Now, if people like Cruz lose and we will every seat and Romney gets Hatch's seat, and so on . . . . maybe.

We can sure hope, though!

for the republican president's image. He is going to be in the dirt for a good long time by then. I think we will get to a point where the republican president is too toxic for even the most disgusting republican.

But there were a number of conservative Democrats who were against impeachment until the very last, after the "smoking gun" tape came to light.

Still, the fact remains that, even if we retake the House and "run the table" in the Senate, winning every single remotely-close race in November (unlikely), we're still going to need around 14 or 15 Republican senators to join with us to impeach and convict. And, for that to happen, we're going to need such a Republican bloodbath this fall that senators up for re-election in 2020 have to start worrying that Trump will drag them down as well.

because that would be a waste of time with the current majority of anti-impeachment Repubs in Congress.

However, that does not mean that he won't issue more indictments before the election announcing crimes and conspiracy committed by Trump staffers. However in order to prevent Trump pardoning Kushner and Don Jr, Mueller would probably have to include Trump in conspiracy charges. Some media experts have suggested Mueller might even indict Trump, which would test our constitutional limits and probably end up at Supreme Court rather than just recommending impeachment if it appears we have a Congress that won't act for partisan reasons.

he presents the evidence, it is up to congress (God help us) to impeach

...it is possible for the DoJ to refer possible impeachable offenses to Congress, should they conclude any have been committed. The rub here is that Mueller himself cannot do it; the DoJ official he reports to is the one charged with that responsibility. At the moment, that's Rosenstein. However, should Trump fire Rosenstein and put someone like, say, Arapaio or Clarke in his place, it's quite legal for that new replacement to look at Mueller's report and tell him "sorry, but I don't see anything impeachable here." In which case, Mueller has no recourse.

Of course, Democrats in the House could introduce Articles of Impeachment anyway, but it would be a lot easier for Republicans to brush them off without such a recommendation being made public.

If Russian meddling, which has gone largely unchecked since 2016, hasn't subsided by the midterms, will we even stand a chance to retake Congress and begin impeachment procedures against Trump?

Mueller is still our strongest check and balance.

Dropping multiple indictments that are instructive as to not only the Russian intrusions but American collusion may inform and awaken the American electorate. But will it be enough?

...to be able to steal an election, the results need to be close enough that half a percentage here or there won't be noticeable (or, in the case of the cyber-propaganda we saw in 2016, where swaying a relatively small number of easily-influenced voters in specific regions will be sufficient to make the difference). If enough people turn out to vote against Trump and the Republicans, even Russian disinformation campaigns won't be able to change the outcome.

we considered exit polls like we used to and like the rest of the world does: circumstantial evidence of election fraud where there are differences from the vote totals.

But we threw that standard away in 2000 and now tend to adjust the exit polls to reflect the vote.

Number one, I refuse to believe Mueller works like that. And number two, if he did work like that, I'm sure there is enough shit in store that he could begin immediately and not end until well after the mid-terms.

action on Trump has to be included in his report to Congress. There's no guarantee Ryan or Turtle will do anything.