Many Democrats long have considered Robert S. Mueller III a potential savior, as the agent of President Trump’s eventual undoing. Wednesday’s hearings on Capitol Hill probably shattered those illusions once and for all. If Democrats hope to end the Trump presidency, they will have to do so by defeating him at the ballot box in November 2020.
In reality, that has been the case for months. Still, scheduled testimony by the former special counsel before two House committees offered the possibility that he would say something that would suddenly change public perceptions and dramatically jump-start long-stalled prospects for an impeachment inquiry. That was certainly the Democrats’ goal. If anything, things could move in the opposite direction.
Regardless of the evidence of obstruction contained in Mueller’s report, impeachment is a fraught strategy for the Democrats, given public opinion and the dynamics in the Senate. After Wednesday, the prospects for impeachment appear more remote, which means it will be left to the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, with the help of the party, to develop a comprehensive case against the president, one that can win 270 electoral votes. To date, that hasn’t happened.
Even after Mueller, the votes in the House have not changed in favor of impeachment.
The Senate intelligence committee has released its report detailing Russia’s targeting of election systems in 2016 along with recommendations for protecting American elections from foreign interference.
The committee’s final report on election securityappeared Thursday as the 2020 presidential race gets underway in what promises to be a bitter and divisive election battle.
It also followed former Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller’s stark warning to lawmakers on Wednesday that Russia’s sprawling influence operation of 2016 was not a one-and-done.
“No, it wasn’t a single attempt,” Mueller said during some six hours of testimony about his Russia investigation, before two House committees. “They’re doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign.”
Election security divides Congress after Mueller’s testimony
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, halted a bipartisan effort to beef up state election systems ahead of the 2018 election and on Thursday blocked Democrats from pushing forward a House-passed bill to authorize funding for the states.
McConnell said President Donald Trump’s administration has already made great strides to enhance election security, and he called the House bill “not a serious effort” coming from the same side that he said spent the past two years “hyping” Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
“Obviously, it’s very important that we maintain the integrity and security of our elections,” McConnell said Thursday.
The Senate already unanimously approved one bipartisan measure, which makes interference in elections a violation of immigration law. But Democrats — and some Republicans — say Congress must do more.
A report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the Russian government directed “extensive activity” against U.S. election systems ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
The report, released Thursday, says states weren’t appropriately warned of the threat against their systems and warns many of them still have outdated voting machines.
Read the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. 
Just the headline alone is completely alarming…
WASHINGTON — The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded Thursday that election systems in all 50 states were targeted by Russia in 2016, an effort more far-reaching than previously acknowledged and one largely undetected by the states and federal officials at the time.
But while the bipartisan report’s warning that the United States remains vulnerable in the next election is clear, its findings were so heavily redacted at the insistence of American intelligence agencies that even some key recommendations for 2020 were blacked out.
The report — the first volume of several to be released from the committee’s investigation into Russia’s 2016 election interference — came 24 hours after the former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III warned that Russia was moving again to interfere “as we sit here.”
While details of many of the hackings directed by Russian intelligence, particularly in Illinois and Arizona, are well known, the committee described “an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure” intended largely to search for vulnerabilities in the security of the election systems.
…
While the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings were bipartisan, they came on a day when Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, moved again to block consideration of election security legislation put forward by Democrats.
Mr. McConnell has long opposed giving the federal government a greater hand in an institution of American democracy typically run by the states.
And despite the warnings about the Russia threat, he argues that Congress has already done enough — passing $380 billion worth of grants for states to update their election systems and supporting executive branch agencies as they make their own changes. Some administration officials have suggested that the issue is not getting enough high-level attention because President Trump equates any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory.
We have an impeachment investigation!!!
The House Judiciary Committee on Friday asked a federal judge to unseal grand jury secrets related to Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, using the court filing to declare that lawmakers have already in effect launched an impeachment investigation of President Trump.
In a legal maneuver that carries significant political overtones, the committee told a judge that it needs access to the grand jury evidence collected by Mr. Mueller as special counsel — such as witness testimony — because it is “investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment” against the president.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday that a decision on whether the House pursues the impeachment of President Donald Trump will be made in a “timely fashion” and denied the idea that she is trying to “run out the clock” on the issue.
Her comments came shortly before House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said at a separate press conference that his panel has already “in effect” been conducting an impeachment inquiry of the president — and said in a court filing that “articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of the Committee’s investigation, although no final determination has been made."
Lisa Desjardins:
Two reasons.
It helps them in court to say, we need to exercise a very prominent constitutional authority, because we believe the president may have done something impeachable. That has in the past made a difference in court hearings — in our rulings.
The other, Judy, is political. We have known Democrats for weeks have been in favor or not in favor of an impeachment inquiry. The semantics have been a problem for Democrats. Now they’re trying to wash that all away by saying, listen, we have been investigating, and now we are investigating and we are formally saying, this is an impeachment investigation.
They’re not going to take a separate vote on whether to open an investigation. They’re simply doing it.
I was wondering why there wasn’t a second vote before August recess.
Yes, good distinction.
Having Nancy Pelosi sign off on the Impeachment Inquiry was a big move and is just a means to an end. Dems want access to the Grand Jury testimony in Mueller’s report, need some leverage in getting McGahn’s subpoena to actually be enforced. Because of Article 1’s description, it allows Congress to get what they need if they are pursuing an Impeachment inquiry, and gives more gravitas to their getting the documents (Grand Jury, Taxes and McGahn) and helping them with their inquiry on nailing T and his illegal pursuits.
I am hearing that all along, Nancy is protecting the 30 or so centrist Dems who can not or will not vote for impeachment because it would lessen their chances of re-election for swing voters and/or Republicans who could vote for a Dem Congressional Rep and also vote for T. She is really protecting their majority it seems.
All the polling suggests that there is not the political will for impeachment, like less than 30%. Nancy is a vote counter…and with about 1/3 of her group 100 going for impeachment, the rest of Dem Congress is not for it, or simply won’t vote for it.
Pelosi met with AOC today to demonstrate that they get along like ‘family’ but do not necessarily agree with one another. They had a photo taken to falsify any notion that there is only infighting. Nancy wants the situation to be ‘play nice.’ It would be a better look than having T go after AOC as fringe, socialist etc…They are putting on a united front.
It would be great if Dems could get some more incriminating evidence of the blockbuster sort (Money laundering, Taxes showing who he owes his allegiances to…etc) So I think Pelosi feels she can only gain here by signing onto the Impeachment inquiry that Nadler wants to pursue…and keep her Dems in a position of power.
That and win 2020 on all fronts.
A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, conducted immediately after former special counsel Robert Mueller’s congressional testimony, shows little impact on support for impeaching President Donald Trump, with a plurality of voters still opposed to beginning proceedings that could result in Trump’s removal from office.
Only 37 percent of voters say Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against Trump, according to the poll, which was conducted Thursday. More voters, 46 percent, say Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings. Sixteen percent of voters are undecided.
NADLER: I’ll repeat what we said in our court filings. We have impeachment resolutions before the committee. We are conducting investigations to determine whether we should report those impeachment resolutions to the House or direct our own and report those to the House. We’re considering those resolutions. We’ll make a determination after we get more evidence as to the president’s crimes that we had from the Mueller report and also from other things. As to his violations of the emoluments clause, failure to defend the constitution against continuing Russian attacks."
STEPHANOPOULOS: "So that is an impeachment investigation? "
NADLER: “We’re investigating whether to report – whether to approve articles of impeachment before the committee.”
What happens if the investigation runs out the clock before the next election cycle? Does anyone when they would call it?
Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.House of Representatives, for an order authorizing the release of certain Grand Jury materials.
Bombshell Report from the House Oversight Committee
Jul 29, 2019
Press Release
WH, Agencies Still Refuse to Produce Documents in Committee’s Investigation
Washington, D.C. (July 29, 2019)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, issued a second interim staff report in the Committee’s investigation into efforts to transfer U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.
Chairman Cummings issued the following statement:
“Today’s report reveals new and extensive evidence that corroborates Committee whistleblowers and exposes how corporate and foreign interests are using their unique access to advocate for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. The American people deserve to know the facts about whether the White House is willing to place the potential profits of the President’s personal friends above the national security of the American people and the universal objective of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.”
The Committee’s second interim report is based on more than 60,000 pages of new documents produced to the Committee in response to requests that Chairman Cummings made to a host of outside companies about their involvement with plans to transfer U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. The report states:
New documents and communications show that IP3, the private company lobbying the White House to transfer U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, repeatedly sought a $120 million investment from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. It is unclear if the company ultimately received the investment.
Documents show that IP3 is currently pushing the Trump Administration not to require Saudi Arabia to agree to the “Gold Standard,” which is a commitment not to use U.S. nuclear technology to make nuclear weapons. Documents show that IP3 officials repeatedly urged White House and Trump Administration officials to abandon the “Gold Standard” in any future 123 Agreement with Saudi Arabia, complaining that it would lock them out of lucrative nuclear contracts with the Saudis.
New documents show that IP3 officials have had unprecedented access to the highest levels of the Trump Administration, including meeting directly with President Trump, Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn, KT McFarland, and Cabinet Secretaries Rick Perry, Steven Mnuchin, Mike Pompeo, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, and Wilbur Ross. IP3 described the Trump Administration as “an extended team member.”
New documents show that Thomas J. Barrack, Jr.—a longtime personal friend, campaign donor, and inaugural chairman—negotiated directly with President Trump and other White House officials to seek powerful positions within the Administration—including Special Envoy to the Middle East and Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates—at the same time he was (1) promoting the interests of U.S. corporations seeking to profit from the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia; (2) advocating on behalf of foreign interests seeking to obtain this U.S. nuclear technology; and (3) taking steps for his own company, Colony NorthStar, to profit from the same proposals he was advancing with the Administration.
Officials from other companies in the nuclear industry have serious concerns about IP3 and its financial motive in pressing for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, calling it a “boondoggle,” warning that “IP3 has a questionable reputation,” and observing, “This whole IP3 effort is still a bit strange and mysterious.” One industry executive called IP3 the “Theranos of the nuclear industry.”
The White House has completely refused to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation and has not produced a single document in response to the Committee’s requests. For the most part, the federal agencies involved have followed suit. As a result of the White House’s actions, it may be necessary for the Committee to seek compulsory process to obtain information from the White House, federal agencies, and individual Trump Administration officials.
Click here to read the second interim staff report.
Click here to read the documents released with the second interim staff report.
Click here to read the first interim staff report.
And here’s more from ABC News and the New York Times.
Pasadena Now
Wednesday, July 31, 2019 | 4:43 AM
Pasadena Congresswoman Calls for Impeachment Inquiry Into President Trump
Pasadena-area Congresswoman Judy Chu issued a statement Tuesday calling for the opening of an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
“ I believe it is time for Congress to open an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. The proceedings must be deliberate and transparent. We have a sacred duty as members of Congress to ensure that nobody is above the law. To do nothing given what we know is unacceptable,” Chu said.
In her statement, Chu referred to the recent appearance before Congress of Robert S. Mueller III.
“When Special Counsel Mueller testified before Congress, he reiterated clear evidence that President Trump obstructed justice and that if Trump were not the President, he would be on trial,” Chu said.
According to Politico:
CALIFORNIA REP. JUDY CHU became the 116th House Democrat to call for impeachment – just two more would put Democrats over the 50% mark.
In other words, it’s very likely that a majority of the Democrats in the House will soon be on record as favoring an impeachment inquiry. This tipping point should reassure the remaining Democrats – they’ll feel safer coming out in favor as well. Let’s hope that support for an impeachment inquiry really starts to snowball now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=CD-Y2YxQzo0
Hard-hitting ad that makes the case for an impeachment inquiry.
Hats off to NeedToImpeach for producing this ad. 
Why my committee needs the president’s tax returns
Richard E. Neal, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts’s 1st Congressional District in the House and is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
For three decades, the House of Representatives and its Ways and Means Committee have been the site of my life’s work. I never aspired to be a senator or governor or president.
Instead, I learned arcane House rules and sought a position on the Ways and Means Committee because of its tremendous potential to help my district. I have listened to my constituents on matters such as taxes, health care, international trade and Social Security, which are within the committee’s purview. Untold hours have gone into developing legislation and trying to improve, pass or defeat countless bills. That’s the job.
I’d rather hold a roundtable in Pittsfield, Mass., or cross-examine Medicare administrators than pick fights on cable news. Those arguments tend to drive people into their corners, shrinking opportunities to accomplish real results.
I’m an institutionalist. I respect Congress, for all its imperfections. As chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, I am responsible for congressional oversight of the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service’s administration of the federal tax code. The tax code gives the committee chairman the power to request taxpayer information from the IRS. The committee has exercised this power at various times in the past and has never been denied by the IRS or the Treasury Department.
In early April, I requested the president’s tax returns to fulfill a legitimate congressional oversight responsibility: Our voluntary tax-compliance system hinges on the public’s faith that our tax laws are administered fairly and without favor to those in power. The president is unique: No other American has the power to sign bills into law and direct an entire branch of government. That power, and the extent to which the IRS can audit and enforce federal tax laws against a current or future president, merits closer legislative scrutiny.
The IRS has a policy of performing mandatory audits on all sitting presidents and vice presidents. But neither Congress nor the public knows anything about the scope of those audits and whether the president can exert undue influence on the IRS to affect his or her tax treatment. If, for example, the president is already under audit at the time he or she takes office, what happens to that audit? We don’t know.
My committee will consider legislation regarding the mandatory audit program to ensure these audits are conducted fairly and without undue influence from the commander in chief. And, as part of our deliberations, we must review his tax information to better understand the audit program and propose any needed changes.
The law on this is very clear: The IRS “shall furnish ” the Ways and Means Committee with the requested tax returns. Both Democrats and Republicans have made requests for taxpayer information under 6103(f)(1) of the U.S. tax code in the past. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress is entitled to a presumption that its investigatory activities are legitimate, and, in this case, the legitimacy is self-evident. And yet, the administration has stonewalled Congress, ordering the IRS commissioner not to comply with the plain language of the law and setting up a pending legal clash.
I did not pick this fight, but I will not shirk it because it’s about something much bigger than tax forms. This is not an exercise in political retribution: I am not willing to trade the reputation of the Ways and Means Committee for cheap political gains.
The committee is a venerable part of U.S. history, having given the nation Social Security, Medicare, the entire tax code, all of our trade agreements, and numerous programs serving children and families. This committee financed America’s role in both world wars, and its antecedent paid for the Lewis and Clark expedition. I have no intention of squandering my chairmanship of this distinguished panel on petty or malevolent efforts to embarrass the current president.
But in this country, we take seriously the Magna Carta’s precept of the rule of law, not the law of rulers. I will fight with everything I have to reassert Congress’s constitutional mandate to serve as an equal branch of government. This country has thrived through the centuries because we have durable political institutions with a robust system of checks and balances.
Our political institutions won’t continue to function unless we guard them vigilantly, and my colleagues and I in the House majority are committed to doing so. It is the root of our oath to uphold the law.
More than half of House Democrats say they would vote to launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, a crucial threshold that backers said will require Speaker Nancy Pelosi to reconsider her steadfast opposition.
Though Pelosi has given no indication that even a significant majority of House Democrats embracing impeachment proceedings would shift her view, supporters of an inquiry argue that crossing the halfway mark among the caucus is a symbolic boost that could shift the political dynamic.
“The president’s repeated abuses have brought American democracy to a perilous crossroads," said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who announced his support on Tuesday. “Following the guidance of the Constitution — which I have sworn to uphold — is the only way to achieve justice.”
The number of House Democrats who support impeachment proceedings passed the halfway mark — 118 out of 235 voting members now support the effort — on Thursday when Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida announced his support. Deutch was also the 23rd Democratic lawmaker to support impeachment proceedings in the days after former special counsel Robert Mueller testified to Congress, affirming publicly his damning evidence suggesting Trump attempted to obstruct justice.
Missing in action
The only body with the power to take action against Kavanaugh now is Congress, and, notwithstanding fierce Democratic opposition to his nomination, there’s been no effort by lawmakers to act so far. Supreme Court justices, like federal judges in the lower courts, can be impeached for misconduct, but it’s extremely rare.
A coalition of liberal legal groups and court watchdogs sent a letter to House Democrats in April urging them to take up the investigation into allegations raisedduring Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings that he participated in sexual assault when he was in high school, and, separately, how the White House and the Senate responded to those claims when they came up. No congressional committee has held hearings or publicly expressed plans to do so.
Pelosi Statement on Progress of House Investigations
AUGUST 2, 2019
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released this statement on the progress of the House’s investigations:
“When we take the oath of office, we solemnly vow ‘to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ The Mueller report states unequivocally that Russia interfered in the 2016 election ‘in sweeping and systematic fashion.’ And the Intelligence Community informs us that Russia is working 24/7 to undermine our elections. This assault on our elections is a serious national security matter which the President chooses to ignore.
“The Mueller report and his testimony last week confirmed that the President’s campaign welcomed Russian interference in the election, and laid out ten instances of the President’s obstruction of justice. The President’s more recent attempts to prevent us from finding the facts is further evidence of obstruction of justice.
“To protect our democracy and our Constitution, Democrats in the Congress continue to legislate, investigate and litigate.
Litigation:
Last week, Jerry Nadler, Chair of Judiciary, took a significant step when he filed a petition to obtain the grand jury testimony underlying the Mueller report, for the House to ‘have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.’
Elijah Cummings, Chair of Oversight and Reform, is winning in court in the Mazars case, seeking the President’s financial statements and reports prepared by his accountant to determine financial conflicts, violations of the Emoluments Clause, and the truthfulness of representations contained in the President’s statutorily required financial disclosure forms;
Maxine Waters, Chair of Financial Services and Adam Schiff, Chair of Intelligence are winning in court in the Deutsche Bank case, seeking the President’s bank account records to assist with the Committees’ investigation of unsafe banking practices, including money laundering, illicit transactions and foreign investments;
Richie Neal, Chair of Ways and Means, is pursuing the President’s tax returns to assist with the ongoing investigation of the IRS’s presidential tax audit program;
Eliot Engel, Chair of Foreign Affairs, on another front, is investigating the Russia connection with hearings seeking the facts from the Trump-Putin meetings;
In addition, last week, the House voted to reiterate its oversight authority, and ratified and affirmed the subpoenas already issued by the committees and any subpoenas to come. Responding to the subpoenas gives the President an opportunity to provide information that could exonerate him. If he has nothing to hide, he should cooperate with the subpoenas.
Investigation:Our litigation has been strengthened by the months of work from our six committees which are engaged in the investigations. 54 percent of House Democrats serve on these committees engaged in hearings and investigations, and I am very proud of their work.
Legislation:We have sent the Securing America’s Federal Elections Act to the Senate. However, Mitch McConnell refuses to take up this legislation or any other legislation to protect our democracy. Why do the President and the Republican Leader in the Senate choose to protect Russia rather than to protect the integrity of our elections? We will continue to lead a drumbeat across the country demanding the GOP Senate act.
“The assault on our elections and our Constitution is a grave national security issue. We owe it to our Founders to sustain our system of checks and balances and our democracy. We owe it to our heroic men and women in uniform who risk their lives for freedom to defend our democracy at home. We owe it to our children to ensure that no present or future president can dishonor the oath of office without being held accountable.“In America, no one is above the law. The President will be held accountable.”