Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

I say "construe" because Mueller intentionally refrained from construing given the constraints of the law. Reading the report, I personally don't think there is an honest way to look at the facts presented and not conclude that Trump was intentionally obstructing the investigation. In that regard, there's only one perspective I could respect.

The dilemma that Pelosi faces is that the 'right' thing is not the politically optimal thing. Democrats will probably succeed more by letting him get away with it. An impeachment, no matter how right, looks doomed to failure, and in failing will help inoculate the president and render the impeachment actually counter-productive in producing the right outcome. So, I'll give Pelosi a lot of leeway. The right thing is to impeach and convict the President. But, if you're going to take a shot at a president (I mean that metaphorically, Secret Service!) you best not miss.

 

IIRC

the House Republicans took a shot at impeaching Clinton, they couldn't get enough Senate votes to do so.

altho the failed impeachment attempt actually helped Clinton's popularity,
his party ended up losing the next presidential election.

For the current Dems, the correct outcome would be to get a Dem in the WH;
to that end, if history is any indication, start the impeachment proceedings​

 

Also it increased his popularity because the majority of the country believed lying about a personal sexual affair isn't anywhere near the grounds for impeachment.

People are less sympathetic to a President who took every avenue possible to prevent and damage an investigation of him, his family and staff having nefarious contacts with a foreign adversary for help in a presidential election.

 

There are some very important differences. There was no incumbency advantage in the next presidential election after the Clinton impeachment, and the Presidency often seesaws between parties. So, Bush had a great shot at winning regardless. And Bush barely won -- or you could say he actually tied statistically, but won the coin toss. Besides that, that's just once incident. You can't derive a trend from one data point. I don't think history is much use here.

What I do see right now though is a large fraction of voters who would like to have some kind of fig leaf to justify looking away from the President's criminal behavior when they step into the voting booth. It doesn't have to be from a fig either, a pine needle might do, but they want to have some rationalization for why it is okay that he be president. If he's acquitted in the Senate, all you're going to hear is, "the Senate said he's innocent so it's been a witch hunt all along!"

 

attributable to the fact that there was ground for impeachment of the incumbent.

impeachment proceedings for Trump would entail compelling testimonies from Mueller, McGahn, Hicks, et al.

these testimonies resonate more w the American electorate

 

I think this is an interesting point I hadn't considered, in light of Mueller's recent statement that he doesn't want to testify before Congress. Whereas Mueller doesn't want to provide his analysis on the guilt of President Trump right now, if he were to testify in a Senate trial his level of restraint might be different. He wouldn't have the same worry of accusing someone of wrongdoing without the accused having a forum in which to be acquitted; he'd be in the forum.

But, hey, I'm pro-impeachment anyway. I'm willing to trust in Pelosi to handle it and I'm okay if she won't bring charges. But, if she does bring them, I'm down.

 

I guess I am basing only on the republicans/conservatives/"libertarians" on D&D, but I don't think any of them would not vote for or support trump, regardless of what came out or comes out about trump. If its not the "witch hunt" excuse, they will have some other excuse, or reason they vote for trump.

 

People opinionated enough to post in this forum already know how they'll cast their votes. But there are other people who aren't gobbling up political news every day who are going to make a decision on who to vote for with a very superficial decision-making process based on scant data. That's who the soundbite is for.

 

It's really not all that hard to understand what he's saying.

 

Personally (and I have heard several analysts put forward this view) that wasn't the vibe I got while watching his press conference. I can't rule it, but I got the impression that he was more elaborating on office DoJ policy.

This part is a little more damning on Mueller, but seemed to be more elaborating on what was already in the report. The report did specifically say that Trump didn't collude with Russia, but it didn't say that about obstruction. What he stated about not being able to definitely say Trump didn't commit collusion didn't seem like something he could say, given what was in the report...and he stated that. I do see that he could have handled that differently (not our job to make a determination on that)...but actually, I think it was just him again outlining what his office found.

I'm actually good with that. Those things are political grandstanding. He wouldn't have anything substantial to add that wasn't in his report. If it was important...he put it in the report.

Is it? Again, there is certainly room for debate on whether what Trump did was obstruction or not...and then further on whether it constituted high crimes or not.

This was the same dilemma Republicans faced with Clinton, over ironically very similar charges. The perjury one was pretty much a given (but was it a high crime?), obstruction was harder (it always is), with, further ironically, about the same number of instances (10 vs 11). It was a while ago, but I don't recall being in favor of them proceeding, for the same reasons Pelosi is now facing. Censure, or something, but not impeachment.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing impeachment proceed. First, I think it will detract from Democratic popularity, and make Trump likely stronger, not weaker. Second, I think it will be an interesting case to observe. For example...since the Mueller investigation, by Mueller's own admission, could never charge him with a crime...was impeding the investigation, even if he did so, really obstructing justice? Would those acts really be obstruction even without that consideration? (firing Comey didn't really obstruct anything, for example...and actually seems to have added fuel to the fire). There would be various such matters brought up. Then, even if all those were determined to be proven and obstruction...given other considerations...are those high crimes? Finally, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the things Barr is investigating as to how the whole investigation came about in the first place were brought up, and I think that will reflect poorly on Democrats, and bolster Trump's stance that this was a political witch hunt all along.

I'm against it for reasons that I, like many, would prefer seeing Congress do things that actually help the country. But, I'm not sure that's going to happen regardless. Impeachment is NOT going to get rid of Trump, so, no, that doesn't count as something someone could bring up that would help the country, without even getting into any discussion on whether that would be a good thing or not.

 

Some good points, but I want to address this one specifically:

There are nefarious reasons to obstruct an investigation aside from hiding your own crimes. Political embarrassment is one people typically cite, like Clinton's effort to avoid the political damage around his sexual misbehavior. But there's also concealing the crimes of your compatriots. Impeding a criminal investigation doesn't only impact a prosecution against the President that can't be brought anyway, it impedes prosecution of everyone else too. Maybe there would be more conspiracy charges to bring to the likes of Flynn or Manafort but for the obstruction. So, short version, yes, impeding an investigation is really obstructing justice.

 

Winning a national election is a fight for the middle, the supposedly independent voters who may actually go either way or switch parties. (That slice of the electorate keeps shrinking as Americans become more polarized.)

So in my mind, the issue is not whether impeachment will convince politically conscious people on the left or right to change their vote; it probably won't. The question is, if impeachment raises Trumps' popularity numbers (it will), will that turn enough people in the middle to solidify a 2020 victory (along with incumbency and a good economy, if we still have one)?

 

son, u need to heed the words of Abe Lincoln

"better to remain silent and be thought as a fool
than to speak to remove all doubt"
​

Mueller charged everyone, who is not the sitting POTUS, whom he had found committed crime(s)

> 36 Russians, Flynn, the Dutch lawyer, Popadoukas, Manafort, Gates, the Calif-based counterfeiter and
thru referral to the SDNY, Michael Cohen
​

DOJ policy prevent Mueller from charging a sitting POTUS

the conference has been a resounding rebuke of lies by Trump and Barr, who will be disbarred for lying to Congress.

 

Interesting twitter thread...

 

prosecutors refusing to produce transcript of the conversation they charged Flynn with lying about

I wonder why....

 

One angle mentioned by the article