Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.
So does this mean anything after his press conference, other than he's now a private citizen?
My expectations are insanely low.
Even Mueller's press conference was VERY light on substance, and most of what he said equated to "the report was over two years of work, so refer to that with any questions. If you want more, the materials we collected will be released in time but the report sums it up well enough. If I testified, I'd just say the same stuff that's in there."
I guess the tantalizing part is the fact he more or less said he would NOT be testifying, and now he is but I don't think that's any indication he intends on saying anything that moves the needle on the Trump-Russia thing. The optimist in me says, at best, MAYBE we get a better scope of what to watch out for from Russia this time around but the pessimist in me says we get literally nothing and the idea he's testifying now is a smokescreen.
Yeah, I wouldn't hold out hope that Mueller will say anything substantially more than what was clear in his report or press conference.
It's going to be some interesting theatre though. Democrats are going to press him to say "Trump clearly obstructed justice but we didn't indict him because of current DOJ guidelines preventing us from indicting a sitting president" but he's going to stick to his roundabout "I'd tell you if I thought he was innocent and I'm not going to do that" line. Trump supporters will continue to interpret that as "no collusion, no obstruction". Then there will be a bunch of Republicans asking him variations on "isn't it true that your team is just a bunch of angry Democrats spying for Obama?" It'll be interesting to see how he responds to them, but it won't matter because they just want the soundbyte of them making the accusation so the Trump voters in their districts will see that they support the leader and toe the line. Any questions on details from the report he will probably answer by reading excerpts verbatim. That at least might make for some good clips that the media can play and *maybe* get in front of the eyeballs of the people who haven't bothered to read the report and act as a bit of a direct rebuttal to Trump's continuous assertions that it totally exonerated him.
Yeah, the only person I met that I didn't like was the Italian sitting next to me on the flight home, and I'm part Italian myself so I'm predisposed to like Italians.
He's testifying because he was subpoenaed by the House and Senate, and unlike the entire Trump Administration he responded to the subpoena. I don't think we'll see any new incremental material here - the biggest thing moving the needle, IMO, will be more soundbites with Mueller explicitly confirming he was not able to clear Trump of obstruction of justice, and Mueller diplomatically trying to find a way to say that when Trump tweets "NO OBSTRUCTION" he doesn't really agree with him. And that's mostly just keeping the story alive and adding a few more grains to the pile of evidence that Trump obstructed justice.
I still think this is fairly likely to end in impeachment, especially if the White House continues to stonewall congressional investigations - Trump's use of executive privilege to protect ANY reference to a witness's time in the administration, in fact, could very well become a charge of obstruction, especially if this does make it to the courts and they rule that Trump's use of EP exceeds that afforded by the Constitution.
At least Mueller is cooperative. But yeah, I doubt any new information comes to light.
Looks like they subpoenaed Conway. Probably same shit there too.
Anyway, is all of this stonewalling going to be what gets Pelosi to give in to impeachment? As I've said, I'm not entirely into the idea of impeachment, but given that were witnessing obstruction in broad daylight on what feels like a daily basis, it may have to come to that no matter what. Especially if by some miracle the Dems take the Senate back (which I'll admit to not currently being entirely educated on the likelihood of that happening).
The 2020 Senate map isn't particularly favorable to the Dems. Not impossible, but not likely.
I think the Dems have two possible objectives here. Subpoena everyone, knowing full well Trump will plead executive privilege and stonewall them, and then 1) challenge his right to do so in court, arguing he's stretching executive privilege beyond the constitutionally allowable limits, pointing to the sheer scope of the stonewalling, win, and compel the witnesses they really care about to testify under oath, or 2) after going through a very public exercise of exhausting every other constitutional option open to them, and once they have, argue they have no remaining choices but to impeach.
So, r/TheDonald just got quarrantined over at Reddit for inbciting violence against police officers and public officials, over the Oregon congress's climate bill and the Republican representatives fleeing the state to stop the vote:
Users of course immediately said it wasn't about violating site terms and conditions and the subreddit failing to enforce them, but rather an attempt to silence them before 2020.
Man, good thing everyone that even has a shot is on tomorrow. I don't even know what to make of this...
De Blasio performed better than expected. Castro seemed like one of the most qualified but came across as pushy. That was actually my first time seeing O'Rourke speak at length, he seemed well rehearsed but outmatched.
Warren seemed like the most complete package with De Blasio honestly a surprisingly close second for me, then I guess Booker. Everyone there had bits and pieces they were more on point about here and there but huge issues with essentially everyone else up there. At least 8 of them I'd have taken over Hillary, so I guess this is progress.
To their credit, apparently it took 16 minutes before Trump was first mentioned. I'm impressed.
This is about what I'm seeing elsewhere (I actually didn't watch myself).
I think DeBlasio benefitted mostly from sort of implausibly low expectations - he's the Mayor of NYC, has a number of marquee accomplishments he's actually implemented (universal pre-K, for one), has plenty of competitive campaign and debate experience, and on paper should be a decent candidate... And he's been polling at an average of around 0.3%?! It makes no sense. His big win last night was reminding the audience that he's actually a real, credible candidate. That's not enough to boost him into the "plausible path to victory" camp, I think, but he should get a good bounce in the polls after this. Castro too, simply because he did a great job getting air space and doesn't seem to have committed any major gaffes.
Warren performed as expected - well, easily the strongest of this particular selection, though evidently she kind of faded out as the night went on. That may not matter in subsequent media coverage as long as her performance was memorable enough at the start.
Beto, I understand, tanked. "Too rehearsed" is probably the best way to describe it.
I don't see this changing anything in the state of the race - Warren is still the most credible candidate in this group, Beto's star was already fading as Mayor Pete's rose, and DeBlasio should see a rise in the polls and better coverage going forward, but not enough to matter.
He only came up a handful of times, I understand. I don't think the Democratic frontrunner, Biden, was mentioned at all, either.
Castro thinks MTF transgender people can get abortions apparently
Beto awkwardly tries to dodge questions in 2 languages
I missed that. What part of the debate was that?
That reminds me of a local company that has gender-neutral "mothers' rooms". Ha! At least there's some logic to it (it could be disturbing for a woman to be in the shared area of the mother's room, which has curtained off private areas for pumping but aren't totally secure, and see someone in there who presents as male...so they have one private room for someone who, say, is a woman but presents/lives as male, and yet gets pregnant), but there's no logic to that Castro comment, if that's what he said.
Without seeing it, I assume someone asked about something, and that when he spoke he switched topics but didn't make it clear that he stopped talking about the one specific thing...like if he was talking about transgender MTF people, and then pivoted to a woman's right to choose, without making it clear that he was shifting the conversation...but I would like to know for sure...
I have so my friends say they turned the debates off early yesterday and that the Dems are fucked. I kept asking why? Anyone that stands a chance is on tonight. If they blow it, THEN the Dems are fucked.
Also, Trump tweeting "Boring!". What, was the debate not his type?
BORING! BORING! BORING!
He could have watched 15 minutes and not heard his name. I'm sure that bugged him.
Biden seemingly riddled with senior moments the whole debate, I almost felt sorry for him. Also everyone else dealing headshots on him but clearly Harris landed the only real blow on him the whole night. Swalwell and Gillibrand struggling to be relevant, Gillibrands stock went up and Swallwells stayed flat or went down (seemed like he had trouble reading the room). Tail end of 2016 I got the impression Bernie never expected to actually win and he knows it, so he harps on the same two or three things to give it as much audience he can get but at this point it comes off as tone deaf. Probably a lot of people impressed with Mayor Pete, I think he was who hes always been but was wordy and picked fights with allies for no reason.
Feels like Harris won the night and maybe of even leapfrogged to front. Biden and Bernie are still going to poll up there a bit but if the primary keeps up like this, the two of them sink like a rock assuming they haven't already. Mayor Pete star rises a couple notches but there's no medal for 5th place. Everyone else was, well, everyone else.
So far I actually think Warren was the most well balanced. She tapped into the progressive energy but with more substance. You feel like she can so anything she says she will. Harris a close second but a very different candidate. She seems less like an ideologue and more like a consensus builder with strong convictions. Then maybe Biden for the fact his heart seems in the right place and he does have a record that shows willingness and ability to facilitate progress.
Yup, this sounds really frikkin sad