“Impeach the Motherfucker”

You can read the redacted Mueller report for yourself here. I am not a lawyer, but here’s what seems to be the nut graf(s), from Part II of the report, page 220 of 448:

Barr’s disgraceful tap dance this morning was an attempt to distract us from the fact that he substituted his own judgement on the obstruction question to exonerate Trump, whereas the Mueller report says that question is for the U.S. Congress to resolve. This cannot stand, not if we don’t want to make the banana republic thing official.

As for Part I of the report, the conclusion seems to be that while the Russians interfered specifically to elect Trump and there’s evidence of a conspiracy with various members of the campaign, the investigators couldn’t conclusively prove that Trump and/or the bumbling, corrupt flunkies populating his campaign operation were active participants in the attack on our election. So, the President of the United States is crowing about a report that suggests he’s merely a stooge rather than a mastermind. Let that sink in, fellow citizens.

Open thread!






331 replies
  1. 1
    The Dangerman says:

    “Impeach The Motherfucker”

    While it would end in failure in the Senate, I agree, I think impeachment proceedings have to be initiated for the same reason Obama should have looked backwards, not just forward. This shit needs to all see the light of day even if Trump isn’t convicted. History will convict him.

    Also, “Fuck ’em”.

  2. 2
    germy says:

    After reading much of the obstruction section, I'm convinced that Trump's lawyers need their own lawyers.— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) April 18, 2019

  3. 3
    Kraux Pas says:

    @OP:

    Barr’s disgraceful tap dance this morning was an attempt to distract us from the fact that he substituted his own judgement on the obstruction question to exonerate Trump

    Barr this morning

    Ladies and gentlemen, a tap dance…

  4. 4
    Vhh says:

    The Russian word is “poleznij durak.” Useful idiot. Question is: is being a corrupt fool an impeachable offense?

  5. 5
    Eolirin says:

    We really need to target the corruption in the Republican party and propaganda infrastructures. Much more than we need to focus on just getting trump out of office (not that we shouldn’t spend time on that too). But we wouldn’t be in this mess if the Republicans were willing to do their damn jobs as elected officials. If we don’t do anything about the underlying dynamic there will be another Trump and they may be less of a bumbling incompetent.

  6. 6
    scuffletuffle says:

    Going forward, I believe the correct spelling of Republican should in fact be Russianstooge…

  7. 7
    Nicole says:

    Ugh. I don’t know that any of this will make any difference (I’m in the throes of despair about the future of the Republic, this week). Raven’s comment about the sports page he frequents reminded me that for so many people, it’s not about truth, or fairness, or justice; it’s about punishing the other side. Like fans of a sports team who don’t care if their team cheats to win, as long as it’s THEIR team doing it.

    When I have trouble sleeping I like to read Wikipedia articles, usually about European monarchs. And what sticks out most is, for all that there were laws about due process then, ultimately, the monarchs did whatever the fuck they felt like, and executed whoever the fuck they felt like. Henry VIII working his way through the remaining Plantagenets particularly springs to mind. And all their advisors and Parliaments, and blah blah blah, stood by and let it all happen (with rare exceptions, hi, Charles I!). The Republicans don’t care about rule of law, they’ve spent the past 40 years orchestrating themselves into a bit of perpetual power, and Fox News has turned 40% of the country into perpetual outrage beasts. I’ve watched it happen to people I know personally.

    It just sucks to be living through a swing back to authoritarianism. And I don’t know if the world will be coming out of it by the time I shuffle off this mortal coil and that really depresses me. Like I said, ugh.

  8. 8
    lee says:

    This is exactly what I have been saying. The ‘active conspiracy’ was on the part of the Russians. They had a bunch of rubes they could play in order to elect their pawn.

    The pawn and the rubes went along with it because they are rubes and a pawn. Now did any of them actually know what was going on and was an active participant? Mueller says ‘unable ton conclusively prove’. I do take his word on that, but i do not give rubes or the pawn the benefit of the doubt.

  9. 9

    Impeach multiple motherfuckers, start with the President’s defense lawyer and confirmed Attorney General.

  10. 10
    nwerner says:

    The document is 142MB–basically a scan of a printed document to make any text extraction as difficult as possible and limit the searchability. My computer’s humming away with an OCR as I am sure are many others.

  11. 11

    I wonder what House leadership will have to say.

    Should I read the report?

  12. 12
    lamh36 says:

    @AriMelber
    35s35 seconds ago
    More
    Trump attorney Jay Sekulow just told us he got an early version of the Mueller Report on Tuesday.

    That confirms AG Barr provided a version of the report to both the White House and The President’s defense attorney days before providing anything to Congress.

    live on @MSNBC

  13. 13
    Chief Oshkosh says:

    there’s evidence of a conspiracy with various members of the campaign, the investigators couldn’t conclusively prove that Trump and/or the bumbling, corrupt flunkies populating his campaign operation were active participants in the attack on our election.

    If there is evidence of conspiracy with members of the campaign, I don’t understand the second half of the statement, that the campaign flunkies weren’t active participants in the attack on our election. Conspiracy is active participation.

  14. 14
    brantl says:

    Stump is not going to be able to hide that he obstructed justice, despite Barr’s tongue bath of him, this morning.

  15. 15
    MattF says:

    Everyone knows that Trump & Co. are not masterminds. But decisions about prosecution/impeachment are not made by giving potential perps an IQ test. One appropriate question is– what, exactly, were they all lying about? Is the space behind their eyes utterly empty? Possible! But unlikely!

  16. 16
    MisterForkbeard says:

    @David Anderson: Those are the same person, right?

  17. 17
    Paul W. says:

    @The Dangerman: I spent the entire Obama presidency agreeing with him that looking forward was best. I regret that now, and admit I was wrong, although I don’t know how exactly he would have gone about that in the short 2 years we had both houses of Congress along with healthcare.

    Scorched earth from here on out though, we have to defend this country and call out people who have violated not just norms but huge chunks of the Constitution. And we need to do it whether we win or not, because if we win without showing them for the cads they are then it will likely come back around (again) to bite us in the ass even worse with the rigged court system.

  18. 18
    lamh36 says:

    At the very least…Congress should impeach Barr

  19. 19
    low-tech cyclist says:

    “Impeach the Motherfucker”

    Slander! He really wants to be a daughterfucker.

  20. 20
    lamh36 says:

    @mattmfm
    2h2 hours ago
    More Matt McDermott Retweeted Jonathan Swan
    Why would the President’s personal lawyer have access to a federal government report before members of Congress?

  21. 21
    Aleta says:

    Do the sentences that Barr had only quoted in pieces appear now?

  22. 22
    lamh36 says:

    @AugustJPollak
    Follow Follow @AugustJPollak
    More
    Amazing how many Democrats don’t realize it’s going to be harder for them to defend not holding impeachment hearings than it was ever going to be for Republicans and yet they somehow think taking that stance makes them look principled and not just like useless idiots

    10:51 AM – 18 Apr 2019
    https://twitter.com/AugustJPollak/status/1118904932957028355

  23. 23
    Eolirin says:

    @Aleta: Since what they provided was a scan of a print out, it’s going to take a little while before we have answers to questions like that.

  24. 24
    drlemur says:

    If Trump & Co knew Russians were helping, isn’t it a campaign finance violation even if they didn’t technically “collude”? Even unpaid help is a “gift in kind” from a foreign country/agent, isn’t it?

  25. 25
    Steeplejack says:

    Almost tempted to turn over to MSNBC to see Andrea Mitchell harrumphing. But I’m sticking with my sedation/​avoidance plan—currently My Lottery Dream Home. Baseball at 1:00.

  26. 26
    Kraux Pas says:

    @lamh36: Problem with impeachment is that they have to build support for their effort. This takes time. Hopefully the report being made public will advance that cause.

  27. 27
    rikyrah says:

    Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) Tweeted:
    Note: Barr conflated the term “collusion” with “conspiracy.” The former describes a kind of behavior (secret coordinated activity for a common goal) and the latter is a narrowly defined crime. Actions that do not meet the criminal definition of “conspiracy” can still be collusion https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1118887069659664384?s=17

  28. 28
    Kay says:

    I laughed out loud at “does not exonerate him”

    OF COURSE we were told the exact opposite of this very simple language. It’s just beautiful. Perfect. They are absolutely shameless liars, including the attorney general of the United States. He could be impeached just based on the 15 minutes he’s had the job. He really hit the ground running- unfit in 3 weeks. They’re breaking records.

  29. 29
    lamh36 says:

    What’s the latest on how Fox News is reporting on the redacted report…

  30. 30
    Eolirin says:

    @drlemur: I mean, we already have Trump dead to rights on campaign finance violations over the porn star payoffs. That kinda small ball stuff doesn’t seem like it has enough public outrage behind it to be taken seriously enough to go anywhere though.

  31. 31
    MattF says:

    @lamh36: AOC!! AOC!! AOC!! I’d expect Fox to keep their eye on the ball.

  32. 32
    low-tech cyclist says:

    @Paul W.:

    I spent the entire Obama presidency agreeing with him that looking forward was best. I regret that now, and admit I was wrong, although I don’t know how exactly he would have gone about that in the short 2 years we had both houses of Congress along with healthcare.

    I was hoping that the plan was this:

    0) A lot of public talk about looking forward and not back.
    1) Declassify and release every record of the Bush Administration that could reasonably be declassified and released.
    2) Let outside groups make the cases that specific members of the Bush Administration committed specific crimes.
    3) Where those cases were strong enough, the Attorney General would “regretfully” press charges.

    Unfortunately, all we got was Step 0.

  33. 33
    cintibud says:

    I had a question I’ve been meaning to ask for awhile – In the past I heard suggestions here that if the Mueller report was being obstructed the house could have Mueller himself testify. However I don’t recall seeing that posted here lately. Of course I can’t read all that much here without getting too angry or depressed that I may have missed something.

    Is having Mueller testify on the radar? Would that even work? for example could he be directed by Barr not to testify or to severely limit what he could talk about?

  34. 34
    NotMax says:

    @Nicole

    Like I said, ugh.

    I believe the technical jargon is “blech.”

    :)

  35. 35
    Chyron HR says:

    @lamh36:

    “Defend” to whom? The GOP and the media (but I repeat myself) will violently oppose impeachment hearings, and the alleged left thinks the Trump administration is the holy instrument of Bernie’s divine wrath upon the nonbelievers.

  36. 36
    tobie says:

    I haven’t read the redacted report but from the excerpts I’m seeing it seems pretty clear that the Russians and the Trump campaign met and exchanged information to help Trump win, but since the Mueller team could not establish a tacit or express agreement these forms of cooperation didn’t rise to the legal definition of conspiracy. I guess we have collusion, a non-legal term, and coordination, a broad term, afterall. The House must commence impeachment hearings to get to the bottom of this.

  37. 37
    Kay says:

    Byron Tau
    ‏Verified account
    @ByronTau
    12m12 minutes ago
    More
    NEW: Trump personally directed Mike Flynn to find Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails, special counsel says. Flynn then reached out to GOP operative Peter Smith and Grassley staffer Barbara Ledeen, who embarked on parallel efforts to obtain them from hackers.

    They’ll do it again, and as we know it doesn’t matter what it’s in the emails- they will be presented as damning by all of major media.

    We need a plan for when it happens. Take your favorite D candidates name and insert HERE, because they’ll run the same play again. The thefts will only occur on the D side because they wanted Trump and they want to keep him.

  38. 38
    Kraux Pas says:

    @Eolirin:

    I mean, we already have Trump dead to rights on campaign finance violations over the porn star payoffs. That kinda small ball stuff doesn’t seem like it has enough public outrage behind it to be taken seriously enough to go anywhere though.

    A porn star is a little different than the Russian government.

    I’ve been thinking lately about how Romney named Russia our biggest national security threat when the publicly available information didn’t suggest this. It’s almost like he was aware of their attempts to manipulate our elections and his party’s receptiveness to this.

    What did Mitt Romney know and when did he know it?

  39. 39
    Rommie says:

    I wonder if much of the redacted content might be continuing investigations that *will* conclusively prove the conspiracy. IOW, Mueller ran out of time but there’s still a shoe in the air. IF House members get to see those redacted parts, their reactions should tell the rest of the story.

  40. 40
    Yutsano says:

    @Chief Oshkosh: It is my understanding, based upon my admittedly very layman understanding of law, that one’s level of participation in the conspiracy isn’t relevant. All that matters is did someone actively participate in the conspiracy to advance the illegal acts forward? There are so many bizarre layers that make so little sense here that I can’t see how Müller can just handwave it away like that.

    Let’s not get into the fact that as far as we know Jr. was only interviewed once. Who knows what he said that got him basically off.

  41. 41
    oatler. says:

    This is a collapsing kleptocracy and it’s dragging down every institution in the process.

  42. 42
    NotMax says:

    @cintibud

    Currently scheduled for May 23rd.

  43. 43
    Kraux Pas says:

    @cintibud:

    Is having Mueller testify on the radar? Would that even work? for example could he be directed by Barr not to testify or to severely limit what he could talk about?

    Nadler has publicly asked Mueller to come testify no later than May 23.

  44. 44
    cintibud says:

    Oh, I can’t edit my comment – I was also wondering about the possibility of Barr being indited for obstruction of justice

  45. 45
    jc says:

    I’m not buying the “stooge” defense (although he is an absolute charlatan). Team Trump was eagerly negotiating the Trump Tower Moscow project during the 2016 nomination period, and lying about all of it. The myriad lies by all of Trump’s bad actors can’t be excused away by pretending to be feeble.

  46. 46
    Kay says:

    I have one small vindication I think I will get when the 2020 campaign gets rolling. We’ll be shown without a shadow of a doubt that it wasn’t unique to Hillary Clinton- we already know that because the interference occurred in D congressional races, but when this is applied to whoever the D candidate is, and it will be, that excuse drops out.

    They wanted Donald Trump, exclusively. Not only that, they wanted Trump and a GOP Congress. That hasn’t changed. The D candidates name will change, but that’s the only part of this that is different.

  47. 47
    CarolDuhart2 says:

    It might have happened that way except at the time we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. If Obama wanted anything done, he needed to work on this and health care. Plus we had Lieberman and barely got health care through. Not to mention the cleanup work after Bush so that we had a working Federal Government to even push a stimulus through.

    Oversight would have eaten those 2 years and the sole Obama term he would have had. Instead Obama got 8, an economy humming along, those extra Supreme Court justices we needed just to have the 4 members we have now.

  48. 48
    Eolirin says:

    @jc: They lie about everything though. That’s one of the problems. They lie about stuff that clearly doesn’t matter, just because they lie all the time. It isn’t strategic, it isn’t to achieve anything. It’s just who they are. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything that they’re lying.

    Other than that they’re horrible people who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.

  49. 49
    Kraux Pas says:

    @CarolDuhart2:

    It might have happened that way except at the time we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. If Obama wanted anything done, he needed to work on this and health care.

    Yeah, it would’ve been a shame if Obama foreclosed on his opportunity for collaboration with Republicans on urgent national priorities.

    I think declassifying the information, letting the public see what it could know, and letting law enforcement work through this on its own would’ve been a good play. Water under the bridge at this point, though.

  50. 50
    Kay says:

    The saddest people will be the Bernistas. Because this was done to elect Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders isn’t Donald Trump. They were in favor of this when Clinton was the victim, but it wasn’t her they were opposing. It was him they were promoting. He was the goal. They’ll go after Bernie too, because the opponent doesn’t matter.

  51. 51
    JMG says:

    As a political matter, impeachment hearings are now a necessity for Democrats, whether or not they know it yet. I am in a position to do so so I gave quite generously to the DCCC last year. No impeachment = less generosity, and I’m sure I’m not alone. We worked to elect you folks for a reason, and we expect you to at least try to maintain constitutional government. If you won’t, what’s the point of having you in the majority?

  52. 52
    Kraux Pas says:

    @Eolirin:

    It isn’t strategic, it isn’t to achieve anything.

    But it is, though. If they’re to maintain their complete alternate reality, the Big Lie has to reach out and encompass as many things, big and small, as it can.

  53. 53
    Eolirin says:

    @Kay: They won’t be sad, they’ll just blame the Democrats for everything and be able to cling to their perfect image of victimization and being denied utopia. It’ll be worse for them if Sanders wins.

  54. 54
    Gin & Tonic says:

    Maybe a thread about dogs, or music, or willow trees or something? Please? It’s too early to drink.

  55. 55
    cintibud says:

    @NotMax: Cool! Thanks for the info.

  56. 56
    mad citizen says:

    Loving BJ this week as I’m on a family vacation in lovely Laguna Beach CA, in a house without wi-fi (the horror!). Using lots of phone data.

    I agree, impeachment hearings seem very prudent. It’s Congress that decides High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Make the Repubs do their jobs, defend this theft of the WH, look like boobs, etc.

  57. 57
    Gravenstone says:

    @germy: Making Attorneys Get Attorneys.

    Rings a bell …

  58. 58
    Kay says:

    @Eolirin:

    I disagree. If Bernie is vicitimized by pro-Trump theft, manipulation and interference they will shriek in protest. Because it’s unfair.

    The “enemy of your enemy is your friend” construct is bullshit. It’s almost never true. They’re just both enemies and now they’ll be Bernies enemy. There’s never been a finding they wanted “anyone but Clinton”. They wanted Trump. There are reasons for that.

  59. 59
    Alternative Fax, a hip hop artist from Idaho says:

    @CarolDuhart2: Hear, hear. That’s really important to recognize and remember. Obama had more urgent things to do than look back; it’s easy to criticize in hindsight, but our world was on fire then and it had to be managed in that moment.

  60. 60

    @Kay: Bernistas can cry me a river. Their endless stupidity and meanness garners no sympathy from me.

  61. 61
    Fleeting Expletive says:

    Rod Rosenstein stands facing the abyss in front of him, one cheek moist, as the ashes of his credibility fall on his somber grey suit, the stonework of his jurisprudential reputation exposed among the smoldering remains of an edifice of Constitutional law that proved vulnerable to the flames of hubris and mendacity. There, you may quote me.

  62. 62
    Skepticat says:

    @nwerner: I use Adobe Acrobat Pro, so I can search it, and I’m converting it to a Word doc. Not certain I have the stomach to actually go through it, though.

  63. 63
    Kay says:

    Glenn Greenwald, along with almost all of major media, continue to insist that all Democrats talk about is Trump. They believe that because that’s all cable tv hosts talk about, but it isn’t true:

    @nathanlgonzales
    2h2 hours ago
    More Nathan Gonzales Retweeted Amie Parnes
    I met with dozens of Democratic congressional candidates in 2018, and the first person to bring up President Trump at all in the interview was usually me.
    Democrats are united against President Trump and don’t have to talk about it. This report will not change that.Nathan Gonzales added,

    Whatever happens or doesn’t happen in Trump Administration criminality and corruption, Democrats will probably continue the focus on issues, because that won last time out. They don’t think they have to point out how bad Trump is. They think Trump takes care of that.

  64. 64
    lamh36 says:

    According to Mueller report Sarah Sander admitted that when she said the WH had heard from multiple FBI agents that they had issues or problems with Comey…was not based on any truth.

  65. 65
    Fleeting Expletive says:

    And his boss–somehow a toad mated with a pig.

  66. 66

    I’m still unclear what impeachment gets us, except the Republican victimization talking point amplified. Without the Senate, what is the point of impeachment? (asking honestly here)

    Hold hearings on the Mueller report, embarrass Barr so he no longer has credibility and keep Trump’s crimes on the front page. That doesn’t require impeachment proceedings, does it?

    If we don’t work to take back the Senate, keep the House and win the WH, impeaching Trump means nothing. I want him voted out and indicted for every crime, civilian and as a government official, and serve time for each and bankrupt the MF, so his whole family is homeless on the street.

  67. 67
    Mike in DC says:

    I think this is EmailGate on steroids with regard to how it will play in the media and with the general public/electorate. It’s something he won’t be able to completely shake off, that will get brought up over and over again, and will color the impressions of many middle-of-the-road voters.

  68. 68

    @Kay: My enemy’s enemy is my friend is a bad translation from Sanskrit of one of Kautliya’s principles. Kautilya was the adviser to the first emperor of India, Chandragupta. Chandragupta is Alexander’s contemporary, to give you a sense of the time period. Kautilya wrote two treatises one on economics and one on politics.
    There is also a Sanskrit play, on the machinations of Kautilya. And how he helps Chandragupta defeat his enemies (his cousins) who are the ruling family, called Mudrarakshasa. Its pretty entertaining.
    Anyway, what he said was that in politics there are no permanent enemies only alliances, which can change as the situation changes.

  69. 69
    Timurid says:

    Even the neutered version of this report is absolutely brutal.
    The one thing that really jumps out at me is Trump ordering Flynn to find the missing Clinton emails.
    That is, TRUMP ORDERED HIS STAFFER TO BREAK THE LAW. Because there was no plausible way to get those things legally.

    But nothing matters anymore.

  70. 70
    NotMax says:

    Shortest version: Not finding a smoking gun does not mean the room doesn’t reek of gunsmoke.

  71. 71
    lamh36 says:

    There is no point in brining Obama into this conversation…it’s done. His presidency is over…Obama is NOT to blame for the state we are in.

    So fussing about “If only Obama…” to me seems stupid and missing what the focus of this should be Chump Co et al!

  72. 72
    Kay says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Oh, me neither. But all their ultra-sophisticated breeziness will disappear when the target moves to their candidate.

    It’s unfair. Clinton supporters were correct when they said that. It’ll still be unfair when it’s applied to the next D candidate.

    The enemy of their enemy is not, in fact, their friend. It’s not a real rule, you morons! It’s not like gravity or the temperature water freezes. It’s a thing people say. Most of the time it’s nonsense.

  73. 73
    Leto says:

    @Nicole: Just wanted to say I have the same concerns as you. Only thing we can do is keep fighting. I plan to do that after I’ve spent some time outside. It’s a beautiful day, I plan to do some long walking (longer than I’ve done so far), that way when I come back I’ll be refreshed. Spent most of the morning on this shit show, so I need a soul cleanse :)

  74. 74
    chopper says:

    man, the first bit of this report is just a refreshing reminder that, even ignoring evidence of collusion/corruption as to trump himself, A) he was installed in the WH by russia’s government and is a completely illegitimate president, and B) he made sure to surround himself with corrupt shitbags.

    these are both things we all know but it’s great to have it all in one super-detailed official report.

  75. 75
    NotMax says:

    @TaMara (HFG)

    Without the Senate, what is the point of impeachment?

    It puts specific charges on the record, all in one place, and amplifies what is covered (and consequently not excused) by the term high crimes and misdemeanors.

  76. 76
    Chief Oshkosh says:

    @TaMara (HFG):I think it’s a good question. From my perspective, impeachment amps up investigations, makes it harder for lackeys to ignore subpoenas, gets the attention of the press. As intended, it’s a political action, so obviously there’s broad array of perspectives. Mine’s weak, but persists in my head as overall a good thing.

  77. 77
    Kay says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Thanks. I didn’t know where it came from. In my personal experience it has NEVER been true.

  78. 78
    chopper says:

    @Fleeting Expletive:

    “a hot crumpet burning his cheeks with shame”

  79. 79

    @Kay: Kautilya was pretty pragmatic, and was advising Chandragupta, that your interests may align with those you consider your enemies today. Or you could build temporary alliances with the enemies of your current enemies. Kinda like we did with the Soviet Union when we were fighting the Axis powers in WWII.

  80. 80
    lamh36 says:

    According to Mueller report Sarah Sander admitted that when she said the WH had heard from multiple FBI agents that they had issues or problems with Comey…was “slip of the tongue” and “not founded on anything”

    https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1118920290124349441

  81. 81
    JPL says:

    @lamh36: You mean to tell me Sarah Sanders lies. … oh my!

  82. 82
    Kay says:

    Maggie Haberman
    ‏Verified account
    @maggieNYT
    Follow Follow @maggieNYT
    More
    Mueller report descriptions of Trump telling aides to do things to interfere with the probe and them not listening is a microcosm of what takes place weekly at WH – Trump orders aides to do things, they walk out of meetings and look at each other and don’t follow directives…

    The major media insistence that “good people” within the Trump Administration stop the President’s daily lawbreaking is a wonder to behold. Trump’s low quality hires told the prosecutor they ignored illegal orders, and this is just accepted as fact.

    They so want to believe that institutions are holding that they will go along with anything.

  83. 83
  84. 84
    rikyrah says:

    @JMG:

    As a political matter, impeachment hearings are now a necessity for Democrats, whether or not they know it yet.

    Yep.
    They have no choice.

    Maxine Waters said it last night – the actions of Barr push my view forward.

  85. 85
    NotMax says:

    @Not Max – @TaMara (HFG)

    Will add it is one of the duties specifically assigned the House when circumstances merit, irrespective of anything to do with the Senate. Dismissing it because of the Senate amounts to dereliction of duty. Would you have Pelosi and the House refuse to put forward bills because they have scant chance in the Senate?

  86. 86
    rikyrah says:

    @Fleeting Expletive:

    Rod Rosenstein stands facing the abyss in front of him, one cheek moist, as the ashes of his credibility fall on his somber grey suit, the stonework of his jurisprudential reputation exposed among the smoldering remains of an edifice of Constitutional law that proved vulnerable to the flames of hubris and mendacity. There, you may quote me.

    Now, this is a sentence.
    Clap Clap Clap.

  87. 87
    khead says:

    So – if you saw my post last night – I actually DID sleep in (one of the perks of the job) to where I missed part of the press conference. But after watching Fox and getting caught up? All I can say is, WOW, what a shit show.

  88. 88
    Betty Cracker says:

    @TaMara (HFG): It’s risky, as you rightly point out. But Trump set himself above the law, and the AG improperly substituted his own judgement for congressional oversight. Not over a blow job or an illegal foreign policy initiative — in the matter of an investigation into a hostile foreign power’s hijacking of a US presidential election. If that stands, our system of checks and balances is utterly meaningless. Hey, maybe it always was, but there will be no question about it anymore, IMO.

  89. 89
    Kay says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Okay, but Bernie’s in a long war. This alliance will last exactly one cycle. They really believed all the monied interests who have so hugely benefited from this interference were allied solely against Hillary Clinton? It’s insanely naive. I think their hatred of Clinton clouded their judgment. Bernie himself says this an international Right wing movement of kleptocrats. He said that! He says it all the time.

    They’ll bury Bernie. I hope burying Clinton was worth it to them, because that’s the last benefit they’ll get from this “alliance”

  90. 90
    dww44 says:

    @lamh36: This is all too symptomatic of the governing political party’s absolute disdain for the rule of law, the norms of our governing system, and, sadly, the low opinion they all of them have of Democrats. I’m sorry, but it’s about time we grew some party leaders who were NOT afraid to kick butt a lot. Make a stink, if you will, because that’s the only tactic that the GOP respects. We should be able to do that while at the same time proceeding apace, legally, to bring about some real justice for a change..

    As much as I like them, Pelosi nor Nadler nor Cummings, and certainly not Schumer can effectively do that. I’m not sure who can, but there ought to be a couple among our midst who have the verbal skills to effectively voice all of our legitimate ire about this President and his enablers. First off, let’s impeach both of them. The President and the Attorney General.

  91. 91
    chopper says:

    so, from i’m able to surmise with regard to obstruction, the only real thing that kept mueller from recommending actual charges was the fact that the DOJ doesn’t believe you can indict a sitting president. wow.

  92. 92
    rikyrah says:

    @chopper:

    man, the first bit of this report is just a refreshing reminder that, even ignoring evidence of collusion/corruption as to trump himself, A) he was installed in the WH by russia’s government and is a completely illegitimate president, and B) he made sure to surround himself with corrupt shitbags.

    UH HUH
    UH HUH

  93. 93
    Kent says:

    @NotMax:

    @TaMara (HFG)

    Without the Senate, what is the point of impeachment?

    It puts specific charges on the record, all in one place, and amplifies what is covered (and consequently not excused) by the term high crimes and misdemeanors.

    I tend to agree with Pelosi on this. If you game out impeachment what you have is the Senate finding him INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES just as the 2020 election is gaining full steam and all the media coverage would be about how Trump has been 100% vindicated of the Dem witch hunt. And of course McConnell would be working hand and foot with the Trump Admin and Trump Campaign to tilt the coverage of the process in the most favorable possible light because that is what he does. So we roll into the 2020 elections with all the oxygen in the country sucked up into how this is a great day for Trump, todal vindication, and so forth.

    Better to investigate every damn illegality and malfeasance of both Trump and his entire administration on a daily basis and control the media narrative that way. The GOP knows how that game is played. Keep the ball in the house and don’t hand it over to the GOP senate, at least until 2020 is over.

    If we can’t win 2020 with clouds of investigations hanging over Trump then we aren’t trying hard enough.

    There will be plenty of time after 2020 to jail all those motherfuckers.

  94. 94
    JPL says:

    @khead: I mowed and ran errands. A good friend called to let me know what he said and my blood pressure shot up. Fortunately I now have the Sesame Street channel on pandora for my grandson and I listened to Rainbow Connection to help cleanse me. Grandson is only two months old, but he giggles when he hears the sesame street songs.

  95. 95
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:

    The major media insistence that “good people” within the Trump Administration stop the President’s daily lawbreaking is a wonder to behold. Trump’s low quality hires told the prosecutor they ignored illegal orders, and this is just accepted as fact.

    They so want to believe that institutions are holding that they will go along with anything.

    a response from another poster:

    jds09
    12 minutes ago
    What’s been wild to me about 45’s entire tenure is how much faith that white people have put into their traditions, norms, and institutions.

    Black folks, at best may give 15 minutes to trusting in these traditionns, norms and institutions before we start looking at facts on the ground…white people take years. It’s crazy.

    I’ve been watching these former prosecutors turned pundits slowly lose their faith. One said out loud, ‘it’s like believing in Santa when you know he truly doesn’t exist but you want to believe anyway.” The obvious weakness and corruption of the DOJ is killing them.

    On another note, Kamala was mentored by Willie Brown former Speaker of the House in Cali, he is a smooth poltical gangsta. Kamala knows how to street fight.

  96. 96

    @Kay: I agree with your analysis about BS. He is stupid and no Kautilya. On the other hand I think if you wanted to you could be the Ds, Kautilya! Sane, pragmatic and eyes always on the ball. Go Kay!

  97. 97
    Kay says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Sanders refuses to attribute any of the international Right wing animus to racism, because he’s a douchebag, but he does admit it’s ECONOMIC. He sees the economic interest at work here. They’re all personally benefiting from Donald Trump.

    Why would they think Sanders was immune? Sanders doesn’t believe Sanders is immune. Whatever the motive, racism, economic policy, Sanders is next in the barrel. They may see him as a fellow traveler white person on race, but they sure as shit don’t see him as a fellow traveler on economics.

  98. 98
    JPL says:

    @Kent: NY State could still indict. The Mueller testimony should make for some could TV viewing

  99. 99
    dww44 says:

    @Kent: Fine, you may be right. But sometimes, right is right and the GOP impeached Bill Clinton for lots less. We cannot, as a party, NOT proceed to impeach this President. The whole country has vested itself in the ability of Democrats in the House to do more than one thing at a time. It’s time to bring the charges.

  100. 100
    NotMax says:

    @Kent

    No need to rush a formal vote on impeachment charges until every duck is in a row. Say, October 2020 and take the case directly to the people.

  101. 101

    @Chief Oshkosh:

    If there is evidence of conspiracy with members of the campaign, I don’t understand the second half of the statement, that the campaign flunkies weren’t active participants in the attack on our election.

    The problem is with the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence is just information that points toward a conclusion. Proof is a much higher standard; when it comes to proving something in a criminal trial, we require evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s entirely possible that there was a lot of evidence but not enough to make a criminal case that would stand up in court.

  102. 102
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    So, the President of the United States is crowing about a report that suggests he’s merely a stooge rather than a mastermind. Let that sink in, fellow citizens.

    As Cheryl said, Trump was useless idiot for the Russians during the election.

  103. 103

  104. 104
    trnc says:

    @rikyrah:

    Actions that do not meet the criminal definition of “conspiracy” can still be collusion

    Driving is not a crime. Driving the getaway car from bank robbery is.

  105. 105
    lamh36 says:

    @TimOBrien
    12m12 minutes ago
    More
    Ivanka Trump joined Kusher, Don Jr, Manafort et al at the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians, per Gates testimony in #MuellerReport

  106. 106
    khead says:

    @JPL:

    I’m avoiding social media. We are heading to Cape May tomorrow so I figure if I can just make it through today I can avoid that rage stroke I joked about.

  107. 107
    Kay says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    I’m feeling relieved because I was supposed to work concessions at a track meet- not a popular sport here, it would be me and the parents of the athletes- and it’s pouring rain, so…cancelled. Thank god. I don’t mind volunteer work but I hate volunteer work when there’s not enough to do. I hate pretend-work.

  108. 108

    @Betty Cracker: I agree on principal. And we’ve let too many things slide, from Iran-Contra to Shrub’s administration actions.

    I am just concerned because to this day I still hear people (and unfortunately I’m related to some of them) talk about how Nixon got shafted and blah, blah. Rule of law means nothing to die-hard republicans.

    I want that MF out of office and worry about anything that might impede that goal.

  109. 109
    rk says:

    Am I correct in assuming that the report basically says that the president can shoot someone on fifth avenue and he can’t be indicted because he’s the president. Or is that too cynical.

  110. 110
    NotMax says:

    @khead

    Kudos. Social media is neither.

    ;)

  111. 111
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @Chief Oshkosh

    : If there is evidence of conspiracy with members of the campaign, I don’t understand the second half of the statement, that the campaign flunkies weren’t active participants in the attack on our election. Conspiracy is active participation.

    Trump and flunkies are simply to stupid to conspire effectively. I think I can see that, Trump can’t keep a secret to save his life.

  112. 112
  113. 113

    @NotMax: I like that timing.

  114. 114
    trnc says:

    @TaMara (HFG):

    I’m still unclear what impeachment gets us, except the Republican victimization talking point amplified. Without the Senate, what is the point of impeachment? (asking honestly here)

    That’s been exactly my position up until now, but I was waiting for anything in the Mueller Report that might apply pressure. If the report says that congress is the only institution that can look further into this, that may be the reason to start impeachment proceedings. My question is, can those proceedings be a tool to get more information that we don’t otherwise have? If so, put me down in impeachment camp.

  115. 115

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques: He is an idiot. But I would say that he has been quite useful to Putin and his interests.
    @Kay: BS is a Russian stooge, bought and paid for, since when there was a Soviet Union. If you look at his actions through that lens everything he has done so far and is doing now makes sense. BS is pretty racist too. Check out his voting record on immigration and the things he says about black people. He is just a racist of the polite variety like many middle class people his age.
    And the most cherished belief of these soft racists is that they are not racist. And they don’t see race or racism.

  116. 116
    jc says:

    @Kraux Pas: I agree, that’s the point of lying, to unfairly gain an advantage. That’s Trump’s M.O. to a T.

  117. 117
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Kay: From all appearances Bernie Sanders still believes the “economic anxiety” argument that Trump won because he appealed to the proletariat, and since Bernie Sanders also appeals to the proletariat but, like, better and honest-er, he’ll have no problem flipping the score, easy peasy.

    What Sanders doesn’t realize is that if he had gotten the nod he would have ratfucked nine ways to Sunday about being too weak to protect America from terrorists, migrants, and other brown invaders. That wasn’t the campaign we got because Hillary Clinton isn’t vulnerable to being depicted as too weak. Bernie Sanders is.

  118. 118
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @jc:

    The myriad lies by all of Trump’s bad actors can’t be excused away by pretending to be feeble.

    Think of it this way, the Russians aren’t idiots and knew Trump would betray them sooner or later.

  119. 119
    lamh36 says:

    Some better news…since it’s an open thread as well

    I made gumbo today.

    Still cooking but a pre-lim taste…

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/757edbc05f75f8e0e647aef879fe6740ba462d1db15b8e8f91cbcfd4fe59faad.gif

  120. 120
    Tractarian says:

    “[W]e determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes…. Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.”

    That’s it. All you need to know.

    Mueller did not determine whether the president committed crimes. To be fair, I tend to agree that it’s Congress’s job to determine that, as long as he remains in office. But it’s just mind-boggling.

    The entire country has been duped.

  121. 121
    Kent says:

    @NotMax:

    @Kent

    No need to rush a formal vote on impeachment charges until every duck is in a row. Say, October 2020 and take the case directly to the people.

    Right. I’m not saying Dems shouldn’t turn over every single leaf and investigate everything. Well, frankly they are going to have to prioritize becase there is so much criminality and sleaze you can’t possibly get to it all.

    But when you are doing the investigating YOU are controlling the agenda and narrative. The minute they vote and pass the buck over to the Senate they lose complete control of the narrative and it will stay lost for the duration.

    The orcs are literally inside the castle. If we don’t take back our country in 2020 then nothing else matters.

  122. 122
    Chief Oshkosh says:

    The more I read the report, the more I must sadly conclude that, at best, Mueller is a “loyal” Republican. Good Lord, the decision to NOT indict Junior because he’s too fucking stupid to know he’s breaking the law?! COME ON, ASSHOLE, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB!.

    But no, Mueller decided that just because Junior clearly broke the law, there’s no need to do anything since, while planning to and then in fact breaking the law, Junior had no fucking clue that what he was doing was breaking the law.

    Fuck you, Bobby Three Sticks.

  123. 123

    @rk: Too true, as long as the fat body is AG covering up R crimes.

  124. 124
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: OMG I have to find my prediction from a few weeks back of what it would say. I feel like I was almost exactly right.

  125. 125
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Kay:

    They’ll bury Bernie. I hope burying Clinton was worth it to them, because that’s the last benefit they’ll get from this “alliance.”

    QFT. I was reading something the other day about the foreign policy positions the Sanders campaign is finally starting to put together — hey, better during the second presidential run than never! Putin & Co. will squash him like a bug, and thanks to his personal history, they’ll have a much easier time of it than they had with Clinton.

  126. 126
    peter says:

    @schrodingers_cat: We have always been at war with Eastasia!

  127. 127
    rikyrah says:

    @lamh36:

    I made gumbo today.

    Still cooking but a pre-lim taste…

    Mouth watering here…

  128. 128

    @trnc: This is also a good point.

    If you all are following my thoughts, you’ll see I’m looking to be convinced that impeachment is worth the risk. I’m not quite there yet. But I do know this, I trust Pelosi’s instincts on this. So will wait to see how she reacts.

  129. 129
    Ruckus says:

    @TaMara (HFG):
    This is my position as well.
    Structurally impeachment is the only answer.
    Politically, impeachment is not going anywhere. It would be a failure and make Democrats look weak, even though it’s the right thing to do.

  130. 130
    rikyrah says:

    @Kent:

    The orcs are literally inside the castle. If we don’t take back our country in 2020 then nothing else matters.

    I feel you.

  131. 131
    Another Scott says:

    @TaMara (HFG): Nancy was right to take some grand investigation of W’s crimes off the table. Historians can do the looking back without Congress spending time on it.

    Impeachment is a political process, as we know. If the people with the ability to vote on it aren’t willing to convict, then it’s pointless and worse because it distracts the Congress and the nation from other important topics.

    It sucks that Donnie is most likely going to survive his term, and few of his minions will be impeached. But we can count on even more of them leaving office before 1/2021 (rumors are that Perry is leaving DOE soon, etc.).

    We can and should hold Donnie and his minions accountable without impeachment.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  132. 132
    PST says:

    @schrodingers_cat: That’s a lot like Palmerston’s:

    Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.

  133. 133
    trnc says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: That reminds me of the Kavanaugh background check last fall. They didn’t get any witness testimony about past drinking and sexual abuse … because they studiously avoided interviewing people who knew about that conduct, including Mark Judge. Likewise, Barr “doesn’t see” misconduct by Pres Individual One because he is looking past it.

  134. 134
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Another Scott: In other words, the president is above the law, and the system of checks and balances is meaningless. Good to know.

  135. 135
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    He is an idiot. But I would say that he has been quite useful to Putin and his interests.

    Yes, but would you directly conspire with a damn fool like Trump or would send surrogates to talk Trump into the doing the dumb stuff you want done? Trump is about the biggest sucker going so it’s like they wouldn’t need to do more than email him fake news articles to get Trump doing what they want.

  136. 136
    trnc says:

    @TaMara (HFG): Yeah, I think we’re on the same page. I trust Pelosi, too. I doubt it’s really off the table as new information continues to come out, so I suspect she is carefully laying the groundwork.

  137. 137
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    CHECK THIS OUT! I posted this on Maddow Blog on a story entitled “The most interesting brackets in recent political history,” 20 days ago:
    +++
    Ooh this is a great catch!

    “As the report states: ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'”

    I have taught English for 25 years and I would be willing to bet that the first word of the first half of the quoted sentence is “Although” and that the rest of it is something suspicious verging on incriminating. For example:

    Although the Russian government undertook a widespread effort that benefited the Trump Campaign, and although individuals known to associate with the Russian government and Russian intelligence were in contact with the Trump Campaign at various points both before and after Election Day..

    +++

  138. 138
    Bill Arnold says:

    @scuffletuffle:

    Going forward, I believe the correct spelling of Republican should in fact be Russianstooge…

    Should be an autocorrect. :-)

  139. 139
    Tractarian says:

    @rk:

    Am I correct in assuming that the report basically says that the president can shoot someone on fifth avenue and he can’t be indicted because he’s the president. Or is that too cynical.

    That is absolutely, indisputably, and depressingly correct.

  140. 140
    jc says:

    @Chief Oshkosh: Plus, impeachment will piss off the Trump enablers. And lord knows they deserve to take some shots to the snout.

  141. 141
    Bill Arnold says:

    The very long list of names in Appendix B (pg 401) is sorted alphabetically, so the redacted names are guessable.
    I am extremely irritated that they did the a-hole move of making it images, and not squared with the page. A cleaned up, searchable, copy/pasteable version will happen because this shit has been an arms race in lawyer-land (re discovery) for a while. (I’ve been told; any lawyers please fill in details with current tech and accuracy.)
    Also, they are making people read it line by line, which will mean many eagle-eyed readers. Will not end well for the Rs.

  142. 142

    @PST:True. Chanakya (Kautilya) predates him by 2000 years, though.

  143. 143
    Mnemosyne says:

    I can’t remember, did the Republicans start impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton BEFORE or AFTER the Starr report was issued?

    I’m pretty sure it was after, so I’m not sure why people are so very convinced that an impeachment is now impossible.

  144. 144
    NotMax says:

    @tmc

    IIRC Pelosi’s most recent statement about impeachment amounted to “it’s not yet the time” as opposed to “off the table.”

  145. 145

    @Mnemosyne: After, IIRC. Tie the Orange Fat body and his Fat Toad AG in impeachment proceedings.

  146. 146
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @scuffletuffle: G

    oing forward, I believe the correct spelling of Republican should in fact be Russianstooge

    I second this…

  147. 147
    Martin says:

    @rk:

    Am I correct in assuming that the report basically says that the president can shoot someone on fifth avenue and he can’t be indicted because he’s the president. Or is that too cynical.

    The report is saying that the DOJ is ill-equipped to indict a sitting president for corruption of the office that may include how the DOJ was staffed and that Congress and USSC need to do their fucking jobs.

    I always expected that Mueller would be writing a report for Congress, because what the fuck is the point in writing one for the DOJ? Nixon’s DOJ was corrupt as hell and it was only due to the actions of Congress that it entered a state where it wasn’t. Can the president shoot someone on 5th ave? Hell yes. We’ve always known that would induce a constitutional crisis that Congress and USSC would have to resolve. Guess what, only Congress and USSC can resolve this. Mueller knows this as well as anyone.

    It’s not that the AG may be impartial. The AG cannot help but be partial or be seen as partial. This is a case where everyone in the executive branch pretty has to recuse. That’s not practical, but it’s the only way the public can have faith in government.

  148. 148
    Mnemosyne says:

    @trnc:

    See my question above. I think the Democrats were waiting for the report so they would have a solid basis for the impeachment charges.

  149. 149
    trnc says:

    @Another Scott:

    Impeachment is a political process, as we know. If the people with the ability to vote on it aren’t willing to convict, then it’s pointless and worse because it distracts the Congress and the nation from other important topics.

    That’s been my position, but I am open to rethinking, especially if the actual impeachment process gives the House committees a way to get information that they don’t have now (or that makes it more difficult). IE, if Barr says the pres can’t be indicted and committees aren’t entitled to information, does filing impeachment change that in the eyes of the federal courts? Also, a non-partisan report that says only congress can make this determination may be a game changer to anyone on the fence.

    So the question is, is impeachment really only a political process, or does it carry specific legal ramifications, too?

  150. 150
    Another Scott says:

    @Betty Cracker: No.

    In other words, conviction during impeachment is very, very difficult – by design. When Donnie still has 40-mumble percent of the country supporting him, and a < 2/3 Democratic majority in the Senate, it's not going to happen. Spending time on it, only to have it fail, is a recipe for further electoral losses and takes us even further from where we want the country to be.

    Candidate Obama on impeaching W from 2008 (9:17)

    YMMV.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  151. 151
    Martin says:

    @Bill Arnold: Any modern phone can turn this in a searchable document in real-time (and convert it into any of 200 languages in the process). It’s frankly a childish move to even think they could slow that process down.

  152. 152
    TenguPhule says:

    This is what happens when you try to play by the rules and the other side has decided that Calvinball is the new status quo.

  153. 153
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Martin:

    The report is saying that the DOJ is ill-equipped to indict a sitting president for corruption of the office that may include how the DOJ was staffed and that Congress and USSC need to do their fucking jobs.

    IMO, the report is designed to be the basis for impeachment hearings, and if I know that, I’m pretty sure Pelosi and Schumer have figured it out.

    It would be super ironic if Adam Schiff was one of the House impeachment managers since he replaced a Republican who did that during the Clinton impeachment. A weird full circle if so. 🤔

  154. 154
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay:

    He really hit the ground running- unfit in 3 weeks. They’re breaking records.

    And the next AG Trump appoints will be worse.

  155. 155
    Cheryl from Maryland says:

    @Kay: THIS. I am so tired of Democratic strategists, the press and some candidates believing efforts against Hillary won’t apply to other candidates (mainly white males) because THEY are different and will campaign better. Nope. Lies, hacks, social media, Bernie basing his campaign that only he is sea-green incorruptible and giving the GOP a handle to ratfuck the D candidate, voter suppression, these things, and others, can and will happen to ANY D that runs.

  156. 156
    oldgold says:

    Barr in his 4 page “summary” quoted only the red underlined fraction of this sentence. That he omitted the portion of this sentence underlined in blue and the preceding sentence underlined in yellow, objectively demonstrates his unfitness to continue as the Attorney General.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1118917787605454848/photo/1

  157. 157
    Baud says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    The . . . president . . . did. . . .not . . . break . . . the . . .law.

    —–Bob Barr

  158. 158
    Mnemosyne says:

    @schrodingers_cat:

    That’s how I remember it, too. That’s why I’m so confused that people seem to think that the Mueller report precludes impeachment proceedings. I’m pretty sure this report is going to be THE BASIS for the impeachment proceedings.

  159. 159
    trnc says:

    @Tractarian:

    Am I correct in assuming that the report basically says that the president can shoot someone on fifth avenue and he can’t be indicted because he’s the president. Or is that too cynical.

    That is absolutely, indisputably, and depressingly correct.

    The report doesn’t make that call, so it’s only referring to what is apparently a longstanding DOJ rule (what the legal basis is for that rule, I have no idea). From comments I’ve seen so far, that would be a prelude to “Congress is the only institution that can keep looking into this.” Which is actually perfectly fine against the backdrop of the AG acting as DT’s personal attorney.

  160. 160
    Kay says:

    Now we get to watch if/when Barr goes after Trump’s political rivals. Then it’s a full-blown collapse of the Rule ‘O Law.

    I for one am betting he does, based on his past performance. Other people seem to be relying on some bs about how his wife is in a ….prayer group (?) which is insane. I’d take that bet.

  161. 161
    TenguPhule says:

    @Martin:

    and that Congress and USSC need to do their fucking jobs.

    Their job is to aid and abet the criminal conspiracy because Republicans control the Senate and the USSC.

    Mueller should have been smarter then this.

  162. 162
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kay:

    Now we get to watch if/when Barr goes after Trump’s political rivals.

    Already happened. Barr was already reported to have been targeting Obama’s appointees and trying once again to target Hillary Clinton weeks ago.

  163. 163
    Martin says:

    @Ruckus: Impeachment is a political act, but it’s also an investigatory one. I see nothing wrong with Democrats coming out and saying that they’re going to start impeachment hearings and may choose to end them at any point. Nobody knew about the Nixon tapes until the hearings started – that’s how we learned of them. Rather than 20 different investigations by different committees and AG offices and state AGs, we’re going to roll this up into one investigation.

  164. 164
    Baud says:

    @TenguPhule: You’re not dead!

  165. 165
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Another Scott: My mileage varies a great deal. I understand the requirements for conviction, the electoral risks involved, etc., but the fact remains, when a president sets himself above the law and the only body constitutionally empowered with holding him accountable declines to do so, that means the president is in effect above the law, and the system of checks and balances is meaningless.

    I’m a grown-up — I can take that revelation! I’d just rather not see the shit-sandwich get a sugar coating like “we can and will hold Trump accountable” or “history will judge him harshly.” No, we won’t, and it doesn’t matter.

  166. 166
    matt says:

    The Democrats have to start impeachment and make the Senate vote it down. I have some trust that Nancy Pelosi will make that happen. If it doesn’t, the Democrats will go down in history like the hapless figures of the Weimar democracy.

  167. 167
    TenguPhule says:

    @TaMara (HFG):

    I’m still unclear what impeachment gets us, except the Republican victimization talking point amplified

    Do we follow the Constitutional Checks and Balances or do we finally admit that the Constitution isn’t working any more?

  168. 168
    trnc says:

    @Cheryl from Maryland: @Mnemosyne:

    I’m pretty sure this report is going to be THE BASIS for the impeachment proceedings.

    Not only the basis from a legal perspective, but a reason that more voters may support impeachment.

  169. 169
    Mnemosyne says:

    @TenguPhule:

    What a shock — the paid doom-and-gloomer shows up the instant some of us start to point out that the Mueller report is designed to be the basis for impeachment proceedings.

    What a co-inkydink!

    Don’t bother replying, because you’re going back into the pie filter as soon as I press “Post Comment” on this. Bye-bye, troll.

  170. 170
    TenguPhule says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    It’s too early to drink.

    This means you haven’t been drinking enough.

  171. 171
    Kay says:

    Wikileaks gave special access to certain reporters on the stolen emails, just one big insiders club with voters and the public as the outsiders. We didn’t know how hard everyone was working to defeat our candidate. It really was a huge effort, and even they barely eked out a win.

  172. 172
    TenguPhule says:

    @Mnemosyne: Fuck you too. I see you’ve gotten worse.

  173. 173
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Baud:

    He is to me.

  174. 174
    raven says:

    @Ruckus: @Ruckus: Pissin up a slack line. . .

  175. 175
    bemused says:

    @Bill Arnold:

    Trumpsheviks.

  176. 176
    Mnemosyne says:

    @TenguPhule:

    I’m not really into fruit pies, but a local place makes a “best of both worlds” chocolate banana cream pie. Thanks for asking.

  177. 177
    oatler. says:

    “Harm to ongoing matters”
    Ha ha, redacted report!

  178. 178
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kraux Pas:

    Nadler has publicly asked Mueller to come testify no later than May 23.

    Time and the general public’s awareness wait for no man.

  179. 179
    bemused says:

    @Kay:

    An evangelical prayer group no doubt.

  180. 180
    TenguPhule says:

    @Baud: I’ve been ill. Bacterial infection in the throat and lungs.

  181. 181
    Mnemosyne says:

    @trnc:

    Yep. It’s no longer a “fishing expedition.” There’s a report with named people who can be called to testify under subpoena.

    IANAL, but I’m medium sure that a Congressional subpoena issued from impeachment proceedings has more teeth than the regular kind.

  182. 182
    TenguPhule says:

    @Mnemosyne: I can’t help it that you get it wrong so often and have such poor taste in entertainment.

  183. 183
    Patricia Kayden says:

    Come on, Speaker Pelosi, do your job and initiate impeachment proceedings. Mueller has given you enough ammunition to get this done. McConnell is not going to budge but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the House’s duty to impeach the Unindicted co-Conspirator in the White House.

  184. 184
    matt says:

    @TenguPhule: It makes the point that the Democrats won’t sit around like potted plants while the Republicans piss on rule of law.

  185. 185
    TenguPhule says:

    @Baud: Notice the cameras avoid the part where his fingers are crossed.

  186. 186
  187. 187
    TenguPhule says:

    @matt: Yep. But then its all “But the Senate won’t convict him, so what’s the point?” from the very people who like to accuse other people of being doom and gloom.//

  188. 188
    tobie says:

    @Martin: @Betty Cracker: Didn’t a court recently say that the only way the redacted Grand Jury testimony could be released would be if Barr requested it or, alternatively, if Congress were conducting impeachment investigations? This seems like reason enough to start impeachment proceedings. We really do need to know the full extent of the obstruction and the nature of the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia.

    Also: looks like Senator Burr was a mole and told the Trump White House about the targets of the FBI’s investigation. Creep.

  189. 189
    different-church-lady says:

    My take at-a-glance: Mueller flinched.

  190. 190
    jl says:

    Interesting that, from what I heard on radio news this morning, report says that people warned Trump shit would blow up if he fired Comey. Comey was a good soldier winding down the investigation, but Trump was having serial tantrums. Then the McGahn (sp?) wouldn’t do ‘crazy shit’ Trump asked him to do, since WH counsel didn’t want to risk complete disgrace or maybe time in the slammer.

    I guess their plan was put out hard copies mid-day, and they assumed everyone else was as incompetent as Trumpster WH and wouldn’t get copies of report and damning details out until next day’s news cycle?

  191. 191
    TenguPhule says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    but the fact remains, when a president sets himself above the law and the only body constitutionally empowered with holding him accountable declines to do so, that means the president is in effect above the law, and the system of checks and balances is meaningless.

    Indeed.

  192. 192
    Kay says:

    @bemused:

    With Mueller’s wife. That’s why he’s ethical. They’re insane. I really think it’s genuine desperation- they believe in these people and these institutions and they think pretending they’re working protects the norm, when in my view it just corrodes trust further. Whistling in the dark. Everything is FINE, the esteemed people are in charge, okey doke.

    Kids do this. You can interview an abused child and they will bend over backward to protect the “trusted adult” because that idea of safety is so essential to protect. If the adults aren’t good and reliable then they’re alone and they’re small and powerless. It’s too scary to even contemplate. Admitting it makes it real. It’s understandable because it’s not really protecting the adult. It’s protecting themselves.

  193. 193
    TenguPhule says:

    @different-church-lady:

    My take at-a-glance: Mueller flinched.

    And I can’t disagree.

    It seems there truly are no honorable Republicans left.

  194. 194
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @lamh36: I don’t think we want to know. I’m sure they’ll find a way to spin it do that it’s not only favorable to Trump but also damaging to the FBI “spies”.

  195. 195
    NotMax says:

    Message for the day:

    Witches are real.

    ;)

  196. 196
    TenguPhule says:

    @NotMax:

    Witches are real.

    Release that Witch!

  197. 197
    Mnemosyne says:

    Okay, I looked it up:

    The Starr report was released on Sept. 11, 1998.

    The House opened impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton on Jan. 7, 1999.

    So the reason people think it’s impossible for the House to start impeachment proceedings based on the Mueller report is … ?

  198. 198
    Kraux Pas says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Time and the general public’s awareness wait for no man.

    This supposed awareness of the general public is a myth. But if it were real, I would think keeping this in the news as long as possible while letting the truth come out more and more can only be a good thing.

  199. 199
    bemused says:

    @Kay:

    Oops, thought you were talking about Barr’s wife. Even so, I’ve always been skeptical about most prayer groups and even more so since the “christian” right has embraced white nationalism and trump agenda.

  200. 200
    lamh36 says:

    It’s amazing to me to see and hear the media esp some of the same folks on CNN now telling folks how much Barr mislead about the report in his summary…without admitting they fell for that misleading summary even as more cool heads said wait for the report itself

  201. 201
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kent:

    If you game out impeachment what you have is the Senate finding him INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES just as the 2020 election is gaining full steam and all the media coverage would be about how Trump has been 100% vindicated of the Dem witch hunt.

    I’m pretty sure Pelosi is smart enough and has enough material to work with to keep Impeachment proceedings going in the House well past Nov 7, 2020. Just because the Senate gets the final vote doesn’t mean they should be allowed to before every single charge is paraded in public and explained to the point even the general public starts to get it.

  202. 202
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Kay:

    It’s protecting themselves.

    Yep. If our current elites admit that the Republicans are rotten to the core, the entire facade tumbles down, and the longer they refuse to admit it, the more resistant they become, because then the question becomes, “Why didn’t you realize this sooner?”

  203. 203
    Baud says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Shit. Sorry, man. Hope you are feeling better.

  204. 204
    zhena gogolia says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Hey, hi!

  205. 205
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kraux Pas: What the past 6 years have taught us is that the media is unable to properly focus on anything for a sustained period of time other then Hillary Clinton’s emails. By May there will be another dozen Trump crimes/scandals sucking up all the oxygen.

  206. 206
    trollhattan says:

    Probably mentioned upthread but there’s no security applied to the PDF and I’m running OCR in Acrobat. Gonna take awhile!

  207. 207
    Mnemosyne says:

    @different-church-lady:

    I disagree. See my post above about the timing of the Starr report’s release and the start of the Clinton impeachment.

    The Starr report was the basis for the Clinton impeachment proceedings. Not sure why everyone seems to think the Mueller report isn’t intended to be used the exact same way.

  208. 208
    Martin says:

    @Mnemosyne: Yeah, once you buy into a lie, you have to own it forever. People don’t usually realize that until its suddenly crippling expensive to keep owning.

  209. 209
    Another Scott says:

    @Betty Cracker: Congress can and should do many, many things to act as a check on Trump. Impeachment is not the only tool in the toolbox.

    Subpoena Barr and Mueller and Rosenstein, to start, and work up and down from there.

    Fight like hell to get the full report. Maybe refuse to fund the EOP and the DOJ until they get it.

    Etc.

    The Democratic House has a lot of power. The Courts have a lot of power. The States have a lot of power. This isn’t over even if the House never votes on Articles of Impeachment.

    Burning up Democrats political power over something that – at least at this point – seems impossible (Donnie’s impeachment and removal from office) will not help us turn the ship of state around. IMHO. Of course, things can change. But let’s start with Congress seeing the full report, let’s see what happens at Stone’s trial, let’s see what happens when Cohen has spilled all the beans, etc.

    The biggest thing for me though is – making sure Democratic majorities are as large as possible in January 2021 so that we can get on with the business of undoing the damage Donnie and his minions are doing. If impeachment interferes with that, then I’m against it.

    My $0.02.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  210. 210
  211. 211
    lamh36 says:

    @kylegriffin1
    35s36 seconds ago
    More
    Schumer and Pelosi: “As we continue to review the report, one thing is clear: Attorney General Barr presented a conclusion that the president did not obstruct justice while Mueller’s report appears to undercut that finding.”

  212. 212
    TenguPhule says:

    @Baud: Better then I used to. Thanks.

  213. 213
    TenguPhule says:

    @zhena gogolia: Heya. its been awhile.

  214. 214
    TenguPhule says:

    @lamh36: Appears is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

  215. 215
    Martin says:

    @tobie: Not exactly. Court did make it a bit harder, but there’s some important context there. I’m not sure Congress would need to formally open a case for a judge to unseal that. The judge may recognize Congress’ authority to formally open a case and simply unseal it, especially given the circumstances.

  216. 216
    Aleta says:

    through the window to Rosenstein’s damned soul

    Marc Faletti @MarcFaletti
    hello darkness
    https://twitter.com/MarcFaletti/status/1118881019518701568

  217. 217
    lamh36 says:

    I tell you one thing…impeachment or not…even w/the redacted stuff…this report makes me even more than before want the next Dem candidate to be willing to bring the fight to Chump.

    Not sugarcoat things in an effort to appease “Chump voters”…but speak to the American people with straight talk and fight.

    Because you can bet those Trump voters won’t read the report redacted or not…they just support Chump and the GOP no matter what…so tryng to woos those deplorables is a no go for me.

    Fuq em…and bring that Orange fuq’er down

  218. 218
    lamh36 says:

    @RepJeffries
    So-called Attorney General claimed Individual 1 fully cooperated with Mueller investigation.

    Wrong.

    Trump may have obstructed justice at least ten times.

    No one is above the law.

    905
    12:32 PM – Apr 18, 2019

  219. 219
    lamh36 says:

    @KamalaHarris
    4h4 hours ago
    More
    Barr is acting more like Trump’s defense attorney than the nation’s Attorney General. His press conference was a stunt, filled with political spin and propaganda.

    Americans deserve the unvarnished truth. We need Special Counsel Mueller to testify publicly in Congress.

  220. 220
    rikyrah says:

    I will say it again..

    IF this had been 44….
    And, ALL we knew was what we knew in December 2016…

    THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WOULD HAVE NEVER MET.
    You best believe that.

  221. 221
    Eolirin says:

    @Kay: They will, yes, but they want to be able to shriek about unfairness. They can’t get what they claim they want, so it’s impossible for them to be satisfied by winning. If Bernie is president they’d either turn on him or blame everyone else for his failure to bring a perfect progressive utopia. They’d still be miserable, but without the idol to pin their hopes on.

  222. 222
    rikyrah says:

    @lamh36:

    THIS is the tone all Democrats need to be taking.

  223. 223
    Kraux Pas says:

    Can we burn the witch yet?

  224. 224
    lamh36 says:

    Senate Intel Chair Burr apparently fed info on FBI’s Russia probe to White House, Mueller report says. Burr did not respond to request for comment on meeting with Comey then briefing WH counsel office on FBI investigations.

    @burgessev
    8m8 minutes ago
    More
    Mueller couches this with the word “appears” because McGahn’s office said Burr was briefing on his probe. But McGahn CoS notes imply the briefing was on the FBI, according to the special counsel
    https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1118941455014297601

  225. 225
    rikyrah says:

    @lamh36:

    I tell you one thing…impeachment or not…even w/the redacted stuff…this report makes me even more than before want the next Dem candidate to be willing to bring the fight to Chump.

    Not sugarcoat things in an effort to appease “Chump voters”…but speak to the American people with straight talk and fight.

    CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

    TELL IT.

  226. 226
    TenguPhule says:

    @Another Scott:

    If the people with the ability to vote on it aren’t willing to convict, then it’s pointless and worse because it distracts the Congress and the nation from other important topics.

    You mean Trump’s summits with North Korea, His Trade wars with China, the EU, Mexico and Canada, his child concentration camps in Texas, his attempts to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia or his general attempt to set the Middle East on fire starting from Israel?

  227. 227
    rikyrah says:

    @bobcesca_go
    Follow Follow @bobcesca_go
    More
    Jesus! Mueller: “Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota” were discussed between Manafort and GRU operative Kilimnik.

  228. 228
    TenguPhule says:

    @Kent:

    There will be plenty of time after 2020 to jail all those motherfuckers.

    I remember thinking this was true in 2008 too. But then we found out we had to prioritize.

    I don’t want jam tomorrow or jam yesterday.

  229. 229
    rikyrah says:

    @Aleta:

    through the window to Rosenstein’s damned soul

    PHUCK EM.

  230. 230
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Another Scott:

    The biggest thing for me though is – making sure Democratic majorities are as large as possible in January 2021 so that we can get on with the business of undoing the damage Donnie and his minions are doing. If impeachment interferes with that, then I’m against it.

    That’s a reasonable argument — I totally get it! But it privileges political power over the rule of law. Do you get that?

    I don’t mean to pick on you specifically — lots of people are going to make that argument, and they’ll probably prevail, and maybe everything will work out, at least for 2020. I just don’t want us to fool ourselves about what it means. We’ll be making a consequential choice. Let’s make it with our eyes open.

  231. 231
    rikyrah says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Sorry to hear about your illness :(

    sending you healing thoughts.

  232. 232
    Aleta says:

    Jonathan Swan @jonathanvswan
    Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow just told me he first saw the Mueller report on Tuesday afternoon. Trump’s legal team, including the Raskins, made two visits to the Justice Department to view the report securely — late Tuesday and early Wednesday, Sekulow said.

    Ryan Goodman @rgoodlaw
    Ryan Goodman Retweeted Jonathan Swan
    Note: Personal lawyer. Not executive branch official.

    Artist Gail @ArtistGailS
    Replying to @jonathanvswan
    Wait… Does Sekulow have security clearance? If not, then there is either no classified information in the report or redactions are unnecessary.

    He may have it by now, but in a quick Ggle nothing current shows up. In May 2018, NY Mag

    Report: Trump’s Personal Lawyers Don’t Have Security Clearance

    Donald Trump’s legal team for the Russia investigation has had its share of setbacks. Most recently, lead attorney John Dowd resigned from his post, reportedly because Trump stopped listening to him. Losing Dowd didn’t just mean losing a “fierce legal mind,” it also meant losing the only lawyer on Trump’s team with security clearance.

    Now, Bloomberg reports, none of Trump’s lawyers working on issues related to the Russia probe have clearance. Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal attorney and the host of Jay Sekulow Live!, replaced Dowd, but he’s still waiting to be cleared. The newest members of the team — Rudy Giuliani, Marty Raskin and Jane Raskin — haven’t been on the job long enough to get cleared themselves and none of them told Bloomberg whether they’d even sought such clearance. Ty Cobb, who does have security clearance, is charged with representing the office of the presidency and is not on Trump’s personal legal team.

  233. 233
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @lamh36:

    @AugustJPollak
    Follow Follow @AugustJPollak
    More
    Amazing how many Democrats don’t realize it’s going to be harder for them to defend not holding impeachment hearings than it was ever going to be for Republicans and yet they somehow think taking that stance makes them look principled and not just like useless idiots

    10:51 AM – 18 Apr 2019

    I respectfully disagree. Impeachment has no chance of success with the senate being what it is, and an unsuccessful impeachment is worse strategically than no impeachment.

    The facts that would otherwise come out during impeachment proceedings will instead come out through HOR investigations.

    Same facts will come out, the likelihood of removing trump is the same, and trump will not be strengthened by successfully defeating impeachment efforts.

  234. 234
    Aleta says:

    @TenguPhule: Get well soon. Missed you.

  235. 235
    H.E.Wolf says:

    There are lessons available from the American Civil Rights movement of the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s, on what possibilities are open to us when the game is rigged against us.

    I’m sure there was plenty of intramural fighting during those decades, and folks who lost hope, and individuals who behaved like a fart in an elevator… and those actions and behaviors were not what led to the great victories, imperfect though those victories may have been.

    It was decades of effort by hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom operated from profound faith and love while calling out systems of profound injustice.

    We might do well to find a similar commitment in ourselves for the long haul ahead. As Congressman John Lewis would say: Find a way to get in the good kind of trouble.

    [stepping off my soapbox and returning to my daily stint on voter outreach projects]

  236. 236
    different-church-lady says:

    @rikyrah: I’m tellin’ ya, it is not going to come out for years and years, but eventually it will come out that vote totals WERE hacked.

  237. 237
    MisterForkbeard says:

    @Aleta: I think the implication here is actually that Barr finished redacting the report and then let Sekulow see it for a few days.

    Or to put it more clearly: He delayed the report so that Trump and his lawyers could look at it and manage a PR defense first. As others have stated, the Clinton Presidency wasn’t even allowed ONE HOUR to view the Starr Report before it was released.

  238. 238
    Aleta says:

    @rikyrah: Line them all up in front of a phuckem’iring squad

  239. 239
    Mnemosyne says:

    @rikyrah:

    Well, that can’t be possible, because people told us over and over again that it was Hillary Clinton’s bad campaigning that lost her those states. Could those people have been wrong? 😈

  240. 240
    TriassicSands says:

    Mueller, the ultimate traditionalist, was probably the wrong person to investigate the ultimate non-traditional president. In the end, his report continues the actions of the Republicans to normalize Trump’s behavior. Assuming from the beginning, contrary to all observable evidence, that Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt is ridiculous. Trump’s entire career is characterized by “corrupt intent.” Nothing changed when he became president.

    i’ve heard several times this morning that Trump ordered aides to fire Mueller and they ignored him. That should be conclusive proof of Trump’s state of mind, which it sounds like Mueller was at a loss to determine. Hence, no determination on the question of obstruction of justice. There are mountains of evidence that show that Trump has no respect whatever for the law.

    Once again, the US shows it is unwilling to hold its presidents accountable. They are truly above the law. Mueller faced with the task of holding Trump accountable — blinked.

    If the Republicans had a shred of integrity and decency they would join with Democrats and, at the very least, censure Trump (for conduct unbecoming a human being).

  241. 241
    dww44 says:

    @Ruckus:So it’s more important to NOT look weak in the present as opposed to taking the long view that not impeaching this President for blatant high crimes and misdemeanors is actually far more damaging to the health of our democracy. Party over country, then. Admittedly, I don’t yet see the Congressional Dems, other than Adam Schiff maybe, who aren’t likely to get rolled by the GOP.

  242. 242
    Betty Cracker says:

    @rikyrah: Yep — the campaign chairman shared internal polling data with the Russians, but no collusion! 🙄

  243. 243
    Aleta says:

    @MisterForkbeard:

    Starr said the independent counsel law under which he operated required the transmission of his report directly to Congress. That law has now expired, and regulations governing Mueller’s work are different. Nevertheless, the difference in deference paid to the White House and the president is stark.

    — Rosalind S. Helderman, WaPo this am

  244. 244
    TenguPhule says:

    @Steve in the ATL:

    Impeachment has no chance of success with the senate being what it is, and an unsuccessful impeachment is worse strategically than no impeachment.

    Nobody said we have to let the Senate vote on it before Nov 7, 2020. Simply going over all the crimes in the last two years alone should be enough to suck up all the oxygen, let alone adding additional charges each week as more crimes committed in real time by Trump and company.

    And its not like forcing Congress to only talk about Trump’s crimes every single day instead of doing anything else other then continuing spending resolutions has a downside from our perspective.

  245. 245
    MisterForkbeard says:

    @Aleta: That’s it right there, right? “Technically not illegal (especially in cases where we get to decide the illegality) and against a different standard than previous administrations in every way” is the method they’re pursuing.

  246. 246
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    I don’t get why people (not you!) seem to have completely forgotten the timeline of the Clinton impeachment and how the Starr report was used.

    People. Look. 👏 At. 👏 The. 👏 Dates. 👏

    This is an impeachment outline for the House.

  247. 247
    TenguPhule says:

    @TriassicSands:

    If the Republicans had a shred of integrity and decency

    Aunts. Balls. Uncles. Etc.

  248. 248
    TenguPhule says:

    @rikyrah: Thank you.

  249. 249
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Simply going over all the crimes in the last two years alone should be enough to suck up all the oxygen, let alone adding additional charges each week as more crimes committed in real time by Trump and company.

    House can do all that without impeachment, and…

    Nobody said we have to let the Senate vote on it before Nov 7, 2020

    …no [expletive deleted] way is McTurtle going to let impeachment proceedings hang over the 2020 election.

    Does trump deserve impeachment? Of course, as has every republican president of my lifetime. But we can’t win that way, and taking over the government is far more important than making a statement.

  250. 250
    TenguPhule says:

    @Aleta: Thank you. I’ve mostly recovered but my throat and voice box still aren’t 100%.

  251. 251
    rikyrah says:

    uh huh
    uh huh

    NBC News: According to the Mueller report Sarah Sanders says that her derogatory comments about Comey and the fact that FBI agents had lost confident in him was, according to her, a comment made “in the heat of the moment” that was not founded on anything.

    — Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) April 18, 2019

  252. 252
    low-tech cyclist says:

    @Steve in the ATL:

    I respectfully disagree. Impeachment has no chance of success with the senate being what it is, and an unsuccessful impeachment is worse strategically than no impeachment.

    The facts that would otherwise come out during impeachment proceedings will instead come out through HOR investigations.

    My turn to respectfully disagree. ;^) People will pay a lot more attention to impeachment hearings than to the regular House hearings. They will have the opportunity to see the case made in its entirety rather than in bits and pieces. It will have a lot more impact, and it will emphasize the seriousness of the matter, especially since the Dems will treat it seriously.

    Given that almost nobody expects the GOP to convict in an impeachment trial, matter how overwhelming the case, there’s no cost to an ‘unsuccessful’ impeachment, except to the GOP. They’ll have seen the case that the House put together, and they’ll see Mitch simply refuse to hold a Senate trial, with no protest from his own party. It won’t be a good look for GOP Senators.

  253. 253
    different-church-lady says:

    @rikyrah: Ah. Well, it’s good to know that’s a thing they do.

  254. 254
    rikyrah says:

    Still reading the Appendices (I’m a nerd like that). Apparently Mueller has referred 14 people to other departments for criminal investigation, only 2 of which (Cohen and Greg Craig) are underacted.

    So, that’s 12 more shoes to drop…

    — Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) April 18, 2019

  255. 255
    TenguPhule says:

    @Steve in the ATL:

    House can do all that without impeachment, and…

    And as we’ve all seen, anything less then impeachment is getting a “Fuck you, make me” from the Trump lackies when it comes to producing information when they’re not literally lying about it. Timing matters, the longer they stall, the less time we have to turn things around.

    …no [expletive deleted] way is McTurtle going to let impeachment proceedings hang over the 2020 election.

    House controls the case proceedings. He doesn’t get a say until the House finishes, IIRC.

  256. 256
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Steve in the ATL:

    … no [expletive deleted] way is McTurtle going to let impeachment proceedings hang over the 2020 election.

    Does the Senate get to dictate how long House impeachment proceedings are allowed to continue?

    IANAL, but I’m pretty sure not. The House of Lords Senate is not the boss of the House of Representatives.

  257. 257
    low-tech cyclist says:

    @Steve in the ATL: @Steve in the ATL:

    …no [expletive deleted] way is McTurtle going to let impeachment proceedings hang over the 2020 election.

    Depends on what you mean. He won’t hold an impeachment trial, period.

    Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate has to hold a trial, just because the House passes articles of impeachment. And Mitch’s standard response to anything that might put a GOP Senator in an awkward position is to keep it off the Senate floor, unless it’s something he wants very badly.

  258. 258
    Smiling Mortician says:

    If you haven’t seen it, Nadler’s statement and Q&A with the press (just finished live, available at the WaPo website) was pretty good. He’s definitely not dismissing impeachment, but he’s focused primarily on getting people in front of his committee to testify. Barr is scheduled for May 2, and he’s working on scheduling Mueller sometime after that.

  259. 259
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @TenguPhule:

    And as we’ve all seen, anything less then impeachment is getting a “Fuck you, make me” from the Trump lackies when it comes to producing information when they’re not literally lying about it. Timing matters, the longer they stall, the less time we have to turn things around.

    And that worked so well with the Mueller report with them /snark.

    the Dems are right to drag their feet and make it so public opinion forces them to do what they want. That makes it impossible for the GOP to try to claim it’s politics.

  260. 260
    JaySinWA says:

    @low-tech cyclist: Hear, hear:

    Given that almost nobody expects the GOP to convict in an impeachment trial, matter how overwhelming the case, there’s no cost to an ‘unsuccessful’ impeachment, except to the GOP. They’ll have seen the case that the House put together, and they’ll see Mitch simply refuse to hold a Senate trial, with no protest from his own party. It won’t be a good look for GOP Senators

    To which I would add that a failure to impeach when there are clear grounds for it would be a blow against the rule of law. We can not just worry about strategy. At some point we have to do what is right.

  261. 261
    NY Robbin says:

    @Kay:

    So true. Kay, I’m always so late to most threads and I want to say how much I love your comments.

    The thing is, we’re not children any more. We are adult citizens in a supposedly self-governing republic and if our institutions don’t work we can change them. But we have to admit the problem first.

  262. 262
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @TenguPhule: @Mnemosyne: so…we wait until mid-2020 to impeach in the House to make sure it’s still out there in November 2020? That doesn’t work either.

  263. 263
    rikyrah says:

    THREAD

    Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) Tweeted:
    All right. I just finished the Mueller Report. I’m going to combine the most shocking and important revelations in one thread. Long and short: there was collusion, there was obstruction, Donald Trump needs to be removed from office. Immediately. 1/ https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1118916747887882242?s=17

  264. 264
    Kay says:

    Ohio’s population would have declined if not for immigrants

    I don’t know why people don’t get this. I mean, seriously these spots are going begging in some places. They want a diminished and older population? Why? Just for contributions to Social Security alone they should be more welcoming, and Medicare will go bust without younger people.

  265. 265
    different-church-lady says:

    @Kay: If they were encumbered by the thought process, they wouldn’t be conservatives, would they?

  266. 266
    lamh36 says:

    @pbo4us12
    OMG! These are the 3 states that decided the stolen 2016 election, electorally. I was amplifying this from the ROOFTOPS on BLOGS. Most were accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist. I KNEW IT!!! The Russian Cyber electioneering re-arranged votes in Penn, Wisc, and Mich. OMG!!

    50
    1:33 PM – Apr 18, 2019

  267. 267
    gvg says:

    @TenguPhule: If there are hearings leading up to November elections and Senate republicans up for reelection see their own poll numbers drop, some of them will vote for impeachment. Alternatively, if the public does not make the republican polls drop (based on the evidence made public in these hearing), the republicans will stand firm. In fact, if the democrats poll numbers start dropping from hearings, some democrats might not vote to impeach. It depends on the public, as it should in a democracy. I want the public opinion to be based on the known facts, but I can’t be sure this will work out. What I know so far, makes me pretty sure Trump AND his appointees, are guilty. I really don’t think there is any chance the actual facts will clear Trump.
    Congress also has options to investigate a much wider scope than Rosenstein though he could authorize Mueller to check. Trump has in my view broken the law in office and before. If he wasn’t so stupid, he never would have run.

  268. 268
    TenguPhule says:

    Green: Grand jury testimony.

    Red: Reveals intelligence sources and methods.

    Blue: Compromises ongoing investigation.

    Orange: Impacts peripheral third party.

    Teal: Blue marker ran out.

    Salmon: Reveals unflattering detail about the experience of staying at a Trump property or resort.

    Crossed Out In Gold: President Trump was trying to highlight because he thought it exculpatory but pen was too big.

    Whited Out: Not redacted, just a typo.

    Crossed Out in a Zodiac Symbol With Many Tiny Pen Strokes: Person redacting watched cursed videotape.

    Each Letter Filled Meticulously by a Variety of Colors to Form a Picture of Saint Patrick Blessing What Looks Like a Diseased Hippopotamus: Guy who was redacting went on break, monk took over.

    Covered in Layers of Aluminum Foil: Redactor suddenly became aware this went all the way to the top.

    Crossed Out in Pencil With Question Mark Written on Side: Redactor wasn’t sure of information’s importance, reminder to go back and ask someone, oops!

    Yellow: This isn’t redacting! This is highlighting!

    Purple: Information compromises Byzantine emperor.

    Pale Green: Information reminded redactor of spring.

    Turquoise: Information reminded redactor of last time he felt truly still.

    Half-Inch Streak of Gorgeous Lavender: Lovely word the redactor wanted to keep to himself.

    Brown Splotch: Redactor was eating gravy and spilled some on report.

    The lighter side of a heavy subject.

  269. 269
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Steve in the ATL:

    I had to look up the Andrew Johnson impeachment since the Clinton impeachment was kind of a farce. It looks like the House prepares and passes the Articles of Impeachment (the charges) and the trial goes to the Senate.

    I don’t really see why it’s a problem for the House to hold multiple public hearings to prepare the Articles, and to attach their evidence to each of the Articles when they are forwarded to the Senate.

    No impeached president has ever been convicted anyway, so I’m not that moved by arguments that the Senate won’t convict after Trump is impeached. It’s making him only the 3rd president in US history to be impeached that’s the important part.

  270. 270
    TenguPhule says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    the Dems are right to drag their feet and make it so public opinion forces them to do what they want.

    Public opinion needs some spurs pressed hard into its backside to get it moving in the right direction.

  271. 271
    burnspbesq says:

    @chopper:

    so, from i’m able to surmise with regard to obstruction, the only real thing that kept mueller from recommending actual charges was the fact that the DOJ doesn’t believe you can indict a sitting president. wow.

    Which means that if Trump leaves office on 1/20/21, there will be at least a year left on the statute of limitation, a new AG, and a new U.S. Attorney for DC.

  272. 272
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Smiling Mortician:

    Testimony in front of Congress would be another piece of evidence to hang the Articles of Impeachment on.

    Seriously, now that the report has been issued, I’m ready to start working on impeachment. Let’s roll.

  273. 273
    chopper says:

    @Another Scott:

    also, there’s plenty for the house to investigate as to obstruction via a regular select committee or some such.

  274. 274
    chopper says:

    @burnspbesq:

    which means i now have a new litmus test for a dem candidate in the primary!

  275. 275
    TenguPhule says:

    @gvg:

    I want the public opinion to be based on the known facts, but I can’t be sure this will work out.

    The only way we can get all the facts out there and direct public opinion in the right direction is with a really big hammer.

    This is why Trump and McConnell have been working so hard to shape public opinion to suit their purposes.

    And for a lot of people who don’t really give a shit about their fellow Americans, its working.

    We have to push back hard and fast because we’re not only fighting against Right winger framing, but the inevitable inertia of the public not really paying attention to all the very important things happening outside of their personal comfort zones.

  276. 276
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Steve in the ATL:

    Given what people are already saying is in the unredacted parts of the report, I don’t think we have to wait nearly that long.

  277. 277
    Aleta says:

    @MisterForkbeard:
    “implication here is actually that Barr finished redacting the report and then let Sekulow see it for a few days”

    No way that can be trusted though.

    Knowing for sure that the WH and DOJ lie in coordination against citizens is a madness that, from local level on up, people in discriminated groups have known for 100s of years.

    But the openness about it today and from 2017 on…. It’s beyond shamelessness as a character flaw; it’s FNB — feature not bug. Spreading cynicism that ‘government can’t be trusted’ is what the tea party and the money-first Repubs. and Koch brothers have worked at for 40 years. They want to infect everyone.

  278. 278
    chopper says:

    @lamh36:

    exactly. i’m not saying we’re getting over our skis in talking about impeachment, but first and foremost this report shows in excruciating detail how trump was installed in the WH by russia. full stop.

    if a report like this came out about a democrat, he or she would be getting tied to a rail and pelted with rotten fruit as we speak. so, let’s make trump sweat over this shit. democrats everywhere need to repeat this in front of every camera they can find, trump is illegitimate. he’s occupying the WH thanks to a foreign country’s illegal machinations.

  279. 279
    MisterForkbeard says:

    @Mnemosyne: Do we have any news on that? The only thing I’ve heard is: Roger Stone’s GJ information and 12 redacted items that Mueller referred to other departments.

  280. 280
    Bill Arnold says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I would be willing to bet that the first word of the first half of the quoted sentence is “Although” and that the rest of it is something suspicious verging on incriminating.

    Pretty close; you certainly got the thought-rhythm right.
    Now, get to work on the color-coded redactions in the redacted Mueller report. :-)

  281. 281
    Another Scott says:

    @Betty Cracker: Bill Clinton broke the law, too. And was impeached, but not convicted.

    Did those proceedings help strengthen the rule of law?

    Yeah, it was different.

    But the point is, it didn’t really change things. Clinton stayed popular. I can’t see that it made much of a difference in the respect for the rule of law.

    I’m all for the rule of law too – truly. But the law exists to serve the people, and making things better for the people is more important than a particular way that the Congress checks Donnie. Lives depend on it…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  282. 282
    Mnemosyne says:

    @MisterForkbeard:

    Look at the Twitter links rikyrah has been posting. Documented discussions with the Russians about voting in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

  283. 283
    Kay says:

    I started reading Glenn Greenwald on the Mueller report and he keeps saying Democrats will “turn on” Mueller (because we supposedly worshiped him) and there is just not a SCINTILLA of any of that going on.

    They just invent this stuff. The Mueller BETRAYAL :)

    He really doesn’t know Democrats at all.

  284. 284
    TenguPhule says:

    @chopper:

    democrats everywhere need to repeat this in front of every camera they can find, trump is illegitimate. he’s occupying the WH thanks to a foreign country’s illegal machinations.

    More importantly, they have to treat him as illegitimate. Every single day.

    That’s why all the talk about compromise and getting things done together has driven me to the brink of madness.

    Pelosi and Schumer’s biggest tactical mistake has been trying to work WITH Trump on anything. They need to treat everything he does as DOA because he’s not the president, he’s a crook. TREAT HIM AS ONE.

  285. 285
    Kraux Pas says:

    @Kay:

    I started reading Glenn Greenwald on the Mueller report and he keeps saying Democrats will “turn on” Mueller

    He must be a big fan of our boy Plato.

  286. 286
    TenguPhule says:

    @Another Scott:

    Yeah, it was different.

    But the point is, it didn’t really change things.

    Because it was a political hit job.

    Now we’re facing crimes, real crimes that hurt a lot of actual people and yes it fucking matters whether or not the Democrats in government do their jobs.

  287. 287
    TenguPhule says:

    @Another Scott:

    But the law exists to serve the people, and making things better for the people is more important than a particular way that the Congress checks Donnie.

    If Donald Trump is perceived to be above the reach of the law then nothing else really matters at that point. No one will be safe.

  288. 288
    TS (the original) says:

    @rikyrah:

    Apparently Mueller has referred 14 people to other departments for criminal investigation

    And how many of those other departments will carry out those criminal investigations – and will anyone ever see who those 14 people are?

  289. 289
    MisterForkbeard says:

    @Kay: To be fair, I do think Mueller kind of dropped the ball here. They started off with an assumption that Trump couldn’t be charged according to the DOJ rules, and explicitly decided not to approach the report in such a way that would say that Trump committed a crime but could not be charged.. therefore they couldn’t say Trump committed a crime in their report and had to refer it up to Barr/Congress.

    He punted. A simple line such as “in a normal investigation these repeated incidents would have been sufficient for a criminal charge” would have done everything he needed to do.

  290. 290

    I had to turn my car radio off. They were interviewing people about the report and had on a woman from the RNC whose name I didn’t catch. They asked about the multiple Trump campaign members in touch with Russians and she “answered” by saying Trump wouldn’t pay for opposition research but you know who did? Clinton. And now it’s time to investigate the investigators. I hate these people.

  291. 291
    Kay says:

    @Kraux Pas:

    I genuinely don’t get it. They all immediately accept what the AG says, now? Now the security state is completely trustworthy, but only on Donald Trump?

    It’s head spinning to read.

  292. 292
    MisterForkbeard says:

    @TS (the original): Apparently two of the 14 are publicly known, though I don’t remember who they are.

  293. 293
    Betty says:

    Ari Melber makes a strong case that Mueller is saying, I cannot charge Trump, but Congress can and should.

  294. 294
    Captain C says:

    @Kay:

    The saddest people will be the Bernistas.

    Also, based on some of the hard core Wilmer-Or-Bust (“the [female dog] is running again! We were right to withhold our votes because she is a she-devil! No collusion! All Hail Dear Leader Birdie!”-types) types that I’m still FB friends with, they’re going to be very bummed, because it turns out that Hillary Clinton did not in fact lose because she was the worstest[sic] ever, and they know deep down that at some point they’ll have to answer, if only to themselves, why, when fascism openly reared its ugly head in their country, they chose to do everything they could to kneecap the opposition, knowing that their own precious asses would be protected by their privilege, while others took the brunt of Trump’s Republican regime. I suspect that the latter may have been a feature: passive-aggressive revenge against those icky Identity People who wouldn’t reflexively bend a knee to Dear Leader.

  295. 295
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:

    Now we get to watch if/when Barr goes after Trump’s political rivals. Then it’s a full-blown collapse of the Rule ‘O Law.

    I for one am betting he does, based on his past performance.

    You are on point, and I will be sitting on the couch next to you.

  296. 296
    Baud says:

    @Kay:

    Seems consistent to me. “Harm Democrats” is a principle, after all.

  297. 297
    Kay says:

    @MisterForkbeard:

    I don’t know. I kind of appreciate that he avoided the politics. Compared to the rest of these hacks he looks like a model public employee. I just ask that prosecutors stay within their jobs. Most of them can’t even do that. We’re surrounded by giant showboats. It’s a relief to have someone quiet.

  298. 298
    TenguPhule says:

    @Dorothy A. Winsor:

    and she “answered” by saying Trump wouldn’t pay for opposition research but you know who did? Clinton. And now it’s time to investigate the investigators.

    I don’t like living in this version of 1984.

  299. 299
    TenguPhule says:

    @rikyrah: He already has. What’s terrifying is that it was reported and gone within a day because it was considered a minor scandal next to that day’s Trump scandal/shit cycle.

  300. 300
    Another Scott says:

    @TenguPhule: And what happens when Nancy doesn’t call for a vote on impeachment? Do we all just give up?

    I don’t think so. I think that we work just as hard to vote the Trumpists and Teabaggers out either way. And that the results of the election will have a much greater impact on the future of the country.

    I’m not a big fan of grand pointless gestures in politics.

    Have hearings, sure. Don’t demand a vote on impeachment though. Not until our ducks are lined up.

    Eyes on the prize.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  301. 301
    TenguPhule says:

    The Democrats let everyone know that they were not finished with their quest for collusion, but to their surprise Barr let them know at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing last week that he was just getting started. Specifically, he said, “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. … I think spying did occur.” Barr’s delivery was low-key, and his words were few, but you could hear jaws dropping all over Washington.

    Yes, Barr is now going to focus on the real crooks, the Obamas.//

  302. 302
    Captain C says:

    @Kay:

    The “enemy of your enemy is your friend” construct is bullshit. It’s almost never true.

    As per the Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries:

    29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.

    And my own corollary: “Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is a bigger asshole than your enemy.”

    (And a couple others from the Maxims:

    2. A Sergeant in motion outranks a Lieutenant who doesn’t know what’s going on.
    3. An ordnance technician at a dead run outranks everybody.

    )

  303. 303
    MisterForkbeard says:

    @Captain C: They won’t be bummed about it. They’re just going to refuse to acknowledge that anything happened, or that if it DID it didn’t matter… and if it mattered then a GOOD candidate would have been so far ahead that this wouldn’t have affected it.

    The key thing is that it’s Hillary’s fault. But I think this is less a problem with BernieBros (we don’t need to start more fights) but with Republicans and the Media. I’m totally cool with not further antagonizing potential left allies, even if they are dicks.

    @Kay: I get what you’re saying and I agree with it. However – he could have avoided the politics entirely. He started the investigation with the idea that Trump couldn’t be charged and therefore they couldn’t report out that he committed crimes, because that wouldn’t “be fair”. That colors the entire investigatory and report process. There’s no legal or political requirement to be “fair” here – what’s important is that it’s legal and his conclusions are fairly represented. He fucked that up while otherwise doing an excellent job.

  304. 304
    Millard Filmore says:

    Tap Tap Tap. Is this mic still on?

    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/04/18/impeach-the-motherfucker/#comment-7261007

    Impeach, don’t impeach … we can wait a week or two for the full impact of the Mueller report to become apparent. Already there are threads claiming vote tampering. There are experts going over EVERY detail in this report. Wait a week before demanding that impeachment starts. Right now I am for impeaching, but next week the evidence may be overwhelming.

  305. 305
    Chief Oshkosh says:

    @low-tech cyclist:

    Given that almost nobody expects the GOP to convict in an impeachment trial, [no] matter how overwhelming the case, there’s no cost to an ‘unsuccessful’ impeachment, except to the GOP.

    I agree, FWIW. Probably the kiss of death.

  306. 306
    rikyrah says:

    @lamh36:

    Senate Intel Chair Burr apparently fed info on FBI’s Russia probe to White House, Mueller report says. Burr did not respond to request for comment on meeting with Comey then briefing WH counsel office on FBI investigations.

    @burgessev
    8m8 minutes ago
    More
    Mueller couches this with the word “appears” because McGahn’s office said Burr was briefing on his probe. But McGahn CoS notes imply the briefing was on the FBI, according to the special counsel
    https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1118941455014297601

    What say you, Mark Warner?

  307. 307
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Millard Filmore:

    As I noted above, it was about 4 months between when the Starr report dropped and when the Articles of Impeachment passed in the House.

    There’s no rush. Let’s make sure the process is deliberate and thorough, not slipshod.

  308. 308
    TenguPhule says:

    @Another Scott:

    And what happens when Nancy doesn’t call for a vote on impeachment? Do we all just give up?

    I suspect we risk losing a good chunk of the people motivated in 2018 to vote. Those people went to the polls, some of them against fierce GOP interference, because the Democrats promised to make things better, to bring back rule of law and accountability. Those especially impacted by the lawless Trump regime may decide to give up on Democracy because nothing changed. The voters who put Democrats into office because they expected something can also decide they prefer the fascists because ‘hey, at least they go ahead and do shit anyway and maybe this time the leopard won’t eat my face!’

    We need the morale boost. We need it badly.

  309. 309
    Captain C says:

    @TaMara (HFG):

    And we’ve let too many things slide, from Iran-Contra

    As I recall, there were around a dozen convictions and/or indictments that went away when GHW Bush pardoned them all with the assistance of AG…Bill Barr.

  310. 310
    TenguPhule says:

    @Millard Filmore:

    we can wait a week or two for the full impact of the Mueller report to become apparent.

    Swift boats for Bush taught me that a slow response can never catch up once the narrative is set until its far too late.

  311. 311
    Bill Arnold says:

    @rikyrah:
    Here it is:

    Second, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s plan to win the election.930 That briefing encompassed the Campaign’s messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of “battleground” states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.931 Manafort did not refer explicitly to “battle round” states in his telling of the August 2 discussion, [2 line Grand Jury redaction]

    (using this searchable version: https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/mueller-report.pdf Note I had to fix a few errors on copy-paste. )

  312. 312
    Millard Filmore says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Swift boats for Bush taught me that a slow response can never catch up once the narrative is set until its far too late.

    The press and some high level Democratic leaders are already pushing the Russiaparty narrative off the rails and its only been a few hours since the release. I can wait a few days to get annoyed at the leaders in Congress.

  313. 313
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Captain C:

    One of my favorite lines of description from a Lois McMaster Bujold book was something like, He tried to keep his pace to “I am in a great hurry” and not the panicked run that signaled “The building I am in is about to explode.”

  314. 314
    TenguPhule says:

    @Millard Filmore: Schiff at least is pushing back hard and fast against Barr. Now if we could just get a unified and coordinated response like this from the rest of the Democrats, we’d be golden.

    Because we all know Manchin is going to piss in our boat.

  315. 315
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Another Scott:

    Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I’m pretty sure that Nancy is going to start the impeachment process right after Congress’s spring break.

    Mueller handed her everything she needs tied into a pretty package with a bow on top, which is something she never had for W and his gang.

    ETA: And by “start the process” I mean hold hearings, assemble the team, start drafting the Articles, etc. I don’t expect her to file the articles immediately.

  316. 316
    Gravenstone says:

    @Captain C:

    An ordnance technician at a dead run outranks everybody

    Friend of a friend is an EOD tech (retired). He tells a tale of he and his classmates enjoying a stroll through an outdoor mall, when there is a nearby car backfire. All class members promptly seek cover in any and ever means possible – including diving into the nearby open fountain. Much hilarity was had by all – once their hearts resumed beating again.

  317. 317

    @Mnemosyne: That’s incorrect:

    The impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated in December 1998 by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.[1] These charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones. Clinton was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[2] Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power – failed in the House.

    I remember that impeachment was voted on by the lame duck House and was taken up by the new Congress(Senate). However, your point about it proceeding after the Starr report is correct.

  318. 318
    Another Scott says:

    @Mnemosyne: IANAL, but it seems to me a reasonable process might go something like this:

    1) The House gets the Mueller Report (not Barr’s version).
    1′) The House gets the evidence behind the Report and gets the Grand Jury testimony (by going to court, around Barr).
    2) The relevant House committees hold hearings on the Mueller Report. Barr, Mueller, Rosenstein testify.
    3) The committees issues subpoenas for additional evidence and testimony.
    4) (Some time (months) passes for 1-4)
    5) The committees vote on whether to set up a Select Committee on Impeachment.

    I wouldn’t expect #5 before January 2020 (only ~ 8.5 months away, after all), and it would (if it happens) potentially be after that.

    Congress moves slowly.

    We’ll see.

    And just to be clear – I think that Donnie and his minions conspired with Vlad, obstructed justice, and did a lot more. They are a threat to the Republic. And they need to be removed from office. I just don’t think that chasing after an impeachment unicorn is – AT THIS TIME – worth it. We should spend our efforts in GOTV and registration and fighting voter suppression, and the House should be having oversight hearings out the wazoo, while also passing sensible legislation that would make people’s lives better.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  319. 319
    Leto says:

    @Captain C:

    2. A Sergeant in motion outranks a Lieutenant who doesn’t know what’s going on.

    So like, 99.9% of the time? I’m pretty sure that’s why we have those ball point pens that you click on the end, versus pens with caps: you don’t give choking hazards to LTs.

  320. 320
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    ETA: And by “start the process” I mean hold hearings, assemble the team, start drafting the Articles, etc. I don’t expect her to file the articles immediately.

    Oh, it can wait longer than that even.
    [ETA Another Scott lays out a plausible timeline. ]
    I mean, the redacted Mueller report needs to be chewed and digested properly, the pins-and-colored-yarn maps drawn and argued over a bit, high-level Dems on TV talking about the illegitimate president and/or whatever seems strongest, some more House investigations and subpoenas and witnesses, preferably live on TV, etc. The articles can wait. Personally, I’d wait until Oct 2020 but Pelosi is competent at political timing, can be trusted with it IMO.

  321. 321
    burnspbesq says:

    @Kay

    I started reading Glenn Greenwald on the Mueller report

    You’re quite the masochist, aren’t you.

  322. 322
    Chris Johnson says:

    Watch for places where coordinated posting/voting can suppress information.

    reddit r/chapotraphouse is undergoing a FULL COURT PRESS to silence any discussion of any of this. It’s like nothing had happened at all. It’s chilling. Reddit lets you downvote threads and posts… I wonder how r/politics is doing.

    I think there’s probably Russians here pushing for the opposite, but hesitantly ‘cos it’s a lot more important to suppress all this than it is to heighten the contradictions. Plus, in so doing they would be aligning with the eventual outcome.

    I’m guessing the 12 unknown criminals are all or mostly Senators. If this shit is what they WILL let us see so far, God help us when we work out what really happened. I think Mueller considers himself a dead man walking at this point.

    It seems to me like he went, “Fine. My party are a gang of traitors working with the Russians. The only reason my President didn’t is, he’s an idiot, and he absolutely wanted and intended to work with the Russians and got sidelined because he is incompetent even to conspire. Our whole government is compromised and it’s ‘too big to fail’, we can’t possibly survive jailing most of the Senate, the President is literally a traitor and I’m holding the bag for all of it, with the Democrats wanting ME to throw all the bad guys in jail so they don’t have to get their hands dirty.”

    “Screw it. I’m a dead man at this point, especially if they want me to testify. I will dump the whole thing in the Democrats’ lap, and THEY can deal with it. I’m out.”

    In fairness, I do think he has not nearly enough authority to cope with all this. It’s a massive constitutional crisis and/or civil cold war being groomed to become open civil war.

    So in a sense he is right…

    Dems must open impeachment proceedings and GET THE REST of that information, PUBLICALLY. And follow through. Do you think Republican outright traitors will agree to impeach the President when most likely a bunch of them are tangled up in all this too? Of course they won’t, because our whole structure of government has failed and pretending otherwise is just enabling a coup.

    So impeach anyway, and expose everything publically. It is starkly criminal, starkly treasonous, and we don’t ask criminals for permission to find them guilty. If it leads to Senate Republicans defying justice, make them do it and own it and try to spin it (already happening!). If we have open war within our borders then so be it. Better now than years from now, after the Republicans have dug in and set up their death squads and camps etc etc (obviously some of that is already set up. Projection. We’ve been hearing how they think for years and years and years now)

    No more treason.

  323. 323
  324. 324
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Chris Johnson:
    Excellent rant. Yes.

  325. 325

    @Another Scott: Judiciary handles Impeachments, there is no need for a special committee. Were you around for Nixon’s impeachment*?

    *Nixon wasn’t impeached by the House, but Articles of Impeachment were voted out of the Judiciary Committee.

  326. 326
    J R in WV says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Sorry to hear you have been sick. Glad you don’t have to use your voice to be vociferous here! Take care, stay calm, carry a towel.

  327. 327
    J R in WV says:

    @Steve in the ATL:

    …no [expletive deleted] way is McTurtle going to let impeachment proceedings hang over the 2020 election.

    Actually, there is nothing McConnell can do about an impeachment movement until after the House votes up or down on impeachment.

    If the House determines to hold hearings continuously from next Tuesday until late October, 2020, there is nothing McConnell can do about that. Or even Late November, 2020 — after the election, even!!

  328. 328
    TenguPhule says:

    @J R in WV: Thanks.

  329. 329
    TenguPhule says:

    @J R in WV: I know, I keep repeating this and it just doesn’t seem to sink in.

    The House controls the indictment. The Senate only comes into play to hold the actual trial.

    Plenty of loopholes to exploit, if we chose to.

  330. 330
    Another Scott says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA: HR 803 gave the impeachment hearings responsibility to the Judiciary. It wasn’t automatic. [ But you’re right that it wasn’t a “Select Committee” (though there was one in the Senate) so that phrasing was wrong. ]

    Introduced in House (02/04/1974)

    Authorizes the House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach President Richard M. Nixon.

    States that the Committee may require, by subpoena, interrogatory, or otherwise, the furnishing of such information as it deems necessary to such an investigation. Provides that such authority may be exercised by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly or by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.

    Stipulates that any funds made available to the Committee on the Judiciary may be expended for the purpose of carrying out the investigation.

    Yeah, I was around then, but a relative youngster.

    Thanks.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  331. 331
    janesays says:

    @lamh36: Why? He won’t be removed from office, and after he doesn’t get convicted in the Senate, they get to scream “Total Exoneration!” all over again.

    I don’t think people fully realize this… we are stuck with this awful president and his awful administration until January 20, 2021, and there’s not a goddamn thing any of us can do to change that fact. Impeachment without removal is just trying to make yourself feel better by putting a Band-Aid on a six inch wide open gaping wound. The only real relief we can get won’t come until November 3, 2020, at the earliest.

Comments are closed.