Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
PhantomWolf said:
Why do you think that people who are already disposed to not vote for Trump, would change to supporting him after seeing his crimes laid out and then watching the Republicans refuse to deal with those crimes?
Click to expand...
This is a key point. Trump's base is not 'every Republican.'
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't know. I'm supposing the Senate has some sort of rules about how trials get scheduled, but I don't know if there is some sort of limit, such as "not more than 90 days after" or if it is, "at a time seen fit by the majority leader" or.....I have no idea, really. I assume that it is set by the Majority Leader within guidelines in the rules.
Click to expand...
The Republican majority can change any rule it wants to in the Senate. And has.
 
Meadmaker said:
All those things so many of you are sure are just horrible crimes are things people would look at and shrug their shoulders.
Click to expand...
The mistake you’re making is that those two things are not mutually exclusive.
 
Bob001 said:
This "no collusion" chant obscures the indisputable fact that Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to become President, and the Trump campaign invited Russian help. They didn't have to have secret meetings in garages for us to wonder why Putin wanted Trump to win. Imagine what the right-wing would be saying if Clinton had won with Russia's help. This is the core fact that needs to be explored.
Click to expand...
Trump won with Russia's help. In a recent tweet even he seemed to concede that. What would exploring that core fact look like? His supporters don't care.

ETA: I suppose it could look like a sincere question, if one were sincerely asking: "Do you think it's a big deal that Russia helped Trump win?" Or, slightly softer, that Russia wanted Trump to win? You have to get to a place where there is broad agreement that we don't want foreign governments meddling in our elections. I'm not sure there is any such agreement.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I think the whole swamp needs drained, for real this time. And I don't believe all the Republicans are in on the take. From Bob's link:
Click to expand...
Bob's link said:
Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio is demanding answers after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called for lifting sanctions on Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska — a proposal that was followed by a deal in which the oligarch’s company announced a $200 million investment in a Kentucky aluminum plant.
Click to expand...
It's a Democrat demanding answers. When Republicans start demanding answers I'll perk up.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Why do you think that people who are already disposed to not vote for Trump, would change to supporting him after seeing his crimes laid out and then watching the Republicans refuse to deal with those crimes?
Click to expand...

If they already are disposed not to vote for Trump, not many of them will change their minds. However, you might ask, why would any of them at all change their minds?

First of all, of those people not inclined to vote for Trump some of them would not vote for him ever, ever, ever. Others have varying degrees of dislike. Of those, some of them only have a minor dislike. If their dislike of the Democrats could be increased a bit, it might exceed their dislike for Trump.

I think that when the Democrats lay out Trump's crimes, an awful lot of people will say, "Huh? Those aren't crimes." They'll be upset at the anti-Trump forces who wasted their time.
 
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...ed-learn-about-key-mueller-report-revelations

Cathy Garnaat, a Republican who supported Amash and the president said she was upset about Amash’s position but wanted to hear his reasoning. She said that she will definitely support Trump in 2020 but that Tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the Mueller report didn’t completely exonerate the president.

“I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before,” she said. “I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated.”
 
Meadmaker said:
If they already are disposed not to vote for Trump, not many of them will change their minds. However, you might ask, why would any of them at all change their minds?

First of all, of those people not inclined to vote for Trump some of them would not vote for him ever, ever, ever. Others have varying degrees of dislike. Of those, some of them only have a minor dislike. If their dislike of the Democrats could be increased a bit, it might exceed their dislike for Trump.

I think that when the Democrats lay out Trump's crimes, an awful lot of people will say, "Huh? Those aren't crimes." They'll be upset at the anti-Trump forces who wasted their time.
Click to expand...

I tend to disagree, I think that there are a lot of people who currently think that the Mueller Report exonerated the President, because he says it did, and the AG says it did, and were they to learn what he actually did, they would be disgusted by his behaviour, and I think there are more of them than would think the Democrats were wrong in bringing impeachment proceedings against him.

I think that too many people are trying to equate the current situation to Clinton's Impeachment and not understanding that they are very different things.

I doubt that anyone would consider investigating and denouncing multiple attempts to have an investigation into Russian interference in the General Election shut down, and also multiple attempts to witness tamper in that investigation, a waste of time. And the claims of, "Oh but he can fire people under him" ring very hollow when you consider Nixon's behaviour around that very point.

ETA:

Two more things:

1) If Trump's attempt to get Don McGahn to have Mueller fired was on the up and up, and perfectly legal and acceptable, then why did McGahn refuse to do it and ultimately resign over it?
2) If you don't think that Trump's behaviour is enough to be Impeached, what would it actually take for you to recommend the Impeachment of a President?
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I think that when the Democrats lay out Trump's crimes, an awful lot of people will say, "Huh? Those aren't crimes." They'll be upset at the anti-Trump forces who wasted their time.
Click to expand...

I almost catch a whif of an expression of your own desired outcome...

This same "awful lot of" folk already think Trump has committed no crime. Either because their right wing info bubble has kept them ignorant, or they willingly delude themselves. They're already a baked-in factor that we should expect to remain largely unchanged.

Of the remainder of current Trump supporters who have grey matter between their ears and not cotton, at least some fraction will be moved by the revelation of the multitude of transgressions.
 
I agree with PhantomWolf. There are plenty of people in the Fox bubble that could have different opinions when facts penetrate the bubble.
 
Lurch said:
Of the remainder of current Trump supporters who have grey matter between their ears and not cotton, at least some fraction will be moved by the revelation of the multitude of transgressions.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that there are a lot of Trump supporters that would be moved at this point, but I do think that there are a lot of people that lean to the right and are in the FOX and co bubble enough to be unaware of the facts, and knowing them would push them to a position of "I think he should be Impeached and if he isn't, I'm certainly not going to vote for him or the Republicans again."

I also think that by not impeaching, the Democrats also run the risk of alienating their own base and losing votes there.
 
Last edited:
The actual decision will be made by polls in district for GOP Senators.

Turd Turtle looks awfully vulnerable to a challenger.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't know. I'm supposing the Senate has some sort of rules about how trials get scheduled, but I don't know if there is some sort of limit, such as "not more than 90 days after" or if it is, "at a time seen fit by the majority leader" or.....I have no idea, really. I assume that it is set by the Majority Leader within guidelines in the rules.
Click to expand...


Here's a LawFare article from January discussing the question.

The issues raised and conclusions are much the same as your conjectures.

Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case?

Short answer, if McConnell really wanted to blow the whole thing off, there are ways that he could. If he was willing to take the chance that it wouldn't be political suicide.
 
quadraginta said:
Short answer, if McConnell really wanted to blow the whole thing off, there are ways that he could. If he was willing to take the chance that it wouldn't be political suicide.
Click to expand...
Nothing seems to be political suicide these days. At least not automatically, the way some things were in the past. Especially if one is a "conservative."
 
Minoosh said:
Nothing seems to be political suicide these days. At least not automatically, the way some things were in the past. Especially if one is a "conservative."
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to worry about voters when the elections are rigged in one's favor.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The actual decision will be made by polls in district for GOP Senators.

Turd Turtle looks awfully vulnerable to a challenger.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier I'd be interested in whether he is vulnerable within his own party. Probably not, but I would be mightily heartened if a few resentful GOP senators smell blood and close in for a kill. Not necessarily in relation to an election, but just internecine warfare.

In terms of electoral politics, I'm not sure what it would take to prompt politicians to start hedging their bets on Trump support. Perhaps polls showing declining support among their constituents. I live in a conservative but independent-leaning state whose voters could very well punish Trump sycophants at the polls. Of course, a lot can happen in 17 months, so I'm not making any bold predictions.

I have said before that there might be some Republican senators who are reluctant to go all-in with a whitewash of Trump without knowing exactly what they're whitewashing. Perhaps Trump's determination to stonewall various investigations can be seen as simply standing his ground against a witch hunt. But nobody knows for sure what will be coming out.

It's been said on this thread that many Americans are completely oblivious to the fact that Mueller did not actually exonerate Trump. Maybe that's true but I have my doubts. Voters surprise me sometimes with sensitivities I didn't know existed.
 
tanabear said:
I asked what false belief did Americans have due to a Russian disinformation campaign.
Click to expand...

That is not what you asked. I'm now asking you if you're changing your request.

p.s. I would never accuse our pure, pristine and sacralized intelligence agencies of making up or promoting BS.
Click to expand...

So you accept their conclusions, then? What more is there to say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom