Redacted Mueller report to be released tomorrow.

[Zaune]

You know, maybe it's because I'm looking at this from a more European overseas perspective but aren't the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton a pretty good example of why it's not necessarily good politics, at least if the verdict isn't the one the accusers wanted? It's a long time ago now, but from what I recall the public consensus was that the whole thing was a politically motivated waste of time and money drummed up because the Republicans couldn't find anything better to use against him.

Now the allegations against Trump are a hell of a lot more serious than lying about an extramarital affair*, but the problem remains that an impeachment ending in an aquittal is going to accomplish Sweet Fanny Adams except to give the bastard something else to brag about to his equally vile fanclub.

* If there was any suggestion that Monica Lewinsky was in any way coerced at the time it doesn't seem to have made it as far as the media, and in any case that's what he was actually charged with no matter the truth.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, maybe it's because I'm looking at this from a more European overseas perspective but aren't the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton a pretty good example of why it's not necessarily good politics, at least if the verdict isn't the one the accusers wanted? It's a long time ago now, but from what I recall the public consensus was that the whole thing was a politically motivated waste of time and money drummed up because the Republicans couldn't find anything better to use against him.

Now the allegations against Trump are a hell of a lot more serious than lying about an extramarital affair*, but the problem remains that an impeachment ending in an aquittal is going to accomplish Sweet Fanny Adams except to give the bastard something else to brag about to his equally vile fanclub.

This was addressed explicitly in the last article I cited- that Republicans payed a relatively small political price for impeaching Bill, despite the fact that a) he was a more popular President than Trump is, and b) the charges against him were weaker.

* If there was any suggestion that Monica Lewinsky was in any way coerced at the time it doesn't seem to have made it as far as the media, and in any case that's what he was actually charged with no matter the truth.

Lewinsky coerced? Not to my knowledge, unless you consider the power disparity between her and her lover, and the fact that he was her boss, inherently coersive. There are other women who have alleged sexual harassment or rape against Bill, but that isn't what he was impeached for (nor would Republicans give a shit about such things if one of their own was accused- see Trump and Kavanaugh).

[The Romulan Republic]

Rosenstein assured Trump "I can land the plane":

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-ho ... 8546627646

WaPo reporter Matt Zapotosky, former US Attorney Joyce Vance, MSNBC national affairs analyst John Heilemann, WaPo’s Ashley Parker, former DOJ spox Matt Miller, and former Chief of Staff at the Pentagon and CIA Jeremy Bash on the bombshell Washington Post report that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured Trump he was on his team following a report that Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire

Between this, the sudden reversal on his imminent departure a while back, and his going out and publicly defending Barr, its looking more and more like Rosenstein cut a deal with Trump: "Stab Mueller in the back to keep your job."

[Ziggy Stardust]

Seems unlikely considering Rosenstein resigned today.

[The Romulan Republic]

Seems unlikely considering Rosenstein resigned today.

Rosenstein's actions certainly seem contradictory, but there may be things going on behind the scenes that influenced his actions to which we are not privy (indeed there almost certainly were).

I hope that Rosenstein's eventual testimony to Congress, and that of people around him, will help to clear the matter up.

Here is the text of Rosenstein's letter of resignation:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/29/politics ... index.html

It closes thusly:

We enforce the law without fear or favor because credible evidence is not partisan, and truth is not determined by opinion polls. We ignore fleeting distractions and focus our attention on the things that matter, because a republic that endures is not governed by the news cycle.

We keep the faith, we follow the rules, and we always put America first.

Perhaps fittingly for a man who's career has been so ambiguous, his last words as DAG could just as easily be taken as either a message to progressives/Democrats to get over Russia and accept Trump is cleared/a critique of the anti-Trump media, or as a coded fuck you to Trump and his base and their disregard for the law. Perhaps even both.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ard-nixon/

Forty years ago today, Richard Nixon announced his resignation from the nation’s highest office, making that decision in the face of almost certain impeachment by the House and plummeting public support, as a majority of Americans called for his removal from office. But it happened in stages.

Nixon had won reelection in 1972 by a landslide and began his second term with a lofty 68% Gallup Poll approval rating in January 1973. But the Watergate scandal — which started with an effort to bug the Democratic National Committee office at the Watergate Hotel and subsequent efforts to cover it up — quickly took a heavy toll on those ratings, especially when coupled with a ramp-up in public concerns about inflation. By April, a resounding 83% of the American public had heard or read about Watergate, as the president accepted the resignations of his top aides John Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman. And in turn, Nixon’s approval ratings fell to 48%.

But that was just the beginning of the toll the scandal would take on the president that year. The televised Watergate hearings that began in May 1973, chaired by Senator Samuel Ervin, commanded a large national audience — 71% told Gallup they watched the hearings live. And as many as 21% reported watching 10 hours or more of the Ervin proceedings. Not too surprisingly, Nixon’s popularity took a severe hit. His ratings fell as low as 31%, in Gallup’s early August survey.

The public had changed its view of the scandal. A 53% majority came to the view that Watergate was a serious matter, not just politics, up from 31% who believed that before the hearings. Indeed, an overwhelming percentage of the public (71%) had come to see Nixon as culpable in the wrongdoing, at least to some extent. About four-in-ten (37%) thought he found out about the bugging and tried to cover it up; 29% went further in saying that he knew about the bugging beforehand, but did not plan it; and 8% went all the way, saying he planned it from beginning to end. Only 15% of Americans thought that the president had no prior knowledge and spoke up as soon as he learned of it.

Yet, despite the increasingly negative views of Nixon at that time, most Americans continued to reject the notion that Nixon should leave office, according to Gallup. Just 26% thought he should be impeached and forced to resign, while 61% did not.

A lot of key scandal events were to follow that year and into 1974, but public opinion about Watergate was slow to change further, despite the high drama of what was taking place. For example, October 1973 was a crucial month as the courts ruled that the president had to turn over his taped conversations to special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and subsequently Nixon ordered for the dismissal of Cox in what came to be known as the Saturday Night Massacre. The public reacted, but in a measured way. In November, Gallup showed the percentage of Americans thinking that the president should leave office jumping from 19% in June to 38%, but still, 51% did not support impeachment and an end to Nixon’s presidency.

In the spring of 1974, despite the indictment of top former White House aides, and Nixon’s release of what were seen as “heavily edited” transcripts of tapes of his aides plotting to get White House enemies, the public was still divided over what to do about the president. For example, by June, 44% in the Gallup Poll thought he should be removed from office, while 41% disagreed.

Only in early August, following the House Judiciary Committee’s recommendation in July that Nixon be impeached and the Supreme Court’s decision that he surrender his audio tapes, did a clear majority – 57% – come to the view that the president should be removed from office.

But once he was gone, the Americans were not quick to forgive and forget. In September, a 58% majority said Nixon should be tried for possible criminal charges. And they took the view that he should not be let off the hook easily, if found guilty. By a margin of 53% to 38%, the public thought that President Ford should not pardon Nixon, if he was found guilty.

The latter sentiment of course, would carry on, and be crucial to the outcome of the next presidential election. Ford did pardon Nixon in September, an act that was followed by a plummet of his own poll numbers, and later was seen as a factor in his loss to Democrat Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election.

Perhaps the most interesting, and pertinent, facts here are that support for Nixon's impeachment after the Saturday Night Massacre was within a few points of current support for Trump's impeachment, that clear majority support for impeachment did not emerge until after the House Judiciary Committee recommended his impeachment and the Supreme Court ruled he must turn over his audio tapes, and that support for his impeachment actually went up, and support for Nixon fell, after the House Judiciary Committee made that recomendation.

Now, there are certainly differences between then and now. One could argue that the country is more partisan now (although the US then was just emerging from the relentless turmoil of the '60s), or that support for Nixon's impeachment went fairly steadily up while support for Trump's impeachment has fallen recently, or that Nixon was more likely to be convicted than Trump is. Nonetheless, and taken in combination with the public's response to other impeachment attempts (including the fairly weak effects of public backlash against the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which was conducted against a more popular President on more frivolous grounds), I would submit that the assumption that the American people will oppose impeachment, and that any impeachment effort will automatically hurt the Democrats, is at best speculation, masquerading as fact because it is repeated so often that everyone assumes it to be true. That it is entirely possible that a decision to impeach might actually galvanize public support for impeachment, at least among those who are not committed members of Trump's base. And that the assumption that impeachment means defeat for the Democrats is little more than a thin mask for political and moral cowardice in the face of a fascist assault on democracy and the rule of law.

Edit: I will also note that this article predates Trump's election by more than two years, so it was clearly not written with the goal of making an argument for impeachment now, though it does so very nicely.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, it just broke that Mueller wrote a letter to Barr after his summary complaining that it "did not adequately portray the report's findings". Barr kept this to himself for a month, while telling Congress under oath that he had no information on whether Mueller agreed with his conclusions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1eSNESO8pE

In short, Barr is now potentially on the hook for perjury/lying under oath to Congress.

Yep, totally the behaviour of innocent men with nothing to hide.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nadler has warned that if Barr does not agree to turn over the full report to Congress within a day or two, he will seek a citation against Barr for Contempt of Congress:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4417 ... ainst-barr

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is threatening a contempt citation against Attorney General William Barr if the Justice Department (DOJ) does not comply with a subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted report.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday evening, Nadler said that if he is unable to reach a “reasonable” agreement with the DOJ “in the next day or two,” he would seek a contempt citation against Barr.

“I will continue to work with the attorney general to reach a reasonable accommodation on the access to the full report and the underlying evidence — but not for much longer,” Nadler said. “There are many questions that must be answered.”

Barr released a reacted version of the Mueller report last month, but Nadler quickly subpoenaed for the full report, setting a deadline of May 1. Nadler said Wednesday that the administration informed him they would not turn over the report.

Roughly 10 percent of the public report is redacted to conceal grand jury material, details on ongoing investigations, classified information and details that could impact the privacy of third parties. Barr has allowed a select group of lawmakers, including Nadler, to review a less-redacted version of the report, but Democrats have objected to the arrangement because it leaves many in Congress unable to view information.

In a Wednesday letter to Nadler, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote that the subpoena is “not legitimate oversight” and that the committee had not articulated any “legitimate legislative purpose” for requesting the entirety of Mueller’s underlying evidence.

Boyd also wrote the department could not give the panel access to Mueller’s full unredacted report because it contains grand jury material, which is subject to secrecy rules and cannot be released in the absence of a court order.

Boyd asserted that Barr had already made “extraordinary accommodations” to Congress with respect to Mueller’s report and is willing to meet the “legitimate information needs” of the committee.

“But this subpoena is not legitimate oversight. The requests in the subpoena are overbroad and extraordinarily burdensome. More importantly, these requests would pose a fundamental threat to the confidentiality of law enforcement files and the Department’s commitment to keep law enforcement investigations free of political interference," Boyd wrote.

He said the Department was “unable” to provide Mueller’s files but is not closing the door “on engaging with the Committee about potential further accommodations in response to a properly focused and narrow inquiry that is supported by a legitimate legislative purpose.”

Barr was supposed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday on Mueller’s report, but informed Nadler on Wednesday that he would not be showing up due to the Justice Department's objections to Democrats’ plans to have committee staff question the attorney general in addition to members of Congress grilling Barr.

The attorney general testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

--Updated 8:19 p.m.

[The Romulan Republic]

White House confirms Trump discussed the Mueller report with Putin and they both agreed "no collusion":

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... e-n1001706

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke Friday and both agreed "there was no collusion" between Moscow and Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.

Sanders said that the two briefly discussed special counsel Robert Mueller's report "essentially in the context of that it's over and there was no collusion." She added that she was "pretty sure both leaders were very well aware of (the Mueller report's finding) long before this call took place" because it was "something we've said for the better part of two and a half years."

When asked if they also discussed election meddling by Russia that Mueller detailed in his report, she said that the administration is committed to securing American elections and blasted the Obama administration for not taking action in 2016.

"This administration, unlike the previous one, takes election meddling seriously," she said.

Sarah Sanders confirms Trump spoke to Putin about Mueller probe
Trump later confirmed the call in a Friday tweet in which called the accusation of collusion the "Russian Hoax."

"Had a long and very good conversation with President Putin of Russia. As I have always said, long before the Witch Hunt started, getting along with Russia, China, and everyone is a good thing, not a bad thing," he tweeted. "We discussed Trade, Venezuela, Ukraine, North Korea, Nuclear Arms Control and even the 'Russian Hoax.' Very productive talk!"

Since Mueller's findings were released by Attorney General William Barr in March and the full report was released last month, Trump has continued to claim vindication. Mueller's report, which lays out Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election, notes "that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts." However, Mueller said in the report that he did not find a provable criminal conspiracy.

During Mueller’s probe, he indicted twenty-five Russian nationals and three Russian companies for hacking and a disinformation campaign targeting Americans on social media.

Trump previously came under fire from Republicans and Democrats for suggesting that Russia was not the culprit during a Helsinki summit with Putin last year, despite American intelligence agencies concluding that the country interfered in the election. He later walked back his comments.

Sanders also answered a question about whether White House counsel Don McGahn would testify before Congress as Democrats ramp up their oversight investigations into the administration. McGahn was a key witness in one of the 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice by Trump that Mueller outlined in the report.

She also said that they discussed the crisis in Venezuela and the administration's need for a peaceful transition of power in the country and delivering aid to the country. Trump and Putin also talked about the need for Russia to put pressure on North Korea to denuclearize.

CORRECTION (May 3,2019, 1:51 p.m. ET): An earlier version of this article incorrectly included one topic that White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Presidents Trump and Putin discussed on Friday. They did not discuss the possibility of former White House counsel Don McGahn appearing before Congress. Sanders was answering a question from reporters about whether McGahn would testify before Congress.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump has now predictably switched to opposing allowing Mueller, and former White House Counsel McGahn, to testify to Congress.

[bilateralrope]

I wonder what will happen if Trump blusters like this, but never gives Mueller or McGahn official notice that they aren't to testify.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wonder what will happen if Trump blusters like this, but never gives Mueller or McGahn official notice that they aren't to testify.

They get called, they testify, and in both cases, given their past records, they likely tell the truth, albeit probably in the most restrained and diplomatic way possible without being actively disingenuous. Probably with some "I can't answer that" from Mueller about ongoing investigations.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some significant developments:

After Barr missed another deadline, Nadler announced that the House Judiciary Committee would hold a vote on holding him in contempt of Congress on Wednesday. Barr hastily offered to have further discussions with them- a blatant stalling tactic that Nadler rightly ignored:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... pt-1302982

The House Judiciary Committee will proceed with a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress on Wednesday, Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) confirmed late Monday, as the Justice Department attempts to fend off the effort ahead of a negotiating session with the Democratic-led committee on Tuesday.

Nadler's firm stance comes as he seeks punitive actions against the attorney general for defying a subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted report on the Russia investigation and its underlying evidence. It also comes hours after the Justice Department put forward a last-ditch plea to negotiate with the panel, offering a Wednesday meeting but later agreeing to Nadler’s demand for a Tuesday sit-down.

“At the moment, our plans to consider holding Attorney General Barr accountable for his failure to comply with our subpoena still stand,” Nadler said in a statement. “My hope is that we make concrete progress at tomorrow’s meeting towards resolving this dispute. The committee remains committed to finding a reasonable accommodation.”

In a letter to Nadler earlier Monday, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd invited the chairman to a negotiation session on Wednesday to discuss an “acceptable accommodation” that would potentially give more lawmakers access to a less-redacted version of the report, in addition to “possible disclosure of certain materials” cited in Mueller’s report.

Boyd’s letter came hours after the committee took its first formal step toward holding Barr in contempt of Congress for defying the panel’s subpoena for Mueller's unredacted report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, when Nadler announced that it planned to consider a contempt citation against Barr on Wednesday morning.

A vote of approval from the Democrat-led committee would send the measure to the full House for consideration later this month. Nadler said he would put the contempt proceedings on hold if the Justice Department engages in a “good-faith” effort to give Democrats access to the requested information.

“The attorney general’s failure to comply with our subpoena, after extensive accommodation efforts, leaves us no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings in order to enforce the subpoena and access the full, unredacted report,” Nadler said in a statement before the DOJ released its letter.

Democrats have argued that the redacted version Barr made public last month is insufficient to consider a potential congressional response to Mueller's findings, particularly his evidence that President Donald Trump attempted to thwart the investigation.

The committee launched its own obstruction of justice investigation against the president earlier this year. The contempt citation explicitly mentions that probe, which is also centered on allegations of “public corruption and other abuses of power” by the president.

“Attorney General Barr failed to comply with the committee’s request for these documents and thereby has hindered the committee’s constitutional, oversight, and legislative functions,” the citation states.

The contempt citation also references the Justice Department’s long-standing policy against indicting a sitting president, noting that Mueller accepted those guidelines in declining to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

“Congress is therefore the only body able to hold the president to account for improper conduct in our tripartite system, and urgently requires the subpoenaed material to determine whether and how to proceed with its constitutional duty to provide checks and balances on the president and executive branch,” the citation states. “Otherwise, the president remains insulated from legal consequences and sits above the law.”

The Justice Department said last week it would not comply with the committee’s subpoena for the unredacted report and the underlying evidence, arguing that it amounts to illegitimate congressional oversight. Nadler gave Barr until Monday morning to respond to an augmented offer; the Justice Department did not respond to that offer, and has maintained that it would be violating the law if it complied with the Democrats’ request.

Boyd slammed Nadler for refusing to view the less-redacted version of Mueller’s report, which still includes redactions of grand-jury information. Boyd said Nadler’s refusal “naturally raises questions about the sincerity of the committee’s interest in and purported need for the redacted material.”

All six House and Senate Democrats declined to read the less-redacted version of the report offered to a select group of senior lawmakers, arguing that the offer should have included dozens more members of the committees investigating matters connected to Mueller's findings.

In response to the formal contempt notice on Monday, the committee’s top Republican, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, called Nadler’s move “illogical and disingenuous” because the Justice Department is still negotiating with the panel.

“Democrats have launched a proxy war smearing the attorney general when their anger actually lies with the president and the special counsel, who found neither conspiracy nor obstruction,” Collins said in a statement.

Democrats have been demanding Mueller's complete report and underlying evidence for months, a call that intensified after Mueller submitted his findings to Barr in late March. But Barr held on to the report for a month while he reviewed and redacted it for several categories of sensitive information. The public version of the report he released contained limited redactions but included none of Mueller's underlying material — evidence Democrats say they need to determine whether Trump committed impeachable offenses.

Though Mueller concluded that he lacked sufficient evidence to prove any Americans aided the vast Russian effort to interfere in the 2016 election, he described repeated efforts by Trump to sideline the investigation altogether and to encourage witnesses to refrain from full cooperation.

Mueller did not formally conclude that Trump obstructed justice — a determination he said was largely a result of the DOJ restrictions against indicting a sitting president — but Barr has since used Mueller's evidence to absolve Trump of the potential crime.

Barr testified for five hours to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and described sharp disagreements with the legal theories undergirding Mueller's findings — including whether Trump's tweets can be persuasive evidence of obstruction and suggesting Mueller told him privately, despite not indicating it in his report, that his obstruction decision was not based on the longstanding DOJ restriction.

Barr skipped a hearing House Democrats had called last Thursday after his aides objected to Democrats' request to allow committee lawyers from both parties to question Barr for 30 minutes each. Democrats previously authorized Nadler to subpoena Barr a second time to compel his appearance before their committee, though he hasn't issued it yet.

The impact of a contempt citation could be simply symbolic. Republicans held Barack Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents. Some Democrats have floated the possibility of using punitive enforcement mechanisms against Barr for defying their subpoena, including levying fines against the attorney general.

Meanwhile, several hundred former federal prosecutors have signed a letter stating that the evidence Mueller describes qualifies as obstruction of justice, and that the report "should have led to "multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."":

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... bstruction

"All of this conduct - trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others - is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions..."

"To look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice - the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution - runs counter to logic and our experience."

And the House has proposed May 15th. for Mueller to testify.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Trump invokes executive privilege over Mueller report.

(CNN)President Donald Trump invoked blanket executive privilege over Robert Mueller's full report Wednesday in retribution for a pending vote by House Democrats to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress.
The move significantly escalated a constitutional confrontation between the House Democratic majority and the President over the aftermath of the special counsel's Russia investigation. It will trigger a bitter and potentially long battle in the courts to adjudicate whether the executive branch or the legislative branch of the government will prevail.
The Justice Department informed House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler Wednesday morning in a letter that the "President has asserted executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials."

Nadler had previously subpoenaed Barr to require the handover of a full, unredacted version of the Mueller report that the public has yet to see as well as supporting evidence gathered by Mueller.

[The Romulan Republic]

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren called for Trump's impeachment again, this time on the Senate floor. I'm glad to see at least one high-profile Democrat is committed to doing their duty. She should get the nomination for this alone, at this point.

Meanwhile, the House Judicial Committee voted to proceed with Contempt charges against Attorney General Barr. It will now go to the whole House for a vote. Nadler made a statement, and he did not mince words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e40KQdZJ8dI

"Its an attack on the ability of the American people to know what the Executive branch is doing, and to have responsible government. It is an attack on the essence of our democracy, and we must oppose this with every fiber of our being. And that
s why we today referred a contempt citation to the House floor. The House will have to vote that contempt citation to begin the court battle. There can be no higher stakes than this attempt to arrogate all power to the Executive branch away from Congress, and more important away from the American People. We've talked for a long time about approaching a Constitutional crisis. We are now in it. We are now in a Constitutional crisis. Benjamin Franklin in 1787 was asked when he exited the Constitutional Convention: "What type of government have you given us, sir", and he- by a woman who asked him the question, and he said "A republic, ma'me, if you can keep it." Now is the time of testing whether we can keep a republic, or whether this republic is destined to change into a different, more tyrannical form of government, as other republics have over the centuries... That is what is at stake here. We cannot flinch, and we will not flinch."

About time the Democrat leadership figured that out. This is a fight to the finish, and when it is over, either Trump will not be President, or America will not be a republic.

Of course, the statement is somewhat weakened by his immediately waffling on a question about whether the House should impeach.

[The Romulan Republic]

The momentum may be shifting slowly toward impeachment-provided that Pelosi can keep her caucus united on the subject:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... i-n1003981

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi portrayed herself Thursday as the protector of the Constitution, Congress and the country as House Democrats braced for war with President Donald Trump over his refusal to give them full access to special counsel Robert Mueller's report, related documents and witnesses.

"This is very methodical, it's very Constitution-based, it's very law-based, it's very factually based," Pelosi said about House plans to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for withholding documents. "It's not about pressure. It's about patriotism."

Trump and his Republican allies say Democrats are simply dressing up a partisan witch hunt in the haberdashery of constitutional principle. They express confidence that recent polls showing a lack of support for impeachment, particularly among independents, is evidence that the public agrees with them and that Democrats will only hurt themselves — and help the president — if they continue on their current course.

"If we’re already seeing that before any of the investigations begin, then moving toward impeachment will more than likely result in a backlash for Democrats," said one source close to the White House who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak on behalf of Trump.

Pelosi's Trump impeachment approach is coming together

Petitions with 10 million signatures to impeach Trump delivered to Congress
While the courts are likely to decide the scope of what Democrats can get their hands on, the fight over the terms of the public debate — partisan or constitutional — figures to have a significant impact on the political outcome, especially during a period in which the Trump's assertion of executive privilege limits the House's ability to produce any new evidence.

In any period in which one party controls the House and the other controls the White House, the impeachment process is inherently both a matter of solemn constitutional duty and partisan politics.

All of that helps explain why it's Pelosi's defense of another institution — the Democratic caucus — that is at the core of her approach to the investigations and possible impeachment of Trump. Though the cable talk shows and digital press have been full of speculation about what Pelosi wants — or believes — about impeachment, people who know her well say that she is driven in large measure by keeping solidarity in her ranks.

"She’s moving at a pace that all the spectrum of her caucus can tolerate right now," said former Maryland Rep. Donna Edwards. "She is very protective of the institution and the prerogatives of the institution, and you can see that, that she wants to insulate this from the politics and the electoral politics, and that is in keeping with her protection of the unity of the caucus."

In other words, when Trump's liberal critics put the impeachment cart before the process horse, moderate Democrats are quick to jump out. But when the question is framed as one of pursuing legitimate oversight of the executive branch, following investigations where they lead and maintaining the Constitution's balance of power, it is much easier for her to keep her troops in line.

In that way, Trump's actions have helped Pelosi start to resolve the conflicts in her caucus.

"There's a deep concern, particularly among institutionalists, about the balance of power," said a senior aide to one moderate Democrat who noted that the administration's refusal to comply with subpoenas has angered some lawmakers who had been reluctant to escalate the fight.

That is, the pace is speeding up even for most Democrats who have been reluctant to go down a path that could lead to impeachment.

Pelosi has said she believes Trump is "goading" Democrats into impeaching him, and many Republicans and Democrats in Washington believe that a House impeachment followed by a Senate acquittal would be a political gift to Trump and House Republicans.

There's even some concern among House Democrats that the very act of impeaching Trump would hand over power by giving the savvy Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., control of the timetable and process for trying the case with the 2020 election approaching.

And yet Trump's blanket defiance of Congress on the Mueller report and a range of other issues, from declining to provide his tax returns to declaring a national emergency so he could shift funds to build a border wall, has put Democrats in the position of acquiescing or escalating.

"The president and the attorney general have left the Congress, and the House in particular, not many choices," Edwards said.

For the moment, Democrats may have been handed some ammunition by an unlikely source as they try to make their case that Trump is tampering with the Constitution's checks and balances. It was reported Wednesday that the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, issued a subpoena to Donald Trump Jr. after the panel was unable to secure a second round of testimony from him in its Russia probe.

While Trump Jr. is not an administration official — and the subpoena was actually sent in mid-April —the off-pitch sound from the GOP's previously harmonious message was discordant enough to trigger a response from Burr's fellow Republicans.

"The Mueller report cleared @DonaldJTrumpJr and he's already spent 27 hours testifying before Congress," GOP Sen. Thom Tillis, Burr's home-state colleague, wrote in a tweet. "Dems have made it clear this is all about politics. It's time to move on & start focusing on issues that matter to Americans."

To win, Pelosi has to convince Americans that the fight is more about checks and balances than partisan politics — and that they should side with House Democrats over the Republican in the White House.

A divided caucus undermines that message. A united one helps to sell it.

If this is at all true, then Pelosi's actions may be dictated by how far she can go without alienating moderates in her caucus... and by how restrained she can be without losing the progressives.

The danger is that there will come a point where she cannot please both, and one will have to be placated while the other will have to be told to get in line. Hopefully, Trump's continued tyrannical actions, and continued investigation, will bring the centrists over to impeachment before that point is reached.

[The Romulan Republic]

A minor update on the investigation: Paul Manafort has been formally debarred by the DC Appeals Court due to his felony convictions, and can now no longer practice law in DC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtFVr0Ul2IM

[The Romulan Republic]

A bit of good news: support for impeachment has upticked from the mid-high thirties to 45 percent (higher than the 42% who are opposed):

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... rises-poll

If it crosses fifty, Pelosi won't even have the thin excuse of political expediency to mask her cowardice.

Edit: Heck, I'll post the full article, since there's some other relevant polling data referenced:

More than 4 in 10 American adults surveyed in a new poll said President Trump should be impeached, an uptick from a survey conducted last month.

Forty-five percent of respondents in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday said Trump should be impeached, while 42 percent said he should not. The rest were undecided.

The number of Americans supporting impeachment is up 5 percentage points from mid-April, according to the poll. The latest survey found greater support for impeachment among Democrats and independents.

Still, more than half of respondents said they believe congressional investigations, led by Democrats, of the president for obstruction of justice, as well as inquiries into his finances, interfere with legitimate business of the federal government.

It wasn't clear, according to Reuters, whether Americans surveyed in the poll would prefer Democrats back off with their investigations or push forward aggressively and quickly move towards filing articles of impeachment.

Congress gets low marks in the poll as well: Just 32 percent of Americans said they thought lawmakers on Capitol Hill treated the results of the special counsel investigation fairly, while 47 percent said that they did not.

The president's approval ratings in the poll remained largely underwater and unchanged from last month's poll: 55 percent of adults disapprove of the job Trump is doing in the White House, while 39 percent approve.

The online poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos gathered results from 1,006 adults living in the U.S., and has a credibility interval of 4 percentage points. The poll was conducted on May 6.

[The Romulan Republic]

Representatives Tlaib and Green have submitted a petition with ten million signatures calling for Trump's impeachment:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rashida-tl ... peachment/