The biggest difference I see between Robert Mueller and Kenneth Starr is that the former’s shop simply does not leak. The Office of Special Counsel is asked for comment many times a day, and they almost never have a single thing to say. It’s true that they’ve communicated with Congress about certain aspects of their investigation, including giving some guidance about witnesses and areas that might in some way complicate their work. They don’t want a repeat of the Oliver North debacle where a guilty person goes free because Congress granted them some immunity in return for their testimony. The OSC wants to maintain some control over what testimony becomes public so that witnesses aren’t tipped off about the progress of their investigation. But there’s no real intimation that Mueller is working closely with Congress. When House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said on MSNBC this week that he watches their network to learn about when Mueller might complete his work, it was quite believable.
As a result, it’s hard to gauge how much coordination with the OSC has gone on as the House Democrats craft their oversight strategies for the 116th Congress. Based on reporting in the New York Times, it seems clear that the Democrats are keen to tamp down expectations. There will be no immediate effort to obtain Trump’s tax returns, for example, and House Intelligence Committee member Jim Himes of Connecticut says we shouldn’t expect a full-bore reopening of the Russia investigation.
“We are conscious of the fact that the Senate continues to do their work, Mueller continues to do his work, and at this point in the game, I would not expect the committee to announce an omnibus investigation,” Mr. Himes said. “The time has passed for that.”
They certainly aren’t taking impeachment off the table, but they trying keep their options open and not appear to be prejudging the case. House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff of California told the Los Angeles Times editorial board that the Democrats will weigh any possible impeachment against the likelihood of a conviction in the Senate:
Schiff also signaled that if Mueller releases a report implicating Trump in criminal wrongdoing, House Democratic leaders were not inclined to impeach Trump if it appears the Republicans who control the Senate will refuse to convict him and remove him from office.
In his former job as a federal prosecutor, he said, “it was not our tradition or habit or policy to indict people that we did not believe we could prove guilty in trial and convict merely to put them through the process of a trial or to expose wrongdoing if we couldn’t persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“I think the same is true in impeachment — that it’s a tremendously wrenching thing to put a country through, and it obviously has a deeply disruptive impact on the running of the government … and there are ordinary mechanisms to remove a president at the ballot box, and so to depart from that, you need a powerful reason, and I don’t think you undertake that process unless you have some expectation that it’s going to be successful.”
For those already convinced that Trump should be removed from office, this isn’t the kind of rhetoric they want to hear, but it’s really more about positioning than controlling expectations. For one thing, it reflects a recognition that Mueller will have to provide a report before summer if impeachment rather than an election is going to be the remedy. The House Democrats don’t expect to have time to redo the Russia investigation. What they’ve done instead is to give the OSC transcripts of the previously classified witness interviews done in the last Congress, which they believe include several examples of easily prosecutable perjury. They also intend to focus on a couple of potentially explosive areas. The first involves the infamous meeting in Trump Tower.
The [House Intelligence] panel’s new chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, said it was initiating a request for phone records of the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., to clarify whom he called while arranging a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan between members of the Trump campaign and a Russian lawyer. Phone records already in the hands of congressional investigators show a call was placed to a blocked number, and Donald Trump Jr. told investigators that he did not remember who he had called. Democrats believe the blocked number may have belonged to his father, and could prove that the president had prior knowledge of the Russian offer to share dirt on his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
The second involves a real estate deal you may have read about:
In the real estate case, Mr. Trump bought a Palm Beach estate for $41 million in 2004 and, only four years later, amid a national housing crisis, sold it to the Russian billionaire, Dmitry Rybolovlev, for $95 million. Democrats say the deal stinks of potential money laundering.
Talking to Los Angeles Times editorial board, Chairman Schiff made clear why he thinks Trump’s financial dealings are so important:
Rep. Adam B. Schiff expressed concern Monday that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III might decline to look into President Trump’s private business dealings as he investigates Russia’s interference in America’s 2016 election.
As a result, the Burbank congressman said, it could be up to Democrats who took control of the House last week to expose the full scope of alleged wrongdoing by Trump and his allies, Schiff told the Los Angeles Times editorial board.
Schiff, a Democrat who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, cited the revelation by Michael Cohen, the president’s former personal lawyer, that Trump was actively pursuing a deal to build a skyscraper in Moscow during the 2016 campaign even while denying doing business with Russia.
“Now, the Russians knew this was happening, which makes it very compromising, because the Russians could expose it,” Schiff said.
As the audience for all this drama, we should distinguish between the conflicting messages the Democrats are sending out. They’re letting it be known that they don’t intend to turn the House into one giant whale-hunting expedition. A lot of their oversight will be focused on other areas like the treatment of asylum seekers at the border or efforts to game the upcoming census for the benefit of the GOP. They want people to understand that impeachment isn’t inevitable but will only come if the evidence is overwhelming enough to convince a lot of Senate Republicans.
Yet, it’s also clear that the key chairmen believe that Trump is likely compromised by the Russians. They are optimistic that they can help expose this and perhaps supplement Mueller’s investigation. Reading between the lines, they think they (along with Mueller) will find the exact kind of evidence that would make impeachment a plausible endeavor.
Just this week we learned that Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared internal polling data with Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik and asked him to send it along to a Russian oligarch with close connections to Vladimir Putin two Kremlin-aligned Ukrainian oligarchs. We also learned that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the woman who famously met with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner in Trump Tower, has closer ties to the Kremlin than was previously known. If phone records confirm that the future president knew about the meeting despite all his assertions to the contrary, that will expose his son to criminal charges and be very hard to explain to even reluctant Republican senators. Unearthing more proof that Trump had undisclosed business dealings with the Russians, including witting money laundering, will further undermine the president’s position with his own party.
In the end, the Senate Republicans are unlikely to have veto power over impeachment in the House. Assuming Mueller reports in a timely fashion, an inquiry will be opened and will almost assuredly result in articles being voted out. As the Senate Republicans seethe about the government shutdown Trump has imposed on them, they become less inclined to save him with every passing day.
It was never a question of Senate Republicans wanting to save Trump. They pretty much hate him at this point. Privately they think he’s unstable and dangerous and should be removed. But, their base loves Trump and will only love him more as he rails against “immigrant criminals” and bleats about his idiot wall, so what are they to do?
Nothing. That’s what. No matter what is revealed they have to line up and eat his shit or Fox News will howl against them as the “Deep State conspiracy!”
Yup.
AG
On the tombstone of the Republic, you can put “Killed by the Sunk Cost Fallacy.”
“The biggest difference I see between Robert Mueller and Kenneth Starr is that the former’s shop simply does not leak”
Are you sure that this is the biggest difference?
Both Sides Do ItTM
Good point. Mueller may be a GOP voter but he is a straight up former FBI Chief and straight-shooter, Vietnam War hero. Whereas Starr has always been just a GOP political operative whether as a judge or, obviously, in his role in the notorious endless Clinton investigation.
I think the smart move is for the Democratic HOR to make it clear that they will not bring impeachment unless the disgusting McConnell led Senate agrees to the the rule of law and then demonstrate in their hearings why Trump should be removed. If the Democrats are smart about messaging and public communications (hint: they’re usually terrible) they’ll really put Senate GOP under a lot of pressure.
But the only likely scenario before a 2020 re-election campaign scenario of an incompetent and probably diseased President is one like Nixon’s where the GOP march up to the WH and say he must resign. But Trump is not Nixon. He may well go the Götterdämmerung route.
the other political consideration is that a successful impeachment and conviction makes Mike Pence President. Trump may be uniquely awful but this is still not an easy choice.
I have often found myself wondering whether Pence will truly be as awful as Trump?
Pence does not have the rabid support of the Trump base, it would seem to me.
He will most likely choose somewhat more capable cabinet and bureaucrats, who perhaps will not do as much damage as the current scum are doing.
He most likely will not have the same support from Senate that Trump commands based on fear of his rabid base.
He will not be a good candidate for 2020 reelection.
He will do some damage for sure. My cost benefit calculation says it may be lesser of the two evils!
Your analysis here is spot on.
Pence was a notably unpopular rightwing governor of IN, which is hardly a progressive place. He has a robotic speaking style, which immediately induces snoring among the rightwing. He even presents himself publicly as a neutered android.
So, yeah, not going to be the next president.
The best reply I’ve heard to this (and I’m in the concerned about Pence camp as well) was “We’ll fuck that pig when we come to it.”
Unless the evidence shows Pence is tied up in this too.
The jurors in a prez impeachment trial are not just the senators, but the nation. Schiff is pushing the criminal trial model much too far, perhaps to hold back the vociferous demands of OUR base. But if the evidence against Der Trumper & Sons demonstrates collusion and (ever more) crimes beyond the reasonable doubt of (theoretical) OBJECTIVE senators who cared about exercising their duty as a separate branch of government, then the House is obliged to impeach and force ALL senators to cast their votes, in the eyes of the nation, world, and posterity.
A senate “acquital” of Trumper in the face of such evidence likely convicts both he and his senatorial enablers/protectors in the minds of rational citizens, as well as posterity. And if one is still saying they “approve” of Trumper as of today, there’s no possible way that person can still be reached as a responsible citizen. We can’t allow a hate-filled, pig-headed political minority to block a constitutional obligation to impeach a criminal prez.
Would Chancellor Hitler be a candidate for impeachment under the restrictions currently being voiced?
The fact that some of the war crimes of the Idiot Bush administration were not prosecuted gave strength many to feel emboldened.
If it had been the other way around, I think the Republicans would not give any thought about prosecuting. The inexhaustible enthusiasm for Benghazi and Hillary bashing is evidence of that.
In the process, one party is almost completely lawless!
Well, was it the correct strategy to decline to impeach Cheney, even though it was clear he was at the center of almost every lawbreaking scheme in the Bushco regime?
We do not have too many impeachments, we have too few.
Cheney should have been impeached. He is the biggest war criminal!
The calculations and logistics of this are getting stronger by the day. And ‘all in good time’ is more important than ever.
As the standoff in the shutdown ripens and more cracks appear among Republican members, we’re seeing a picture of what’s on the horizon. Were there to be articles of impeachment drawn today, they would do nothing but bolster support from the Right. But two months from now gotta think the Rep Senators will look and feel a whole lot differently.
Pelosi has a nose for when the politics are right and fortunately there’s a fair amount of Dems now who have enough spine for themselves as well as their Rep counterweights.
Yep. 2 months and no deal with China/EU/Mexico/Canada I do not believe the donald can survive. The steel/aluminum tariffs will start to effect consumers with higher prices and just what do the growers of soy, corn, cotton, nuts, and the diary industry do with no markets for their production.
Would China/EU/Mexico/Canada get a better deal WITH Trump, or with someone else? At this point he needs a deal, so he might give them what they want.
Or is the real question whether they have an incentive NOT to reach a deal — because they, like just about everybody else, would love to see him gone?
. . . to imply either 1) you don’t really believe Schiff means what he says here:
. . . I.e., he’s saying that now (for political tactical/strategic reasons?) but will reverse himself on it when the time comes, even without assurance Senate will likely convict;
OR 2) you think that’s only his personal view, or the view of ONLY “House Democratic leaders”, which will not prevail against the Dem caucus/House majority?
Else you’re taking the position here that that 2/3 Senate majority for conviction will form, rendering Schiff’s declaration moot?
Cuz those look to me like the only options for reconciling your various points above. Or if not, what am I missing?
not to speak for BooMan, but i think he has stated that he believes this
>>Else you’re taking the position here that that 2/3 Senate majority for conviction will form
. . . Not clear to me he’s come right out and explicitly predicted it, but maybe.
Both in this piece and in many previous ones, I think I’ve been clear that I believe the threshold of evidence will be met to impeach Trump.
I don’t discount the Senate Republicans ability to rationalize criminal behavior or to cower before their base, so I obviously think the evidence will be overwhelming.
. . . I sincerely hope you’re right about that because, as I’ve said before, if you’re not, I believe we’re done. Nice little experiment in representative democracy you had running there for 242+ years. Too bad it failed.
As I’ve stated before, the most likely outcome is the GOP Senate marching up to the WH and demanding Trump’s resignation, i.e. what happened with NIxon.
Of course, Trump is both more irrational than Nixon but also more frightened/cowardly than Nixon so who knows.
Fireworks expected to start in March?
Rosenstein is set to depart once the special counsel submits his report, according to a source.
“They certainly aren’t taking impeachment off the table, but they trying keep their options open and not appear to be prejudging the case.”
Appear to whom, primarily? The 20 Republican Senators?
I think we can’t ignore the need for Republican support for impeachment in the House, as well. I understand the Democratic House could vote to impeach without Republican votes, but I think that would bode poorly for conviction in the Senate. To get those 20 Republican Senators, they probably need to see at least a bit of a groundswell in the House, as well overwhelming support for conviction among the electorate.
You’re correct but the rump HOR GOP are mostly cray-cray-crazies so they won’t agree to vote with the Dems on impeachment under any scenario so it is either GOP force Trump resign or a 2020 campaign disaster for Trump/GOP.