The Likelihood of Impeachment

Trump defied the lawful Congressional subpoena of his taxes.

Trump forbade his attorney Don McGahn to testify before Congress.

These and several other actions may play well with his base, but they're not helping his chances of not being impeached.

And in the long run, if he's counting on "the NRA branch of the Republican party" to uphold his defiance of Congressional oversight, this won't help the future of gun rights in this country either.

I do not understand why Congress is letting the Trump administration bitch-fuck them.  They're a co-equal branch of government.  They should be playing hardball.

Like, why don't they pull funding from the Executive until their subpoenas are honored?

Or issue "contempt of Congress" orders and use its "inherent authority" to arrest and detain Trump administration officials?

Robert Reich is calling for William Barr to be arrested and jailed by the House’s sargeant-at-arms.  It’s a power they have, by a simple majority vote, with no involvement of the Senate.

I agree 100%.

Mueller can testify later.  Barr needs to be wearing an orange jumpsuit first. SCOTUS has affirmed this right in the past.

Rachel had a very interesting speculation last night.

We now know that Robert Mueller met with new Attorney General Barr on March 5, and one of the things they discussed was the OLC guideline that a sitting president shouldn't be indicted. Mueller indicated to Barr that he would not be bringing indictments against the president, therefore.

Less than 3 weeks later Mueller unexpectedly wrapped up his report and delivered it to Barr (March 22), who went on to falsely summarize it and withhold it from Congress and the American people.

Barr is ON RECORD -- both in his 19-page job application letter, and his Congressional testimonies -- as believing that if a sitting president cannot be indicted, THEN HE SHOULD NOT EVEN BE INVESTIGATED.

So Rachel's speculation: Did Barr, on hearing that Mueller wasn't going to indict, tell Mueller on March 5 that he needed to wrap up his investigation? Did he prematurely close the investigation?

That would be in DIRECT conflict with his sworn testimony during his confirmation hearings that he would not interfere with the investigation.

When Mueller testifies before Congress -- when, not if -- Bill Barr's orange jumpsuit will be at the tailor getting fitted.

45% now support impeachment.  If this ever reaches, oh, about 65% we'll see impeachment hearings in the House.

Chuck Schumer said last nite on Rachel that starting an impeachment hearing may open up legal avenues for battling Trump's blanket refusal to turn over any documents or allow any testimony, that otherwise would not be open. So we shall see.

Two more join the fold.

I don't think anybody believes an impeachment investigation in the House would lead to his removal by the Senate.  That's not the issue anymore -- and besides nobody wants a President Pence.  What *IS* the issue is getting the full facts of the Mueller investigation out in public.  Getting Trump's full complicity on-record so that there's zero chance of his re-election in 2020.  Getting the full facts of Russia's interference known, so we can prepare for the 2020 election and recognize the signs of Russian disinformation when it pops up between now and 11/20.

Informing the American public, IOW.

MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC all reported today on Mueller's press conference.  Even Fox News reported on it.  All agreed that Mueller specifically came out in public to set the record straight, to once-and-for-all correct Bill Barr's mischaracterization of it, to counter the spin that he had put on it (quickly picked up by Trump & his minions) that there was "no collusion no obstruction."

Mueller very carefully worded his original report, and today re-iterated what he said so there could be no misunderstanding: Trump DID obstruct, and at least benefited from Russian interference -- even if he did not conspire with the Russians to influence the election.  Mueller said again, in front of the microphones and in a written note circulated afterward, "if we could have exonerated the president, we would have."

But since the OLC guidelines said a sitting president cannot be indicted, Mueller felt bound to gather evidence and document his findings only, included ten acts of clear obstruction of justice.  It was not his role to indict the president.  The constitution reserves that duty for Congress.  But he views his report as a roadmap to impeachment, an "unimpeachable impeachment referral."

Even Fox News agreed with this interpretation.

Until Sean Hannity came on.  In a neck-snapping act of spin, he managed to turn everyone ELSE's interpretation 180º on its head.  Hannity, and his guest Alan Dershowitz, argue that Mueller is a partisan hack because he HINTED there might have been a crime "even though he could find no evidence for it."  They said that Barr is opening investigations into the origins of the Mueller probe, which will prove that Mueller was acting on behalf of the losing Clinton campaign to try to overturn the election and the will of the people.  

It's breathtaking, really.

From an answer on QorA:

Scott Hendry on QorA wrote:

But here’s what Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats should do. They should announce their intention to impeach him and start the process, but slow walk it through the House and drag it out until the 2020 election. This will open a lot of legal avenues to force the release of documentation that Trump has been desperately trying to keep secret. Then they can drip feed the revelations of his crimes (and there are very many) to the nation through the media. They can reveal the extent of his corruption and treason for ALL to see. This would put Trump on the defensive continuously and he would have to constantly bleat “Not True!” and “WITCH HUNT!” after every revelation.

No matter how rusted on his supporters are, some of this stuff, or the sheer volume and weight of it would eventually sink in. This is the same process by which they’ve already been brainwashed by Rupert Murdoch to think that they’d rather be Russians than Democrats.

The Democrats in the House need never actually bring the impeachment process to a vote or try to send it to the Senate. This is how the Republicans would roll. Let’s hear them squeal when the same tactics are used on one of their own.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Yes.

Along with impeachment and removal and imprisonment of Barr and Mnuchin.

And the public testimony of Mueller and several of his prosecutors.

And the publication of Trump’s taxes going back ten years.

And the indictment and removal and jailing of DJT Jr and Jared Kushner.

And the closure of Trump’s businesses for multiple legal violations.

And the disbarment of Rudy Giuliani.

And the revocation of the 2001 AUMF.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Robert Reich is calling for William Barr to be arrested and jailed by the House’s sargeant-at-arms.  

So why the fuck haven't they done it?

Harry Reid joins the chorus.

Quote :

The former lawmaker did voice some caution, however, noting that a House-led impeachment inquiry or panel would be the best path forward at this time because it wouldn’t necessarily mean the full chamber would then vote to impeach Trump. Such an effort, Reid said, could influence public opinion on the president.

“It’s not the right thing to do nothing,” Reid told USA Today. He then noted, “It’s not the right thing to jump into impeachment without doing an inquiry.”

I think Scott Hendry's scenario is gaining advocates.

Basil Smikle says that having the House launch an impeachment inquiry, and the Senate neglecting to hold a vote or voting to acquit, would actually STRENGTHEN the Democrats position in 2020.  All of the Senators up for re-election will be on record, and vulnerable to challenge.

And by impeaching and removing and/or jailing other members of the Trump administration, other than the the top man himself, Democrats can blunt criticism that they’re simply trying to overturn the 2016 election.

I dunno.

During the entire Obama Administration, eight years, Fox News was screaming every day that Clinton & Obama & Biden were on the verge of going to jail, that they were serial lawbreakers, that the FBI would be locking them up any day now.

It never happened of course.

Now the MSM is saying the same about the Trump clowncar and, so far, nothing has happened to them.

Is it all just political theater?

Yes. There is the slight difference that Trump and co really are traitors, but the screaming is to drum up ratings, not because they think it will actually happen.

And the fact that all of Obama's so-called "scandals" were made up by the fringe right and amounted to nothing -- no impeachments, no indictments, no trials, no guilty pleas, no goin'-to-jail.

NoCoPilot wrote:

And the revocation of the 2001 AUMF.

Finally getting some movement on that last one. About time.

What The Hell Is Nancy Pelosi Doing? indeed.

Quote :

This is not how Democrats told voters they would wield power. During the 2018 midterm elections, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders repeatedly made two campaign promises: Democrats would conduct rigorous oversight of a corrupt, lawless administration and fight to reduce sky-high prescription drug costs burdening American families.

“We have a constitutional responsibility for oversight,” Pelosi said on a media tour following the party’s November triumph. “This is a perilously constitutional moment.”

Over the past six months, that oversight has been a farce.

Quote :

The best argument for impeachment is, ironically, the case for national unity. Americans ought to be able to agree that, while all opinions are open to debate, some behavior really is out of bounds.

The Pros and Cons of Impeaching Trump

Quote :

A point common to all the anti-impeachment arguments, though, comes right out of an old Western; as the lawmen used to say about the cattle-rustling varmint after he was caught, “Hanging’s too good for him.” In this case, impeachment is seen as too rarefied, too technical a proceeding to end Trumpism. Trump should be defeated at the polls; ejecting him in any other way provides too many opportunities for after-the-fact stab-in-the-back recriminations, and will only further convince his base that the “deep state” conspired against him. Indeed, given the congressional Republican Party’s cultlike adherence to Trump, beginning a process in the House that can end only with acquittal in the Senate wouldn’t be good for the Democrats, or for the country.

These arguments have weight. A President Pence would certainly continue to appoint right-wing judges and limit L.G.B.T.Q. rights and ignore climate change and all the rest, and might do so more efficiently, being better able to concentrate on the task without getting distracted by Fox News or the allure of military parades. But what if he did? These may all be policies worth opposing; they’re not crimes that can’t be tolerated. It’s the core premise of any liberal democracy that people have to accept the program of the party in power no matter how little they like it, or even how morally repugnant they find it. The argument for Trump’s eviction rests not on the kinds of laws that he would like to pass but on his unique contempt for the whole concept of the rule of law.

I say again: Congress should impeach-and-remove every Trump cabinet member before the big man himself, just to make clear it's not personal.