Mueller's Latest Words Ooze Impeachment, and Pelosi Is the Lone Democrat Who Sees That It Will Kill the Party

THE LATEST -- AND LAST?? --- WORDS FROM ROBERT MUELLER. Could America be so lucky? OR are we now being set up for a "secret" -- in congressional parlance 'closed door' -- meeting of Robert Mueller with the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee, so that chairman Jerry Nadler can then leak to us what Mueller 'said' -- whether he said it or not being irrelevant. • • • MUELLER REFUSES TO DECLARE PRESIDENT TRUMP EITHER GUILTY OR INNOCENT OF OBSTRUCTION. Special counsel Robert Mueller played to his Deep State monitors on Wednesday, May 29, when he said : “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.” • The Washington Times wrote on Wednesday : "Special counsel Robert Mueller delivered a valedictory statement Wednesday before he resigned from his two-year investigation into President Trump, saying he could not exonerate the President of criminal wrongdoing. Though he’d said as much in his 448-page report, hearing it from the mouth of the man who spent two years investigating Mr. Trump was a dam-break moment for many Democrats on Capitol Hill and on the 2020 presidential campaign trail, who said Mr. Mueller’s statement was an invitation to begin impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump. In a nine-minute statement from the Justice Department’s headquarters in Washington Mr. Mueller said his work was done, he was shutting down the special counsel’s office and would resist calls to testify to Congress or speak publicly, saying his 448-page report spoke for itself. But it was his summary that rekindled the impeachment fire for many Democrats. 'If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,' Mr. Mueller said. 'We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.' He also signaled that he didn’t bring charges against Mr. Trump because of longstanding Justice Department policy that a sitting President cannot be charged. Yet he did make such a determination on one aspect of his investigation, saying there was 'insufficient evidence' to conclude the President or his team conspired with Russia to subvert the 2016 election. But when it came to whether the President obstructed justice in trying to stymy investigations into the election, Mr. Mueller said they didn’t attempt to reach a conclusion because of the department’s policy. 'We concluded that we would not reach a determination, one way or the other, about whether the President committed a crime,' he said." • The Washington Times went on to say : "The seemingly contradictory statements fueled diametrically opposed reactions from the president’s supporters and his political opponents. A host of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates said it’s time to pursue impeachment, though those lawmakers who would actually spearhead an inquiry, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, were more circumspect, saying they will continue to pursue their ongoing investigations. All the same, Mr. Nadler said Mr. Mueller’s statement was dangerous news for Mr. Trump, undercutting his claims that he was exonerated. 'It falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing,' the congressman said, adding that impeachment remains an option down the road. Republicans, led by Mr. Trump, said they didn’t see any revelations from Mr. Mueller. 'Nothing changes from the Mueller Report,' the President tweeted. 'There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.' Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, echoed the President’s sentiments. 'Today’s statement by Mr. Mueller reinforces the findings of his report. And as for me, the case is over....Mr. Mueller has decided to move on and let the report speak for itself. Congress should follow his lead.' The ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, urged his colleagues on the left to back off their impeachment hunt. 'Relitigating the 2016 election and reinvestigating the special counsel’s findings will only further divide our country,' Mr. Collins said." • The Washington Times said it is "not yet clear what role Mr. Mueller will play as Democrats do proceed on Capitol Hill," adding that Mueller "...pointedly signaled his resistance to testifying. He said Wednesday’s statement was the only time he planned to speak about his investigation and if he called, his comments would likely disappoint lawmakers. 'Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report,' he said. Mr. Nadler, who had been among those demanding Mr. Mueller appear publicly, begged off when asked if he still wants to hold that hearing. 'Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we needed to hear today,' the chairman said. But House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland and intelligence committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, said they still want to hear more from the special counsel. Mr. Schiff said there are important counter-intelligence matters, which Mr. Mueller could detail for Congress, related to his findings of Russian attempts to interfere in the election. 'While I understand his reluctance to answer hypotheticals or deviate from the carefully worded conclusions he drew on his charging decisions, there are, nevertheless, a great many questions he can answer that go beyond the report,' the congressman said." • • • PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GUILTY BUT I CANNOT SAY IT. That is pretty much what Robert Mueller said on Wednesday. The Washington Times highlighted the Mueller press conference : "Wednesday’s press conference was Mr. Mueller’s first public remarks on the Russia election meddling probe since being appointed nearly two years ago. He stood alone at the lectern -- in contrast to Attorney General William P. Barr, who in announcing the release of the report last month was flanked by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Edward O’Callaghan. Mr. Mueller cited a Justice Department regulation as the reason he couldn’t pursue charges against Mr. Trump, undercutting claims by Mr. Barr that the President’s actions didn’t amount to obstruction. But a joint statement by Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, disputed that the special counsel contradicted Mr. Barr. 'The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,' the statement continued. Mr. Mueller did try to ease some of the apparent tension between himself and Mr. Barr stemming from decisions surrounding the release of the report. Mr. Mueller said he had fought for Mr. Barr to release broad summaries of the special counsel’s findings, but Mr. Barr withheld those, saying his goal was to get the full report out, in redacted form, as quickly as possible. 'At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The attorney general preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. I do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.' ” • • • WHAT DID MUELLER ACTUALLY SAY? TheHill lists five takeaways : " §§§ Mueller gives pro-impeachment Dems an argument. Mueller said that if his office 'had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.' He also said that Department of Justice guidance prohibited his office from bringing charges against the President, and that the same guidance states 'that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.' Liberals pounced on those comments as a green light for an impeachment inquiry....In some ways, Mueller’s appearance makes Pelosi’s job more difficult. The special counsel gave ammunition to those saying it is Congress’s constitutional duty to move forward with impeachment, but he did little to change the political calculus. Pelosi has long seen impeachment as politically risky for a party hoping to win back the White House next November. Her statement generally indicated that her position on the issue hasn’t changed, but it’s likely to be more difficult now to quiet some of the calls for impeachment coming from within her caucus. §§§ GOP says case closed. While Democrats who want to impeach Trump have some new talking points, Republicans seized on Mueller’s statements as bolstering their own familiar argument : It’s time to move on.... Republicans have been saying this ever since Attorney General William Barr first released his memo summarizing the Mueller report, and nothing the special counsel said Wednesday is going to change that argument. While Mueller once again made it clear that he was not exonerating Trump, it’ll be up to Democrats to take any next steps. Polls have shown that many Americans are ready to move on from Mueller, and that’s one reason Pelosi has tread so cautiously on the impeachment issue. §§§ Mueller doesn’t want to testify. Mueller made it clear he does not want to testify to Congress, raising a problem for Democrats who will have to decide whether they want to subpoena him. 'I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter,' Mueller said. 'I am making that decision myself -- no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.' Nadler has said it is imperative that Mueller testify and that the committee would subpoena him if necessary. But Democrats are unlikely to love the optics of subpoenaing him. Nadler sidestepped questions Wednesday about a subpoena, stating : 'Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we need to hear today.' If Mueller does appear, it’s unlikely he’ll say much based on Wednesday’s comments. Mueller made it crystal clear that anything he’d say is already in his report. 'Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. The report is my testimony.' Mueller said. The House Intelligence Committee also has sought Mueller’s testimony, though that would likely take place behind closed doors. §§§ Mueller seeks to quash differences with Barr. In a March 27 letter revealed last month, Mueller objected to Barr’s memo on his report, arguing it failed to capture the 'context, nature, and substance' of his investigation. He also pushed Barr, a longtime friend of the special counsel, to immediately release more of the report, something Barr declined to do. But on Wednesday, Mueller did not offer criticism of Barr, saying he didn’t question his 'good faith' decision in waiting to release a redacted version of the special counsel’s full report. 'We appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. I do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision,' Mueller said. Democrats had seized on Mueller’s letter to bolster their argument that the attorney general mishandled the report to try to help Trump. Mueller didn’t help their argument at all, showing no evidence of frustration or disappointment with Barr. Mueller also threw cold water on Democrats’ suspicions that the Justice Department is trying to block him from testifying before Congress. §§§ Mueller puts emphasis on Russian meddling. While much of the media coverage on Mueller’s press conference focused on his comments about obstruction, it was clear the former longtime chief of the FBI was focused on Moscow. Mueller said he was initially tasked with investigating the scope of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and he outlined a pair of indictments brought forward by his office against Russian military officers who hacked Democrats ahead of the election and a Russian troll farm. 'I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments -- that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.' " • • • I COULDN'T FIND AN UNDERLYING CRIME, SO LET'S IMPEACH HIM. That was the conclusion of the Thursday Canada Free Press article by Sher Zieve, an author and political commentator whose op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites. Zieve rightly said : "If there is no underlying crime...there can be no “obstruction of justice!" Zieve went on : "I have never before witnessed such a sham of a legal system or -- even worse -- experienced the horror that the real criminals were the ones running it. The additional horror is that other gangsters have and/or are replacing those who have been fired (some likely awaiting the day when they will be arrested) or have run for the proverbial hills upon realizing what may soon be revealed. Having personally experienced this lifetime for not quite -- but getting closer each day -- a century, I do have some small perspective with regards to history. Mueller -- with all of the Trump-haters on his staff -- could find that President Trump committed no crime. So, in his own rather sleazy way, he turned it over to Congress to impeach him. This is the caliber of human being we currently have in upper management within the bowels of the US government." • Zieve summarizes the basis for the investigation, which she calls "a foundation of sand" : "A self-proclaimed Trump-hater and (former?) British MI-6 agent who worked with some Russians to create (out of whole cloth) the now-infamous 'Trump Dossier' : The Clinton Campaign and DNC funded the 'Dossier' : 'The DNC and Clinton campaign-funded research continued through the end of October 2016, according to the Post’s report. The 'Dossier' was requested and paid for by the Clinton Campaign. Excerpt : 'According to the report, lawyer Marc E. Elias, who represented both Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, and his law firm Perkins Coie retained the firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to investigate any connections, according to the Post. Before then, a still-unknown Republican client funded Fusion GPS’ research during the Republican primaries. Fusion had hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct the research.' The Mueller investigation began as a counter-intelligence investigation which metastasized into a full-blown criminal investigation...with NO CRIME mentioned! As a stated crime is required by law before this type of investigation may begin, Mueller’s investigation...was illegal from its inception. As a very large side-note, 'collusion' is still not a crime. If there is no underlying crime...there can be no “obstruction of justice!” • Sher Zieve then lambasts the Democrat Deep Staters : "The crimes which were committed by members within our own governmental agencies (DOJ/FBI, CIA, NSA etc.) are the greatest uncovered in the history of our country and are vast to the point that the uncovering of the worldwide Deep State conspiracy against POTUS Trump continues. Note : Within the UK, it appears to reach the very highest levels of government....Our country was close to demise before Donald J. Trump was resoundingly elected to the presidency of the USA. Considering all of the blocks placed in his way by the DNC, RINOs and US government 'intelligence' agencies, Trump’s accomplishments are nothing less than remarkable...and legendary. Think what he will accomplish in his second term of office." • • • THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION IS DEAD. "Will it please stop breathing. That was what Canada Free Press's Judi McLeod wrote on Thursday : "Deep State and its bogus investigation is dead but won’t lay down. Why did Special Counsel Snake Robert Mueller III choose May 29, 2019 to slither off into retirement? Other than to add enough fuel to keep Democrat Impeachment plans going straight up to Election Day, it’s because the 2020 Election Campaign is well underway. All the Deep State Coup ever had on President Donald Trump was the largely debunked, dirty, pornographic Christopher Steele Dossier -- featuring the outlandish Golden Shower Conspiracy, paid for by Hillary Clinton and a just as desperate DNC. The Deep State Coup and its contrived two-year-long ‘investigation’ collapsed the moment John & Josephine Public identified the prostitutes performing -- on the same Moscow bed Barack and Michelle Obama once slept in -- as the fevered fantasy of someone’s filthy imagination, imploded on itself. The Moscow bed that played the most prominent role in Steele’s dirty Dossier was, after all, not marked with ‘Kilroy was here’ or identifying graffiti of any other kind. Two years after the collapse of the Dossier, Special Counsel Robert Mueller collapsed like the proverbial empty suit before our very eyes yesterday." • McLeod is highly critical of the Mueller investigation : "Although Mueller and his pro-Clinton Dream Team members held centre stage for more than two years, theirs was never a legitimate investigation from the get-go. Millions of average citizens knew that Donald Trump was duly elected by people who voted, not courtesy of conspirational Russian collusion; knew that there was never any need for a $35-million taxpayer funded ‘investigation’ that ran on nothing but fumes for more than two years. It took Mueller two years to keep a debunked conspiracy going, and eight minutes to throw the ball back into Congress’ court....The unvarnished truth is that the special counsel did have evidence that the President had committed no crime, but refused to admit it, with Clinton and the Democrats waiting to use it to impeach Trump before he could be elected for a second time. Mueller said it was impossible to indict a sitting President. If he knew that, then why the 2-year investigation that destroyed so many lives?" • Rush Limbaugh had the same comclusion : "He didn’t add to anything. He continued the injustice of all of this. 'If we had evidence the President did not commit a crime, if we had confidence the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so.' That’s not what you do in this country. If you have evidence he did commit a crime, you say so, but you can’t say so and you haven’t said so and you won’t say so because there isn’t any." • McLeod picked up the Limbaugh line of reasoning : "From the moment this report came out and from the moment the attorney general characterized this report, what’s been the position of the Democrat Party, from Pelosi to Jerry Nadler, to Pencil Neck Schiff, the media, everybody? It's that Mueller has evidence and that Barr is not releasing it and we need to talk to Mueller. We gotta get to Mueller. Mueller, there’s gotta be more in this report. Barr is lying. Barr is handpicked by Trump. Barr is covering for Trump. We need to talk to Mueller. All of it was done for Hillary who wanted from the get-go to overturn the election results of 2016. Something impossible to do -- even if she takes another run for the 2020 presidency. In spite of all Mueller and the Deep State have tried -- and are still trying to do for her -- Obama’s former Secretary of State wears a big sign reading PC -- Politically Corrupt -- on her back. At the end of the day the Deep State and its bogus investigation is dead but won’t lay down. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton and her surrogates, including your pal James Comey, will soon be joining you in boring retirement, Mr. Mueller." • EVEN the NEW YORK TIMES said it in a Thursday Op-Ed by David Leonhardt about the Mueller investigation -- Leonhardt began by saying, "Throughout his investigation of President Trump’s campaign, Robert Mueller has acted honorably - but he is, after all, a NYT reporter. Here is the heart of Leonhardt's opinion iece : " But in the final stages of the inquiry, he has...been surprisingly ineffective and muddled. His public remarks yesterday, as he resigned as special counsel, underscored the problems with his end game. He has declined to clear Trump of wrongdoing. He has also declined to accuse Trump of wrongdoing. Either choice was within his power as special counsel. Instead, Mueller has left the country with a tortured non-conclusion....His statement marginally increases the pressure on the House of Representatives to open impeachment hearings. But it mostly leaves the country exactly where it was, with Trump’s defenders believing he’s innocent and his critics believing he’s guilty." • American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson also said it from the conservative side on Wednesday : "Robert Mueller's 11 A.M. statement to the media today stuck to what was in his report (which he said 'speaks for itself') but selectively highlighted and sequenced points intended to damage President Trump, providing obvious bait for impeachment proceedings....It is not the job of prosecutors to state that a suspect 'clearly did not commit a crime' -- only to state whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. In discussing the second part of the report on obstruction, he repeated the point : 'If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.' Immediately, he followed with this : 'The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. This juxtaposition implies that the real thing they did 'not make a determination' about was the policy against indicting. That is sly to the point of misleading." Lifson says, and he will be proven right, is that "Democrats will be vociferously arguing that." That is, the Democrats will now cry out about flaws in the DOJ policy about indicting that sitting Presidents and try to blame that on some obscure, long since retired Republican bureaucrat. • Lifson also noted Mueller's rather haughty refusal to speak again on the subject : "He also took the Olympian position that this would be the last thing he has to say, which is why he would not take questions. He mentioned that if he is subpoenaed to testify to Congress, he will not say anything that was not in the report....This would foreclose any questions as to why he felt it was the job of a federal prosecutor to 'exonerate' a person under investigation, instead of a simply black-white prosecute-or-not-prosecute decision, as is the customary procedure." • One educated guess would be that Mueller does not want to testify or speak any more because he would finally be forced to admit that he found NO EVIDENCE that President Trump had obstructed justice. • • • GIULIANI AND DERSHOWITZ GET THE MUELLER PLOY RIGHT. Liberty Headlines published an article on Thursday about Rudy Giuliani titled "Giuliani Trashes Mueller Statement on Trump as ‘Perversion.’ " As Rudy Giuliani so correctly noted : "This is the first case ever where someone has to prove his innocence..." • Dave Goldiner and Chris Sommerfeldt of the New York Daily News wrote that Rudy Giuliani slammed Robert Mueller’s statement Wednesday as a “perversion” and suggested the special counsel overstepped his bounds by asserting he would have cleared President Donald Trump of criminal wrongdoing if he could. The ex-New York mayor-turned-personal Trump lawyer said Mueller should have stayed silent and let his report speak for itself, instead of expanding on his decision to not exonerate the president of obstruction during a rare public appearance at Justice Department headquarters. “He and his team have buffaloed all of you into accepting a perversion of the norm,” Giuliani told the New York Daily News. “This is the first case ever where someone has to prove his innocence.” • Giuliani portrayed Trump as a victim of an out-of-control prosecutor in Mueller, a theme that may shape the #MAGA response to Mueller’s statement. “Indecision for a prosecutor is a decision. Prosecutors don’t conclude you didn’t do it,” Giuliani said. “You normally cannot prove a negative." Giuliani told Fox News earlier on Thursday : "The real question is to whether it’s ethical at all for him to be discussing it or writing about (whether to clear Trump).” • In an article published in TheHill, Alan Dershowitz compared Mueller to former FBI Director James Comey, who has been widely criticized for his statements about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal in 2016 : “By implying that President Trump may have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. By putting his thumb -- indeed, his elbow -- on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias,” Dershowitz wrote. “He also has distorted the role of a prosecutor in our justice system.” • • • GINGRICH SAID WHAT WE ALL KNOW. That a special prosecutor can, and has in the past, noted when Presidents were guilty of crimes. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Fox News on Wednesday that outgoing special counsel Robert Mueller wrote a "convoluted, complex" report that did not conclude anything about President Donald Trump, but there was not any reason he could not have said the President was guilty of wrongdoing if the evidence presented itself. "You know, Ken Starr issued an independent counsel report on Bill Clinton," Gingrich told Fox News' 'America's Newsroom' after Mueller offered his statement concerning his extensive report on the President. "He used the word guilty 11 times. Six of them were obstruction of justice. It wasn't complicated. He just said you asked me to report, here is my report. He is guilty." If Mueller had used the word guilty once, "we would be in a different world," Gingrich added. "He didn't come out and say President Trump is guilty of anything, where Starr said Clinton was guilty of 11 counts. That is a major difference where we are today." Meanwhile, Gingrich noted millions of dollars were spent and 500 people were interviewed by "left-wing lawyers that didn't like Trump," but they did not find sufficient evidence against Trump. "At some point in the hunt you have to decide there are no deer in the forest, and the fact is, they couldn't prove anything," Gingrich said. "They ought to relax and just say you know, in the absence of proof in America, you are innocent. Therefore, by definition, President Trump is innocent." • • • WILL THERE EVER BE A HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. Speaker Nancy Pelosi will decide that -- or be ousted by dissident Democrats if they become too unruly to accept her leadership. • Liberty Headlines wrote on Thursday that : "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled unwillingness Wednesday to take a leap that many on the political left have already made -- impeachment. Investigating and potentially impeaching Trump dominated Capitol Hill hall talk on Wednesday, both behind closed doors where influential Democrats urge starting an inquiry and out loud among progressives demanding action. Pelosi didn’t utter the word Wednesday in her terse five-paragraph statement issued two hours after Mueller left it to Congress to investigate Trump further. 'The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power...The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our democracy. The American people must have the truth.” • Mueller said he didn't have the power to indict the President : “Under long-standing department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited.” • House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York saw the statement as a charge to Congress to look further into allegations that, among other things, Trump may have obstructed justice....House committees have been pursuing different allegations from the Mueller report. Judiciary has issued subpoenas to former White House aides Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson. It also wants to hear from former White House counsel Don McGahn, who ignored a Judiciary Committee subpoena to testify. The House Ways and Means Committee has issued subpoenas for Trump’s tax returns, which he refuses to turn over. The House Oversight Committee is seeking documents from Trump’s accounting firm. Trump’s attorneys challenged the subpoena but a federal judge last week ruled against them. They plan to appeal. How far Congress’ investigations go will depend largely on two factors : Pelosi’s directives and political reality." • Liberty Headlines lays out the political reality : "Democrats control 235 of the House’s 435 seats. It would probably take 218 votes to approve an article of impeachment. Thirty-one Democrats elected in 2018 represent districts that Trump won in 2016, and Republicans see several more Democratic seats as vulnerable. Most of the incumbents with potentially tight races have been clear that the public wants to hear about economics, health care, immigrant and other issues that impact their day to day lives -- not impeachment. Among them is Representative Lucy McBath, a Georgia Democrat who won her seat last year with 50.5% in a district Trump narrowly won in 2016. She did not mention impeachment : 'We need the full (Mueller) report and its underlying evidence, and we need this Administration to stop stonewalling Congress. This blanket policy of refusing to comply with congressional oversight must end.'....Representative TJ Cox, a California Democrat who won his seat last year by less than a thousand votes, said though investigations should proceed he was not ready to call for impeachment proceedings : 'The troubling conclusions of the Mueller report are the beginning of a discussion on how to protect our democracy, not the end. And it’s why it is important for Congress to continue the work of investigating, asking the tough questions, and holding the administration accountable.' " • Impeachment requires a majority vote in the House. But convicting the President requires a trial by the Senate, and support of two-thirds of Senators to remove him from office • BUT, says Liberty Headlines : "The other uncertainty about the Democrats’ path rests largely with Pelosi and her allies. The speaker told San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club Wednesday that only 38 House Democrats have called for an impeachment inquiry. But pressure is growing. Last week, some House leaders tried to convince Pelosi to consider impeachment; she refused but called a special meeting of House Democrats Wednesday to discuss the road ahead. Afterward, she said Trump was engaged in a cover-up. She continued to warn that there are political risks, though, and Wednesday her tone did not change." • • • DEAR READERS, if you need more proof that there is NO EVIDENCE of obstruction, just read again the Op-Ed by David Leonhardt published by the New York Times this morning (above). The NYT knows and Leonhardt knows that there is NO EVIDENCE of obstruction by President Trump, but they are still trying to finesse an impeachment proceeding in the hope that it will bring down Trump because #NeverTrump Republicans will bolt to their side. I rarely agree with David Leonhardt -- and in his Op-Ed, he is not saying that Trump is innocent of obstructing justice -- but he does nail Mueller for being part of the problem in trying to say nothing. Leonhardt knows that Mueller can't call for impeachment by saying he has evidence that the President obstructed justice because there is no evidence, and Leonhardt knows Mueller didn't have the honorable grace to say he has no evidence. The NYT and David Leonhardt are carrying water for the Deep State -- they are messengers just as Mueller is -- and their endgame is to destroy Trump in any way possible. • As I've been saying in our blog for two years, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. We can take that to the bank because if there were evidence, Mueller would be shouting it from the rooftops. • Speaker Pelosi, the political animal, is right when she says the House Democrat majority must find the evidence or shut up. She would like to impeach Trump but she knows that there is NO EVIDENCE !!! ​Chuck Todd, the twit who now hosts Meet the Press, said it last night on NBC Nightly News -- when Pelosi agrees to allow impeachment proceedings to begin, we will know there is evidence. Of course, he tried to infer by his body language that there is evidence, but like Mueller, if he had even an inkling of it, he would be screaming for impeachment. • Pelosi is trying to save what's left of the Democrat Party, but most Democrats are too impeachment obsessed to see it. Sher Zieve quoted Proverbs : “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him : haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers” __Proverbs 6:16-19. • It is a perfect description of the Democrat Party. We are not dealing with normal people on the Democrat side of the aisle.