Let’s see. On a partisan scale of 1 to 10, I would put Hannity as an 11 and Mueller as a 0.
Can someone remind me where Hannity got his law degree?
:o
Yes.
Can I hire you as my editor?
That is just embarrassing. What a Loser with a capital “L.” :smack:
It’ll cost ya. 
If you read the report, one of the more interesting subplots is the relationship between Manafort and Russian oligarchs, including Oleg Deripaska, who threatened him with a lawsuit. Apparently Manafort tried to play big shot investor and fell flat on his ass and took some other people’s money with him. Russian oligarchs had leverage on Manafort, and Manafort in return leveraged his relationships (particularly Trump) as a way to climb out of his hole.
Hannity failed Jesuit Logic 101.
You are assuming that his viewers are not cribbing his notes.
CNN tells it like it is with the chyron: “TRUMP UNLEASHES FLURRY OF LIES AFTER MUELLER STATEMENT”
I was going to guess “Trump University”.
I’ve always felt that Sean Flim-Flammity is Drumpf’s biggest suck-up (at least on the FOX Right Wing Propaganda Machine) but apparently the person that Drumpf, himself, feels is “my biggest friend” on FOX is Steve Doocy from “FOX and Fiends” (don’t correct me if I spelled his last name wrong. I couldn’t care less whether I did or not). Or so “people say.”
I have seen the media make the same interpretations of the three items that I didn’t bold. What part of the press conference do you think directly or even indirectly spoke critically of the announced investigation into the investigation?
True - the part after mueller’s “The FBI and investigators did a great job” is my editorializing. I do think it was implied though, and there was a solid reason Mueller brought it up. That reason being Trump’s slagging of them, and Barr’s troubling moves to investigate the investigation.
Was just reading a news analysis in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-barr.html) and it made me realize that reporters have a hard time not distorting Mueller’s carefully-worded statements. I know that they like to paraphrase rather than quote extensively but I think in this case, it does do a disservice. For example, they say,
What Mueller actually said was
To me, that is a fair bit different. The Times makes it sound like Mueller is saying that he definitively knows that Barr acted in good faith, whereas what Mueller actually said was really not that. (I am sort of reminded of that quote, “Don’t attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence”…I.e., Mueller is choosing to charitably believe the best about Barr, not stating definitively that Barr was in fact acting in good faith.)
I wish they would just use longer quotes in these things.
Okay, it took him a day…
“Trump Accuses Mueller of a Personal Vendetta as Calls for Impeachment Grow”
I was listening to Hannity’s radio show yesterday* and both he and Newt Gingrich (who sounded like he’s about 90 years old, btw) were ranting on like a bunch of senile old men in a dementia ward about how basically the whole Justice Department under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch had committed a form of treason and needed to be investigated. White male faux victimization complex was on full display.
*I sometimes listen to right wing propaganda just to hear what kind of nasty magic mushroom shit they’re tripping on about.
Which of course means “Barr’s a damn liar or I wouldn’t even have had to say that.”
I don’t understand how Individual 1 would attack Mueller if he thinks that Mueller is proving him innocent.
You can now change “in the last 33 years” to “today”:
Figure linked to Trump transition charged with transporting child pornography
Seth Abramson’s take on the above:
Ideally, there’s a second probe of Trump that is still ongoing, somewhere in the FBI.
Team Trump never made a deal with Putin, but I think that there’s pretty good evidence that they did make one with Saudi Arabia (through Tom Barrack) and Nader would be part of that.
It’s unclear how Nader got free of the feds, back after Mueller interviewed him the first time, but I think it’s fair to say that whatever levers were moved to let him go last time are going to be a lot harder to shift when kiddie-porn is in the mix. That’s the immovable object of crime. (Unless you’re Jeffrey Epstein.)
There’s been some predictable scorn on Twitter about Dean’s appearance. But Dean’s testimony can be used to drive home the point that it’s NOT traditional to let presidents get away with violating our laws.
The wording of the announcement was smart. If the hearings actually happen as the announcement implies–meaning that they have some teeth in publicizing what’s in the largely-unread Mueller report, with attention-getting witnesses and substantive questioning–then the dangers of officially declaring ‘impeachment proceedings’ may be averted.
As soon as it’s official that impeachment is underway, the GOP/GRU/IRA social media machine* will swing into high gear with Vote Now Vote Now Vote Now Vote Now being the unavoidable and high-volume message. Get this matter over to the Senate so Trump can be acquitted and all further calls for investigation can be quashed with a hearty ‘you had your chance and he was proven innocent!’ So putting that off as long as possible is smart (for the side that wants Trump gone, anyway).
Good on Nadler. Now he has to come through with some hearings that will make the news.
*No, not a contractual entity—just a defacto cooperative orientation by these anti-democracy outfits.