< 1 2
 
   
 

Mueller hearing - did I miss something?

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
27 July 2019 08:06
 

Here’s an opinion piece notable mainly for the source: the New York Times.

The Mueller Fantasy Comes Crashing Down

Robert Mueller’s congressional testimony this week was revealing, but not for what it told us about the Trump campaign’s associations with Russia. In the hours and days after Mr. Mueller gave his opening statement before the House Judiciary Committee, it became clear how tenaciously many liberals and progressives are clinging to fantasy — not just that President Trump will eventually find himself impeached and removed, but also that they can advance their values by means of legal machination rather than political vision. And at a moment of intense polarization in American politics, this fantasy is especially shortsighted.

. . .

Those channeling their honorable outrage into a narrow strategy to wait for Mr. Mueller’s truth have been in denial for a long time. Before the special counsel’s report was released this spring, the likely content of Mr. Mueller’s findings was inflated, not least to the certainty that Mr. Trump was a Russian asset. Instead of focusing on why he won and ensuring an alternative outcome next time, many Trump critics spent years comforting themselves with assurances that the slowly turning wheels of justice would arrive at the White House.

It didn’t happen. . . .

Within hours of the release of Mr. Mueller’s report, a new strategy was born: to insist that it was as bad for the president as his enemies had always hoped. The report was an “impeachment referral” without saying so, and Mr. Mueller — far from erring or flinching — had done precisely what he needed to do to incite congressional action. Hesitating to voice their actual disappointment that Mr. Mueller had simply not come through, interpreters elevated the text to almost scriptural status, requiring proper interpretation and vulgarization for the masses: The report actually had proved Mr. Trump’s criminality, they said. If only people would read it, or listen to the dramatic readings of it, or the podcasts about it, they would see for themselves.

. . .

Within minutes of the event’s opening on Wednesday, it became apparent that there would be no Mueller ex machina. . . .

Even so, some were convinced that this week’s testimony was already leading to “a groundswell of support for impeachment,” as the executive editor of the website Lawfare put it on Twitter. Others said that we simply need to try again to explain to harried Americans, who don’t have time for seven hours of unriveting television, that something fatal to Mr. Trump’s presidency had now in fact happened. But no groundswell is rising. Even Representative Adam Schiff, long the political standard-bearer of impeachment, has predicted the dream is now dead.

Sums it up pretty well, doesn’t it?

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7107
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
27 July 2019 08:14
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 27 July 2019 08:06 AM

Sums it up pretty well, doesn’t it?

I definitely agree that any democratic nominee should not base their campaign on the report.
Policy works better than denigrating opponents.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
27 July 2019 08:14
 

The next episode of political theater will be “Intelgate,” the investigation into the investigation. Pro-Trumpers are pinning their hopes on Durham’s investigation just as fervently as anti-Trumpers pinned their hopes on Mueller’s. My guess is, based purely on the politics of it, and not on the alleged evidence, that it’ll eventually turn out very similar to the Mueller investigation. But not before a lot of hype just before the election.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
27 July 2019 08:19
 
Jefe - 27 July 2019 08:14 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 27 July 2019 08:06 AM

Sums it up pretty well, doesn’t it?

I definitely agree that any democratic nominee should not base their campaign on the report.
Policy works better than denigrating opponents.

If only it were true that policy works better than denigrating opponents! But it depends on what you mean by, “works.” In the context of getting elected, denigrating opponents seems to work pretty well. In fact, I’d say that’s the policy both parties have been using for years: “Vote for us because the other party is even worse.”

We elect people who are good at campaigning, not governing.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7107
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
27 July 2019 09:34
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 27 July 2019 08:19 AM

We elect people who are good at campaigning, not governing.

Agreed.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8627
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
27 July 2019 11:25
 
DEGENERATEON - 26 July 2019 08:04 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 July 2019 06:40 AM

Mueller never said that Trump committed a crime. In the case of “collusion,” he found insufficient evidence; in the case of obstruction of justice, he never intended to say one way or another.

Completely agree.  According to Twissel, we’re on a different planet.

It would help me figure out what planet you are on if you are willing to say what you thought of the U.N.‘s dire climate report in 2018.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/what-is-donald-trumps-response-to-the-uns-dire-climate-report

“It’s like a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen,” Erik Solheim, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, told the Washington Post.

But, if a smoke alarm rings in the kitchen and everyone’s watching “Fox & Friends” in the den, does it make a sound?”

This morning I noticed an article suggesting that some Republicans are buying tickets off Trump’s ‘Planet of the Chinese Hoax’.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/a-louisiana-republican-reckons-with-climate-change?

[ Edited: 27 July 2019 11:31 by unsmoked]
 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  179
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
27 July 2019 14:10
 
unsmoked - 27 July 2019 11:25 AM
DEGENERATEON - 26 July 2019 08:04 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 July 2019 06:40 AM

Mueller never said that Trump committed a crime. In the case of “collusion,” he found insufficient evidence; in the case of obstruction of justice, he never intended to say one way or another.

Completely agree.  According to Twissel, we’re on a different planet.

It would help me figure out what planet you are on if you are willing to say what you thought of the U.N.‘s dire climate report in 2018.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/what-is-donald-trumps-response-to-the-uns-dire-climate-report

“It’s like a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen,” Erik Solheim, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, told the Washington Post.

But, if a smoke alarm rings in the kitchen and everyone’s watching “Fox & Friends” in the den, does it make a sound?”

This morning I noticed an article suggesting that some Republicans are buying tickets off Trump’s ‘Planet of the Chinese Hoax’.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/a-louisiana-republican-reckons-with-climate-change?

I remember watching “An Inconvenient Truth” back when it came out.  There’s a part with a graph of the Earths average temperature and Gore is flying up on a lift showing the exponential and near vertical rise.  I remember thinking recently “aren’t we supposed to be dead by now?”
I don’t deny climate change but am skeptical of some of the more dire accounts of our imminent extinction.  I think (hope) that more and more people accept that changes need to be made and it’s not too late.  There’s probably quite a few people that won’t care until things start getting out of control - like a smoker being diagnosed with lung cancer.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8627
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
30 July 2019 11:52
 

Another question to help me determine if we’re living on the same planet:  Why don’t Republicans want to see Trump’s tax returns? 

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tax/2019/04/19/mueller-report-doesnt-mention-trumps-taxes-426799

“But Mueller might not have even obtained Trump’s tax returns, despite earlier speculation otherwise. Since Mueller focused on Russian election interference and possible collusion, conspiracy and obstruction of justice, and not financial crimes, it’s unlikely that the special counsel would have had cause to delve into the president’s taxes.”

 
 
 < 1 2