Sunday, June 2, 2019

UPDATED: Has The Window On Impeachment Effectively Slammed Shut?

It's beginning to look that way.

The Mueller Dossier came out April 14, after long months of preparatory hype by the Left. It was greeted with a yawn and a "let's move on" by the public. Case closed, you might say.

In the meantime, AG Bill Barr has backed off none of his early remarks about wishing to get to the origins of the whole Russia Hoax. Alarmingly, for Dems, Barr has expressed special interest in Comey's Trump Tower meeting with the President Elect--an event with a direct tie-in to the Oval Office.

The Deep State, clearly desperate, tried to gin up--or resuscitate--anti-Trump sentiment by inducing "Bob" Mueller conduct a non-Press Conference--basically just a parting shot at Trump. Again, attempts at hyping the event--notably by John Brennan, a man with a target on his back--have been anti-climactic, except that Mueller is increasingly being exposed as a liar and a cheater.

Even worse, and as if in deliberate contrast to the absurdity of the Mueller no-questions Press Conference, Barr proceeded to give an in depth, blockbuster interview to a knowledgeable legal reporter, Jan Crawford. The interview turned out to be the legal equivalent of a carpet bombing run on the Deep State, featuring Barr quotes such as:

“So it was bogus, this whole idea that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus.” 
“It’s hard to read some of the [FBI] texts and not feel that there was gross bias at work, and they’re appalling.” 
“The use of foreign-intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed.” 
“The media reaction is strange. Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is.” 
“One of the ironies today is that people are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.”

The Left/Progs in the media are in melt down mode over Barr, but the general public seems to be taking Barr's statements in stride.

That was followed with curious statements from leading House Dems, acknowledging that they can't impeach without public support--and that they don't have that support. So, Jerry Nadler, a true impeachment zealot:

“Impeachment is a political act, and you cannot impeach a president if the American people will not support it,” Nadler told WNYC. “The American people right now do not support it because they do not know the story. They don’t know the facts. We have to get the facts out. We have to hold a series of hearings, we have to hold the investigations.”
Nadler said that he hopes to bring special counsel Robert Mueller’s report “to life” by having him testify and provide some of his underlying evidence in front of a televised audience. 

Right. That, after Mueller reiterated that he would NOT testify. And anyway, the notion of Mueller--variously described during his recent appearance as doddering, shifty, and nervous--bringing his dossier and impeachment fever "to life" by droning on about "underlying evidence" is the very definition of grasping at straws. By now, everyone knows that Mueller won't testify because he's afraid of opening himself up to criminal liability.

House Whip James Clyburn offered more of the same downbeat assessment:

During an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union," Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, said he believed that the Democrats would vote to impeach Trump "at some point," but that Democrats must first succeed in building a case for impeachment and selling it to the public. 
He added that House Democrats are not "particularly interested in the Senate," but rather are waiting to "bring the public along. 
"We do believe if we efficiently and effectively educate the public then we would have done our job and we can move on an impeachment vote," Clyburn said.

Really? The House Dems are going to "efficiently and effectively educate the public" over the summer vacation? Piece of cake. No doubt for their next trick they'll "efficiently and effectively educate the public" on the Green New Deal.

The truth is that the public has discounted Russia Hoax entirely. The Dems know that the revelations to come will be devestating for any hope of impeachment, and if the public is against it at this point that's not going to change. They Dems right now seem to be simply going through the motions, with no good options left. It's theater.

And there will surely be worse to come. If you really want to hear the sound of the impeachment window slamming shut, wait for the first significant legal action coming out in public. It could be any of a number of things. It could be Judge Sullivan tossing out the Flynn guilty plea based on prosecutorial misconduct, it could be a damning FISA abuse report from OIG, it could be an indictment. I expect something of the sort to happen this month, and when it does we can all say to the Dems: stick a fork in it. There's just no way that the public would stand for impeachment following on significant legal action of that sort.

UPDATE: Steven Hayward at Powerline has spoken with a "sage friend" who tells him that the Dems will surely impeach Trump,

because the Democrats are in deep trouble if ... investigation into the origins of the FBI “monitoring” of the Trump campaign will be highly damaging to Democrats. They’ll need an impeachment circus, even if almost certainly unsuccessful, to deflect attacks attention and muddy up the scene.

Hayward comments: "Sounds logical," and he cites the very words of James Clyburn that I quote above as proof positive.

Obviously I'm in no position to make apodictic statements about the future. Moreover, as Conrad Black recently put it, suicide can't be ruled out. Nevertheless,

1. Clyburn's claim that Trump will be impeached "at some point" must be tempered by his proviso that Democrats must first succeed in building a case for impeachment and selling it to the public. Based on available polling, the point in time that impeachment is sold to the public is unlikely to ever occur based on currently known events.

2. Like Conrad Black I find it unlikely, although not impossible, that the House Dems will choose suicide. Impeaching the POTUS against the public's will would be suicidal. Far from "deflecting attention" from Dem wrongdoing, such an approach would probably focus the attention and the ire of the public on the House Dems in the days before the election. Therefore, the better argument appears to be that Dems will step back from the cliff in the interest of self preservation.


  1. As I have said in the past, they have a tiger by the tail and have no clue as to how to let go without getting eaten whole, much less merely mauled.

    I would love to be a fly on the wall as the Dem Pooh-bah's work out who to blame for the bright idea of exposing the Deep-State to this scrutiny, their second greatest (and most secret) ally after the MSM.

  2. FWIW, and this is simply one interested observer's reaction...I think the Dems have chased their phony allegations into the proverbial 'box canyon'...there's literally no way out. Either they proceed with impeachment and get blown out of the water...because they literally have no case...or they admit today that they have no case...and get blown out of the water...especially as Barr's Crossfire Boomerang investigations unfold. In the meantime they can blather about gathering public support before proceeding but that's just...blather. They have nothing better to say.

    I'm tempted to channel my Inner Trump and exclaim


    ...But better not to tempt the Fates...

    1. I do like that "Crossfire Boomerang". Yeah, I decided to go out on a limb.

  3. "Crossfire Boomerang". I love that.
    I love this site. Just stumbled on it a few days ago. Sorry to have to comment as Anon but will add my initials.

  4. Yes, I think it is over but for the whining on the extreme left and MSNBC. Nadler is still peddling the lie that he will subpoena Mueller, but I think everyone with an IQ above body temperature realizes that Mueller has already secured a promise from Nadler to not call him- the price was the so-called press conference Mueller gave last week. It is over.

    1. What do you think of Deep State involvement? I can certainly see the Nadler angle, because Nadler wasn't getting any traction at all with his efforts. OTOH, Brennan seemed primed for this. I realize Brennan's comments weren't complicated, but guys like him would certainly have an interest in hyping Mueller.

    2. Brennan won't appear either. If there were a way to call witnesses without letting the opposition interrogate them, Nadler would do it, but it isn't really politically feasible if the goal is impeachment.

  5. Eventually the case against Concord Management will be dismissed.

    Concord Management is a food-catering business in Russia. The business is owned by Yevgeni Prigozhin, who founded a separate company called the Internet Research Agency, which sells to various businesses and other organizations the service of using the Internet to affect public opinion.

    Robert Mueller included the food-catering company, Concord Management, in his indictment of Russian companies, and Concord Management is the defendant that has appeared in US court to defend itself.

    Mueller's legal tactic has been to dump a gazillion Internet addresses into the discovery process. This tactic is typical of Mueller's own obstruction of justice.

    1. I suspect you're right about that, Mike. I suspect most of his prosecutions are gonna fall apart, including Papadopoulos. Maybe not Manafort.

    2. I'll go out on a limb and say that if Trump is re-elected he will commute Manafort's prison sentence. I (my opinion) don't think there's much he can do with penalties for tax evasion.

  6. Mark --

    Is your question re Deep State involvement vis a vis Mueller, his strange valedictory and/or the Mueller Report?

    Good question! Hard to believe its not all intertwined since his whole staff was drawn from the DS...

    But maybe you have a different question?

    1. Right, that was my angle. I agree with Yancey, but wonder whether there was perhaps a wider circle of collusion for the "strange valedictory" than just Nadler and Mueller.

  7. Even getting the underlying evidence out, as Nadler put it, may boomerang--as in the case of Flynn and Mueller's Part II quoting attorney John Dowd out-of-context. Whether exculpatory, or misleading by shading the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct looks to be on the horizon.

    Regarding impeachment, all we'll get is talk. Dems need something to talk about, as opposed to serious, probing questions about the hoax/coup. And media needs a subject to discuss with Dems so as to keep questions about hoax/coup unasked.

    Media is entertainment, and what we're watching with Dems and media (but I repeat myself) is a performance. With Nadler and Clymer talking about educating the public, they are signaling to media to keep up the public conversation about impeachment. It's the Big Lie treatment--repeated often enough it becomes belief.

    1. That's something that I find fascinating--the fact that Team Mueller put out a report that's slowly but surely being deconstructed. Did they really think in this day and age of internet sleuthing that they could get away with that? Apparently the answer is yes. Big mistake.

  8. Tallyrand's quote about the Bourbons, "They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing" comes to mind. The Establishment/Deep State are/will be the last to recognize the erosion of their authority--said authority having been unexamined, unquestioned for eons. When you view the institutional corruption that Mueller has evaded answering for, why not a belief in invincibility?

    Even Jack Goldsmith's theory about the Depp State as a check on politicians presumes a permanence that doesn't hold water in the prog-left cultural zeitgeist of tearing down traditions, customs, and institutional practices and norms, i.e. the ends justify the means. Two can play that game.

    Most people just aren't any good at anticipating second order events, or so-called unintended consequences. So thinking, or anticipating, that their report would be evaluated, analyzed, deconstructed? They were relying on their word being accepted as authoritative--the last word on the matter. Hubris.

  9. Mr. Wauck,

    One correction to your article. It's the Weissmann Dossier, not the Mueller Dossier. LOL.

  10. Mr. Wauck,

    I'm thinking about the points you made about Bobby Boy. Specifically "And anyway, the notion of Mueller--variously described during his recent appearance as doddering, shifty, and nervous."

    Why am I getting an image from the Wizard of Oz of a man breathing fire saying "I am the great and powerful Bob Mueller" while AG Barr pulls the curtain on a frightened man. Meanwhile the Wizard says "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

    Isn't it funny how life imitates art?

    1. A lot of these people spent way too much time reading their press clippings. They're starting to find out what it's like to be targets--I very much hope.

    2. In case you don't have enough on your plate, you can read Louie Gohmert's treatise on Bobby Boy. I'm only on Page One and it is devastating.

    3. Gohmert's piece is powerful stuff. Thanks, Joe

  11. I am on Page 13 of Louie's document regarding Bobby Boy. It is a major indictment of Mueller.


    1. Yes, I've read that. And bear in mind that Durham was involved in investigating the Boston part of that. So he knows all about Mueller.

  12. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I hope these men get everything that they have coming to them' plus interest.

    I used to read the Reader's Digest monthly magazine back in the 70s and early 80s about Communism. We have become so much like the old Soviet Russia that it's scary.

  13. Mr. Wauck,

    You are always one step ahead of me. I guess that's why you run a blog and I only comment. (smile)

    1. Not so much, maybe. I've been spending the last few days combing through J. E. Dyer's archives and finding lots of good stuff. Her writing was pointed out to me by what looks like a onetime anon commenter recently.