After Mueller’s testimony before Congress, I was pretty despondent. I turned it off, to be honest. Marty was similarly unimpressed.
This morning, the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg arrived at a very different conclusion.
Last Wednesday, after Robert Mueller’s terse and sometimes halting congressional testimony, conventional wisdom quickly congealed: Mueller’s performance had made Donald Trump’s impeachment far less likely. “Robert S. Mueller III’s disastrous testimony has taken the wind out of the sails of the Democratic impeachment drive,” wrote Marc Thiessen in The Washington Post. CNN’s Chris Cillizza declared Mueller’s testimony “a bust — at least when it came to generating momentum for impeachment.”
Less than a week later, it’s clear that these hot takes were wrong. At no point in Trump’s wretched rule has impeachment appeared more probable. Indeed, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, which would oversee impeachment hearings, argue that an inquiry into impeachment has already begun. An inexorable confrontation between the House and the president has been set in motion.
I need to get the words “Chris Cillizza is always wrong” tattooed somewhere on my body. Maybe somewhere really sensitive, so I don’t forget. He is always wrong. I remember reading the original article (no, I am not going to link to Cillizza), and should have taken heart then.
Goldberg continues.
Perhaps even more significant than the growing number of calls for impeachment is a lawsuit filed by the Judiciary Committee on Friday. The filing, demanding access to grand jury material from the Mueller investigation, says that the committee “is conducting an investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment.” In other words, the Judiciary Committee, which would oversee any potential impeachment, announced, with surprisingly little fanfare, that an impeachment inquiry is already underway.
That seems to be quite different from “a bust.” Now if only someone could tell Nancy to get out of the way.
I love the graphic.
To quote Charlie PIerce: “When the Smithsonian opens its American Museum of Feckless Journalism, the Cillizza exhibit is going to be right there in the lobby, across from the statues of Maureen Dowd and David Brooks.”
This is just, well…..fucking AWESOME!!!
Kudos, Mr. Skwire.
It’s not only Cilizza, it was the knee-jerk buzz of most of the media. It’s actually similar to what happened when the Mueller Report was first released. A combination of GOP spin and the “serious” pundits not wanting to be wrong. The truth is, the dynamic of these things are complicated and far beyond the pay grade of most of these media stenographers. Not everything that happens is signed, sealed and delivered within an hour after it happens.
Note that these corporate pundits are “always wrong” in the direction of protection for (and defense of) the “conservative” position. Repub spin control is always right, until proven demonstrably wrong.
The bias is inexorable, just as the corporate media are gaming the Dem “debate” cattle-calls. “Sooooo Lib’rul!”
Perhaps even more interesting than the 12-15 Democrats in Congress who’ve come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry since Mueller’s testimony is the 5 Republicans in the past two weeks who’ve announced they’re not running for re-election. That doesn’t mean Democrats can flip all those seats (some of them are deep red), but it does suggest that members of Congress are seeing some poll numbers (and/or other data) that show next year is (at least for now) shaping up to be a tough year for Republicans.
In the end, that’s what got Nixon. Incumbent Democrats were looking at districts where they would lose *unless* they came out strongly in favor of impeachment, and a significant number of Republicans were looking at districts where if they were perceived as defending Nixon, they’d lose. That’s what created the political majority that drove him from office.
Now, we live in a different era, with different political parties, different districts, different politics and a different electorate. But if supporting an impeachment inquiry becomes within the self-interest of a critical mass of representatives in the House, then we’re going to have an impeachment inquiry.