[POLITICS] Robert Mueller Testifies before the House

[Saelune]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?462628-1/robert-mueller-testifies-house-judiciary-committee

Robert Mueller testifies before a back and forth of Democrats and Republicans about his report on Trump.

Democrats are polite, and ask questions of Mueller with the intent and hope of an answer. Republicans are aggressive, uncivil!, rambly, and literally say they don't have time for Mueller to respond.

This is a vivid example of how inefficient our legal system is. Like, WE SPECIFICALLY WANT ANSWERS FROM THIS GUY, but we treat it like a debate, with arbitrary time limits and letting people just bullshit in front of the entire country!

 

[Saelune]

They have very limited time, so the Republicans just prattle for the whole time and do not let Mueller talk. Democrats give Mueller lots of time to speak and focus on asking questions and waiting for his answers.

We are literally specifically here for Mueller's answers, and Republicans actively refuse to let that happen, and that is because THEY want to obstruct justice.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

TLDR for the whole thing:

Democrats: omg miller y u make us do job?

Mueller: Literally wrote the book on the subject.

Republicans: Farting noises. All the farting noises.

There, I saved you hours and precious brain cells.

 

[Saelune]

TLDR for the whole thing:

Democrats: omg miller y u make us do job?

Mueller: Literally wrote the book on the subject.

Republicans: Farting noises. All the farting noises.

There, I saved you hours and precious brain cells.

You forgot one

Centrists: 'Both sides are bad, but Im going to defend the right-wing status quo, cause fixing problems is bad'

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Two biggest parts of this.

Firing of James Comey [https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-congress-testimony/h_32428da6cc748ea4f06712e6df682e2b]

Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch asked former special counsel Robert Mueller about President Trump's desire to fire him.

"Why did the President of the United States want you fired?" Deutch asked.

"I can't answer that question," Mueller responded.

Deutch went on to say that Mueller found evidence that the President wanted to fire him because he was investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.

"Isn't that correct?" the Florida lawmaker asked.

"That's what it says in the report. And yes I standby the report," Mueller said.

And this gem [https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-congress-testimony/h_9c2e8901aed13ddb4ea1627598e6bd5c]

Asked if under Article 2 of the Constitution, a US president can fire the FBI director, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller responded yes.

But there is an important legal distinction here: A president certainly has the power under Article 2 to fire the FBI Director, but not necessarily to fire the FBI Director without any legal consequence.

By way of comparison, a President indisputably has the Constitutional authority to issue pardons, but it would be a crime to exercise that Constitutional power in an illegal manner ? for example, by issuing a pardon in exchange for a bribe.

Similarly, while a president has the power to fire the FBI director, it is a crime to do so for criminal purposes, including to obstruct justice.

So, that's fun.

And the "Oh Shit" Part

It's quite possible that Robert Mueller does not want his testimony to become the trigger for a historic indictment of President Trump. But drip by drip, word by word, Mueller has nonetheless?however reluctantly -- produced the case that Trump is lying when he says Mueller exonerated him, that Russia wanted and tried to help Trump to win and that Trump systematically engaged himself and his staff in an effort to obstruct justice, which would be a crime.

Mueller's discomfort and reticence were visible in his body language and his clipped, one-word answers. He avoided handing Democrats the soundbite they wanted, the one that would perfectly encapsulate their contention that Trump has committed impeachable crimes. But the message was there.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler asked, "Did you actually totally exonerate the president?" Mueller's answer: "No." Perhaps that?s news to Americans who have not read the Mueller report, who read Attorney General William Barr's misleading summary of it, and heard the President declare it a "complete and total exoneration."

Mueller again said there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy with Russia. That does not equal innocence.

Mueller confirmed that, contrary to Trump's claim, Russia expected to benefit if Trump won.

The obstruction questions ? despite Mueller's short answers ? were devastating for Trump. "Your investigation found evidence that President Trump took steps to terminate the special counsel, correct?" Mueller: "Correct."

Congressman Ted Lieu, elicited a three-word bombshell. "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" That is correct," Mueller said.

Democrats wanted Americans to pay attention to Mueller's report. They wanted the movie to go with the book they didn?t read. They wanted to wash away Barr's deliberately-distorting report summary.

Anyone watching objectively would agree that Mueller did not want to play politics. Republicans, badgering him, probably turned off non-partisan viewers.

In the end, Democrats did not get the perfect soundbite. But drip by drip, they may just have enough to convince at least part of the country that Trump committed crimes. Enough for impeachment? Maybe. Enough to swing votes in 2020? Definitely.

TLDR for the whole thing:

Democrats: omg miller y u make us do job?

Mueller: Literally wrote the book on the subject.

Republicans: Farting noises. All the farting noises.

There, I saved you hours and precious brain cells.

Ok, Eaxaraxe, the Democrats control the house. The Republicans control the Senate [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/midterm-elections-2018-republicans-keep-control-senate/575119/], the Presidency [https://images.theconversation.com/files/230016/original/file-20180731-136652-1tufvln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip], and the Supreme Court [https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx]. And we've already seen how that Supreme Court power works [https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering-citizenship-census/index.html].

I know the knee jerk answer is "their job", but in reality, what do you expect the Democrats to do when the system of checks and balances are Balanced directly in favor of the Republicans... the very republicans who are very opposed to this very concept?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I know the knee jerk answer is "their job", but in reality, what do you expect the Democrats to do when the system of checks and balances are Balanced directly in favor of the Republicans... the very republicans who are very opposed to this very concept?

I dunno...not play election-year politics with an issue the public has been led to believe of existential import for the third year running? Actual support for impeachment continues to drop the longer this stretches on, and if Democrats try to keep their kick-the-can nonsense up, they're guaranteed to face severe repercussions in 2020...and that's an election Democrats absolutely, positively, under no circumstances can not afford to fuck up any worse than they already have.

"Their job" is the knee jerk answer, because it's the right one. Either the Trump administration is an existential threat to the country, or it isn't. If it is, then it's the Democrats moral, ethical, and professional imperative to do anything in their power to end it, or at least do their part as decisively as possible. If it isn't, well, Congressional Democrats are fucking liars. Like it or not, this is what they campaigned on in 2018, and it's up to them to fulfill campaign promises, as opposed to dither around pretending we're in the middle of a Constitutional crisis. It's time for Democrats to put their money where their mouth is, and stop making excuses.

I guarantee you, Republican voters won't be forgetting this any time soon, and left to their own devices Republican candidates will turn 2020 into a referendum on Democratic conduct. I can only speak for myself, but if Democrats don't vote to impeach, come 2020 I'll abstain or vote third party before I cast a single Democratic vote.

This is peak "blame Republicans for Democrats not doing their jobs".

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I know the knee jerk answer is "their job", but in reality, what do you expect the Democrats to do when the system of checks and balances are Balanced directly in favor of the Republicans... the very republicans who are very opposed to this very concept?

I dunno...not play election-year politics with an issue the public has been led to believe of existential import for the third year running? Actual support for impeachment continues to drop the longer this stretches on, and if Democrats try to keep their kick-the-can nonsense up, they're guaranteed to face severe repercussions in 2020...and that's an election Democrats absolutely, positively, under no circumstances can not afford to fuck up any worse than they already have.

"Their job" is the knee jerk answer, because it's the right one. Either the Trump administration is an existential threat to the country, or it isn't. If it is, then it's the Democrats moral, ethical, and professional imperative to do anything in their power to end it, or at least do their part as decisively as possible. If it isn't, well, Congressional Democrats are fucking liars. Like it or not, this is what they campaigned on in 2018, and it's up to them to fulfill campaign promises, as opposed to dither around pretending we're in the middle of a Constitutional crisis. It's time for Democrats to put their money where their mouth is, and stop making excuses.

I guarantee you, Republican voters won't be forgetting this any time soon, and left to their own devices Republican candidates will turn 2020 into a referendum on Democratic conduct. I can only speak for myself, but if Democrats don't vote to impeach, come 2020 I'll abstain or vote third party before I cast a single Democratic vote.

This is peak "blame Republicans for Democrats not doing their jobs".

Impeachment Process [https://www.ajc.com/news/national/how-does-impeachment-work-here-the-step-step-process/5wUTeEdEgheqohUL1WA0IJ/]

-First, an impeachment resolution must be introduced by a member of the House of Representatives.
-The speaker of the House must then direct the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary (or a special committee) to hold a hearing on the resolution to decide whether to put the measure to a vote by the full chamber and when to hold such a vote.
-A simple majority of the Judiciary Committee must approve the resolution.
-If the Judiciary Committee approves the resolution, it moves to a full vote on the House floor.
-If a simple majority of the those present and voting in the House approve an article of impeachment, then the president is impeached.
-The procedure then moves to the Senate where a "trial" is held to determine if the president committed a crime. There is no set procedure for the trial. How it is conducted would be set by the Senate leadership.
-Members of the House serve as "managers" in the Senate trial. Managers serve a similar role as prosecutors do in a criminal trial, they present evidence during the procedure.
-The president would have counsel to represent him at the Senate process.
-The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presides over the trial.
-Senators listen to the evidence presented, including closing arguments from each side and retire to deliberate.
-Senators then reconvene and vote on whether the president is guilty or not guilty of the crimes he is accused of. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict. If the president is found guilty, he is removed from office and the vice president is sworn-in as president.

The hearing in the Senate, along with a charge in the House that the president has committed a crime is not a legal one. No penalty, other than removal from office, is brought against a president in an impeachment hearing.

Impeachment trials have been held twice in the country's history -- for President Andrew Johnson and for President Bill Clinton -- and both ended in acquittals: meaning the presidents were impeached by the House, but not convicted and removed from office by the Senate.One vote kept Johnson from being convicted of firing the secretary of war in 1868, which went against a tenure act.
In 1999, the Senate was 22 votes shy of convicting Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones.

You see, 'their job' wasn't the right answer because it will turn out to be a fruitless endeavor. An action that will embolden the President as well as the Cult as even if the motion clears the House (which it would), it would be dead in the water in the Senate. Barring Mueller providing a video tape of the president stating "Yes, I'm a stooge for Russia, and I've lied and cheated in these following ways. And apropo of nothing, I'm going to state out loud how I did it.", there is so much room for mental gymnastics that the Senate would be digging their own graves to vote for actually Impeaching the President.

Because the Republican Party is almost increasingly becoming the cult of Trump.

Hell, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes [https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-congress-testimony/h_8c4f55a5ef1f8c6129bf738e67c7635f] is already doing everything he can to dismiss the report.

Wait. Nunes... That name is familiar. Isn't he the guy secretly recorded stating that they would be the only ones in real danger if Sessions won't recuse and if Mueller doesn't clear the President? Yes. Yes, He is [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/09/devin-nunes-secret-recording-trump-midterms-769197].

And of course, he isn't the only one. So, when I was asking what they should do, their jobs is the wrong answer because it will be an attempt that will fail instantly due to the deck being stacked to the ceiling against them, and people on record saying they will die on the Trump Hill.

The answer has to do with doing something that can actually get a true impeachment. Something that will overcome the prejudiced and set minds of the Republican Controlled Senate. On that front, what do you have?

 

[Baffle]

I've been following this on Twitter. Basically, all the Republicans are saying 'Ha! I bet the Dems are regretting wasting all that time and money on this, now they look stupid!' and all the Democrats are saying 'The Republicans are screwed now!'. Can't tell what's going on.

Whatever, we've got our own Trump how, almost definitely with hookers and blackjack.

 

[Agema]

I guarantee you, Republican voters won't be forgetting this any time soon, and left to their own devices Republican candidates will turn 2020 into a referendum on Democratic conduct. I can only speak for myself, but if Democrats don't vote to impeach, come 2020 I'll abstain or vote third party before I cast a single Democratic vote.

This is peak "blame Republicans for Democrats not doing their jobs".

I agree with you to some extent, but the problem is that a failed impeachment - and fail it will, given the Republican majority in the Senate and how few Republican Senators will be prepared to turn on their president - strengthens the Republican hand electorally. Once the Republicans de facto declare him innocent... then he is, in the eyes of the law. Sure, we know they just protected their own on a partisan basis, and many of us can say that, but the Republicans will go straight out there and declare him officially innocent, and enough of the public are likely to listen. It then gets worse, because they can even portray it akin to an attempted coup to energise their base more.

The basic issue is that the means for controlling wrongdoing by the president, whilst technically a legal one, is in practice more a political process ultimately determined by how many votes are to be won or lost (bar, perhaps, a few politicians who put principle ahead of pragmatism).

We can say that the Democrats should do "the right thing" just because of the principle of it. But like I said, it's really a political process, and I suspect Pelosi is an extremely shrewd politician who has seen how impeachment will end out: defeat for the Democrats in every way.

 

[bluegate]

And see all of this change absolutely nothing.

Trump and his cronies will keep on claiming that it was a witch hunt, that there was no collusion and that there was no obstruction, they'll keep playing by Joseph Goebbels' playbook. And the saddest part is, millions of Americans will go along with it willingly.

Talk about falling and failing as a country.

 

[tstorm823]

I agree with you to some extent, but the problem is that a failed impeachment - and fail it will, given the Republican majority in the Senate and how few Republican Senators will be prepared to turn on their president - strengthens the Republican hand electorally.

I disagree. It's not as though there's a large number of Republicans who would vote for a Democrat if Trump got impeached. Nor are there Democrats who would choose not to vote for Democrats because impeachment failed. Everybody knows where they land on this.

I think they haven't impeached because they know it will fail, but I think it's more of a "they haven't done it yet". A failed impeachment would rile up Democrats by vividly illustrating the only way to change is win elections. And a failed impeachment would make Republicans get too comfortable thinking the levers of power are in their favor. I think they're going to impeach, I think they have absolute confidence in impeachment as an election tactic, and since they won't be able to remove Trump anyway, I think they're waiting until further towards 2020 so that there isn't time left for Republicans to get a replacement candidate involved in the election on the off-chance they succeed in removing them. If they had moved for impeachment a year ago and actually managed to get Trump out of office, that'd runs the risk of something like President Condaleezza Rice happening in 2020.

Nah, it's going to be impeachment 2020.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I agree with you to some extent, but the problem is that a failed impeachment - and fail it will, given the Republican majority in the Senate and how few Republican Senators will be prepared to turn on their president - strengthens the Republican hand electorally.

Frankly, here's the root issue.

Democrats decided to turn 2018 into a referendum on Trump, and push the question of impeachment into election-year politics, deluding themselves into the notion they could roll a hard six and flip the Senate. That didn't happen, and not only that they didn't beat the spread in the House -- and had to lean heavily on blue dogs to come anywhere close to the promise of delivering a blue wave. Now they're stuck with practically zero political capital, facing the prospect of having to make good on campaign promises while staring down the barrel of the God-Emperor of all Republican backlashes.

Either they vote to impeach and lose nothing in the process, or they don't and risk pissing off Democratic voters. Because once again, Republicans are going to turn 2020 into a referendum on Democratic conduct one way or the other. This is a guaranteed conclusion, regardless of what Democrats do.

That's why the Mueller testimony is such a "big" deal. Democrats want to punt on the issue knowing they bluffed themselves into a lose-lose situation, they know for a fact it's going to blow up in their faces next year, and they're trying to run damage control shifting blame onto Mueller. Where they fucked up, is Mueller is clearly not stupid to fall for a setup so obvious Wile E. Coyote would consider it shameful.

Once the Republicans de facto declare him innocent...

And they certainly would. Then can Democrats say they did what they could and fulfilled their campaign promises, and whatever happens from that point forward is on Republicans' hands.

...and I suspect Pelosi is an extremely shrewd politician...

...who is good at approximately two things, keeping herself in office and kowtowing to Republicans. She should have been gone a decade ago, after cutting Bush a blank check on behalf of Democrats across the nation, and damned sure after presiding over the greatest series of Democratic fuck-ups since Clinton, despite supermajorities in both chambers of Congress and the Presidency. Fuck 'er.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Two biggest parts of this.

Firing of James Comey [https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-congress-testimony/h_32428da6cc748ea4f06712e6df682e2b]

Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch asked former special counsel Robert Mueller about President Trump's desire to fire him.

"Why did the President of the United States want you fired?" Deutch asked.

"I can't answer that question," Mueller responded.

Deutch went on to say that Mueller found evidence that the President wanted to fire him because he was investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.

"Isn't that correct?" the Florida lawmaker asked.

"That's what it says in the report. And yes I standby the report," Mueller said.

And this gem [https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-congress-testimony/h_9c2e8901aed13ddb4ea1627598e6bd5c]

Asked if under Article 2 of the Constitution, a US president can fire the FBI director, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller responded yes.

But there is an important legal distinction here: A president certainly has the power under Article 2 to fire the FBI Director, but not necessarily to fire the FBI Director without any legal consequence.

By way of comparison, a President indisputably has the Constitutional authority to issue pardons, but it would be a crime to exercise that Constitutional power in an illegal manner ? for example, by issuing a pardon in exchange for a bribe.

Similarly, while a president has the power to fire the FBI director, it is a crime to do so for criminal purposes, including to obstruct justice.

So, that's fun.

And the "Oh Shit" Part

It's quite possible that Robert Mueller does not want his testimony to become the trigger for a historic indictment of President Trump. But drip by drip, word by word, Mueller has nonetheless?however reluctantly -- produced the case that Trump is lying when he says Mueller exonerated him, that Russia wanted and tried to help Trump to win and that Trump systematically engaged himself and his staff in an effort to obstruct justice, which would be a crime.

Mueller's discomfort and reticence were visible in his body language and his clipped, one-word answers. He avoided handing Democrats the soundbite they wanted, the one that would perfectly encapsulate their contention that Trump has committed impeachable crimes. But the message was there.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler asked, "Did you actually totally exonerate the president?" Mueller's answer: "No." Perhaps that?s news to Americans who have not read the Mueller report, who read Attorney General William Barr's misleading summary of it, and heard the President declare it a "complete and total exoneration."

Mueller again said there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy with Russia. That does not equal innocence.

Mueller confirmed that, contrary to Trump's claim, Russia expected to benefit if Trump won.

The obstruction questions ? despite Mueller's short answers ? were devastating for Trump. "Your investigation found evidence that President Trump took steps to terminate the special counsel, correct?" Mueller: "Correct."

Congressman Ted Lieu, elicited a three-word bombshell. "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" That is correct," Mueller said.

Democrats wanted Americans to pay attention to Mueller's report. They wanted the movie to go with the book they didn?t read. They wanted to wash away Barr's deliberately-distorting report summary.

Anyone watching objectively would agree that Mueller did not want to play politics. Republicans, badgering him, probably turned off non-partisan viewers.

In the end, Democrats did not get the perfect soundbite. But drip by drip, they may just have enough to convince at least part of the country that Trump committed crimes. Enough for impeachment? Maybe. Enough to swing votes in 2020? Definitely.

TLDR for the whole thing:

Democrats: omg miller y u make us do job?

Mueller: Literally wrote the book on the subject.

Republicans: Farting noises. All the farting noises.

There, I saved you hours and precious brain cells.

Ok, Eaxaraxe, the Democrats control the house. The Republicans control the Senate [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/midterm-elections-2018-republicans-keep-control-senate/575119/], the Presidency [https://images.theconversation.com/files/230016/original/file-20180731-136652-1tufvln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip], and the Supreme Court [https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx]. And we've already seen how that Supreme Court power works [https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering-citizenship-census/index.html].

I know the knee jerk answer is "their job", but in reality, what do you expect the Democrats to do when the system of checks and balances are Balanced directly in favor of the Republicans... the very republicans who are very opposed to this very concept?

You left some of the list. Republicans, specifically Trump now also controls the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Treasury Department (IRS) and has already fired anyone who wasn't his lapdog and is now preventing congress from obtaining documents that would be necessary to impeach regardless. Anyone willing to cooperate with Congressional investigations was already fired, so Trump now stacked the areas necessary for obtaining the documents that are needed for the further investigation that Mueller is calling for. Trump specifically appointed people willing to be held in contempt of congress to block their access to them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/18/mnuchin-appears-be-first-treasury-secretary-intervene-congresss-request-private-tax-returns-memo-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dceb93212d3f

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/17/house-votes-to-hold-william-barr-wilbur-ross-in-criminal-contempt-of-congress-1418900

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/454606-doj-says-it-wont-prosecute-barr-ross-after-house-criminal-contempt

Even when democrats "Do their job" and hold Trump's Lackeys in contempt for blocking the congressional investigation necessary for Trump's impeachment, Trump's Department of Justice refuses to prosecute them for being in contempt of congress.

Democrats are being prevented from "doing their job" until they have both the house and the senate, or Trump is booted from office.

This whole "blame democrats" because of what the voters chose to allow this to happen after they were warned is really just a scapegoat. People voted to let this happen so it is and this is the consequence of doing so. No one has yet to elect a congress that would put in the fail safe's necessary to prevent this from happening. No one has yet to elect a congress that separated the powers of the president from the DOJ, no one has yet to elect a congress that put anti corruption laws into place. In fact, they keep electing even more corrupt congress and President than ever instead of trying to fix it, so if anyone is to blame, it is the people who voted for Trump in the first place, not the people who tried to prevent it from happening.

People were told that the office of the president was designed for the person they most trust with the lives of everyone, that you should only elect someone they trust with the lives of their family, friends, and future of our planet and they chose to elect this cretin instead. This is what happens when people don't take this more seriously or allow themselves to be swayed by whatever nonsense they read or heard of youtube somewhere without fact checking to see if what they believe to be true is even true. Democrats do not have the power to do anything about this because voters did not give them the power so blaming them for even trying when their hands are tied only makes this worse because you are misdirecting the blame from where it belongs, and that is every single district that voted for Trump. If we want something done, we have to direct the conversation to those people directly or this only get's worse, not better.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I agree with you to some extent, but the problem is that a failed impeachment - and fail it will, given the Republican majority in the Senate and how few Republican Senators will be prepared to turn on their president - strengthens the Republican hand electorally.

Frankly, here's the root issue.

Democrats decided to turn 2018 into a referendum on Trump, and push the question of impeachment into election-year politics, deluding themselves into the notion they could roll a hard six and flip the Senate. That didn't happen, and not only that they didn't beat the spread in the House -- and had to lean heavily on blue dogs to come anywhere close to the promise of delivering a blue wave. Now they're stuck with practically zero political capital, facing the prospect of having to make good on campaign promises while staring down the barrel of the God-Emperor of all Republican backlashes.

Either they vote to impeach and lose nothing in the process, or they don't and risk pissing off Democratic voters. Because once again, Republicans are going to turn 2020 into a referendum on Democratic conduct one way or the other. This is a guaranteed conclusion, regardless of what Democrats do.

That's why the Mueller testimony is such a "big" deal. Democrats want to punt on the issue knowing they bluffed themselves into a lose-lose situation, they know for a fact it's going to blow up in their faces next year, and they're trying to run damage control shifting blame onto Mueller. Where they fucked up, is Mueller is clearly not stupid.

Once the Republicans de facto declare him innocent...

And they certainly would. Then can Democrats say they did what they could and fulfilled their campaign promises, and whatever happens from that point forward is on Republicans' hands.

...and I suspect Pelosi is an extremely shrewd politician...

...who is good at approximately two things, keeping herself in office and kowtowing to Republicans. She should have been gone a decade ago, after cutting Bush a blank check on behalf of Democrats across the nation, and damned sure after presiding over the greatest series of Democratic fuck-ups since Clinton, despite supermajorities in both chambers of Congress and the Presidency.

No.. That isn't what happened at all. Healthcare was the major "referendum" in the 2018 elections, you missed what was happening in town halls all across the US then? Democrats didn't expect to make gains in the Senate, and they did gain what was expected in the house. Progressives did not make the gains they wanted, but do not conflate democrats with progressives. Conservatives have always dominated both democrats and republicans so that is why you expect to have to work with " blue dog dems" to get any gains regardless. You act like this was not expected, it very much was.

Voting to impeach when they cannot even gain access to the needed documents to impeach due to Trumps lackeys being in contempt of congress to block their access would be one of the stupidest things they could do. It is like you want to set them up to not be able to act when they actually can act or something. Doing what you suggest would further shield Trump from actual consequences as he can be impeached, and actually criminally charged once democrats have access to the necessary resources to do so. Acting before you do only prevents Trump form being held accountable later. You would rather them make a stupid move and let Trump off than actually making an example of him later.

The best thing democrats can do is actually hold Trump accountable to let all those know that are willing to undermine the government that they will pay the price for it sooner or later and not get away with it. You are suggesting they let Trump get away with it, I am stating that they should wait until they actually have the teeth to make it stick.

Read the post above this, Democrats are doing their job, they held those obstructing the congressional investigation in contempt of congress. OF course the Trump's Lackeys at the DOJ are refusing to enforce this, meaning they will have to actually have to go around the DOJ to enforce this, but that is all they can really do right now until they have the resources necessary to act.

If you want them to be able to act, help them get the resources to act rather than blame them because the people allowed this to happen in the first place. The blame lies with the American people, not those actually trying to do something about it. The people chose to ignore facts, plans and reality and chose to believe whatever tabloid BS they read that day instead no matter how many times they were told it wasn't true. As long as that is the case, this will only get worse not better.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

It is nice to have Muller voice on record saying he didn't exonerate the president. Though now I'm worried how soon it'll be before Republicans are saying he committed purgery for disagreeing with the God Emperor.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

It is nice to have Muller voice on record saying he didn't exonerate the president. Though now I'm worried how soon it'll be before Republicans are saying he committed purgery for disagreeing with the God Emperor.

Considering how quickly the turned on their own, I am sure they already have in conservative media. Even though Mueller, Comey and most of the FBI have always been long time Republicans, you saw how quick it took the GOP to disown them as being part of the liberal conspiracy against Trump.

 

[Agema]

...and I suspect Pelosi is an extremely shrewd politician...

...who is good at approximately two things, keeping herself in office and kowtowing to Republicans. She should have been gone a decade ago, after cutting Bush a blank check on behalf of Democrats across the nation, and damned sure after presiding over the greatest series of Democratic fuck-ups since Clinton, despite supermajorities in both chambers of Congress and the Presidency. Fuck 'er.

The political system is what it is. Pelosi is a player of the political system as it is - a complex game I think the likes of you and I really do not truly understand. I think we can be frustrated with how many politicians such as Pelosi act, without truly recognising it is perhaps the most effective way to get things done, and for her to do otherwise in practice would be to condemn the Democrats to less power and influence.

That can only change with a huge change to the way that politics is carried out, from the grassroots to political institutions, and the USA isn't yet at that point of reform. Until then, the Pelosis of this world will continue to run the show.

 

[Tayh]

Where's that AdamJensen guy who was adamant that Mueller's report was going to get Trump thrown in jail, you'll see, and we just needed to wait for Mueller to finish his investigation?

 

[Saelune]

Where's that AdamJensen guy who was adamant that Mueller's report was going to get Trump thrown in jail, you'll see, and we just needed to wait for Mueller to finish his investigation?

Its not his fault that the government is corrupt. Mueller believes that a sitting President is above the law though, so he refuses to pull the trigger, and Republicans actively wont, and Pelosi wont.

Trump has been proven guilty, from top to bottom. Just because the law is not being enforced, does not mean it wasn't broken.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

The political system is what it is. Pelosi is a player of the political system as it is - a complex game I think the likes of you and I really do not truly understand.

My degrees are in political science and history, I worked with campaigns and legislators on a volunteer and paid basis going back to my high school days, and I've worked with legislators on behalf of non-profs for longer than that. I'd like to think I'm qualified to speak on the subject.