Yes, that is what I’m talking about.
I don’t think I could feel worse about him. And it certainly didn’t improve my opinion. So no.
It didn’t switch me from one side to the other, but it certainly changed the way I look at his entire presidency - he’s more of a bastard than I’d thought and apparently even his skeevy picks for advisors, etc, had a certain amount of conscience.
I’m only sorry his head didn’t explode and relieve us all of his existence.
Nothing has changed for me. I thought it would make him look bad but not lead to him losing the presidency. Still feel that way.
But it won’t lead to Mike Pence. It will lead to no conviction by the Senate. Do you still put that much importance on what will just be a symbolic gesture by the House?
Symbolic gestures are still meaningful. I don’t want to live in a society no one will stand up to a blatantly corrupt politician just because doing so would be a symbolic gesture.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
I have. I don’t like news summaries, they miss good stuff. Documents don’t scare me. I read every indictment cover to cover.
It really was pretty much what I expected. Some of the crazier rumors were disproven, the bulk of the reporting was confirmed. And I feel pretty strongly that it’s hard to discuss it honestly if you haven’t read it.
But it’s a stunning narrative of horrible and dishonest behavior. The man treated his campaign staff like contestants on a reality show. His staff was guided and goaded into participating stupid game show quests like “find Hillary’s emails” or “ set up a meeting with a prominent Russian”. All to try to curry favor with the boss.
But they constantly sabotaged each other’s efforts, too. —
I do find it very disillusioning, though. Some small part of me thought that reading the whole account in narrative form would wake people up to just how outrageously wrong, self-dealing and anti-American their behavior was.
But I guess not. It’s sad that half the country won’t hold the President to the same standard of decency that they expect from an 8 year old child.
BTW, most of the Harm to Ongoing Matter redactions seem to center around Roger Stones ongoing case. I figured this out because his name was redacted from publicly available Trump quotes.
No, it certainly didn’t change my opinion of Trump. There is nothing I can imagine that would. One thing is clear is that it is false that Mueller drew no conclusion about obstruction. He did, but left it up to congress to act on it. They won’t and I think they are right not to. What would you think of a prosecutor who indicted someone just to harass him when he was absolutely certain there was no chance of conviction? As long as the Republican party lies supine at the feet of agent orange, there is just no point. Put all your resources into 2020.
Well, I didn’t fully read the report yet, but I did do a slow preliminary scan of it.
I’m sort of like Ann Hedonia, you miss out on things if you stick just to summaries and conclusions.
The bits that jumped out, that I actually read haven’t really changed my opinion of trump as president. It was never a high opinion to start with.
I plan on a more thorough reading tomorrow sometime.
Honestly, in some ways the Mueller report raises my opinion’s of the President’s capabilities. He is not the drooling moron imbecile that I imagine him to be, but was engaging in complex behavior to obstruct justice. But yes, Mueller didn’t find a smoking gun. No wiretap of him reporting to Putin and openly plotting treason, no “we got him” moment. He’s a dirtbag but we all know it.
I think most of his supporters, the ones who are not morons, think he’s a dirtbag as well, they just support him because the things he is for are in their interests.
We all acknowledge that Trump will not be removed from office. Absent conclusive proof that he is working for Putin, Trump will run for re-election in 2020 as the incumbent. I am convinced, and for evidence I cite Clinton’s popularity after the Senate trial, that an impeachment and trial would enhance Trump’s popularity and increase the chance of his being re-elected.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/
Given that possibility, do you still want the House to vote articles of impeachment? Impeachment won’t do anything positive. It can only hurt. Why do you want that?
Do you think that was the purpose of the report? Just to change opinions?
Of course it’s not going to change opinions about Trump. Everyone either knows he’s a two-bit, bullshitting shyster, or is too stupid to understand what’s in the report anyway.
FWIW, here’s an LA Times page showing the report with little thumbnails so you can get an idea as to how much some pages are redacted. (Warning: lots of thumbnails.)
One really common reason is due to “ongoing investigation” which raises a bunch of questions about who is being investigated for what and (most importantly) by whom?
If there’s that much ongoing investigation, then nobody’s been exonerated.
Obviously I don’t believe impeachment will only hurt. I certainly don’t believe it will hurt more than letting the shitshow in the WH fling feces at everything we’re supposed to hold dear.
I don’t buy the premise that this is the same situation or that the same thing will occur.
There was a vernacular version of the Barr summation that was obviously accepted by a majority of people in the Clinton case. And that summation, in the parlance of the time, was “lying about a blow job.” Clinton’s approval rating before impeachment was 63%.
There’s no particular reason to expect the same reaction in the case of Trump. If the Clinton thing happened today, I doubt the reaction would be the same as it was then. This whole thing is not subject to the laws of physics.
To me it shows perhaps ‘patchable’ cracks in trumps armor, which means that Trump surrounds himself with people ultra loyal to him, willing to take a fall and be cut off from Trump (which if they are still loyal, will be taken care of from a apparent distance from Trump). It shows that some of these people who have left the inner circle may be willing to talk, Trump now knows who they are. I’m sure Trump will work to patch that crack as best he can, which I assume is with gifting money jobs and power positions which appear to not be related to Trump, and also gaslighting, attacks on health perhaps life, and threats, loss of jobs, financial hardships to those people and their family and pets, whatever persuasion is needed to fix those leaks.
So with this report, I am of the new mindset that Trump is going to be able to carry out his evil plans successfully, be able to suppress opposition and be reelected.
Im 99% percent sure, after doing a little detective work, that the bulk of the harm to ongoing matter redactions are related to Roger Stones case, which hasn’t gone to trial.
This supposition is partly based on the location of the HOM redactions, the majority which appear around the WikiLeaks narrative. And they ( in the obstruction section) redacted Stones name out of one Trump quote with HOM. But the full quote was widely reported at the time and it was trivially easy to find the unredacted quote.
I don’t think there’s any great mystery there.
Agreed on the most HOM=Stone suspicion, by and large. Although there’s a bit too many of those redactions in the social media section for them all to be about Stone’s case. Right? I mean, it’s a redaction, who knows.
I’ve read most of the report, skipping the passages on some eye-glazing characters like Carter Page and The Professor, as well as big chunks of legal argument. It did change my mind on a couple of small issues:
- I was surprised by the degree to which Trump avoided meeting any Russians himself in 2016, to Putin’s evident dismay (see p 146). This seemed … surprisingly smart and self-aware. On Trump’s part.
1a) Also surprised by the “I’m fucked” comment by Trump. I guess he’s snowballed me with the bravado act – on some level I didn’t think he knew how guilty he was/is. There is something going on behind the persona, and it’s still got some cunning.
- I was surprised by some of the people who talked to the OSC in ways that hurt their self-interest. Trump lackeys, of course, but particularly the Russians! I’m very curious about Petr Aven’s frank discussion of the oligarch summit. How did he feel safe discussing that?
- The report’s tone of near-exoneration on two topics surprised me: the changes to the GOP platform and Sessions’s misstatement to Congress. Always found those fishy, especially the first. Of course, before we go giving these crooks the benefit of the doubt, it’s worth remembering that the President was obstructing justice all the time. Who knows what they successfully hid?
And I will point out that Trump’s approval rating has held constant at approximately 90% of Republicans. Republicans and hard-core conservatives are the only people who will vote for Trump regardless of the report. An impeachment will increase the determination of his base to vote for him. That will increase the chances of Trump winning re-election.
I don’t mean to sound jokey, but having read parts of the report (yeah I know i know) the only thing that comes to mind is a quote from Batman “this town needs an enema”
I’ve got the bourbon, can you bring the buttermilk?