General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDid I miss the "Do Republicans risk making total asses of themselves" at Mueller hearing stories?
Because all I see are "Do the Democrats risk overplaying their hands?" and "Will the Democrats perform absolutely perfectly in every way and if they don't, how much self-inflicted damage will they suffer?" stories - even though we all know the Republicans are going behave like complete fools, and do their best to turn the hearing into a circus and preventing the public from gathering any information.
Did I miss all the stories putting any responsibility on or raising questions about the Republican committee members?
deminks
(11,006 posts)Dems are in disarray!
wryter2000
(46,016 posts)Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table, which means she's dumb, even though she's usually so smart.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)wryter2000
(46,016 posts)One would hope that wouldn't be necessary.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But ...
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,041 posts)Links, please?
wryter2000
(46,016 posts)That said exactly that. I'm on a Kindle with no easy way to cut and paste, so I can't provide a link.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,041 posts)If you use your favorite search engine to search for "pelosi impeachment off the table" (without the quotes), you will find where she has said that it is NOT off the table, just not ripe yet.
I get the following as the first hit from duckduckgo.com, but can't view CNN videos:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/11/nancy-pelosi-trump-impeachment-raju-intv-nr-vpx.cnn
Article about the above interview:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/11/politics/impeachment-democrats-pelosi/index.html
tosh
(4,422 posts)"what the media is saying", not "what Speaker Pelosi said/is saying" -
Im sorry I was off the internet for so long and couldnt clarify.
Actually, I was quoting what some at DU were saying.
wryter2000
(46,016 posts)I didnt use the sarcasm smilie. I didnt think I had to. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
ananda
(28,783 posts)..
watoos
(7,142 posts)I have absolutely zero worries about Robert Mueller handling Gym Jordan. Sophomoric attacks on Robert Mueller will surely backfire.
On the other hand, Dems better come prepared. Mueller will not volunteer information but he is a truth teller.
What questions and how they are asked by Democrats will make or break the hearing.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)What news outlet does that come from?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Cetacea
(7,367 posts)op thinks that Mueller appearing on TV is a good thing.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I'm right here, if you do.
Cetacea
(7,367 posts)What inspired your user name? Mine is a nod to dolphins and whales. Is yours a nod to starfish? Or the company?
I'll PM you my other question.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Nancy, attack messenger if supporting impeachment in news, and anyone for impeachment is frantic and hates Nancy.
Would love to see a real analysis of why we didn't and shouldn't.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Another tack is using "mean girl' stage whispers to try to make points that can't hold up in a direct interaction with the people being discussed in the side conversations being conducted in plain view.
A little odd to see this tactic used by adults on a political discussion board, but, given other things I've been seeing here, it's no longer surprising.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)Party pooper.
True Blue American
(17,972 posts)This morning. He did just that some time ago.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)They won't comment if they feel there was no damage done.
Raven123
(4,716 posts)The 4 corners of the Mueller Report does not contain fiction
ashredux
(2,593 posts)Watchfoxheadexplodes
(3,496 posts)Try and stop it thus creating a 🎪
kentuck
(110,950 posts)In my opinion.
Pacifist Patriot
(24,647 posts)They are going to do everything possible to prevent or control his testimony.
rampartc
(5,271 posts)they are throwing their partisan brer rabbit into the briar patch.
if they are not total idiots (always a possibility) and if the dems follow mueller into the rabbit hole, trump will come out (apparently) "exonerated."
1. is it possible that someone other than the Russian government interfered in the election? and that since mueller was limited to the "collusion" with the Russian government
..
2. if the department policy were not to "never indict the president" upon which crimes, if not conspiracy with the Russians, would mueller have indicted?
I had to use double negatives in this reply because that is the way all of this will be framed. if the dems can't simplify this into straightforward English we are laughing stock into the 2000 elections.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Report. So wonder how he will handle. Like your great second question. He would likely say it's hypothetical..but will he say he can't comment? I would love to ask him, who decides on the policy itself? Only the AG? What does the ethics committee do? How were things different under Sessions? If at all.
rampartc
(5,271 posts)the process that trump calls a "witch hunt" is determined by statute to never find or report any actual "witches."
I think that indictment business is just a legal memo from the atty general (probably Ashcroft or Gonzalez.)
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)True Blue American
(17,972 posts)By saying that was before the Special Counsel investigation.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)ask lightweight "questions".
The real questions are about whether or not the Democrats will line up and do some serious questioning.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,041 posts)Tv promotes that which gets eyeballs, advertisers, deregulation and tax breaks.
Maybe things like the FTC, FCC, and the Sherman Anti-trust Act really are important.
mac56
(17,561 posts)Time Warner is now Warner Media, owned by AT&T. Time Magazine is now owned by Marc Benioff.
Carry on.
lostnfound
(16,139 posts)If trump implements nightly sacrifices of immigrant children on the steps and balconies of the White House, they will say, its all up to Pelosi now.
Yes I know impeachment starts in the house but thats not the point. McConnell will fade into the woodwork and his name never mentioned by the media. He has stolen the invisibility cloak from Harry Potter, and is held to ZERO standards or account by the media.
mcar
(42,210 posts)MSM 101.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)do we? No unified messaging. No organized rebuttal to trump sleeze. No ads.
mcar
(42,210 posts)I focus my blame on Republicans and the MSM. Others choose to bash Democrats. YMMV.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,041 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)we belong to the Democratic party. Will Rogers, I believe.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)The_Counsel
(1,660 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)and went back to get his wounded soldiers.
Sorry, I apologize, but I am not in favor of people attacking Robert Mueller.
He did his job in Vietnam and as special prosecutor. All we have seen is a redacted version of his report. Democrats have the means to get the entire report and the grand jury testimony if they put their minds to it.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)They have laid the groundwork to request the unredacted report and the grand jury materials.
It's a process and they're putting the pieces into place. It's not as satisfying as the Perry Mason moments some people fantasize - and it conflicts with the "Democrats aren't doing a damned thing because Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table" drumbeat of attacks - but it's the only way to do it if they actually want to obtain them.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)big time. We are now bogged down in Trump's main MO...tie things up in the courts.
watoos
(7,142 posts)that Democrats have an extremely good case to get the grand jury information through an impeachment hearing because said hearing is judicial and not legislative. No, I don't trust Barr, but even he said that he would release the grand jury information for an impeachment hearing.
80 subpoenas for people and information with zero responses.
How many law suits that have been drawn up have actually been filed with the courts?
Listened to Charley Pierce and Jill Winebank today, no, not on cable TV, and they report that Nadler is itching to impeach, frankly I believe it is getting too late what with summer vacation and all.
Good question for a Constitutional scholar, can Nadler open up an impeachment inquiry without Speaker Pelosi's approval? I am not in favor of him doing that, just curious.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)a case for getting the materials through the process they've set up outside of an impeachment hearing. I've explained in considerable detail more, yet you continue to make the same false argument that impeachment proceedings are the only way to obtain these materials.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212178784
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212159168
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212180453
FYI, Barr didn't say he would release the grand jury materials in an impeachment. He said he wouldn't object to the release. Two different things. He has no legal authority to release the materials without a court order to do so.
But it is amusing to see anyone argue that a court order would somehow produce materials that subpoenas haven't when subpoenas are enforced through court orders.
And there is no Constitutional provision
or House rule prohibiting Nadler from opening an impeachment inquiry without Pelosi's approval.
While I'm sure you don't mean it as a compliment - in fact, probably just the opposite - I appreciate you highlighting the fact that I am indeed a constitutional scholar as well as an expert on congressional operations and the federal Rules of Criminal and Civil Procedure.
watoos
(7,142 posts)If Barr requested the court to release the grand jury info the court would release it.
Once again, you are well aware that a court is much more likely to release the grand jury information to a judicial committee than to a legislative committee. A subpoena from a judicial committee carries more weight with the court than a subpoena from a legislative committee, but you are aware of that.
I hope you don't get mad at this, but, I watched Nicolle on Tuesday and she had Claire McCaskell on her show. Honest to god, McCaskell stated arguments against impeachment word for word the same as you have. Is Claire McCaskell a twin of yours separated at birth? I mean that as a compliment. Then again with the internet you may be Claire McCaskell?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The court won't release the materials just because Barr says so. That's not how it works. The standard the court uses for releasing the materials is not based solely on whether the Attorney General agrees.
And your lecture about "legislative committee" vs. "judicial committee" is interesting but the distinction is irrelevant in this instance since the issue is not whether the request is being made by a "judicial committee" or a "legislative committee." Here it's being made "preliminary to impeachment" which has the exact same legal weight and standing as a "judicial proceeding" under the applicable rule. There is no distinction between the two and because the House has defined these hearings as a precurser to potential impeachment prioceedings, the Judiciary Committee has the same standing and authority to obtain the materials now as it would of it were conducting an official impeachment inquiry.
And considering Claire McGaskill is a former prosecutor and US Senator, it's not surprising that she and I would say the same thing about how the law works.
And FYI, I'm not arguing "against impeachment" - just giving the benefit of my legal knowledge and experience to people interested in better understanding how the law works so they're not misled by laypeople who continually misinterpret and misstate the law applicable to impeachment.
gordianot
(15,226 posts)Surprise would be shocking.
The_Counsel
(1,660 posts)I am not "bashing Robert Mueller," I AM bashing this administration that is doing everything in its power to thwart an investigation--despite that action in itself being an impeachable offense.
Usually.
rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)they dry in this humidity there should be an answer to your question.
The_Counsel
(1,660 posts)rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)marble falls
(56,371 posts)Peter Strzok ripped Rep. Trey Gowdy to shreds!
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Certainly need a hell of a lot more fire like that!
marble falls
(56,371 posts)thing is even better. The image of a dejected Gowdy at the end of it was priceless.
I think Mueller will be as effective even if less fiery if the GOP try to go after him.
You can bet Barr is sweating bullets.
Leghorn21
(13,520 posts)marble falls
(56,371 posts)Cetacea
(7,367 posts)lostnfound
(16,139 posts)Do we EVER hear admonitions towards any republicans veering too far RIGHT?
Republicans dont veer. They march, they move, they push.
Only Democrats veer, or else they shift, pull and sometimes careen. The image in the mind created by this diction (choice of words) is of a reckless driver.
The TV machine is fretting about Trump showcasing just how far left the Democratic Party has shifted. Far, far to the left.
There is no far too right and certainly no far, far to the right.
Well I think Mitch McConnell has gone too far Turtle. He has gone far, far turtle and him and his other turtles are going to cause us all to veer into the turtle pond and be covered in turtle pond scum. Oh wait, theyve already gotten us there. Heres pond scum in the White House, oozing over its balcony and down the streets to the pond in front of the Lincoln Memorial where there was a very tiny crowd out in the rain on the Fourth of July.
Takket
(21,425 posts)It is expected of the GOP so no one assigns them any responsibility for doing anything about it.
Grins
(7,134 posts)...my fear is Democrats will be totally ineffective.
The format is wrong. The D's should do what was done during Watergate: ONE attorney, not a member of Congress, does ALL the questioning in a single, planned and coordinated attack designed to bring out all the dirt. Just as they would do if this was taking place in a courtroom in front of a jury.
Where is our Sam Dash, or John Doar, in this crowd?
Instead, we are going to get a mish-mash from the Reich and the left with each questioner trying to make the front page of the NY Times with the "Gotcha!" question of the century. For the voters back home.
I have very little confidence in tomorrow's hearing.
rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Crazy 5 min 5 min routine
watoos
(7,142 posts)so my hopes for good questioning has been raised.
Baltimike
(4,126 posts)gulliver
(13,142 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,581 posts)His questioning will be worth the cost of admission alone. I sincerely expect to see Mueller frequently glance at the ceiling during his turn.
Vinca
(50,172 posts)ck4829
(34,977 posts)democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Total ass rethuglicons must protect their lying leader.