Robert Mueller made a number of remarks Wednesday morning, as he resigned from his office and returned to public life, none of which told us anything we didn’t already know — which is in essence that it’s up to Congress to act, and no, Mueller never exonerated Trump. Now the ball is clearly in Congress’ court and that, friends, is where we’re screwed.
This is some kind of catch 22 nightmare: cheated & conspired to become president…can't be indicated b/c he's president…won't be impeached b/c it's a political hot potato. God help us.
— Jenny (@LittleRed409) May 29, 2019
This is about as close as one could imagine to Robert Mueller laying out the case for opening an impeachment inquiry — says he couldn't exonerate the president, was barred from charging the president, and that the Constitution provides the remedy.
— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) May 29, 2019
Mueller is now making the basic point that keeps getting lost:
The investigation was, first and foremost, an accounting of a foreign attack on our political system. Conspiracy was a separate question.
An accounting of *this* is what Trump tried to derail.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) May 29, 2019
Essentially, Mueller is saying, "Impeach the motherfucker."
— The Rude Pundit (@rudepundit) May 29, 2019
Shorter Mueller: That was an impeachment referral, damnit, now act on it.
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) May 29, 2019
Then Andrew Napolitano chimed in from Fox News, and that should warm the cockles of Trump’s heart. RawStory:
“Effectively what Bob Mueller said is we had evidence that he committed a crime but we couldn’t charge him because he’s the president of the United States,” Napolitano explained. “This is even stronger than the language in his report. This is also a parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss, the attorney general, because this statement is 180 degrees from the four-page statement that Bill Barr issued at the time he first saw the report.”
“Is it that bad?” host Stuart Varney remarked.
“I think so,” Napolitano replied. “Basically he’s saying the president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would have indicted him and we’re not going to charge him with a crime because there’s no forum in which for him to refute the charges, but we could not say that he didn’t commit a crime, fill in the blank, because we believe he did.”
The “forum” in which to refute the charges is in impeachment proceedings. This is a clear impeachment referral, which is a conclusion reached weeks ago, but today’s appearance only underscores it.
And of course Trump chimed in, idiotically and obliviously.
Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2019
The Mueller investigation is closed, but the real case, United States of America v. Donald Trump hasn’t begun.
Mueller said exactly what I expected him to say. I am relieved.
Mueller spoke for ten minutes and the entire news cycle is rocking and will all day and into tomorrow.
May I ask why you’re relieved, Cmae? I’m personally feeling just as warm towards Mueller’s statement but I’m curious as to your reasons.
I am relieved because I feel this is a chapter closed. Now is the time to move forward. I am also relieved because the eeyore’s were proved to be full is s#it.
Proven? Lol.
Won’t stop the Eeyores from still whining doom and gloom (and I don’t mean the excellent 2012 Rolling Stones tune that you can hear in Endgame) until the very end…possibly beyond. Even so, yeah, Mueller did nothing to cover for Trump.
May I ask why you’re curious to Cmae’s reasons?
I wanted her perspective, nothing more sinister than that. Cmae is someone I respect and whose opinion I value. I trust you don’t mean to imply otherwise.
Another brick dropped into place on the wall…Mueller did the job he was hired to do. Congress’ turn now…I somehow doubt that this will be swept under the rug.
What I still find troublesome here, is we still don’t have the votes in the Senate — unless something amazing is going to change, an “Amash effect” or some such? If you recall, Trump wanted the Democrats to impeach him, so that he could claim “witch hunt” all that. And the Democrats have understandably been reluctant to do anything since we don’t have the Senate.
So, what is the mentality now, that Mueller has sanctioned impeachment, to all intents and purposes, and the votes in the Senate don’t count? This new development with Mueller is encouraging, but it still doesn’t change the basic math we were working with in the first place, and this greatly concerns me.
This is where it is so difficult, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
One reason why I get so impatient with the “impeach now!” argument…pulling that switch is something you can only do ONCE. Until real, undisputed evidence comes out–and I suspect it will–pulling that switch gets us nowhere.
It is catch-22 to the max. It truly sucks.
Keep in mind that this situation is far from static, Cmae. In more ways than one, we’re in for a long hot summer.
The ‘evidence’ is there, the problem is McConnell and the Senate. We’ll vote the bastard(s) out, but at what cost to the country???
Not enough of the solid evidence is out there, Wolf. Want to do this right? Then you get it out there by whatever legal means are available. That’s the ONLY way you change the math on the Senate under current circumstances. No matter how this ends, the cost will be astronomical to the country. I suggest you make your peace with that now. It will be no easier later.
No, I mean the evidence is there, and it’s solid. Trump is a money laundering tax cheat and we all know it, his son admitted as much, so did his former lawyer Cohen. The IRS stated in fact regardless of any audit, his taxes could in fact be released, he continues to refuse, witness tampering, obstruction, what else do you need? Just because the evidence is not being broadcast on every major network 24/7 does not mean it’s not there. And please do not try to placate me with peace, I grew up in the 60’s with all the peace I need, and then some.
What else do we need? The actual documents in hand, written in black and white, read into the actual public record as opposed to hearsay. As I understand it, we have a couple of US banks already cooperating on that front with Deutsche Bank possibly not far behind.
I want these things because the last time I checked, that’s how the actual law worked. A lot of us have said that we are better people than our opposite numbers on the other side of the political spectrum. Now’s our chance to prove it by actually following the legal procedures. Yes, the other side will cheat. Yes, it is slow and painful. But…I care about what happens after. That’s why I want to see this done that way.
What we’re missing, Ursula, is solid, corroborating evidence, which Trump is going out of his way to suppress at every turn. We’ll be seeing everyone else falling in line the moment that comes out, hence all the lawsuits and New York State taking steps to make sure that info gets out AND prosecutions happen. All Mueller did today was confirm the evidence is out there.
Ironic that just 34 corrupt tRumpublican Senators can (and will) “exonerate” tRump by voting against conviction, even if a supermajority of Americans is convinced that tRump is guilty.
Trump wanted the Democrats to impeach him, so that he could claim “witch hunt” all that.
THAT’s why, I think Nancy Pelosi is slow-rolling it and trying to tamp down on the impeachment talk. Trump? he’s a prick, we all know that, but he has the backing of that bigger prick McConnell, at least for now.
Exactly right, Wolf. It’s foolish beyond words to give your opponent a weapon he can use to beat you.
Pulling the switch is something you can only do once? What switch? Filing Articles of Impeachment? Or opening an impeachment inquiry? Opening an impeachment inquiry would not, it appears to me, flip a switch we can only flip once. It would, however, increase the power of Congress to command testimony and get documents. It would also increase the media attention to the investigations. Once an inquiry is open it can be kept open as long as it needs to be – without flipping any switch.
I would agree a necessary part of doing this would be to clarify to the American people that an impeachment inquiry is NOT the same as an impeachment. It would help if the media were to cooperate in that (except, of course, Fox and Sinclair, which are worse than useless.)
Oh, filing articles of impeachment, obviously. You can label investigations whatever you want in the lead-up to them. Only the suicidal run straight into a machine gun nest. Wiser birds go round the corner, which is why I have no problem getting the needed info through something not labelled an impeachment inquiry. Why let your opponent know exactly what you’re going to do?
Why would you not have a problem getting the needed info through something not labelled an impeachment inquiry? And why not let them know exactly what you’re going to do? If you’re right, it shouldn’t matter, and if you’re worried about ‘dirty tricks’ on their part, you should have thought about that on the run up, huh?
We’re dealing with a simpleton who lies to himself on a regular basis. The more secure he feels, the less likely he is to notice when the boom is actually lowered on his head. So…investigations called by another title, which just so happens to run across information that can in turn be used for an impeachment inquiry. More critically, such a track has a better chance of catching more of the underlings as well. Current events in New York State lead me to believe that if the Feds don’t get them, they will. I’m greedy in that I want as many of these people to go down as possible.
You can impeach the same person as often as you can draw up articles of impeachment and get a majority of the vote in the House of Representatives. There’s no “double jeopardy” clause in the Constitution for articles of impeachment.
Ultimately, the House decides if there is grounds for impeachment, and then the Senate decides if there is grounds for removal. Neither chamber’s decision relies solely on the other’s judgment, unlike in a court of law, where the jury must go solely by the charges brought by a prosecutor.
And again, there is no double jeopardy clause for impeachment in the Constitution. The House can impeach someone five, ten or fifteen times for the same offenses. It will probably be a waste of time, however, as if more than at least one-third of the Senate decides not to impeach the first time – having heard all the evidence, including that not related to articles of impeachment – they are unlikely to change their minds on a second or third attempt.
And THAT, Wolf, is what makes impeachment a one-shot deal.
The point is, is that regardless of whether it is “unlikely to change their minds on a second or third attempt, or 25 attempts…there is no set number.
I was on the way to an appointment at the VA but managed to find an am station while Mueller was talking so I heard most of it.
Yes, he (too politely) said in effect I have the goods on Obstruction of Justice but can’t do anything while Trump is in Office – but Congress can so they should take what I’ve given them and do what I wasn’t allowed to do. That’s something I guess.
But it’s not enough. Not even close.
This whole thing started as a counter-intelligence investigation and there isn’t jack shit in Mueller’s report about any of that. Why not? It appeared to be part of his original mandate which to this layman (IANAL) was quite broad. So why no mention at all of the counter-intelligence probe in the report, if only that due to national security/classified matters that part was turned back over to the appropriate division at the FBI. As for financial matters regarding how this President might be compromised by foreign powers (esp. Russia which is who attacked us) that too seemed to be part of Mueller’s original mandate and it’s clear that financial crimes have been uncovered. Yes, Mueller “farmed out” certain things to U.S. Attorney’s Offices (not just SDNY) but again why?
IOW just what the hell was in those two (and we didn’t know about one of them until recently) “clarification” memos Rosenstein issued defining Mueller’s mandate?
Then we have the issue of all those transcripts of witnesses (IOW not just Roger Stone) who testified before Congress which the House committees voted to forward to Mueller’s office. Surely he could have brought perjury charges against more than just Roger Stone and use that as leverage to flip more witnesses and get closer to answering questions Trump’s obstruction prevented Mueller’s team from being able to properly/fully investigate.
In January Mueller went to the Judge and extended the Grand Jury he’d been working with until next month. Why? It would seem he expected to get more information and therefore leverage with a Democratically Controlled House that would provide those transcripts I just mentioned.
But in Feb. he meets with Barr and Rosenstein, and makes it clear he won’t be filing any charges against Trump & presumably why.
Then all of a sudden later in the month he submits his report.
From where I sit given all Barr’s quite public commentary on his belief in sweeping Executive powers (at least as along as it’s a REPUBLICAN President) it’s a fair question to put to Mueller – as in “Since you explained you wouldn’t obtain an indictment of the President and Barr is quite clear that absent any prosecution or even possibility of one this President shouldn’t even be investigated at all did the AG indicate it was time for you submit a report on what you have and close down your investigation?”
Mueller damn well should be asked that. Under Oath and live on National TV.
He and his team have been repeatedly subjected to orchestrated attacks from the President on down through the GOP ranks. Barr himself went out of his way to mischaracterize Mueller’s report and conclusions. Mueller OWES the country answers to question about all this and other stuff, regardless of any personal misgivings he might have about dirtying up the reputations of Barr and Rosenstein who have done exactly that to him!
This “The report speaks for itself” and “The report is my testimony” just doesn’t cut it.
I’m disappointed. Big time. I didn’t really expect Mueller to come out firing broadsides but to flat out state he won’t answer/say anything to Congress that’s not included in the report he submitted is unacceptable.
I don’t think we’re screwed – yet and hopefully – never. Mueller’s words were very carefully stated. He did his job under the boundaries stated.
What I got from today. 45 is guilty of crimes – DUH. Mueller stated they couldn’t convict under DOJ guidelines. “Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view. That too, is prohibited.” What the hell does anyone think he was saying there?! There are charges kept under seal and hidden from public view but he is prohibited from stating such. He can do it by doing exactly what he did.
I have an inkling of hope. Just an inkling but so glad it’s there finally.
Nancy Pelosi should be REMOVED right NOW and there should be a MUTINY within the ranks of Congressional Dems. She is a weak cowardly tone-deaf mis-leader who is too scared and politically compromised herself to fight for this Democracy, and move ahead with Impeachment.
Novel idea: let’s give this news a chance to digest and see what she does. Howling for blood is the behavior of werewolves, not the rational adults we like to pretend we are.
How about…let Cynthia, Mae, and/or everyone else share THEIR opinion whether you see fit to critique it, try to debunk it, or literally just blow it off with a “Howling for blood is the behavior of werewolves”
You have heard the old expression, we can agree to disagree?
Oh, by the way, do you know IActuallyKnow? Now I’m curious…
Shrug…conversely, you are hearing my opinion on their opinion. If I think a certain course of action ill-advised, I’m going to say so and I’m going to say why. I can always be wrong and will admit to such should events turn in that direction. In the meantime, we’re all going to have to put with each other’s opinion. And before you ask, this ID is the only one I use.
It reads more like your opinion over theirs, and I asked if you knew that other blogger, not if it was you.
Making sure on that last point…fairly or not, I took it as an accusation. But to answer the question, no, I don’t know them. Ursula and Chris Weigant are about the only bloggers I care to follow. The former is often focusing on stories others miss, much like Rachel Maddow. The latter often provides some dry air that is too frequently missing in our current circumstances.
Also, it’s not that I think my opinion is better. It’s just, like I said, if I think something is off, I’ll say so and why. My tact can be lacking, particularly when I am faced with what I think is despair or unfocused anger. But I prefer being honest over being polite, particularly in these matters.
Accusation? No, I try to ‘read’ people by what they say and how they say it.
Same…personally, I’ve found online forums to be rather difficult environments to practice that with.
how do you feel about it, Ursula?