Robert Mueller testifies before Congress July 24th.

[The Romulan Republic]

The long-awaited testimony of Robert Mueller before the House of Representatives will occur on Wednesday the 24th (it was supposed to be on the 17th, but was pushed back as Congress wrangled over who would get to ask questions IIRC).

Leading up to the hearings, the DOJ has ordered Robert Mueller not to testify about anything outside of the Report, claiming Executive Privilege.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21k63hyIMdM

Mueller has previously said himself that this is his intent, which makes this order seem somewhat redundant (and also absurd to argue that literally anything outside the Report is protected by executive privilege). But yeah, Trump is completely exonerated That's why they're so desperate to ensure that Mueller doesn't talk about anything new. Totally the behaviour of innocent people.

Judiciary Committee Chair Nadler has said that "the report presents very substantial evidence that the President is guilty of high crimes and midemeanours" (the Constitutional definition of an impeachable offense), that Mueller's testimony will present that to the American people, and that they will "see where we go from there". Nadler has previously pushed Pelosi to open an impeachment inquiry.

As noted in the video, this testimony may determine whether the House moves toward impeachment, or whether that option is permanently laid to rest.

[bilateralrope]

Given how many people haven't read the report, just having someone read it out onto national TV should shift things significantly.

Though I'm hoping that someone asks Muller what actions he recommends Congress to take. Probably won't be able to get him to recommend drawing up the articles of impeachment, but getting him to recommend a formal impeachment investigation should be easier.

[The Romulan Republic]

Given how many people haven't read the report, just having someone read it out onto national TV should shift things significantly.

Though I'm hoping that someone asks Muller what actions he recommends Congress to take. Probably won't be able to get him to recommend drawing up the articles of impeachment, but getting him to recommend a formal impeachment investigation should be easier.

The problem is that Mueller is notoriously by-the-book and reluctant to speak publicly on his work. This was to some extent an asset during the probe, but now its likely going to be like pulling teeth to get him to say anything that isn't just a restatement of what's in the unredacted portions of the report.

[houser2112]

Though I think it would be great if the House can get anything out of him we haven't already heard, he has said himself that his report speaks for itself and that if he appeared before Congress he wouldn't say anything further. Is this hearing special enough that they can get him to actually say anything beyond "read my report"?

[The Romulan Republic]

Though I think it would be great if the House can get anything out of him we haven't already heard, he has said himself that his report speaks for itself and that if he appeared before Congress he wouldn't say anything further. Is this hearing special enough that they can get him to actually say anything beyond "read my report"?

They could ask him to clarify certain points in it I suppose, and threaten him with a contempt citation if he refused to answer.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Fuck's sake, he could pop in video of Trump beating an infant to death with a 9 iron and eating it raw and the Republicans would shrug it off while Pelosi babbles about letting the voters decide. Mueller's testimony is theater. Nothing he could say would matter. No evidence he could present would matter. The only way Trump doesn't serve out his term is if he dies in office, be it from someone deciding to assassinate him (which I most certainly am not advocating for) or having a stroke or heart attack due to his lifestyle (which I most certainly would enjoy seeing). The man is too proud to resign and those with the power to remove him through legal channels do not want to.

Democratic leadership, as evidenced by *waves at recent events*, doesn't particularly want to put in the effort needed to stop Trump and I'm convinced anyone that still calls themself a Republican gets off on the misery Trump enacts.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fuck's sake, he could pop in video of Trump beating an infant to death with a 9 iron and eating it raw and the Republicans would shrug it off while Pelosi babbles about letting the voters decide. Mueller's testimony is theater. Nothing he could say would matter. No evidence he could present would matter. The only way Trump doesn't serve out his term is if he dies in office, be it from someone deciding to assassinate him (which I most certainly am not advocating for) or having a stroke or heart attack due to his lifestyle (which I most certainly would enjoy seeing). The man is too proud to resign and those with the power to remove him through legal channels do not want to.

Democratic leadership, as evidenced by *waves at recent events*, doesn't particularly want to put in the effort needed to stop Trump and I'm convinced anyone that still calls themself a Republican gets off on the misery Trump enacts.

I don't want him to die in office, by violence or natural causes. I want him to die in prison, after being convicted in a court of law. Death is too easy for him. I want him made an example of, to the public and to the world.

I don't think anyone who's been following recent events believes that impeachment will actually lead to Trump being removed from office, not while the Quisling Party continues to control the Senate. Its symbolic, but its important symbolism, both because not doing so sets a terrible precedent of ignoring Congress's role to act as a check on a criminal and despotic President, and because it risks feeding into the view that the Democrats are ultimately no different than the Republicans.

Weighed against that is Pelosi's fear that a failed impeachment will make Trump look innocent and generate sympathy for him, helping him win the election. Personally, I think she should be less worried about turnout for Trump if she does impeach, and more about progressives staying home if she doesn't. Above all, voters hate weakness and waffling, and I think that the Democrats' refusal to impeach makes it look like Trump is innocent and there's nothing really there at least as much as a failed impeachment due to obvious Republican obstruction would.

I will point out that "Democratic leadership" is not as united in opposition to impeachment as you seem to think. Off the top of my head, Nadler, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, has reportedly argued behind closed doors in favor of an impeachment inquiry, and voted for Green's recent articles of impeachment to protest the leadership's decision to table them rather than refer them to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration. He has also recently used the language "high crimes and misdemeanors" to describe Trump's actions. Several Presidential candidates have also endorsed impeachment, putting further pressure on Pelosi and company, especially if one of them ends up becoming the front-runner for the nomination.

We are at over a third of the Democratic caucus who were willing to vote against tabling articles impeaching Trump for racism (not even factoring in stuff like obstruction and other actual crimes). This was pre-Mueller testimony, as well. I suspect that an impeachment inquiry originating from the Judiciary Committee post-Mueller testimony could probably get majority support from the Democratic caucus, regardless of what Pelosi wants. Whether it would get majority support of the entire House, I can't say.

Mueller's testimony is also about shifting public opinion in favor of impeachment (remember, the vast majority of Americans have not read the full report, if they've even read any of it). Or, failing that, keeping public opinion against Trump as the election draws closer. So its not quite the useless, empty gesture you seem to think it is.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, its done. Here's the link to the full live stream from CNN if anyone wants to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaT7VNF-08o

As expected, Mueller deviated little from what was in his report, and answered questions very briefly. However, some interesting details did emerge, or were emphasized. When asked, for example, if Trump's written answers were insufficient or inaccurate, Mueller replied "generally".

Some highlights:

Judiciary Chair Nadler asking if Trump was totally exonerated (Mueller answers no): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfvYpuPxCcY

Mueller confirming Trump asked staff to falsify records to protect him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QswOr9gurSc

Mueller confirming Trump could be charged with obstruction after leaving office in response to a Republican lawmaker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1KdLMKtpsw

Mueller explaining that he was acting as a prosecutor, and did not reach counterintelligence conclusions, but that that information was passed off to others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzSAbfKHW8I

[The Romulan Republic]

Schiff questions Mueller on Russian interference and collusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWiFpxxWFlQ

[The Romulan Republic]

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders speak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEXFW8mDQnk

So, they publicly acknowledge that Trump is a criminal, pat themselves on the back for demonstrating this, but won't commit to impeaching the President they just publicly acknowledged is a criminal.

I have seldom seen a more self-serving display of gutless cowardice and dereliction of duty (though I did think that Nadler looked uncomfortable during the whole thing- he's argued with Pelosi on the subject before). I hope that more and more of the caucus continues to shift its position, until it can be done in spite of Pelosi.

Pelosi should remove from the Speakership, or be primaried.

[Rogue 9]

Mueller confirming Trump could be charged with obstruction after leaving office in response to a Republican lawmaker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1KdLMKtpsw

This was particularly delicious. The first rule of any hearing is that you do not ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. Clearly Mr. Buck either didn't know or forgot that part.

[The Romulan Republic]

Stephen Colbert's take:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOMZAJl6dE4

Perhaps the best bit is the clip of Mueller responding to being asked how many of his team were Democrats (because Republicans think the government should be purged of anyone who isn't a Trump loyalist):

I have been in this business for almost twenty five years, and in those twenty five years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done. What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity.

Also, I am totally going to call Mueller Bobby Three-Sticks from now on.

[Zaune]

Weighed against that is Pelosi's fear that a failed impeachment will make Trump look innocent and generate sympathy for him, helping him win the election. Personally, I think she should be less worried about turnout for Trump if she does impeach, and more about progressives staying home if she doesn't. Above all, voters hate weakness and waffling, and I think that the Democrats' refusal to impeach makes it look like Trump is innocent and there's nothing really there at least as much as a failed impeachment due to obvious Republican obstruction would.

In fairness to her, she should also be worried about Trump's horde of dimwitted but obedient minions starting another War of Southern Aggression in the event that it looks like Congress are going to make charges stick. I'm pretty sure that would ultimately be slightly less painful for the US in the long run than putting up with this crap for as long as it takes to get rid of the anthropomorphic personification of negative stereotypes about estate agents by other means, but being the person whose actions pushed him over the edge would be a hell of a thing to have to live with, no matter how justified those actions might have been.

[The Romulan Republic]

Weighed against that is Pelosi's fear that a failed impeachment will make Trump look innocent and generate sympathy for him, helping him win the election. Personally, I think she should be less worried about turnout for Trump if she does impeach, and more about progressives staying home if she doesn't. Above all, voters hate weakness and waffling, and I think that the Democrats' refusal to impeach makes it look like Trump is innocent and there's nothing really there at least as much as a failed impeachment due to obvious Republican obstruction would.

In fairness to her, she should also be worried about Trump's horde of dimwitted but obedient minions starting another War of Southern Aggression in the event that it looks like Congress are going to make charges stick. I'm pretty sure that would ultimately be slightly less painful for the US in the long run than putting up with this crap for as long as it takes to get rid of the anthropomorphic personification of negative stereotypes about estate agents by other means, but being the person whose actions pushed him over the edge would be a hell of a thing to have to live with, no matter how justified those actions might have been.

I'm pretty sure a full-blown Civil War would be catastrophically worse for the US and the world than allowing this to continue until he can be removed on election day. The last civil war killed about 700,000 people, and it was fought mostly with single-shot muskets and rifles, not automatic weapons and (potentially) fucking nukes.

Of course, Trump may try to incite some form of violent resistance to any attempt to remove him from office, including by a fair vote. Hopefully, enough of the military, police, and intelligence community will remember their oaths that that will ultimately not go far. But fear of a violent response should NEVER dictate policy (well, unless its literally a case of "doing this might lead to the end of the world, as in nuclear stand-offs). Because the moment your opponent knows that you will cave to the threat of force, they will keep using that threat again and again. Its the same basic principle as "We don't negotiate with terrorists". If Republicans know a threat of violence will get Democrats to cave, they will push further and further, and become more and more violent, until our choices are complete submission at gun point, or fighting back from a weaker position than we're in now.

Again, I recall Lincoln's message to supporters as Southern States were seceding from the Union:

"Stand firm. The tug has to come, and better now than at any time hereafter."

This is also above all why I stand absolutely with the Governor of Oregon in the stand off with Republican lawmakers that occurred there. The moment they or their supporters started threatening violence, backing down became impossible. Because if they backed down, it would mean the Republicans would have a huge incentive to threaten violence every time they didn't get what they wanted. I don't want us to be the ones starting a fight, but that doesn't mean we should back down out of fear. I say we should stand our ground, and if the other side wants to start a war over it, let them be the ones to make that choice.

[Zaune]

I'm pretty sure a full-blown Civil War would be catastrophically worse for the US and the world than allowing this to continue until he can be removed on election day. The last civil war killed about 700,000 people, and it was fought mostly with single-shot muskets and rifles, not automatic weapons and (potentially) fucking nukes.

I wonder about that, you know. Has anyone actually sat down and worked out an estimate of how many avoidable deaths are linked to GOP policies, the way someone at University College London has for the Tories? Even before the ICE concentration camps happened there were literally thousands of questionable police shootings, at least one major city without potable tap water, God knows how many people dying because they can't afford the extortionate prices they're being charged for prescription medications or the treatment they'd need to solve the chronic pain they're controlling with dangerous amounts of painkillers... I'm sure you could think of more examples. Now admittedly even a professional statistician be hard pressed to calculate that number without basing a lot of the maths involved on educated guesswork, but I suspect that even a conservative estimate would be a sobering figure to contemplate.

Of course, Trump may try to incite some form of violent resistance to any attempt to remove him from office, including by a fair vote. Hopefully, enough of the military, police, and intelligence community will remember their oaths that that will ultimately not go far. But fear of a violent response should NEVER dictate policy (well, unless its literally a case of "doing this might lead to the end of the world, as in nuclear stand-offs). Because the moment your opponent knows that you will cave to the threat of force, they will keep using that threat again and again. Its the same basic principle as "We don't negotiate with terrorists". If Republicans know a threat of violence will get Democrats to cave, they will push further and further, and become more and more violent, until our choices are complete submission at gun point, or fighting back from a weaker position than we're in now.

It's still something that has to be factored in; a line has to be drawn somewhere but you've got to pick your battles.

Personally, I think the better line of attack will come from whatever plea-deal Eppstein negotiates; colluding with questionable business interests in Russia is something I can see most of the Republicans in Congress rationalising to themselves, none of them got where they are today without indulging in some dirty pool at some point, but renting underage sex slaves by the hour... Well, if that doesn't cause some sort of backlash then I just give up.