best strategy at this point is a bifurcated one: a). start their own investigations, including into matters that Mueller didn't touch (including Trump's finances and his possible crimes there) - remember, they got Capone on taxes, not on murder or even bootlegging (!), even though everyone knew he was a murderer and a bootlegger - and b). make sure the Democrats running for President mostly do NOT focus on Trump, but rather on health care, forward-looking (as opposed to backward-looking) job creation, global warming, infrastructure, spending priorities... their message should be "why I would be a better president than Trump for YOU" and leave it to the Congressional Democrats to expose more wrongdoing by Trump (because I've been watching him in NYC for 35 years, and there's plenty!) Certain people running who are ALSO in Congress (Harris, Sanders, Booker, Warren, et al) might have an intersection there that they'll have to negotiate carefully, but by and large I think the Presidential candidates and the Congressional Democrats should take completely different roads here.

 

"The investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." --Robert Mueller
If you think calling him before Congress to testify is going to result in him either perjuring himself or nullifying his work over the last 2 1/2 years, you have to be living in a fantasy land. And, I'm not talking about Disneyland...LOL I would also like to point out that, unlike some politicians, Trump didn't delete 33,000 subpoenaed emails, destroy phones or bleach hard drives. And, obviously, there was no special treatment given to him by the FBI. He may have wanted to lash out and react to this bogus attack from the Democrats, but he listened to the advice of his administration, and he allowed the investigators to do their thing. And, it paid off for him. Because, now we have the bottom line--there was no collusion.

I tend to stay away from politics, especially as volatile as things are these days. However, I did want to offer a few words this one time.

Let us just pretend that you were elected president. The Republicans scream about how unfair it all is, "a nightmare", we must "resist" at all costs, there are planned protests and riots, he must have cheated, he must have had help---Russia! They appoint a team of 13 Republicans to investigate how you colluded with Russia (Based, by the way, on a dossier created by your opposition) . Do you honestly think you would feel perfectly comfortable with the situation simply because you know you are innocent and have truth on your side? Or, do you think they would be willing to do whatever it takes to get you out of office? So, I'm sorry but I had to laugh at what you said and offer this brief response.
"It's bizarre to realize your fellow citizens would gladly see you thrown into a camp or dragged screaming into a black van, all because of your political beliefs." Just see what happens if you wear a little red baseball cap that reads "Make America Great Again." Let's just say, the reactions some have received have been less than kind, some of which have been captured on video. Check them out on YouTube. You probably didn't see any of that on the news. Btw, ever hear of Antifa? Some of the violence they have inflicted on conservatives goes slightly beyond yelling.
A little more honesty with yourself and a little less hatred toward others might serve the nation and yourself well. Sorry you've been depressed over the last 2 years because there really is no reason to be. It's a wonderful life!

Ok, end of rant and back to having fun. LOL

PS: I never really understood why World Events was even a thing on Laughing Place. I have a feeling it may have been part of the reason so many have left us. Too much fussing and fighting.

 

Just a couple of points of fact, as opposed to "alternative facts."

<"The investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." --Robert Mueller>

And what does that mean? It means that Mueller could not find the smoking gun of a formal agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia. That's all. It does not mean there was no collusion (conspiracy, actually is the proper name for the crime), or that there was no evidence of it. In fact, Muller lays out page after page of evidence of it. The Trump campaign KNEW that Russia was interfering in our election, and did not notify the authorities - which is itself jaw dropping. Now that the report details instance after instance of this knowledge, Trump spinners like Giuliani, after denying any such knowledge for a couple of years now, are reduced to saying "What's so bad about getting help from Russia?"

Seriously? It is, of course, illegal to accept help from any foreign government for your campaign. And this wasn't just any foreign government. It was THE foreign government that has been trying to undermine our very democracy for decades now. Nor is this any sort of secret: Don Jr. can hardly say he didn't know that, as any freaking high school kid knows that.

So they knew about, accepted, and even encouraged illegal assistance from the government headed by the former head of the KGB. Lovely. And Trump himself denied it (i.e. lied about it) all through the campaign and for most of his Presidency.

All Mueller doesn't have is the smoking gun of an actual formal agreement, so he determined a court couldn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. That's NOT the same thing as saying there was no collusion.

And on obstruction, he essentially says "there ARE smoking guns, but a sitting President can't be charged per the OLC policy I have to follow, so it's up to Congress to do it." Barr twisted that in as many knots as he could, but every credible legal expert I've seen (including Napolitano on Fox) is saying that yeah, that's what Mueller is saying on obstruction.

<If you think calling him before Congress to testify is going to result in him either perjuring himself or nullifying his work over the last 2 1/2 years, you have to be living in a fantasy land.>

He needs to speak before Congress to explain exactly this, for anyone who has been fooled by Barr or the nonstop barrage of spin from the White House. Not to perjure himself or nullify his work, obviously, but rather to explain what his work means to anyone who is still wondering, or who thought Barr's tortured explanation was legit (hint: it wasn't.)

<Let us just pretend that you were elected president. The Republicans scream about how unfair it all is, "a nightmare", we must "resist" at all costs, there are planned protests and riots, he must have cheated, he must have had help---Russia! They appoint a team of 13 Republicans to investigate how you colluded with Russia (Based, by the way, on a dossier created by your opposition) .>

First of all, it was not based on the dossier. This has been shown many times just in the public record (aka journalism), and Mueller confirmed it in his report! The investigation started before anyone in the States even knew the dossier existed. (And further point of fact, the dossier was originally sponsored by Trump's Republican opposition).

And I have to say something about this "13 angry Democrats" meme. Good grief. I guess it needs pointing out that Robert Mueller himself is a lifelong Republican. Rod Rosenstein is a lifelong Republican. James Comey, who headed up the initial investigation and was then fired by Trump for daring to do so, is a lifelong Republican. And Mueller's staff was made up of dozens of people. 13 of them, apparently, are (gasp!!) Democrats. That's less than half for those of you scoring at home.

So: an investigation initiated by a Republican, continued by a Republican, overseen by a Republican (Rosenstein), and later handed off to yet another Republican (Barr), and worked on by a staff of both Republican and Democratic DOJ professionals (but mostly Republicans) is supposed to be... a wildly partisan cabal of Democrats, despite the fact that they make up less than half of the team, and none of the leadership. Oooooookay. But this is what happens when you get "alternative facts" pushed incessantly on TV, on radio, on the internet, on Twitter...

And this is Trump's game, really. Even when the facts are out there, you can always make up "alternative facts." It's Orwellian... but it works sometimes, at least to a degree.

 

I wish I believed more in journalism, but it has been difficult to do so because they seem to be playing the politics game instead of simply reporting the facts. I know how that goes because that is where I started out when I graduated from college (eons ago). I went to a city council meeting to simply report what happened, and my editor only took snippets of quotes to change the meaning to give it political charge. If journalists could go back to simply reporting the facts I think people would have a different perception of what has been going on.

 

I am reminded of, I am not a crook, I knew nothing of the Watergate break in nor did I have any knowledge of a coverup. (paraphrased)
The guy that finally led them to the truth had to go into hiding.

And, just in case I sound partisan; I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman.
(Oh, there's a dress with MY DNA on it??!!??...…………...…)

I don't think this is the final chapter either.

And Hillary is not the President. I wish the deflecting would stop.

 

About 7 months ago, Bill Press published a book giving the top 100 reasons to get rid of Trump.

And the one overwhelming reason not to.

And what is that one overwhelming reason? It can be summed up in three simple words: "President Mike Pence."

At least Trump has the saving grace of being a self-defeating, self-discrediting buffoon, who showers his associates with his overflowing fountain of disgrace. Pence, were he to replace Trump, has a far greater potential for actually succeeding in the long-time goal of the Far Right, namely erasing from the memory of history every last bit of political, social, and economic progress made since President Roosevelt took the oath of office (and I mean President Theodore Roosevelt).

 

NO PRESIDENT PENCE!!!!!!! If one goes they must both go! (And the rest of the line of succession a long way down.

 

Actually, as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is next in line after Pence.

 

Holy Cow!!! I forgot that!

What a relief!

 

Yes. Given their long-term goals, "President Pelosi" would be an even bigger nightmare for the Far Right than President Trump or "President Pence" would be for the Left, the Center, and maybe even some of the Near Right.

 

I'm looking forward to a presidential campaign where we as citizens can pick who is BEST for the United States instead of choosing from the lesser of two evils.

 

If Trump were just dumb that would be one thing. But the fact that he’s also a vile person just makes things worse

 

Actually, that Trump is a self-defeating, self-discrediting buffoon is the one mitigating factor in his vileness.

 

In a lot of ways that's true. I worry more that next time we'll get a competent Fascist... someone with the same appeal to the worst in us, but much smarter and committed to an actual ideology besides himself. And the current Trump worshipers will move straight to worshiping him, and we'll be in real trouble. Never say it couldn't happen here.

 

Oh, Trump is committed to an actual ideology besides himself, all right. The same ideology that begat the Tea Party. The same ideology that has been brewing and fermenting for the entire 20th Century, a well-heeled backlash against every bit of political, economic, and social progress of the 20th Century, going all the way back to President Roosevelt.

President Theodore Roosevelt.

It is an ideology dedicated to giving us the America that would have been, had Leon Czolgosz's bullet killed Roosevelt, instead of McKinley. A mercantile state, rather than a welfare state, where machine politics is the norm, taxation is regressive, and labor is cheap and disposable.

 

So sadly true.

 

Have to disagree to a degree, hbquickcomjamesl.

I think McConnell, the rest of the GOP leadership, the conservative think tanks, et al, are absolutely committed to what you outlined. But I don't think Trump even understands the concept of something like "mercantile state."

He likes things like tax cuts, not because he understands things like supply side economics, and how it supposedly works (even though in practice it doesn't), but simply because they benefit him personally. On the social side, I don't even think he truly opposes abortion for instance - for decades he said he was pro-choice (and I certainly don't think he's ever had a "come to Jesus moment") - but he realized that to advance in the GOP primary he had to SAY he was pro-life and that he had such a moment, to have any hope of getting evangelical votes. In other words, he changed his position to benefit himself personally. I truly believe that his only coherent ideology is himself. There is much overlap now between what you outlined and Trump's current positions, but I think that's only partly sincere on his part, and mostly just expedient.

For a long time he was a Democrat. Why? I don't think he ever really embraced that ideology either. But for a long time, NYC was essentially a one-party town, and to get along in NYC, and if you wanted favors from NYC pols (which he did), you were nominally a Democrat. In other words - here again, it was whatever would benefit him personally.

 

He doesn't have to understand a return to a 19th century mercantile state in order to support it, and to take his place as the figurehead of a reactionary movement supporting it. Of course he supports the reactionary ideology because it benefits him personally. Just as every last political, economic, and social progress of the 20th century comes at a very personal cost to him.

I will also note that extremism feeds on extremism. And it starves under the conditions produced by a moderate administration.