,
12 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1 I like Seth, but it takes him awhile in this (good) thread to get to the point, which is this:
ANY finding of Mueller’s that does not come with a criminal charge will in practice be viewed by most everybody as an exoneration on that charge. This especially includes Congress.
ANY finding of Mueller’s that does not come with a criminal charge will in practice be viewed by most everybody as an exoneration on that charge. This especially includes Congress.
2 As Seth explains, this is bad and dumb, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. And it won’t just be Repubs saying this—a large, dominant swath of the media and even the Democratic opposition will hold the same assumption. Anything below “beyond a reasonable doubt” he’ll skate on.
3 We made a strategic categorical error from the very beginning by putting this in the language of a criminal charge and not a fit for office standard. And we’ve reinforced that error daily ever since his inauguration.
What everyone is looking for is undeniable proof of a crime.
What everyone is looking for is undeniable proof of a crime.
4 It was a PROFOUND mistake to cede everything to an anonymous special counsel (with a limited purview), and to imbue his eventual summary with the practical effect of being the final judgment on whether Trump ought to be impeached or not. But that’s exactly what we have done.
5 There will be investigating and plenty going on regardless of Mueller’s findings. But unless he comes back with “He clearly did this crime and we recommend you charge him with it right now,” removal from office is basically off the table (barring unrelated new crimes).
6 In truth, as Seth mentions, it’s probably off the table anyway. Bc the standard is more like 97% for Trump. We’ve spent so long blindly building up Mueller and Mueller only, that it basically has to be basically unarguable or the GOP won’t feel they have the cover they need.
7 In practice, Mueller should have been one of many things going on in parallel. Every new instance of criminality should have spun off its own investigation. But every time, when it came down to it, we’d (maybe) have some hearings, but the word was, always, “wait for Mueller.”
8 and the effect of that is everything became wrapped up in Mueller—he became the cipher for ALL judgment on Trump criminality and fitness for office. So even stuff like Cohen lying/hush money, Comey firing, obstruction, lying, etc. all got sucked into this one thing.
9 The problem was always: THAT’S NOT HIS JOB. So unless it’s beyond a reasonable doubt and directly related to Campaign 2016 collusion with Russia, he’s not going to abdicate those things for us. But in not doing so, he’s going to, perversely, inoculate Trump.
10 The answer will always be “well if it was clearly a crime why did Mueller decide to not prosecute him?” And there IS an answer to that, as Seth mentions, but you’re never going to get America there. The question will have the effect of killing any conversation. It will win.
(/fin ugh sorry sloppy posting had to clean that up some)
The only thing I’d add is that in taking so long, Trump is probably inoculated anyway, bc by now the Dem answer is going to be “if you’re mad about it vote for us” not “so let’s impeach him.” The math on that only changes if Trump wins a second term. Which, insanely, is possible.
