Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
There is a possibility Mueller will feel betrayed by Barr. It's slim but not zero.
Click to expand...
This is the only convincing argument I've heard in this thread that could explain Mueller changing his answer. Although, Mueller could have simply gone public on his own by now if that had happened. Or he could have volunteered to testify earlier, he actually resisted testifying.

He's been steady on the idea that his report speaks for itself. We're going to get a walk through of the report tomorrow would be my bet.
 
Nailing Mueller on people's conduct in Trump's orbit, especially his family, might get the Donald sufficiently pissed off to do something stupid
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
This is the only convincing argument I've heard in this thread that could explain Mueller changing his answer. Although, Mueller could have simply gone public on his own by now if that had happened. Or he could have volunteered to testify earlier, he actually resisted testifying.

He's been steady on the idea that his report speaks for itself. We're going to get a walk through of the report tomorrow would be my bet.
Click to expand...

I honestly think that if he were going to change any answer he wouldn't have reached out to the DOJ on 7/10 to get guidance on what he can and can't say. They then told him to stick to only the public portions of the report, and under no circumstances can he disclose anything that isn't in that report.

We're going to get the same "canned" answer responses he gave in his press release. I'm fully convinced we will learn nothing new.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
We're going to get a walk through of the report tomorrow would be my bet.
Click to expand...

Is that a bad thing, though?
Considering the number of people who have no clue whatsoever what the report actually says?

Personally I never expected the Mueller testimony to come to much...it's not for exposing new information, it's for publicising what his report says to a wider audience.
 
Tolls said:
Is that a bad thing, though?
Considering the number of people who have no clue whatsoever what the report actually says?

Personally I never expected the Mueller testimony to come to much...it's not for exposing new information, it's for publicising what his report says to a wider audience.
Click to expand...
Never said it was a bad thing. I expect the same thing you do apparently.
 
Tolls said:
Is that a bad thing, though?
Considering the number of people who have no clue whatsoever what the report actually says?
Click to expand...

The people that are clueless about the report are going to get their news from the same sources that have failed to give them clues up to this point. Mueller taking the stand isn't going to change that.

Tolls said:
Personally I never expected the Mueller testimony to come to much...it's not for exposing new information, it's for publicising what his report says to a wider audience.
Click to expand...

Which is really where we differ on this point. This is providing Trump an opportunity to say, "These Dems won't let this go, even after they found nothing". Which his base will believe 100%. Mueller is going to recap the report, which has been available for months now, and Faux News and other conservative outlets will cover the same stuff from it they did the first time, and ignore the rest.

I know it's depressing but I really don't think this helps anyone from the Left. While at the same time I don't see it hurting anyone on the Right.
 
plague311 said:
The people that are clueless about the report are going to get their news from the same sources that have failed to give them clues up to this point. Mueller taking the stand isn't going to change that.



Which is really where we differ on this point. This is providing Trump an opportunity to say, "These Dems won't let this go, even after they found nothing". Which his base will believe 100%. Mueller is going to recap the report, which has been available for months now, and Faux News and other conservative outlets will cover the same stuff from it they did the first time, and ignore the rest.

I know it's depressing but I really don't think this helps anyone from the Left. While at the same time I don't see it hurting anyone on the Right.
Click to expand...

I'm personally wondering how compelling the whole "This gives Trump the opportunity" argument is.

Sure, some things might be particular gifts to Trump's strategy, but like any troll, he has an opportunity from almost any engagement. And because he is the President, non-engagement isn't an option.

If they dropped any mention of Mueller and moved on to something else, this gives Trump the opportunity to say
"Remember when the crooked dems were waving around the fraudulent Mueller thing and pretending it showed wrongdoing? They stopped mentioning that, huh, gotta move onto a new way to undermine your favorite President!"
Click to expand...

The idea that focusing on this clear evidence of wrongdoing is a liability is his invention, and a tenuous one at that.
 
plague311 said:
Which is really where we differ on this point. This is providing Trump an opportunity to say, "These Dems won't let this go, even after they found nothing". Which his base will believe 100%. Mueller is going to recap the report, which has been available for months now, and Faux News and other conservative outlets will cover the same stuff from it they did the first time, and ignore the rest.
Click to expand...

And his base are utterly irrelevant in this.
They'll support him whatsoever.

It's everyone else. And yes, most of the people haven't hear what's in the report.
We have interviews with people surprised that the report said something other than what Trump has said.

Airing this stuff is not a bad thing.
 
Cavemonster said:
I'm personally wondering how compelling the whole "This gives Trump the opportunity" argument is.

Sure, some things might be particular gifts to Trump's strategy, but like any troll, he has an opportunity from almost any engagement. And because he is the President, non-engagement isn't an option.
Click to expand...

If the American public were going to get something new, I'd say you're right. We already know we aren't going to since Mueller asked the DOJ what he could say and the DOJ told him he could only say the things that are public knowledge. This is literally just a rehash of stuff that's already happened.

Cavemonster said:
If they dropped any mention of Mueller and moved on to something else, this gives Trump the opportunity to say

The idea that focusing on this clear evidence of wrongdoing is a liability is his invention, and a tenuous one at that.
Click to expand...

I won't argue with that at all, but just because it's his invention doesn't mean it isn't partially true or that it won't convince people.

Yes, he did something wrong. We're talking about a President who has broken a myriad of laws and has suffered no consequences. Campaign finance, paying off fines, even clear misconduct regarding investigations into the Trump University.

And? As bad as it sucks to say, it really doesn't appear anyone in government or in a position to do anything about it really gives a ****.
 
Tolls said:
It's everyone else. And yes, most of the people haven't hear what's in the report.We have interviews with people surprised that the report said something other than what Trump has said.

Airing this stuff is not a bad thing.
Click to expand...

That's my point. If they haven't heard it by now, it's because they either don't care, listen to news that only covers one side, or they just don't want to know what's in it. None of that is going to change with this testimony. The only difference is they'll have soundbytes of Mueller saying stuff instead of quotes from the report. Both sides of the news aisle will.
 
If only :rolleyes: the Dem committee members would check their egos at the door:

If recent history is any guide, Robert Mueller’s much-anticipated Capitol Hill appearance on Wednesday will fizzle into a mix of political grandstanding by the questioners and frustratingly narrow answers from the star witness. Congress's biggest public chance to highlight the links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the president's acts of obstruction, will become a chance for members to showcase their wit, score politcial points and maybe even go viral with a dramatic exchange. This one was originally scheduled for last week, and a main reason for its delay is that the junior members of the Judiciary committee wouldn’t have enough time to get their own questions in.

So far, the solution has been to expand the hearing time. Here’s a better one: None of the members should ask the questions at all.

Their expert staffers should ask all the questions—not just to resolve the battle of egos, but to give Congress its only chance to make any real progress on the issue.
Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/22/congress-robert-mueller-hearing-227415
 
Tolls said:
And his base are utterly irrelevant in this.
They'll support him whatsoever.

It's everyone else. And yes, most of the people haven't hear what's in the report.
We have interviews with people surprised that the report said something other than what Trump has said.

Airing this stuff is not a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I believe it was one of the people involved in Watergate talking about the public perception of Nixon and how it was what was televised that really altered the public's perception of him who said "Americans don't read books, they wait for the TV show".
 
Last edited:
The best chance for Dems is that the Republicans will embarrass themselves and Trump with stupid questions they don't really want the answer to.
 
One workable (IMO) strategy for the Democrats would be to NOT make it directly about Trump. Instead, focus on Russian interference in our election, which was a significant chunk of the report.
"Do you feel that the sort of interference that you found represents a threat to this country?"
"In your opinion, what steps should Congress take to mitigate this threat?"

Maybe, after a while, bring in Trump but don't go straight for collusion. More like,
"Did this Russian interference favor one candidate?"
"Is such support legal under US law?"
"Was the Trump campaign aware of the Russian support?"
"Did you find evidence that the Trump campaign discouraged such support?"

. . and just leave it there. Go back to discussing specific actions to reduce the risk of foreign interference in our elections.
 
dasmiller said:
One workable (IMO) strategy for the Democrats would be to NOT make it directly about Trump. Instead, focus on Russian interference in our election, which was a significant chunk of the report.
"Do you feel that the sort of interference that you found represents a threat to this country?"
"In your opinion, what steps should Congress take to mitigate this threat?"

Maybe, after a while, bring in Trump but don't go straight for collusion. More like,
"Did this Russian interference favor one candidate?"
"Is such support legal under US law?"
"Was the Trump campaign aware of the Russian support?"
"Did you find evidence that the Trump campaign discouraged such support?"

. . and just leave it there. Go back to discussing specific actions to reduce the risk of foreign interference in our elections.
Click to expand...

I agree. That would allow them to look like they aren't being petty about this and focus on the facts at hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom