Redacted Mueller report to be released tomorrow.

[The Romulan Republic]

One question I am very curious about is whether the Justice Department could choose to indict Trump for Obstruction after he leaves office, or whether there are rules prohibiting them from reversing a previous decision not to indict.

If the latter, then Barr has done a catastrophic disservice to his country and to justice by saying "no obstruction", especially since the Mueller Report explicitly leaves open the possibility of indictment after Trump leaves office.

[The Romulan Republic]

Democratic candidates won't commit to investigating Trump after he leaves office:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/democrats- ... -1.4387945

AMHERST, N.H. -- Some Democratic contenders for president aren't saying whether they would re-open investigations into U.S. President Donald Trump if they were to oust him from the White House in 2020.

Their reluctance comes as some liberals, including fellow 2020 challenger Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have increased the pressure on Democratic leaders to pursue impeachment following the release of a redacted version of the Mueller report.

During recent stops in early-voting states, two U.S. senators in the race and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg wouldn't say whether they'd press the Justice Department to reopen investigations into Trump.

"Well, let's see because when I'm elected president that will still be about two years from now, so ask me that question then," Sen. Kamala Harris of California said Saturday while campaigning in South Carolina.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Buttigieg focused on existing investigations of the president. Campaigning in Nevada on Friday, Booker said it's premature to say whether he would instruct his attorney general to reopen the Trump investigations if he's elected president.

"You are talking about January 2021," Booker told reporters in Reno. "We have a lot of investigations that are going on right now."

Buttigieg echoed that sentiment Friday as he prepared to campaign in New Hampshire this weekend, saying that "it depends what the basis for it is."

"It's certainly the case that there are various unanswered questions," he said. "I don't know that that has to happen from a president directing an attorney general to do something, though, because a lot of this just works through the legal system."

A voter attending a house party for Warren in New Hampshire on Saturday thanked her for calling for impeachment. However, some Democratic voters are wary of how impeachment could embolden Trump supporters.

Associated Press writer Juana Summers in Orangeburg, South Carolina, and Scott Sonner in Reno, Nevada, contributed to this report.

This is some scary fucking shit, because what is suggests is that by and large, the Democratic candidates want to do what Obama did for the Bush Administration's crimes after he took office- sweep it all aside, no prosecutions, and just move on and pretend everything's normal, while the underlying rot continues to spread. Trump leaving office to enjoy a luxury retirement, living proof that rich white men are untouchable and that the President is above the law, would be the final nail in the coffin of America's reputation, dignity, and foundation on the rule of law. The only thing worse would be him actually remaining in office.

I don't know, maybe they're hoping that by playing nice and not threatening prosecution, they can get Trump to go along with a peaceful transition of power? Fat fucking chance.

All primary candidates must be pushed to commit to investigating Trump after he leaves office.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

All primary candidates must be pushed to commit to investigating Trump after he leaves office.

It causes a precedent that would be easily weaponized TRR. Something that no one wants.

[Ralin]

It causes a precedent that would be easily weaponized TRR. Something that no one wants.

As I said in another thread a little while ago, why? Republicans don't give a shit about precedent and will create or ignore it as it suits them. The only reason why the FBI isn't going after Obama right now is because it's made up of actual career law enforcement job havers who rolled their eyes whenever Trump made noises about having them do it and then ignored him. Do you think they would have taken him more seriously if Bush had been investigated and charged with shit for things he did while he was president? If not, why do you think that'll be more true eight years from now?

These sorts of arguments seem to rely a lot on assuming that Republicans are either too stupid to think of things like bullshit investigations and impeachment attempts without Democrats giving them the idea or that they're somehow too decorous to try it until the other side does it first.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

As I said in another thread a little while ago, why? Republicans don't give a shit about precedent and will create or ignore it as it suits them. The only reason why the FBI isn't going after Obama right now is because it's made up of actual career law enforcement job havers who rolled their eyes whenever Trump made noises about having them do it and then ignored him. Do you think they would have taken him more seriously if Bush had been investigated and charged with shit for things he did while he was president? If not, why do you think that'll be more true eight years from now?

These sorts of arguments seem to rely a lot on assuming that Republicans are either too stupid to think of things like bullshit investigations and impeachment attempts without Democrats giving them the idea or that they're somehow too decorous to try it until the other side does it first.

Here's the thing, we have to look in the long and short term here, not simply the short term. We have to consider our options carefully before preceding or we'll simply fall into their hands in our haste. Basically, let's not give them a weapon that will be used against us.

Sure it's Machiavellian, but that's politics for you.

[Ralin]

Here's the thing, we have to look in the long and short term here, not simply the short term. We have to consider our options carefully before preceding or we'll simply fall into their hands in our haste. Basically, let's not give them a weapon that will be used against us.

Sure it's Machiavellian, but that's politics for you.

I repeat, how will this 'give them a weapon' when they've repeatedly proven they can and will ignore norms and precedents at will?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I repeat, how will this 'give them a weapon' when they've repeatedly proven they can and will ignore norms and precedents at will?

You are so focused on the GOP that you don't see other groups that would use that against their opponents. The only reason that the US isn't going full 'Downfall of the Roman Republic Speedrun' is that the Dems want to keep norms, traditions, and precedents as much as possible. The Dems know that if they start doing the same thing, it would be all over for them. Period.

Going down to the GOP's level like this only gives them ammunition, ammunition we can deny by not stooping to their level.

However, with Mueller giving out intel to state-level judicial circuits, the justice department (or the candidates) don't even need to lift a finger. Mueller has been giving New York a lot of information on Trump's financial dealings, dealings that they knew were illegal but couldn't prove illegal with their resources.

Remember, it wasn't the murders or other crimes that brought down Al Capone -he was basically untouchable in most legal vectors in that regard-, it was tax evasion that brought Al Capone down and put him on a one-way trip to Alcatraz.

[Ralin]

I don't even know what the fuck your argument is at this point. Are you saying that if Trump is prosecuted after he leaves office state and local courts will go after Democrat presidents who commit crimes while in office? Good! I think we can live with that!

[Elheru Aran]

I don't even know what the fuck your argument is at this point. Are you saying that if Trump is prosecuted after he leaves office state and local courts will go after Democrat presidents who commit crimes while in office? Good! I think we can live with that!

I think he means that the Republicans would use the precedent as a pretext to go after Democrat presidents regardless of whether or not they committed a crime in office. But I could be wrong. Considering how much hay they made of Benghazi though...

[Ralin]

I think he means that the Republicans would use the precedent as a pretext to go after Democrat presidents regardless of whether or not they committed a crime in office. But I could be wrong. Considering how much hay they made of Benghazi though...

I repeat, what makes you think they need a pretext? If they thought it would work they'd do it anyway. One thing Trump has shown is that the part of the system responsible for that actually does work well enough to stop a Republican president from railroading his predecessor for crimes he didn't commit, since...otherwise Obama would be in prison along with Clinton. Why would Trump being jailed for some fraction of the crimes he's done make ex-President Warren or whoever any more vulnerable to those tactics?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I think he means that the Republicans would use the precedent as a pretext to go after Democrat presidents regardless of whether or not they committed a crime in office. But I could be wrong. Considering how much hay they made of Benghazi though...

It's less just the GOP and more like everyone else and the next batch of crazies. It opens a sort of pandora's box if you go through with it, and the last thing we need is opening more pandora's boxes.

[Gandalf]

I think he means that the Republicans would use the precedent as a pretext to go after Democrat presidents regardless of whether or not they committed a crime in office. But I could be wrong. Considering how much hay they made of Benghazi though...

It's less just the GOP and more like everyone else and the next batch of crazies. It opens a sort of pandora's box if you go through with it, and the last thing we need is opening more pandora's boxes.

Why? Is it as though nobody would have thought of an impeachment unless the Democrats go through one now?

When the GOP tried to stop Clinton with their impeachment, it largely backfired. But when they stopped Obama with lots of smaller scale obstruction, it worked a treat.

[Zaune]

I don't know, maybe they're hoping that by playing nice and not threatening prosecution, they can get Trump to go along with a peaceful transition of power? Fat fucking chance.

It's worth a try. If he abides by it then the US dodges the kind of national crisis that can lead to there not being a nation anymore, if he goes back on his word (which, admittedly, is more likely than not) then the Democrats are no worse off than they would have been otherwise.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Why? Is it as though nobody would have thought of an impeachment unless the Democrats go through one now?

Because of the overall situation. By simply going through an impeachment now, we'll loose the fights that matter in the Senate thanks to the GOP propaganda machine. If we can't take out that propaganda machine, we can't win.

When the GOP tried to stop Clinton with their impeachment, it largely backfired. But when they stopped Obama with lots of smaller scale obstruction, it worked a treat.

Problem is that the Dems don't want to cause the US to undergo a 'Fall of the Roman Republic' speed run, especially when doing so would immensely backfire on them.

[Ralin]

Because of the overall situation. By simply going through an impeachment now, we'll loose the fights that matter in the Senate thanks to the GOP propaganda machine. If we can't take out that propaganda machine, we can't win.

Why. Will impeachment make senators somehow more likely to vote against terrible GOP bills? Does Fox News have some sort of super effective propaganda campaign they've been sitting on until the time is right?

Problem is that the Dems don't want to cause the US to undergo a 'Fall of the Roman Republic' speed run, especially when doing so would immensely backfire on them.

Holy mother of fuck dude, what about prosecuting Trump after he leaves office would make it easier for state and local courts to go after Democrat politicians for made up charges than it is now? Give specifics. What about convicting ex-president Trump of tax fraud or whatever will make it easier to convict ex-president Warren of selling the organs from Christian fetuses or whatever?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Because of the overall situation. By simply going through an impeachment now, we'll loose the fights that matter in the Senate thanks to the GOP propaganda machine. If we can't take out that propaganda machine, we can't win.

Why. Will impeachment make senators somehow more likely to vote against terrible GOP bills? Does Fox News have some sort of super effective propaganda campaign they've been sitting on until the time is right?

You haven't looked at the GOP haven't you? They've been waging one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history. They are partially the reason why the GOP has decided to go the path they chose after Bush Jr. There isn't a super effective campaign they've been sitting on, they've been doing it for over a decade.

Problem is that the Dems don't want to cause the US to undergo a 'Fall of the Roman Republic' speed run, especially when doing so would immensely backfire on them.

Holy mother of fuck dude, what about prosecuting Trump after he leaves office would make it easier for state and local courts to go after Democrat politicians for made up charges than it is now? Give specifics. What about convicting ex-president Trump of tax fraud or whatever will make it easier to convict ex-president Warren of selling the organs from Christian fetuses or whatever?

Because one of the major reasons that partisan politics didn't go crazy before now is the fact that those who were in the Office of President have been have a certain level of padding against being screwed over by the opposition for their actions. A modern version of a Roman concept known as Imperium. You forget that US politics always had a somewhat partisan bent since the dissolution of the Articles of Confederation and the creation of the Constitution and thus the US as it is today, and there have been times where the opposition tried to use underhanded tactics to get what they want.

However, this doesn't mean that if it is a civil suit or entangled with state-level civil law, that the president is untouchable, that was allowed thanks to Grant getting a speeding ticket during his presidency...

[The Romulan Republic]

All primary candidates must be pushed to commit to investigating Trump after he leaves office.

It causes a precedent that would be easily weaponized TRR. Something that no one wants.

So we will never hold a President accountable for breaking the law, because someone else might misuse the law?

You know what the worst precedent is? Declaring that no matter what a President does, they will always get away with it.

You're always harping on about how we have to restrict freedom in order to save it, and this is where you draw the line? This is what you consider too dangerous?

Besides, the GOP doesn't need an excuse to launch frivolous prosecutions against its political opponents. Remember Benghazi? Remember "Lock her up"? And Trump is already demanding investigations into the investigators.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

So we will never hold a President accountable for breaking the law, because someone else might misuse the law?

You know what the worst precedent is? Declaring that no matter what a President does, they will always get away with it.

You're always harping on about how we have to restrict freedom in order to save it, and this is where you draw the line? This is what you consider too dangerous?

Besides, the GOP doesn't need an excuse to launch frivolous prosecutions against its political opponents. Remember Benghazi? Remember "Lock her up"? And Trump is already demanding investigations into the investigators.

Problem is that you don't see the bigger picture, which is why these calls to impeachment and federal prosecution are stupid at this time, not to mention that breaking precedent on the President now will only allow the next bunch of crazies to use it against everyone else (and this isn't an if, but a when, given US political history). The GOP wants us to go that route to make it easier for them to win thanks to their propaganda machine. You are all looking at this in terms of chess, where every move has a counter move and every piece as a set of rules. The field is more like a game of Go, where there is the possibility of your pieces flipping on you and there are only two actual rules.

We have to consider our moves carefully, not simply go in guns blazing. By stooping to the GOP's level, we'll only cause our own demise and quickly at that. We have to consider our moves carefully, break the GOP's support through norms and protocol, and then act. Right now all the Dems have to do is not fracture and simply give the GOP more and more rope for them to choke on.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know, maybe they're hoping that by playing nice and not threatening prosecution, they can get Trump to go along with a peaceful transition of power? Fat fucking chance.

It's worth a try. If he abides by it then the US dodges the kind of national crisis that can lead to there not being a nation anymore, if he goes back on his word (which, admittedly, is more likely than not) then the Democrats are no worse off than they would have been otherwise.

The price is that we send a message to all future Presidents that once you're in that office, you get life time immunity no matter what you do. And it sends a message to the public that America is a nation with two sets of laws, one for the people and one for the powerful. And it sends a message to the world that America is a nation without principles, and all our high ideals of justice and democracy are so much empty rhetoric. Granted, all of those things have been done before, but a past mistake is no excuse for continuing to double down on the same mistake going forward.

Fear of what terrorists will do if we don't bow to their demands should never dictate policy. That just encourages more terrorism. Though it might make sense to lie now and prosecute him once the election is safely over. The problem is I don't trust most to have the backbone to do that.

[Zaune]

The price is that we send a message to all future Presidents that once you're in that office, you get life time immunity no matter what you do. And it sends a message to the public that America is a nation with two sets of laws, one for the people and one for the powerful. And it sends a message to the world that America is a nation without principles, and all our high ideals of justice and democracy are so much empty rhetoric. Granted, all of those things have been done before, but a past mistake is no excuse for continuing to double down on the same mistake going forward.

Maybe so. But the price of not doing that could be having to deal with the fallout when a President decides there isn't going to be a peaceful transfer of power, and that's not going to be pretty even if the alt-right lose the ensuing conflict. Let alone what happens if they win.

[The Romulan Republic]

My counterpoint is that Trump is probably going to do that anyway, or try to, and in any case, if we allow threats by terrorists to dictate our policy... then terrorists dictate our policy. If fear of what Trump and the Trumpers might do keeps us from holding them accountable, then they already have won.

Also, support for impeachment appears to be growing.

From CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/21/opinions ... index.html

(CNN)Sen. Elizabeth Warren was the first 2020 Democratic candidate to call for impeachment proceedings to begin against President Donald Trump. In a tweet on Friday, she said, "To ignore a President's repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in similar ways."

Many other Democrats, however, are fearful of going down this path. With the 2020 election around the corner, they worry that moving forward with impeachment will stimulate a political backlash against the party and hurt the Democrats' prospects of winning back control of the White House.

But Democrats can't afford to be so fearful about impeachment proceedings. And it might very well be that the Mueller report has forced their hand. While the first part of the report points to highly unethical and problematic behavior by the Trump campaign, the second section lays out some strong evidence of the President's continued efforts to interfere with the Mueller investigation. And this is in addition to his overt efforts to undermine Mueller, most notably from his bully pulpit of choice -- Twitter.

Of course, Democrats have reason to be wary. It didn't go particularly well for Republicans in 1998, when the House, led by Newt Gingrich, impeached President Bill Clinton for lying under oath and obstructing justice into the investigation of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. In fact, Clinton's approval rating soared to 73% following the GOP-led impeachment. And the House Republican majority shrunk that year.

But the substance of the current impeachment debate is quite different. In the case of Clinton, a large portion of America saw the investigation as revolving around the private life of the President. But, in the case of Trump, this was an investigation into contacts between Trump campaign officials and individuals connected to a Russian government who were attempting to interfere in the 2016 US election -- as well as the President's ongoing efforts to stop the investigation. There is simply no comparison in the weight of the underlying charges.

Public opinion has reflected that a majority or close to a majority of the public has continued to approve of Mueller, despite the constant attacks from the President. Meanwhile, Trump has yet to win a majority of American voter support in his first two years in office. It would seem, then, that the public agrees that the substance of the charges is serious, and the content of the Mueller report only intensifies the severity of what the President has done while in office.

What Democrats do regarding impeachment proceedings will also say a great deal about the party's views of presidential power. The issue is not, and has never been, what is the best way to remove Trump from the White House. The question has been whether Democrats take the abuse of presidential power seriously and whether they insist that the commander in chief needs to live under some restraints. If Congress allows the actions that Mueller documented in the obstruction portion of the report to stand, they will help to establish a dangerous precedent for future inhabitants of the Oval Office. In contrast, launching impeachment proceedings would be a strong act that formally puts the party on record as not accepting these actions as legitimate and believing that they are severe enough to warrant consideration of impeachment.

Importantly, impeachment proceedings are not the same as impeaching a president. The House would have to pass a resolution referring the case to the House Judiciary Committee or a select committee. The committee would conduct its own hearing, with a staff investigation of the evidence, to decide whether the grounds exist for voting on articles of impeachment.

If those grounds exist, the committee must pass each article by a majority vote -- at which point they would be sent to the floor for a vote. If the House votes in favor of any article by majority vote, only then does the case reach the Senate, where the bar is much higher, requiring two-thirds support to convict.

Democrats who fear a backlash to moving forward with the impeachment process might want to consider the political consequence of being a party that decides to let this abuse of power stand. At the most basic level, doing nothing will allow Trump to spin his narrative that the entire issue was a partisan hit job.

And political parties can be rewarded for doing the right thing. The entire Watergate saga made this clear. After a brutal multi-year investigation into President Richard Nixon that shocked the nation and resulted in his resignation, Democrats retained control of the House and Senate in the 1976 election -- building on their sizable majorities in the 1974 midterms -- and won the presidency. President Jimmy Carter capitalized on public anger about presidential wrongdoing and succeeded as the candidate who best responded to the distrust that existed about our leaders.

It is also worth noting that even with the controversial and unpopular impeachment proceedings in 1998, Republicans actually didn't lose all of their power. The GOP retained control of Congress (temporarily losing a split Senate when Jim Jeffords caucused with Democrats in 2001, though they regained control in 2002). And George W. Bush won the presidency and served for two terms. While most Democrats don't want to make Clinton's impeachment the baseline as they consider what to do next, they should understand that Republicans did not totally fall apart after moving forward with proceedings on a much more questionable charge than the President is currently looking at today.

For Democrats who insist on gaming out what this will all look like, they should also consider the possibility that by refusing to hold the President accountable, they could end up improving his chances for re-election and giving legitimacy to his use of power. By doing nothing, one can imagine the Democrats helping Republicans elevate the "witch hunt" narrative and diminishing the serious political problems this administration already faces for its behavior.

Focusing on the economy, Trump could put together the coalition that brought him to office in 2016. Once that second term begins, the behavior documented in the Mueller report and elsewhere would have an electoral stamp of approval.

When the Mueller investigation started, the report shows, Trump was convinced that his presidency was "f--ked." But he underestimated the partisan loyalty that he could count on from the GOP. And he might also have underestimated just how politically trepidatious the opposition party had become.

And Rolling Stone:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... up-825182/

Are impeachment hearings inevitable? Since a redacted version of the Mueller report was released late last week, talk of impeaching President Donald Trump has picked up steam. And if you watched the Sunday morning news programs, the momentum for impeachment is palpable.

Outright calls to start proceedings that could lead to the ouster of the president have only come from a handful of politicians — no surprise, all Democrats. And, so far, only three Democratic 2020 presidential candidates have clearly stated their desire for Congress to move in that direction: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and, to a lesser extent, both Julián Castro and Pete Buttigieg.

Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) appeared on Meet the Press and when asked if the findings in the Mueller report were impeachable offenses, Nadler said yes.

Also, today on CBS News’ Face the Nation, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said, although he’s “not there yet” he could “foresee” impeachment proceeding “possibly coming.” And he went on to state that even if the Senate fails to confirm the House’s vote to impeach, “History would smile upon us for standing up for the Constitution.”

Elijah Cummings says that even if the House moves to impeach Trump and the Senate votes against it, "history would smile upon us for standing up for the Constitution."

Additionally, in an appearance on ABC News’ This Week, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), although he did mention the opposition on the Senate side and other Republicans who will not put partisanship aside, Schiff did say the Mueller report did show, “without question within the realm of impeachable offenses.”

This has the feel of a moving train that can’t be stopped. Those who flatly said no to impeachment prior to the Mueller report’s release seem to be sounding a bit more like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) now.

[The Romulan Republic]

Put it this way: Suppose we hold off on any threat to prosecute Trump because it might make him more likely to resist a peaceful transition of power. Well, what happens if, being a thin-skinned egomaniac who knows he's also got state governments out to get him, Trump refuses to leave power peacefully anyway? If Democrats are unwilling (hypothetically) to prosecute Trump because he might resist leaving office peacefully, what will they do if he does refuse to leave office peacefully? Will they decide that then, finally, when it is literally down to a choice between dictatorship or war, that its time to draw the line? Or will they back down and concede the election that they rightfully won, accepting dictatorship rather than conflict? Can we trust them not to, if they're afraid to prosecute Trump?

Maybe, hopefully, probably, it won't come to that. But if it does... well, I want a nominee, a standard-bearer for democracy, who I trust will have the guts to fight rather than concede if Trump tries to hold power by force.

This is not an idle question. When one of the President's closest associates for many years (Michael Cohen) said under oath to Congress that he feared there would not be a peaceful transition of power if Trump lost the election, it is, unfortunately, a question that Democrats, and prospective Democratic nominees for the Presidency in particular, need to be taking deadly seriously, even if they don't say so publicly to avoid appearing "extremist" or inflaming tensions or panic.

To add another quick edit: This is logically, therefore, also something Democratic voters need to consider. It really shouldn't be, but one of the questions that needs to be on our minds when we vote in the primary is "Which candidate do we most trust to lead the United States through a civil war or prolonged civil unrest?"

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Here's the thing, the Dems have been forcing the GOP to get into 'loose/loose' situations, forcing them to burn a lot of political power. To quote someone on the internet:

Compare and contrast with the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. The republicans won, but they burned a lot of political capitol and lost a shed load of points over it. The Democrats may be interested in arranging the same kind of lose/lose trap for the Republicans in the year leading up to the 2020 elections. If the Democrats think they can arrange things that way, impeachment becomes more likely.

And there is also still a lot about Trump we don't know. Starting with his taxes, which we'll probably get some time this year.

The best play for now is that the Dems can do is force the GOP to simply burn more and more political capital and shed more and more points until they can't burn political capital anymore.

[The Romulan Republic]

One could argue that the GOP has already lost all the capital its going to. The remainder are the die hard Trump loyalists who will stick with him until something truly catastrophic happens. The question is whether the Republicans can cheat/vote suppress/divide the Democratic base enough to win with a dedicated minority of the electorate.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Chicago Tribune offers a novel suggestion: Don't call it impeachment.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opi ... story.html

The only question that matters right now in American politics is this: Based on special counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report, should the Democrat-led U.S. House of Representatives begin impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump?

If you like Trump and haven’t read the 400-plus-page Mueller report, the answer is, “No, you Demoslimes need to get a life!! #MAGA.”

If you like Trump and HAVE read the 400-plus-page Mueller report, the answer is, “No, we care more about our team winning than we do about America. #MAGA.”

For anyone else who has read Mueller’s staggeringly thorough document, the answer is simple: “Yes. Of course they should begin impeachment proceedings. There’s enough in here to impeach 15 presidents.”

The folks who keep repeating “NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION!” like some sort of parrot/lemming hybrid will, of course, disagree. That shouldn’t matter to Democrats, because those people have been lost to the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/One America News Network vortex of brain rot.

Some Democrats fear impeachment proceedings — which, if the investigation led to an actual House vote to impeach, would invariably be shot down in the Senate — will only fire up Trump’s base. Who cares? That base is going to be fired up regardless, if not by impeachment then by some Trump-led and right-wing-media-amplified hysteria.

Consider all they’re ignoring in support of their dear leader.

Mueller’s report contains page after page of examples of Trump lying, instructing others to lie, fighting desperately to end or interfere with an investigation and eagerly seeking information obtained illegally by a foreign power. As a candidate, Trump and his team knew Russia was trying to interfere with the election and, rather than report those actions and denounce them, they encouraged them and sought to use them to their political advantage.

No, Mueller did not establish a criminal conspiracy connecting Trump or his campaign to the Russian election interference. But the president’s willingness to leverage Russian activity in his own favor, coupled with his unwillingness as president to even acknowledge the seriousness of the attack on our election process, was decidedly un-American.

On obstruction of justice charges, Mueller was constrained by a Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president. But he provided ample evidence of multiple times Trump obstructed justice in ways that meet all the criteria for prosecution, including repeatedly ordering White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller and encouraging former campaign manager Paul Manafort not to cooperate in the investigation.

Per the report: “Evidence concerning the President’s conduct towards Manafort indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government.”

The voters who Democrats fear might rally to Trump’s side if impeachment proceedings are launched are the same voters who are either willfully ignoring the Mueller report or who have read the report and decided, “Yeah, I’m fine with this dime store mob-boss behavior. Who cares, as long as it triggers the libs.”

I’ve got news for liberal lawmakers: Those voters are gone. Lost. Their world has become a game where Trump and Trump supporters are the heroes and everyone else — the liberals, the media, a highly respected Republican prosecutor like Mueller and even the pope — is the enemy.

Democratic lawmakers have a responsibility to address a president’s unlawful and unprecedented behavior. Mueller states clearly in the report that a “fundamental principle of our government” is that no person “in this country is so high that he is above the law,” and he makes clear that there are “constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” That’s impeachment.

Political concerns over launching impeachment hearings shouldn’t outweigh the obvious fact that it’s the right path to follow given the overwhelming evidence of this president’s misdeeds. Republicans would have impeached Barack Obama 379 times over if there was credible evidence he did 1/1,000th of what the Mueller report shows Trump has done.

To allay the fears of wary Democrats, I have a simple solution that should get Trump behind any impeachment effort: Don’t call it “impeachment.”

All Trump cares about is himself. That’s why he slaps his name on everything, from buildings to steaks to jets to proposed Moscow towers. I’m fairly certain the only reason he had children was to create a line of Trump-branded humans.

All the Democrats need to do is re-brand impeachment. Market it as a celebration of Trump’s unique style of presidenting. Call it “IMPORTANTMENT,” an investigation into the myriad important decisions Trump made as a candidate and as president.

Rather than trying to determine whether he’s guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” tell him Congress is hoping to gauge whether he, unlike other, lesser presidents, has achieved “the HIGHEST CRIMES and MAXdemeanors.”

Don’t call it “obstruction of justice,” call it “POWERFUL DEFEAT OF JUSTICE.” Don’t say he might be “removed from office,” just tell him his greatness has proved too much for the structural integrity of the White House.

If Trump gets behind IMPORTANTMENT proceedings, his followers will undoubtedly follow. Heck, they’ll cheer it on.

Because if they buy Trump’s claim that the Mueller report exonerated him, that it didn’t paint a portrait of a president as corrupt as the day is long, they’ll buy impeachment as a good thing quicker than Trump would sell out his country for a win.

rhuppke@chicagotribune.com

"IMPORTAMENT"