I think 538 made a good point in their weekly discussion:
"natesilver: But Hoyer is right on the politics of this. Impeachment is not a popular option. As Amelia said, call Mueller to testify. Call Barr to testify. Call other people to testify. So you can have a drip, drip, drip against Trump, mostly to satisfy partisans and keep him off balance. But impeachment? Not popular."
natesilver: Also, if Trump were unpopular enough that he could be not only impeached but also removed by the Senate — which would mean that his approval rating with Republicans would have to be way down — wouldn’t you rather run against him anyway?
That would probably imply he had like a 29 percent approval rating or something, in which case the Democratic nominee in 2020 would be on track to win in an epic landslide and maybe pick up some huge congressional majorities too."
Starting impeachment proceedings wouldn't be popular, and they would also fail in any environment where Trump isn't hilariously thoroughly beaten in 2020. I don't think pursuing impeachment is a viable strategy to winning that election - best case you remove Trump from office (unlikely), and a more generally appealing Republican candidate takes his place, or worse, you simply turn off independents who view Trump as a legitimately elected president (he largely is), and lessen your chances of winning said election. I honestly can't see the benefits of attempting impeachment as it stands, especially since congress is split right now, meaning Trump can really only do quite limited damage right now.
No he won't. Trump hasn't been appealing to anyone but his base for his entire presidency, and the Mueller report won't change their opinion of him (perhaps he'll lose a couple of percent, but his approval rating has been exceedingly stable). His chances of winning as an incumbent are still fairly high. The idea that Trump will somehow both attempt and manage to disassemble American democracy in the next 16 months is foolish. It's not gonna happen.
It sickens me how it's more politically convenient to wait for Trump to lose 2020 rather than for Congress to enforce their checks and balances as mandated on the Constitution. This shows me how partisan and broken the whole system has become. And I get the very bad feeling that Democrats will forget Trump once he's out of office. It's just awful everything and erodes my trust in American democracy.
He really could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any voters.
As someone who usually defends actions of governments in general, this really depicted the absolute corrupt nature of the american political system. I know there is bullshit happening everywhere but US does not even try to hide it the bullshit.
I don't get how people don't go out on the streets wanting his head on a pike either.
You'd expect people to manifest themselves about the load of shit going on since 2016.
I'll be honest, tweets like this should be considered perjury
twitter isnt under oath lol
I know, which is why I said should be. There needs to be more accountability for misleading the public. When he's using twitter in an official capacity, there should be consequences to literally
How does it take you 2 years to conclude no crime was committed but can't conclude he's innocent? "Hey, I know you didn't do anything, but something happened and I 'think' you could have done something because you're associated with some shitty people, so you're not really innocent but I can't really say a crime was done."
We saw Clinton break 11 crimes. 11 crimes, in the report, were stated, directly, a crime was conducted. This is wishy-washy. This is such a garbage report. It's, literally, a nothing burger that is trying to invent evidence-free beef. This is absolute trash.
Are you feeling okay?
"Nor can I claim you didn't commit the crime that didn't happen."
How does that make any sense? It's like this was written by a 9-year old.
Failing to prove guilt does not prove innocence. This is the basis of our criminal justice system and it is why a jury must find a defendant "guilty" or "not guilty" instead of "guilty" or "innocent". It's rooted in philosophy and logic.
It's also really, really stupid of them to just assume another victory like that. They don't know what will happen between now and 2020, Dems assuming Trump will lose is partly why we have him in the first place.
I really feel like this part doesn't get enough attention regarding collusion:
This basically reads to me as being "there's a ton of evidence we couldn't gather (due to it being destroyed / encrypted / false testimony / etc) but there could absolutely be evidence we didn't obtain that changes this"
I know there's a certain amount of "covering their ass" in a legal sense but it seems to me that Mueller is basically saying "we were significantly hampered by issues obtaining evidence which may have changed this case if we didn't have those issues"
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" in criminal law is pretty much 99%+ sure something happened, while in civil law it's more like 51%.
That's why the report doesn't go for that.
Won't comment on your whataboutism + TD-vocabulary vomit.
Also the meaning of this is very strong once you understand it: the Trump cult obstructed justice, but their obstruction was outside of the jurisdiction of the Counsel investigation.
And all this time we thought 4d chess was a joke.
The comments on that tweet are showing some real mental gymnastics. This whole situation is going to be a textbook case of how messy the law can get.
"Yeah i got a B on The Trump Presidency exam. Forgot about the tweets claiming he was exonerated by the report."