Impeachment or no impeachment?

The Democrats are in a tough position.

If they don’t impeach Trump, they will look weak. There are clearly grounds for investigating impeachment. Clinton was impeached for much less. However, impeachment is sure to fail in the Senate since Republicans don’t care what Trump does as long as he lowers taxes and appoints conservative judges. There is so much evidence, I think it will be hard for Democrats to avoid impeachment hearings.

If they do impeach, it will distract from other issues which are much more important to the daily life of voters. If it fails in the Senate, it would look like double jeopardy if he was later charged in court. At least Republicans would have to go on record that they support his terrible actions.

I still want Trump to be indicted and sent to jail if (or I think when) he is convicted. I know he will get a hearing in the Senate which will clear him. I have much more confidence in a jury.

Trump must be held accountable. He can’t get away with this!

There appears to be more than enough proof of criminality for the House of Representatives to draw up articles of impeachment. https://t.co/kceDVvlF6m
— Slate (@Slate) April 19, 2019

Some thoughts on where Democrats should go from here. They have a clear constitutional responsibility to take the evidence and conclusions in this report to their logical conclusion. But I would not start with a formal impeachment process.
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) April 19, 2019

Some perspective: Despite a slew of Trumpian lies; evidence of obstructing justice; repeated and improper contacts with Russia; and conduct unbecoming of any president, Donald Trump’s actions have been laid bare before Congress and the American people.
Now Congress is the judge.
— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) April 19, 2019

I’m seeing a lot of arguments that insist impeachment is constitutionally necessary no matter the politics or likelihood of success. I think that’s wrong. https://t.co/9h9Cg5CsVy
— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) April 19, 2019

“So it turns out that, indeed, President Trump is not exonerated at all…” Powerful piece by ⁦@gtconway3d⁩. https://t.co/YJNFPf1xry
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) April 19, 2019

I’ve previously inveighed against the dangers of too much impeachment talk. But the time has come for the House Judiciary Committee to open hearings into Trump’s “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Let the facts drive the process. https://t.co/yagdD510F7
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 19, 2019

Impeachment is embedded in Mueller report.

Mueller: *We* can't accuse Trump of crimes because OLC memo forbids indictment (aka accusation).

OLC: "Only the House of Representatives *has the authority to *bring charges of criminal misconduct* through…impeachment."
— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) April 19, 2019

Here's the thing.

The Democratic approach to the impeachment inquiry question is a hopeless muddle right now.

It sounds political and lacks conviction.

If you want to say, "we're following up on the report, and we'll make the call soon," fine. 1/https://t.co/tFAiFiSoGG
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) April 19, 2019

Robert Mueller punts to Congress. And it could get really ugly. My take from today https://t.co/sV0jufZ8m9
— Alana Abramson (@aabramson) April 19, 2019

It's why even if he richly deserves impeachment it's a fool's errand. You cannot shame the shameless. https://t.co/BCwP3tGqge
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) April 19, 2019

The #MuellerReport is the beginning, not the end. It will embolden House Democrats who are already investigating #Trump and increase pressure to launch formal impeachment inquiries, even though Democratic leaders are reluctant to go there. My takehttps://t.co/y8CqJt2uvF
— EJ Dionne (@EJDionne) April 19, 2019

"Dear Democrats: Mueller Just Handed You a Roadmap for Impeachment. Follow It."

My new piece for @theintercept on today's #MuellerReport. It's an open letter to House Dems arguing for #ImpeachTrump – do pls have a read and share:https://t.co/JDN1VoRcyg
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) April 18, 2019

As a presidential scholar who works in the Nixon White House tapes: at this point, the only reason Trump isn't Nixon circa late-1973 is Congress and conservative media.
— Nicole Hemmer (@pastpunditry) April 18, 2019

"There will be no broad-scale abandonment of Trump by the GOP. In fact, there may well be a rallying behind him — and a call for Democrats to move beyond the Mueller report."https://t.co/1ATbOKDt7D
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) April 19, 2019

"There's a sentence here that's all but an explicit invitation to Congress to impeach the President … This is an invitation to Congress to say 'you can do it using the impeachment power,'" @JeffreyToobin says about the Mueller report. https://t.co/BVfutl3zWg pic.twitter.com/e1EVoB28xL
— CNN (@CNN) April 18, 2019

Trump could be charged after he leaves office

I hope so. I think he’s a criminal and I hope (but doubt) he goes to jail if he’s guilty. In addition to this and the other pending investigations, I think it’s clear that he’s guilty of election law violations similar to the ones Cohen is guilty of.

Robert Mueller’s team of prosecutors concluded over more than a dozen of the report’s 448 pages that obstruction laws did indeed limit how President Trump could use his powers https://t.co/KuLbnqacVP
— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) April 18, 2019

#AlwaysReadTheFootnotes

MUELLER, p. 390, footnote 1991: "A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office." pic.twitter.com/dw5IiEsOmA
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) April 18, 2019

Is Trump, Jr. too stupid to be a criminal?

That’s what it sounds like though I have a hard time believing that he didn’t know it was wrong to meet with Russians about dirt on Hillary Clinton. I think he’s a crook. Sad!

The Special Counsel concluded that you were too dumb to know that the crime you committed was a crime. Congrats. https://t.co/ITFgMyxHwB
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) April 18, 2019

The subtext here is that Mueller concluded Don Jr – who was a senior campaign official – was too dumb to know he was breaking the law.

I would also note that exculpatory ignorance is not a privilege afforded to most criminal suspects. https://t.co/l0HRYNC6NC
— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) April 18, 2019

Trump Jr "didn't know what he was doing was illegal" so not held accountable.
Crystal Mason didn't know voting while on probation was illegal, sentenced to 5 years in jail. This isn't right. #HoldTrumpJrAccountable pic.twitter.com/DsGVcLqlXP
— Amy (@PrplMnkyCupcake) April 19, 2019

My new one @Slate: The special counsel let Trump Jr. off the hook too easily for campaign finance violations. https://t.co/Nek0nZskU9 via @slate
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) April 18, 2019

An issue I identified back in July 2017 as a potential hurdle in any charge against Trump Jr. for a campaign finance violation: https://t.co/1d41sG5iBP https://t.co/qwouYN50m7
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) April 18, 2019

Trump campaign makes Barr’s spying statement worse

Barr said he thought that the Trump campaign had been spied on. He provided no basis for his statement. Now the Trump campaign has ratcheted it up a notch by calling it “unlawful spying”. They’re lying about a lie and making it worse. Sad!

Trump campaign email doctors a quote from Barr. He said "spying did occur," not that "unlawful spying did occur." https://t.co/OP4Lwo4n5i pic.twitter.com/Z0sA3pYH0o
— Brendan Nyhan (@BrendanNyhan) April 13, 2019

Trump campaign fundraising by lying about what Barr said. pic.twitter.com/RXM93gzy16
— Philip Bump (@pbump) April 12, 2019

Trump campaign email: “Just this week, Attorney General William Barr said what the President has thought all along, he believes ‘unlawful spying did occur’ against Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign…” pic.twitter.com/5jpyfZhErv
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 13, 2019

“Spying” is not a legal word; it’s a loaded political word, signaling conspiracy theorists. Of course Barr knows this (or else he’s clueless about law enforcement). Yet He chose to use it, repeatedly. It was a political sop to Trump and a sure thing the campaign would exploit it. https://t.co/PSpJ1WpgKQ
— Elie Honig (@eliehonig) April 13, 2019

AG Barr said “I believe spying did occur.”

The word “unlawful” was not part of that quote.

But the sentence in the email is constructed in such a way that the campaign could be referring to what Trump thinks.

So misleading it seems purposefully deceptive.
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 13, 2019

AG Barr admitted he had no evidence to support his claim that spying on the Trump campaign “did occur.”

AG Barr must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up.

Perpetuating conspiracy theories is beneath the office of the Attorney General.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 10, 2019

Trump’s 2016 win was not based on the economy

One catch to the "Trump wooed economically struggling white working-class voters" narrative: They were identifying more heavily as Republican for years anyway. https://t.co/xl81SAi8eK
— Philip Bump (@pbump) April 12, 2019

Trump goes even further than Barr

Donald Trump's dangerous allegation of 'illegal' and 'unprecedented' spyinghttps://t.co/j2zGJHjpFJ pic.twitter.com/BiiNN5DvlS
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) April 11, 2019

Trump claims he’s victim of ‘illegal’ spying – but provides no evidence @abbydphillip reports @TheLeadCNN https://t.co/dyt5rzeNB5 pic.twitter.com/3Zl4y7WFyn
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 11, 2019

Barr spreads Trump’s “spying” conspiracy theory.

Trump has said, with no basis, that his campaign was spied on. Now, Barr backs him up. This undermines law enforcement. I have no trust in Barr now. He’s just another Republican liar sucking up to Trump.

As Philip Bump notes, Trump wins by making an “informant”(routine for law enforcement) into a more sinister sounding “spy”.

Second, I (and presumably others) take more issue with the "on the campaign" part of the assertion. Wrote about that last year.https://t.co/eA8zzq4NkJ
— Philip Bump (@pbump) April 11, 2019

William Barr is redefining what it means to “spy” https://t.co/pMOydkMJ8Z pic.twitter.com/DUf9GGcaNr
— Newsweek (@Newsweek) April 11, 2019

Democrat @TedLieu to CNN: The FBI didn't spy on the Trump campaign, "This was authorized surveillance." 🤔 pic.twitter.com/hgDv4Tf587
— Matt Wolking (@MattWolking) April 11, 2019

Bill Barr could have said "surveillance approved by a FISA court."

Instead, he said "spying."https://t.co/2H5Hkmz5bX
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) April 11, 2019

– Attorney General publicly says the FBI “spied” on the Trump campaign

– Unnamed sources around the AG try to walk the comments back

– The President comes out the next day and praises the original remarks, insisting “I think what he said was absolutely true.”

Clear as mud.
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 11, 2019

It’s hard to call someone in Trump’s orbit even more dishonorable than Trump himself, but Bill Barr might meet that test: unlike the totally unmoored and immoral Trump, this Attorney General clearly knows better. He has to know how badly he is betraying the rule of law.
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 11, 2019

DING DING DING. Also, Shaheen gave Barr a chance to take back "spying" and he paused and said it again.

Plus, he's an extremely accomplished lawyer and former AG who understands how to parse. https://t.co/77LT3vV5pj
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) April 11, 2019

I see the “spying” conspiracy is coming back in vogue, now from the AG himself. Reupping my tutorial on why and how sources are used in counterintelligence investigations https://t.co/9aHRdjw0cn
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 10, 2019

“I frankly don’t even recognize the guy anymore. I am outraged that he would do that, to law enforcement and to the criminal justice system of the USA.” @CynthiaAlksne on AG Barr saying, with no evidence, that he thinks spying occurred on the Trump campaign. #Hardball pic.twitter.com/tVXsFuCggb
— Hardball (@hardball) April 10, 2019

More on #Barr from @stevebenen:
He "must realize the political weight of a loaded term such as 'spying,' but Barr, already suspected of being overly concerned with the president's political interests, said it anyway." https://t.co/LrAlbirhKi
— EJ Dionne (@EJDionne) April 10, 2019

This gets at something that has become apparent the past two weeks: Barr is a smart lawyer who has been out of public service a long time and has no idea what he's doing in the modern political/media landscape. https://t.co/OQemcvdAk2
— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) April 11, 2019

Have you noticed that at no time in the past two days did William Barr communicate any concern about Russia attackin' our election or Trump's campaign not once reportin' a single one of over 100 meetings with Russia?

His only worry was about a Trump conspiracy theory.
— Tea Pain (@TeaPainUSA) April 10, 2019

This is the sort of thing that the "spying" comment buys us. There will be a lot more where that came from. https://t.co/yAPHlGMr7Y
— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) April 10, 2019

AG Barr’s “spying” remark is a “classic demonstration of the Fox-newsification of the Republican party,” says CNN’s @JeffreyToobin. “His use of this term shows how much the paranoid lunacy of the right wing is now moved right in” to the Justice Department. https://t.co/m1qULaNutV pic.twitter.com/kjRx7ldgar
— CNN (@CNN) April 11, 2019

Barr was quick to criticize the agency he now leads, despite having no evidence to support the accusation. Career public servants deserve leadership that supports them. https://t.co/ItT4VEp6ol
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) April 11, 2019

If Barr had a concern about the investigation and wanted the truth, he'd cite facts and rely on the IG. If he wanted to provide his boss political cover or intimidate investigators so they won't investigate his boss again, he'd cite a conspiracy theory and launch his own inquiry.
— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) April 11, 2019