The 1973-74 recession was one of the worst of the 20th Century. Long lines waiting for gas, but also high unemployment and just overall bad economic health. I guess I’d also add that the Watergate tapes, the audio…that was just awful for Nixon.
The national interest is best served by getting at the truth–of course. But Trump’s interest is not. And the restrictions on Mueller were placed there by Barr: someone indifferent to the national interest, but very much concerned about Trump’s interest.
You’re right; it’s a shame none of those who had speaking slots coming up saw that (or maybe were willing to give up the questions they’d already planned.)
I don’t want him to operate untruthfully, but it was really hard to watch today that Honor Before Reason was in full effect. I don’t always think that he fully understands the extent to which the Republicans are going to act in bad faith and the Democrats are going to be spineless. I mean, I get that it’s not his job and it’s not his fault, but traditional norms are gone and he’s still following the old rules. I don’t want him to be dirty but to a certain extent, being above the fray is letting the side without scruples put a big finger on the scale.
Yes, people back then weren’t used to the idea of a president speaking with such obvious self-interest and contempt for the law. It came as a shock.
Yet when Trump uses that term they eat it up. It just shows how disingenuous their arguments are.
That’s what it seemed like to me: they’d coordinated so heavily with their questions that they thought it would disrupt their intricate choreography to ask follow-up questions. Obviously follow-up questions when Mueller had been cut off would’ve been a better move, but hindsight is 20/20.
They asked him that question in six different ways, and through compound questions they got him to flub up one time, but his answer, after clarification, was that:
- He would not comment on charging decisions that were not made.
- Part of the calculus in the decision of indict/not indict Trump was the opinion of the DOJ that a sitting president could not be indicted.
- He would not say that was the only reason as, again, he doesn’t comment on charging decisions.
and
- He will not go beyond what is stated in his report.
ETA: Also, could you repeat the question, please? 
Apparently not. That was Ken Buck I believe talking about legal theory and should Mueller put in the report if Trump should be indicted after leaving office. Mueller was not stating that Trump committed obstruction.
Took until Clinton for that to be accepted.
My impression is the democrats are terrified to use the power they are given because they are terrified of the consequences.
They are terrified that ‘moderate’ votes will turn on them. They’re terrified the rich will fund their political opponents. The only thing democrats aren’t scared of is their own voters.
So they either do nothing, or they only do tepid, poll tested things designed not to offend anyone. The end result is a lot of democrats voters end up demoralized and stay home, or they vote in primaries for someone more willing to fight. In 2008, 65 million democrats voted for federal house candidates. In 2010 only 39 million did, so 26 million democrat voters stayed home. By comparison only 7 million GOP voters stayed home. The GOP wave in 2010 was because democrats got demoralized at how spineless, inept and weak the democrats are and didn’t bother to vote in 2010.
Republicans on the other hand happily use their power. And they know it’ll turn people against them. Bush’s excesses led to the 2006 and 2008 elections for the dems. Trump’s excesses led to the 2018 Dem wave and the 2020 dem wave.
But the GOP also know that they’ll be back in power 2-4 years after a Dem wave. They aren’t scared to lose power for a few years because they know the Dems won’t hold power. They’ll fuck it up and their voters will stay home.
Right on. Except for that one time he accidentally answered the direct question.
I’m not going to answer that.
I’m not going to answer that.
I’m not going to answer that.
Yes, definitely.
I’m not going to answer that.
I’m not going to answer that.
I’m not going to answer that, and that time I said, “Yes, definitely,” I meant, “I’m not going to answer that.”
Which time? When he said that Trump could be indicted after leaving office?
Yeah, that made for a good sound bite, but I think it was pretty clear that he was saying that there was no legal prohibition on a president being indicted after leaving office, not any implication that he had the evidence and it was likely that he would be indicted.
IOW, not “could be indicted” as in “based upon my investigation, there is sufficient evidence such that Trump 'could be indicted.”
It was “could be indicted” as in “Trump could be indicted after leaving office if prosecutors could show sufficient evidence to the grand jury, as after leaving office, Trump would not be subject to any sort of legal prohibition to being indicted and would be subject to indictment like anyone else.”
In case you don’t take my word for it, he said it later for clarification.
Hilarious.
LIEU: “To recap what we’ve heard, we have heard today that the president ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire you. The president ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail, and now we’ve heard the president ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he – you stop investigating the president. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I would like to ask you the reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”
MUELLER: “That is correct.”
Right, there are about 10 things in that question. No Court in the United States would have allowed it. Why? Because it is easy for the one word “Correct” to be mistaken to mean that everything said above is correct and that the implication is that was the sole reason Trump wasn’t indicted, and that conclusion was not what Meuller said about four times already, and had already said in his report.
Again, in case, I’m just playing the GOP puppet over here, Mueller corrected himself!!!:
Yep yep. By, “That is correct,” he could have meant any number of things were correct. There is no possible way we could have any idea.
Hilarious.
Did you miss the part where he corrected himself? We don’t have to guess.
Were you convinced by the part where he corrected himself?
My fault, when I said, “Yes,” I should have said, “I decline to answer.”
He seemed sufficiently hard of hearing and confused (and I don’t mean that to impugn the man - I was fine with his testimony in the whole) that it is pretty to reasonable to assume that he misheard parts of the question.
While it may be that going up in front of Congress would generally be a stressful thing, I got the impression that Mueller has done it enough that he could probably have fallen asleep if allowed to. Minus a sufficient load of adrenaline, it’s probably pretty hard to follow all the random questions, said by someone 40 feet away, using run-on sentences; nevertheless if you’re an old man, uninterested in political nonsense, and bored by the whole affair.