Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:09 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Impeachment was never on the table - not over Russia-gate. ... So all this "We're gonna impeach the mother fucker" trash talking and shot calling needs to end, and the Democrats who keep banging on that drum need to let it sink in.
I would like to see less chest-thumping. The assumptions that Pelosi and those opposing 'impeach NOW' are doing so for dishonorable reasons---'weak' or 'saving their own political future' and what-have-you, are unsupported by the facts, and massively illogical to boot. 'Saving their own political future' being somehow entirely unconnected from 'saving the USA from a Republican House and from Trump re-election' makes not one lick of sense.

But the chest-thumping is not only trendy, but also easily ginned-up by malign forces. It's pleasurable to declare 'those Democrats are such weak losers!' because the declaration carries the unspoken underpinning 'and I am NOT a weak loser, which qualifies me to pass judgment on them!' Everyone enjoys being in that one-up position of sitting in judgment on others...particularly on others who have higher status. 'It's up to ME to decide if that old biddy is doing the right thing or not!'---what fun! How powerful that makes me feel! Love it!

...........Anyone who thinks these anti-Congressional-Democrat sentiments aren't being actively encouraged by those who want to see Trump remain in office, is delusional.*


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Having said that, they should still keep investigating, still investigate Trump's business dealings, still request his tax records, and still have hearings as appropriate. ....
Yes. And note that such investigations will cease the moment Trump is acquitted in the Senate. How can anyone investigate a man declared innocent by the Unites States Senate??





*Criticism of members of Congress is one thing---and it's entirely appropriate. But what the keep-Trump-in-power forces are encouraging, under the guise of being "fellow-Democrats," is contempt for members of Congress.

That's how you know you're being manipulated: if you're encouraged to join in expressions of scorn and derision.
  #152  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:12 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
My favorite line:
Mueller: I'm not going to discuss that.
Congressman: You put in your report. Page 196....
Cannot find. Can you shed some light on the nature of the question? That would be helpful.

Quote:
....When he evaded the issues on the Steele Portfolio....
He did not have instruction to investigate the Steele Portfolio. He was not supposed to investigate the Steel Portfolio. He was not in a position to offer any worthwhile information about the Steele Portfolio. If we are charitable, we can assume that any question about the Steele Portfolio was a question founded on ignorance, rather than malice.

Quote:
...and the Clinton campaign's relation to the Russians...
What was that "relation to the Russians"? You got, you bring. You got?

Quote:
...Really shows favoritism....
Does that change any of the facts delivered to us? If Rudy G. had delivered this report, it would be more convincing? More to the point, can you refute any of the facts as delivered?

Quote:
....I know the Dems wanted Mueller to say "Trump is guilty of obstruction but I can't indict him" but he didn't and at a few points implied Trump didn't obstruct. IMHO impeachment is now off the table.
He couldn't indict a sitting President. Period. Full stop. You didn't know this? And yet, in the same breath, you tell us that he "implied Trump didn't obstruct". Some reference to those strong and definitive insinuations would be helpful. Again, you got, you bring.

Further, there are clear and documented examples of such obstruction, centering around Don McGahn. These are somewhat more than insinuations, don't you think? Or don't you?

I had been wondering why there was so little defense offered for Il Douche, it seemed rather unfair, that we witch hunters general had dominated the conversation. Thank you for relieving that concern

Last edited by elucidator; 07-24-2019 at 07:15 PM.
  #153  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:15 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
With a shovel, a baseball bat, or a less illegal and more procedural kind of assault weapon? Just what procedure do you have in mind here?
I've a mind to join a club and beat him over the head with it.
  #154  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:18 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I wish that one of these last people would say, "You've been interrupted and cut off several times by my Republican colleagues, when you were attempting to clarify issues of conflict of interest. What were you attempting to say?"
I refer you to my report.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Has anyone straight up asked Mueller why: "...we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime..."?
I will not get into charging decisions. I refer you to my report.

The whole thing was a partisan waste of time. I expected:

Q: Good morning, Mr. Mueller. How are you today?
A: That is outside the scope of my report and will not comment on it.
  #155  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:18 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
This is absolutely a disaster for the Dems.
How so? AFAICT, they aren't any worse off than they were yesterday.

They may not be any better off, but I don't think many people expected they would be.
  #156  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:20 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by FavreCo View Post
How many times can these idiot Ds come to the plate and strike out? They are batting ZERO against Trump now for over 2.5 years.
At this rate they will keep it up right through his 2nd term and will still bat 0 for both terms..
  #157  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:35 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,434
The Republicans aren't making any sense on the whole "exonerate" / "doesn't exonerate" thing.

When Mueller says that the report doesn't exonerate Trump, the Republicans get upset and say that it's not Mueller's job to exonerate.

Well... yeah, they're right. It's not Mueller's job to exonerate, therefore his report can't, and doesn't, exonerate. What's the argument here?

Trump seems to think that it is Mueller's job to exonerate and that he did so. He's wrong but other Republicans seem almost more confused than him (if that's possible).
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885
  #158  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:37 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,857
Very anti-climactic, the whole thing. Really just an attempt by Democrats to publicly highlight key sections of the report for illiterate dumbasses, for all the good that will do. And Republican lunatics like Gohmert and Jordan to make asses of themselves on national TV, which only causes their acolytes to admire them more. I'm surprised at Mueller's reticence to actually say anything -- I'm not sure I really understand the nature of the restrictions that were put on him. Surely the national interest is best served by getting at the truth.
  #159  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:55 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by FavreCo View Post
How many times can these idiot Ds come to the plate and strike out? They are batting ZERO against Trump now for over 2.5 years.
Well, we did keep the GOP from killing the ACA in 2017.

But the Dems really are 0-for-2019, when they've actually had some power. Yesterday, I called up my (Dem) Congressperson over the debt ceiling deal, and literally asked, "Can't anybody here play this game?" They're spineless, gutless, and clueless.
  #160  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:56 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
The Republicans aren't making any sense on the whole "exonerate" / "doesn't exonerate" thing.

When Mueller says that the report doesn't exonerate Trump, the Republicans get upset and say that it's not Mueller's job to exonerate.

Well... yeah, they're right. It's not Mueller's job to exonerate, therefore his report can't, and doesn't, exonerate. What's the argument here?

Trump seems to think that it is Mueller's job to exonerate and that he did so. He's wrong but other Republicans seem almost more confused than him (if that's possible).
They're seeming to make the point that, because "exonerate" isn't a legal term, he shouldn't have used it, as though he must limit his vocabulary to words defined in a legal dictionary.

It's super stupid.

The point he was clearly making is that there's plenty of evidence for obstruction, and that his refusal to indict shouldn't be taken as an indication of lack of evidence. I don't think anyone honestly misunderstands that point.

At one point he was trying to explain why his position was unique among prosecutors, and the Republican hurriedly interrupted him on this explanation. They certainly didn't want that coming out. I think it was a missed opportunity for Democrats to follow up.
  #161  
Old 07-24-2019, 08:20 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Plus, there was the Arab oil crisis, which led to gasoline going over a dollar a gallon for the first time in history. Not saying that was Nixon's fault, but it did put the country in a shitty mood. People don't like to wait in hour-long lines to get gas.
The 1973-74 recession was one of the worst of the 20th Century. Long lines waiting for gas, but also high unemployment and just overall bad economic health. I guess I'd also add that the Watergate tapes, the audio...that was just awful for Nixon.
  #162  
Old 07-24-2019, 08:20 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
... I'm surprised at Mueller's reticence to actually say anything -- I'm not sure I really understand the nature of the restrictions that were put on him. Surely the national interest is best served by getting at the truth.
The national interest is best served by getting at the truth--of course. But Trump's interest is not. And the restrictions on Mueller were placed there by Barr: someone indifferent to the national interest, but very much concerned about Trump's interest.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
...At one point he was trying to explain why his position was unique among prosecutors, and the Republican hurriedly interrupted him on this explanation. They certainly didn't want that coming out. I think it was a missed opportunity for Democrats to follow up.
You're right; it's a shame none of those who had speaking slots coming up saw that (or maybe were willing to give up the questions they'd already planned.)
  #163  
Old 07-24-2019, 08:20 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Bannon famously, and correctly apparently, was quoted as saying about Mueller, "Never send a marine to do a hit man’s job.”

Mueller is too honorable to do the job fully here. When one side is playing by the most strict interpretation of the rules, and the other side is just openly cheating, it's not great.
I don't want him to operate untruthfully, but it was really hard to watch today that Honor Before Reason was in full effect. I don't always think that he fully understands the extent to which the Republicans are going to act in bad faith and the Democrats are going to be spineless. I mean, I get that it's not his job and it's not his fault, but traditional norms are gone and he's still following the old rules. I don't want him to be dirty but to a certain extent, being above the fray is letting the side without scruples put a big finger on the scale.
  #164  
Old 07-24-2019, 08:22 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I guess I'd also add that the Watergate tapes, the audio...that was just awful for Nixon.
Yes, people back then weren't used to the idea of a president speaking with such obvious self-interest and contempt for the law. It came as a shock.
  #165  
Old 07-24-2019, 08:33 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
They're seeming to make the point that, because "exonerate" isn't a legal term, he shouldn't have used it, as though he must limit his vocabulary to words defined in a legal dictionary.
...
Yet when Trump uses that term they eat it up. It just shows how disingenuous their arguments are.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885

Last edited by davidm; 07-24-2019 at 08:34 PM.
  #166  
Old 07-24-2019, 08:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
You're right; it's a shame none of those who had speaking slots coming up saw that (or maybe were willing to give up the questions they'd already planned.)
That's what it seemed like to me: they'd coordinated so heavily with their questions that they thought it would disrupt their intricate choreography to ask follow-up questions. Obviously follow-up questions when Mueller had been cut off would've been a better move, but hindsight is 20/20.
  #167  
Old 07-24-2019, 08:50 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That's what it seemed like to me: they'd coordinated so heavily with their questions that they thought it would disrupt their intricate choreography to ask follow-up questions. Obviously follow-up questions when Mueller had been cut off would've been a better move, but hindsight is 20/20.
They asked him that question in six different ways, and through compound questions they got him to flub up one time, but his answer, after clarification, was that:

1) He would not comment on charging decisions that were not made.
2) Part of the calculus in the decision of indict/not indict Trump was the opinion of the DOJ that a sitting president could not be indicted.
3) He would not say that was the only reason as, again, he doesn't comment on charging decisions.

and

4) He will not go beyond what is stated in his report.

ETA: Also, could you repeat the question, please?

Last edited by UltraVires; 07-24-2019 at 08:50 PM.
  #168  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:15 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by krondys View Post
I see what you mean.
Apparently not. That was Ken Buck I believe talking about legal theory and should Mueller put in the report if Trump should be indicted after leaving office. Mueller was not stating that Trump committed obstruction.
  #169  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:16 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Yes, people back then weren't used to the idea of a president speaking with such obvious self-interest and contempt for the law. It came as a shock.
Took until Clinton for that to be accepted.
  #170  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:27 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Well, we did keep the GOP from killing the ACA in 2017.

But the Dems really are 0-for-2019, when they've actually had some power. Yesterday, I called up my (Dem) Congressperson over the debt ceiling deal, and literally asked, "Can't anybody here play this game?" They're spineless, gutless, and clueless.
My impression is the democrats are terrified to use the power they are given because they are terrified of the consequences.

They are terrified that 'moderate' votes will turn on them. They're terrified the rich will fund their political opponents. The only thing democrats aren't scared of is their own voters.

So they either do nothing, or they only do tepid, poll tested things designed not to offend anyone. The end result is a lot of democrats voters end up demoralized and stay home, or they vote in primaries for someone more willing to fight. In 2008, 65 million democrats voted for federal house candidates. In 2010 only 39 million did, so 26 million democrat voters stayed home. By comparison only 7 million GOP voters stayed home. The GOP wave in 2010 was because democrats got demoralized at how spineless, inept and weak the democrats are and didn't bother to vote in 2010.

Republicans on the other hand happily use their power. And they know it'll turn people against them. Bush's excesses led to the 2006 and 2008 elections for the dems. Trump's excesses led to the 2018 Dem wave and the 2020 dem wave.

But the GOP also know that they'll be back in power 2-4 years after a Dem wave. They aren't scared to lose power for a few years because they know the Dems won't hold power. They'll fuck it up and their voters will stay home.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-24-2019 at 10:29 PM.
  #171  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:41 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
They asked him that question in six different ways, and through compound questions they got him to flub up one time, but his answer, after clarification, was that:

1) He would not comment on charging decisions that were not made.
2) Part of the calculus in the decision of indict/not indict Trump was the opinion of the DOJ that a sitting president could not be indicted.
3) He would not say that was the only reason as, again, he doesn't comment on charging decisions.

and

4) He will not go beyond what is stated in his report.

ETA: Also, could you repeat the question, please?
Right on. Except for that one time he accidentally answered the direct question.
  #172  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:45 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,070
I'm not going to answer that.
I'm not going to answer that.
I'm not going to answer that.
Yes, definitely.
I'm not going to answer that.
I'm not going to answer that.
I'm not going to answer that, and that time I said, "Yes, definitely," I meant, "I'm not going to answer that."
  #173  
Old 07-24-2019, 11:04 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Right on. Except for that one time he accidentally answered the direct question.
Which time? When he said that Trump could be indicted after leaving office?

Yeah, that made for a good sound bite, but I think it was pretty clear that he was saying that there was no legal prohibition on a president being indicted after leaving office, not any implication that he had the evidence and it was likely that he would be indicted.

IOW, not "could be indicted" as in "based upon my investigation, there is sufficient evidence such that Trump 'could be indicted."

It was "could be indicted" as in "Trump could be indicted after leaving office if prosecutors could show sufficient evidence to the grand jury, as after leaving office, Trump would not be subject to any sort of legal prohibition to being indicted and would be subject to indictment like anyone else."

In case you don't take my word for it, he said it later for clarification.
  #174  
Old 07-24-2019, 11:26 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Which time?
Hilarious.
  #175  
Old 07-24-2019, 11:30 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,070
LIEU: "To recap what we've heard, we have heard today that the president ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire you. The president ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail, and now we've heard the president ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he -- you stop investigating the president. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I would like to ask you the reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"

MUELLER: "That is correct."
  #176  
Old 07-24-2019, 11:53 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
LIEU: "To recap what we've heard, we have heard today that the president ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire you. The president ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail, and now we've heard the president ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he -- you stop investigating the president. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I would like to ask you the reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"

MUELLER: "That is correct."
Right, there are about 10 things in that question. No Court in the United States would have allowed it. Why? Because it is easy for the one word "Correct" to be mistaken to mean that everything said above is correct and that the implication is that was the sole reason Trump wasn't indicted, and that conclusion was not what Meuller said about four times already, and had already said in his report.

Again, in case, I'm just playing the GOP puppet over here, Mueller corrected himself!!!!:

Quote:
“Now before we go to questions, I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. With that, Mr. Chairman, I’m ready to answer questions.”
  #177  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:00 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,070
Yep yep. By, "That is correct," he could have meant any number of things were correct. There is no possible way we could have any idea.

Hilarious.
  #178  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:18 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Yep yep. By, "That is correct," he could have meant any number of things were correct. There is no possible way we could have any idea.

Hilarious.
Did you miss the part where he corrected himself? We don't have to guess.
  #179  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:22 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Did you miss the part where he corrected himself? We don't have to guess.
Were you convinced by the part where he corrected himself?

My fault, when I said, "Yes," I should have said, "I decline to answer."
  #180  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:24 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Yep yep. By, "That is correct," he could have meant any number of things were correct. There is no possible way we could have any idea.

Hilarious.
He seemed sufficiently hard of hearing and confused (and I don't mean that to impugn the man - I was fine with his testimony in the whole) that it is pretty to reasonable to assume that he misheard parts of the question.

While it may be that going up in front of Congress would generally be a stressful thing, I got the impression that Mueller has done it enough that he could probably have fallen asleep if allowed to. Minus a sufficient load of adrenaline, it's probably pretty hard to follow all the random questions, said by someone 40 feet away, using run-on sentences; nevertheless if you're an old man, uninterested in political nonsense, and bored by the whole affair.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 07-25-2019 at 12:24 AM.
  #181  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:36 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Were you convinced by the part where he corrected himself?

My fault, when I said, "Yes," I should have said, "I decline to answer."
Sure. Trial lawyers ask these "Yes or No" or "You would agree that is correct" type of questions all of the time to get an answer like that. Why? Because it works. You can put words in peoples' mouths. And in all seriousness, that was the only point of this hearing to get Meuller to say something that sounded bad, to get that clip for replay on CNN or MSNBC.

ETA: And they work when you say things like "as we have heard" or "as you said earlier" the witness feels very uncomfortable disagreeing with you because it seems as if he or she would be going against what was already said if the proposition is denied.

Last edited by UltraVires; 07-25-2019 at 12:38 AM.
  #182  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:36 AM
Personal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Beach
Posts: 1,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That's what it seemed like to me: they'd coordinated so heavily with their questions that they thought it would disrupt their intricate choreography to ask follow-up questions. Obviously follow-up questions when Mueller had been cut off would've been a better move, but hindsight is 20/20.
And with 5-minute slots, they had no time to go off script, especially when 1-2 minutes of the 5 were spent grandstanding.
  #183  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:40 AM
Personal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Beach
Posts: 1,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I'm not going to answer that.

I'm not going to answer that.

I'm not going to answer that.

Yes, definitely.

I'm not going to answer that.

I'm not going to answer that.

I'm not going to answer that, and that time I said, "Yes, definitely," I meant, "I'm not going to answer that."
I especially liked the "I'm going to pass on that question," which went unchallenged.

They would have been better served with fewer inquisitors each with more time to ask more thoughtful questions and follow-ups.
  #184  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:44 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,070
This is extraordinarily straightforward...

LIEU: "To recap what we've heard, we have heard today that the president ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire you. The president ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail, and now we've heard the president ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he -- you stop investigating the president. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I would like to ask you the reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"

MUELLER: "That is correct."
  #185  
Old 07-25-2019, 12:51 AM
Personal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Beach
Posts: 1,390
I thought I heard C-SPAN say that this was the 90th time Mueller has testified before Congress. He knew what he was doing by sucking to the report and giving very little information beyond that. The hearings were not about him. They were about giving members of the House face time and sound bites.
  #186  
Old 07-25-2019, 01:55 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is extraordinarily straightforward...

LIEU: "To recap what we've heard, we have heard today that the president ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire you. The president ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail, and now we've heard the president ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he -- you stop investigating the president. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I would like to ask you the reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"

MUELLER: "That is correct."
That answer was corrected later in the day, was it not?
  #187  
Old 07-25-2019, 06:39 AM
Shoeless's Avatar
Shoeless is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Sunflower State
Posts: 6,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Well, we did keep the GOP from killing the ACA in 2017.

But the Dems really are 0-for-2019, when they've actually had some power. Yesterday, I called up my (Dem) Congressperson over the debt ceiling deal, and literally asked, "Can't anybody here play this game?" They're spineless, gutless, and clueless.
I was watching Samantha Bee's recap of the Mueller testimony. At one point she referred to the Democratic Party motto as "Somebody really ought to do something. But first let's make sure it's OK. Oops, too late. Aw, shit."
__________________
I'm not black, but there's a whole lotsa times I wish I could say I'm not white. -- FZ
  #188  
Old 07-25-2019, 06:42 AM
carlb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palmetto Bay, FL
Posts: 1,213
I couldn't listen to Mueller's testimony live, so I have only heard various individual exchanges. My opinion is almost certainly colored by that.

I agree that there was not much new that came out of the Judiciary Committee hearing. There weren't any good Mueller soundbites, no great revelations, and nothing that will move the needle much either way. I doubt that very many people were swayed from their previously-held positions. I did think a couple of the back-and-forths about Trump's directions to McGahn were damaging to the President, but I suspect they won't get the airtime or attention that maybe they deserve.

I thought the Intelligence Committee hearing was a little more publicly damning for the President, even if not in a strictly criminal manner. Adam Schiff, in particular, was able to get Mueller's concurrence that accepting foreign help for your campaign is unethical and worthy of investigation; that secret meetings or lying about that foreign assistance opens a person to compromise form the foreign government; and that lots of people involved in the Trump campaign lied to the Special Counsel's Office, were trying to monetize their positions in the campaign, and were open to potential compromise by Russia.

Schiff's prosecutorial background shows - he kept his questions short and in a form so that Mueller could answer either, "yes," or, "no." I thought there were a couple of times that Mueller actually sounded eager to work with Schiff to draw out the points Schiff was trying to make. Schiff should run clinics for his fellow committee members on how to solicit testimony.
  #189  
Old 07-25-2019, 07:05 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeless View Post
I was watching Samantha Bee's recap of the Mueller testimony. At one point she referred to the Democratic Party motto as "Somebody really ought to do something. But first let's make sure it's OK. Oops, too late. Aw, shit."
What is it that the Democratic party is supposed to do with control of only the House of Representatives?
  #190  
Old 07-25-2019, 07:05 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,317
We're so fucked when we have a Republican investigator say that the president sought out help from Russia, benefited from it, lied to cover it up, and obstructed justice to hinder the investigation and a significant number of people think not only that it's not a big deal, but that it's a huge win for the Republicans.
  #191  
Old 07-25-2019, 07:20 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
What is it that the Democratic party is supposed to do with control of only the House of Representatives?
Article I, Section 2: "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
  #192  
Old 07-25-2019, 07:30 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
We're so fucked when we have a Republican investigator say that the president sought out help from Russia, benefited from it, lied to cover it up, and obstructed justice to hinder the investigation and a significant number of people think not only that it's not a big deal, but that it's a huge win for the Republicans.
Trump supporters have pretty much gone from denying Trump's culpability to chortling that he got away with it. I can't believe what I'm seeing, either.
  #193  
Old 07-25-2019, 07:32 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Trump supporters have pretty much gone from denying Trump's culpability to chortling that he got away with it. I can't believe what I'm seeing, either.
It fits and makes sense if you posit that the main motivation of the hardcore Trump supporters is grievance against liberals/progressives/Democrats, rather than any actual issue or policy.
  #194  
Old 07-25-2019, 07:36 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
We're so fucked when we have a Republican investigator say that the president sought out help from Russia, benefited from it, lied to cover it up, and obstructed justice to hinder the investigation and a significant number of people think not only that it's not a big deal, but that it's a huge win for the Republicans.
The thing that makes it a huge win for the Trumpublicans is House Democratic inaction. They're not going to hold Trump accountable. He has license to do whatever he damn well pleases, and yesterday they renewed his license.

If I were Trump, I'd be celebrating my ass off. And laughing at those ridiculous, impotent Dems.
  #195  
Old 07-25-2019, 07:39 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Trump supporters have pretty much gone from denying Trump's culpability to chortling that he got away with it. I can't believe what I'm seeing, either.
They're going with whatever story works best in a given context. But this one is particularly effective: the narrative of the folk hero who can commit crimes right under the noses of the clownish authorities, and get away with it.

He's no Robin Hood, but the Dems are doing a good enough job as the clownish authorities that his followers can pretend he's Robin Hood.
  #196  
Old 07-25-2019, 07:43 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
That answer was corrected later in the day, was it not?
Not really.

I'm not going to answer that.
I'm not going to answer that.
I'm not going to answer that.
Yes, definitely.
I'm not going to answer that.
I'm not going to answer that.
I'm not going to answer that, and that time I said, "Yes, definitely," I meant, "I'm not going to answer that."
  #197  
Old 07-25-2019, 07:57 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,228
Hypothetical:
What if Mueller had pointedly said exactly the following words yesterday or words conveying exactly this message,
"Our investigation found beyond a shadow of a doubt that President Trump was and is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and the only reason we didn't charge him was because he was/is a sitting president." And then he went on to list the crimes in clear, direct, unequivocal condemnatory language.
Question:
Would such a statement from him move the impeachment ball forward today or not?

More specifically, what would be the Republican (e.g., thump) response and what would be the Democratic (e.g., Pelosi) response?


You have all day to answer the question. Use black ink and double-space. Blue books will be collected at suppertime. Begin.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #198  
Old 07-25-2019, 08:11 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,210
I had to turn this off after the first hour because of the stupid lines of questioning. While he probably wouldn't have answered it, did anyone at least ask "if not for the OLC guidelines, would you have indicted Trump?" or "If a CEO told a corporate lawyer to lie to federal investigators investigating the CEO, would that generally be considered obstruction?"
  #199  
Old 07-25-2019, 08:12 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The thing that makes it a huge win for the Trumpublicans is House Democratic inaction. They're not going to hold Trump accountable. He has license to do whatever he damn well pleases, and yesterday they renewed his license.

If I were Trump, I'd be celebrating my ass off. And laughing at those ridiculous, impotent Dems.
I don't understand what it is you want them to do. They can impeach, but cannot convict. A pointless House vote would not accomplish anything, and would very likely just result in Republicans saying he'd been"exonerated."
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #200  
Old 07-25-2019, 08:13 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
"Our investigation found beyond a shadow of a doubt that President Trump was and is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and the only reason we didn't charge him was because he was/is a sitting president." And then he went on to list the crimes in clear, direct, unequivocal condemnatory language.
Question:
Would such a statement from him move the impeachment ball forward today or not?
No, of course not. There is absolutely nothing that could have been said yesterday that would have changed anything.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017