Trump’s stalling tactics may force the Democrats to impeach him

That may be the only way to get the testimony and information. Trump is going to try to block everything. He’s obviously hiding something.

If Trump chokes off all oversight, while escalating pressure on DOJ to prosecute his critics, it will create an increasingly unstable situation.

In sum: Trump may end up forcing Dems to choose between total confrontation and total capitulation.

My piece: https://t.co/NKiAYJCBhj
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) April 26, 2019

Let's boil this down.

1) Pelosis says there are alternate routes to the truth and accountability, other than impeachment inquiry

2) Trump is closing off those routes

3) Thus, Trump is forcing Dems to choose between impeachment and total self-neuteringhttps://t.co/cLSk8jHUnq
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) April 24, 2019

There is a practical consequence of not launching an impeachment inquiry and that is increasing the chances that White House efforts to stonewall will succeed. Congress' powers to investigate the executive are at their apex during impeachment. https://t.co/Yzo4lOXHJ3
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) April 23, 2019

Trump is laying down the gauntlet on impeachment by taking this outlandish position. He is all but telling Congress that, as president, he’s free to disregard its existence. It’s like saying 2 > 1 so the Art. II Branch Trumps the Art. I Branch. Insane. https://t.co/LcV66jcixR
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 24, 2019

such a well-reported article by bob costa and team https://t.co/nxdAekDIeb
— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) April 24, 2019

Trump is resisting every Congressional request for testimony and documents related to our oversight responsibility.

Like an aspiring autocrat, he doesn’t recognize the co-equal branches of our government.

He has lived his entire life without accountability.

That ends now. https://t.co/QixgD7zGBs
— Adam Schiff (@AdamSchiff) April 24, 2019

Donald Trump seems to be daring the House of Representatives to copy, and then vote for, the Contempt of Congress Article of Impeachment approved decades ago against Richard Nixon (Art. III).https://t.co/LcV66jcixR
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 24, 2019

One problem with the "hearings but not impeachment" plan is that Trump can effectively nullify Democratic hearings. It's appalling, but he probably has the gall to nullify lesser, non-impeachment hearings. But nullifying impeachment hearings would be another thing altogether. https://t.co/HJWygjikPb
— Adam Jentleson 🎈 (@AJentleson) April 23, 2019

The we-don’t-want-to-play-anymore “privilege.” Sorry, that one’s not in the books. https://t.co/vLpLxHFKng
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 24, 2019

BREAKING: Cummings plans to schedule a contempt vote for Carl Kline for defying subpoena to testify on security clearances. pic.twitter.com/ojuYQM4AUp
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 23, 2019

The President of the United States is ignoring a lawful request submitted by a congressional oversight committee…and it's barely news.

We must not become desensitized to this flagrant flaunting of the law. https://t.co/Axr6kH3E7o
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) April 23, 2019

This is a delay tactic that will ultimately fail. Executive privilege has already been waived, given Don McGahn's extensive statements to Mueller. Even if it was not, I expect courts would not permit executive privilege to be used to block McGahn's testimony in this context. https://t.co/7jMN4PWQ2H
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) April 23, 2019

Two things about executive privilege: one, it exists to protect confidentiality, and McGahn’s account of events is already public. Two, it can never be used to cover up wrongdoing. Trump’s assertion is incredibly weak.
— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) April 23, 2019

Some press accounts frame Trump's refusal to cooperate w/ Congress as a partisan dispute. It's really a dispute over our system of checks & balances. As @seungminkim reports, Trump also has refused Senate Rs when he hasn't liked their requests https://t.co/FOGW06fvu4 pic.twitter.com/qMwb5ACKr9
— Nick Schwellenbach (@schwellenbach) April 25, 2019

Should Congress move ahead with impeachment? @YAppelbaum and @ezraklein debate, with @IsaacDovere moderating, on #RadioAtlantic. Listen @ApplePodcasts: https://t.co/S5iKpMvUDt
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) April 29, 2019

Trump erroneously thinks the Supreme Court can prevent impeachment

1) Trump has offered no proof of crimes by people who investigated him; 2) Trump can ask all he wants, but the Supreme Court doesn't hear challenges to impeachment, a political process; 3) "High crimes and misdemeanors" don't have to be actual criminal offenses. pic.twitter.com/GkqcMRMao7
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) April 24, 2019

This glimpse into Trump's brain proves he considers the Supreme Court in his back pocket the same way he thinks the Attorney General should be his personal fixer. https://t.co/WGRwih6Jim
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) April 24, 2019

Trump thinks that — having stolen one SCt seat for Gorsuch and installed as a second justice one Kavanaugh whose confirmation hearing should’ve disqualified him — he now has a “get out of jail free” card and a “stay in power forever” card in the Marble Palace. No way, Donald. https://t.co/7U6ifhcbTl
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 24, 2019

1. A quick thread on why the power to impeach, and then try, a president is vested in the House and Senate, and not the Supreme Court. https://t.co/KJsLCSF12e
— Yoni Appelbaum (@YAppelbaum) April 24, 2019

Yeah, so that's *not* how impeachment works.

"The House … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

As @tribelaw & I explain in our book, the Framers debated giving #SCOTUS this power & expressly decided not to https://t.co/amW6Ru8kiQ
— Joshua Matz (@JoshuaMatz8) April 24, 2019

Trump doesn’t want to hear about 2020 Russian interference in our elections

Before Nielsen was forced out, she tried to focus the White House on one of her highest priorities as DHS secretary: preparing for new and different Russian forms of interference in 2020. Mulvaney told her not to bring it up in front of the president. https://t.co/WDNjfC52O4
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) April 24, 2019

Don’t tell Donald Trump about Russia’s election interference!https://t.co/I0uawbktw8
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) April 24, 2019

Not quite a denial, but a counterattack! (After the story published.) pic.twitter.com/WNBOEoD01o
— Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) April 24, 2019

The fact a foreign adversary will continue efforts to interfere in our sacred elections should alarm all of us. No less alarming is the idea a senior government official can't brief the President on it because it might hurt his feelings. pic.twitter.com/mY7ixBZhI5
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 24, 2019

I see a congressional hearing in which former Trump officials are asked how much attention @realDonaldTrump devoted to protecting the United States from another Russian attack on an American election.
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) April 24, 2019

Just in from @RepAdamSchiff, on reports that Mick Mulvaney didn't want Kirstjen Nielsen to bring up the need to protect our political system from outside attack, because Trump would see it as denigrating the greatness of his victory: pic.twitter.com/MKIQ7gEFTN
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) April 25, 2019

What's behind President Trump's lack of engagement on Russian threat? @TiffanyDCross @amandacarpenter @ahrferrier @stefcutter discuss @TheLeadCNN https://t.co/nN4BwVlj5d pic.twitter.com/9ez2iI6iMV
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 24, 2019

U.S. government official: 'Like pulling teeth' to get WH to focus on Russia election interference threat @TheLeadCNN https://t.co/JhJJj2kwnz pic.twitter.com/O7poHy5yk0
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 24, 2019

A senior administration official tells me that while Secretary Nielsen grew frustrated with the White House‘s lack of engagement on election security, she continued to push the matter on her own, organizing two principals' meetings on her own — hosted at DHS offices in DC 1/
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 24, 2019

Kushner downplays Russian meddling

This is just another lie

Kushner said that the Mueller probe was worse for the country than the Russian actions. Which side is he on?

"The issue is not whether or not Trump won. The issue is that we know for certain that Russia meddled in the election. And that they — and other foreign powers — are already working to do the same in future elections."https://t.co/Nx3rqpZxo4
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) April 23, 2019

Jared Kushner: Russian interference was "a couple of Facebook ads."

Robert Mueller: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 23, 2019

Kushner is minimizing the impact of a foreign adversary working to upend a presidential election. How can we expect the White House to take 2020 election security seriously when a senior adviser’s talking points sound like they were written by the Kremlin?https://t.co/5pBNNtv7oD
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 23, 2019

This was not a "couple of Facebook ads." The Russians not only purchased online ads but also, according to DOJ, hacked into state election databases and stole sensitive voter information of 500,000 people. This was an attack on our democracy.https://t.co/wEsnGAaoxB
— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) April 24, 2019

Jared Kushner made clear today that he lies as shamelessly as Trump. He is as repugnant a human being as his father-in-law.
— Tony Schwartz (@tonyschwartz) April 23, 2019

New from me: Kushner downplayed Russia’s interference as a “couple ads” that did no real harm. But he obliged Russian attempts to cultivate a backchannel to the WH—twice.
A new DOJ filing says such backchannels can result in “commensurate harm” to the US. https://t.co/3Bk2Gh5YDf
— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) April 23, 2019

Believing that Bob Mueller has hurt America more than Vladimir Putin does not strengthen one’s case for having a security clearance. https://t.co/2PqvA8VLu2
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) April 23, 2019

Jared Kushner downplaying Russian interference as "a few Facebook ads" is a pretty standard blog talking point for the right.

In reality, the troll farm spent $1.25 million per month illegally boosting one candidate, and most of their influence was organic—not an ad at all. https://t.co/AqGUXXyt62
— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) April 23, 2019

Must Watch: Shepard Smith Scorches Jared Kushner’s ‘Disingenuous and Deceptive’ Remarks on Russian Meddling https://t.co/S4cxJQeYoO pic.twitter.com/eSm8IVaY1L
— Mediaite (@Mediaite) April 23, 2019

Jared Kushner Dismisses Russian Election Interference as ‘Couple of Facebook Ads’ https://t.co/7lRuHnBZEO
— Michiko Kakutani (@michikokakutani) April 23, 2019

On Sunday, Kellyanne Conway wouldn’t even acknowledge Russia helped Trump.

And Rudy Giuliani effectively said it was fine if they did.

Today, Jared Kushner said the attack was no more than a few Facebook ads.

There is no patriotism in Trump’s GOP. Only cowardly opportunism. https://t.co/hYYgLUlUpN
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) April 23, 2019

There was a time when anyone asserting that exposing a plot by a hostile foreign power was more harmful to America than the plot itself would have been considered deeply anti-American if not treasonous. This is the opposite of patriotism. https://t.co/6uSCCh183k
— stuart stevens (@stuartpstevens) April 23, 2019

Kushner is minimizing the impact of a foreign adversary working to upend a presidential election. How can we expect the White House to take 2020 election security seriously when a senior adviser’s talking points sound like they were written by the Kremlin?https://t.co/5pBNNtv7oD
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 23, 2019

Rudy Giuliani says “There’s nothing wrong with getting information from Russians.”

It’s not alright. Rudy is wrong. It looks like they’re inviting the Russians to help again in 2020. There are big implications for future elections. If Trump wins in 2020, it will be hard to believe he didn’t win because of Russian help. Sad!

President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, insisted on Sunday that it was acceptable for a political campaign to use hacked information about its opponent obtained from a foreign adversary — though he personally would have advised against it https://t.co/l8pKeuT66w
— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 21, 2019

Why didn’t the Trump campaign call the FBI when approached by Russia? https://t.co/mMVVJHFanH
— Brian J. Karem (@BrianKarem) April 21, 2019

One of the most remarkable things about the last couple years is we have been given no indication that Trump’s re-election campaign will hesitate to take advantage of Russian help again, in whatever form it might take. https://t.co/TNG2Zvcmfx
— Dustin Volz (@dnvolz) April 21, 2019

Question: with Trump allies defending acceptance of Russian campaign help – & Mueller absolving them of criminal wrongdoing – has the US given license to its citizens to do same in 2020 & beyond? What will stop the next American from accepting the next offer of Russian help?
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) April 21, 2019

Trump's lawyer offered another one of his Sunday news show stunners. https://t.co/LehTA1cgax
— Esquire (@esquire) April 21, 2019

Wrong. Mueller evaluated the facts under campaign finance violations which prohibit foreign interference in elections. The only reasons he was unable to charge was because he was couldn’t place a $ valuation on the info and couldn’t show that Treason & Co. acted “willfully.” https://t.co/skjTHYYzUx
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 21, 2019

Rudy Giuliani declared Sunday that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had been nearly “tortured” in jail as part of Robert Mueller’s investigation, and referred to one of Mueller’s lead prosecutors as a “hit man” before walking both comments back https://t.co/LouD8IjCin
— POLITICO (@politico) April 21, 2019

Ask any national security professional in the military, Defense Department, intelligence community, FBI or Justice Department what would happen to them out they accepted stolen material from the Russians. https://t.co/gKPVBk8u0V
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) April 21, 2019

My G-d. There’s nothing wrong with getting information from Russians to help win a U.S election???!!!!

So that’s it? The floodgates are open for 2020? Saudis? Chinese?

This is from the president’s lawyer?

These people are not acting in America’s national security interests. https://t.co/yRaHppeRqm
— Carrie Cordero (@carriecordero) April 21, 2019

Former federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani: “There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.”

Fact-check: There’s something majorly wrong with a campaign taking information from Russians.https://t.co/aFJcFNEYd9
— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) April 21, 2019

“So it’s now okay for political campaigns to work with material stolen by foreign adversaries?” “It depends on the stolen material.” @RudyGiuliani tells me. Compares stolen WikiLeaks emails to the Pentagon Papers. #MTP
— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) April 21, 2019

This is nothing like the Pentagon Papers.

Adlai Stevenson in 1960 and Hubert Humphrey In 1968 both felt and acted differently, refusing Russian offers of help out of hand. https://t.co/j923vIi762
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) April 21, 2019

Stunning.

This is the personal lawyer of the President of the United States praising the illegal hacking of emails by a foreign government to influence an election as a public service. https://t.co/lHjgROI3ge
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) April 21, 2019

A plan I'm sure is already in motion, if I know my Russians. (But that's not really my area of expertise or anything.) https://t.co/Qrim254m8P
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 21, 2019

This is just the wrongest wrong imaginable. https://t.co/xMmRFnEyDw
— Mark Hertling (@MarkHertling) April 21, 2019

This reveals the frightening implications of the blank check given to Trump by Republicans.

They’ve given our adversaries a green light to undermine our elections, and future candidates a green light to accept their aid. https://t.co/i7kJ6uaiJl
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) April 21, 2019

Rudy suggests to @jaketapper that he knows of some nefarious activity involving Romney 2012 campaign without offering evidence. “I could tell you the things he wanted to do,” calling Romney a “hypocrite.”

“There’s nothing wrong with getting information from Russians,” he adds
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 21, 2019

Whatever @realDonaldTrump is paying @RudyGiuliani is not enough to compensate him for the complete and utter sacrifice of integrity and credibility required to defend the indefensible. https://t.co/T4GJTTmHmq
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) April 21, 2019

Over 140 Trump-Russia contacts

Mueller increases the number of known Trump-Russia contacts from 102 to over 140. But keep claiming “no collusion.” https://t.co/WsyWff6BCH
— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) April 19, 2019

Impeachment or indictment?

Max Boot’s column in the Washington Post and my reply.

I’m torn about impeachment, but approving articles of impeachment, even if they do not result in removal, would at least leave a permanent stain on Trump’s presidency. Future generations would remember him for the scoundrel that he is. My column: https://t.co/9FdaEHmOT1
— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) April 20, 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/19/impeach-or-not-impeach-that-is-now-question/?outputType=comment&commentId=21c1ac91-8d24-46b6-becf-d73297a6ce84

my comments in the Post

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

As with Mueller's "not provable they had criminal intent" assessment of the Trump Tower meeting w Russian agents, the plutocrat president & his family received a benefit of the prosecutorial doubt that would never be extended to a high school dropout who robbed a bodega https://t.co/urfxPbgYrs
— David Frum (@davidfrum) April 21, 2019

Read and RT. Ignorance of the law is not if the FBI warned you that Russians might try to compromise you and you do not report contact to help your father's campaign and you do not report it. Plus, why didn't he know foreign help is 100% prohibited? https://t.co/4Z5VBausu4
— Jill Wine-Banks (@JillWineBanks) April 20, 2019

Barr misrepresented a report before

I don’t expect him to give us an objective, complete version of the Mueller report. He has misled Congress before concerning an earlier report.

When he was earlier at DOJ, Barr wrote a summary of a redacted document. Turns out, he omitted and mischaracterized key facts.

The truth came out because Congress demanded to see the complete document.

We must accept nothing less.

History does have a way of repeating itself. https://t.co/pAioce4lQB
— Adam Schiff (@AdamSchiff) April 16, 2019

For today’s #RealityCheck, @JohnAvlon takes a trip back to 1989 and revisits another Bill Barr memo with "principal conclusions."

“When all the information finally came out, Congress found out that some pretty critical information was missing.” https://t.co/vVl7hKaj1r pic.twitter.com/Kx5DEdQg2Q
— New Day (@NewDay) April 17, 2019

Would Barr offer a misleadingly incomplete version of the Mueller report? Thirty years ago, he did something similar. https://t.co/HufsLhDPUi
— Philip Bump (@pbump) April 16, 2019

Great job unearthing Barr's disingenuous 1989 memo, @rgoodlaw! https://t.co/PB40j8434c
— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) April 15, 2019

Barr was never a straight shooter. Not at OLC. Not at his first gig as Attorney General. Not now. A shifty, dishonest partisan. https://t.co/mY0UPDlRgH
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) April 16, 2019

As this @rgoodlaw report reveals, we’re reliving the duplicity Barr practiced 30 years ago. As @RonaldKlain put it, he’s building a wall around Trump not brick by brick, but Barr by Barr. Trump really has found his Roy Cohn. They deserve each other.https://t.co/ybo8TpOEQt
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 16, 2019

I can’t tell you exactly what the pages of the report AG Barr delivers to Congress & releases to the public will contain, but I can say w/ confidence that you’ll know more than you do today, it surely won’t answer all of your questions & it will be but one part of the narrative.
— Carrie Cordero (@carriecordero) April 15, 2019

"Redacted" is Barr-speak for "Coverup"
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) April 15, 2019

Spoke with @rgoodlaw about his extensive look at how Barr in 1989 bury key details from a legal opinion that he was summarizing. https://t.co/pK34nLSVzf
— Philip Bump (@pbump) April 15, 2019

Barr has briefed the White House on the Mueller report but has stonewalled Congress in its request for the full report.

Barr appears more concerned with pleasing Trump than with the transparency he promised or the constitutional role of Congress. https://t.co/sxKxN5U16b
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) April 14, 2019

What you won't see in the Mueller report https://t.co/SBo1pk94uA
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) April 16, 2019

A federal judge has said that Barr created public distrust about whether DOJ is committed to sharing as much as possible about Mueller's findings.

"The A.G. has created an environment that has caused a significant part of the public … to be concerned."https://t.co/h3tLT6Wy5x
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 16, 2019

Great thread on Trump and Russia

Maybe it’s not illegal but it’s still wrong and alarming. Why does he take Russia’s side?

This thread lays out what so many of us who understand Russian affairs have been saying: Mueller's inability to prove a specific charge about the 2016 election is not even remotely an indication of the degree to which the President and his circle are likely compromised by Russia. https://t.co/ZP0MnDkF9E
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) April 15, 2019

and more reasons to be concerned about Russia:

In my final piece for @TheAtlantic, published today, @annanemtsova and I examined how the Kremlin has exploited the White House’s secrecy over Trump and Putin’s relationship, and is shaping the narrative of US-Russia relations as a result: https://t.co/p15RVBY3WI
— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) April 16, 2019

NYT: Trump initially viewed Sergei Skripal's poisoning in Britain as part of a legitimate spy game — and officials thought he had sympathy for Russia's attack on what it viewed as a traitor.https://t.co/0nz4DmhjYx
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) April 16, 2019

Trump has praised Kim Jong Un for overcoming his uncle, whom Kim executed.

He has suggested the U.S. doesn't have moral high ground on dictators who kill dissenters.

Now NYT suggests he initially shrugged off Putin's alleged poisoning of Sergei Skripal.https://t.co/cVq1Er76w1
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) April 16, 2019