Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11851  
Old 06-26-2019, 02:17 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasmoocher View Post
Too bad I can't watch this until I get home later today--"especially unhinged, even by his standards." Sounds like an Instant Trump Classic.

Trumpís unhinged Fox Business interview illustrates how Fox News normalizes Trump

Hours after news of Muellerís testimony broke, Trump called Maria Bartiromo and melted down on live TV.
And yet, according to some SDMB posters, we should not believe women who accuse him of rape, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Because those women are making things up.
  #11852  
Old 06-26-2019, 02:23 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasmoocher View Post
Too bad I can't watch this until I get home later today--"especially unhinged, even by his standards." Sounds like an Instant Trump Classic.

Trumpís unhinged Fox Business interview illustrates how Fox News normalizes Trump

Hours after news of Muellerís testimony broke, Trump called Maria Bartiromo and melted down on live TV.
I think the last time he decided to bitch on live on TV, he also called in to Bartiromo. Poor lady.

I guess we know when it's TV time for Trump.
  #11853  
Old 06-26-2019, 02:35 PM
dasmoocher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I think the last time he decided to bitch on live on TV, he also called in to Bartiromo. Poor lady.
She's a pretty unabashed Trump cheerleader (I've seen clips of her basically talking about how great and brilliant he is and how he's the victim of the witch hunt by the sore loser Democrats), so I don't have too much sympathy for her, but I still haven't watched it yet.
  #11854  
Old 06-26-2019, 03:17 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
We need to get over censoring ourselves over the fear of what Republicans might say. This kind of second guessing is self destructive. Democrats need to stand up for their principles without cowering from imagined spin from Republicans.
+1
  #11855  
Old 06-26-2019, 04:25 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
We need to get over censoring ourselves over the fear of what Republicans might say. This kind of second guessing is self destructive. Democrats need to stand up for their principles without cowering from imagined spin from Republicans.
"Ho ho, we've got the most reliable witness ever. Surely the words of <highly credible witness> will finally rend the veil of falsehood once and for all."

Nope. It's us against against world-class brawlers, liars, and shit-slingers, making a case to a population compulsively given to motivated reasoning. To ignore this reality is to court utter failure.
  #11856  
Old 06-26-2019, 04:46 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
And yet, according to some SDMB posters, we should not believe women who accuse him of rape, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Because those women are making things up.
Yeah! They're just copying the playbook of the 60 women who MADE STUFF UP about America's Favorite Father, Bill Cosby, amirite? But that's okay. We punish women who make stuff up by not believing them.

[/sarcasm]
__________________
* "Former President Trump" -- saying it until it becomes true.

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 06-26-2019 at 04:47 PM.
  #11857  
Old 06-26-2019, 05:44 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Nope. It's us against against world-class brawlers, liars, and shit-slingers, making a case to a population compulsively given to motivated reasoning. To ignore this reality is to court utter failure.
Will they sling less shit if we walk on egg shells and worry about what they will say? Trumpers are going to Trump, no matter what we do. Fuck 'em. We should make our case in the strongest way possible, without regard for how those who hate us might respond.
  #11858  
Old 06-26-2019, 06:09 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Will they sling less shit if we walk on egg shells and worry about what they will say?
At no point did I suggest or imply anyone should walk on egg shells and worry about what they will say. That's your invention.

I am speaking more to the magical thinking that seems to suggest the next silver-bullet revelation is always right around the corner. It's not. Things aren't hopeless, but there's no knockout punch coming.
  #11859  
Old 06-26-2019, 06:49 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
At no point did I suggest or imply anyone should walk on egg shells and worry about what they will say. That's your invention.
Yes, you did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
And then the Republicans will spin it as "This is nothing new, it's been out in the report for months now. How sad that the Democrats are reduced to having Mueller narrate a report that's already old news."
  #11860  
Old 06-26-2019, 07:09 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Yes, you did.
I stated what Republicans will say. Quote and underline the part where I suggested anyone should worry about it. Quote and underline the part where I suggested anyone should walk on eggshells about it. Quote and underline the part where I suggested anyone should do anything at all about it.

If you can't do that, then please shut the fuck up with your bullshit strawman.
  #11861  
Old 06-26-2019, 07:17 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I stated what Republicans will say.
Your warning was clear. I stand by my rebuttal.
  #11862  
Old 06-26-2019, 07:30 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Your warning was clear. I stand by my rebuttal.
In which part am I advising any course of action? Please underline those parts that support the interpretation that you are standing by. If it's really that clear, this shouldn't be hard.
  #11863  
Old 06-26-2019, 08:06 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
We need to get over censoring ourselves over the fear of what Republicans might say. This kind of second guessing is self destructive. Democrats need to stand up for their principles without cowering from imagined spin from Republicans.
Personally, I would say that if there's one thing that Democrats should do, during the 2020 election, it's to pile unabashed scorn and disgust on their Republican relatives and make it clear to them that they're signing up for four more years of being called a defender of sexual molestation, of theft from US veterans, of selling out to foreign interests, and so on; that they are a disgrace to their nation and a failure of our country.

Feel free to use my template: https://publius2point0.wordpress.com...3/17/john-doe/

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-26-2019 at 08:10 PM.
  #11864  
Old 06-27-2019, 07:54 AM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I stated what Republicans will say. Quote and underline the part where I suggested anyone should worry about it. Quote and underline the part where I suggested anyone should walk on eggshells about it. Quote and underline the part where I suggested anyone should do anything at all about it.

If you can't do that, then please shut the fuck up with your bullshit strawman.
Umm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
The point is to get him to repeat the findings out loud. Most people haven't read the report, but will see soundbites on TV and social media. There doesn't have to be anything new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
And then the Republicans will spin it as "This is nothing new, it's been out in the report for months now. How sad that the Democrats are reduced to having Mueller narrate a report that's already old news."

I'm not happy about it, just not clear why the same old pattern wouldn't successfully play out again.
When someone suggests that a course of action has a point, (as Fear Itself did in the quoted text), a retort such as the one you posted can reasonably be read as a proxy for an argument that the course of action effectively has NO point, and if accepted as such a proxy, can be extrapolated into a recommendation that the proposed course of action be abandoned (or dismissed).

My apologies for not underlining things, but technically, you issued THAT challenge to Fear Itself.

Possibly, there has been some unintended but nonetheless mistaken interpreting and extrapolating going on in the exchanges between the two of you (for which it is not reasonable to assign fault to a single participant). Near as I can tell, you're both in the camp that wants the America-hating fuckstick to not be President anymore, so fundamentally speaking, you're both aces with me. Personally, I'd rather see you yelling at assholes who DO want the America-hating fuckstick to continue being President than at each other.
  #11865  
Old 06-27-2019, 08:59 AM
xenophon41's Avatar
xenophon41 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere up country.
Posts: 5,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Possibly, there has been some unintended but nonetheless mistaken interpreting and extrapolating going on in the exchanges between the two of you (for which it is not reasonable to assign fault to a single participant).
This interjection seems to hit the mark pretty precisely, guys.

HMS Irruncible, regardless of how Republicans are likely to spin Mueller's repetition of information already contained in his report as "old news" the point is that the obstruction and the coordination/cooperation with Russian efforts detailed in that report actually will be news to many Americans when they hear it from Mueller himself. Maybe it changes public opinion, maybe it doesn't, but the reasoning behind calling Mueller to testify is pretty solid.

Fear Itself, doubting the effectiveness of a tactic based on the expected GOP counters to that tactic is not the same as doubting the general effectiveness of forceful speech and/or unabashed truth telling, nor does that doubt necessarily imply passivity or conciliatory rhetoric as a strategy. 'Irruncible may indeed want to make that argument (what do I know?), but it doesn't really seem that they have at this point.

Last edited by xenophon41; 06-27-2019 at 09:01 AM.
  #11866  
Old 06-27-2019, 10:59 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,955
I think this will be very useful. Not just because it is on television but because it is him saying it directly.

Right now, the average voter sees some pundits and interested parties on one side saying that the Mueller report raises serious questions about the Trump administration, while on the other hand you have the president, and the head of the agency that was in charge of the report saying that it exonerates him. So people are left with their impression that the report is open to interpretation. Mueller answering questions on his own work closes the door on interpretation.

Basically, having Mueller testify gives Trump's critics the ability to do this

Even if there is no new information, just having Mueller come in and state forthright the answer to the following questions would be very useful

"Does the report exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice or conspiracy with the Russians?"
"Should the fact that the report didn't establish a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign be taken to mean that there was no evidence of such a conspiracy?"
"Was there evidence of Obstruction of justice?"
"What was your primary reason for not indicting president Trump on obstruction of justice charges?"
"If there had been overwhelming evidence of Obstruction of justice would you have indicted Trump?"
"So we should not see your failure to indict Trump as an indication that there was not overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice?"
etc.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 06-27-2019 at 11:02 AM.
  #11867  
Old 06-27-2019, 12:37 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
When someone suggests that a course of action has a point, (as Fear Itself did in the quoted text), a retort such as the one you posted can reasonably be read as a proxy for an argument that the course of action effectively has NO point, and if accepted as such a proxy, can be extrapolated into a recommendation that the proposed course of action be abandoned (or dismissed).
This is quite a stretch given that (a) my post contained none of that language, and (b) when pressed, I clearly stated that I intended none of that. If you want to apply some mental yoga, please apply it to unraveling the timeless mystery of the phrase "No, that's not what you meant".

Edited: I hope I'm proven wrong. Bookmark this thread and invite me back to cheerfully eat some crow a month from now. Bring salsa.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 06-27-2019 at 12:39 PM.
  #11868  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:56 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,172
https://thehill.com/policy/national-...ssian-meddling

Quote:
Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday that he believes President Trump only won the 2016 election because Russia interfered to help him defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“There’s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the elections and I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016,” Carter said at an event in Leesburg, Va.

“He lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf,” Carter said.

When asked by moderator and historian Jon Meacham if he believed Trump was then an “illegitimate” president, Carter replied: “Based on what I just said, which I can’t retract.”
I mean, what does he know about monitoring elections?
  #11869  
Old 06-28-2019, 11:22 AM
jsc1953 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
https://thehill.com/policy/national-...ssian-meddling



I mean, what does he know about monitoring elections?
Ooh. Ouch. "Legitimacy" is Trump's exposed nerve, and Jimmy just hit it with a dentist's drill. It's why Trump is always yammering about his electoral landslide, and how he really "won" the popular vote. He harbors deep-seated insecurity, knowing that he didn't legitimately win in 2016.

Pass the popcorn.
  #11870  
Old 06-28-2019, 12:10 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,780
Nasty attack on Carter coming in 3...2...1...

Actually, we'll have to wait until this is mentioned on Fox'n'Trump'nFriends. Then the shyte will hit the fan.
  #11871  
Old 06-28-2019, 12:38 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,223
"I won't let Iran take our people hostage like Jimy Carter did. They don't want to mess with me. Jimmy Carter is a terrible sad peanut farmer who failed as president. And Carter has done nothing to help the people of this country in the past 40 years, not like me. No one has helped more Americans more than I have; NO ONE. MAGA!"

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 06-28-2019 at 12:39 PM.
  #11872  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:10 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
"I won't let Iran take our people hostage like Jimy Carter did. They don't want to mess with me. Jimmy Carter is a terrible sad peanut farmer who failed as president. And Carter has done nothing to help the people of this country in the past 40 years, not like me. No one has helped more Americans more than I have; NO ONE. MAGA!"
"Not many people know he was a Democrat. "Broken hip Jimmy" is just jealus that he will never be as great as me."
  #11873  
Old 06-28-2019, 02:11 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Nasty attack on Carter coming in 3...2...1...
He only served one term so heís a loser?

(I dunno, I got nothing else. I tried.)
  #11874  
Old 06-28-2019, 02:28 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,075
I think that Mueller would simply quote his report in answer to all of these questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
"Does the report exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice or conspiracy with the Russians?"
"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
- Mueller Report - Vol II conclusion

Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities."
- Mueller Report - Vol I conclusion

Quote:
"Should the fact that the report didn't establish a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign be taken to mean that there was no evidence of such a conspiracy?"
"In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. ... Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities."
- Mueller Report - Vol I conclusion

Quote:
"Was there evidence of Obstruction of justice?"
"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
- Mueller Report - Vol II conclusion

Quote:
"What was your primary reason for not indicting president Trump on obstruction of justice charges?
"... we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."
- Mueller Report - Vol II introduction

Quote:
"If there had been overwhelming evidence of Obstruction of justice would you have indicted Trump?"
"The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."
- Mueller Report - Vol II introduction

Quote:
"So we should not see your failure to indict Trump as an indication that there was not overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice?"
etc.
"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
- Mueller Report - Vol II conclusion
  #11875  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:39 PM
Celidin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
I think that Mueller would simply quote his report in answer to all of these questions.
And yet somehow, it'll be BREAKING NEWS to 3/4 of the country.
  #11876  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:50 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
I think that Mueller would simply quote his report in answer to all of these questions.
Exactly. I worded those questions so that they could be easily answered by what the Report said. I doubt that we will get anything out of him that isn't included in the report, but I still think its worth it. The point is to have him state clearly state in a public hearing with TV camera's that Barr's and Trumps interpretation of what the report says is flat out wrong. Its harder to convince people that "Mueller totally exonerated me" when there is a clip of Mueller directly saying that he did not.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 06-28-2019 at 03:50 PM.
  #11877  
Old 06-28-2019, 06:45 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Exactly. I worded those questions so that they could be easily answered by what the Report said. I doubt that we will get anything out of him that isn't included in the report, but I still think its worth it. The point is to have him state clearly state in a public hearing with TV camera's that Barr's and Trumps interpretation of what the report says is flat out wrong. Its harder to convince people that "Mueller totally exonerated me" when there is a clip of Mueller directly saying that he did not.
Agreed, but we can be fairly certain that Mueller will decline to make any such declarative statements.

Even to get him to say in plain terms that Barr misrepresented the report will probably be impossible.

New parlor game: come up with wording for questions that will keep Mueller from uttering fuzzy, clause-heavy, qualification-laden sentences. (I'm not claiming to have any yet, but it's a project worth working on....)
  #11878  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:30 PM
jsc1953 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,626
I expect that someone will ask Mueller: If not for the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, would you have indicted Trump for obstruction?

A: Yes
B: No
C: I don't answer hypotheticals.

I'd put my money on C
  #11879  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:32 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Agreed, but we can be fairly certain that Mueller will decline to make any such declarative statements.

Even to get him to say in plain terms that Barr misrepresented the report will probably be impossible.

New parlor game: come up with wording for questions that will keep Mueller from uttering fuzzy, clause-heavy, qualification-laden sentences. (I'm not claiming to have any yet, but it's a project worth working on....)
"Absolute Authority"
  #11880  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:47 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Agreed, but we can be fairly certain that Mueller will decline to make any such declarative statements.

Even to get him to say in plain terms that Barr misrepresented the report will probably be impossible.

New parlor game: come up with wording for questions that will keep Mueller from uttering fuzzy, clause-heavy, qualification-laden sentences. (I'm not claiming to have any yet, but it's a project worth working on....)
There are certain things that you will never get him to say,
1) Whether or not Trump is guilty or would he have been indicted were he not president
2) Whether Barr lied about the report.
3) Should Trump be impeached

But you can get him to make statements that contradict Trump and Barr by asking leading yes/no follow up questions.
Q: Does the report exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice or conspiracy with the Russians?
A: if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Q: So since you did not so state it would be incorrect to say that your report exonerates Trump?


Also you need to remember that Mueller is not a hostile witness. I believe that Mueller really does want his report to be understood by the American people, and I think deep down he wants Congress to impeach Trump but he also wants to remain apolitical and feels its not his place to instruct congress as to what they should do. There are certain places he won't go, but he also won't try to evade questions that are just trying to illuminate clearly what is stated in the report.
  #11881  
Old 06-29-2019, 06:30 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
Buck Godot is 100% on the right track as to how the questioning will go.
  #11882  
Old 06-29-2019, 07:06 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
...
But you can get him to make statements that contradict Trump and Barr by asking leading yes/no follow up questions.
Q: Does the report exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice or conspiracy with the Russians?
A: if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Q: So since you did not so state it would be incorrect to say that your report exonerates Trump? ....
"I don't chew my cabbage twice. What part of what I just said did you not understand? I stand by the statement I just made."
__________________
* "Former President Trump" -- saying it until it becomes true.
  #11883  
Old 06-29-2019, 09:44 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Nasty attack on Carter coming in 3...2...1...
Not gonna give you much credit for a gimme, but here ya go.
Quote:
In Japan, Trump calls Jimmy Carter a Ďterrible presidentí and says Kamala Harris got Ďtoo much credití in debate
  #11884  
Old 06-29-2019, 12:02 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Not gonna give you much credit for a gimme, but here ya go.
Wow, not very creative. He must have been tired out.

For my next trick, I shall predict that the sun shall rise in the east tomorrow.
  #11885  
Old 06-29-2019, 05:44 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
"I don't chew my cabbage twice. What part of what I just said did you not understand? I stand by the statement I just made."
Yeah, I think so. Or he'll just repeat the quotation from the Report again.

He will be extremely careful not to utter any useful soundbites. He won't say 'yes' or even 'that is likely' to anything as clear-cut as "would President Trump have been indicted if he were not President?"

There will be no 10-second clips of Mueller responding in a way that clearly affirms or denies a substantive statement about Trump's misconduct. He will respond to such statements with hedging and qualifying clauses.

Which is not to say that his testimony will be useless. Around the margins, some people who skipped reading the report yet are capable of understanding complex language will watch, and will have their views affected.
  #11886  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:58 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Various people (Wittes, Comey, etc.) are throwing in their 2 cents on questions for Congress to ask Mueller when he comes before them.

To add in my own:

- In your understanding of the security clearance reviews, what sort of thing do investigators look for that are red flags?
- Why are those things red flags?
- What sort of history has made those things be red flags?
  #11887  
Old 07-20-2019, 02:06 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Yeah, I think so. Or he'll just repeat the quotation from the Report again.

He will be extremely careful not to utter any useful soundbites. He won't say 'yes' or even 'that is likely' to anything as clear-cut as "would President Trump have been indicted if he were not President?" .
Maybe he can explain the process a little bit. Because, after all the evidence is in and has been reviewed and a possible crime has been established, there are a few more steps that prosecutors need to take before they issue an indictment and sentencing recommendations. That involves looking at the case histories of similar past crimes and citing those cases as justification for the charges and sentences they are recommending. You can see this if you read the legal documents of the indicted players in this drama. They might even use cites in anticipation of legal arguments, for example they might cite the Martha Stewart case as precedent for indicting for obstruction without establishing an underlying crime. BTW, IANAL.

So they never did that in Trump’s case, because the buck stopped before they could get to that point. And I’ve always been suspicious about that decision, ( as well as the decision to wrap up the investigation prematurely) I think Barr was involved. Really, if that was a given, he MIGHT have mentioned it at the beginning.

If Mueller had found crystal clear evidence that Trump was compromised and an active Russian asset, I bet he would have indicated him hard. While he might not have indicted him for obstruction, I’m still surprised they didn’t indict Don Jr. Again, I think that was Barr.

The Trump Tower meeting was really a big deal. Sometimes I’m surprised that no one gets that. It matters not one freaking bit that the attempt at collusion was wildly unsuccessful. I don’t think the Russians had any dirt to give. I think the entire reason for the charade was to generate that ridiculously compromising e-mail chain. It was a laughably transparent trick that only a stupid and insecure person desperate to curry favor with his own father would fall for.

Because, for over a year that e-mail chain remained hidden from the press and the public. But the Russians knew about it and had a copy. That is classic kompromat. It actually happened.

I read the other indictments. Mueller didn’t cut anyone any slack, he hit them hard and I was under the impression that he was a true believer. I actually believe that Barr leaned on him hard at the end. Too bad he caved. Maybe, when this is over one way or another, he’ll write a book,

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 07-20-2019 at 02:10 AM.
  #11888  
Old 07-20-2019, 04:19 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Iím still surprised they didnít indict Don Jr. Again, I think that was Barr.
Only Mueller knows but, I suspect, it was simply a matter that between the difficulty of getting laypeople to make a reasonable distinction between information of public interest and things of value, a campaign versus the press, and a 3rd party of foreign nationality vs the operatives of a foreign nation. And further contending with the pardon power, any attempt to prosecute Jr. would have been a giant clusterfuck that the Mueller team most likely would have lost, turning them whole thing into political win and further exoneration for the President.

Even the members of the board here are fairly weak when it comes to debating the difference between a 3rd party foreigner and a foreign operative.
  #11889  
Old 07-20-2019, 08:20 AM
simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Various people (Wittes, Comey, etc.) are throwing in their 2 cents on questions for Congress to ask Mueller when he comes before them.

To add in my own:

- In your understanding of the security clearance reviews, what sort of thing do investigators look for that are red flags?
- Why are those things red flags?
- What sort of history has made those things be red flags?
Did the investigation wrap up on your timeline? Was the timeline influenced by outside parties? If so, whom?

Do you feel that there are avenues of investigation that you wanted to pursue that were blocked? If so, by whom?

In your investigation, did you uncover any evidence that pointed to the members of the Clinton Campaign?

Last edited by simster; 07-20-2019 at 08:21 AM.
  #11890  
Old 07-20-2019, 08:43 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Mr. Mueller, would you vote for Donald Trump? Is that answer informed, influenced, or strengthened in any way by the discoveries you made while investigating the President?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 07-20-2019 at 08:44 AM.
  #11891  
Old 07-20-2019, 09:05 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Mr. Mueller, would you vote for Donald Trump? Is that answer informed, influenced, or strengthened in any way by the discoveries you made while investigating the President?
I donít think itís legal to ask you, on the record, who you voted for or will vote for. While not federal law to my knowledge, every state has laws in place to protect voting privacy and I donít think the federal government would want to step on that.
  #11892  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:02 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,930
Can’t see it being legal to compel an answer, but an invitation to volunteer one should meet standards of legality.
  #11893  
Old 07-20-2019, 12:43 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Mr. Mueller, would you vote for Donald Trump? Is that answer informed, influenced, or strengthened in any way by the discoveries you made while investigating the President?
It would be an incredibly bad idea for a Democrat to ask such a question. They need above all to avoid the appearance of partisanship. If Mueller were to answer "no," (and I can't imagine he would agree to answer such a question, no matter how much he might disapprove of Trump) it would be spun (further) that his investigation wasn't impartial.

Last edited by Colibri; 07-20-2019 at 12:45 PM.
  #11894  
Old 07-20-2019, 02:06 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: 41,327
The questions I'd ask would be something like,

"When deciding whether to issue an indictment for a particular set of actions, what criteria do you use?"
"Is one of those criteria that the actions must not have been committed by the person who is currently president?"
"You have listed six [or whatever] criteria that a set of actions must fulfill in order to be indictable. One of those criteria is that the person who committed those actions must not currently be the president of the United States. When considering the set of actions described in your report, how many of those criteria you listed were fulfilled?"
"To be clear, the president's actions fit all the criteria for indictable actions, except that they were committed by the president?"

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 07-20-2019 at 02:07 PM.
  #11895  
Old 07-20-2019, 06:16 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
...If Mueller had found crystal clear evidence that Trump was compromised and an active Russian asset, I bet he would have indicated him hard. While he might not have indicted him for obstruction, Iím still surprised they didnít indict Don Jr. Again, I think that was Barr.

The Trump Tower meeting was really a big deal. Sometimes Iím surprised that no one gets that. It matters not one freaking bit that the attempt at collusion was wildly unsuccessful. I donít think the Russians had any dirt to give. I think the entire reason for the charade was to generate that ridiculously compromising e-mail chain. It was a laughably transparent trick that only a stupid and insecure person desperate to curry favor with his own father would fall for.

Because, for over a year that e-mail chain remained hidden from the press and the public. But the Russians knew about it and had a copy. That is classic kompromat. It actually happened.
That's right. It is far more serious than most Americans realize.

The question of 'receiving something of value from a foreign national' has been muddied and confused by the deliberate (and cynical) efforts of Trump enablers. But the underlying issues could be explained in a way that most would understand:

1) A foreign adversary gets the son of a candidate on the written record as being willing to accept material help from that foreign government:
  • Overture to Don Jr.: 6-3-16: ... This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump ...
  • Don Jr. replies: 6-3-16: ... if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. ...
  • emails 6-6 and 6-8 have the subject line: Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
  • Overture to Don Jr. 6-7-16: ... Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow*

2) The son and others in the candidate's campaign consistently lie about this and many other contacts with the foreign adversary. They know the contacts must be kept secret---destroying any later claim that they didn't realize they were committing offenses (some legal, some ethical).

3) When you have a secret, those who know the secret can use the threat of disclosure to make you do what they want.


The last point is surely something that most people can understand, even if they're confused by the mass of names and dates and incidents contained in the Mueller report. 'Let the Russian government have something to hold over you, and your actions are no longer going to be in the best interests of the US---they're going to be in the best interests of Russia.'





* https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017...r-full-emails/
  #11896  
Old 07-20-2019, 07:31 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
3) When you have a secret, those who know the secret can use the threat of disclosure to make you do what they want.

That's Tan the Conman's only saving grace: he is completely incapable of keeping a secret. This is exactly how you know the SOB has zero plans when he announces "My plan is the best; you'll be amazed when you see it". And everybody knows that he has no plan and cannot keep a secret.
  #11897  
Old 07-20-2019, 09:13 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
It would be an incredibly bad idea for a Democrat to ask such a question. They need above all to avoid the appearance of partisanship. If Mueller were to answer "no," (and I can't imagine he would agree to answer such a question, no matter how much he might disapprove of Trump) it would be spun (further) that his investigation wasn't impartial.
a) One would expect him to give a more detailed response than that.
b) Mueller is the one person who you can't make the argument that he is partisan. He built the system that has protected us after 9/11, he was clearly a Republican appointee, both parties in Congress chose to make him the longest serving head of the FBI (since Hoover), and both parties gave him the thumbs up when he started the investigation into Trump. Certainly people can try to say that he's anything other than a straightforward and dedicated, Republican servant of our nation, but that just won't stick.
  #11898  
Old 07-20-2019, 09:23 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
b) Mueller is the one person who you can't make the argument that he is partisan. He built the system that has protected us after 9/11, he was clearly a Republican appointee, both parties in Congress chose to make him the longest serving head of the FBI (since Hoover), and both parties gave him the thumbs up when he started the investigation into Trump. Certainly people can try to say that he's anything other than a straightforward and dedicated, Republican servant of our nation, but that just won't stick.
Are you kidding? Have you not been paying attention to the past 3.5 years? Trump and his people don't need facts or logic at all. If Trump says Mueller is a shapeshifting wombat, 27% of America would be clamoring for more wombat traps in Washington, D.C. Red states would have a new cabinet level position of Wombat Combatant within weeks. And they'd all tell you how they always hated that stupid Democrat Party Wombat, ever since they helped Lincoln free the slaves. By the way, did you know that Lincoln was a Republican?

"Can't make the argument that he is partisan." Ha!
  #11899  
Old 07-21-2019, 06:17 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
That's Tan the Conman's only saving grace: he is completely incapable of keeping a secret. This is exactly how you know the SOB has zero plans when he announces "My plan is the best; you'll be amazed when you see it". And everybody knows that he has no plan and cannot keep a secret.
True enough about the bull-shitting. He can't keep from bull-shitting to save his life.

But in fact he did work pretty hard to keep secrets about multiple Russian contacts. And so far as I know, the reason Mueller found out about them was that other people talked---not that Trump talked.

Agent Orange does have a well-developed sense of self-preservation.
  #11900  
Old 07-21-2019, 07:37 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: 41,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
a) One would expect him to give a more detailed response than that.
Absolutely not. I'd expect Mueller to limit himself, to every legal degree, to what he's already said in his report. Questions about whom he'd vote for I'd expect him to punt; I expect him to flatly refuse to answer hypotheticals.

I think the correct way to ask question is just to get him to answer clarifying questions about his report: not to add anything new, but to address a possible interpretation of what he said. Thus the questions I proposed.
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 12:03 PM.

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