Monday Morning Coming Down with Russiagate

Paul Bedard at WaEx, White House warned Dems gunning for ‘anything and everything Trump’ Like they needed a headline to tell us that. But What, precisely, do Democrats want to impeach Trump for? (Byron York,  WaEx), Oh you know, this and that:

But on what grounds, specifically, do the pro-impeachment Democrats intend to remove the president? The new Sherman/Green resolution, and Green's and Cohen's resolutions from last year, are not exactly a comprehensive recounting of Trump's alleged offenses. Sherman's is based entirely on the president's firing of FBI Director James Comey and the Comey memos, while Green's articles seek to remove Trump for "sowing discord among the people of the United States" with his comments on Charlottesville, transgender troops, and Muslim immigration. (In an earlier version, Green also sought to impeach Trump for statements about Rep. Frederica Wilson and NFL players who do not stand for the national anthem.) Cohen's articles rehashed much of Sherman's obstruction allegation while adding a charge that Trump violated the Constitution's emoluments clause, plus articles seeking to remove Trump for tweeting about federal judges and calling some press organizations "fake news."

Judging by the articles currently on the table, Democrats will have to raise their impeachment game if they choose to go forward with an attempt to remove the president.

But, primarily, as Instapundit notes, for unexpectedly beating Hillary Clinton.

From Ann Althouse, who reads the NYT so you don't have to,  finds one commenter who writes "I did not vote for Trump and have concerns about his behavior and policies, but I will not stand-up idly and condone what appears to be an effort to conduct a coup..."

"... and unseat a duly elected President. How so? I read and hear all the rhetoric about his misdeeds, but where is the meat? That he obviously lies. So? I recently read a study in which it was concluded that ALL presidents have lied to the public and knowingly did so. That Trump is more blatant in his lies and lies more often does not make him worse (or in need of impeachment) than his predecessors. Surely, you remember G.W. Bush and his justifications for invading Iraq and then blaming it (that his justifications were baseless) on 'bad intelligence'; those lies lead to the death of over 5,000 American military personnel, over 40,000 wounded and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian (read: non-combatant) deaths and injuries. That Trump refuses to 'act' in a manner that the political elite demands is not grounds for impeachment. That Trump has and is inciting the tyranny of the masses is not grounds for impeachment. Again, I am not a big fan of Trump, but until hard proof is provided that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, I will support his presidency, even if I do not support one or more of is policies or agree with his behavior."

Even if some of his facts are wrong, I appreciate the sentiment.

Chris Strohm, Bloomberg, When Mueller Issues Report, Trump May Try to Suppress Some of It

Democrats who now control the House have said they’ll demand that the department hand over the report -- and that they intend to make it public. The White House may counter by asserting executive privilege to prevent key findings from being turned over, according to people familiar with internal deliberations.

Under the federal regulation that authorizes special counsels, Mueller is required only to submit his report to department leaders. There’s no mandate that any part of Mueller’s findings be provided to Congress or the public.

What happens next would be decided by Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker or by William Barr, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, if he’s confirmed by the Senate by then. In the past, both have criticized Mueller’s investigation into whether anyone around Trump colluded in the Russian meddling and whether the president sought to obstruct the probe.

Trump and his lawyers expect to get an advance look at the report if there’s a chance it will be shared beyond the Justice Department. They may assert executive privilege to withhold any information related to Trump’s time in the White House or during the transition, depending on what’s included.

“We will look at it and see if the president thinks there is a valid claim and if there is, do we want to make it,” said Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani. “We reserve the right. We don’t know if we have to, but we haven’t waived it.”

Giuliani said the White House would be willing to fight in court to preserve material it considers privileged.

With as much exculpatory material as the FBI and DOJ have tried desperately to suppress, and largely successfully, on national security grounds, those claims seem warranted.