rowe33
4790
Is Ben Carson appearing? Or will be Diamond/Silk? Or Kanye? So many options…Maybe they’ll allow one of the female GOP Senators or House members to speak, if there are actually any left.
I do kinda hope they take this route.
Hey, does anyone know why the squirreling away of the July 25 transcript on a secret server that (I gather) isn’t really made for that kind of material hasn’t really come up in any of the hearings? Or did I miss it?
vyshka
4794
I believe it did when Morrison testified, and Vindman as well.
Yep. Those were the two with direct knowledge of that.
And it could be mentioned in the obstruction article that will be presented tomorrow.
rowe33
4796
They had to protect the Truth from the Democrats by securing it on a protected server, that’s all. Who knows how much the Deep State would have perverted the Truth if they had gotten their mitts on it!
Sharpe
4797
This seems wise to me, to focus on/prioritize the Ukraine charges and leave the Mueller obstruction of justice investigation on the table, where it can serve as a political and legal basis for both pursuing further Congressional investigation and also pursuing the various court cases that are pending on executive privilege, etc. This serves several useful purposes including providing at least some kind of check on Trump going wild after his anticipated Senate “acquittal”, providing a foundation for court rulings that may be highly useful down the road, and in general “keeping the pressure on” Trump, even if the Senate behaves as expected and the GOP flaunts the rule of law in the name of partisanship and a brittle hold on power.
I do think there should be a public declaration that the Dems are not ignoring or giving up on the Mueller/obstruction of justice issues, simply not prioritizing them at this time. They should probably announce a future agenda to pursue these matters no matter what happens in the Senate.
Edit: Also, I think framing the Ukraine wrongdoing as “abuse of power” is better than “bribery”, despite the fact that bribery is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, for three reasons: one) abuse of power despite not being expressly mentioned is, without any question, based on history and precedent, an impeachable offense and Trump’s conduct clearly qualifies; two) the public perception of “bribery” is just not a smooth fit with the fact pattern we have; and three) I think framing it as abuse of power is better in terms of politics, especially in maintaining a sense of urgency, given that Trump is continuing to dig the hole in the Ukraine.
I think Trump put the Ukraine extortion plan into motion precisely because the Democrats ignored the Mueller / obstruction issues, and that he’ll continue to obstruct any meaningful oversight matter. A statement that they’re not ignoring Mueller won’t change the fact that they’re manifestly ignoring Mueller.
I missed Swalwell’s questioning session yesterday, but here it is in its entirety.
It is…really good.
This piece makes the argument that at least something from Mueller should be included in articles of impeachment:
But there is a single, specific article of impeachment that should be included: one describing how the president of the United States obstructed justice by directing White House Counsel Don McGahn to create a false internal record denying that the president had instructed him to have Robert Mueller fired as Special Counsel.
…
While there are other compelling examples, the McGahn episode is the single strongest episode of obstruction of justice in the entire Mueller Report. The facts of what occurred are established by clear evidence and are supported by both documentary records and the testimony of multiple White House officials. It is also an example of obstruction that is unambiguous on the law—it presents a clear criminal violation.
The piece notes that Turley’s testimony was that articles of impeachment must include a criminal act to have any legitimacy, and that the McGahn order meets all the conditions of the criminal act of obstruction. GOP members on both committees have argued that the impeachment process is hasty, but no one could argue that Mueller was too hasty in his investigation.
It is also the best-evidenced example of obstruction and intent to obstruct, testified to by multiple witnesses. Including it undercuts the two major objections that Republican defenders have raised: That there was no criminal act per the criminal statutes, and that this is a rush to judgement.
If Republicans argue that the Ukraine record is insufficiently developed, they cannot do so when it comes to an obstruction article based on the Mueller report. Likewise, if they argue that the Ukraine allegations are not of a criminal offense, they cannot do so when it comes to the obstruction article. Instead, they will be left to either dispute the record as false—allowing Democrats to counter by demonstrating the strength of the evidence provided by Trump’s own staff, then further arguing for the importance of McGahn’s testimony—or instead attempt to argue, as Turley does, that somehow that record and the law doesn’t support the conclusion that the president obstructed justice. That is a debate Democrats should welcome.
JoshL
4802
The problem is that this is a fool’s errand. The Republicans don’t respond to facts or logic. Trying to make them say, “I guess you’re right, we can’t argue the exact opposite thing we were just arguing” will never work.
Cf. the Mueller investigation dragged on far too long and should have been stopped long ago, but the Ukraine investigation is being rushed and should be slowed down.
I think his stepping in it on July 25 on that phone call…yep.
But the extortion plan started while the Mueller investigation was still fully in process.
Too true. This morning F&F ran a montage of Democrats saying the word ‘bribery’, then cut back to the hosts grinning ear to ear saying “what happened to ‘bribery’, huh?” as if the lack of the word bribery in the articles was a huge win for Trump.
I’m not accusing them of good faith. I’m talking about 1) history, and 2) the handful of independent voters who might be on the fence about impeachment. As it is, the Dems holding back on Mueller-related charges isn’t going to buy them an ounce of goodwill with anyone, and it has the effect of caving on the meaning of the report and on the rule of law needed to constrain future Presidents. Now anyone can fire an FBI Director, or an Attorney General, who is actively investigating him or her.
Odd how they aren’t saying gosh those Dems sure are acting with restraint by not charging on the Mueller report, isn’t it?
Timex
4806
Only now have I seen that Castor used a grocery bag as a briefcase.
This is like having Lionel Hutch present at the impeachment hearings.
We shouldn’t go there. If it was the Democrat’s lawyer Fox would be deriding him for not destroying the planet and we would defend him.
Timex
4808
The dude had a grocery bag for a briefcase.
Grocery bags burn faster.
