I don't think that matters as much as it should. As I just said this is the new norm and Pelosi seems to be looking at this in strictly political terms. Why I find that abhorrent is because this is not about Trump being reelected, but the remainder of the so-called Republic's future in perpetuity. Nancy will by her lack of moral imperatives approve everything Trump does for future Presidents because the lesson to be learned is "I can do almost anything because my opposition is too weak to do more than go through motions".
I hope I'm wrong, I really do.
Nah, I think you’ll see several points movement in the polls in favor of impeachment after this, which is of course the point.
Polls show a large percentage of America either doesn’t know what Mueller found or believes lies about what he found. The purpose of these hearings is not to uncover new things but to publicize the criminal findings Mueller already made. As I suspect these hearings will get a lot of news coverage they will probably be effective in doing that.
Even if you don’t succeed in getting majority support for impeachment this is an effective 2020 campaign tool as it reinforces Trump’s criminality.
Dems can have Mueller testify all they want. Trump is trying to kill the clock before the 2020 election and all the time spent trying to get Mueller to testify instead of Congress plays into his hands. Mueller will spend a couple hours giving non-answers to questions that basically reiterate "look in my report" and give no new information. I guess if you look at this from the GOP side it's great as Dems are focused on sideshows like this and not debating policy they'd like to enact, the last thing you heard out of Dem House was the Green New Deal and we saw how that crashed and burned. Any amount of time spent on "Russia colluded" stuff like Mueller hearings that doesn't actually directly lead to beginning impeachment proceedings is a net win for Trump.
I guess you've failed to notice all the bills passed by the House reflective of the policies they want to enact.Dems can have Mueller testify all they want. Trump is trying to kill the clock before the 2020 election and all the time spent trying to get Mueller to testify instead of Congress plays into his hands. Mueller will spend a couple hours giving non-answers to questions that basically reiterate "look in my report" and give no new information. I guess if you look at this from the GOP side it's great as Dems are focused on sideshows like this and not debating policy they'd like to enact, the last thing you heard out of Dem House was the Green New Deal and we saw how that crashed and burned. Any amount of time spent on "Russia colluded" stuff like Mueller hearings that doesn't actually directly lead to beginning impeachment proceedings is a net win for Trump.
It's possible that Nancy wants impeachment hearings to start once the primaries are over. We want the primary candidates to be focused on policy debate. If impeachment hearings actually damage Trump before primary season is over, the GOP has time to attempt to primary him out. If they wait, it will be too late and the GOP will be stuck with a candidate that 67% of the population acknowledge is a criminal. That other 33% would never acknowledge it even if they witnessed Trump executing one of their family members.I don't think that matters as much as it should. As I just said this is the new norm and Pelosi seems to be looking at this in strictly political terms. Why I find that abhorrent is because this is not about Trump being reelected, but the remainder of the so-called Republic's future in perpetuity. Nancy will by her lack of moral imperatives approve everything Trump does for future Presidents because the lesson to be learned is "I can do almost anything because my opposition is too weak to do more than go through motions".
I hope I'm wrong, I really do.
It's possible that Nancy wants impeachment hearings to start once the primaries are over. We want the primary candidates to be focused on policy debate. If impeachment hearings actually damage Trump before primary season is over, the GOP has time to attempt to primary him out. If they wait, it will be too late and the GOP will be stuck with a candidate that 67% of the population acknowledge is a criminal. That other 33% would never acknowledge it even if they witnessed Trump executing one of their family members.
I am talking about if impeachment hearings begin and all of Trump's dirty laundry is aired out on live television 24/7 to the point Fox can't shovel enough bullshit on top of it to hide anymore. If that stuff starts to hurt Trump past the point of return, it would be better for the Democrats for that to happen after the primaries so the GOP is stuck with a lame duck candidate.Primary Trump out... where do you get your drugs? The GOP primary voting base is his, heart & soul. They lost their minds to get there but it really doesn't matter.
I am talking about if impeachment hearings begin and all of Trump's dirty laundry is aired out on live television 24/7 to the point Fox can't shovel enough bullshit on top of it to hide anymore. If that stuff starts to hurt Trump past the point of return, it would be better for the Democrats for that to happen after the primaries so the GOP is stuck with a lame duck candidate.
No doubt, Trump will pull out all the stops. And our idiot press will oblige and pick up the noise.Sooo... War with Iran within the next three weeks?
Her face at the end said it all.When Trump totally thinks Mueller testifying is a good thing for him.
We'll see. He's not going to anything beyond what's in the report. But perhaps physically seeing/hearing him say it will move the needle for some of the wafflers.
How can they trash Mueller when they proclaimed the report set the "gold standard"?
How can they trash Mueller when they proclaimed the report set the "gold standard"?
I wonder if he'll say that he would have recommended prosecution of Trump for obstruction absent the DoJ policy of not indicting a sitting POTUS. The report implies it, but stops short of saying it outright. He's going to be asked that question and I think it's an answer the public needs to hear.
I'm sure you know better than the 1000 former prosecutors who publicly signed a statement that he would be convicted for multiple felonies.I understand why you'd want that asked, but I truly do think the question has very low relevance. Recommending prosecution is the trivially easy part of the process, with gaining an indictment only being marginally harder (what they say about "you can indict a ham sandwich" isn't really that much hyperbole). What actually is relevant is whether a conviction could be obtained if he did decide to prosecute. Meeting the bare minimum threshold of a conviction being plausible wouldn't cut it. Even with the wild card that a jury could provide in reaching a verdict, I do think there's a very wide range of possibilities in the Trump case for how strong of a prosecution case Mueller would actually have. This has nothing to do with whether Trump deserves to be removed from office (he should) but whether there actually exists the evidence to meet a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that a conviction requires.
I'm sure you know better than the 1000 former prosecutors who publicly signed a statement that he would be convicted for multiple felonies.
I understand why you'd want that asked, but I truly do think the question has very low relevance. Recommending prosecution is the trivially easy part of the process, with gaining an indictment only being marginally harder (what they say about "you can indict a ham sandwich" isn't really that much hyperbole). What actually is relevant is whether a conviction could be obtained if he did decide to prosecute. Meeting the bare minimum threshold of a conviction being plausible wouldn't cut it. Even with the wild card that a jury could provide in reaching a verdict, I do think there's a very wide range of possibilities in the Trump case for how strong of a prosecution case Mueller would actually have. This has nothing to do with whether Trump deserves to be removed from office (he should) but whether there actually exists the evidence to meet a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that a conviction requires.
Yes you are right I confused that with the guy who made the chart showing that the evidence to prove obstruction was found for 6 of the 10 charges or something like that, although I think since we are talking federal level the convictions are implied. They don't bother indicting unless they are very certain they will be successful.I presume you're talking about this story or something close to it. Either way it shows you have no understanding of the difference between "indict" and "convict."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ay-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436
I expect he will say exactly what he has already said in the report and nothing more.Since prosecutors will almost never pursue indictment if they believe the case can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt - because they hate to lose cases - him saying he would have prosecuted is the exact equivalent of him saying he personally believes an indictment would have resulted in conviction. It's why conviction rates tend to be high - because they aren't prosecuting the ones where they barely meet the probable cause standard for an indictment.
That is the reality. But even that pales in comparison to the perception. The public hearing Mueller say that will have a political impact. And it's something he hasn't directly opined on as of yet. The real issue is he won't want to answer the question, and will he find a way to evade it.
I expect he will say exactly what he has already said in the report and nothing more.