Sorry, but impeaching Barr looks weak and IS weak. It's Trump who must be impeached

[Tom Rinaldo]

Trump appointed Barr. Trump directs Barr. Trump ordered his entire Administration to obstruct Congress. That's without even touching on the content of the Mueller Report, or Trump's unindicted co-conspirator status as "Individual One" in the Justice Department's New York Southern District. The same Republican Senate will refuse to remove Barr from office that almost certainly would refuse to remove Trump from office. But the case against Trump is far more grave and ultimately more compelling that that against his newly appointed lackey Attorney General.

Moving against Barr just signals a fear to move against Trump. That is what it would look like and in fact that is what it would be. Republicans would jump all over it. For one thing they will say it was a clear admission that it proves the evidence simply does not exist to impeach Trump, and that Democrats were looking for a consolation prize scalp instead.

Republicans, and Trump himself, will become increasingly brazen in defying Congressional oversight in the House. But no court in the land will deny Democrats the ability to subpoena the testimony and documents needed to conduct an impeachment trial in the House. That offers us our strongest constitutional grounds. If we fail to use it Republicans will have a field day and make Democrats the primary targets of investigations instead.

[Hortensis]

1. There are many kinds of weakness. I find information,

pushing back the darkness of the unknown, the best strengthener against my anxiety.

Here's a link to a description of where the very informed author of the regulations for the special counsel thinks the legal processes are at. Btw, once Mueller is not longer employed with the DoJ, he has to testify when house requires and Barr cannot stop it. The regulations were written to guard against the possibility of a crooked AG, though they didn't envision a situation this bad.

Why Barr Can’t Whitewash the Mueller Report: We have a system in place for our government to uncover evidence against a sitting president. And it’s working.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/barr-mueller-report.html

Btw, a big pat on the shoulder for all of us. I don't know what the report might be if we hadn't elected a Democratic majority in the house, empowering them to use and BE the system as intended.

[EveHammond13]

2. BOTH

[EveHammond13]

3. it does not look weak

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. It would if we moved against Barr but not Trump

I leave it to wiser legislative heads than I to determine if two simultaneous impeachment trials is a wise move or not.

[kentuck]

4. How many Repubs would vote to impeach?

Would it be the same as a vote to impeach Trump?

It would be instructive, like a shot across the bow.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Impeachment should not be limited to Trump.

Moving against Barr builds the case against Trump to impeach him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. I disagree with your timing of trials

If we don't press the case against Trump out of the gate than we will be seen as going after Barr for "rightly protecting the rights of the President since no underlying guilt exists sufficient to impeach Trump."

[Iliyah]

7. Exposing Barr will expose shithole and many others.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Hold Barr in contempt. Sure. But Trump needs to be the first to face impeachment. n/t

[Azathoth]

9. Dems aren't impeaching Trump

I don't know how much clearer Pelosi can be. This is the good ol score-political-points-during-hearings-but-don't-rock-the-boat strategy from the Dubya years.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. It is not weakness-- it is strategy. Why on earth would we want to make a suicide run...

directly at Trump that risks raising his approval just before the election?

Much more sensible to go after a henchman who may just be thrown out of office, and even if not will not help Trump in any way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Because going after Barr first gives Trump all of the advantages you worry about

but none of the downside. He gets to continue to claim that the Mueller Report vindicated him and that the investigation of his alleged crimes is over AND IT WAS A WITCH HUNT with even Democrats knowing that there are no grounds to impeach him. THEN Trump goes on the offense again saying now the Democratic witch hunt is focused on the upstanding member of his administration who called out the Democratic hoax deep state investigation.

[C_U_L8R]

13. It's a smart act one

Bring on the impeachment hearings and bring the evidence to light.

[lunatica]

14. You're wrong. Period.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I can say that too

You're wrong. Period.

[lunatica]

17. Whatever

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Agreed

[lunatica]

20. LOL!

[tinrobot]

19. It's the opening salvo in all out war

We take out the supporting forces, then go after the main dude.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Election day approaches too soon for that scenario

By the time the Senate refuses to remove Barr the presidential election will be looming and only a fraction of the evidence against Trump will have been aired via the Barr trial. Trump will campaign and raise money over the Democrats failed attempt to remove his Attorney General for standing up to the witch hunt. And he will either win or lose in November 2020. If he loses he will not be impeached. And if he wins he will not be impeached.