Tuesday, March 12, 2019

UPDATED: The Impeachment "Fail To Launch"

Yes, I loved CTH's title, Fail To Launch. So what's behind it when we were being told that everything was in place with the Dem controlled committees, Nadler was subpoenaing everybody who ever met Trump--or maybe only heard of him--and Schiff was lining up witnesses. They were just about to achieve liftoff, and then ... fizzle?

Did the Dems all of a sudden decide to listen to what pollsters and pundits have been saying for months? That impeachment is political malpractice and possibly suicide--for the impeachers?

Did their lawyers clue them in to the fact that obtaining all the documents they're demanding--including Trump's tax records--is NOT a foregone conclusion and would entail the mother of all time consuming legal battles? (Cf. Bill Barr, Trump's Tax Records, And The Impeachment Fishing Expedition)

Are they getting cold feet at the thought of what Trump and his new AG, Bill Barr, might see fit to finally declassify--following up on the GOP's slow drip release of testimony transcripts in their Russia Hoax investigation?

Or, all of the above?

UPDATE ONE: Gateway Pundit is carrying a "report" from "Cockburn" at The Spectator: Mueller vs Barr, and the battle to indict Trump:

Several sources tell Cockburn that the Special Counsel has indeed completed his report. It is said to recommend indicting three of President Trump’s children – Don junior, Ivanka and Eric – as well as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The Attorney General, William Barr, is said to have ‘silently assented’ to this. It’s also claimed that Mueller wants President Trump himself to be indicted [for "obstruction"]. Barr is said to oppose this.

The "report", which is dated March 9--last Friday--specifies that none of this has anything to do with Russia or "collusion." My initial impression is that this lacks credibility. Why would credible sources be talking to "Cockburn" rather than any number of MSM outlets--NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc.? Why has there been no buzz re investigative activity, as there has been around other figures? Above all, why has no word been whispered in Nancy Pelosi's ear? Surely she wouldn't have renounced impeachment if such news were in the offing, and surely she would have been given a heads up--not for her to say anything publicly, but just to stand by rather than to stand down?

UPDATE TWO: Big News: The Lisa Page transcripts, two days worth, have been released--365 pages worth.

This could be very interesting.

UPDATE THREE: Gateway Pundit is now offering a theory to justify Pelosi's statement and reconcile it to Cockburn's "report":

Pelosi’s statement was most likely a ploy to the American public to make it sound like she cannot push impeachment unless the Mueller Report includes devastating charges against President Trump and his administration.
Pelosi knows what the report is going to say.
And she is plotting to remove President Trump.

I still find this less than convincing. Why say anything at all? Why not chug along and when the "devastating charges" come out say: See, we told you so all along!


  1. I hope that President Trump is preparing a massive declassification of documents related to the RussiaGate hoax. Trump can drag DOJ/FBI through the mud for the next two years.

    Is that what Robert Mueller wants?

    Does Mueller really want impeachment proceedings that will enable the Republicans in Congress to demand -- for the next two years -- discovery of all possible documents about all the US Intelligence Community's shenanigans in this matter?

    If that's what Mueller is willing to initiate, then bring it on!

    1. What may scare them even more than revelations re DoJ, FBI, and the Intel Community--bad as that may be--is the possibility that there would be revelations about senators and representatives. Of both parties.

  2. Indict Trump's children and Kushner for what? Do you know what the alleged crime is? Is Mueller out of his mind? Or have they been moving the thimble around and I've completely lost sight of the pea?

    1. Titan, the claim that is made in the article is that they would be indicted for financial crimes, and Trump himself for obstruction. For the reasons I cite, I believe all this to be unreliable.