Indict the MOFO

We've been talking about politics in war metaphors for so long that people are now thinking it's literal war, where being outnumbered can be overcome with good tactics and grit. The House needs exactly 218 votes to impeach. 217 + high morale doesn't count.

— DSA DNC Caucus (@agraybee) July 25, 2019

My junior senator and my personal rep have joined the choir:

Now another one: Sen. Markey is calling on the House on to begin immediate impeachment proceedings against Trump.

— Ben Swasey (@benswasey) July 25, 2019

That is why I believe we need to open an #ImpeachmentInquiry that will provide us a more formal way to fully uncover the facts. My full statement here: https://t.co/3VtVeV96Th

— Katherine Clark (@RepKClark) July 25, 2019

Clark actually took over Markey’s old job when he switched from the House to the Senate. You’d think calling for impeachment would be a relatively low-risk stance here in the People’s Republic Commonwealth, but both of them are big worriers about cybersecurity, and I’ve gotten the impression they’re suspicious Trump would further encourage Putin’s IRA to interfere with our elections down to the local levels if he feels threatened. If that’s their viewpoint, better to protect the state-level firewalls and drag out the discussions until closer to November 2020.

Counter-argument about Mueller’s ‘ineffective’ appearance from former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, for Politico — “Actually, Robert Mueller Was Awesome”:

… In the long view, the verdict of history depends most of all on Mueller being seen as nonpartisan, measured and above the fray—an operator whose work is unimpeachable and can be relied on (now, or after Trump’s term, or years from now) as a bulletproof statement of fact. So all the little details of the case that members were trying to ferret out pale in comparison to his ability to maintain that status and be seen as a reliable agent of impartiality. During the hearing, that was clearly his goal. In doing that, he succeeded, and history can thank him for it…

His monotonal yes and no answers might not have made for the most dramatic viewing, but they weren’t without effect. In five minutes, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff walked Mueller through the most damning details of Volume 1 of his report. Mueller’s answers were short—“that did occur,” “accurate,” “that is correct”—but what he affirmed was that Russia engaged in a systematic effort to help Trump win in 2016, that Trump and his campaign welcomed Russian aid, and that Trump lied to the American people about his business dealings in Russia.

When Mueller wanted to say more, he did. He described in detail the threat posed by the Russian attack on our electoral process, testifying that “they’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.” He warned that “many more countries are developing the capability to replicate what the Russians had done.” When Mueller had the rare opportunity to testify about matters that were not partisan—matters that should concern all Americans—he testified freely and strongly.

At times, Mueller faced harsh questioning from Republicans who lashed him and his team as biased or worse. His calm demeanor was another sign of his professionalism. It would have been easy for Mueller to fight back—he has in previous appearances, after all—but that would have pulled him into the fray. It was not weakness but rather quiet strength that caused Mueller to do nothing more than calmly reply, “I take your question,” in response to GOP Congressman Louie Gohmert’s hyperbolic charge that he “perpetuated injustice.”…

… Mueller got to say what he wanted to say, which is that there is “substantial” evidence to support counts of obstruction, without being forced to say that he concluded Trump obstructed justice. Despite hours of questioning by dozens of members of Congress, Mueller was never backed into a corner or forced to explain the most important legal decision he made.

Even if some think Mueller has lost a step since he last appeared before Congress six years ago, he still looked a step or two ahead of most of his questioners on Wednesday. Most importantly, he appeared above the fray, cautious, and fair in the face of bitter partisan rancor. That is what we should expect from prosecutors, and it is the legacy that Mueller leaves behind.

But it’s not really about Robert Mueller…

Sen. Elizabeth Warren on impeachment: "My view is whether it would pass the Senate or not, I've heard this argument, this is a moment in history, and every single person in Congress should be called on to vote and then to live with that vote for the rest of their lives." pic.twitter.com/AgtAMYFHgc

— The Hill (@thehill) July 25, 2019

Friday Morning Open Thread: Lining Up the VotesPost + Comments (188)