Redacted Mueller report to be released tomorrow.

[The Romulan Republic]

There will be two versions: a public one (rumour has it that as much as 70% of the report may be redacted), and a less-redacted version for certain members of Congress and their staff:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)There will be two versions of the redacted special counsel report, with one being released to the public and one that will eventually go to a limited number of members of Congress with fewer redactions, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

Some of the redactions in the Mueller report will be because of the gag order in the case involving Republican activist Roger Stone, they wrote. Prosecutors say they are making these redactions so not to potentially prejudice a jury, since Stone has pleaded not guilty to the charges he faces and is headed to trial.

In a court filing related to the Stone case, prosecutors outlined a careful plan to prevent leaks of the less-redacted version the Justice Department plans to provide to Congress.

First, prosecutors will "secure" the less-redacted version -- suggesting it won't be available immediately. They will also keep it in an "appropriate setting" and limit its access to only some members of Congress and their staff.

If Congress wants copies of the less-redacted version, prosecutors may want to ask a federal judge for permission before giving it to them, prosecutors wrote on Wednesday.

Barr will also be conducting a press conference tomorrow, before the report is released (so no one will know what questions to ask). He has also already briefed the White House on the report, so they can get their spin in place before Congress or the public can read it:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Attorney General William Barr is scheduled to hold a press conference on special counsel Robert Mueller's report Thursday -- before the Justice Department's redacted version of the report is due for release.

The Justice Department said Barr's press conference will be held at the department at 9:30 a.m. ET on Thursday, and President Donald Trump on Wednesday floated the possibility that he too would hold a press conference after Barr. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller in May 2017, will be in attendance as well.

The details taken together show, in part, how the Trump administration will set the stage for the release of the redacted version of the report, nearly a month after the conclusion of the special counsel investigation. A source familiar with the report told CNN Wednesday that the publicly released version of Mueller's report is expected to have relatively minimal redactions in the section on obstruction of justice.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday evening the report will have an in-depth look at Mueller's investigation into potential obstruction of justice by Trump. The report will show Mueller could not determine Trump's intent and some of his actions could have innocent explanations, the Post reported.

The spokesperson for Mueller's office said the special counsel and members of his prosecutorial team would not be in attendance at Barr's press conference. Peter Carr, the spokesman, will be there, Carr said.

Carr, who also works as a spokesman for the Justice Department's criminal division, declined to comment on the reason why Mueller would not attend.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat who has repeatedly criticized Barr's handling of the scheduled release, said on Wednesday that he had learned from the Justice Department that the report would not be released until after Barr's press conference.

"This is wrong," he tweeted, adding to a previous tweet questioning why Barr was holding the press conference at all.

(((Rep. Nadler)))
✔
@RepJerryNadler
I’m deeply troubled by reports that the WH is being briefed on the Mueller report AHEAD of its release. Now, DOJ is informing us we will not receive the report until around 11/12 tomorrow afternoon — AFTER Barr’s press conference. This is wrong. #ReleaseTheReport

(((Rep. Nadler)))
✔
@RepJerryNadler
Attorney General Barr wrote to me on April 1: "I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report." I agree. So why is the AG holding a press conference tomorrow morning to go over the Mueller report? #ReleaseTheReport https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 5688655878 …

Nadler's tweet also mentioned being "deeply troubled" that the Justice Department had briefed the White House on the Mueller report ahead of its release. The New York Times reported earlier Wednesday that the department had discussed the report with the White House on several occasions in the lead-up to Thursday.

Later Wednesday, Nadler held a press conference in New York and accused Barr of "waging a media campaign on behalf of President Trump."

"Rather than letting the facts of the report speak for themselves, the attorney general has taken unprecedented steps to spin Mueller's nearly two year investigation," Nadler said, pointing to the news conference scheduled for Thursday, the four-page summary he sent to Congress last month and Barr reportedly withholding summaries intended by Mueller's team for public viewing as examples.

"The central concern here is that the Attorney General Barr is not allowing the facts of the Mueller report to speak for themselves but is trying to bake in the narrative about the report to the benefit of the White House," Nadler added.
Multiple congressional sources told CNN the Justice Department had informed congressional committees that they would be sent the redacted report on discs in the 11 a.m. ET hour. A copy of the redacted Mueller report will be posted on the special counsel website after it has been delivered to Congress.

Nadler later joined four other Democratic committee chairs in demanding Barr cancel his scheduled press conference, calling it "unnecessary and inappropriate." The committee members objected to the Justice Department reportedly briefing the White House on Mueller's work before Congress

"There is no legitimate reason for the Department to brief the White House prior to providing Congress a copy of the report," the committee chairs wrote in a joint statement Wednesday night.

"He should let the full report speak for itself," the lawmakers added. "The Attorney General should cancel the press conference and provide the full report to Congress, as we have requested. With the Special Counsel's fact-gathering work concluded, it is now Congress' responsibility to assess the findings and evidence and proceed accordingly."

Trump addressed the looming release on Wednesday, offering that he might take questions on it after Barr's scheduled press conference.

"Attorney General Barr is going to be giving a press conference, maybe I'll do one after that, we'll see," Trump said in an interview with WMAL Radio's Larry O'Connor.

A source familiar with Barr's plans told CNN that the attorney general is expected to provide an overview of the report, explain his thinking and address process questions.

In a court filing related to the case against Trump associate Roger Stone, federal prosecutors said on Wednesday there would be two versions of the redacted special counsel report: one released to the public and one with fewer redactions that will eventually go to a limited number of members of Congress.

Prosecutors said some of the redactions would be because of the gag order in the Stone case and that those redactions would be made so as not to potentially prejudice a jury.

Barr has said some information in the report would be redacted as it related to grand jury material, classified information, details about ongoing investigations and material affecting peripheral third parties.

Barr said previously that the Mueller report was nearly 400 pages long. In a four-page summary following the conclusion of the Mueller investigation last month, Barr said the report was the product of interviews with about 500 witnesses.

Barr said in that summary that the Mueller investigation did not establish that there was a criminal conspiracy between any Trump campaign associates and Russian officials to interfere in the 2016 election. He also said Mueller's report goes through the question of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice, but that the special counsel did not make a determination on the matter. Barr said he and Rosenstein concluded Mueller's evidence was "not sufficient" to support obstruction by Trump.

CNN's Allie Malloy, Kaitlan Collins, Manu Raju, Jeremy Herb and Kate Sullivan contributed to this report.

Expect the subpoenas to go out shortly.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... uld-resign

Barr should resign:

After Attorney General William Barr releases his redacted version of the report from special counsel Robert Mueller on Thursday, he should resign. His blatant partisanship disqualifies him from continuing as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Neither Congress nor the public will trust that he has been objective and fair in what he has decided to make public of the report, nor will they believe that he can handle any further issues surrounding wrongdoing by President Trump with integrity.

Let us consider the record of Barr in his short time as attorney general in this administration. After two years of constant attacks by Trump on the Justice Department and special counsel for investigating the possible collusion between the campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 election, Barr could have been a breath of fresh air as an attorney general who would firmly stand up for the rule of law. Instead, he just joined in the attacks, calling for yet another investigation into FBI actions during the campaign and releasing a biased summary of the special counsel report.

However, according to Barr, Mueller refused to exonerate Trump on charges of obstructing justice. Barr overruled that determination after only a few short days of examining the two year investigation into the issue and concluded that Trump did not obstruct justice. Barr claimed that the refusal by Mueller to come to a conclusion on the criminal liability for obstruction “left it up to” Barr to reach a conclusion. But that cannot be true. The refusal by Mueller to exonerate Trump was not an invitation for Barr to annul the determination of the special counsel.

Instead, Barr took it upon himself to exonerate the president. He did so on the flimsy, if not incredible, ground that the president did not intend to obstruct the Russia investigation. Let us not forget that Barr argued that a president could not obstruct justice in an unsolicited memo that he sent to the White House and the Justice Department in what many have viewed as an undisguised attempt to win the nomination for attorney general.

By exonerating Trump, Barr brazenly violated the spirit and purpose of the special counsel regulations. The point of those rules, and the special prosecutor statute they replaced, was to take the political Justice Department out of prosecutorial decision making when a president was involved, precisely because presidents should not be investigating themselves. Yet Barr, appointed by Trump, injected himself along with politics smack into that decision, doing what would be expected of anyone beholden to the president. That was wrong and unforgivable.

With respect to the Mueller report, Barr has said that he wants to be as transparent as possible, but his actions, or rather the lack thereof, belie his words. One of the items that Barr intends to edit out of the Mueller report before making it public is grand jury material. Barr could have, and should have, tried to obtain a court order. This act was done during the Watergate investigation by the special prosecutor, permitting him to turn the grand jury material over to the House Judiciary Committee. But Barr has stubbornly, and without explanation, refused to seek any such order.

Similarly, the summary of the special counsel report released by Barr was seriously flawed, as many others have noted. While claiming that Mueller could not establish Trump campaign collusion with the Russians sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we do not know the level of evidence on this subject that Mueller did find. Just as important, we do not know how much the efforts of Trump to interfere with the special counsel investigation undercut the ability of Mueller to prove a case.

Furthermore, Barr announced that he was going to investigate “spying” on the Trump campaign by the FBI. Even though Barr admitted he had no evidence of any spying, he was eager to give credence to this claim that Trump and his allies use by finding fault with the counterintelligence investigation that Mueller eventually took over. Barr would not even wait for the independent and nonpartisan Justice Department inspector general to finish his investigation of some of the same FBI behavior.

Looking back at another day when the Justice Department was under assault, we can see how far our country has fallen under Trump and his new attorney general. During Watergate, two attorneys general, John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, were convicted of crimes arising out of their relationship with Richard Nixon. Those three dragged our federal system of justice and its reputation for professionalism into the mud.

In response, when Gerald Ford succeeded as president after Nixon resigned, he picked a nonpartisan and highly regarded lawyer, Edward Levi, to head the Justice Department. Levi, a Republican, won the respect of both Democrats and Republicans, and restored the national faith that the rule of law could be reestablished. Barr could have followed in the footsteps of Levi. It is a tragedy that he has so quickly chosen not to.

Elizabeth Holtzman served four terms in Congress as a representative from New York. She was on the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate.

[Coop D'etat]

The initial read of the report is that it largely supports mainstream reporting on the matter (sorry Greenwald), but the investigation didn't feel a lot of scadalous behaviour found could support a criminal conviction, which is a great disappointed to those who were hoping Mueller would do the work of removing Trump for them.

[Mr Bean]

The initial read of the report is that it largely supports mainstream reporting on the matter (sorry Greenwald), but the investigation didn't feel a lot of scadalous behaviour found could support a criminal conviction, which is a great disappointed to those who were hoping Mueller would do the work of removing Trump for them.

Direct Link
FYI it's an unsearchable PDF.


Here's a few samples of the being shared around "money" quotes


On why they did not indicted the President-that's congress job

“On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting [AG] and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.”
On the President trying to remove Mueller but was refused


Gates testimony

Someone is going to do a better job than I grouping everything up, give it a few hours.

[Coop D'etat]

Yeah, on obstruction, this likely can support commencing impeachment investigations, which is the invisioned constitutional remedy for what was discovered. Congress can't pass the buck to Mueller though, they have to do that work themselves.

[Mr Bean]

I like this one because of the amount of redacted on it.
Axios

Mueller referred 14 criminal cases for outside prosecution
Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

Special counsel Robert Mueller wrote in his report that over the course of his investigation, his team "periodically identified evidence of potential criminal activity that was outside the scope of the special counsel's jurisdiction established by the Acting Attorney General."

The big picture: Out of the 14 cases that were referred to "other components of the Department of Justice and the FBI," 12 are redacted. The 2 that aren't redacted relate to Michael Cohen's conviction for wire fraud and campaign finance violations, and former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig's indictment for making false statements during a Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation.
Transfers

1. United States v. Bijian Rafiekian and Kamil Ekim Alptekin

Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Virginia
Status: Awaiting trial

2. United States v. Michael Flynn

Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Status: Awaiting sentencing

3. United States v. Richard Gates

Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Status: Awaiting sentencing

4. United States v. Internet Research Agency (Russian troll farm)

Jurisdiction: District of Columbia, National Security Division
Status: Post-indictment, pre-arrest & pre-trial

5. United States v. Konstantin Kilimnik

Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Status: Post-indictment, pre-arrest

6. United States v. Paul Manafort

Jurisdiction: D.C. and Eastern District of Virginia
Status: Post-conviction

7. United States v. Viktor Netyksho (Russian hacking operation)

Jurisdiction: Western District of Pennsylvania, National Security Division
Status: Post-indictment, pre-arrest

8. United States v. William Patten

Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Status: Post-sentencing

9. [REDACTED]

10. United States v. Roger Stone

Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Status: Awaiting trial

11. [REDACTED]
Referrals

1. [REDACTED]

2. Michael Cohen

Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York
Status: Post-sentencing

3. [REDACTED]

4. [REDACTED]

5. Gregory Craig, [REDACTED] and Skadden Arps law firm

Jurisdiction: Various
Status: Post-indictment for Craig

6. [REDACTED]

7. [REDACTED]

8. [REDACTED]

9. [REDACTED]

10. [REDACTED]

11. [REDACTED]

12. [REDACTED]

13. [REDACTED]

14. [REDACTED]
Completed prosecutions

1. United States v. George Papadopoulos

Post-conviction, completed prison term

2. United States v. Alexander van der Zwaan

Post-conviction, completed prison term

3. United States v. Richard Pinedo

Post-conviction, currently in halfway house

[Solauren]

How can referrals for Prosecutions be redacted?

Arn't those a matter of public record?

[Coop D'etat]

How can referrals for Prosecutions be redacted?

Arn't those a matter of public record?

They'd be sealed until a prosecution actually commences to avoiding tipping of the target.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Yeah, on obstruction, this likely can support commencing impeachment investigations, which is the invisioned constitutional remedy for what was discovered. Congress can't pass the buck to Mueller though, they have to do that work themselves.

The big problem is the GOP, and they're not going to take Trump and Co out because they're riding this tiger to the end, even if it means that they'll all die in retribution for it.

[Zaune]

The big problem is the GOP, and they're not going to take Trump and Co out because they're riding this tiger to the end, even if it means that they'll all die in retribution for it.

Not so much the Congressional GOP: If it's a choice between throwing Trump under a bus and losing their seats, if not their lives, they'll turn on him without a second thought. The problem is going to be the large bloc of ordinary Republican voters who still believe in him, and will take it personally if their Senator or Representative does not.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Not so much the Congressional GOP: If it's a choice between throwing Trump under a bus and losing their seats, if not their lives, they'll turn on him without a second thought. The problem is going to be the large bloc of ordinary Republican voters who still believe in him, and will take it personally if their Senator or Representative does not.

No, even the congressional GOP are stuck with Trump, as if they even think about putting Trump under the bus they'll be rid of, either by primary or -as the situation develops- more permanently.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm surprised by how relatively little the report was redacted. Congressional Democrats are still trying to get the full thing, and that will play out in the courts, but this is more than I expected. There were, inevitably, some redactions, and I suppose we don't really have any way of knowing what all was in those redacted sections, but Barr appears to have played this straighter than I had expected. I don't know if that was because he wanted to embarrass the Dems, or just saw which way the wind was blowing, or what, but the result is more transparency, so its all for the best.

That said, none of this excuses his constant spin of the report for the benefit of the White House, or the fact that he took far longer to do the redactions than necessary (presumably to give him time to brief the White House and spin the report to the public). Barr is still a partisan hack, and should still resign or be impeached.

Now, as to its content: I have not yet read the entire report, but as I understand it its basically divided into two sections: the first on conspiracy with Russia and the second on Obstruction. For the first, it sounds like it basically confirms what we already knew: no charges for conspiracy with Russia. However, it should be noted that, contrary to what many are claiming, Mueller did not exonerate Trump of collusion. We know Trump colluded, but collusion is not a legal term in US law, and that's not what Mueller focussed on. He simply concluded that they could not prove a criminal conspiracy, while noting that there was evidence they could not obtain for various reasons that might have changed their conclusions.

Be that as it may, innocent until proven guilty, so barring new information coming forward, we can say that Trump and his campaign are innocent of criminal conspiracy. Rather than taking that as a vindication or relief, though, I would say it raises serious questions about the inadequacy of existing law, given the stuff we know from public record that he and his campaign did.

Now, on to obstruction. Here, it is once again clear that Barr grossly misrepresented Mueller. Barr gave the impression that Mueller simply did not reach a conclusion, and left it up to him. In fact, Mueller did nothing of the sort. He declined to say whether Trump committed obstruction because a sitting President cannot be indicted according to DOJ policy, and it would be unfair to accuse him of a crime when he could not be given a speedy trial. Instead, he basically laid out the evidence of Trump's actions and left it up to Congress or the justice system once he is out of office to take any further actions.

In short: Mueller has given Congress a case for impeachment, and there is no further justification for Congress not to act. Its time to impeach. If Pelosi will not back impeachment, she should be primaried.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

In short: Mueller has given Congress a case for impeachment, and there is no further justification for Congress not to act. Its time to impeach. If Pelosi will not back impeachment, she should be primaried.

Impeachment is impossible because of the Senate GOP. As long as the GOP is willing to back Trump, there is no way that the Senate GOP is willing to impeach.

So either you'll have to get rid of as much of the senate GOP as possible by basically going coup on them or wait until those senators are elected out of office.

[The Romulan Republic]

In short: Mueller has given Congress a case for impeachment, and there is no further justification for Congress not to act. Its time to impeach. If Pelosi will not back impeachment, she should be primaried.

Impeachment is impossible because of the Senate GOP. As long as the GOP is willing to back Trump, there is no way that the Senate GOP is willing to impeach.

So either you'll have to get rid of as much of the senate GOP as possible by basically going coup on them or wait until those senators are elected out of office.

Correction: Congress can absolutely impeach. They just can't expect a conviction in the Senate.

However, they can tie up the rest of Trump's term in an impeachment trial, where the evidence of his obstruction will be presented before the nation, keeping this story front and center until the election- and then force the GOP Senators to go on record voting to acquit him despite that.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://globalnews.ca/news/5184634/cong ... er-report/

It’s now up to Congress to decide what to do with special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings about U.S. President Donald Trump.


While the special counsel declined to prosecute Trump on obstruction of justice, he did not exonerate him, all but leaving the question to Congress. Mueller’s report provides fresh evidence of Trump’s interference in the Russia probe, challenging lawmakers to respond. The risks for both parties are clear if they duck the responsibility or prolong an inquiry that, rather than coming to a close, may be just beginning.

“The responsibility now falls to Congress,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has the power to launch impeachment proceedings.

How far lawmakers will go, though, remains unclear. Republicans are eager to push past what Trump calls the “witch hunt” that has overshadowed the party and the presidency. And while Democrats say Mueller’s findings are far more serious than initially indicated in Attorney General William Barr’s four-page summary, they’ve been hesitant to pursue the ultimate step, impeachment proceedings, despite pressure from the left flank of the party to begin efforts to try to remove the president from office.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, traveling Thursday on a congressional trip to Ireland, said in a joint statement with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer only that Mueller’s report revealed more than was known about the obstruction question.

“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,” they said.

Later, in a letter to House Democrats, Pelosi vowed: “Congress will not be silent.”

Biding their time, Democrats are putting the focus on their next investigative steps. Nadler summoned Mueller to testify and the chairman said Thursday he will be issuing subpoenas for the full report. And next week, both the House and Senate are scheduled to hear from Barr, whom Democrats accuse of distorting the report’s contents to Trump’s benefit.

But it’s unlikely that the full Mueller report or the public testimony will untangle the dilemma that Democrats face. Mueller laid out multiple episodes in which Trump directed others to influence or curtail the Russia investigation after the special counsel’s appointment in May 2017, and Trump made clear that he viewed the probe as a potential mortal blow — “the end of my presidency.”

The special counsel wrestled with what to do with his findings, unable to charge or exonerate, and sided with the department’s guideline that indicting a sitting president would impair the ability of the executive branch to function.

“We concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,” the report said.

Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said the acts described in the report “whether they are criminal or not, are deeply alarming in the president of the United States. And it’s clear that special counsel Mueller wanted the Congress to consider the repercussions and the consequences.”

Schiff, the California Democrat, said, “If the special counsel, as he made clear, had found evidence exonerating the president, he would have said so. He did not. He left that issue to the Congress of the United States.”

Republicans sought to portray Democrats as unwilling to let go of the idea that Trump colluded with Russia to swing the election. “What you’re seeing is unprecedented desperation from the left,” tweeted Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., a top Trump ally. “There was no collusion. It’s over.”

Other Republicans were more measured. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is one of the few members of Congress mentioned in the report, told reporters in Kentucky, “It’s too early to start commenting on portions of it.”

McConnell was among several people the report said former White House Counsel Don McGahn had reached out to on behalf of the president when Trump was trying to stop then Attorney General Jeff Sessions from recusing himself at the start of the Russia probe.

In all, the report revealed 10 areas of potential obstruction, from Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey to his attempts to thwart Mueller’s investigation. In many cases, the additional details show a president restrained only by aides and others around him.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report says. “However, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.”

Mueller’s team hewed to department guidelines. “We recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern,” the report said. “We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”

For Democrats, those pages amount to a green light to finish what Mueller started.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said his reading of the report shows that Trump “almost certainly obstructed justice” and it was only his staff intervened to prevent certain actions.

“We have a very serious situation on our hands,” he said. “It’s an awesome and solemn responsibility that Congress has now to try to deal with the crisis that’s contained in this report.”

But what comes next may not be any more conclusive, especially as Democrats say they are unwilling to consider impeachment without bipartisan support from Republicans. The investigations may provide a steady stream of revelations that damage the president while also firing up his supporters to his defense as he gears up for re-election. Or the probes could push Congress farther than many now are willing to go.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Thursday that she takes “no pleasure in discussions of impeachment. I didn’t campaign on it, & rarely discuss it unprompted.” But she said, “the report squarely puts this on our doorstep.”

So here we are. Congress can do its duty... or it can set the precedent that the President is effectively above the law.

Edit: Nadler has subpoenaed for the full report:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ ... .18.19.pdf

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Correction: Congress can absolutely impeach. They just can't expect a conviction in the Senate.

However, they can tie up the rest of Trump's term in an impeachment trial, where the evidence of his obstruction will be presented before the nation, keeping this story front and center until the election- and then force the GOP Senators to go on record voting to acquit him despite that.

Problem with that would make it look like a partisan issue and thus boost the GOP's chances of winning in 2020. Optics is key here and the Dems can't make it look like a repeat of Bill's impeachment without hemorrhaging voters.

[Vympel]

Loathe as I am to ever agree with Nancy Pelosi - who is an awful politician who needs to retire and make way for someone who isn't virtually a mummified corpse - but Pelosi is right. Impeachment is dead in the water.

What would be the point? Actually succeed in impeaching him? Everyone knows that's not going to happen - this isn't a Nixon replay. The Republicans are never going to go for it, and they've got a good reason not to - no crimes in relation to the core Trump-Russia claims were made out. So even if you think that Trump's efforts to disrupt the investigation amount to obstruction, the Republicans can just point and say that there was no underlying 'justice' to obstruct.

What about firing up Democrats? Seems unlikely to make a dent:

https://twitter.com/wpjenna/status/1119 ... 53826?s=20

Unlike most 2020 candidates, Beto O’Rourke is only talking about the Mueller report when asked about it — he just doesn’t think it’s a top priority for most voters. He told reporters that of the 550 questions he has recently taken, only two or three were about the investigation.

https://twitter.com/AsteadWesley/status ... 69185?s=20

A stat I got today from Sen. Warren's team: of the 275 questions she's taken from voters at town halls. Three have been about Russia, Mueller, or impeachment

There have been polls about this too - 'Russiagate' is a national drama that has consumed the political and media class. The populace - not so much.

[The Romulan Republic]

Wow, Vymple is arguing that Trump should be immune from consequences for his crimes. What a surprise.

Correction: Congress can absolutely impeach. They just can't expect a conviction in the Senate.

However, they can tie up the rest of Trump's term in an impeachment trial, where the evidence of his obstruction will be presented before the nation, keeping this story front and center until the election- and then force the GOP Senators to go on record voting to acquit him despite that.

Problem with that would make it look like a partisan issue and thus boost the GOP's chances of winning in 2020. Optics is key here and the Dems can't make it look like a repeat of Bill's impeachment without hemorrhaging voters.

I don't think that there is any guarantee that if the Democrats lay out the case for impeachment, and Republicans vote to acquit despite that, that it will reflect worse on the Democrats than on the Republicans.

Andrew Johnson was acquitted, but his party still got creamed in the next election. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached, and his party was creamed in the next election. Clinton was acquitted, and the Democrats still lost the Presidency in 2000. Moreover, we have shown that developments with the Mueller report/Barr's summary basically didn't shift Trump's polls at all. We'll need to see if yesterday's developments change anything, but what that tells me is that at this point, the battle lines are drawn, loyalties are hardened, and very few people are going to shift their vote based on what happens next. Those who are against Trump are against him. Those who are for him are for him. He's not going to get a huge swell in support because he gets acquitted in an impeachment trial. In any case, impeachment isn't (or shouldn't be) about trying to get votes. Its about Constitutional duty- about using the only indisputable mechanism provided by the Constitution to check a corrupt, authoritarian president.

Fail to use it, and we are setting a (further) precedent that Obstruction of Justice by the President does not matter. And we will pay for that precedent again and again in the coming decades.

Anyway, I will be phoning my Congressman today to urge him to support the immediate impeachment of Donald Trump. I urge all of you who are Americans to do likewise.

[The Romulan Republic]

For a lighter take, here's Stephen Colbert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MursWMNONo

On Barr acting as though he's Trump's defense attorney: "Okay, that's not fair. If Bill Barr were the President's lawyer, he'd be in prison right now."

Edit: For those who like to argue that the probe was a waste of tax payer money (personally, I think 22 million is a fairly small slice of America's budget to determine whether the President committed conspiracy with a hostile foreign government, and to protect the public's confidence in the integrity of the justice system):

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/mueller ... ssets.html

It turns out that the Mueller probe may yield a net profit for the Federal government, due to Manafort asset seizures.

Of course, expect some Trumper to turn this around and say "See! This proves the investigation was all a plot to make money!"

[Vympel]

Wow, Vymple is arguing that Trump should be immune from consequences for his crimes. What a surprise.

What a surprise, TRR being a total dishonest and hysterical shitlord, ignoring reasoned arguments as to it being a waste of time in favour of dishonestly transforming them into an argument that Trump should be 'immune from consequences for his crimes'.

[Darth Yan]

Vympel members of muellers team said Barr misrepresented the findings, Barr himself has a history of lying and covering things up and when the report was released it was redacted. The only reason that would happen is if the report has a lot of damning conclusions

[Vympel]

Vympel members of muellers team said Barr misrepresented the findings, Barr himself has a history of lying and covering things up and when the report was released it was redacted. The only reason that would happen is if the report has a lot of damning conclusions

Err - the report is out? So I don't know why this assertion is being made or what relevance it has to this impeachment talk.

The report was always going to be redacted. If you think there's some sort of damning conclusion hiding behind a redactment, you're free to point out where you think this would be. The core conclusions of the report are plain as day and availble to everyone.

[The Romulan Republic]

Wow, Vymple is arguing that Trump should be immune from consequences for his crimes. What a surprise.

What a surprise, TRR being a total dishonest and hysterical shitlord, ignoring reasoned arguments as to it being a waste of time in favour of dishonestly transforming them into an argument that Trump should be 'immune from consequences for his crime'.

I would prefer not to have another Mueller thread locked due to your trolling and abuse. But I will ask the moderators to observe that it is you who decided to initiate flames and personal attacks in this thread (calling me "hysterical"* and a "shitlord"), and that any insults or flames I subsequently level at you are purely reciprocal.

I will also note that you made no effort to rebut any of the arguments I made for why Trump should be impeached regardless of whether he can be convicted, instead relying entirely on personal abuse. That is ad hominem, and against the rules of honest debate

Moreover, whatever your reasons, the practical upshot of your argument is that Trump should be immune to consequences, and it fits a pattern of your attempting to denigrate any efforts to hold Trump accountable in relation to the Mueller probe and Russia. We have exactly one unambiguously legal mechanism for removing a criminal President. That's impeachment. If we refuse to use it, he's free and clear, at least until he leaves office (at which point I fully expect him to be indicted over the Stormy payoff, provided he is voted out in 2020 and its within the statute of limitations).


Also, I know that it is common practice on this board to label every other thing I post "hysterical", and that this is done to create a straw TRR so that cowards like you can rely on attacking my reputation rather than attacking my arguments. But seriously: snarking at you is not "hysteria".

[FireNexus]

Andrew Johnson was acquitted, but his party still got creamed in the next election. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached, and his party was creamed in the next election.

Andrew Johnson’s party got creamed because the vast majority of its members didn’t currently have the right to vote.

Clinton was acquitted, and the Democrats still lost the Presidency in 2000.

This was in spite of the damage done to Republicans from their ill-fated impeachment attempt, not because of it. They should have floated to victory after two terms of Democrat rule and an active recession, and they had a cage match they only barely won on points due to defective equipment.

Moreover, we have shown that developments with the Mueller report/Barr's summary basically didn't shift Trump's polls at all. We'll need to see if yesterday's developments change anything, but what that tells me is that at this point, the battle lines are drawn, loyalties are hardened, and very few people are going to shift their vote based on what happens next.

So... you’re suggesting this is an argument in favor of impeachment? Because what you’re suggesting is that we focus on the thing that doesn’t move polls from their baseline when there are things we know move polls against Trump.

Those who are against Trump are against him. Those who are for him are for him. He's not going to get a huge swell in support because he gets acquitted in an impeachment trial. In any case, impeachment isn't (or shouldn't be) about trying to get votes.

Trump’s poll numbers move. Just not on this issue. And when they move, they move against him. JUST NOT ON THIS ISSUE.

It’s about Constitutional duty- about using the only indisputable mechanism provided by the Constitution to check a corrupt, authoritarian president.

Fulfilling your constitutional duty and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.

Fail to use it, and we are setting a (further) precedent that Obstruction of Justice by the President does not matter. And we will pay for that precedent again and again in the coming decades.

That precedent is set no matter what we do now. Trump is going to get away with this. We can talk about it for another nine months where we, at best, get nothing out of it. Or we can move on so that when the Trump recession inevitably comes he won’t have the excuse of Democrats distracting him when the bottom falls out to make it everyone else’s fault.

Economic and social justice issues powered the blue wave. Trump being shitty wasn’t no part of it, but it wasn’t what got people coming out. And it’s an issue that DOES NOT MOVE POLLS.

Anyway, I will be phoning my Congressman today to urge him to support the immediate impeachment of Donald Trump. I urge all of you who are Americans to do likewise.

No. Because it’s a bad idea. Impeaching Trump would feel good, but it would feel good at the expense of failing to move on to national issues that might have a chance at weakening Trump. It’s only potential outcome is to keep Trump from further weakening or to strengthen him. Getting that motherfucker out of office as quickly as possible is the only thing that matters right now.

[Ralin]

That precedent is set no matter what we do now. Trump is going to get away with this. We can talk about it for another nine months where we, at best, get nothing out of it. Or we can move on so that when the Trump recession inevitably comes he won’t have the excuse of Democrats distracting him when the bottom falls out to make it everyone else’s fault.

Economic and social justice issues powered the blue wave. Trump being shitty wasn’t no part of it, but it wasn’t what got people coming out. And it’s an issue that DOES NOT MOVE POLLS.

No. Because it’s a bad idea. Impeaching Trump would feel good, but it would feel good at the expense of failing to move on to national issues that might have a chance at weakening Trump. It’s only potential outcome is to keep Trump from further weakening or to strengthen him. Getting that motherfucker out of office as quickly as possible is the only thing that matters right now.

You know, it’s funny. I’m a liberal and I feel pretty much exactly the same way about this as I did to hearing that Manchin had to vote for Kavanaugh to get re-elected. Namely that I really, really want to null vote in the next election and loudly brag about null voting because apparently the Democrats are a bunch of smug shits who only care about polling data.