Great to see that the Dems are working together on their questions. Now if they could get their committee counsel and other legally trained staffers to do the questioning.
During Watergate, Sam Dash’s and Fred Thompson’s questions did not make Senator Sam Ervin or Senator Howard Baker look weak. Instead, their professional incisive questions played a key role in making the hearings a success, which in turn made these Senators into legendary figures to this day. Giving it to lawyer staffers actually could reveal the House members’ wisdom and lower some of their own political risks, and most importantly, the expert lawyers just might get Mueller to correct some of his errors, fix some of the loopholes, and reveal something that changes the trajectory of the report from dud to bombshell.
The House Democrats can treat the hearing like a campaign event, making sure they each have their five minutes of airtime, with all the risks of that format falling flat. Or they have a chance to be remembered more like the Watergate committees: as wise and effective public servants who stepped back when it mattered for the country.
I dont remember thinking it would be THIS bad! I thought he'd host lots of dignitaries and play golf. I didnt anticipate torturing asylum seekers and publicly sucking Putin's dick.
But—Mueller is quite the opposite of “verbose.” I think the term for his manner is actually “taciturn.” Lordy, who knows what young Matt Gaetz might think is the meaning of that word.
Maybe, when you spin off your heels during a roadside sobriety test and fall on your bum?
Sigh. Wednesday is my dear friend's cataract surgery at NY Eye & Ear. I'm meeting her there; taking her home after. Then, I have to prepare the vegan food for the Peer Network of NY cookout this Thursday. I may catch a moment here and there, but that's all.
It's hard to know what we will get out of these hearings. I mean, The Church Committee, or The Waren Commission? I'd like to see something a little free wheeling like the Watergate Hearings, but then they might have to impeach. Apparently Nancy doesn't want that.
I like Nancy, but I vehemently disagree with this decision. The constitution doesn't say that a president will be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors if it's politically expedient or if they can get the votes in the Senate. It says a president should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Full stop (I actually hate the expression). It is her duty to hold hearings and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, her oath to uphold and defend the constitution is bullshit.
Any investigations can run for months and cover any territory the House wants to. They can bring in corrupt cabinet officials like Zinke and Pruitt, incompetent and mismanaging ones like DaVid and Carson. Months of public hearings may make a big change in public opinion, like a much shorter hearing did for Nixon. And come next summer, sending impeachment charges to the Senate will force the GOP to answer to the overwhelming level of corruption. So even if they fail to convict Trump in the Senate, they will have to answer shortly in the court of public opinion.
I don't expect a mass exodus from the GOP, but considering that Trump is generally in the hole by at least 10% in favorable ratings, a few percent more will seal defeat for Trump. And possibly a few Senate cohorts covering his corruption. Trump may win the battle in the Senate, but he and some senators may lose the war in the election. Just like OJ walked on murder charges but most of the public considered him a killer. Even though his base also never abandoned him. They were not able to help him a few years later.
If nothing else, it’ll be interesting. The Dems will ask smart questions about serious matters, while the R’s will act like circus clowns on meth. Choose wisely.
Great to see that the Dems are working together on their questions. Now if they could get their committee counsel and other legally trained staffers to do the questioning.
During Watergate, Sam Dash’s and Fred Thompson’s questions did not make Senator Sam Ervin or Senator Howard Baker look weak. Instead, their professional incisive questions played a key role in making the hearings a success, which in turn made these Senators into legendary figures to this day. Giving it to lawyer staffers actually could reveal the House members’ wisdom and lower some of their own political risks, and most importantly, the expert lawyers just might get Mueller to correct some of his errors, fix some of the loopholes, and reveal something that changes the trajectory of the report from dud to bombshell.
The House Democrats can treat the hearing like a campaign event, making sure they each have their five minutes of airtime, with all the risks of that format falling flat. Or they have a chance to be remembered more like the Watergate committees: as wise and effective public servants who stepped back when it mattered for the country.
https://www.politico.com/ma...
I can only hope it will bring joy. I feel like we're going to get another rat fucking all over again.
I dont remember thinking it would be THIS bad! I thought he'd host lots of dignitaries and play golf. I didnt anticipate torturing asylum seekers and publicly sucking Putin's dick.
I think if they do that too much they will just draw more attention to the thing, but who knows. They be cray.
Tithe THIS, motherfucker!!!!
He seems nice.
Box Inspector thinks you need one more word.
"...and correct the situation forthwith."
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Rep. Matt Gaetz says Robert Mueller is the "LeBron James of using 300 words to say absolutely nothing," Instead of just saying "He's verbose."
But—Mueller is quite the opposite of “verbose.” I think the term for his manner is actually “taciturn.” Lordy, who knows what young Matt Gaetz might think is the meaning of that word.
Maybe, when you spin off your heels during a roadside sobriety test and fall on your bum?
I hear everyone is saying it.
Sigh. Wednesday is my dear friend's cataract surgery at NY Eye & Ear. I'm meeting her there; taking her home after. Then, I have to prepare the vegan food for the Peer Network of NY cookout this Thursday. I may catch a moment here and there, but that's all.
It's hard to know what we will get out of these hearings. I mean, The Church Committee, or The Waren Commission? I'd like to see something a little free wheeling like the Watergate Hearings, but then they might have to impeach. Apparently Nancy doesn't want that.
I like Nancy, but I vehemently disagree with this decision. The constitution doesn't say that a president will be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors if it's politically expedient or if they can get the votes in the Senate. It says a president should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Full stop (I actually hate the expression). It is her duty to hold hearings and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, her oath to uphold and defend the constitution is bullshit.
Any investigations can run for months and cover any territory the House wants to. They can bring in corrupt cabinet officials like Zinke and Pruitt, incompetent and mismanaging ones like DaVid and Carson. Months of public hearings may make a big change in public opinion, like a much shorter hearing did for Nixon. And come next summer, sending impeachment charges to the Senate will force the GOP to answer to the overwhelming level of corruption. So even if they fail to convict Trump in the Senate, they will have to answer shortly in the court of public opinion.
I don't expect a mass exodus from the GOP, but considering that Trump is generally in the hole by at least 10% in favorable ratings, a few percent more will seal defeat for Trump. And possibly a few Senate cohorts covering his corruption. Trump may win the battle in the Senate, but he and some senators may lose the war in the election. Just like OJ walked on murder charges but most of the public considered him a killer. Even though his base also never abandoned him. They were not able to help him a few years later.
If nothing else, it’ll be interesting. The Dems will ask smart questions about serious matters, while the R’s will act like circus clowns on meth. Choose wisely.