The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: mueller hearing
100 House Members Now Urging Trump Impeachment

100 House Members Now Urging Trump Impeachment

The drumbeat for Congress to open an impeachment inquiry continues to grow louder, with 100 members of the House of Representatives now publicly supporting the idea, according to Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA).

“There will be more to come,” he added. Beyer is one of the 100 who support such an inquiry.

In May, Shareblue Media counted 50 members of Congress who said they supported impeachment inquiries, a tally that included a handful of senators.

Just eight weeks later, the number has skyrocketed in the House, with 99 Democrats and one independent, Rep. Justin Amash (MI), who was a Republican until earlier this month.

Calls to start official proceedings looking into possible impeachable offenses by Trump got a boost after special counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress on Wednesday. During his testimony, Mueller made clear that his report did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice allegations; rather, his report laid out evidence that Trump made several attempts to obstruct Mueller’s investigation.

Some of the most recent calls come from freshman Democrats who took over Republican-held seats in the 2018 midterm election.

“We have witnessed [Trump’s] contempt for democratic norms and institutions, including his repeated failure to respond to legitimate requests for documents and information,” Democrat Rep. Mike Levin, who replaced Rep. Darrell Issa in a California swing district, said recently. “I must now support an impeachment inquiry.”

Levin joins Reps. Katie Porter and Harley Rouda, two other freshmen who flipped California district from red to blue, in calling for such an inquiry.

On Thursday, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) became the highest-ranking Democrat to support the inquiry. Clark is the vice-chair of the House Democratic Caucus.

And the calls for impeachment span the ideological spectrum as well. Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), former chair of the moderate New Dems, called for an impeachment inquiry in late June.

“From the moment of his inauguration, this President has shown contempt for the truth, has attacked our institutions and has ignored the Constitution he swore to defend,” Himes said. “I believe an impeachment inquiry will be a fair airing and consideration of the facts that the American people must understand.”

“There are moments for careful calculation,” Himes added. “For weighing political expediency and conflicting interests. And there are moments for clarity and conviction.”

“This is that moment.”

Published with permission of The American Independent.

The Moment Mueller Said What He Thinks Of Trump

The Moment Mueller Said What He Thinks Of Trump

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Throughout his testimony on Wednesday, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller was generally reserved and hesitant with his answers. When pressed on specific matters, he usually referred lawmakers directly to what is written in his report, and frequently refused to expand on his analysis or opinions of matters in the Russia investigation.

But under one particular line of questioning from Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), Mueller appeared to drop this hesitance and offered straightforward criticism of President Donald Trump’s conduct during the 2016 election.

Quigley read out a series of then-candidate Trump’s statements about releases of stolen emails from WikiLeaks, which Mueller agreed acted as a hostile foreign intelligence agency. In the comments, Trump said “I love WikiLeaks,” said its “stuff is unbelievable” and “you gotta read it.”

“Do any of those quotes disturb you, Mr. Director?” said Quigley.

“I’m not sure I would say…” Mueller began.

“How do you react to them?” asked Quigley.

“Well, ‘problematic’ is an understatement,” said Mueller. “In terms of what it displays, in terms of giving some hope, or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

Quigley then detailed how Donald Trump Jr. had “direct electronic communication with WikiLeaks during the campaign period.”

“[Is] this behavior, at the very least, disturbing?” Quigley asked.

“Disturbing and also subject to investigation,” Mueller affirmed.

Later, speaking to Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), Mueller offered more direct criticism of the Trump campaign’s actions in 2016. Welch asked whether the Trump campaign’s refusal to report Russia’s efforts to intervene in an election set a “new normal” for campaigns.

“I hope this is not the new normal,” Mueller said. “But I fear it is.”

Watch the clip of the exchange with Quigley below:

Mueller’s Testimony Won’t Bring Trump To Account

Mueller’s Testimony Won’t Bring Trump To Account

Watching the House hearings with Robert Mueller was like watching extra innings in a tedious, sluggish midseason baseball game. Each inning presents the possibility of a breakthrough that could end it. And each inning ends without a decisive change, leaving us frustrated, fatigued and aching for a resolution.

The difference is that in the case of the Donald Trump malfeasance spectacle, it was hard to picture what could bring about a finish. No one expected Mueller to hit a three-run homer for either side, and he didn’t. On the contrary, he did the equivalent of leaving his bat in the dugout.

Democrats saw the hearing mostly as a chance to introduce Americans to the incriminating facts laid out in Mueller’s report, in an easily digestible form. Whether anyone persuadable was paying attention is yet to be determined.

Not that it would matter if Mueller did suddenly elect to rub the public’s face in the president’s filthy laundry. Republicans in the House — and more important, the Senate, which they control — have shown at every juncture that they could not care less what Donald Trump has done to disgrace himself, soil his office or betray his country.

Mueller could produce a binding agreement signed by Trump promising to carry out every order received from the Kremlin, and his partisan allies would shrug it off. “So what?” they would say. “We know from his business career that he doesn’t abide by contracts.”

Impeachment is the crucial remedy for serious misconduct by a president. But it requires a commitment to decent standards that congressional Republicans have abandoned.

The GOP members on the Judiciary and Intelligence committees took great comfort from the special counsel’s conclusion that there was no conspiracy. But there were certainly attempts at collusion by the people around him.

The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, which Donald Jr. set up in hopes of getting dirt from Russians on his opponent, did not amount to criminal conspiracy mainly because the Russians failed to come through — not because Trump or his son rejected foreign interference in a U.S. election. Promised material from Russians that “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” Trump Jr. salivated, “If it’s what you say I love it.”

The Trump campaign was a bubbling vat of sleaze. Those who celebrate Mueller’s finding of no collusion ignore his conviction of campaign manager Paul Manafort, deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, campaign aide and future national security adviser Michael Flynn, campaign aide George Papadopoulos and personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

Cohen, remember, pleaded guilty to a campaign finance violation — paying $130,000, which he says Trump authorized and reimbursed, for Stormy Daniel’s silence about her alleged sexual encounter with him. Had her story come out before the election instead of after, Trump might not be president today. It was an illegal act that subverted our democracy.

The Russian collusion issue was just half of the special counsel’s report — and the other half was even more incriminating. It cataloged a brazen host of steps and statements by Trump as he labored to prevent the facts about his conduct from coming out.

Among them: pressuring then-FBI Director James Comey to spare Flynn, demanding that Attorney General Jeff Sessions reverse his recusal and take charge of the investigation, and ordering White House lawyer Don McGahn to remove Mueller and lie about it.

The report declined to conclude whether the president’s efforts to derail the investigation were crimes. But it said, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” On Wednesday, Mueller said, “The finding indicates that the president was not exonerated for the act he allegedly committed” (my emphasis).

In one respect, at least, Mueller’s testimony went further than the report did. Asked whether the reason he “did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president,” Mueller replied, “That is correct.” His answer directly contradicted the assertion made in May by Attorney General William Barr, whose fealty to Trump exceeds his commitment to honesty.

So far, Trump has prevailed in spite of his scandalous habits and contempt for established norms. Nothing Mueller said is likely to induce Congress to hold him to proper account. That task, it appears, will be performed by voters, or not performed at all.

So, No Oscar For Bob Mueller?

So, No Oscar For Bob Mueller?

Minutes after Robert Mueller III had completed his first round of Wednesday’s congressional testimony, journalists and pundits started weighing in — on his acting abilities.

Mueller was “boring” and “phlegmatic.”

His performance was “a disaster,” “painful” and “deeply unsatisfying.”

Some compared his testimony to the bombastic pathology of Donald Trump — and even the conversational theatrics of former FBI Director James Comey — and found him wanting.

Mueller had expressed not one partisan viewpoint. He refused to be political. He even stumbled at times, failing to remember every reference in the 448 pages of his published report.

In this time of crisis in our country, with the most dangerous president in the United States history, they wanted former special counsel Robert Mueller to be entertaining.

Look at what we’ve become.

Better yet, look at what Mueller did say during his seven hours of testimony.

Let’s start with the Judiciary Committee, and Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler’s questioning:

NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?

MUELLER: Correct, that is not what it said.

MUELLER: No.

NADLER: Did you actually totally exonerate the president?

MUELLER: No.

Next time you hear Donald Trump bray that Mueller exonerated him, and we all know that he will, please remember that boring exchange.

SPEIER: Would you agree that it was not a hoax that the Russians were engaged in trying to impact our election?

MUELLER: Absolutely. That was not a hoax.

Republican Rep. Will Hurd of Texas pressed Mueller about Russia’s future intentions.

HURD: In your investigation, did you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election? Or did you find evidence to suggest they’ll try to do this again?

Democratic Rep. Peter D. Welch of Vermont asked Mueller about future foreign interference with our elections.

WELCH: I ask if you share my concern… Have we established a new normal from this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns? So that if any one of us running for the U.S. House, any candidate for the U.S. Senate, any candidate for the presidency of the United States, aware that if a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report it to the FBI or other authorities?

MUELLER: I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is.

WELCH continued his questioning: “And that there would be no repercussions whatsoever to Russia if they did this again, and as you stated earlier, as we sit here, they’re doing it now. Is that correct?

Finally, try to stay awake for this exchange with Democratic Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff of California about the Trump campaign’s partnership with Russia.

SCHIFF: Apart from the Russians trying to help Trump win … Donald Trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in Moscow?

MUELLER: You’re talking about the hotel in Moscow? Yes.

SCHIFF: When your investigation looked into these matters, numerous Trump associates lied to your team, the grand jury and to Congress?

SCHIFF: When the president said the Russian interference was a “hoax,” that was false, wasn’t it?

MUELLER: True.

SCHIFF: In short, your investigation found evidence that Russia wanted to help Trump win the election, right?

MUELLER: That would be accurate.

MUELLER: You’re talking about the computer crimes charged in our case? Absolutely.

SCHIFF: Trump campaign officials built their messaging strategy around those stolen documents?

MUELLER: “Generally, that’s true.”

SCHIFF: “And then they lied to cover it up?”

If any of word of this strikes us as boring, we have our own question to answer: When did we give up on America?

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and professional in residence at Kent State University’s school of journalism. She is the author of two books, including “…and His Lovely Wife,” which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate. To find out more about Connie Schultz (con.schultz@yahoo.com) and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.