Octopus Overlords

The Federalist's take today:

If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement...

...There’s no longer any doubt about who Robert Mueller is or why he conducted himself the way he did. As abominable as his press conference was, we should in many ways be thankful that Mueller so willingly displayed for all to see his disdain for basic rules of prosecutorial conduct, his total lack of self-awareness, and his naked desire to stick it to Trump.

Who funds The Federalist?

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 3:49 pm The Federalist's take today:

If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement...

...There’s no longer any doubt about who Robert Mueller is or why he conducted himself the way he did. As abominable as his press conference was, we should in many ways be thankful that Mueller so willingly displayed for all to see his disdain for basic rules of prosecutorial conduct, his total lack of self-awareness, and his naked desire to stick it to Trump.

Doddering? Really? All I see is some faux high brow Trumpaloo bullying. If things ever go back to normal, the "conservatives" who carried water like these chumps deserve to be cast into the wilderness. Maybe literally. They can go build their market utopia in the woods somewhere.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 3:49 pm The Federalist's take today:

If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement...

...There’s no longer any doubt about who Robert Mueller is or why he conducted himself the way he did. As abominable as his press conference was, we should in many ways be thankful that Mueller so willingly displayed for all to see his disdain for basic rules of prosecutorial conduct, his total lack of self-awareness, and his naked desire to stick it to Trump.

No doubt they were even more upset by Comey's press conference in 2016.

Fox is suffering a complete breakdown in message discipline today.

Their pundits keep alternating between "Mueller reiterated total exoneration" and "Mueller's statement was Deep State treason!"

Holman wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 7:08 pm Fox is suffering a complete breakdown in message discipline today.

Their pundits keep alternating between "Mueller reiterated total exoneration" and "Mueller's statement was Deep State treason!"

the doublethink is working just as planned. The ministry for truth needs to make sure that for those that one truth doesn't reach, the other truth must suffice.

Wow, Trump just totally slammed Mueller as a completely conflicted ego-bruised man who has had it out for him since day 1.

When asked if Russia got Trump elected..... Ohh boy! did that piss Trump off. He knows it. It kills him inside every day.

LOL

the quotes from this are going to be great.

"To me it's a dirty word. Impeachment is a dirty, filthy, disgusting word, and it has nothing to do with me"


lol

and I'm now remembering this is reality...
I'm not laughing any more.

sucks.

Trump slipped this morning and said Russia helped get him elected. However, that's ok because he had nothing to do with it.

Mueller gave a press appearance to reiterate that, despite a huge amount of evidence detailed in the report, DOJ policy forbids indicting a sitting president, which it very clearly does.

Today, after Mueller has resigned, Barr is out there saying "Nah, he could have pushed charges but didn't, therefore NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, DOJ is not a [dick tone]ADJUNCT TO CONGRESS[/dick tone]."



Fuck Trump and all his fucking lying toadies.

Impeach. Impeach. Impeach.

What really pisses me off is right above your text. CBS uses the fucking lie in the headline. Of course, they lie. Every institution in the country apparently bends over backward to give them an incentive to do it or otherwise help them.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 6:13 pm What really pisses me off is right above your text. CBS uses the fucking lie in the headline. Of course, they lie. Every institution in the country apparently bends over backward to give them an incentive to do it or otherwise help them.

But of course, Barr's smart enough to not outright lie, but rather to intentionally strongly mislead. Because it is true that Mueller could have reached a conclusion on obstruction. Both in the personal "do I think it happened?" sense (which Mueller almost certainly did), and in the sense that Mueller could have directly written "The President committed obstruction of justice, and the only reason that we didn't charge him is because of DOJ policy as to a sitting president."

Instead Mueller said, "DOJ policy does not allow for the charging of a sitting president, and we were bound by that policy" "we didn't reach a formal conclusion on obstruction of justice" and "if we reached the conclusion that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so." He's putting those out and implicitly saying "connect the fucking dots you goddamn morons", but he's not willing to formally draw a line connecting them because that would essentially be formally accusing the president of a crime (which he thinks he can't do). Barr is taking advantage of that and connecting the dots in a crazy way that serves the President, as "he chose not to draw a formal conclusion on whether the President committed obstruction, therefore he essentially found the President innocent".

It's basically lying, but it's the way that white color criminals lie, by putting together half-truths and self-serving conclusions but avoiding falsifiable statements of hard fact.

malchior wrote:Trump slipped this morning and said Russia helped get him elected. However, that's ok because he had nothing to do with it.

As Pelosi keeps building up the foundation, expect more mistakes like this as the pressure builds.

The danger, of course, is that the very stable genius will completely lose it in areas other than Twitter.

I 100% get the angle that Mueller is coming from in this and it frustrates me because he's clearly one of 'the good guys' and what he has to say is very influential in America and with the electorate. Maybe he could say 'yeah I think he committed a crime but couldn't charge him based on bullshit, err DOJ policy' now that he's a private citizen?? That's my hope but I fear Mueller has too much respect for the system to do that. But I'll submit that in addition to the American people failing themselves by electing the ppl we have elected over the last 50 years, the system is clearly failing us as well and when that's true you have to break some rules to get things fixed. So say what's on your mind Mueller, please!

I do think the pressure has gone up to begin impeachment hearings but my hope is that it's because the idea is beginning to resonate more in the people and not just on the Hill. Last poll I saw still said something like 56% were opposed to impeachment..maybe in another poll next week that's down to 50%? I hope.. Lots of hoping in this post. I believe it's been said before that's not a strategy.

Well, we wanted a professional who doesn't play politics heading the investigation. That's what we got. Now, if someone could just get him drunk enough to let his professionalism slip, just a tiny bit, for one interview.

When the Watergate impeachment hearings began public support for them was in the teens. By the time Nixon resigned support was in the 70s. Luckily for the people in that era the politicians then weren't afraid of standing up for the nation. Damn the odds and polls. It was about what was right. It is beginning to appear that we are not so lucky.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 1:10 pm When the Watergate impeachment hearings began public support for them was in the teens. By the time Nixon resigned support was in the 70s. Luckily for the people in that era the politicians then weren't afraid of standing up for the nation. Damn the odds and polls. It was about what was right. It is beginning to appear that we are not so lucky.

Yeah, but I think there are pretty material differences between then and now in terms of what the public knew about the underlying conduct at the edge of impeachment proceedings, and in the state of the media (e.g., no conservative media echo-chamber). Like, a TON of stuff has come out already, such that the big bombshells in the Mueller report were really already known beforehand, and the big bombshells have only mildly impacted Trump's approval ratings.

So yeah sure, it's *possible* that impeachment hearings would move the needle and suddenly removal would start polling in the 60s or 70s. But is it likely? I really don't think so.

I'm fine with starting impeachment proceedings (especially after what Mueller said). But I just don't think we should be under any illusions that they're likely to succeed in removing Trump - I'd say that there's about a 1% chance *at best*.

During Watergate, we didn't have a political party whose electorate had redefined their whole identities around Nixon being right, to whom him being wrong represented such a profound admission of personal failure.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 1:17 pm During Watergate, we didn't have a political party whose electorate had redefined their whole identities around Nixon being right, to whom him being wrong represented such a profound admission of personal failure.

Well, we did, but they didn't have a platform for it, and saner heads prevailed.

It took decades for the racist South to coalesce under a new banner.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 1:16 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 1:10 pm When the Watergate impeachment hearings began public support for them was in the teens. By the time Nixon resigned support was in the 70s. Luckily for the people in that era the politicians then weren't afraid of standing up for the nation. Damn the odds and polls. It was about what was right. It is beginning to appear that we are not so lucky.

Yeah, but I think there are pretty material differences between then and now in terms of what the public knew about the underlying conduct at the edge of impeachment proceedings, and in the state of the media (e.g., no conservative media echo-chamber). Like, a TON of stuff has come out already, such that the big bombshells in the Mueller report were really already known beforehand, and the big bombshells have only mildly impacted Trump's approval ratings.

So yeah sure, it's *possible* that impeachment hearings would move the needle and suddenly removal would start polling in the 60s or 70s. But is it likely? I really don't think so.

I'm fine with starting impeachment proceedings (especially after what Mueller said). But I just don't think we should be under any illusions that they're likely to succeed in removing Trump - I'd say that there's about a 1% chance *at best*.

I believe impeachment is a congressional duty. The Mueller Report makes a solid case for it (even redacted), and obstruction is not the only offense to consider. Given the facts we know--and impeachment begins with investigations that will surely reveal further offenses--I don't see how it's avoidable. The House shouldn't ignore what's in front of them.

I know the Senate won't convict. But that's a different question.

I find it hard to believe (I am still an optimist, perhaps stupidly) that many Americans who already disapprove of Trump will watch the House lay bare the case on TV for months and then let a Mitch McConnell power-play persuade them that they should stay home on election day. As for Republican turnout, I'm not sure there's a lot more of it to be gained. The cultists will vote regardless.

We have a criminal president, and the House must do its duty even if the Senate won't.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 4:09 pm I find it hard to believe (I am still an optimist, perhaps stupidly) that many Americans who already disapprove of Trump will watch the House lay bare the case on TV for months and then let a Mitch McConnell power-play persuade them that they should stay home on election day.

Every time I feel hopeful or think something might be done, I'm reminded that a significant number of Americans approved McConnell's blocking of Garland and only want more conservative judges on the bench, because America. That right there should have been the alarm - McConnell's refusal to hold a hearing. I absolutely believe getting away with that emboldened him (and the GOP) and there's no going back now. Procedure? Rules? Protocol? Nope. Try and stop us - that's the attitude (and it's working).

I want to believe process will prevail - truly. But it's getting difficult to think other. Mainly depressing, but also difficult. I'm left to believe that the average voter doesn't care about political accountability. Instead, it's a simple "Does this impact me directly? No? Don't care."

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 4:21 pm I'm left to believe that the average voter doesn't care about political accountability. Instead, it's a simple "Does this impact me directly? No? Don't care."

... And then Ben Franklin says. He says. Get this. "A republic, if you can keep it."

I spoke with someone today who called Trump and the Mueller Report "entertainment."

Honest question:

How much control does McConnell actually have over a Senate trial?

From what I've read, the Senate holds a trial when the House tells it too. This might be the only moment McConnell can affect--I suppose he could simply (and plainly unconstitutionally) refuse to begin the proceeding. But then that itself would become the story, and that's hardly an exoneration.

When the trial begins, it is presided over not by McConnell but by John Roberts. That would seem to preclude McConnell just bolting for an up-or-down vote. Members of the House appointed by the Pelosi (or by House vote?) serve as the equivalent of prosecutors, and Trump would appear as a defendant with his own lawyers.

As far as I can tell, the senators are a jury, which gives them little room for grand-standing or diversionary tactics. (Lindsey Graham doesn't get to speak.) The trial would unfold as Pelosi's managers (Nadler, Schiff?) vs Trump's legal goons (Giuliani??) in a courtroom setting, complete with cross-examination of witnesses by both sides (Cohen, Flynn, DonJr, Stone, etc).

These aren't at all good optics for Trump, and it's not something McConnell can run/ruin like a Senate vote.

If you are trying to turn me on, it’s working.

He will probably come up with some 18th century procedural mumbo jumbo that nobody will understand, but the Republican cunts will just vote Aye.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 5:12 pm These aren't at all good optics for Trump, and it's not something McConnell can run/ruin like a Senate vote.

He paid a lawyer to take care of a porn star that he raw-dogged while his third wife was pregnant with their child. Optics? No one apparently cares a single bit.

Mitch McConnell is an oozing hemorrhoid on our political foundation as a country. He should have been pilloried for not holding a confirmation hearing for Garland but for whatever reason the democrats just shrugged their shoulders and gave him a pass. We're now a hair-width away from President Truck Nutz getting a third Supreme Court Justice nomination. The damage he's done over the last two years is insane. The damage his other two nominations are going to do for generations is unfathomable. A third?

Goddammit, where's the scotch?

Holman wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 5:12 pm Honest question:

How much control does McConnell actually have over a Senate trial?

From what I've read, the Senate holds a trial when the House tells it too. This might be the only moment McConnell can affect--I suppose he could simply (and plainly unconstitutionally) refuse to begin the proceeding. But then that itself would become the story, and that's hardly an exoneration.

When the trial begins, it is presided over not by McConnell but by John Roberts. That would seem to preclude McConnell just bolting for an up-or-down vote. Members of the House appointed by the Pelosi (or by House vote?) serve as the equivalent of prosecutors, and Trump would appear as a defendant with his own lawyers.

As far as I can tell, the senators are a jury, which gives them little room for grand-standing or diversionary tactics. (Lindsey Graham doesn't get to speak.) The trial would unfold as Pelosi's managers (Nadler, Schiff?) vs Trump's legal goons (Giuliani??) in a courtroom setting, complete with cross-examination of witnesses by both sides (Cohen, Flynn, DonJr, Stone, etc).

These aren't at all good optics for Trump, and it's not something McConnell can run/ruin like a Senate vote.

But none of that matters. This isn't going to encourage more Democrats to come out, they are already fired up. The only thing this will do is fire up Trump's base, just as Clinton's impeachment fired up his base. They have proven immune to facts, no matter how bad they are for Trump - they believer him over everything else. The election of 2020 is far more important than an impeachment trial that will result in Trump being acquitted and his base fired up. There is no upside to impeachment, and a lot of potential downside.

So if facts don't matter, how do you win the election? Negative campaigning isn't going to work, according to the facts don't matter position. So... suppress republican votes? I mean, you're saying business as usual for 2020 as far as I can tell, because. Ok. Good luck. We're all rooting for you.

The upside is not setting the precedent of 'the President can get away with anything as long as he makes the response politically inconvenient.' We can't do much to Trump. What we can do, though, we have to do.

Grifman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:12 am
But none of that matters. This isn't going to encourage more Democrats to come out, they are already fired up. The only thing this will do is fire up Trump's base, just as Clinton's impeachment fired up his base. They have proven immune to facts, no matter how bad they are for Trump - they believer him over everything else. The election of 2020 is far more important than an impeachment trial that will result in Trump being acquitted and his base fired up. There is no upside to impeachment, and a lot of potential downside.

What are you talking about? Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998 and narrowly acquitted by the Senate in February 1999. George W Bush won the election the very next year, and didn't lose his House majority until the midterm elections in his second term. That doesn't sound like impeachment was a big setback for the Republicans to me.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:18 am So if facts don't matter, how do you win the election? Negative campaigning isn't going to work, according to the facts don't matter position. So... suppress republican votes? I mean, you're saying business as usual for 2020 as far as I can tell, because. Ok. Good luck. We're all rooting for you.

Turn out your voters and don't give additional incentive for the opposition voters to turn out. Sorry but that's just the way it is. Trump has a 90% approval rating with Republicans with all that he has done - do you really think anything else is going to change their opinion now?

milo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:51 am

Grifman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:12 am
But none of that matters. This isn't going to encourage more Democrats to come out, they are already fired up. The only thing this will do is fire up Trump's base, just as Clinton's impeachment fired up his base. They have proven immune to facts, no matter how bad they are for Trump - they believer him over everything else. The election of 2020 is far more important than an impeachment trial that will result in Trump being acquitted and his base fired up. There is no upside to impeachment, and a lot of potential downside.

What are you talking about? Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998 and narrowly acquitted by the Senate in February 1999. George W Bush won the election the very next year, and didn't lose his House majority until the midterm elections in his second term. That doesn't sound like impeachment was a big setback for the Republicans to me.

Clinton wasn't running for re-election as Trump will be. Impeachment boosted Democrats opinion of Clinton, like impeachment would do so for Trump. They already have a persecution complex, there's no reason to give them more incentive to turn out in 2020.

Grifman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:12 am
But none of that matters. This isn't going to encourage more Democrats to come out, they are already fired up. The only thing this will do is fire up Trump's base, just as Clinton's impeachment fired up his base. They have proven immune to facts, no matter how bad they are for Trump - they believer him over everything else. The election of 2020 is far more important than an impeachment trial that will result in Trump being acquitted and his base fired up. There is no upside to impeachment, and a lot of potential downside.

I think you'll disagree, but I believe that an impeachment inquiry will bring all the crimes detailed in the Mueller Report (and more than those) into the light in ways that no other process can do.

Clinton is a bad example because the case was so limited. People rightly concluded that impeachment was GOP overreach. There really wasn't much to base it on.

That's not the case here. Done right, a Trump impeachment inquiry will be a true reckoning with Trump's obstruction, secret dealings, official lies, financial crimes, and who knows what else. I don't think even the currently impeachment-averse feel that there's no There there.

Mueller's eight-minute TV appearance did more to raise awareness of Trump's obstruction than his 450 printed pages did. Even half the media seemed surprised at what he said.

Imagine what weeks and weeks of hearings would do.

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:33 am I think you'll disagree, but I believe that an impeachment inquiry will bring all the crimes detailed in the Mueller Report (and more than those) into the light in ways that no other process can do.

I'm still not convinced that matters any more. Given the evidence already in play, anyone who is inclined to believe that crimes were committed already believes so at this point. For the undecided or the MAGA's, all Trump has to do is scream "FAKE NEWS", and they'll will simply nod in agreement. Not sure how additional information would change that dynamic.

Imagine what weeks and weeks of hearings would do.

Turn the entire thing into a drone of background noise that people will eventually tune out, most likely.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:01 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:33 am I think you'll disagree, but I believe that an impeachment inquiry will bring all the crimes detailed in the Mueller Report (and more than those) into the light in ways that no other process can do.

I'm still not convinced that matters any more. Given the evidence already in play, anyone who is inclined to believe that crimes were committed already believes so at this point. For the undecided or the MAGA's, all Trump has to do is scream "FAKE NEWS", and they'll will simply nod in agreement. Not sure how additional information would change that dynamic.

Disagree. "FAKE NEWS" is for the MAGA, not the undecideds. Trump's disapprovals and the 2018 results suggest this strongly.

Most of the undecideds don't see the news until it becomes a spectacle everyone is talking about. 450-page reports can't do that the way televised hearings can.

Imagine what weeks and weeks of hearings would do.

Turn the entire thing into a drone of background noise that people will eventually tune out, most likely.

Then nothing is to be done?

I'm becoming more convinced that the current stalemate is Pelosi and Nadler doing the equivalent of not blowing the load early. People are pissed off but there are enough democrats calling for impeachment that the anger is focused primarily on leadership.

Meanwhile, public and private hearings with released transcripts are happening every couple days. Public court losses for Trump are beginning to stack. All the indictments and guilty verdicts are cycling back into the news. (Flynn just yesterday was back in the news.) Barr is slightly buckling which gets blown up in coverage.

And we get closer to E-Day.

As the fervor builds, impeachment "should" be inevitable. I think Pelosi and Nadler know this and want to release it when the distance between impeachment hearings and election day is too short for them to cycle through the investigation, non-trial and acquittal.
It would take an act of God for the GOP to find trump guilty. And an acquittal would be bad, especially if there is a long news cycle behind it to magnify the crowing.

If the numbers continue to shift or build momentum it may be sooner rather than later. But I like the current strategy. Don't give Republicans anything to talk about, just keep racking up the stacks of public evidence and news stories. I'm actually curious if dem leadership knew that mueller was going to do the press conference. Was that his concession to agree to a closed door testimony? His rebuttal?


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Grifman wrote:

milo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:51 am

Grifman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:12 am
But none of that matters. This isn't going to encourage more Democrats to come out, they are already fired up. The only thing this will do is fire up Trump's base, just as Clinton's impeachment fired up his base. They have proven immune to facts, no matter how bad they are for Trump - they believer him over everything else. The election of 2020 is far more important than an impeachment trial that will result in Trump being acquitted and his base fired up. There is no upside to impeachment, and a lot of potential downside.

What are you talking about? Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998 and narrowly acquitted by the Senate in February 1999. George W Bush won the election the very next year, and didn't lose his House majority until the midterm elections in his second term. That doesn't sound like impeachment was a big setback for the Republicans to me.

Clinton wasn't running for re-election as Trump will be. Impeachment boosted Democrats opinion of Clinton, like impeachment would do so for Trump. They already have a persecution complex, there's no reason to give them more incentive to turn out in 2020.

I don't see Impeachment boosting Trump. The difference between Clinton and Trump is that the Clinton Impeachment became all about getting Clinton for a BJ.

As long as the democrats keep the focus on what the underlying crimes Trump and associates are accused /guilty of (obstructing investigations into a cover up of Russian and other foreign interference in our elections, as well as other violations of felony laws) then the conservative media bubble should continue to crack.

The ultimate, underlying target of the proceedings needs to include discrediting the lies and misinformation which have enabled this threat to our democratic republic.

As we all know, Trump is the (current, and hopefully last) culmination of the subordination of American values in the GOP to a mindless hatred of all things not serving the GOP, through policy and propaganda.

The Impeachment needs to shine a monstrously bright light on the hideous things the current GOP has been doing to gain and keep power at any cost.

The simple fact is that currently the majority of Americans are opposed to impeachment. You can’t even consider it until you have a majority. To undertake impeachment without a majority of Americans supporting it is political foolishness.