The Honorable Robert S. Mueller III testified to two congressional committees today under subpoena. He agreed to be bound by Bagpiper Bill Barr’s recent letter limiting the scope of his testimony. Bagpiper had a fairly low level assistant write a snitty little legal letter laying out the limitations, asserted under the expansive new protective presidential privilege not to be subjected to anything that could possibly lead to his impeachment.
Mueller (a former DOJ employee, we note — currently a private citizen) was informed by the DOJ that he may not impugn the president or speculate as to his intent or motives (both of which Barr has spoken extensively and conclusively about in defending his boss.) The former Special Counsel was warned against directly contradicting any of the false and misleading things that Bagpiper has publicly said and written. He was instructed not to comment on any member of Individual One’s family, or go into any detail not explicitly included in the report, or step near any redacted material, etc. Mueller, good Eagle Scout that he is, stated that he’d abide by these restrictions.
If you watched the hearings wearing a MAGA hat, you had to laugh at this regurgitation of old, harmless news that Trump-haters put so much faith in. The president, who said he wouldn’t be watching the lying, conflicted, Comey-loving, hoax-mongering witch hunter (whose report nonetheless TOTALLY exonerated him) was tweeting about the HOAX during the testimony he claimed not to be watching. If you support Trump (or even if you despise him) you understand that all Trump has to do is brazen this one out, and he has decades of experience being as brazen as they come. He has his all-powerful Roy Cohn, finally, an unprincipled, ideologically pure right-wing zealot who has proved his loyalty and his willingness to go beyond principle to defend his Unitary Executive master.
If you believe, as I do, as anyone who has read any portions of Mueller’s report does, that there’s massive evidence of impeachable conduct laid out in the Mueller report, you saw many answers by Mueller that hammered this home. The president refused, over the course of many months of negotiation, to appear before Mueller and his “perjury trap”. Mueller explained why he didn’t subpoena Trump (though, per Barr’s recent letter, he wouldn’t answer questions about why Koosay Jr., or smug, silent Jared, for that matter, wasn’t forced to testify). Mueller said that a subpoena for the president would have been tied up in litigation (by the Roy Cohn-trained obstructor-in-chief) and unnecessarily hold up the crucial investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Mueller elaborated about Trump’s written answers, which not only were “inadequate” but often were contradicted by other evidence. He would not speculate, or give his opinion of Trump’s credibility, though he did note that he wasn’t satisfied with Trump’s answers, formulations that were inadequate and, as he said, often contradicted by other credible evidence.
Mr. Trump is, I’m trying to find the right New York Times tone to use here, a fucking liar. He’s known as a compulsive liar, meaning, he seemingly cannot help himself. He simply says whatever he feels he has to say at any given moment, to get maximum leverage in any given transaction. What is Mueller’s opinion about Trump’s credibility? Well, he gave inadequate answers that were often contradicted by other credible evidence. So what are you saying? That this known liar was lying in his sworn answers?
That he stayed out the “perjury trap” of testifying falsely under oath on the strength of his long reputation as a lawyered up, action-taking knave. He had a team of lawyers craft the answers he falsely claimed to have written himself, answers that stated he didn’t recall, had no specific recollection, was too busy winning to notice the detail asked about, didn’t remember, was coming up blank, really didn’t know because it slipped his mind, if he ever knew about it, which, for the life of him, he couldn’t say for sure if he did or not. Answers that were often contradicted by credible evidence. Nuff said?
I didn’t see Mueller’s entire testimony, but I was waiting for somebody to direct Mueller’s attention to his final written question to Trump about obstruction. It was a long, complex question about the nefarious actions of disgraced former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. It was Trump’s firing of Comey, because not only did he refuse to declare personal loyalty to Trump but he wouldn’t let the Flynn thing go, that led to the appointment of the Special Counsel. The multi-part question about Flynn was a particularly important question. Trump’s answer was, literally, [no answer provided].
Yo, Democrats, do I have to do all your work for you?
If the testimony today had been part of an impeachment inquiry it would have meant far more than an exploratory feeler as to the public’s willingness to maybe not hold it against Democrats in 2020 if they upheld their constitutional obligation to investigate the corrupt and illegal acts of a famously corrupt and law-ignoring president, acts set out in great detail in a long, detailed report. A president who calls false emergencies to thwart the will of Congress, a president who routinely ignores court orders, who calls democratic norms, and credible critiques “bullshit” and who is intent only on “winning”– whether it’s the fight over whether stinking, unsanitary child prisons should be called “concentration camps”, whether calling black athletes “sons of bitches”, black female critics “low IQ”, Mexicans “rapists” makes him divisive, hateful racist, misogynist, xenophobe, whether raking in millions from his various businesses, and giving personal access to preferred paying customers and patron-lobbyists, is a breach of his duty to at least appear non-corrupt. Not to mention his numerous clock-running court challenges to every legal demand for documents and testimony or the sure to be overturned assertion of a blanket executive privilege against anything that could possibly put this innocent child of God in a less than blessedly Christian light.
If the Democratic House does not start impeachment proceedings, based on political handwringing, Speaker Nancy Pelosi will go down in history as America’s Neville Chamberlain. I heard a recording of the former British Prime Minister, given after his famous Munich Conference with Herr Hitler. He stated, in flowing, measured, confident tones, that at the outset he found Hitler to be unreasonable, but as they spoke Herr Hitler had convinced him of the justness of his request, that all he really wanted was for Sudeten Germans to be reunited with their countrymen. Chamberlain arrived back in London to cheers, he had averted war and preserved “peace in our time” by turning British and French ally Czechoslovakia over to the Nazis. In hindsight, he came to view it as a political mistake. He lost his job and is remembered in history as a pathetic “appeaser” of one of history’s greatest tyrants.
Hindsight is 20/20, they say, and giving in to one of the world’s most notorious mass-murdering lying psychopaths looks bad on the old resume. I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler  (all Trump has done, to date, is set up a network of stinking child prisons for little “illegals”, no death camps, NO DEATH CAMPS!) but if everything he’s done in his first two and a half years is left up to an election in 2020 that can be won by another beautifully engineered surgical 78,000 vote electoral college “mandate” (even if he loses the popular vote by 15,000,000 this time, instead of a mere 2,900,000) — we’re done. America’s long, troubled experiment in democracy is over. Stick a fork in us. Get your tattoo and move on to indicated train to the assigned privatized processing center for re-education.
Impeachment is the only constitutional remedy for this kind of openly corrupt public official. As no less an authority on our democracy than Robert S. Mueller III wrote, in his report:
The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of the office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
 outside of his personality, his inability not to lie, his disregard for law, his scorn for custom, his autocratic nature, his limited intelligence (which he boasts about as genius), his open hatred of disloyalty, the vitriol he directs towards enemies, his demands for unconditional personal loyalty, a superhuman faith in his own infallibility, his inexperience and temperamental unsuitability for leadership, his violent and overwrought language, his readily combustible temper, his hatred of any opposition, his appeals to the irrational rage of a desperate base, his tendency to pout and throw tantrums, his sadism, his readiness to employ cruelty, his scorn for “democracy”, his demand to be obeyed, he insistence that his word is law, that his ample ass be constantly smooched and several other minor things like that.
Plus, look, to be fair, nobody ever accused Hitler of being corrupt or a money-hungry lover of incomparable luxury.