Mueller, Plain and Tall
“America must hear from Robert Mueller” has been the battle cry of some since the release of the Mueller report, and especially since AG William Barr’s testimony before congress. Now America has, and it amounts to a “no comment” by the special counsel.
I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.
There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.
The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.
Having successfully run a virtually leak-proof ship in an era that such a feat was thought impossible, I suspect Robert Mueller felt obligated to put a bow on his investigation by, at a minimum, publicly thanking and defending his team, their work, and for their discipline in doing it. Folks who were expecting fireworks should have known better; we have plenty of book on how Mueller conducts himself and there was no way his statement, his only statement, was going to be anything other than by-the-book and professional.
And God bless him for it. Robert Mueller is no more perfect than anyone else, but it is refreshing to have a reliable player on the political stage who does what he is supposed to do, and no more. Knowing everything he did would be parsed, he has elected to let the report speak for itself, and all but warned congress against calling him to testify further. No doubt he has seen the hearings conducted so far, and knowing not only political animals but also several POTUS-seeking candidates would be more interested in making soundbites than conducting a hearing, while Team Red would attack him and his team relentlessly to defend their liege, Robert Mueller wants none of it. Several hours of repetitive “I cannot legally answer that” would make for poor television anyway. Chairman Nadler and other congressional leaders thinking they will make hay of such testimony should probably think twice, as the stalwart Mueller is just as likely to make their own members look bad if they try to go full circus on the savvy veteran.
While some are grousing that the special counsel “punted”, Mueller himself made it pretty clear charging a president with a crime is the work of impeachment, and congress would have to do their own lifting if they go in that direction.
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.
Mueller’s been around long enough to know how Washington works, and that the first rule is that the path of least resistance is the one tried first by the powers that be. Since its inception, the Office of Special Counsel was viewed by some to be the silver bullet that would end the Trump Presidency. That was foolish then, and even more so now. The initial reaction by just about every one of substance that Robert Mueller was the perfect appointee has been proven out. He did the job, issued his findings, and now he’s going home, hopeful to be able to at least attend church service without being accosted. What he didn’t do is give anyone – not the president, not congress, not the media, and especially the American people – and easy out. He said it himself:
I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American.
Thank you.
Whether they pay attention or not, and there will be plenty who do not, is not on Robert Mueller. But he gave them the information to make an informed decision. These are important, serious matters to the country, and deserve serious consideration and responses. Not that we will get that, but it still needs to be said, and Robert Mueller said it.
So for doing the job, not playing the game, and letting the work speak for itself, we should thank Robert Mueller. How he conducted himself will be the only clear-cut, easy part of this whole mess to understand looking back. For that at least, we should thank him.
It seems to me that the Senate will be holding no hearings whatsoever. And I don’t recall any presidential candidates who are Members of the House of Representatives. So while grandstanding by presidential candidates is definitely a thing, I can’t see it being a thing in this instance.
Meanwhile, I think that there is value in putting his face on TV and having him describe, in his own words, the material in the report. Even if he goes no further, except to perhaps expand and clarify those words for a less sophisticated audience.Report
There are four sitting House members officially running for the Democratic nomination: Ryan, Moulton, Swalwell, and Gabbard.Report
Well, after all I said “I don’t recall”. I’m generally willing to say that if I can’t remember them, they aren’t going to be that important. At the same time, that might mean they are even hungrier for media attention.
Sigh.Report
Yep. They’ll do it. And they’ll do it in such a way that it looks like virtue signalling to the Dem Primary voters, i.e. we’ll see a witch hunt. They won’t care about facts or due process.
Trump will have to defend himself against charges of working for the Russians or Nazis.Report
Its an understandable miss, they are all also-ransReport
They are all in the kid’s table column. Gabbard is in the “I am not a crank” column.Report
And I don’t recall any presidential candidates who are Members of the House of Representatives.
Four: Tulsi Gabbard (HI), Tim Ryan(OH), Seth Moulton(MA), and Eric Swalwell(CA)
You can be forgiven since none of these are top tier candidates and there are 23 of ’em.Report
If they’re smart, Dems will pocket this until after the election in case Trump is re-elected (which will happen).
If they’re not smart, Dems will try impeachment and then have it blow up on them at the voting booth. It will be a really tough sell to impeach him over being guilty of obstruction of justice when actual justice was that he was innocent of what he was obstructing.
Trump didn’t try anything because he was guilty of stuff with Russia, he tried stuff because he has no clue what the limits of the office are… and maybe doesn’t care.Report
And the blowing smoke never stops.Report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report#Conspiracy_or_coordination
The bar for how much fiscal support the Trump Campaign would have needed to get from the Russians to make it a crime is $2,000. Mueller didn’t think he could prove the value was worth that.
This is what Trump is talking about when he claims the report cleared him… and staring at that fully and admitting it would be a good thing if we’re going to impeach Trump as opposed to just virtue signal.Report
Oh, and Mueller also didn’t think he could prove that the clowns running the show knew what they were doing was illegal (same link).Report
That is all fine and good and horse pucky. The report said and is quotes in the post that the Russians meddled in our election. The report said in clear black and white pixels that the Russians’ wanted trump to win, that many in T’s campaign had connections and were receptive to Russian offers and that T’s campaign successfully obstructed the investigation.
All the above is in the report.
Is quoting a money amount the new dodge. Okay, whatevs. Ignorance of the law is …..something …something…hmmm. Is that the Don Jr Rule now. They were to stupid to know obviously illegal things were illegal. Brilliant defense.Report
Various people on this forum have backed HRC’s various dancing up to the edge of “legal” but not (normally) going over it. They should be thrilled that Trump did the same thing.
So yes, Trump wanted to win, the Russians wanted him to win, he and/or his crew had various meetings with the Russians (which btw is going to be part of his job as an international business empire), he received help which was less than $2k, and the amount of cooperation didn’t cross the line into illegal (which is a different problem than not knowing the law which is apparently also an issue here).
And Mueller shifted through all that dreck and decided it wasn’t criminal.
Efforts to use spin to describe all this as a crime are not going to play well with anyone whose reasoning isn’t “because Trump”.
And then Trump continued to not know what he was doing and ordered the investigation shut down, which his people didn’t do. So we have obstruction of justice for something “that wasn’t criminal”.Report
No, Mueller sifted through all the evidence and decided he couldn’t establish a mafia style conspiracy (which after all was his major work as an active prosecutor) and that he couldn’t charge the President with Obstruction because DoJ policy wouldn’t let him charge a sitting President. As has been repeatedly pointed out, Obstruction doesn’t require an underlying crime to be a crime itself.Report
Let’s see. His campaign manager is in jail. His longtime chief political adviser is in jail. His first National Security Adviser (!!!) plead guilty to failing to disclose contacts with multiple foreign powers.
That doesn’t make you go “Yikes!”?
They clearly obstructed justice. Manafort got caught witness tampering. There is documented instances of pardon dangling and other acts of obstruction.
How can you possibly conclude that we have clarity on this matter?
Trump is a traitor. Pure and simple. He cares about nothing except himself. And he will make deals with whomever to advance his own agenda, regardless of the harm to the country. We’ve watched this in action from day 1. He could not be more friendly to Putin if he were a literal Russian national in the employ of the Russian Government.Report
So your reasoning, such as it is, is that Dems should hold off on impeachment until after Trump is re-elected which you deem assured of occurring. You also conclude that impeaching will result in Trump being… re-elected. So then what difference will it make if the Dems try to impeach before or after the election if you think Trump will be re-elected either way?Report
That’s some catch, that Catch 22!Report
Trump’s a screw up and on a short rope. Sooner or later he’ll make himself a liability to the GOP, and then impeachment can remove him from office.
Until that happens it’s basically virtue signalling… and I think your odds of beating him (which are terrible) are better without it.Report
Here’s my theory – the economy is going to keep sliding toward a recession since the Trump tax cuts are paying for a whopping 5% of their value due to “growth” and his tariffs are starting to really hurt multiple sectors of the economy. Which means as we get closer to the election his favorability with his base declines since their wallets are getting hit again.
Then the House votes to Impeach this fall, forcing the Senate to try over the winter or in the Spring. Because Trump HATES to be seen as a looser, and because no handler can force him to stick to the truth under oath he resigns to protect his inflated ego. Remember the man NEVER planned to win.
That puts Pence in the hot seat to win, and regardless of whether Mayor Pete ends up on a ticket or not, Indiana is not the poster child of business success under Pence.
Dems have a stronger hand then they are giving themselves credit for. They just need to grow a spine.Report
A random thought that occurred to me this morning… The Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, but doesn’t say that the Senate must try every impeachment the House makes. Hypothetically, McConnell could just say, “The Dems are grandstanding, the votes aren’t there, there’s no reason to waste time badgering the President,” and just refuse to hold the trial.
If I were in his shoes I might take this approach, unless someone could show that it would likely cost the Republicans their Senate majority. Back of the envelope, the Dems need to flip three seats to tie, four if you assume Doug Jones will lose in Alabama, five if you don’t want to be dependent on winning the White House, six if you think Manchin is unreliable on some important issues.
Given the map, I have trouble getting to six. In order of vulnerability, I’d say Gardner from CO, McSally from AZ, Collins from ME, and then things get much more difficult.Report
I’ve had that thought as well, Michael. Supposing that the House actually files articles and votes, McConnell would simply ignore the normal procedure and not bring a vote to the Senate floor. But as you say, it all depends on whether the electoral politics works in his favor at the time.
He’s a cynical, cagey old bastard who does good for his side. I wouldn’t want him on my side tho.
Add: do you think Gardner is vulnerable enough that Hickenlooper could beat him?Report
I expect any reasonable Democratic candidate will win in 2020 just by running on Gardner’s voting record. He voted to confirm Pruitt, Zinke, Sessions, Kavanaugh, and Barr. He voted for every environmental regulation roll-back, for opening more federal land to oil and gas drilling, for the tax cuts, for the border wall, and for eliminating Obamacare with no replacement. His promise that “I’m not that kind of Republican” disappeared as soon as he took office.
Gardner won by a couple of percentage points in a Republican wave year against possibly the worst state-wide political campaign (Udall) I can remember. He eked it out in the northern suburbs: in my large suburban county, Gardner won by 0.1 percentage points while Hickenlooper won by 5.9. In 2016 in that county, Clinton won by 6.9 and Sen. Bennet by 5.7. Last year in that county, Polis won the governor’s race by >10. In the Denver suburban districts for US House, newcomer Crow beat long-time incumbent Coffman in the 6th District by >10 and Perlmutter won the 7th by 25. Gardner’s going to get killed in the northern suburbs this time.Report
So the good news is that a generic Dem has great shot at taking down Gardner. The bad news is that any particular candidate isn’t a generic Dem. 🙂
Btw: are you as surprised as I am that Gardner went all-in on Trumpism? I might have had the wrong impression of the guy but I didn’t think he’d be such a Party-tool.Report
While McConnel has been the big architect of the Republican version of the Final Solution – i.e. packing the courts and rolling back taxes even further – his reelection chances and many other Republicans would be tanked by refusing to try. While our local legal scholars can probably robustly debate the point, most Americans believe the Senate has to try in the event of an impeachment, and Democrats will no doubt spin a refusal as further evidence that McConnell puts Party and personal power over country. It hurts him and it hurts the party.Report
I disagree Philip. In the olden times people thought McConnell refusing to allow Garland a hearing was going to be punished by the electorate. Modern times show that he and his party weren’t punished at all.
McConnell is a great Leader because he’s willing to engage in what looks like risky behavior to the Old Guard, but has a low cost to his own interests. Granting that drawing from the same well has risks of its own, McConnell’s cynicism appears to be perfectly aligned with the cynicism currently being expressed by the electorate. Nothing is out of bounds for this guy.Report
Unpaid Tax cuts goose the economy, they don’t cause recessions. They cause defaults which are much worse but that’s a different issue and we’re not defaulting in the short term.
That or just the already really long recovery gets old… but I suspect it’s too late for this. These things are “steering the iceberg” slow, and the way to bet is Trump enters the election with a strong tailwind from the economy.
He answers written questions off line or he takes the 5th.Report
The US federal government defaults only if Congress makes a conscious decision to do so. They can pass statute (and override a veto if necessary) and print unlimited amounts of money. Granted that there are consequences, but that’s a choice they get to make.Report
Hardly. Those tax cuts have hugely goosed the deficit and national debt, and resulted in stock buybacks that boosted corporate bottom lines but didn’t increase corporate investment or capitol outlays, nor did they permanently boost salaries. with 3-ish percent inflation still a thing, flat wages and increasing costs of goods (exacerbated by the tariffs) means we are ripe for another recession.
I’m sure you and others would welcome that situation, but polling data so far don’t bear that out. Fox News, Marist, Quinnipiac, Pew and others have polling data out the last few weeks showing Trump’s net favorability on Trade crashing, and his net approval overall still stalled. If his trade and economic policies were going to boost him it would have happened already.
A President taking the fifth (which I’m sure his ego won’t allow him to do) will be reported and pundited and presumed by most Americans to be guilty. If it happens before the election it tanks him. And looking at the Constitution and Senate rules currently in play, he couldn’t answer questions off line – Clinton didn’t – and so he’d be trapped. Plus the vast cast of characters that would be paraded before he was questioned would likely clearly set him up as a hugely bigly looser to save their own skins.Report
So now all you need to do is convince the Senate’s leaders to have a fair trial.
I heard something very similar on why they needed to have Garland’s hearings. The country will rise up and throw the GOP out of power unless they do what the Dems want. The issue is going to be what does the GOP (i.e. it’s base) want?
I get that half the country thinks Trump is a vile criminal and should be removed with the charges not really mattering… but the other half needs to see this as something other than a witch hunt or it just won’t work. Laying groundwork before he took office to impeach him for renting hotel rooms suggests we’re starting pretty deep in that territory.
I’ve got a link to a graph of Trump’s unfavorable ratings below. Trump took office with a 23.3 spread and he maxed out at 35.2 which I think was him ripping apart families at the south border. Right before Mueller he’s was at 12.
Next week we get to see if anyone other than the people who already despise him care about this.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.htmlReport
I like how complying with the Constitution becomes “something the Dems want”.
I don’t disagree with that framing, I just think its a startling admission.Report
If you’re talking about Garland then the Constitution doesn’t spell out how a Supreme Nomination can be rejected and it’s been rejected by lack of action 8+ times in the past.
The Senate did fulfill its role, they just disagreed with the President on who should be on the Court and it took an election to straighten things out. And yes, absolutely McC gamed things so a Right Wing rather than Moderate Left Wing ended up on the Court.
The counter move would have been to bring public pressure to bear… however the public didn’t back Obama so that was a problem.Report
but the other half needs to see this as something other than a witch hunt or it just won’t work.
No, at least half of the other half also agrees that Trump has committed impeachable crimes and should be kicked out of office. So that’s 3/4 of the country. The problem is that way more than half of that 3/4 thinks the Democrats are either too chickenshit to act on Trump’s corruption or are too incompetent to make the political case for his impeachment, and they are probably right about that. IOW, the electorate is so pissed off about our politicians that they’re willing to let an obviously corrupt politician stay in office rather than back the also obviously corrupt opposing party in removing him from office. It’s a pick your poison sorta thing. And Pelosi’s incoherent jibberish about impeachment is making those folks case for them.Report
37% of the country wants Trump impeached.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446382-poll-majority-oppose-trump-impeachment-but-most-democrats-support-it
That would be the Dems base.Report
Dark,
Anyone with functioning brain knows, at this point, that Trump has engaged in impeachable offenses. It’s just that more than half of those folks are OK with it, due to negative partisanship or etc.
You’re a good example. You think Trump is a corrupt scum bag who has violated the norms governing the oath of office and so on but you *also* think that he shouldn’t be impeached. ……. ???Report
What would those offenses be? He didn’t collude with the Russians, and there’s no remotely reasonable case that he obstructed justice, at least one that wouldn’t be laughed out of any court the land. The emoluments clause doesn’t apply to the President, so exactly what are the impeachable offenses he committed? Are we going to start impeaching people because we don’t like their race because all I can come up with is that he’s orange.
However, I fully support impeachment because it guarantees he’ll win a second term in a landslide, that the Republicans will take back the house, and Trump will get a couple more conservative justices on the Supreme Court and countless more on lower courts.
But Democrats can’t control themselves anymore. They’re determined to stick a fork in a light socket because the light socket simply must have a fork stuck in it, otherwise there is no justice in the world, dogs will sleep with cats, and cows will stop producing milk.Report
Do I think he should be impeached? Yes for obstruction, No for anything/everything else (even combined). However see below.
In the real world, do I think it would remove him from office? No.
Do I think impeachment is worth leaving him stronger? Also No.
Do I think he should be in office? No… but he was elected anyway.
That last is a REALLY big deal. Most of the people who want him impeached wanted him impeached before he took office. There are various elements of all this which may put us into deep state territory (HRC supporters in the FBI investigating Trump and maybe manufacturing the reason to investigate him).
Removing him from office because the Dems don’t like him and went looking for (manufacturing?) a crime would be stunningly poisonous to democracy. Being seen to do that, even if it’s not what is happening, would be darn close to that as well. And none of this shit is either-or, Trump can be guilty of obstruction, and the Dems can be doing a witch hunt, and elements of the Obama administration could have decided to put their thumb on the election.
Trump was elected to be a scumbag and shake up the system. He’s a former-fox hired to evaluate security in the hen house. That’s a shockingly high risk move, but thus far he still has the support of his followers because thus far he’s mostly done a good job if we evaluate him by what he was supposed to do and make allowances for his inexperience.
If we could get his followers to see he obstructed an investigation into something to which he was innocent, and if we could get them to see that as a serious abuse of power reaching “high crimes” then I’d be thrilled to have President Pence.
However that’s expecting a lot out of his followers, and also a lot out of his detractors who don’t care about the facts of the case and are fine with “because Trump” and expect that kind of reasoning to work and don’t even realize that’s what they’re doing.Report
You keep coming back to this argument, that nothing is legitimate unless Trump’s supporters accept it as so.
And conversely, no matter how corrupt and abusive Trump is, so long as he retains the support of his base, the majority of American citizens must respect and abide by this.
That’s not how democracy works. Its not how the Constitution works, Its not how any of this works.Report
Math time. You need 67 Senate votes to remove Trump from office and there are 47 Dem(ish) Senators. Ergo you need 20 GOP votes (out of 53) to make this happen.
The 37% of the population that thinks he should be impeached are all Dems, making this a Party line vote.
Without Trump’s supporters backing you I don’t see how, mathematically, you can remove him from office. Worse, since this is purely a partisan issue and since you’re trying to overturn an election, not only can’t you do it but you probably shouldn’t.
I’m not sure what “abusive” means in this context other than Trump running his mouth and being a general ass, and that’s probably not a good reason to overturn an election since it was obvious before the election.
“Corrupt” means “monetizing gov resources and access” and/or “fixing elections” and/or “misusing gov resources”. At the moment we got him responding inappropriately to what may have been a Dem effort to railroad him and/or smear effort. A normal person could have been jailed so I’m good with him being impeached on this… but politically this seems thin.
Other than that we’ve got what? Campaign funds paying Stormy was already found to be legal. Russia was already found to be not criminal. Renting hotel space? Is that seriously the hill to die on? Having sleazy people around him? General ignorance of politics and how gov works?
It’s very hard to treat Dem efforts or complaints on this topic seriously when your actual alternative to Trump was HRC, who has her own extremely serious issues with monetizing gov resources/access and fixing elections. I’ve been pointing this out, for years, long before Trump, and people have been doing ethical and logical backflips to avoid dealing with the issue. If corruption is the concern then the good news is Trump is probably an improvement over where I’d expect us to be if HRC had won.
From my point of view I’d like him out of there because of his various trainwrecks with trade and immigration… although (at election time) I’d be willing to forgive him that if his playing “chicken” with trade wars actually gets China to behave like a normal country and he gets immigration reform. However being stupidly ignorant about economics probably doesn’t rise to a “high crime”.Report
Well make up your mind.
Is breaking norms just good ol hardball politics, or is it poisonous to democracy?
Everything McConnell has done since January 20,2009 has been “Because Obama”, so why is it somehow a problem now if the Dems choose to play hardball politics “because Trump”?
And..once more…impeachment doesn’t require indictable crimes- the Constitution is crystal clear on that point.
So yeah, the Dems, if they wish to play hardball and can inveigle or strongarm 20 Republicans, would be entirely with their Constitutional limits to impeach and remove Trump, simply “because Trump”.Report
Dark is in the uncomfortable position of being a conservative who thinks Dems shouldn’t impeach because it’d be a partisan move even tho he – a conservative – thinks Trump should be impeached. He’s still trying to walk that razor’s edge without getting his feet bloody. 🙂Report
I think if it’s seen as a partisan move it won’t work.Report
If the continued success of the republican Party proves anything, it is that extreme and unprincipled partisanship is the winning move in American politics today.Report
I agree. So if you think that is the winning play then absolutely go for it.
Which norms are we talking about now?Report
Let me rephrase that: What is the purpose of all this? Impeachment would be a huge investment in political capital, time, and other resources.
If the only purpose is virtue signalling, then sure, knock yourself out. At the end we will all know you really, really, REALLY dislike Trump. Now if you do the job poorly and spend a year making him look like the sane guy in the room (by impeaching him over hotel rooms for example), you’ll probably lose the House but maybe that’s a price you’re willing to pay.
If the purpose is removing him from office, then you need a better way to convince 20 GOP Senators to vote for you than “because Trump”.
Showcasing that he’s betrayed this country by fixing the election with Russia is probably a way to make that happen. Showcasing that he mishandled a trumped up “gotcha” move from Obama is probably not.Report
Removing him from office because the Dems don’t like him and went looking for (manufacturing?) a crime would be stunningly poisonous to democracy.
The Dems can’t remove him from office. They can investigate, file articles of imeachment and vote on whether his crimes are worthy of a trial, but only because they control the House. The Senate is GOP. They may, or may not, vote him out.
Impeachment isn’t about removing him from office. It’s a public trial of his behavior and a process by which his guilt or innocence is publicly determined.Report
Ooops. That’s a reply to Dark Matter and not Philip.Report
Or, to make the point, Bill Clinton was imeached because he lied to Congress about getting a blow job in the WH. Was that “poisonous to democracy”?
Absolutely yes. 100% yes.
Would impeaching Trump because he obstructed multiple investigations into his potential collusion with the Russians be poisonous to democracy?
Absolutely not. 100% No.Report
Hrm….
Perhaps you should read an article in The Nation, giving a progressive view of the Barr investigation.
What it doesn’t mention is that the targeted surveillance, leaks, and prosecutions of Trump and associates by Obama officials doesn’t seem remotely related to Russia, but to Israel. Anyone who made calls to Israel, whether about settlements or Iran policy, became a target. That’s what led to Michael Flynn getting indicted, and another indicted Trump associate was told by Mueller himself that he was investigated because of tied to Israel.Report
I’ll stick with the Mueller report.
Thanks though., George. You’re always so helpful with info about these things.Report
“Trump’s a screw up and on a short rope.”
And yet, here we all still are, some 4 years after people were making that observation when he rode down that escalator.
Godot’s going to show up before the main body of Republicans turn on Trump.Report
Exactly this. I recall Jaybird jokingly saying that Trump surely can’t recover from *THIS* scandal! during the primary and general election cycles last time, yet here we are. And after all this time (four years, as you said) folks have failed to realize that the allure of Trump isn’t his positives (since only a handful of idiots believe he has any) but his negatives, that he’s either anti- or not- on a collectively shared set of interests that tip the electoral balance in his favor. His election in the primary signaled that (enough) conservatives hated the institutional GOP; that he won the general signaled that (enough of) the electorate hated institutional Dem politics.Report
It only became a joke around the fourth time I said it.
I meant it the first three times.Report
Oh, I remember it well. 🙂 I was right there with ya.* The reason I singled you out (and by extension me, I guess) is that everyone else’s belief that *this scandal will be his undoing* persisted. They didn’t learn that Trump was scandal proof.
* The one difference between our views of Trump’s chances is that, if I recall, you were more bullish on Hillary’s chances than I was, so I wasn’t as focused on Trump’s missteps.Report
You need to use the “Trump Scale” for scandals. If it doesn’t threaten his arrest, then we’re in “Trump is vile” territory and we already know that. Similarly “rules which only apply to Trump” also don’t apply because it’s witch hunt territory, that’s emoluments and not making tax returns public.
Filter all of those out and we’re left with obstruction of justice. Maybe that’s enough… but that’s a small percentage of the “Trump is vile” package and it’d be real easy for the Dems to misplay it.
At the moment, what I think happens is the Dems go for impeachment in the House and blow it. He’s better at throwing shit than they are. We end up with Nazi allegations, Trump’s sex life, emoluments, i.e. a reality show witch hunt environment rather than a court environment with an impartial judge. It is seen (correctly) as a partisan brawl.
Trump is impeached on a party line.
The Senate holds it’s own party line vote and does nothing. They’re not close to 2/3rds, everyone knows it, the election is soon, they give it to the voters.
Trump is re-elected.
His scandals become more serious in the 2nd term, mostly as better information comes out about them.Report
If they’re smart, Dems will pocket this until after the election in case Trump is re-elected (which will happen).<
If they’re not smart, Dems will try impeachment and then have it blow up on them at the voting booth.
The one sure fire way for the Democratic party to be relegated to the ash bin for at least a generation if not two is to wait to impeach unless and until Trump is re-elected. They will not be forgiven, and the laughter will echo for decades.Report
Thinking about this some more Dark, your premise is that if Dems impeach this term they lose in 2020 because the politics of the inquiry aren’t compelling. Why would you think that the same case becomes *more* compelling right after he has won a national election according him four more years of Presidential power? The Dems would look like fools and Trump could say the whole thing is political (which you’ve conceded it is).
The cynical beauty of Trump is that he forces his opponents to make tough decisions. Democrats, as a party but also as individuals, have to make that choice *right now*, with incomplete information and great risk. That’s his game. The longer they play politics the greater the chance he consolidates his power in ways the Founders never imagined. 🙂Report
I don’t think Trump is viewed as guilty enough, I think his guilt (of something) will become more apparent the longer he’s in office. Emoluments, Russia, him refusing to hand over his taxes, & his sex life are simply not enough and obstruction of an investigation into his innocence is going to be a real reach.
I also don’t think the Dems can impeach right now without it degenerating into a witch hunt. Having them misplay a weak hand means he’ll be stronger and they may even lose the House.Report
Dark, nothing Trump is going to do is worse than what he’s already done, either objectively or subjectively (since we’re increasingly desensitized to the massive extent of his corruption at this point). So you’re wrong on both counts, seems to me.
You’re also wrong about the poltics, I think. Everyone (including lots of Trump supporters) know that he’s engaged in impeachable crimes. If Democrats fail to open an impeachment inquiry right now, that act loses Dem supporters and proves the point of the Trump supporters, which is effectively that Dems and other politicians all corrupt anyway. Pelosi feeds that fire, of course, so shame on her.Report
Nonsense. Trump has no bottom.Report
We’re already at the bottom.
Some day you’ll say “that’s the last straw” and everyone will point at you and say “what about all those straws you excused by criticizing his opponents for saying the same thing?”
This is how it works Dark. Authoritarians don’t show up and re-write all the norms and laws in an instant. It’s an accretion over time until inertia is in their favor. And it begins with the politics being in their favor, just as you’ve advised – that the politics are in Trump’s favor – in this conversation.
Dude, you’re a cynical man whose cynicism about the hated opposition has blinkered your views of the guy you should really fear.
Unless you fear Democrats more than a racist authoritarian imbecile who is currently the most powerful person in the world.Report
This from Ken White:
“Mueller is a man out of time. This is the age of alternatively factual tweets and sound bites; he’s a by-the-book throwback who expects Americans to read and absorb carefully worded 400-page reports. Has he met us?”
seems to cover Mueller well.
He did an honorable upright job that was clearly going to be twisted away from what his report clearly points at.
Balko “Almost everything Mueller said today fits with him being fair, charitable, and by the book, possibly to a fault. ”
Yup. But does that mean he is getting played. We’ll see if the D’s and Amash can avoid that fate in the short term.Report
Sadly I agree with both assessments. It is no doubt clear to Mr. Mueller that Mr. Barr was never going to give accurate much less nuanced reporting of the report his team produced, and Mueller ultimately doesn’t have the emotional constitution to fight back in any meaningful way. lobbing to the Democrats in the House is his last trick, and its a dubious one at best. He is likely on the road to bitterness.Report
I grew with the Ken White quote that greginak placed here. Robert Mueller is an old-fashioned WASP with old-fashioned virtues. It might feel great and honorable that someone like this exists in this day and age of negative partisanship and creeping fascism but there is something about defending Institutionalism at all costs that feels like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.Report
The Robert Muellers of the world do good, honest work, and the William Barr’s betray the public trust by lying about it. One of them is going back into privater life and the other holds a position of great power.
I’ve given up expecting the good guys ever to win.Report
Mueller could take Barr down with some public testimony if he wanted to….Report
It’s interesting to see people latch onto Mueller hoping that he’ll fill the cultural role that Comey was supposed to fill (and did, in fact, for about six months in 2016 between July and October.)Report
Sure. It’s also interesting to see people equate Comey and Mueller, both being anti-Trump deep state partisans with a grudge and all.Report
Good post. The political problem Mueller finds himself loathe to admit and meet head-on is the bare fact that everything in the US is political right now. So while he appears to want to let the report speak for itself even while partisans’ squabble over what it *actually* says, he doesn’t have that luxury. We’re living in an Orwellian world where speaking the truth is a heroic act. He seems to lack the courage to do so.Report
I don’t think he lacks the courage – hes a Marine, a G man and a mob prosecutor. He lacks the emotional understanding of the moment – and specifically the understanding that the systems he has worked in his entire life, which he supports unabashedly with that body of work – those systems are so broken that the rules he lives by can’t respond. He may come around, but he is not yet there.Report