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!
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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
Can you confirm that your name is Bob? I cant get into that
Grandfathered from Johnson, and before him, Kennedy.
Well, he had to do something besides being remembered for Watergate. Google “Hail Mary pass”
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.
Good point, I had totally forgotten about the oil crisis.
~Max
I would like to see less chest-thumping. The assumptions that Pelosi and those opposing ‘impeach NOW’ are doing so for dishonorable reasons—‘weak’ or ‘saving their own political future’ and what-have-you, are unsupported by the facts, and massively illogical to boot. ‘Saving their own political future’ being somehow entirely unconnected from ‘saving the USA from a Republican House and from Trump re-election’ makes not one lick of sense.
But the chest-thumping is not only trendy, but also easily ginned-up by malign forces. It’s pleasurable to declare ‘those Democrats are such weak losers!’ because the declaration carries the unspoken underpinning ‘and I am NOT a weak loser, which qualifies me to pass judgment on them!’ Everyone enjoys being in that one-up position of sitting in judgment on others…particularly on others who have higher status. 'It’s up to ME to decide if that old biddy is doing the right thing or not!'—what fun! How powerful that makes me feel! Love it!
…Anyone who thinks these anti-Congressional-Democrat sentiments aren’t being actively encouraged by those who want to see Trump remain in office, is delusional.*
Yes. And note that such investigations will cease the moment Trump is acquitted in the Senate. How can anyone investigate a man declared innocent by the Unites States Senate??
*Criticism of members of Congress is one thing—and it’s entirely appropriate. But what the keep-Trump-in-power forces are encouraging, under the guise of being “fellow-Democrats,” is contempt for members of Congress.
That’s how you know you’re being manipulated: if you’re encouraged to join in expressions of scorn and derision.
Cannot find. Can you shed some light on the nature of the question? That would be helpful.
He did not have instruction to investigate the Steele Portfolio. He was not supposed to investigate the Steel Portfolio. He was not in a position to offer any worthwhile information about the Steele Portfolio. If we are charitable, we can assume that any question about the Steele Portfolio was a question founded on ignorance, rather than malice.
What was that “relation to the Russians”? You got, you bring. You got?
Does that change any of the facts delivered to us? If Rudy G. had delivered this report, it would be more convincing? More to the point, can you refute any of the facts as delivered?
He couldn’t indict a sitting President. Period. Full stop. You didn’t know this? And yet, in the same breath, you tell us that he “implied Trump didn’t obstruct”. Some reference to those strong and definitive insinuations would be helpful. Again, you got, you bring.
Further, there are clear and documented examples of such obstruction, centering around Don McGahn. These are somewhat more than insinuations, don’t you think? Or don’t you?
I had been wondering why there was so little defense offered for Il Douche, it seemed rather unfair, that we witch hunters general had dominated the conversation. Thank you for relieving that concern
I’ve a mind to join a club and beat him over the head with it.
I refer you to my report.
I will not get into charging decisions. I refer you to my report.
The whole thing was a partisan waste of time. I expected:
Q: Good morning, Mr. Mueller. How are you today?
A: That is outside the scope of my report and will not comment on it.
How so? AFAICT, they aren’t any worse off than they were yesterday.
They may not be any better off, but I don’t think many people expected they would be.
At this rate they will keep it up right through his 2nd term and will still bat 0 for both terms…
The Republicans aren’t making any sense on the whole “exonerate” / “doesn’t exonerate” thing.
When Mueller says that the report doesn’t exonerate Trump, the Republicans get upset and say that it’s not Mueller’s job to exonerate.
Well… yeah, they’re right. It’s not Mueller’s job to exonerate, therefore his report can’t, and doesn’t, exonerate. What’s the argument here?
Trump seems to think that it is Mueller’s job to exonerate and that he did so. He’s wrong but other Republicans seem almost more confused than him (if that’s possible).
Very anti-climactic, the whole thing. Really just an attempt by Democrats to publicly highlight key sections of the report for illiterate dumbasses, for all the good that will do. And Republican lunatics like Gohmert and Jordan to make asses of themselves on national TV, which only causes their acolytes to admire them more. I’m surprised at Mueller’s reticence to actually say anything – I’m not sure I really understand the nature of the restrictions that were put on him. Surely the national interest is best served by getting at the truth.
Well, we did keep the GOP from killing the ACA in 2017.
But the Dems really are 0-for-2019, when they’ve actually had some power. Yesterday, I called up my (Dem) Congressperson over the debt ceiling deal, and literally asked, “Can’t anybody here play this game?” They’re spineless, gutless, and clueless.
They’re seeming to make the point that, because “exonerate” isn’t a legal term, he shouldn’t have used it, as though he must limit his vocabulary to words defined in a legal dictionary.
It’s super stupid.
The point he was clearly making is that there’s plenty of evidence for obstruction, and that his refusal to indict shouldn’t be taken as an indication of lack of evidence. I don’t think anyone honestly misunderstands that point.
At one point he was trying to explain why his position was unique among prosecutors, and the Republican hurriedly interrupted him on this explanation. They certainly didn’t want that coming out. I think it was a missed opportunity for Democrats to follow up.