Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:17 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,007
Has anyone asked Zebley anything yet?
  #102  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:19 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The full quote from Mueller:

“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.”
Translation: "My boss wouldn't let me say that".
  #103  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:23 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Has anyone asked Zebley anything yet?
There's this, which isn't actually a question:
Schiff to Mueller deputy Aaron Zebley, who has also been sworn in to testify to the Intel Committee: "I realize, as you probably do, Mr. Zebley, that there is a angry man down the street who is not happy about your being here today."
(Quoted from: https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1 )
  #104  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:29 PM
aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,179
The long-awaited Mueller hearings: parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. As one commentator notes, the only winner here besides Trump is Nancy Pelosi. Impeachment is a dead duck.
  #105  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:30 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Has anyone asked Zebley anything yet?
Mueller tried to defer to Zebley to answer a question, and the Republican said, "No, I'm asking you."
  #106  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:31 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,974
Mueller looks much older than he did a few months ago.
  #107  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:33 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
The long-awaited Mueller hearings: parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. As one commentator notes, the only winner here besides Trump is Nancy Pelosi. Impeachment is a dead duck.
For now, at least.
  #108  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:33 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,133
Gonna put him on my 2020 death pool, I am!
  #109  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:39 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Mueller looks much older than he did a few months ago.
Hell, older than he did a few hours ago.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #110  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:49 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The full quote from Mueller:

“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.”
And there it is -- The Feckless Punt.

This will be the only headline that is played on State TV and repeated by every pro-Trump minion.

Thanks, Mueller. You've been almost helpful. Please go now.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #111  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:50 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
And there it is -- The Feckless Punt.

This will be the only headline that is played on State TV and repeated by every pro-Trump minion.

Thanks, Mueller. You've been almost helpful. Please go now.
It does dispute Barr's characterization of his report, so it's still "useful" in that sense. And it doesn't really directly contradict what he said earlier, it just muddles it a bit.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-24-2019 at 01:50 PM.
  #112  
Old 07-24-2019, 01:56 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,714
"...we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime..."
Is in response to the suggestion that there was only one reason why Trump wasn't indicted, the OLC directive. IMO the above statement does a lot more that muddy the waters.
  #113  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:00 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Hell, older than he did a few hours ago.
On that point, that was rather concerning that he couldn't think of the word "conspiracy".

"That word we use in place of collusion."
  #114  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:09 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,819
Q: Did the President ever claim the 5th Amendment?
A: I'm not going to get into that.

Interesting. I feel like he would have said 'no', if it was 'no'.
  #115  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:11 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It does dispute Barr's characterization of his report, so it's still "useful" in that sense. And it doesn't really directly contradict what he said earlier, it just muddles it a bit.
Why muddle things in this crucial moment where clarity is of the essence?

If he is saying that the DOJ regulation prohibited him from reaching a conclusion, he could easily have said that. In fact, he said exactly that (...as did Barr). And then deliberately rolled it back. In service of what?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #116  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:14 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Q: Did the President ever claim the 5th Amendment?
A: I'm not going to get into that.

Interesting. I feel like he would have said 'no', if it was 'no'.
Mueller has made it clear that if it's not already in the report he's not going to get into it.
  #117  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:16 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,793
Has anyone straight up asked Mueller why: "...we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime..."?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #118  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:18 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Why muddle things in this crucial moment where clarity is of the essence?

If he is saying that the DOJ regulation prohibited him from reaching a conclusion, he could easily have said that. In fact, he said exactly that (...as did Barr). And then deliberately rolled it back. In service of what?
I think he's trying as hard as possible to not say anything that goes beyond the report. Whether by mistakenly telling too much truth or just a slip of the tongue, he went beyond the report in that answer to Lieu, so he tried to re-muddy it. Or something like that.

Mueller really didn't want to do this, and he's not particularly interested in helping the Democrats (or the Republicans, for that matter).
  #119  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:26 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think he's trying as hard as possible to not say anything that goes beyond the report. Whether by mistakenly telling too much truth or just a slip of the tongue, he went beyond the report in that answer to Lieu, so he tried to re-muddy it. Or something like that.

Mueller really didn't want to do this, and he's not particularly interested in helping the Democrats (or the Republicans, for that matter).
Whatever he says beyond what is in the report is going to be twisted into a thump-supporting sound bite. Like earlier when he used the words "Comey" and "friends" together in a sentence that specifically said they were NOT close friends, but business associates.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #120  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:29 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think he's trying as hard as possible to not say anything that goes beyond the report. Whether by mistakenly telling too much truth or just a slip of the tongue, he went beyond the report in that answer to Lieu, so he tried to re-muddy it. Or something like that.

Mueller really didn't want to do this, and he's not particularly interested in helping the Democrats (or the Republicans, for that matter).
Then why take on the job if he is so ambivalent? Either he is getting some sort of personal satisfaction from this (unlikely given his objections to Barr's mis-characterizations), or there is more to this than meets the eye, maybe with respect to the 14 separate ongoing investigation that were referred by his office. Perhaps to avoid the appearance of influencing them in some way?

I don't know. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But he's not making it easy.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 07-24-2019 at 02:32 PM.
  #121  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:30 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,365
All done. Let the dueling punditry commence.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #122  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:32 PM
Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,613
Umm, did I hear Mueller respond to the question about whether Trump answered his written responses truthfully by saying that he did not?

Isn’t that a crime?
  #123  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:36 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Then why take on the job if he is so ambivalent? Either he is getting some sort of personal satisfaction from this (unlikely given his objections to Barr's mis-characterizations), or there is more to this than meets the eye, maybe with respect to the 14 separate ongoing investigation that were referred by his office. Perhaps to avoid the appearance of influencing them in some way?

I don't know. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But he's not making it easy.
I expect he took the job of special counsel out of a sense of duty to the country, but I also expect he feels a need to be seen as apolitical. So he went out of his way to write the report as non-partisan as possible, and now he's trying to stay entirely within the bounds of the report.

I think he's much too married to this old-school view of being "above politics", or something like that, but there's nothing we can do about it. I'm not sure if a more political actor would have been a better choice -- they would have been far more likely to either act to exonerate Trump, or go far enough in trying to pursue Trump's wrongdoing that Trump would have had them fired.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-24-2019 at 02:41 PM.
  #124  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:38 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Umm, did I hear Mueller respond to the question about whether Trump answered his written responses truthfully by saying that he did not?

Isn’t that a crime?
Lying under oath is what got Bill Clinton impeached.

Last edited by bobot; 07-24-2019 at 02:39 PM.
  #125  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:55 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
lying under oath is what got bill clinton impeached.
iowrdi
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #126  
Old 07-24-2019, 02:58 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,829
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who's been paying attention during the past 3 years. I've been hearing non-stop from everyone how Muller was going to bring Trump down any day now, and I maintained the entire time that it would amount to nothing, and nobody believed me. I said, "Trump's ONLY TALENT is avoiding consequences." They all said, "nah, this guy Muller, he's very thorough, he's a real badass, he's gonna bring it all toppling down." Actually, they all said "Trump isn't even going to run, come on, you know that means he'd have to disclose his taxes." I said, "he doesn't give a fuck, he's not gonna play by the rules," and surely enough he didn't. Then they all said "the GOP will freeze him out, he'll never get the nomination, not a chance in hell" and..."Hillary will mop the floor with him".

What people don't understand is that attempting to find loopholes to make this nightmare disappear is never going to work, and only makes his detractors look incompetent. Trying to impeach him will just be setting up for failure, and it will have the same result. The only way to beat him is to beat him.
  #127  
Old 07-24-2019, 03:13 PM
Chad Sudan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 75
I do understand that Mueller wants to avoid appearing partisan - but he has neutered himself. I don't understand how someone who successfully prosecuted Trump's underlings could now go to such lengths to avoid calling Trump out - for refusing to testify, for obstruction....

There must have been a better way to approach this. How about making a stand for the rule of law?
  #128  
Old 07-24-2019, 03:22 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,929
What Lamoral said.

Last edited by dropzone; 07-24-2019 at 03:23 PM.
  #129  
Old 07-24-2019, 03:49 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Umm, did I hear Mueller respond to the question about whether Trump answered his written responses truthfully by saying that he did not?

Isn’t that a crime?
Haven't watched or read a transcript from this week, but I have heard that Mr. Mueller's position (shared by Mr. Trump's DOJ) is that the President is quite literally immune from criminal prosecution. That means it is impossible for the President to be convicted of a crime, unless he is actually impeached and convicted by Congress. Couple this with the presumption of innocence and the answer to your question must be a very legalese 'not unless he is impeached and convicted'.

He can be impeached and convicted by Congress for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". It's up to the Congress to decide what that means. This was somewhat elaborated in one of the Federalists... for the founder's views on this subject...

Here it is, Federalist 65:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius/Hamilton
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.

...

...The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law...
Perjury has been held to be an impeachable offense in the past when Judge Walter Nixon was removed from office in 1989. Contrary to the opinion of some, the official verdict in President Clinton's trial was "not guilty", not a Senatorial jury nullification.

~Max
  #130  
Old 07-24-2019, 03:57 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,133
"So, why did the United States collapse? I'm still having a hard time with this one, professor."

"Well, you see, somebody wrote a memo. And that memo apparently had the force of law. And that memo prevented anybody from removing a President who committed crimes, even though the US was founded on the principle that no one was above the law. Which they weren't until someone wrote a memo."

"WHAT?"

"Yes. A fucking *memo* is all it took."

"But... I mean... couldn't somebody just have written another memo?"

"You'd think. But everyone acted as if this memo was some fiat handed down by God, so it just wasn't done. Wasn't even considered."

"Holy shit, they were stupid."
  #131  
Old 07-24-2019, 03:59 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,067
As much as I admire a firm commitment to principle....this is a man who was willing to take a bullet for his country, he can't bend a principle when stern duty demands? That is too much of a sacrifice for a patriot?

Upside: that video bite of being asked if he "exonerated" Il Douche. "No". We here all pretty much know that, sure. But when we tell somebody else, they had to look it up, go the extra mile. This is right there, inna you face. I think that matters. The lumpen won't see much of this, but they will see that. The ones who took Barr at his word, the one's who heard Trump say he was exonerated, the one's who are easy targets for solid and simple sound bites....

Maybe enough. Time will tell, and both sides do it.
  #132  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:04 PM
Dallas Jones is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Orygun forest
Posts: 4,921
Boy, we got Trump now!. This is what we have all been waiting for! Someone is going to trip and say something that they shouldn't have said. Then there will be more questions. And those questions will have inadequate answers. So we keep going. All through Donald's second term and half way through Ivanka's first term.
  #133  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:06 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who's been paying attention during the past 3 years. I've been hearing non-stop from everyone how Muller was going to bring Trump down any day now, and I maintained the entire time that it would amount to nothing, and nobody believed me. I said, "Trump's ONLY TALENT is avoiding consequences." They all said, "nah, this guy Muller, he's very thorough, he's a real badass, he's gonna bring it all toppling down." Actually, they all said "Trump isn't even going to run, come on, you know that means he'd have to disclose his taxes." I said, "he doesn't give a fuck, he's not gonna play by the rules," and surely enough he didn't. Then they all said "the GOP will freeze him out, he'll never get the nomination, not a chance in hell" and..."Hillary will mop the floor with him".

What people don't understand is that attempting to find loopholes to make this nightmare disappear is never going to work, and only makes his detractors look incompetent. Trying to impeach him will just be setting up for failure, and it will have the same result. The only way to beat him is to beat him.
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?
  #134  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:18 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,829
What do you think? You think I'm gonna advocate physical harm to the president on this forum? No, I don't know why you'd even bring that up, I mean to beat him in the election. I think that was pretty implicit in what I said.
  #135  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:18 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who's been paying attention during the past 3 years. I've been hearing non-stop from everyone how Muller was going to bring Trump down any day now, and I maintained the entire time that it would amount to nothing, and nobody believed me. I said, "Trump's ONLY TALENT is avoiding consequences." They all said, "nah, this guy Muller, he's very thorough, he's a real badass, he's gonna bring it all toppling down." Actually, they all said "Trump isn't even going to run, come on, you know that means he'd have to disclose his taxes." I said, "he doesn't give a fuck, he's not gonna play by the rules," and surely enough he didn't. Then they all said "the GOP will freeze him out, he'll never get the nomination, not a chance in hell" and..."Hillary will mop the floor with him".

What people don't understand is that attempting to find loopholes to make this nightmare disappear is never going to work, and only makes his detractors look incompetent. Trying to impeach him will just be setting up for failure, and it will have the same result. The only way to beat him is to beat him.
I agree to the extent that what this orange assclown has demonstrated (without forethought) is how ineffectual the US government institutions and norms really are. When a weak minded buffoon like Trump can disregard congressional oversight, flout rules of conduct dictated by established regulatory bodies, refuse judicial regulations and constitutional laws (i.e. Treasury shall furnish to Congress...), any rational individual should quickly realize that the thin veneer called "Rule of Law" is in need of serious rethinking as far as providing actual enforceable consequential actions against those who would think it doesn't apply to them.

If this Mueller hearing farce accomplishes anything, I hope it's to make that abundantly clear to all those who still believe in some idealized version of America's exceptionalism and institutional checks & balances.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #136  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:24 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
"So, why did the United States collapse? I'm still having a hard time with this one, professor."

"Well, you see, somebody wrote a memo. And that memo apparently had the force of law. And that memo prevented anybody from removing a President who committed crimes, even though the US was founded on the principle that no one was above the law. Which they weren't until someone wrote a memo."

"WHAT?"

"Yes. A fucking *memo* is all it took."

"But... I mean... couldn't somebody just have written another memo?"

"You'd think. But everyone acted as if this memo was some fiat handed down by God, so it just wasn't done. Wasn't even considered."

"Holy shit, they were stupid."
The 1973 and 2000 memos are binding on DOJ employees and I think it is well justified. It was and continues to be valid not because it was handed down by God, but because the DOJ agrees with its contents. If you want to start a thread about it I might jump in on the defense.

~Max
  #137  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:45 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I agree to the extent that what this orange assclown has demonstrated (without forethought) is how ineffectual the US government institutions and norms really are. When a weak minded buffoon like Trump can disregard congressional oversight, flout rules of conduct dictated by established regulatory bodies, refuse judicial regulations and constitutional laws (i.e. Treasury shall furnish to Congress...), any rational individual should quickly realize that the thin veneer called "Rule of Law" is in need of serious rethinking as far as providing actual enforceable consequential actions against those who would think it doesn't apply to them.

If this Mueller hearing farce accomplishes anything, I hope it's to make that abundantly clear to all those who still believe in some idealized version of America's exceptionalism and institutional checks & balances.
But back to what Lamoral was saying, it's the voters themselves and their common faith in political institutions and political and legal systems that largely undergird or undermine them. The systems themselves were stronger at one time, but they're weakened now because fewer people identify with them. We're losing a sense of a shared value system, which is what we're seeing and why everything now seems like political theater. I don't know if there's a remedy until we can get people to buy into the democratic and political norms we seem to have lost.
  #138  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:51 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,414
My favorite line:
Mueller: I'm not going to discuss that.
Congressman: You put in your report. Page 196.
In general Mueller came across as your grandfather when you start looking for a home.

This is absolutely a disaster for the Dems. No new information came out and from what little I heard Mueller came across as evasive and dottering. When he evaded the issues on the Steele Portfolio and the Clinton campaign's relation to the Russians and there was a person who reported contact to the Russians (forgot the name - sorry) who later lied to the investigators three times and was NOT indicted. Really shows favoritism.

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.
  #139  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:55 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The 1973 and 2000 memos are binding on DOJ employees and I think it is well justified. It was and continues to be valid not because it was handed down by God, but because the DOJ agrees with its contents. If you want to start a thread about it I might jump in on the defense.

~Max
No need to start a thread re: some silly theory about how a memo ordered by a President under legal duress actually makes sense, especially given the near-200 year history prior to that when the country was running fine without this memo.

Last edited by JohnT; 07-24-2019 at 04:57 PM.
  #140  
Old 07-24-2019, 04:59 PM
krondys's Avatar
krondys is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gillette, Wyoming
Posts: 1,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
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.
Quote:
Congressman: "Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

Congressman: "You could charge the President with obstruction of justice after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."
I see what you mean.
  #141  
Old 07-24-2019, 05:08 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,886
Just heard on AP Radio News a clip of the current occupant of the White House saying Mueller made a fake appearance.

Reminds me of 9/11 Truthers: it was all done with holograms!
  #142  
Old 07-24-2019, 05:09 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who's been paying attention during the past 3 years. I've been hearing non-stop from everyone how Muller was going to bring Trump down any day now, and I maintained the entire time that it would amount to nothing, and nobody believed me. I said, "Trump's ONLY TALENT is avoiding consequences." They all said, "nah, this guy Muller, he's very thorough, he's a real badass, he's gonna bring it all toppling down." Actually, they all said "Trump isn't even going to run, come on, you know that means he'd have to disclose his taxes." I said, "he doesn't give a fuck, he's not gonna play by the rules," and surely enough he didn't. Then they all said "the GOP will freeze him out, he'll never get the nomination, not a chance in hell" and..."Hillary will mop the floor with him".

What people don't understand is that attempting to find loopholes to make this nightmare disappear is never going to work, and only makes his detractors look incompetent. Trying to impeach him will just be setting up for failure, and it will have the same result. The only way to beat him is to beat him.
I don't know that I would completely agree with this sentiment, but I certainly do believe that the Democrats have not done themselves any favors by allowing themselves to jump into the "Collusion or Bust" trap.

It was plausible that Manafort might have flipped and, if there were genuine communications between the camps, offered proof of them. But, even if that existed, the threat of being murdered by the Russians was probably too high to make it worth doing. And, outside of Manafort, likely only Russia would have known anything and certainly they're not going to talk.

The Russia investigation was never liable to win. Any strategy that relied on it proving true was never going to have much hope. The Democrats should have passed on it and waited until something easier to prove came along. Now they're stuck with an albatross around their neck if they try to go after Trump for anything else.

The one good thing is that the FBI is still investigating Trump - even if we have limited information on that topic. Whether they decide to prosecute or not will strongly depend on what they find and, similarly, whether they decide to bring it to the attention of anyone outside of the FBI until after Trump is out of office.

The next President, whether it be in 2020 or 2024, will have to decide whether to prosecute a former president. That's a hairy ball to contend with.
  #143  
Old 07-24-2019, 05:25 PM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Just heard on AP Radio News a clip of the current occupant of the White House saying Mueller made a fake appearance.
Maybe that explains the communication difficulties— faulty AI. He even sounded like ELIZA at times.


NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?

ELIZA: Are you worried about someone else's report said ?

NADLER: Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that’s on the screen, you wrote, quote, “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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment,” close quote. Now does that say there was no obstruction?

ELIZA: What do you feel in your body, right now ?

NADLER: In fact, you were actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?

ELIZA: By the way, please understand that I can't always give you an attuned response.
-- But, please go on.

NADLER: And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?

ELIZA: I do not answer questions, sorry. But, why does that matter to you ?

NADLER: Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president.

ELIZA: What makes you think of my report expressly states that it doesn't exonerate the president ?
  #144  
Old 07-24-2019, 05:43 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
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.
In general Mueller came across as your grandfather when you start looking for a home.

This is absolutely a disaster for the Dems. No new information came out and from what little I heard Mueller came across as evasive and dottering. When he evaded the issues on the Steele Portfolio and the Clinton campaign's relation to the Russians and there was a person who reported contact to the Russians (forgot the name - sorry) who later lied to the investigators three times and was NOT indicted. Really shows favoritism.

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.
Impeachment was never on the table - not over Russia-gate. It was never on the table; it's just that today we got a glimpse of how impeachment proceedings might actually work, and this proves once and for all, that the Dems aren't gonna achieve shit with impeachment over something that's been in the news non-stop since day one of his administration. 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.

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. I know we want to believe that we live in a country that won't turn a blind eye to Trump's corruption, but as I told you all a long time ago: president's don't get impeached or forced from office over high crimes and misdemeanors; they get pushed out of office for the same reasons they lose re-election: the country's in a shitty mood. Impeachment just helps us get rid of someone faster. But the main takeaway here is that Nancy Pelosi is right once again: we should continue with impeachment light, not impeachment itself.

Now if the economy goes into the tank, we can probably impeach him for wearing the wrong tie. Maybe something else could do it too, like a botched response to a natural disaster, a disastrous war with Iran, or maybe something so outrageous that it pisses off the average American. But Mueller's old news. Time to move on.

Last edited by asahi; 07-24-2019 at 05:46 PM.
  #145  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:29 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
the Dems aren't gonna achieve shit with impeachment over something that's been in the news non-stop since day one of his administration. 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.
Why exactly? Have Republicans and Trump stopped banging on the "Lock her up" drum or the "Send them back drum." It may keep the base riled up to come out to vote.
  #146  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:47 PM
FavreCo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 53
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.
  #147  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:50 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
as I told you all a long time ago: president's don't get impeached or forced from office over high crimes and misdemeanors; they get pushed out of office for the same reasons they lose re-election: the country's in a shitty mood.
I don't think that held for Nixon, did it? I wasn't around back then but Nixon presided over the moon landing, he opened up China, he ended the Vietnam War, created the EPA, and generally did a lot of good stuff. And Nixon won re-election in a landslide.

If he hadn't totally screwed everything up with Watergate, I don't think he would have been pushed out of office at all.

~Max
  #148  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:51 PM
FavreCo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 53
Can you confirm that your name is Bob? I cant get into that
  #149  
Old 07-24-2019, 06:58 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think that held for Nixon, did it? I wasn't around back then but Nixon presided over the moon landing
Grandfathered from Johnson, and before him, Kennedy.

Quote:
he opened up China
Well, he had to do something besides being remembered for Watergate. Google "Hail Mary pass"

Quote:
he ended the Vietnam War,
After escalating it to unprecedented levels. And we still lost.

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.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #150  
Old 07-24-2019, 07:08 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,215
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.
Good point, I had totally forgotten about the oil crisis.

~Max
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 08:20 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