Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

His response "The Dems always cry racist" is bull shit.  What he said was racist.  What happened at that rally was racist.  If he doesn't want to be called a racist, he should stop saying (and doing) racist things.  And if his supporters don't want to be lumped in, they should actually stand up and tell him to shut up, or hold him accountable by not voting for him.

Silence is tacit approval.

This is what I love. (In Jeff Foxworthy's voice:) If you think that people just call everything racist... you might be a racist!

It's time to look in the mirror and take some personal responsibility.

And that's just it:

Trump ran on the whole "everyone is too politically correct and people should be free to say whatever we want to say."

What he meant was (and what Repubs mean when they say they are espousing free speech) is that he want to be able to say any and every gross, disgusting, racist thing he wants to say.....whats in  his heart of hearts...without anyone being able to criticize it.  Because those criticizing it "hate our country and should go back to where they came from".

For all the Repub accusations about liberals needing a safe space...the truth is THEY are the ones who can't handle the opposing points of view.  THEY are the ones that don't want to take responsibility for their words.  THEY are the ones who want to quell free speech. What they mean when they say they want free speech is that THEY WANT to be able to speak freely and everyone who disagrees should be silenced, so they don't have to bear any consequences for what they say.

The party that preached personal responsibility, when the tables get turned, want to take none of it.

They want to be able to goad, taunt, and "bathe in the liberal tears" but don't want to be subjected to the same tone they are bringing to the debate.

The Repubs, right now, are the party of big spending, racism, and hypocrisy. They are not a party with any idea how to lead us forward. And the voters supporting that party seem unable (or unwilling) to see that the emperor has no clothes (ye gods that mental picture makes me want to hurl).

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Well, the Mueller show was political theater that was painful to watch. I heard much of it on the radio when I was on the road. 

A few takeaways -
 
As stated, Mueller stuck to his report like he said he would & did not give any new info much to the disappointment of all the members of congress on both sides of the aisle that questioned him. At least the ones who actually asked questions and didn't grandstand.  Dems wanted a bombshell they could use to hit Trump with and didn't get one.  GOP reps wanted more of the backstory on the origins of the probe and they didn't get it.

And we did learn that Mueller is showing his age as far as his confusion (didn't know what was in his own report at times) and asked for questions to be repeated about a frillion times.  I get why he did not want to do this.
 

[tim_m]

Well, the Mueller show was political theater that was painful to watch. I heard much of it on the radio when I was on the road. 

A few takeaways -
 
As stated, Mueller stuck to his report like he said he would & did not give any new info much to the disappointment of all the members of congress on both sides of the aisle that questioned him. At least the ones who actually asked questions and didn't grandstand.  Dems wanted a bombshell they could use to hit Trump with and didn't get one.  GOP reps wanted more of the backstory on the origins of the probe and they didn't get it.

And we did learn that Mueller is showing his age as far as his confusion (didn't know what was in his own report at times) and asked for questions to be repeated about a frillion times.  I get why he did not want to do this.
 

They're were a few things we did find out. Cnn mentioned it durng the first break. I didn't get to see it all unfortunately. I caught much of the first 3 hours. He basically said what we knew, he didn't exonerate Trump. He had insufficient evidence tying Trump to any kinda conspiracy with Russia. He found evidence of multiple cases of Trump trying impede the investigation, aka obstruction, witness tampering and telling McGann to to give false statements. For which he refused. Trump clearly met the 3 criteria for obstructing, Mueller answered generally yes in most of these questions. As well as saying i don't necessarily subscribe to your characterization. I did not take that to mean Trump is not guilty. I think what Mueller was found there was simply sticking to the report and the determination from the start that he himself would not say absolutely the president is guilty. I believe that to be the case because of the olc ruling that you' can't indict a sitting president. Which is why he couldn't say he's guilty. That would be unfair to the president because it would not allow him to defend himself properly. As for what the Republicans pressed him on about the Steele dossier, i would like those answers too. He did say the DOJ was investigating why some people involved in that gave false statements and hopefully we get answers. I'm just speculating but perhaps some of if not all of those answers. are in the redaction. Oh and as far as Mueller having trouble remembering some of his report, in fairness it's over 400 pages. I don't think anyone could fully memorize that much info.

[tim_m]

Another bad thing for the president today. His poll numbers are slipping again among the more reliable ones. His approval is now back to 40-42%.

[PermissionToLand]

Q: "You believe that you could charge the president with obstruction of justice after he leaves office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

[pilferk]

And we did learn that Mueller is showing his age as far as his confusion (didn't know what was in his own report at times) and asked for questions to be repeated about a frillion times.  I get why he did not want to do this.
 

Again, that's the conservative media spin on it.  The problem with that spin is, except for one instance where he was hunting for the word "conspiracy" and it wouldn't come, there didn't seem to be any actual confusion in those events.  They seemed pretty calculated to me.

The truth is probably more likely that he was being VERY careful.  Like he was VERY careful in the way the language of the report was crafted.  And he didn't want to be "lead" to say something that wasn't specifically said in the report.  It's 400 pages of carefully crafted language (not all of which he wrote) and I'm wasn't surprised he wanted a specific reference on the more hotly debated sections.  I know I would.

Same thing with the questions.  Given his stated (and the DOJ's mandate) that he stay within the four corners of the report EXACTLY, he wanted to be VERY sure he understood what was being asked.  There were some oddly worded questions in there, and, quite frankly, some attempts at "gotchas" that would have made him stray from the mandate, above.

I thought he appeared pretty confident in his testimony and looked pretty credible.  Certainly way more credible than the guy having the manic meltdown, via tweet storm, that was the subject of the investigation.

I'd also add...if you think "I don't recall" and not remembering specifics is Mueller "showing his age", you might want to look at the guy you voted for.  It seems he used VERY similar responses....but concerning his own actions....when answering written questions (because he wasn't willing to actually be interviewed) about the very narrow topics he was actually willing to address.

[pilferk]

Q: "You believe that you could charge the president with obstruction of justice after he leaves office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

To be fair, he did clarify in the afternoon session.

He didn't mean HE could charge the president, based on the evidence, because he wasn't going to make that determination.

He meant that ANY president could be charged with a crime, if there was enough evidence, after they leave office.

His answer was meant to address the opinion that a president couldn't be charges while in office, not Trump/Obstruction specifically.

[pilferk]

Another bad thing for the president today. His poll numbers are slipping again among the more reliable ones. His approval is now back to 40-42%.

The jump was pretty artificial, anyway, at least in terms of the aggregate.  It was almost entirely based on Rasmussen jumping to a +2 (52/48) and an outlier ABC poll. 

What I've found interesting is: Every time there is a "negative event"  (like his racist comments), Ras suddenly jumps to an over 50% approval.  And then, as the noise starts to die down, it drops right back down to -2ish.

It's a little odd.

[tim_m]

Q: "You believe that you could charge the president with obstruction of justice after he leaves office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

To be fair, he did clarify in the afternoon session.

He didn't mean HE could charge the president, based on the evidence, because he wasn't going to make that determination.

He meant that ANY president could be charged with a crime, if there was enough evidence, after they leave office.

His answer was meant to address the opinion that a president couldn't be charges while in office, not Trump/Obstruction specifically.

Regardless, we still got plenty of evidence Trump did things that would land the average Joe in jail, including attempting to impede the investigation which would lead to obstruction, we have witness tampering and ordering McGann to falsify documents/statements.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

And we did learn that Mueller is showing his age as far as his confusion (didn't know what was in his own report at times) and asked for questions to be repeated about a frillion times.  I get why he did not want to do this.
 

Again, that's the conservative media spin on it.  The problem with that spin is, except for one instance where he was hunting for the word "conspiracy" and it wouldn't come, there didn't seem to be any actual confusion in those events.  They seemed pretty calculated to me.

The truth is probably more likely that he was being VERY careful.  Like he was VERY careful in the way the language of the report was crafted.  And he didn't want to be "lead" to say something that wasn't specifically said in the report.  It's 400 pages of carefully crafted language (not all of which he wrote) and I'm wasn't surprised he wanted a specific reference on the more hotly debated sections.  I know I would.

Same thing with the questions.  Given his stated (and the DOJ's mandate) that he stay within the four corners of the report EXACTLY, he wanted to be VERY sure he understood what was being asked.  There were some oddly worded questions in there, and, quite frankly, some attempts at "gotchas" that would have made him stray from the mandate, above.

I thought he appeared pretty confident in his testimony and looked pretty credible.  Certainly way more credible than the guy having the manic meltdown, via tweet storm, that was the subject of the investigation.

I'd also add...if you think "I don't recall" and not remembering specifics is Mueller "showing his age", you might want to look at the guy you voted for.  It seems he used VERY similar responses....but concerning his own actions....when answering written questions (because he wasn't willing to actually be interviewed) about the very narrow topics he was actually willing to address.

Here is some ' conservative media spin' from the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/mueller-hearings-performance.html

Mueller’s Labored Performance Was a Departure From His Once-Fabled Stamina

Mr. Mueller hewed to that pattern with House members on Wednesday, brusquely dismissing some questions out of hand and refusing to engage when they tried to bait him into delivering conclusions beyond those in his report.

Nonetheless, he was unmistakably shaky. Roughly 15 times, he asked for a question to be repeated. He repeatedly said, “If it’s from the report, yes, I support it” — a line that seemed to suggest that he did not know what the report actually said. He seemed to struggle to complete his sentences, and not always because he had been interrupted.

[sandman]

Q: "You believe that you could charge the president with obstruction of justice after he leaves office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

FAKE NEWS

[pilferk]

And we did learn that Mueller is showing his age as far as his confusion (didn't know what was in his own report at times) and asked for questions to be repeated about a frillion times.  I get why he did not want to do this.
 

Again, that's the conservative media spin on it.  The problem with that spin is, except for one instance where he was hunting for the word "conspiracy" and it wouldn't come, there didn't seem to be any actual confusion in those events.  They seemed pretty calculated to me.

The truth is probably more likely that he was being VERY careful.  Like he was VERY careful in the way the language of the report was crafted.  And he didn't want to be "lead" to say something that wasn't specifically said in the report.  It's 400 pages of carefully crafted language (not all of which he wrote) and I'm wasn't surprised he wanted a specific reference on the more hotly debated sections.  I know I would.

Same thing with the questions.  Given his stated (and the DOJ's mandate) that he stay within the four corners of the report EXACTLY, he wanted to be VERY sure he understood what was being asked.  There were some oddly worded questions in there, and, quite frankly, some attempts at "gotchas" that would have made him stray from the mandate, above.

I thought he appeared pretty confident in his testimony and looked pretty credible.  Certainly way more credible than the guy having the manic meltdown, via tweet storm, that was the subject of the investigation.

I'd also add...if you think "I don't recall" and not remembering specifics is Mueller "showing his age", you might want to look at the guy you voted for.  It seems he used VERY similar responses....but concerning his own actions....when answering written questions (because he wasn't willing to actually be interviewed) about the very narrow topics he was actually willing to address.

Here is some ' conservative media spin' from the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/mueller-hearings-performance.html

Mueller’s Labored Performance Was a Departure From His Once-Fabled Stamina

Mr. Mueller hewed to that pattern with House members on Wednesday, brusquely dismissing some questions out of hand and refusing to engage when they tried to bait him into delivering conclusions beyond those in his report.

Wow, almost exactly what I said!!

Nonetheless, he was unmistakably shaky. Roughly 15 times, he asked for a question to be repeated. He repeatedly said, “If it’s from the report, yes, I support it” — a line that seemed to suggest that he did not know what the report actually said. He seemed to struggle to complete his sentences, and not always because he had been interrupted.

Amazing how the conservative message gets out, isn't it! I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Repubs are just better at messaging than the Dems are.  We've seen that, again, in the last 24 hours.

As an aside: I thought the Times was FAKE NEWS! Is it or isn't it?

Again, in 7 hours, asking for a repeat of a question 15 times (or twice per hour) doesn't seem unreasonable. Cohen certainly did it, in the same sorts of ratios.  Barr, too (and he knew most of the questions going in).  And in most of those cases, what Mueller was really trying to do was get the person asking to clarify some language. That's not "shaky".  That's cagey.  Saying "IF it's in the reports, I support it" also isn't shaky.  It's smart.  Because it holds the person asking the question responsible if they've rephrased incorrectly, and it means he's not taking responsibility for that persons mistake.  In some cases, he asked for a reference so he could review the language.  He was being VERY careful to stay inside the 4 corners of the report.  Careful isn't shaky.

There were literally 3 times I saw him struggle with completing a sentence.  In all three cases he was searching for a word (ex: conspiracy) and couldn't find it.  I know I do that at least a couple times a day during normal activities.  I think, if they're being honest, most people do the same thing.  He was testifying for 7 hours.  I don't think 3 "word hunts" qualifies as "shaky". 

Go back and watch William Barrs past two appearances.  He has at least as many word hunts in less time.  Did you think he was "shaky"?

Meuller was reserved, conservative, and not at all aggressive.  I know we've all gotten used to seeing combative type hearings.  This was never going to be that.  And if your metric for his performance was, say, Barrs testimonies....that's the problem.

He was not as energetic as he has been in the past, on different topics.  I'd say that's likely related to the fact he a) didn't want to be there and b) wanted to convey a more somber. reserved position given the material.

This whole "Bob Mueller has lost it and looked senile" message is pure conservative spin.

AND, honestly, it isn't and wasn't the point of the hearing yesterday.  It's a distraction.

[pilferk]

Regardless, we still got plenty of evidence Trump did things that would land the average Joe in jail, including attempting to impede the investigation which would lead to obstruction, we have witness tampering and ordering McGann to falsify documents/statements.

Oh, absolutely.

And the exchange happened exactly as PTL described it.

Mueller just clarified what he meant in the afternoon session.  If you missed that, you missed the clarification.

Its still a salient point.  There is a path to remedy, for any crimes committed, after a President leaves office. 

And I think he made it pretty clear, even if you had to read between the lines, that he thinks crimes may have been committed. At least enough so that prosecution (of some sort) should be brought and let the defendant defend their actions.  I think the report gives that impression (fyi: word hunt #1 for the day...couldn't find "impression") too.  He just can't say so, because of the restraints on prosecuting a sitting president.

[sandman]

you also said I attack the character of "all the people on her(e) I perceive to be liberals." this is not true. Jarmo and Tim have very different views than me and the Senator. And I think all 4 of us have very strong beliefs. Yet we are all able to have adult discussions in here, with no insults, and no one constantly trying to make the others look bad.

  Now that is genuinely funny.

Truth is truth hurts, my man.

i'd encourage any of those 3 posters (Jarmo, Tim, Senator) to tell me if they disagree with this sentiment, since they would certainly know better than you.

over the years, we've each brought our opinions strong, and we certainly get our fair share of zingers in, but there's respect among each of us. and I've never gotten a vibe from any of them that there is an attempt to attack any fellow posters. I remember many people in this thread saying things like "good luck, and whatever happens, we're still friends" or something similar.

I can't help but notice you leave out Pilferk who does not engage you because of your trolling behavior.

I pointed out CLEARLY in 2017 when SOME in the anti-Trump crowd took this thread to a lower level of just insulting others. you have carried the torch more recently.

Again, the lowering of the bar was because Trump lowered it with his conduct from day one calling Mexicans rapists. Where is the personal responsibility? You cannot take responsibility for anything, every single time you dodge and whatabout the Democrats.

you started with the personal insults against others in this thread. you're the only one that has regularly had to be warned by Jarmo. you don't realize it, but that speaks volumes about who you are as a human being.

Again, Jarmo warned you three days ago. How many times do I have to remind you? I will be sure to continue. You don't realize it, but that speaks volumes about who you are as a human being.

Let's see, my first comment in this thread was a response to your Trumpist buddy ITAROCKER ridiculing those suffering from depression and addiction and saying they can't have an opinion on politics (hello, Fascism?). Your first comment after that was "don't be a fuckin snowflake bitch and cry about your president". Your first actual reply to one of my comments was simply: "Triggered  ". Yep, clearly you're not a troll! Your next response? "I hope u find a safe place for the weekend so u can deal with your feelings." More trolling with indirect insults. Your parroting of "TDS!" like a broken record or a child who has learned a new word any time somebody disagrees with you? Trolling. Then you proceeded to call me a "grandma" with my "panties in a bunch". You called liberals "sickening" (really civil!), and then replied to me "Settle down, kid. There’s adults in the room."

Shortly after the election, you were posting "I hope you find peace with all of this, in your safe space."

Another trolling attempt shortly after the election: "travel ban back on! 9-0. another clear victory. the winning continues....  "

And of course, it's all part of your trolling tactics that you avoid making blatant and direct personal insults while deliberately trying to get under the skin of others to provoke insults from them, so you can then say "See? They are uncivil." That you think these tactics aren't transparent proves that you aren't as clever as you think you are in employing them. I cannot imagine how awful your life must be that you get pleasure out of trying to wind people up and have not, the in the several years of this thread, realized how pathetic that is.

1) my initial comment you referenced from 2 years ago was not directed at you in any way. shape. or form. you know that. but you mention it here to purposely be misleading.

2) you responded to that post by implying I am a child. the fact that you directly insulted me led me to believe you were triggered. I had been insulted several times during 2017 by other liberals in this thread (as all Trump supporters in this thread were), and just figured for anyone to make it personal must be triggered. What is your opinion on why HTGTH board members stoop to low levels and personally insult fellow members?

3) thank you for admitting I do not make direct and personal insults.

4) you say its MY fault that YOU make personal insults against me, because I get under your skin. rather than play the victim, just take responsibility for your actions.

5) thank you for admitting I get under your skin. 

6) As far as being a troll, call me anything you want. But I post FACTS that are positive about trump, and then provide my view on them, and I get called a troll. Others post negative facts about trump and post their disgust about them….are they trolls too? (serious question.)

7) our arguing about who insulted who is making this boring thread even more unvisitable. How about we just agree not to personally insult each other going forward? (serious question.)

I’ll give you final response if you like. I will read it, but will not respond to it so this BS can end.

[tim_m]

Regardless, we still got plenty of evidence Trump did things that would land the average Joe in jail, including attempting to impede the investigation which would lead to obstruction, we have witness tampering and ordering McGann to falsify documents/statements.

Oh, absolutely.

And the exchange happened exactly as PTL described it.

Mueller just clarified what he meant in the afternoon session.  If you missed that, you missed the clarification.

Its still a salient point.  There is a path to remedy, for any crimes committed, after a President leaves office. 

And I think he made it pretty clear, even if you had to read between the lines, that he thinks crimes may have been committed. At least enough so that prosecution (of some sort) should be brought and let the defendant defend their actions.  I think the report gives that impression (fyi: word hunt #1 for the day...couldn't find "impression") too.  He just can't say so, because of the restraints on prosecuting a sitting president.

I also just love how many Trump defenders are trying to spin it that there can be no obstruction since Mueller did not find prosecutory evidence of conspiracy to steal the election. That is not how the law works. If you interfere in an ongoing investigation even if the investigation ultimately finds the crime was not committed does not mean you are not guilty even if your attempts fail flat. If you interfere with the intent of altering the outcome even if unsuccessfully as Trump was you still attempted to interfere and that is a crime. (example. If i attempted to rob a bank but did not successfully get the money i am still guilty of attempted robbery.)

[pilferk]

I also just love how many Trump defenders are trying to spin it that there can be no obstruction since Mueller did not find prosecutory evidence of conspiracy to steal the election. That is not how the law works. If you interfere in an ongoing investigation even if the investigation ultimately finds the crime was not committed does not mean you are not guilty even if your attempts fail flat. If you interfere with the intent of altering the outcome even if unsuccessfully as Trump was you still attempted to interfere and that is a crime. (example. If i attempted to rob a bank but did not successfully get the money i am still guilty of attempted robbery.)

Here's my take:

If you successfully obstruct an investigation....and the investigators thus can't find sufficient evidence of that crime....how does it make sense that you can't prosecute for obstruction because you can't prove the initial crime was committed.  That's backwards, and circular, logic.

They are two separate entities, in the law, on purpose.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

And we did learn that Mueller is showing his age as far as his confusion (didn't know what was in his own report at times) and asked for questions to be repeated about a frillion times.  I get why he did not want to do this.
 

Again, that's the conservative media spin on it.  The problem with that spin is, except for one instance where he was hunting for the word "conspiracy" and it wouldn't come, there didn't seem to be any actual confusion in those events.  They seemed pretty calculated to me.

The truth is probably more likely that he was being VERY careful.  Like he was VERY careful in the way the language of the report was crafted.  And he didn't want to be "lead" to say something that wasn't specifically said in the report.  It's 400 pages of carefully crafted language (not all of which he wrote) and I'm wasn't surprised he wanted a specific reference on the more hotly debated sections.  I know I would.

Same thing with the questions.  Given his stated (and the DOJ's mandate) that he stay within the four corners of the report EXACTLY, he wanted to be VERY sure he understood what was being asked.  There were some oddly worded questions in there, and, quite frankly, some attempts at "gotchas" that would have made him stray from the mandate, above.

I thought he appeared pretty confident in his testimony and looked pretty credible.  Certainly way more credible than the guy having the manic meltdown, via tweet storm, that was the subject of the investigation.

I'd also add...if you think "I don't recall" and not remembering specifics is Mueller "showing his age", you might want to look at the guy you voted for.  It seems he used VERY similar responses....but concerning his own actions....when answering written questions (because he wasn't willing to actually be interviewed) about the very narrow topics he was actually willing to address.

Here is some ' conservative media spin' from the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/mueller-hearings-performance.html

Mueller’s Labored Performance Was a Departure From His Once-Fabled Stamina

Mr. Mueller hewed to that pattern with House members on Wednesday, brusquely dismissing some questions out of hand and refusing to engage when they tried to bait him into delivering conclusions beyond those in his report.

Wow, almost exactly what I said!!

Nonetheless, he was unmistakably shaky. Roughly 15 times, he asked for a question to be repeated. He repeatedly said, “If it’s from the report, yes, I support it” — a line that seemed to suggest that he did not know what the report actually said. He seemed to struggle to complete his sentences, and not always because he had been interrupted.

Amazing how the conservative message gets out, isn't it! I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Repubs are just better at messaging than the Dems are.  We've seen that, again, in the last 24 hours.

As an aside: I thought the Times was FAKE NEWS! Is it or isn't it?

Again, in 7 hours, asking for a repeat of a question 15 times (or twice per hour) doesn't seem unreasonable. Cohen certainly did it, in the same sorts of ratios.  Barr, too (and he knew most of the questions going in).  And in most of those cases, what Mueller was really trying to do was get the person asking to clarify some language. That's not "shaky".  That's cagey.  Saying "IF it's in the reports, I support it" also isn't shaky.  It's smart.  Because it holds the person asking the question responsible if they've rephrased incorrectly, and it means he's not taking responsibility for that persons mistake.  In some cases, he asked for a reference so he could review the language.  He was being VERY careful to stay inside the 4 corners of the report.  Careful isn't shaky.

There were literally 3 times I saw him struggle with completing a sentence.  In all three cases he was searching for a word (ex: conspiracy) and couldn't find it.  I know I do that at least a couple times a day during normal activities.  I think, if they're being honest, most people do the same thing.  He was testifying for 7 hours.  I don't think 3 "word hunts" qualifies as "shaky". 

Go back and watch William Barrs past two appearances.  He has at least as many word hunts in less time.  Did you think he was "shaky"?

Meuller was reserved, conservative, and not at all aggressive.  I know we've all gotten used to seeing combative type hearings.  This was never going to be that.  And if your metric for his performance was, say, Barrs testimonies....that's the problem.

He was not as energetic as he has been in the past, on different topics.  I'd say that's likely related to the fact he a) didn't want to be there and b) wanted to convey a more somber. reserved position given the material.

This whole "Bob Mueller has lost it and looked senile" message is pure conservative spin.

AND, honestly, it isn't and wasn't the point of the hearing yesterday.  It's a distraction.

It isn't conservative spin to say Mueller's performance wasn't good. Many pundits on the left had the same reaction such as Chuck Todd of NBC.

And Michael Moore (via Twitter):


Michael Moore
✔
@MMFlint

A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions...I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today — All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller — just STFU from now on
34.2K
12:31 PM - Jul 24, 2019

 

[pilferk]

It isn't conservative spin to say Mueller's performance wasn't good. Many pundits on the left had the same reaction such as Chuck Todd of NBC.

And Michael Moore (via Twitter):


Michael Moore
✔
@MMFlint

A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions...I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today — All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller — just STFU from now on
34.2K
12:31 PM - Jul 24, 2019

 

Chuck Todd is a conservative. A moderate/centrist conservative, but a conservative all the same.  I know that blows your mind, but it's true.

Micheal Moore is an idiot.

You're not helping your case here, really.

It's the conservative message. It's the one getting prominent play on conservative Media.  And it's not the most likely explanation. And it's based off a preconceived, conservative, metric for what his performance should have been. In other words, its the message rattling around the conservative echo chamber.  Far more than it is from other news sources.

And we're arguing over a distraction.

If it makes you feel better to think Mueller looked like a doddard, then I'll leave you to it.  Since you can't assail the content of the report (or the hearing), and feel you need to discredit him based on....asking people to repeat some questions?....then have at it!

Edit: Some examples...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/25/graham_mueller_report_in_name_only_special_counsel_was_in_a_weakened_state.html

https://nypost.com/2019/07/24/muellers-testimony-equals-end-of-any-trump-impeachment-talk/

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/does-a-guilty-conscience-explain-muellers-fumbling-testimony/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/25/nolte-robert-mueller-isnt-senile-he-was-a-dirty-cop-forced-to-take-the-witness-stand/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/24/mueller-stymied-own-reports-definition-collusion/

Should I go on?  Practically every conservative news outlet has the same sort of headlines/conjecture on it's front page. Every prominent republican (member of congress or pundit) is conveying the same sort of message.

[PermissionToLand]

Q: "You believe that you could charge the president with obstruction of justice after he leaves office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

FAKE NEWS

DENIAL
 

[PermissionToLand]

Amazing how the conservative message gets out, isn't it! I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Repubs are just better at messaging than the Dems are.  We've seen that, again, in the last 24 hours.

As an aside: I thought the Times was FAKE NEWS! Is it or isn't it?

Again, in 7 hours, asking for a repeat of a question 15 times (or twice per hour) doesn't seem unreasonable. Cohen certainly did it, in the same sorts of ratios.  Barr, too (and he knew most of the questions going in).  And in most of those cases, what Mueller was really trying to do was get the person asking to clarify some language. That's not "shaky".  That's cagey.  Saying "IF it's in the reports, I support it" also isn't shaky.  It's smart.  Because it holds the person asking the question responsible if they've rephrased incorrectly, and it means he's not taking responsibility for that persons mistake.  In some cases, he asked for a reference so he could review the language.  He was being VERY careful to stay inside the 4 corners of the report.  Careful isn't shaky.

There were literally 3 times I saw him struggle with completing a sentence.  In all three cases he was searching for a word (ex: conspiracy) and couldn't find it.  I know I do that at least a couple times a day during normal activities.  I think, if they're being honest, most people do the same thing.  He was testifying for 7 hours.  I don't think 3 "word hunts" qualifies as "shaky". 

Go back and watch William Barrs past two appearances.  He has at least as many word hunts in less time.  Did you think he was "shaky"?

Meuller was reserved, conservative, and not at all aggressive.  I know we've all gotten used to seeing combative type hearings.  This was never going to be that.  And if your metric for his performance was, say, Barrs testimonies....that's the problem.

He was not as energetic as he has been in the past, on different topics.  I'd say that's likely related to the fact he a) didn't want to be there and b) wanted to convey a more somber. reserved position given the material.

This whole "Bob Mueller has lost it and looked senile" message is pure conservative spin.

AND, honestly, it isn't and wasn't the point of the hearing yesterday.  It's a distraction.

All of this coming from supporters of a guy who has the syntax of a third grader is hilarious.