So... did we get him?

[bigtree]

Lily Adams @adamslily 17m17 minutes ago
Guys. This is the whole deal.

Rep. Lieu: "The reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President, correct?"

Mueller: "That is correct."

Link to tweet

[jalan48]

1. Fantastic! So what do we do now?

[bigtree]

4. we're all asking the same question

...looking at you, Madame Speaker.

[jalan48]

5. I hope she's watching.

[ehrnst]

46. Really? You think she's having her nails done during the hearing?

After her media push to familiarize people with the Mueller report and election security issues?

[jalan48]

56. Who knows? We'll have a better idea when she speaks about todays hearing. Any word yet?

[ehrnst]

71. So that's a yes.

Last edited Wed Jul 24, 2019, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Got it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

57. She, u fortunately won't change her mind. It was

apparent on Day 1. We who support impeachment are pretty much screwed. Sure it's gone down due to inaction, but was 66% of Dems. Pissing off that majority of a party is never a good idea.

[ehrnst]

72. "Apparent on day 1"

Which "day 1?"

Got any links?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

74. Actually since 2006

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html?module=inline

[ehrnst]

75. Nice try.

That would be a different POTUS, a different congress, a different Senate, and a different era.

"Day one" of this POTUS, this congress, this Senate and this year.

I won't hold my breath, because it's the same old, same old from those that need a rationalization for their anxiety, and will bend over backwards to find one that fits their favorite scapegoat

This is the same lame deflection that I get from anyone who moans that Pelosi "took impeachment off the table already" when I ask them for backup.

I expected better from you. I see I was mistaken.

You aren't the one who's "being screwed" here. Look in a mirror.

[Skittles]

76. she will not do a damn thing

[ehrnst]

77. Who are you even talking about?

Pelosi is doing more that many of us accompiish in a week.

She's just not reporting back to you.

[ehrnst]

35. Well, as we've seen, we can't indict him while he's in office.

And we know that after what Mueller said, he's not going to resign.

We know that impeachment won't change the minds of those in red states whatsoever, and that it won't shorten his time in office.

Any Dem Senator in a Red State would lose their seat if they voted to remove him. Same with Congressional Dems in swing districts. Impeachment, and the perceived "win" that Trump would get for not being removed by the senate will invigorate his followers.

And even if despite all that, impeachment seems like a sum gain, why would we do it now, instead of closer to the election?

There's no way Pence would invoke the 25th amendment, because he knows that would end his career after 2020.

I think that continuing investigations and getting as much public support for undoing the damage done and working on keeping the House and flipping the Senate in 2020 are immediate concerns.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. We got him!

[OliverQ]

3. It's meaningless if no one will prosecute him and Dems won't impeach.

[HopeAgain]

6. Exactly

So he committed obstruction of justice... as if that isn't obvious from the report. I am tired of a million "moral victories" which don't change the opinions of the President by a single percentage point. Time to stop bringing a knives to this gunfight.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

31. might want to polish that crystal ball a bit more

The House is still held by Democrats. It ain't over 'til it's over.

[OliverQ]

37. And they're not doing much.

[40RatRod]

50. What do you think they are doing today???

IMHO they are laying the groundwork for future actions. If you were in charge, what would you do?

[OliverQ]

66. For starters, obtain his taxes that New York just passed a law

allowing Congress to obtain. Richard Neal has done nothing lately. I'd also open an impeachment inquiry immediately.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. True.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

64. not quite

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212157411

[ehrnst]

78. FACTS??? Logic??? You're just ruining all the fun.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

63. here's a link

Link to House investigations of Trump and his administration: The full list

Probably over 100 by now.

[ehrnst]

79. Party pooper!!

[ehrnst]

38. If Dems impeach, it's still meaningless if it doesn't do anything but rouse his supporters.

And we run the risk of losing Dem Senators in Red states if they vote to remove him.

We need the Senate in 2020 more than we need impeachment that won't shorten his time in office a single minute, and give him a chance to show his supporters he's been "exonerated" because the Senate won't remove him. They won't even call his tweets racist, and they know that a vote for impeachment, or crossing Trump in any way will mean they lose their seat.

Trump will call it a "witch Hunt" that he beat, and his supporters will be partying in the street.

If we have a choice between taking the Senate and impeachment, which would you choose?

[OliverQ]

41. You assume our chances are better winning the Senate if we don't impeach.

I disagree with that assessment.

[ehrnst]

45. So, what's wrong with this assesment?

If a Dem in a red state (Joe Manchin, for instance) votes yes to impeach, he loses his seat. (see also Heidi Heitkamp - replaced by a Republican after voting against Kavanaugh) Whatever you may think of him or Heitkamp, both are still better than a Susan Collins republican.

If a Dem in a red state votes "No" to impeach, even if their vote makes no difference in actually removing POTUS, Democrats will demand his head, and primary him - especially now that the DSA is salivating to after every single Dem seat they can primary, except their own incumbents) - and we get a Dem that is too left for that Red State. And we lose that seat.

Same with congressional reps in swing districts.

Trump supporters will get riled up with a "victory" over that "witch hunt" when - not if - the Senate votes not to remove him, which gives them even more validation for their racism and misogyny, and they are loaded for bear to vote in November 2020.

I think it's a realistic assesment.

[ScratchCat]

7. Now he said it in public

And It will be on the front of every newspaper tomorrow.

Impeachment inquiry starts Monday if he wont resign.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

59. Wish that was true

[Hoyt]

8. Pelosi and the House Democrats will have to ask if the sound bites on Obstruction vs. the GOPer

sound bites where Mueller said in his opening ". . . . . . the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address “collusion,” which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not."

Then, he said Barr did not interfere in his investigation.

Personally, I think we should turn to a host of other matters for Impeachment including advancement of racism, financial irregularities, dereliction of duty, encouraging violence, abuse of power, attempting to undermine America's position globally, harming immigrants, and so much more.

[bigtree]

11. republicans beating on Mueller underscores their conundrum

...where Trump is hollering Mueller's report exonerated him, and republicans are arguing in this hearing that Mueller's essentially a traitor.

At some point, the bullshit has to overcome everyone and cw starts to firmly establish the facts in the report so they become the standard when discussing the investigation. We've moved quite a ways from Barr's attempt to set the narrative.

[Hoyt]

12. Will be interesting to see if we are hostile this afternoon since Mueller said today there was no

conspiracy/cooperation.

When hearings are over today, unless something new happens, it will be Obstruction vs. exoneration (by Mueller, not my opinion) on collusion, conspiracy, cooperation, whatever one wants to call it, with Ruskies. I think trump's campaign is guilty as sin in dealing with Russians, but Mueller says otherwise.

[stopdiggin]

53. and that's pretty much the ballgame

As far as the Mueller investigation goes. Collusion/conspiracy was THE deal. Obstruction? Meh. Yeah, he did it .. big deal. Witchhunt!
(playing devils advocate .. for those with an exceedingly literal take)

[Oregon1947]

13. I agree ..most of the country does not have the attention span..nm

...

[Roland99]

23. Wasn't the Clinton impeachment based on obstruction?

[Hoyt]

25. I think lying/obstruction, and it failed. Although trump's actions are millions of times worse.

[ehrnst]

39. Perjury about the affair. (nt)

[librechik]

9. hold the balloon drop

Repubs and hearing problems have muddled this hearing. Let's see what talking points emerge. Of course The Report said everything necessary for the average IQ to understand, but the repubs have filled the air with whataboutism smoke and mirrors.

[bigtree]

15. republicans are attacking a report Trump claims exonerates him

...most folks would expect them to get Mueller to highlight those parts of the report that they think exonerated him.

Instead, they end up looking guilty as hell here, bluff called.

Most Americans like and trust Mueller. Trust Congress? Not so much.

Who wants to be as idiotic as republicans are right now?

Link to tweet

[gratuitous]

10. Gee, if the OLC decides it can't indict a sitting president . . .

Is there anything in the law or the Constitution that authorizes some other government agency to take action against a lawless administration? Gonna have to sit down and think on that one for a while.

Let's keep piling up the evidence, and make the clarion call for impeachment irresistible.

[Maven]

18. Listen, we have to keep passing bills that will never reach the Senate floor

Kitchen-table issues! The media will never report on them, but we'll be rewarded in 2020, or the afterlife, either one, you betcha! Impeaching a criminal chaos agent who was installed in the WH by our enemies is not pragmatic!

[SunSeeker]

33. Yup.

[ehrnst]

42. What will impeachment do?

Is there anything in the law or the Constitution that authorizes some other government agency to take action against a lawless administration? Gonna have to sit down and think on that one for a while.

It's the DOJ's job, and with the current AG, that's not going to happen The Constitution makes it purposefully hard to take down an entire administration, for better or worse.

Trumps followers won't turn on him, if they haven't already. Dem Senators in red states know that, and a vote to oust him will mean they lose their seat.

If it's a choice between impeachment and taking back the Senate, which do you think would be the best for our future?

[gratuitous]

48. I don't recognize your choice

If the House impeaches and the Senate falls down on its duty, I disagree it necessarily follows that "Dem Senators in red states . . . will mean they lose their seat." Therefore, I don't see this as a choice between impeachment and taking back the Senate.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

55. It's an argument of the do-not-impeachers. Worry

about politics and not what is right. This is not a diss of anyone..it is a pure fact.

[stopdiggin]

58. as someone that has lived there

don't kid yourself. There would be repercussions (seats lost). The fact that you don't believe it doesn't change the game on the ground.

[ehrnst]

70. There is this impression among many that there would be nothing to lose by impeachment

and everything to gain.

Objectively speaking, that is not true.

[JI7]

73. i think those types are the ones who really don't see how bigoted

this country is. they tend to view teemo supporters as victims.

[ehrnst]

68. We disagree. (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

61. It's a self fullfilling prophecy. Our leadership quell

the impeachment discussion and the support #s decline.

If we don't announce within 48 hrs...it's over

[FBaggins]

14. Close... but no cigar

If the follow-up question had been "So if the OLC opinion did not exist, you would have indicted him?" and Mueller had answered "yes"... then it would be all over.

Then it would be "the whole deal".

[bigtree]

16. but he did say the reason he didn't indict him was because of the memo

...clear as day.

With all of the evidence of obstruction in the report, there's not going to be much room for doubt about Trump's guilt. You can see republicans know this well, looking at them reduced to attacking the decorated Marine's patriotism you can see the end of their rope.

[FBaggins]

17. If it was clear as day... the follow-up question would have been asked.

The question was carefully worded to get a response that could be used to imply what you're inferring... but it really doesn't mean the same thing. And Mueller would never had been so careful with all of his replies if what he really meant was "I would have indicted him were it not for the OLC memo"

[bigtree]

22. if he answered that far, it would smudge that imaginary line he drew

...in the report.

No one expected him to undo his rationale in the report for not indicting by just throwing it out there in this hearing.

[FBaggins]

24. Correct

Unfortunately, that "imaginary line" is the difference between "we got him" and not.

[ooky]

19. Watch for Spanky's tweets.

Seriously, it convinced me. Guess we need to sit back and wait now for Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie to try to convince everybody otherwise and see if it sticks.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. ****THIS HEARING HAS NOW CONCLUDED****

[standingtall]

21. We got what we needed to impeach Trump

he was asked He was asked You believe the President obstructed justice? answer yes! You could indict the President after he leaves office? answer yes? Some might argue that even though the word if wasn't used it was a hypothetical and it was implied, but when you couple that with him being asked Trump officials impeding your investigation? He answered I generally agree! There are no more excuses for not impeaching Trump.

[dem4decades]

27. We didn't get any new info, we already had the info we needed. What's changed?

[standingtall]

29. What we got was much more explicit than what was in the report

not being able to exonerate him could be viewed as neutral, but being asked You believe the President committed obstruction of justice? The one word answer yes nailed it down. The he was asked could the President be indicted after he leaves office? again he nailed it down with that one word answer yes! If Trump committed indictable offenses than there should be no debate he committed impeachable offenses.

[redstatebluegirl]

26. I think it laid the groundwork for impeachment inquiry.

[Hortensis]

28. Just heard Wolf Blitzer summarize that "the report did not totally exonerate him."

Totally. Blitzer obviously thinks some damage was done and went right to work on steps to bring the takeaway to "total exoneration."

[H2O Man]

30. Recommended.

Yes. The House is now in a perfect position to have the federal courts compel the testimony of several important fact witnesses.

[BigmanPigman]

34. Good point!

[True Dough]

32. Mueller just retracted that response

BOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[BigmanPigman]

36. I saw that...SHIT!

[bigtree]

43. but he presented clear evidence in the report showing Trump attempted to obstruct the investigation

...I don't make much out of his unwillingness to close that circle.

Doing so would undo his stated aim to avoid accusing Trump of a crime, which he's said would be unfair to a sitting president.

[Joe941]

49. That was unfortunate.

[budkin]

69. He didn't walk it back all the way though

The meaning is basically the same.

[Pepsidog]

40. I cannot watch the likes of Nunes, muting tv while Rs lie. The

[boblgumm]

44. Distinction without a difference

This is no different than Mueller saying in the report that a sitting president couldn't be indicted and that the evidence did not show Trump committed no crimes.

[Botany]

47. Yes and no.

Sure it was shown that Trump is guilty of crime but nothing is gonna happen to him now or after he leaves office. But in the end what about Hillary's emails?

[Iliyah]

51. I know I'm in the

minority here but I think t-rump is going down.

[Marthe48]

52. Most people aren't criminals

I was thinking the other day that people who are representing us and trying to defend our country against the onslaught of crooks and traitors don't have a lot of experience knocking them back. Like us, we depend on police, other authority figures, to be the first line. As awareness dawns that the House is the front line, they will do what they have to do. On top of veiled threats from trump and his henchmen here, people trying to bring down trump are aware that it is almost a certainty that putin has ordered many of his rivals to be removed. We are not just dealing with fumbletrump, we are dealing with the russian mafia. I want this to go fast, but I want our troops to survive.

[in2herbs]

60. Perhaps those with greater legal minds than me can answer this question a question that I will

preface by saying that I am in the impeachment NOW camp, but --- is the OLC the reason that Pelosi is not pursuing impeachment? And, if that's the case, despite what Mueller said, because there is no Supreme Court decision on this, if we were to do an impeachment now and Justice Roberts rules that the OLC applies, will T have a double jeopardy claim against prosecution once out of office?? (I hope I explained this sufficiently.)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

62. No to part. Pelosi is not pursuing impeachment

Because she is inherently against impeachment and now, because she fears we will lose the House if we do.

Because we didn't seek anything new today...nothing will change.

[stopdiggin]

67. No. Separate things entirely

the short answer is no. Impeachment is a separate process. Double jeopardy does not apply. And, no .. impeachment powers come from the Constitution, and explicitly include the POTUS. Neither Roberts or OLC have any say over this.

[zackymilly]

65. Will Nancy still say No? nt