Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Ds weren't acting out of fear in throwing Franken under the bus. They viewed it opportunistically -- a chance to differentiate themselves from Rs who'd looked the other way at Trump's pussy grabbing. They played the "purity" card, engaging in exactly the sort of behavior Obama has warned them might cost them the election in 2020.

Right. They were demonstrating that actually have values and act on them instead of only pretending to when they can attack Rs (which is what Rs do).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right. They were demonstrating that actually have values and act on them instead of only pretending to when they can attack Rs (which is what Rs do).

When Clinton was getting raked over infidelities, an R congress leader was outed for cheating on wife. He resigned because to do otherwise would compromise Clinton hunting.

Both sides play the same games, admit that one side has turned crazy and evil, but running off Franken wasn’t about values. Unless you mean “valuing winning back Congress?”

[LessinSF]

I haven't watched any of the Mueller testimony, but a liberal criminal defense trial attorney friend of mine posted this on Facebook. Thoughts?

My take away from the first three hours of the Mueller testimony:

(1) The dog and pony show orchestrated by the Dems essentially blew up in their faces (shame on them) and the Republicans' toxic and unjustified smear of Mueller, as well as their insistence on trying to characterize him as wrongfully withholding information in response to questions they knew he couldn't answer because Republican AG William Barr had instructed him he couldn't answer, was similarly obnoxious;
(2) Rumors that Mueller's recalcitrance to speak pubilcly may have been due in no small part to Mueller's declining cognitive functioning were bolstered today, and could very well explain in part why Mueller was very comfortable NOT going beyond anything already in the report;
(2) Mueller's intentional refusal to ever speak the word "impeachment" was pretty obvious, even though his report couldn't be more clear that that's what he was talking about. As a result, the Dems shot themselves in the foot;
(3) As a result, the American people were betrayed in this hearing by both parties and, inadvertently and sadly by Mueller himself who was in no position to testify competently as to the day of the week, let alone the lengthy, sophisticated and nuanced report his team had issued. The Dems should have recognized that Mueller had no capacity (in light of his clear cognitive struggles) or willingness (In light of the instructions from the DOJ not to go beyond the letter of the report) to do anything but parrot the language of the report AT BEST. At that point, they were reduced to only one effective tactic -- read to him the specific most damning portions of the report, assure him the words are in the report, and have him verify their truth (he did that every time). They should have stopped asking him ANY hypothetical questions or even open-ended questions because he either wasn't going to answer or couldn't answer (who was the idiot who asked him which Republican Presidents appointed him to which jobs? HE COULDN'T FUCKING REMEMBER AND ENDED UP LOOKING IMPAIRED. Just say, "Isn't it true Ronald Reagan appointed you as US Attorney?" "Yes." Don't ask him who appointed him because it was clear he couldn't independently remember who was President on Tuesday, Jesus!! The Republicans, on the other hand, disgraced themselves by posing a series of totally legitimate questions but questions they KNEW from Barr's instructions Mueller couldn't answer and then piled on with sanctimonious vigor when Mueller refused to answer, as if Mueller was totally voluntarily concealing shit. That made my blood boil. And for God's sake, before trotting Mueller into the most publicized hearing in recent history, could someone have made a concerted effort to figure out the guy's mental state? The whole thing was horrific.

LessinSaoPaulo

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right. They were demonstrating that actually have values and act on them instead of only pretending to when they can attack Rs (which is what Rs do).

Right. All about values. 🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I haven't watched any of the Mueller testimony, but a liberal criminal defense trial attorney friend of mine posted this on Facebook. Thoughts?

LessinSaoPaulo

Mueller did testify the sole basis not to indict was OLC memo. That’s something.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm saying the senate ethics process does not address the political problem the party faced at the time.

Your continual, mealy-mouthed repetition that the issue was solely political has grown tiresome. There is no point continuing to do discuss this with you.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I haven't watched any of the Mueller testimony, but a liberal criminal defense trial attorney friend of mine posted this on Facebook. Thoughts?

LessinSaoPaulo

I've watched some, and followed some on twitter.

My assessment is very different, but I'm not some flashy criminal defense attorney but a corporate lawyer who spends a lot of time around not at all flashy people trying to get difficult technical issues right.

There was a surprising amount of substance in many of the exchanges with the Dems. Mueller's pace and speech patterns show some of his age, but when he was permitted to speak (the Rs rarely let him get a full response out) he came across with real gravitas - think a male RBG. That substance was uniformly damning for Trump.

It wasn't flashy and the Rs approach of ridiculing him for his age should but may not backfire, but if you paid attention to the substance his performance was mostly thoughtful, direct and articulate. Maybe folks are too used to practiced talking heads with no substance.

If you want to see the best R questioning, pull up Buck's questioning, he was clearly hostile, but it was more focused and on point than any of the other Rs, and Mueller responds well, but he does show his age as he listens and responds, and Buck takes 90% of the time with Mueller mostly getting to respond in just short direct sentences. For dems, look at Shiff's opening, you'll see it around, it lays out the case in chief.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I've watched some, and followed some on twitter.

My assessment is very different, but I'm not some flashy criminal defense attorney but a corporate lawyer who spends a lot of time around not at all flashy people trying to get difficult technical issues right.

There was a surprising amount of substance in many of the exchanges with the Dems. Mueller's pace and speech patterns show some of his age, but when he was permitted to speak (the Rs rarely let him get a full response out) he came across with real gravitas - think a male RBG. That substance was uniformly damning for Trump.

It wasn't flashy and the Rs approach of ridiculing him for his age should but may not backfire, but if you paid attention to the substance his performance was mostly thoughtful, direct and articulate. Maybe folks are too used to practiced talking heads with no substance.

If you want to see the best R questioning, pull up Buck's questioning, he was clearly hostile, but it was more focused and on point than any of the other Rs, and Mueller responds well, but he does show his age as he listens and responds, and Buck takes 90% of the time with Mueller mostly getting to respond in just short direct sentences. For dems, look at Shiff's opening, you'll see it around, it lays out the case in chief.

Per usual, you assumed something upon which you had no basis. My friend does white collar CD and your derogatory characterization of em as "flashy" only shows your bias. And I will take em's analysis of how a witness appeared over yours. Can you explain why Mueller could not remember which President appointed him other than cognitive disability?
LessinSaoPaulo

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Per usual, you assumed something upon which you had no basis. My friend does white collar CD and your derogatory characterization of em as "flashy" only shows your bias. And I will take em's analysis of how a witness appeared over yours. Can you explain why Mueller could not remember which President appointed him other than cognitive disability?
LessinSaoPaulo

I did WCCD. Most good WC defense lawyers are ex-US Attys. They’re as flashy as a Lands End catalogue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I haven't watched any of the Mueller testimony, but a liberal criminal defense trial attorney friend of mine posted this on Facebook. Thoughts?

If Democrats in Congress think that Trump et al. did what Mueller say he did, they should open congressional investigations to build the case, instead of thinking that they can call Mueller in to do that work for them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My assessment is very different, but I'm not some flashy criminal defense attorney but a corporate lawyer who spends a lot of time around not at all flashy people trying to get difficult technical issues right.

I spend most of my days litigating punctuation marks in old Japanese documents.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Democrats in Congress think that Trump et al. did what Mueller say he did, they should open congressional investigations to build the case, instead of thinking that they can call Mueller in to do that work for them.

He already built the case. WTF are you talking about? Congressional investigations? What would be added? I rue the day you and yours achieve any control.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

He already built the case. WTF are you talking about? Congressional investigations? What would be added? I rue the day you and yours achieve any control.

Democrats in Congress can do one of three things:
1. vote on impeachment now,
2. continuing investigating to build out the story and drive coverage, or
3. drop it.

1. appears almost as futile as 3., because Republicans in the Senate are not going to vote for impeachment at present. If that holds, the ultimate remedy is political -- use what Trump did in a way that hurts him and Republicans in the next election. The best path to that is 2. I believe that the Mueller report is pretty damning, but for those who don't, flesh it out and make the evidentiary record clear, instead of something in AG Barr's file cabinets.

eta: Josh Marshall:

Through countless debates over recent months we’ve had one core issue. We relied on a criminal investigation with the Trump/Russia scandal rather than an investigative commission or true congressional inquiry. That flawed decision is at the heart of most of what was discussed today.

Normally, prosecutors should investigate and indict or not indict and that is it. That was the repeated claim from Committee Republicans today and if it’s a conventional criminal probe they’re right. To them, there really shouldn’t have been a Report at all. Indeed, because the President couldn’t be indicted he shouldn’t even have been investigated at all. All of these claims make sense if you buy into the premise that this is a conventional criminal investigation – something the current Special Counsel guidelines leave ambiguous.

In practice it’s not true.

What the public has needed and to a great degree expected was not specific indictments or non-indictments but answers on what actually happened. Illumination rather than prosecution is what is really critical, especially since the most serious kinds of wrongdoing may not be crimes. That fact, by the enfolded logic of the probe, meant that the most critical information remained confidential, with the possibility of real disclosure in the hands of Bill Barr, the President’s fixer.

Because the only real investigation is a criminal one, we’re told that it’s really not ours to know. The only question we get an answer to is whether there was sufficient evidence to mount a criminal prosecution. That’s a legitimate legal standard. It’s all but meaningless as a civic, democratic standard. We got some information in the Report. But we didn’t get to see any of the key witnesses testimony. We can’t ask the chief investigators the most basic questions about what they found. Mueller and his team say we get some information, the Report. Republicans say we should get none. Both operate, however, on the basic premise that this is a criminal investigation and the public’s right to know is highly circumscribed by a thicket of DOJ guidelines and Bill Barr’s efforts to protect Donald Trump. To a significant degree, they’re right. That’s why a public investigation, a congressional investigation are absolutely critical.

The key questions and the critical questions of accountability and national safety are not bound up in statute laws. At the end of the day, Rep. Adam Schiff seemed to suggest he would conduct such an investigation as I’ve described above. “We must find out.” It wasn’t clear to me whether he was serious about this, whether we’re going to get the kind of investigation we need or whether he just means the same in the shadows stuff that has been going on for months to no particular end. We know that the President has basically stonewalled every effort to get the testimony of people who served in his administration. That in itself is an abuse of power. But his ability to shield events during the campaign is vastly less. Everyone who shows up in the campaign period investigation should be called up to the hill for public testimony. Clearly, from today, that should happen under Chairman Schiff.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

He already built the case. WTF are you talking about? Congressional investigations? What would be added? I rue the day you and yours achieve any control.

Yup. It’s over. Particularly now that Mueller walked back his OLC statement with a later clarification he did not mean to assert Trump could be indicted for his unique acts.

Trump would stymie a Congressional investigation. He’d drag it out by sheer refusal to comply as Barr and Ross have done and play the Democrats’ efforts in it as a continued “witch hunt.”

The country does not give a shit about this. It actually makes people angry because it conveys the impression the parties are only interested in political gains and not implementing policy that impacts people’s daily lives. Pelosi knows this stuff is playing into Trump’s hands.

Josh Marshall’s advice is excellent... if we’d a nation of lawyers and people who view obstruction as significant. We don’t. We have people who care about jobs and health care. The Democrats have blown off enough toes with Russiagate. Any more and they won’t be able to walk. The better battlefield is the Blue Wall, where Trump can lose.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Democrats in Congress think that Trump et al. did what Mueller say he did, they should open congressional investigations to build the case, instead of thinking that they can call Mueller in to do that work for them.

Start the impeachment process.

TM