One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Hey, Congress: Robert Mueller wasn't going to do your job for you
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Jul 25, 2019 07:04:11   #
slatten49 (a regular here)
 
By Ryan Cooper

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday, where he stuck like glue to the contents of his report. It provided some valuable clarification of what the report actually says, which stands in stark contradiction to the agitprop of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, who both blatantly lied about what Mueller found.

But this raises the question of what Democrats were playing at with these hearings. Mueller provided some valuable theatrical moments, but nothing that wasn't already known.

So what happened? Mueller appeared hesitant and somewhat confused at first, repeatedly asking to hear questions again or directing people to read the report instead of stating answers clearly. Questions from Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes that sought to undermine the credibility of the investigation were largely impenetrable for those unfamiliar with the Fox News Cinematic Universe (as David Roth puts it). And the format of five-minute question blocks for each member of the committees made for a herky-jerky proceeding, as they all scrambled to get their prepared questions out with very little follow-up. A single committee lawyer getting an entire half hour or so would have been a lot more useful.

However, Democrats did get a number of important comments on the record. Mueller flatly contradicted Trump's screeching assertions about the report. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked: "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?" Mueller replied, "Correct, that is not what the report said." He also confirmed multiple instances in which Trump and his minions blatantly interfered with the investigation.

As time went on Mueller gained some confidence, and pushed back against Republican attacks. When Ken Buck (R-Colo.) demanded to know if Trump could be prosecuted after he left office, Mueller blandly replied "yes." He made clear that the (loony) Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was at the least a significant factor in his decision not to indict Trump. When asked about Trump's praise of WikiLeaks during 2016 (as it was dribbling out hacked Democratic emails in a way calculated to inflict the maximum damage on the Clinton campaign), Mueller said, "problematic is an understatement."

All in all there were a number of moments that will at least make some decent campaign commercials next year. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that's all there will be.

As Mueller made very clear in his opening remarks, nothing he said wasn't already covered in his report. As I have previously argued, what he established there provides strong grounds for opening an impeachment inquiry — not to mention how Trump has flagrantly violated the Constitution by collecting foreign bribes and directing the White House budget into his own pockets, plus about 50 other outrageous scandals. Mueller's report was a perfect tee-up for a broader hearing into all that stuff.

But the Democratic leadership, it seems, is bent on avoiding impeachment at any cost. Instead of using the Mueller report to build a general case against Trump, and satisfy their base's demand to at least try to provide a check on his accelerating abuses, they hauled Mueller before the House to summarize his own report back to them like it's kindergarten story hour.

Elsewhere, Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, inexplicably dragged his feet for months before finally suing for Trump's tax returns. His authority to do so is unquestionable, and the returns are vital to understanding the extent of Trump's corruption and conflicts of interest, but then again that might add to the pressure to impeach Trump. Can't be having that! (Naturally, Trump just filed a countersuit to prevent New York from disclosing his state tax returns in line with a law the state government just passed.)

Democrats' plan appears to be to run out the clock in a defensive crouch, like some trapped rodent, hoping against hope that the voters rescue them from Trump in 2020. But this presents risks of its own, even if Democrats do win next year. As Mueller pointed out, there is a real (if slim, given Democratic cowardice) chance that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office. If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life.

God only knows what Trump might try under those conditions, but one thing is for sure: Nancy Pelosi is not going to do anything to stop him.

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 07:12:28   #
Liberty Tree (a regular here)
 
slatten49 wrote:
By Ryan Cooper

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday, where he stuck like glue to the contents of his report. It provided some valuable clarification of what the report actually says, which stands in stark contradiction to the agitprop of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, who both blatantly lied about what Mueller found.

But this raises the question of what Democrats were playing at with these hearings. Mueller provided some valuable theatrical moments, but nothing that wasn't already known.

So what happened? Mueller appeared hesitant and somewhat confused at first, repeatedly asking to hear questions again or directing people to read the report instead of stating answers clearly. Questions from Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes that sought to undermine the credibility of the investigation were largely impenetrable for those unfamiliar with the Fox News Cinematic Universe (as David Roth puts it). And the format of five-minute question blocks for each member of the committees made for a herky-jerky proceeding, as they all scrambled to get their prepared questions out with very little follow-up. A single committee lawyer getting an entire half hour or so would have been a lot more useful.

However, Democrats did get a number of important comments on the record. Mueller flatly contradicted Trump's screeching assertions about the report. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked: "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?" Mueller replied, "Correct, that is not what the report said." He also confirmed multiple instances in which Trump and his minions blatantly interfered with the investigation.

As time went on Mueller gained some confidence, and pushed back against Republican attacks. When Ken Buck (R-Colo.) demanded to know if Trump could be prosecuted after he left office, Mueller blandly replied "yes." He made clear that the (loony) Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was at the least a significant factor in his decision not to indict Trump. When asked about Trump's praise of WikiLeaks during 2016 (as it was dribbling out hacked Democratic emails in a way calculated to inflict the maximum damage on the Clinton campaign), Mueller said, "problematic is an understatement."

All in all there were a number of moments that will at least make some decent campaign commercials next year. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that's all there will be.

As Mueller made very clear in his opening remarks, nothing he said wasn't already covered in his report. As I have previously argued, what he established there provides strong grounds for opening an impeachment inquiry — not to mention how Trump has flagrantly violated the Constitution by collecting foreign bribes and directing the White House budget into his own pockets, plus about 50 other outrageous scandals. Mueller's report was a perfect tee-up for a broader hearing into all that stuff.

But the Democratic leadership, it seems, is bent on avoiding impeachment at any cost. Instead of using the Mueller report to build a general case against Trump, and satisfy their base's demand to at least try to provide a check on his accelerating abuses, they hauled Mueller before the House to summarize his own report back to them like it's kindergarten story hour.

Elsewhere, Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, inexplicably dragged his feet for months before finally suing for Trump's tax returns. His authority to do so is unquestionable, and the returns are vital to understanding the extent of Trump's corruption and conflicts of interest, but then again that might add to the pressure to impeach Trump. Can't be having that! (Naturally, Trump just filed a countersuit to prevent New York from disclosing his state tax returns in line with a law the state government just passed.)

Democrats' plan appears to be to run out the clock in a defensive crouch, like some trapped rodent, hoping against hope that the voters rescue them from Trump in 2020. But this presents risks of its own, even if Democrats do win next year. As Mueller pointed out, there is a real (if slim, given Democratic cowardice) chance that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office. If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life.

God only knows what Trump might try under those conditions, but one thing is for sure: Nancy Pelosi is not going to do anything to stop him.
By Ryan Cooper br br Former Special Counsel Robe... (show quote)


The only ones who care about this anymore are the Democrats in Congress and the Trump haters. Yesterday, to borrow a quote, was much ado about nothing.

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 07:27:45   #
Barracuda2020 (a regular here)
 
slatten49 wrote:
By Ryan Cooper

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday, where he stuck like glue to the contents of his report. It provided some valuable clarification of what the report actually says, which stands in stark contradiction to the agitprop of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, who both blatantly lied about what Mueller found.

But this raises the question of what Democrats were playing at with these hearings. Mueller provided some valuable theatrical moments, but nothing that wasn't already known.

So what happened? Mueller appeared hesitant and somewhat confused at first, repeatedly asking to hear questions again or directing people to read the report instead of stating answers clearly. Questions from Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes that sought to undermine the credibility of the investigation were largely impenetrable for those unfamiliar with the Fox News Cinematic Universe (as David Roth puts it). And the format of five-minute question blocks for each member of the committees made for a herky-jerky proceeding, as they all scrambled to get their prepared questions out with very little follow-up. A single committee lawyer getting an entire half hour or so would have been a lot more useful.

However, Democrats did get a number of important comments on the record. Mueller flatly contradicted Trump's screeching assertions about the report. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked: "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?" Mueller replied, "Correct, that is not what the report said." He also confirmed multiple instances in which Trump and his minions blatantly interfered with the investigation.

As time went on Mueller gained some confidence, and pushed back against Republican attacks. When Ken Buck (R-Colo.) demanded to know if Trump could be prosecuted after he left office, Mueller blandly replied "yes." He made clear that the (loony) Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was at the least a significant factor in his decision not to indict Trump. When asked about Trump's praise of WikiLeaks during 2016 (as it was dribbling out hacked Democratic emails in a way calculated to inflict the maximum damage on the Clinton campaign), Mueller said, "problematic is an understatement."

All in all there were a number of moments that will at least make some decent campaign commercials next year. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that's all there will be.

As Mueller made very clear in his opening remarks, nothing he said wasn't already covered in his report. As I have previously argued, what he established there provides strong grounds for opening an impeachment inquiry — not to mention how Trump has flagrantly violated the Constitution by collecting foreign bribes and directing the White House budget into his own pockets, plus about 50 other outrageous scandals. Mueller's report was a perfect tee-up for a broader hearing into all that stuff.

But the Democratic leadership, it seems, is bent on avoiding impeachment at any cost. Instead of using the Mueller report to build a general case against Trump, and satisfy their base's demand to at least try to provide a check on his accelerating abuses, they hauled Mueller before the House to summarize his own report back to them like it's kindergarten story hour.

Elsewhere, Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, inexplicably dragged his feet for months before finally suing for Trump's tax returns. His authority to do so is unquestionable, and the returns are vital to understanding the extent of Trump's corruption and conflicts of interest, but then again that might add to the pressure to impeach Trump. Can't be having that! (Naturally, Trump just filed a countersuit to prevent New York from disclosing his state tax returns in line with a law the state government just passed.)

Democrats' plan appears to be to run out the clock in a defensive crouch, like some trapped rodent, hoping against hope that the voters rescue them from Trump in 2020. But this presents risks of its own, even if Democrats do win next year. As Mueller pointed out, there is a real (if slim, given Democratic cowardice) chance that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office. If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life.

God only knows what Trump might try under those conditions, but one thing is for sure: Nancy Pelosi is not going to do anything to stop him.
By Ryan Cooper br br Former Special Counsel Robe... (show quote)


To Not impeach is exactly the wrong way to go, because what this says to others coming up in the ranks is that this corruption works, I did it and got away with it, you can do it too. People are not seeing the real level of corruption and the saturation in our other branch offices, but especially all through the different offices of the executive branch as in the AG and the OLC.

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 07:53:23   #
slatten49 (a regular here)
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
To Not impeach is exactly the wrong way to go, because what this says to others coming up in the ranks is that this corruption works, I did it and got away with it, you can do it too. People are not seeing the real level of corruption and the saturation in our other branch offices, but especially all through the different offices of the executive branch as in the AG and the OLC.

"Trump is a marvel — at dismantling the government. The Trump administration appears to be a chaotic mess of failed initiatives, resignations, investigations, and laughably unqualified stooges. In reality, Trump may have done more to achieve the long-term objectives of the modern Republican party than any other president."

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 07:57:37   #
Pennylynn (a regular here)
 
slatten49 wrote:
By Ryan Cooper

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday, where he stuck like glue to the contents of his report. It provided some valuable clarification of what the report actually says, which stands in stark contradiction to the agitprop of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, who both blatantly lied about what Mueller found.

But this raises the question of what Democrats were playing at with these hearings. Mueller provided some valuable theatrical moments, but nothing that wasn't already known.

So what happened? Mueller appeared hesitant and somewhat confused at first, repeatedly asking to hear questions again or directing people to read the report instead of stating answers clearly. Questions from Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes that sought to undermine the credibility of the investigation were largely impenetrable for those unfamiliar with the Fox News Cinematic Universe (as David Roth puts it). And the format of five-minute question blocks for each member of the committees made for a herky-jerky proceeding, as they all scrambled to get their prepared questions out with very little follow-up. A single committee lawyer getting an entire half hour or so would have been a lot more useful.

However, Democrats did get a number of important comments on the record. Mueller flatly contradicted Trump's screeching assertions about the report. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked: "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?" Mueller replied, "Correct, that is not what the report said." He also confirmed multiple instances in which Trump and his minions blatantly interfered with the investigation.

As time went on Mueller gained some confidence, and pushed back against Republican attacks. When Ken Buck (R-Colo.) demanded to know if Trump could be prosecuted after he left office, Mueller blandly replied "yes." He made clear that the (loony) Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was at the least a significant factor in his decision not to indict Trump. When asked about Trump's praise of WikiLeaks during 2016 (as it was dribbling out hacked Democratic emails in a way calculated to inflict the maximum damage on the Clinton campaign), Mueller said, "problematic is an understatement."

All in all there were a number of moments that will at least make some decent campaign commercials next year. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that's all there will be.

As Mueller made very clear in his opening remarks, nothing he said wasn't already covered in his report. As I have previously argued, what he established there provides strong grounds for opening an impeachment inquiry — not to mention how Trump has flagrantly violated the Constitution by collecting foreign bribes and directing the White House budget into his own pockets, plus about 50 other outrageous scandals. Mueller's report was a perfect tee-up for a broader hearing into all that stuff.

But the Democratic leadership, it seems, is bent on avoiding impeachment at any cost. Instead of using the Mueller report to build a general case against Trump, and satisfy their base's demand to at least try to provide a check on his accelerating abuses, they hauled Mueller before the House to summarize his own report back to them like it's kindergarten story hour.

Elsewhere, Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, inexplicably dragged his feet for months before finally suing for Trump's tax returns. His authority to do so is unquestionable, and the returns are vital to understanding the extent of Trump's corruption and conflicts of interest, but then again that might add to the pressure to impeach Trump. Can't be having that! (Naturally, Trump just filed a countersuit to prevent New York from disclosing his state tax returns in line with a law the state government just passed.)

Democrats' plan appears to be to run out the clock in a defensive crouch, like some trapped rodent, hoping against hope that the voters rescue them from Trump in 2020. But this presents risks of its own, even if Democrats do win next year. As Mueller pointed out, there is a real (if slim, given Democratic cowardice) chance that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office. If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life.

God only knows what Trump might try under those conditions, but one thing is for sure: Nancy Pelosi is not going to do anything to stop him.
By Ryan Cooper br br Former Special Counsel Robe... (show quote)


Face it, Mueller appeared to have not read the report he supposedly wrote. He was able to regurgitate the responses that the Democrats rehearsed him in, but any question asked by a Republican he stuttered and stammered, asking for the question to be repeated.... in other words he ran the time down on the questioner and in the end, he failed to respond. He refused to answer over 100 questions! A rare insight into his view of Congress was unveiled... "What if I had made a false statement to an investigator on your team — could I go to jail?" Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) asked Mueller. "Yes," Mueller replied. "Although, it's Congress, so…” he quipped. Mueller then grinned as the audience broke into laughter.

Mueller has made it clear that he will not answer anymore questions from anyone. It is my opinion that he can't. I think he allowed everyone to run the investigation and he was a "hands off" division head. He took what he was fed, nodded his head and had several departments to write the results and he did not even sit in on staff meetings. Why he even took the job is a mystery to me.... perhaps family and friends were tired of him just sitting around waiting to die and convinced him to get an interest in something, anything, so he would get up and take a shower.

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 08:36:04   #
son of witless (a regular here)
 
slatten49 wrote:
By Ryan Cooper

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday, where he stuck like glue to the contents of his report. It provided some valuable clarification of what the report actually says, which stands in stark contradiction to the agitprop of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, who both blatantly lied about what Mueller found.

But this raises the question of what Democrats were playing at with these hearings. Mueller provided some valuable theatrical moments, but nothing that wasn't already known.

So what happened? Mueller appeared hesitant and somewhat confused at first, repeatedly asking to hear questions again or directing people to read the report instead of stating answers clearly. Questions from Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes that sought to undermine the credibility of the investigation were largely impenetrable for those unfamiliar with the Fox News Cinematic Universe (as David Roth puts it). And the format of five-minute question blocks for each member of the committees made for a herky-jerky proceeding, as they all scrambled to get their prepared questions out with very little follow-up. A single committee lawyer getting an entire half hour or so would have been a lot more useful.

However, Democrats did get a number of important comments on the record. Mueller flatly contradicted Trump's screeching assertions about the report. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked: "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?" Mueller replied, "Correct, that is not what the report said." He also confirmed multiple instances in which Trump and his minions blatantly interfered with the investigation.

As time went on Mueller gained some confidence, and pushed back against Republican attacks. When Ken Buck (R-Colo.) demanded to know if Trump could be prosecuted after he left office, Mueller blandly replied "yes." He made clear that the (loony) Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was at the least a significant factor in his decision not to indict Trump. When asked about Trump's praise of WikiLeaks during 2016 (as it was dribbling out hacked Democratic emails in a way calculated to inflict the maximum damage on the Clinton campaign), Mueller said, "problematic is an understatement."

All in all there were a number of moments that will at least make some decent campaign commercials next year. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that's all there will be.

As Mueller made very clear in his opening remarks, nothing he said wasn't already covered in his report. As I have previously argued, what he established there provides strong grounds for opening an impeachment inquiry — not to mention how Trump has flagrantly violated the Constitution by collecting foreign bribes and directing the White House budget into his own pockets, plus about 50 other outrageous scandals. Mueller's report was a perfect tee-up for a broader hearing into all that stuff.

But the Democratic leadership, it seems, is bent on avoiding impeachment at any cost. Instead of using the Mueller report to build a general case against Trump, and satisfy their base's demand to at least try to provide a check on his accelerating abuses, they hauled Mueller before the House to summarize his own report back to them like it's kindergarten story hour.

Elsewhere, Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, inexplicably dragged his feet for months before finally suing for Trump's tax returns. His authority to do so is unquestionable, and the returns are vital to understanding the extent of Trump's corruption and conflicts of interest, but then again that might add to the pressure to impeach Trump. Can't be having that! (Naturally, Trump just filed a countersuit to prevent New York from disclosing his state tax returns in line with a law the state government just passed.)

Democrats' plan appears to be to run out the clock in a defensive crouch, like some trapped rodent, hoping against hope that the voters rescue them from Trump in 2020. But this presents risks of its own, even if Democrats do win next year. As Mueller pointed out, there is a real (if slim, given Democratic cowardice) chance that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office. If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life.

God only knows what Trump might try under those conditions, but one thing is for sure: Nancy Pelosi is not going to do anything to stop him.
By Ryan Cooper br br Former Special Counsel Robe... (show quote)


I have brought this up numerous times. The Mueller Report has been out for months now, right ? So if it contains evidence of Impeachable Crimes, then why can't Democrats cite the relevant sections and proceed with their Impeachment ?

On another topic I gave the example of the Starr Report that lead to the House Impeachment of President Bill Clinton. I cited a section outlining Clinton having sex with Lewinski. I could have cited other passages. Very specific. I do not understand why Democrats did this dog and pony show with Mueller. Or why they keep insisting that the Public read the entire Mueller Report.

Just cite the important sections of the report and run with it. So why hasn't that happened ? Because, just maybe there are no clear and provable crimes that President Trump is guilty of. Maybe the Democrats have squat. I am waiting to be proven wrong. I will be here waiting guys, okay.

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 08:38:50   #
lpnmajor (a regular here)
 
slatten49 wrote:
By Ryan Cooper

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday, where he stuck like glue to the contents of his report. It provided some valuable clarification of what the report actually says, which stands in stark contradiction to the agitprop of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, who both blatantly lied about what Mueller found.

But this raises the question of what Democrats were playing at with these hearings. Mueller provided some valuable theatrical moments, but nothing that wasn't already known.

So what happened? Mueller appeared hesitant and somewhat confused at first, repeatedly asking to hear questions again or directing people to read the report instead of stating answers clearly. Questions from Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes that sought to undermine the credibility of the investigation were largely impenetrable for those unfamiliar with the Fox News Cinematic Universe (as David Roth puts it). And the format of five-minute question blocks for each member of the committees made for a herky-jerky proceeding, as they all scrambled to get their prepared questions out with very little follow-up. A single committee lawyer getting an entire half hour or so would have been a lot more useful.

However, Democrats did get a number of important comments on the record. Mueller flatly contradicted Trump's screeching assertions about the report. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked: "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?" Mueller replied, "Correct, that is not what the report said." He also confirmed multiple instances in which Trump and his minions blatantly interfered with the investigation.

As time went on Mueller gained some confidence, and pushed back against Republican attacks. When Ken Buck (R-Colo.) demanded to know if Trump could be prosecuted after he left office, Mueller blandly replied "yes." He made clear that the (loony) Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was at the least a significant factor in his decision not to indict Trump. When asked about Trump's praise of WikiLeaks during 2016 (as it was dribbling out hacked Democratic emails in a way calculated to inflict the maximum damage on the Clinton campaign), Mueller said, "problematic is an understatement."

All in all there were a number of moments that will at least make some decent campaign commercials next year. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that's all there will be.

As Mueller made very clear in his opening remarks, nothing he said wasn't already covered in his report. As I have previously argued, what he established there provides strong grounds for opening an impeachment inquiry — not to mention how Trump has flagrantly violated the Constitution by collecting foreign bribes and directing the White House budget into his own pockets, plus about 50 other outrageous scandals. Mueller's report was a perfect tee-up for a broader hearing into all that stuff.

But the Democratic leadership, it seems, is bent on avoiding impeachment at any cost. Instead of using the Mueller report to build a general case against Trump, and satisfy their base's demand to at least try to provide a check on his accelerating abuses, they hauled Mueller before the House to summarize his own report back to them like it's kindergarten story hour.

Elsewhere, Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, inexplicably dragged his feet for months before finally suing for Trump's tax returns. His authority to do so is unquestionable, and the returns are vital to understanding the extent of Trump's corruption and conflicts of interest, but then again that might add to the pressure to impeach Trump. Can't be having that! (Naturally, Trump just filed a countersuit to prevent New York from disclosing his state tax returns in line with a law the state government just passed.)

Democrats' plan appears to be to run out the clock in a defensive crouch, like some trapped rodent, hoping against hope that the voters rescue them from Trump in 2020. But this presents risks of its own, even if Democrats do win next year. As Mueller pointed out, there is a real (if slim, given Democratic cowardice) chance that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office. If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life.

God only knows what Trump might try under those conditions, but one thing is for sure: Nancy Pelosi is not going to do anything to stop him.
By Ryan Cooper br br Former Special Counsel Robe... (show quote)


Rather than creating their own narrative, Democrats are content with trying to limit the ammunition available for Trump's narrative. Trump supporters are a minority within the GOP, with a larger number of Republicans tiptoeing around them, hoping someone will rescue their party for them. Trump has made no effort to expand his base, yet due to his non stop "tuning up", his base are the most energized and dangerous.

Showing the truth of the adage " once a Marine, always a Marine ", Bob Mueller showed uncommon ( for DC that is ) courage by wading into the hyper-partisan swamp to expose the rats living there.

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 08:52:48   #
son of witless (a regular here)
 
lpnmajor wrote:
Rather than creating their own narrative, Democrats are content with trying to limit the ammunition available for Trump's narrative. Trump supporters are a minority within the GOP, with a larger number of Republicans tiptoeing around them, hoping someone will rescue their party for them. Trump has made no effort to expand his base, yet due to his non stop "tuning up", his base are the most energized and dangerous.

Showing the truth of the adage " once a Marine, always a Marine ", Bob Mueller showed uncommon ( for DC that is ) courage by wading into the hyper-partisan swamp to expose the rats living there.
Rather than creating their own narrative, Democrat... (show quote)


How are things on Mars ?

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 09:55:03   #
Lonewolf (a regular here)
 
lpnmajor wrote:
Rather than creating their own narrative, Democrats are content with trying to limit the ammunition available for Trump's narrative. Trump supporters are a minority within the GOP, with a larger number of Republicans tiptoeing around them, hoping someone will rescue their party for them. Trump has made no effort to expand his base, yet due to his non stop "tuning up", his base are the most energized and dangerous.

Showing the truth of the adage " once a Marine, always a Marine ", Bob Mueller showed uncommon ( for DC that is ) courage by wading into the hyper-partisan swamp to expose the rats living there.
Rather than creating their own narrative, Democrat... (show quote)



| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 10:00:24   #
waltmoreno (a regular here)
 
Pennylynn wrote:
Face it, Mueller appeared to have not read the report he supposedly wrote. He was able to regurgitate the responses that the Democrats rehearsed him in, but any question asked by a Republican he stuttered and stammered, asking for the question to be repeated.... in other words he ran the time down on the questioner and in the end, he failed to respond. He refused to answer over 100 questions! A rare insight into his view of Congress was unveiled... "What if I had made a false statement to an investigator on your team — could I go to jail?" Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) asked Mueller. "Yes," Mueller replied. "Although, it's Congress, so…” he quipped. Mueller then grinned as the audience broke into laughter.

Mueller has made it clear that he will not answer anymore questions from anyone. It is my opinion that he can't. I think he allowed everyone to run the investigation and he was a "hands off" division head. He took what he was fed, nodded his head and had several departments to write the results and he did not even sit in on staff meetings. Why he even took the job is a mystery to me.... perhaps family and friends were tired of him just sitting around waiting to die and convinced him to get an interest in something, anything, so he would get up and take a shower.
Face it, Mueller appeared to have not read the rep... (show quote)


To quote Devin Nunez, yesterday was the 'last gasp of the Russian collusion investigation.' Political theater, a hail Mary attempt to discredit Trump.
After Mueller's performance yesterday, it's clear that the Russian collusion effort is DOA.

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 12:49:56   #
son of witless (a regular here)
 
waltmoreno wrote:
To quote Devin Nunez, yesterday was the 'last gasp of the Russian collusion investigation.' Political theater, a hail Mary attempt to discredit Trump.
After Mueller's performance yesterday, it's clear that the Russian collusion effort is DOA.


And yet morons continue to watch MSNBC.

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 18:39:34   #
eagleye13 (a regular here)
 
slatten49 wrote:
By Ryan Cooper

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday, where he stuck like glue to the contents of his report. It provided some valuable clarification of what the report actually says, which stands in stark contradiction to the agitprop of President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr, who both blatantly lied about what Mueller found.

But this raises the question of what Democrats were playing at with these hearings. Mueller provided some valuable theatrical moments, but nothing that wasn't already known.

So what happened? Mueller appeared hesitant and somewhat confused at first, repeatedly asking to hear questions again or directing people to read the report instead of stating answers clearly. Questions from Republicans like Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, and Devin Nunes that sought to undermine the credibility of the investigation were largely impenetrable for those unfamiliar with the Fox News Cinematic Universe (as David Roth puts it). And the format of five-minute question blocks for each member of the committees made for a herky-jerky proceeding, as they all scrambled to get their prepared questions out with very little follow-up. A single committee lawyer getting an entire half hour or so would have been a lot more useful.

However, Democrats did get a number of important comments on the record. Mueller flatly contradicted Trump's screeching assertions about the report. When Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked: "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?" Mueller replied, "Correct, that is not what the report said." He also confirmed multiple instances in which Trump and his minions blatantly interfered with the investigation.

As time went on Mueller gained some confidence, and pushed back against Republican attacks. When Ken Buck (R-Colo.) demanded to know if Trump could be prosecuted after he left office, Mueller blandly replied "yes." He made clear that the (loony) Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted was at the least a significant factor in his decision not to indict Trump. When asked about Trump's praise of WikiLeaks during 2016 (as it was dribbling out hacked Democratic emails in a way calculated to inflict the maximum damage on the Clinton campaign), Mueller said, "problematic is an understatement."

All in all there were a number of moments that will at least make some decent campaign commercials next year. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that's all there will be.

As Mueller made very clear in his opening remarks, nothing he said wasn't already covered in his report. As I have previously argued, what he established there provides strong grounds for opening an impeachment inquiry — not to mention how Trump has flagrantly violated the Constitution by collecting foreign bribes and directing the White House budget into his own pockets, plus about 50 other outrageous scandals. Mueller's report was a perfect tee-up for a broader hearing into all that stuff.

But the Democratic leadership, it seems, is bent on avoiding impeachment at any cost. Instead of using the Mueller report to build a general case against Trump, and satisfy their base's demand to at least try to provide a check on his accelerating abuses, they hauled Mueller before the House to summarize his own report back to them like it's kindergarten story hour.

Elsewhere, Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, inexplicably dragged his feet for months before finally suing for Trump's tax returns. His authority to do so is unquestionable, and the returns are vital to understanding the extent of Trump's corruption and conflicts of interest, but then again that might add to the pressure to impeach Trump. Can't be having that! (Naturally, Trump just filed a countersuit to prevent New York from disclosing his state tax returns in line with a law the state government just passed.)

Democrats' plan appears to be to run out the clock in a defensive crouch, like some trapped rodent, hoping against hope that the voters rescue them from Trump in 2020. But this presents risks of its own, even if Democrats do win next year. As Mueller pointed out, there is a real (if slim, given Democratic cowardice) chance that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office. If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life.

God only knows what Trump might try under those conditions, but one thing is for sure: Nancy Pelosi is not going to do anything to stop him.
By Ryan Cooper br br Former Special Counsel Robe... (show quote)


"Democrats' plan appears to be to run out the clock in a defensive crouch, like some trapped rodent, hoping against hope that the voters rescue them from Trump in 2020. But this presents risks of its own, even if Democrats do win next year. As Mueller pointed out, there is a real (if slim, given Democratic cowardice) chance that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office. If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life."

2020 is looking mighty good for the Republican Party.

"If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life.""

Will the Democrats be able to raise the barrel, and quit shooting themselves in the foot?
I think not.

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 18:42:23   #
eagleye13 (a regular here)
 
waltmoreno wrote:
To quote Devin Nunez, yesterday was the 'last gasp of the Russian collusion investigation.' Political theater, a hail Mary attempt to discredit Trump.
After Mueller's performance yesterday, it's clear that the Russian collusion effort is DOA.


Yep!!
BUT DOA Democrats are quite determined?

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 18:47:49   #
slatten49 (a regular here)
 
eagleye13 wrote:
"Democrats' plan appears to be to run out the clock in a defensive crouch, like some trapped rodent, hoping against hope that the voters rescue them from Trump in 2020. But this presents risks of its own, even if Democrats do win next year. As Mueller pointed out, there is a real (if slim, given Democratic cowardice) chance that Trump could be prosecuted after he leaves office. If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life."

2020 is looking mighty good for the Republican Party.

"If he loses next November, there will be a three-month period where he still has all the powers of the presidency but is looking down the barrel of genuine consequences for the first time in his entire life.""

Will the Democrats be able to raise the barrel, and quit shooting themselves in the foot?
I think not.
"Democrats' plan appears to be to run out the... (show quote)

As is always the case, Birdman...time will tell.

And, as a Marine, I live by our slogan: "Adapt, improvise...and overcome "

| Reply
Jul 25, 2019 18:52:56   #
eagleye13 (a regular here)
 
slatten49 wrote:
As is always the case, Birdman...time will tell.

And, as a Marine, I live by our slogan: "Adapt, improvise...and overcome "


Slat!!!!
Slat you aren't walking with a limp are you?
I doubt you shot yourself in the foot while in the Marines.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.