Post-Mueller Testimony

Per my "Joe Paulson" handle, I provide various comments to this thread on impeachment. The writer belittled impeachment as a sort of empty symbolism so this more "well okay" tone is basically notable. Anyway, one can go there to read various back/forth. 

As I noted there, a petition to obtain grand jury information (some deem this as an ill-advised lost cause) was just submitted that flagged an impeachment determination is involved.  This is flagged by some to argue an "impeachment inquiry" basically is occurring even though it is not bluntly called as such by some.  But, it is not like we are just imagining things. There is a concerted concern about using the "i" word from Pelosi on down.  This probably is tampering down support -- if the Speaker of the House (and others) are belittling the importance of impeachment and/or finding reasons (excuses) to not firmly support an inquiry, it means something. So would this move though how much is unclear.

We continue to get negative responses from people who are aware at the stakes and are of the right basic ideological sentiments.  Take this from someone cited earlier:

I note in closing my genuine amazement at the House Democrats’ handling of the days leading up to the Mueller hearings this week.  Even if they genuinely believed Mr. Mueller would be a cooperative witness – and he had given ample indications that he would not be – raising expectations that he would clearly describe “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a way the diffident public could understand all but guaranteed that the hearing would be perceived as a disappointment.

Those moron Democrats!  This framing to me is tiresome.  Mueller was basically a witness under duress, but how many times did he have to agree with blatant high crimes and misdemeanors that Democrat after Democrat summarized in ways the "diffident public" could understand for him to be impressed?  Who is the "diffident public" anyway?  The public still processing the Mueller Report and quite open to learning more about just what it entails (see, e.g., the Lawfare new podcast)?  He also reaffirmed things like he wasn't aiming to be the head of the FBI again, that Trump's talk of spreading the Wiki leaks being great is bad, talked about ongoing attempts (while McConnell blocks election security legislation) to interfere with our elections.

This sort of framing is self-convincing.  At least, the person admits (to some degree) his feelings are just that, not a result of some specialized knowledge: 

As to the first group, I am uncomfortable with the indulgence of constructing abstract moral duties for ourselves on uncertain foundations at a time when an overwhelming, concrete moral duty – ensuring that President Trump is not re-elected – is upon us.  I also am skeptical that an impeachment process would educate or persuade swing voters so much as it would enrage and motivate the President’s supporters.  Today’s electorate is very different from that of 1973-74.  I will not, however, claim sufficient political expertise to have much of value to contribute on that question.

The use of words like "indulgence" in blog posts without comments tends to rub me the wrong way when they rest on dubious grounds. The understanding that there is moral duty here -- and resting on any one ground is somewhat artificial in practice -- is basically trivialized by using that language. A dubious matter but it is basically just assumed.  Not impeaching would have problems too.  It is an indulgence to skip over that part.  As to the second part,  there seems to be an idea that only one side would be helped.  Everything goes wrong for the Dems apparently. Yes, I wouldn't rest on your political expertise going by such logic.

[It is suggested that perhaps a President Pence would not be much better but it is put aside for other matters.  Let me say that I think overall though Pence is a horrible person that he is at least marginally more credible as Trump though you know that isn't saying much. Plus, I think it would be harder for him to be re-elected on the top of the ticket.  Finally, the idea that there is absolutely nothing he did that was impeachable seems off to me. I saw people suggesting one or more things he did in that respect. Plus, how much would that change from the current situation?] 

I cite this as a general sentiment since after all he is but one person and as a sounding board.  This is generally a usual reason to do this and I have been doing it since I was a teenager working off newspaper editorials.  As to talk of a group that think an impeachment will lead to an early departure, I don't know how sizable such a group really is.  Some do think we should work toward impeachment and see what happens there. They don't want to assume failure as to removal but not sure how many are sure there is a good chance for that to happen.  The idea is more that the process will help in various ways, including to get information and other unclear things that only will occur while we are in the middle of things.

The final thing is talk of how McConnell will find a way not to bring it to a vote or even have a trial. It would come to a vote in the House. As to the Senate, what he says is fairly unsurprising though we get a few more technical details.  I don't think we can just assume what will happen here. But, even granting the lack of any trial at all, he frames it more negatively than the facts now warrant:

As in 2016, this will generate considerable condemnation, but that outrage will come almost entirely from people who would not support Republicans anyway.  Moreover, it will be directed at Senator McConnell alone, leaving all other Senate Republicans free to say whatever is politically expedient, just as they did on the Garland nomination. 

Why would it only be directed at Sen. McConnell?  The discussion crafts a way for him to say the rules require it to get the "support" of his fellow senators.  It is generous of him to give them pointers though sure given his lack of political expertise surely experts on that side know about them too. But, even though the senators will support him, the outrage will only be him alone? Since he is god and none of the other senators have agency?  I reckon that can be a way to go but it's not necessary any more than it is right.

How swing voters who might vote Republicans will respond is not totally clear to me.  But, at the very least, assuming Republican senators will not get any blame is facts not in evidence. Tossing up one's hands as if that is a given as well.  People DID blame Republicans for Garland as well.  Not enough but then I have seen even former aides to the Senate Minority Leader at the time say in hindsight not enough was done to address the situation.  We are doing that early, I see this time. It's defeatist b.s.

I'm glad there are some Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, from the chair on down, who are showing some positive desire to do their impeachment duty.  I am not somehow pie in the sky about what will happen, but the breadth of the problem suggests the tools used.  And, assuming the worse across the board is not the only way to go.