Democratic House members returning from recess this week must tackle another new dilemma over the results of the Russia investigation: what to do about Robert Mueller.
The outgoing Justice Department special counsel has said, in so many words, that he's said all he's got to say and that he does not want to appear in what would likely become a traffic-stopping set-piece hearing before a congressional committee.
Key chairmen on those committees want him to testify anyway, but they don't appear to agree how strongly to push for that. Intelligence committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was asked whether he'd be willing to issue a subpoena.
"That's a decision that will be above my pay grade," Schiff told NPR's Audie Cornish. "I think we're going to convene when we get back."
To impeach or not to impeach? We think there are pressing issues the Congress should be addressing. And we agree with Bob Somerby's point in "Should Donald J. Trump be impeached? :"
As a general matter, we're not real big on impeachment. In our view, the American system runs on elections, and in the last presidential election, roughly 63 million people voted for Donald J. Trump.
We didn't vote for Donald J. Trump. We regard him as disordered and dangerous, but we also respect the fact that many Others don't see him that way.
It seems to us that Donald J. Trump may be mentally ill or cognitively impaired. But the "journalists" who propagandize us each day aren't willing to stage that discussion.
At any rate, 63 million people voted for Trump. Within the traditional American system, it would be a very serious act to overturn that election.
And it would be very unlikely that removal from office would result from impeachment efforts. Dan Conway, in "Fourteen Democratic presidential hopefuls campaign at California convention " (WSWS) reports on the Democratic function in San Francisco over the weekend and notes, "At the convention itself, Pelosi implied that Democrats should focus instead on winning the White House in 2020. She was joined over the weekend by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff who declared that impeachment proceedings were 'destined for failure' without Republican support in the Senate." So what is the point?
More to the point, what would he be impeached for?
What is the high crime? What is the misdemeanor?
Robert Mueller spent millions investigating the ridiculous charge that Donald Trump had colluded with the Russian government to fix the American election. Mueller found no proof of that. Mueller has concluded his investigation. Why are we screaming for impeachment?
It's supposed to be some important issue, so tell us what issue we are screaming for impeachment over?
'He obstructed an investigation!' He did? That's not what Mueller found. It's not even what he told reporters last week (see "The remarkable wages of true belief!").
It is June 2019. In November 2020, the US will hold a presidential election.
Let's review the timing of the last impeachment. October 5, 1998, the House Judiciary Committee votes to launch an impeachment inquiry. December 11, 1998 the House introduces Articles of Impeachment. December 19, 1998, Clinton is impeached by the House. January 7, 1999, the Senate trial begins. February 7, 1999, the Senate ends their trial with votes to acquit and Bill Clinton is not removed from office.
When the House Judiciary Committee launches their inquiry, Bill Clinton's popularity reaches an all time high.
If the same pattern was followed (big "if," we'll get to it), that would be a five month event. It could last until November which would give candidates for the president seven or so months (it's generally decided by June) to campaign.
Now if Donald Trump experienced the same effect, a bump in approval, it would be advantageous to the GOP to make sure the thing stretched out. So five months could easily turn to seven or eight -- as GOP lawmakers insisted on intense questioning. Again, this would actually be done to make Donald more sympathetic and more popular ahead of the election.
There's another issue. Politicians run towards the craven. If, as many suspect is possible, an impeachment attempt makes Donald Trump more popular, which candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination rushes to be popular first? Because if the people don't like it, someone's going to pull a Zell Miller, a Joe Lieberman, and call out their other Democrats. Especially someone who has failed to break through, especially a 1%. Will it be US House Rep. Seth Moulton?
Could be. Could be any of them. Mayor Pete might want to call out the whole proceedings. Someone else might want to call out the way certain individuals conducted themselves.
But since everyone except US House Rep. Tulsi Gabbard* has been screaming for impeachment, if it takes place and (a) proves unpopular and (b) does not result in the removal from office of Donald, candidates are going to need to assuage voters and to reassure that whatever went wrong was the fault of others not the fault of a candidate.
And everyone in the House will be up for re-election in 2020. Unpopular impeachment means that Democrats risk losing control of the House (as Republicans lost control of the House after the Clinton impeachment).
That's a lot to risk. So let's repeat, what is he being impeached for? It better be something serious and something that goes beyond 'expanding' and 'extrapolating' on what you wish Robert Mueller had said -- even though he didn't say it.
---------------------
*Please note that the conservative site TOWNHALL has a piece in which they identify those calling for impeachment and list only US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Biden, Bill de Blasio, Michael Bennett, Steve Bullock, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Eric Swalwell, Andrew Young, Marianne Williamson and John Delaney as not calling for it. They state Bernie Sanders has called for it and quote him declaring, "This president must be held accountable, and I believe that the Judiciary Committee should begin impeachment inquiries.”
