A Thread for the Mueller Investigation Results and Outcomes (Part 1)

[asahi]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Yes because simply calling it Impeachment Proceedings will change the narrative in the media. Are you honestly telling me that the media that is breathlessly asking Pelosi Nadler and anyone else in Congress whether they want to impeach that should actual impeachment start that it would be business as usual?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Of course it would change the fucking narrative, because now instead of conducting mere “oversight” the House Democrats, who were just elected a few months ago, and many of whom were elected in House districts that were drawn by Republicans, are going to talk about removing the President, which is something that voters inherently would rather take ownership of than a bunch of congresspeople, many of whom they never appointed to un-democratically remove their president. I get that you think impeachment is on the table, as do I. But if you haven’t made the case to the American people, it ain’t shit.

Yes, it would change the narrative. But is that necessarily a good thing? What, pray tell, of the last 2 years and change has given you any indication that the public is in the mood to use congress to remove the president? I know there’s an assumption that impeaching the president would so badly poison him and his party that it would carry over into the presidential election. What data do we have to work with? Al Gore? 2000? Mate, Al Gore actually won the fucking election. He won the popular vote. Would have won the electoral vote had Scalia and partisan hacks on the bench legislated from the bench to end the recount. But as for why it was so close to begin with in 2000…I don’t know, people get bored with the same party in the White House. And Al Gore wasn’t exactly the most charismatic chap. All of this is to say, don’t use the lessons of 2000 or 1974 as any kind of evidence that supports impeachment. There is no evidence - absolutely none - right now that indicates Democrats should pursue impeachment.

I’ve said it over and over again, and nobody has successfully rebutted it: beat Trump at the ballot box. Beat Trump and the Republicans on the issues. Seriously, if the Democrats cannot fucking do this in the course of a regular campaign, if they cannot communicate why Trump is a horrible candidate, then they just can’t win. Accept it. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be. Maybe it’s not their time. Maybe Democrats need more time to develop a field that is politically savvy enough to defeat Republicans. But I don’t think that’s the case. There’s a good field out there running now, and I say let them develop a platform and a message of hope and optimism that people can relate to. Impeachment sends entirely the wrong message: it sends the message that this country is fucking fucked and we’re desperate. That’s fine if your voters are in near total agreement, but right now, that’s just not the case.

[elucidator]

Be sure to allow the Republican members every opportunity to rebut the evidence and witnesses. Cut them all the procedural slack there is! Give them rope, give till it hurts, and then give some more rope. Then don’t interfere with the natural course of events.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@asahi

Of course it would change the fucking narrative, because now instead of conducting mere “oversight” the House Democrats, who were just elected a few months ago, and many of whom were elected in House districts that were drawn by Republicans, are going to talk about removing the President, which is something that voters inherently would rather take ownership of than a bunch of congresspeople, many of whom they never appointed to un-democratically remove their president. I get that you think impeachment is on the table, as do I. But if you haven’t made the case to the American people, it ain’t shit.

Yes, it would change the narrative. But is that necessarily a good thing? What, pray tell, of the last 2 years and change has given you any indication that the public is in the mood to use congress to remove the president? I know there’s an assumption that impeaching the president would so badly poison him and his party that it would carry over into the presidential election. What data do we have to work with? Al Gore? 2000? Mate, Al Gore actually won the fucking election. He won the popular vote. Would have won the electoral vote had Scalia and partisan hacks on the bench legislated from the bench to end the recount. But as for why it was so close to begin with in 2000…I don’t know, people get bored with the same party in the White House. And Al Gore wasn’t exactly the most charismatic chap. All of this is to say, don’t use the lessons of 2000 or 1974 as any kind of evidence that supports impeachment. There is no evidence - absolutely none - right now that indicates Democrats should pursue impeachment.

I’ve said it over and over again, and nobody has successfully rebutted it: beat Trump at the ballot box. Beat Trump and the Republicans on the issues. Seriously, if the Democrats cannot fucking do this in the course of a regular campaign, if they cannot communicate why Trump is a horrible candidate, then they just can’t win. Accept it. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be. Maybe it’s not their time. Maybe Democrats need more time to develop a field that is politically savvy enough to defeat Republicans. But I don’t think that’s the case. There’s a good field out there running now, and I say let them develop a platform and a message of hope and optimism that people can relate to. Impeachment sends entirely the wrong message: it sends the message that this country is fucking fucked and we’re desperate. That’s fine if your voters are in near total agreement, but right now, that’s just not the case.

You missed the point really badly. I didn’t make a peep one way or another on whether impeachment would be a good or bad idea. I was addressing the fact that people in this thread were mixing up the coverage of actual impeachment hearings compared to what congress is doing now. They are not the same thing which is why the media is not treating them the same, not because the media/america are suddenly uninterested in impeachment hearings.

The media is very interested in impeachment hearings. This is exactly why they are chomping at the bit to start covering some.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

However, fuck that noise. Trump needs to be held accountable, but even if you really feel that the voting booth is the way to do this, this administration has done dick to address interference in the next election. Even if Trump and his henchmen decided to not actively collude with Russia (or anyone else who wants to put their thumb on the scale) simply sitting back and doing nothing can have the same affect.

[slumtrimpet]

@asahi

Of course it would change the fucking narrative, because now instead of conducting mere “oversight” the House Democrats, who were just elected a few months ago, and many of whom were elected in House districts that were drawn by Republicans, are going to talk about removing the President, which is something that voters inherently would rather take ownership of than a bunch of congresspeople, many of whom they never appointed to un-democratically remove their president. I get that you think impeachment is on the table, as do I. But if you haven’t made the case to the American people, it ain’t shit.

Here’s a thought; maybe those Dems that were elected in Republican drawn districts won because the American people are fucking sick of the same old, same old shit and want those Dems to do something useful - like get rid of The Donald and his crew.

Yes, it would change the narrative. But is that necessarily a good thing? What, pray tell, of the last 2 years and change has given you any indication that the public is in the mood to use congress to remove the president? I know there’s an assumption that impeaching the president would so badly poison him and his party that it would carry over into the presidential election. What data do we have to work with? Al Gore? 2000? Mate, Al Gore actually won the fucking election. He won the popular vote. Would have won the electoral vote had Scalia and partisan hacks on the bench legislated from the bench to end the recount. But as for why it was so close to begin with in 2000…I don’t know, people get bored with the same party in the White House. And Al Gore wasn’t exactly the most charismatic chap. All of this is to say, don’t use the lessons of 2000 or 1974 as any kind of evidence that supports impeachment. There is no evidence - absolutely none - right now that indicates Democrats should pursue impeachment.

Because they actually elected a congress that is under Democratic control?.. And one that has a surprising number of progressive members? Ones that were elected in “safe” districts or even Republican controlled districts. That didn’t happen in 2018 because of voter apathy.
Al Gore was boring Clinton. And yes, people get tired of the same old, same old shit which is what Gore represented. And he still won the numbers. And then the Republicans had 8 more years to re-write and re-draw the rules some more. And then we had Obama; “Hope and Change!!!111” and got a whole lot more of the same old shit. Because Congress. Because 'must please the centrist", because “don’t piss off the lunatic base”, or something.

I’ve said it over and over again, and nobody has successfully rebutted it: beat Trump at the ballot box. Beat Trump and the Republicans on the issues. Seriously, if the Democrats cannot fucking do this in the course of a regular campaign, if they cannot communicate why Trump is a horrible candidate, then they just can’t win. Accept it. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be. Maybe it’s not their time. Maybe Democrats need more time to develop a field that is politically savvy enough to defeat Republicans. But I don’t think that’s the case. There’s a good field out there running now, and I say let them develop a platform and a message of hope and optimism that people can relate to. Impeachment sends entirely the wrong message: it sends the message that this country is fucking fucked and we’re desperate. That’s fine if your voters are in near total agreement, but right now, that’s just not the case.

Hello? This country is fucking fucked and you should jolly well be desperate. And one way to make that clear to the American voter - what’s left of them that haven’t been disenfranchised or brainwashed - is to shove it in their faces every single fucking day from now until November 2020. What **John_Stamos’_Left_Ear ** said. Take over the narrative. Give the media something to crow about. And make all the dirty nasty shit that The Donald and his crew (including all the complicit congress critters) super public. Every day. All of it.

[Celidin]

@slumtrimpet

Here’s a thought; maybe those Dems that were elected in Republican drawn districts won because the American people are fucking sick of the same old, same old shit and want those Dems to do something useful - like get rid of The Donald and his crew.

I live and vote in one of those districts. And I sure as hell voted for the Democrat to get rid of the cancer that is the Donald Trump administration.

I do not want to wait until November 2020. That’s still a year and a half away, and that’s way too much time to allow Donald, his children, and his Club of Cronies to lie, cheat, and steal their way into destroying more of America. I am also a little worried that there will be more election interference that throws the results into doubt and don’t trust this disaster of an administration to do anything about it.

@slumtrimpet

Hello? This country is fucking fucked and you should jolly well be desperate. And one way to make that clear to the American voter - what’s left of them that haven’t been disenfranchised or brainwashed - is to shove it in their faces every single fucking day from now until November 2020. What **John_Stamos’_Left_Ear ** said. Take over the narrative. Give the media something to crow about. And make all the dirty nasty shit that The Donald and his crew (including all the complicit congress critters) super public. Every day. All of it.

This. A million times this. Make it obvious to everyone that votes for Donald or other Republicans are vote to continue “the swamp”, to continue to get shafted on a daily basis, to continue to redistribute money to the wealthy, and most of all are votes to re-elect a genuine asshole to the White House.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Hope Hicks has agreed to a closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee June 19th! One week from today!

[Fiveyearlurker]

We can stop arguing about whether Trump accepted help from foreign governments, because he tells us today that he would and will in the future. So, why are we still arguing about whether collusion would hypothetically happen, when we know that Russia tried to help his campaign, and he tells us that he would accept such help? Seems pretty clear that he is acknowledging that he did, in fact, collude with a foreign government, and worst of all, plans to do so again in 2020.

[Sherrerd]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Yes because simply calling it Impeachment Proceedings will change the narrative in the media. Are you honestly telling me that the media that is breathlessly asking Pelosi Nadler and anyone else in Congress whether they want to impeach that should actual impeachment start that it would be business as usual?

Yes. That’s what I’m telling you.

The hearings, whether called “impeachment” or not, will have the same personnel involved. Trump won’t let anyone actually mentioned in the Mueller Report show up, so for the most part it will be law professors and political commentators.

And MSNBC and CNN and the networks will show the “impeachment” hearings to the same extent they showed the hearings Monday: a couple of excerpts here, a couple of excerpts there. Because “impeachment hearings” will tank in the ratings just as much as non-impeachment hearings do.

The news outlets go with conflict and drama. Look at the Jon Stewart testimony yesterday: it was as dramatic and conflict-driven as it gets----and it was not, repeat, NOT, carried in its entirety. Just excerpts.

And that was a high-water mark for the drama and conflict the news outlets seek. It doesn’t get any more dramatic than that. Yet they didn’t show anything but excerpts.

The reason the news outlets are harping on ‘when will you start impeachment?’ is because of the question’s potential to elicit newsworthy stammers and annoyance and gaffes and criticisms of other Democrats …not because the news outlets think impeachment proceedings will garner ratings. They know impeachment proceedings won’t garner ratings. They have no intention of showing the impeachment proceedings.

Once the House Dems pull that lever, the next badgering question will be: when will you hold the Vote? And again, that’s not because the anchors and reporters think a vote should be held-----it’s because the question has the potential to elicit newsworthy displays of anger or annoyance or embarrassment or criticism of fellow-Democrats. Conflict! Ratings!

And of course, meanwhile, real-life consequences are barreling ahead. The proceedings start; the Dems are goaded into a Vote; the Senate acquits, and all investigation is over. Every chance the Democrats might have had to make the case that Trump is a crook-----gone. Over. Done. How can the Democrats investigate a man declared by the United States Senate to be innocent?

Trump wins.

You may be ‘fine’ with that. I am not.

[JohnT]

#LoseOrDoNothing2020!

[slumtrimpet]

Interesting article:
Explainer: Can Trump use executive privilege to block congressional probes?
Especially

One lesson of U.S. v. Nixon is that an executive privilege claim is particularly weak when Congress has invoked its power to remove a president from office through impeachment, University of Missouri School of Law professor Frank Bowman said. In the impeachment context, “virtually no part of a president’s duties or behavior is exempt from scrutiny,” Bowman added.

hmmmmm

[slumtrimpet]

Also, Americans is weird.
June 12, 2019 - A Sitting President Should Face Charges, U.S. Voters Say, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; But Voters Still Say Don’t Impeach Trump

Any sitting president should be subject to criminal charges, 69 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today, while 24 percent say a president should be charged with crimes after he or she leaves office.

Support for charging a sitting president is 52 - 35 percent among Republicans, 83 - 12 percent among Democrats and 68 - 26 percent among independent voters, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds.

I guess that means the Democrats need to prove to Americans that The Donald is a crook.

[Sage_Rat]

@Fiveyearlurker

We can stop arguing about whether Trump accepted help from foreign governments, because he tells us today that he would and will in the future. So, why are we still arguing about whether collusion would hypothetically happen, when we know that Russia tried to help his campaign, and he tells us that he would accept such help? Seems pretty clear that he is acknowledging that he did, in fact, collude with a foreign government, and worst of all, plans to do so again in 2020.

And he’s basically told any and all American politicians that it is completely excusable and acceptable for them to cozy up to foreign intelligence agencies, in the name of “winning”.

He’s basically just signaled the start of the great takeover of the US government by foreign powers.

Though, granted, only his side will have that advantage - depending on how partisan Christopher Wray is.

[Sage_Rat]

@slumtrimpet

Also, Americans is weird.
June 12, 2019 - A Sitting President Should Face Charges, U.S. Voters Say, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; But Voters Still Say Don’t Impeach Trump
I guess that means the Democrats need to prove to Americans that The Donald is a crook.

There probably is an argument to be made that immunity to criminal trials isn’t actually part of the constitution.

It would be weird for Congress to not impeach if the President is found guilty, but there’s nowhere in the whole Constitution where it says that the impeachment has to precede anything else.

As to your latter point, I still marvel that no one seems to care that Trump’s charity was for veterans - and he embezzled from it. He stole from people who got their legs blown off, serving the flag. The media really needs to stop smoking so much weed and start getting their ducks in a line. They can’t just keep being idiots and letting Trump get the best of them.

[asahi]

@Sherrerd

And MSNBC and CNN and the networks will show the “impeachment” hearings to the same extent they showed the hearings Monday: a couple of excerpts here, a couple of excerpts there. Because “impeachment hearings” will tank in the ratings just as much as non-impeachment hearings do.

In the 1970s, we had mass media; in 2019, we have de-massified media. Instead of 4 or 5 networks reporting essentially the same thing and coloring it the same way, we’ll have potentially millions of different ways of interpreting what happened. What Trump should fear the most is when millions of people, including his supporters, share the same experience. That’s when the shit gets twisted in the other direction - I don’t care how Fox News spins it. The reason why Trump’s support hasn’t changed since the Fall of 2016 is because there have been millions of ways to report on Trump, but most of us haven’t had a bad experience living in the US. Most of us have seen things we don’t like about Trump, but even many of his harshest critics have enjoyed a strong economy and haven’t suffered or even visibly seen the consequences of his incompetence. Honestly, it’s a lot like Bush in 2002-3. Bush’s critics said “ZOMG! Iraq!” But the average person - even those annoying assholes with those yellow “Support the Troops” stickers on their cars - weren’t living with that. All that changed in 205 with Katrina and then later the financial crisis. It’ll happen again, give it time.

@Sherrerd

The news outlets go with conflict and drama. Look at the Jon Stewart testimony yesterday: it was as dramatic and conflict-driven as it gets----and it was not, repeat, NOT, carried in its entirety. Just excerpts.

I love Jon Stewart, and I love the NYFD. But Jon Stewart is a super star (who’s really good in front of a camera) and the NYFD 9/11 survivors’ treatment should be low-hanging fruit. As someone else said on another thread, how the fuck did this not happen sooner? What it shows me is that the average person has no influence at all. Bruh, your average Russian or Chinese oligarch owns more of American democracy than you do.

@Sherrerd

Trump wins.

You may be ‘fine’ with that. I am not.

Here’s the truth: maybe an impeachment inquiry does make Trump look worse than he does now? Okay, so what? We’re here now because voters are cynical. Trump got elected because voters are cynical. I understand the intellectual arguments about checks and balances, the values in the Constitution, and all that. But at the end of the day, what any democracy wants is for the people to believe that their vote matters, and that their influence matters. That’s one thing to consider.

But just thinking of the strategy of it all, to use a boxing analogy, impeachment seems to be like a boxer going for the quick knockout. Great boxers work the body first, knowing that the head will stop moving in the later rounds.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Sherrerd

Yes. That’s what I’m telling you.

The hearings, whether called “impeachment” or not, will have the same personnel involved. Trump won’t let anyone actually mentioned in the Mueller Report show up, so for the most part it will be law professors and political commentators.

And MSNBC and CNN and the networks will show the “impeachment” hearings to the same extent they showed the hearings Monday: a couple of excerpts here, a couple of excerpts there. Because “impeachment hearings” will tank in the ratings just as much as non-impeachment hearings do.

The news outlets go with conflict and drama. Look at the Jon Stewart testimony yesterday: it was as dramatic and conflict-driven as it gets----and it was not, repeat, NOT, carried in its entirety. Just excerpts.

And that was a high-water mark for the drama and conflict the news outlets seek. It doesn’t get any more dramatic than that. Yet they didn’t show anything but excerpts.

The reason the news outlets are harping on ‘when will you start impeachment?’ is because of the question’s potential to elicit newsworthy stammers and annoyance and gaffes and criticisms of other Democrats …not because the news outlets think impeachment proceedings will garner ratings. They know impeachment proceedings won’t garner ratings. They have no intention of showing the impeachment proceedings.

Once the House Dems pull that lever, the next badgering question will be: when will you hold the Vote? And again, that’s not because the anchors and reporters think a vote should be held-----it’s because the question has the potential to elicit newsworthy displays of anger or annoyance or embarrassment or criticism of fellow-Democrats. Conflict! Ratings!

And of course, meanwhile, real-life consequences are barreling ahead. The proceedings start; the Dems are goaded into a Vote; the Senate acquits, and all investigation is over. Every chance the Democrats might have had to make the case that Trump is a crook-----gone. Over. Done. How can the Democrats investigate a man declared by the United States Senate to be innocent?

Trump wins.

You may be ‘fine’ with that. I am not.

Fortunately you’re wrong about just about everything.

Good talk.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

I would just like to point out how ridiculous the positions that asahi takes. In previous threads/posts he has been all but ready to bring out the pitchforks and burn everything down, but he cringes that impeachment hearings are a bridge too far and is oh-so concerned about how big, bad Trump using that to his advantage. It’s mind-numbingly inconsistent.

[asahi]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

I would just like to point out how ridiculous the positions that asahi takes. In previous threads/posts he has been all but ready to bring out the pitchforks and burn everything down, but he cringes that impeachment hearings are a bridge too far and is oh-so concerned about how big, bad Trump using that to his advantage. It’s mind-numbingly inconsistent.

Well, just to be clear, I never advocated pitchforks and burning everything to the ground. I did have a shit fit or two in which I fantasized about throwing Trump voters in education camps, but I was under the assumption nobody here took it seriously. I’ll settle for taking back control of the White House and the DoJ, and using the criminal justice system to prosecute, convict, and imprison most of the Trump White House once there’s enough evidence of their corruption and treason in hand.

But I digress…

Actually, what I’ve written is not at all inconsistent – not at all.

It’s you guys who have been saying “Chill out, Mueller’s got this.” And “Chill out, we just took back the House.” And I’ve been telling you all along that these fuckers don’t play by rules. I’ve got several “Cut it out, Chicken Little” threads floating around here but the funny thing is, it’s you guys who are now freaking out. I still am myself, but I’ve seen this one coming for a while.

What I am saying is stop being so fucking naive as to believe that impeachment is going to get you any more mileage than 2 years and change of non-stop Mueller, Russia, Cohen, Comey, Sessions, Barr, and whoever else press. Mueller’s investigation has already indicted 34 people – thirty - fucking - four. And have Donald Trump’s poll numbers changed? Nope.

You wanna know why? Because 46% out of the electorate voted for a guy who was already pretty shady to begin with, who was a racist, who suggested that his political rival be bumped off, who suggested in front of a Super Bowl type audience that he’d put his political rival in jail. Sorry, dude, but impeachment ain’t gonna fix a fucking thing. And deep down, everyone here knows it. They just want to do it because they think it’ll feel good. But that’s dumb, because the way you beat a guy like Trump is not through procedures, or rules, or regulations, or the constitution, because he’s already made it clear, that’s your battlefield, not his.

Donald Trump is a populist. He won as a populist politician. That is the base and the source of his power. He appeals in particular to white people who feel a need to dominate others, and who believe that it is more important to have a society based on ethnic hierarchy than it is an inclusive society in which people share the fruits of our collective achievements and production. The way you change that isn’t through impeachment; you change it by communicating with them and explaining to them over and over again why they’re wrong (as politely as you can, I suppose). Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders are admittedly better at that part than I am, which is why they’re running for office and I’m not.

As I’ve said again and again, impeachment might be a thing down the road if Trump becomes so unhinged that he starts to scare even his base. But not until then. In the meantime, Democrats would do far more damage to Trump if they’d start visiting flood stricken farms and farms ravaged by the trade war and explain why a) climate change is a thing, b) trade wars don’t work, and c) how Donald Trump will only help himself and his cronies at their expense. Better yet, just explain how they can help them. After all, people vote out of self interest. And then go visit Hispanic communities in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado, and explain how Latino voters can end the nightmare of the Trump presidency. And visit every other place and do the same thing with a range of issues. My concern is that if Democrats go for impeachment, it will either a) result in a quick acquittal, or b) drag on and be such a huge topic that it will drown out their message, which is really a lot more important than just embarrassing Trump politically.

[Buck_Godot]

@Sherrerd

And of course, meanwhile, real-life consequences are barreling ahead. The proceedings start; the Dems are goaded into a Vote; the Senate acquits, and all investigation is over. Every chance the Democrats might have had to make the case that Trump is a crook-----gone. Over. Done. How can the Democrats investigate a man declared by the United States Senate to be innocent?

Trump wins.

You may be ‘fine’ with that. I am not.

This is my fear exactly. Once he’s been impeached and acquitted by the senate he will be totally free to do whatever he wants. Lock up journalists, openly accept bribes, what’cha gonna do. There is no way that trying to investigate/impeach him again after you failed the first time is going to be viewed as anything but partisan sour grapes.

[asahi]

@Buck_Godot

This is my fear exactly. Once he’s been impeached and acquitted by the senate he will be totally free to do whatever he wants. Lock up journalists, openly accept bribes, what’cha gonna do. There is no way that trying to investigate/impeach him again after you failed the first time is going to be viewed as anything but partisan sour grapes.

If that’s your fear, impeachment and acquittal isn’t what you should worry about. It’s the possibility that Trump could get re-elected that should be more frightening.

The reason that presidents in the past haven’t done half of what Trump has is that they assumed (correctly) that there would be political consequences and that the country wouldn’t tolerate it. Trump, on the other hand, campaigned on authoritarianism. He knows, along with much of the Republican party, that perhaps 30-40% of the country would support throwing journalists in jail, and another 10-20% either wouldn’t care or wouldn’t know what to make of the situation. And as for bribes…I mean, he’s probably already there.

I think people who are hellbent on impeachment no matter what are missing a fundamental truth: it’s the people who have sanctioned this. A good 46% of voters voted for what Trump is doing now, even if they didn’t explicitly say so. That’s what is different from the past. That is what makes Trump and the GOP dangerous. Voters have rewarded authoritarians with power, again and again. They need to stop doing that.