Democratic media reaction to Hearings

[toddc 13,194]

Disappointed MSNBC Blasts Mueller Hearing as a ‘Boring,’ Confused ‘Disaster’ 

 2413 Shares  Tweet 43

By Scott Whitlock | July 24, 2019 2:00 PM EDT

Disappointment. Anger. Sadness. The journalists and hosts at MSNBC on Wednesday alternated between these emotions as it became clear that Robert Mueller’s testimony wasn’t going the way they thought it might. Various network personalities raged at how the hearings were turning into a “boring” “disaster.” 

MSNBC analyst Jeremy Bash bluntly concluded, “I thought he was boring, I thought in some cases he was sort of evasive. He didn't want to explain or expand on his rationale. He seemed lost at times.” Bash worried, “I fear that this hearing set back efforts to hold the President accountable for what the President did.” 

MSNBC brought on former Senator Claire McCaskill (MO) to offer the Democratic Party response and she was equally as negative: “Today, he was a witness. And he frankly wasn't a really good witness. Because he declined to answer, by my account, over 100 times.” 

 

 

Co-host Brian Williams openly spoke of liberal disappointment and anger as he branded the Mueller effort a “disaster”: 

Most of the criticism has been in my view, looking at it from the left side of the partisan ledger. The Washington Post write through, which was just published, uses words like “halting, “short” and “clipped.” I’ve been following David Axelrod. “This is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years and does not appear as sharp as he was then. The speed dating approach to questions is hard on Mueller.” A lot of Democrats in particular used the D-word and branded this a disaster early on. 

In contrast, the journalists at CNN put on a brave face and cheered the “bombshell” hearings as a “big deal” and “really bad” for Trump. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, toddc said:

 

We have a smack talk forum for a reason ya know.

[toddc 13,194]

12 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

We have a smack talk forum for a reason ya know.

FIFY 

[aubiefifty 16,842]

well boys sorry to rain on your parade but mr mueller did testify  under oath he never exonerated trump at all. he said at this hearing and the last hearing he could not prove things because he could not get enough cooperation.

[DKW 86 7,433]

and now...Back to the Election...

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

and now...Back to the Election...

The 2020 election, not the 2016 election right? lol

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

I don’t understand how this is a win for Trump at all. 
 

If you think Trump and the Republicans won today, you’ve got your blinders on. The question isn’t if Trump can be indicted. It’s do we want a system in place that protect someone from being indicted, because they hold an office. The man said multiple times that the president isn’t exonerated. So Trump and his team lied to the American people about that. And he clearly says that Trump could be charged after he left office. So we have a president sitting in office, who would be charged if he wasn’t in office. That’s a loss for everyone. And if that’s still not enough, we have foreign adversaries tampering with our elections. How in the world are you Trumper’s ok with all of this?

[DKW 86 7,433]

On 7/25/2019 at 7:49 AM, AuCivilEng1 said:

I don’t understand how this is a win for Trump.

If you think Trump and the Republicans won today, you’ve got your blinders on. The question isn’t if Trump can be indicted. It’s do we want a system in place that protect someone from being indicted, because they hold an office. The man said multiple times that the president isn’t exonerated. So Trump and his team lied to the American people about that. And he clearly says that Trump could be charged after he left office. So we have a president sitting in office, who would be charged if he wasn’t in office. That’s a loss for everyone. And if that’s still not enough, we have foreign adversaries tampering with our elections. How in the world are you Trumper’s ok with all of this?

I dont think it was win, and i despise and detest trump, but Indictments and even Charges do not = Convictions. Not what-abouting here but if Comey could make the statement that "no reasonable prosecutor would go after HRC," lets ask the same about trump. Would any reasonable prosecutor go after trump? Indictments and even Charges do not mean you win the case. If you want to indict someone, you could indict just about everyone in DC. But are you going to get convictions? When is it best to leave it alone? Look at Kevin Spacey. At one time convicted in the court of public opinion, he is now victorious over his accuser. He has blunted anyone trying to sue him again. Would it have been better to gather more testimony, more evidence and then go after him?

For the record, I doubt DJT would ever get convicted. The judges would be looking for a very exacting proof of a very exact crime. That's a tough hill to climb. He could hire enough "Johnny Cochrans" that he would skate on most of the charges. Is it worth setting a precedent of trying a sitting president? Would you want to the next WJC or BHO having to confront continuous legal battles?

[aubiefifty 16,842]

Mueller’s testimony today proved Republicans now have greater loyalty to Trump than their country.

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

20 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I dont think it was win, and i despise and detest trump, but Indictments and even Charges do not = Convictions. Not what-abouting here but if Comey could make the statement that "no reasonable prosecutor would go after HRC, lets ask the same about trump. Would any reasonable prosecutor go after trump? Indictments and even Charges do not mean you win the case. If you want to indict someone, you could indict just about everyone in DC. But are you going to get convictions? When it is best to leave it alone? Look at Kevin Spacey. At one time convicted in the court of public opinion, he is now victorious over his accuser. He has blunted anyone trying to sue him again. Would it have been better to gather more testimony, more evidence and then go after him?

For the record, I doubt DJT would ever get convicted. The judges would be looking for a very exacting proof of a very exact crime. That's a tough hill to climb. He could hire enough "Johnny Cochrans" that he would skate on most of the charges. Is it worth setting a precedent of trying a sitting president? Would you want to the next WJC or BHO having to confront continuous legal battles?

The thing that stands out to me though is that he didn’t say that he could indict Trump after he left office. He said that he could charge him after he left office. The question was clearly asked and clearly answered. I understand what you’re saying, though. The point I was making is that the GOP and the Trump cult is trying to play this off as a huge blow to the Dems and from what I can see, it’s really a huge blow to the administration’s creditability, Trump, and a even larger blow to our country as a whole (because there is evidence to suggest that our elections aren’t safe). 

[Grumps 3,704]

34 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

The thing that stands out to me though is that he didn’t say that he could indict Trump after he left office. He said that he could charge him after he left office. The question was clearly asked and clearly answered. I understand what you’re saying, though. The point I was making is that the GOP and the Trump cult is trying to play this off as a huge blow to the Dems and from what I can see, it’s really a huge blow to the administration’s creditability, Trump, and a even larger blow to our country as a whole (because there is evidence to suggest that our elections aren’t safe). 

What do you see as the difference between being indicted and being charged?

I agree that the GOP  and the Trump administration is trying to play this off as a huge blow to the Dems. I also believe that the Dems are trying to play this off as a huge blow to the GOP and to the Trump administration.

I absolutely believe that the Russians tried to affect the 2016 election and will try to affect the 2020 and all subsequent elections. I have no doubt that fake Facebook accounts were created to spread false information prior to the 2016 election. So it is easy to say that the investigation itself wasn't a hoax. But has there been evidence that Trump or his campaign worked with the Russians to improperly affect the election?

I still wonder if investigating the Trump campaign for colluding with the Russians may have been a hoax.

Either way, we should never think that our elections are safe. We should also never think that the U.S. doesn't try to influence elections in other countries.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, Grumps said:

But has there been evidence that Trump or his campaign worked with the Russians to improperly affect the election?

I would think that's exactly why Mueller said that trump could be charged. 

Agree with the rest. 

[Grumps 3,704]

54 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I would think that's exactly why Mueller said that trump could be charged. 

Agree with the rest. 

This is intended to be a serious question: So are you saying that 1)the purpose of the investigation was to see whether Trump or his team worked with the Russians to improperly affect the election, 2) that the investigation found evidence that Trump or his team DID work with the Russians to improperly influence the election, thus, 3) Trump COULD have been charged with collusion (or at least improperly affecting the election), but 4) Mueller and his team decided NOT to charge Trump, and 5) could decide to charge him after he leaves office?

I realize that this is the government that we are dealing with, but why have the investigation at all if you are not going to charge the person being investigated if you find evidence of wrongdoing?

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, Grumps said:

This is intended to be a serious question: So are you saying that 1)the purpose of the investigation was to see whether Trump or his team worked with the Russians to improperly affect the election, 2) that the investigation found evidence that Trump or his team DID work with the Russians to improperly influence the election, thus, 3) Trump COULD have been charged with collusion (or at least improperly affecting the election), but 4) Mueller and his team decided NOT to charge Trump, and 5) could decide to charge him after he leaves office?

I realize that this is the government that we are dealing with, but why have the investigation at all if you are not going to charge the person being investigated if you find evidence of wrongdoing?

He said that trump could be charged with obstruction after leaving office, citing OLC opinion barring indictment of a sitting president.

Obstruction does not necessarily represent collusion. Not a ton of reasons to obstruct an investigation other than some flavor of guilt. But technically, no. I'll concede that.

[Grumps 3,704]

13 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

He said that trump could be charged with obstruction after leaving office, citing OLC opinion barring indictment of a sitting president.

Obstruction does not necessarily represent collusion. Not a ton of reasons to obstruct an investigation other than some flavor of guilt. But technically, no. I'll concede that.

It would be pretty ironic if Trump was charged for obstructing an investigation into an event that never happened!

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, Grumps said:

It would be pretty ironic if Trump was charged for obstructing an investigation into an event that never happened!

Wouldn't it, though? I mean, I guess that would be a win for his base, if he obstructed but did not collude. But I'd be even more concerned about the man's cognitive abilities than I already am. And my meter's already pegged. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,012]

10 minutes ago, Grumps said:

This is intended to be a serious question: So are you saying that 1)the purpose of the investigation was to see whether Trump or his team worked with the Russians to improperly affect the election, 2) that the investigation found evidence that Trump or his team DID work with the Russians to improperly influence the election, thus, 3) Trump COULD have been charged with collusion (or at least improperly affecting the election), but 4) Mueller and his team decided NOT to charge Trump, and 5) could decide to charge him after he leaves office?

I realize that this is the government that we are dealing with, but why have the investigation at all if you are not going to charge the person being investigated if you find evidence of wrongdoing?

As I understand, a charge is a declaration that you have committed a crime and an indictment is alleging that a crime was committed. I may be wrong. I’m not well versed in law. But I made that statement with that understanding. To answer the last part of the above quote, Mueller clearly doesn’t believe that charging Trump was within is jurisdiction. He presented the facts and left it to congress to carry forth. The problem is that our congress can’t seem to agree that Trumps actions warrant an impeachment. It seems like it’s pretty clear that Trump was guilty of endeavoring to obstruct, according to what Mueller laid out. But he just simply doesn’t feel like he can charge him. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

6 hours ago, McLoofus said:

He said that trump could be charged with obstruction after leaving office, citing OLC opinion barring indictment of a sitting president.

Mueller clarified yesterday afternoon before the House Intelligence Committee that it's not correct to say he didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion. He stated that "we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime". 

 

Quote

The Reversed “Gotcha” Moment of Mueller’s Testimony Is a Metaphor for the Whole Thing

The special counsel wasn’t trying to do anything but tell his questioners that he stood by his report.

 

By DAHLIA LITHWICK

JULY 24, 2019 2:34 PM

 

Maybe it shouldn’t surprise us that the moment in Robert Mueller’s House Judiciary Committee testimony Wednesday morning that may have meant everything could also have meant nothing, and later in the afternoon, Mueller clarified that he had not in fact intended to say what he had been initially interpreted to be saying. The moment in question came in the morning as Mueller testified before the House Judiciary Committee. In response to Rep. Ted Lieu, D-C.A., asking why he didn’t indict Donald Trump for the various obstructive acts he laid out in Volume II of the Mueller report, Mueller said that he didn’t indict because he couldn’t. Here is the exchange:

 

Lieu: I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?

Mueller: That is correct.

This question—why Mueller didn’t indict—has dominated speculation over the special counsel’s actions and his testimony today. In the report itself and in subsequent statements, Mueller has claimed that a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion definitively prohibits him from charging a sitting president with a federal crime. It’s a point that he and William Barr have offered differing opinions on: In May, Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mueller “reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

This morning’s short colloquy between Lieu and Mueller seemed to confirm the perception that the main reason for a lack of indictment was Mueller’s understanding of this OLC opinion and the fact that it precluded indictment. Liberal Twitter assumed this was the great “gotcha” moment of the hearing. Greg Sargent, at the Washington Post, tweeted, “Whoa!” Headlines suggested this was the moment Democrats were waiting for. Preet Bharara tweeted that the answer was “very very close to Mueller saying that but for the OLC memo, Trump would have been indicted.” In the break between hearings, several Democratic representatives also emphasized this particular point. In an interview with a reporter, Rep. Steve Cohen said: “Mr. Mueller, an American hero, made clear that any other person who did the acts that Trump did would have been indicted for obstruction of justice, but for a policy of the Justice Department that you can’t indict a sitting president is the reason why he was not indicted.” Lieu himself said, “What we established today in the hearing is that we have a felon sitting in the White House. Donald Trump committed multiple crimes of obstruction of justice.” Lieu suggested that Mueller came out stronger than he has on this point because “I read straight out of his report where he said there was substantial evidence of intent. Faced with that, he could come to no other conclusion than yes, he would have indicted Donald Trump but for the OLC opinion.”

Many listeners didn’t believe that this was what Mueller had intended to say, and they would be correct. In his opening statement in Wednesday afternoon’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller was quick to correct that misimpression:

Now, before we go to questions, I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, “You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.” That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.

Where does this leave us? Basically, exactly where we were before, which should be unsurprising to anyone who watched as Mueller performed at peak Bartleby all morning, refusing to read words from his own report (leaving House members to read them instead) and declining to amplify anything in the report beyond noting that it was “correct.” He mulishly resisted anyone’s characterization of any legal elements of, say, obstruction. And now, the one bit of news that seemed to have been news has been clarified back into the same exact legal language as was carefully crafted in the report. It was a misstep that was misunderstood and then retracted, a perfect capsule performance of how dragging an unwilling witness into a polemical hearing was never going to go well. 

read at: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/ted-lieu-mueller-testimony-gotcha-moment-reversed.html

[bigbird 60,576]

On 7/24/2019 at 6:05 PM, aubiefifty said:

well boys sorry to rain on your parade but mr mueller did testify  under oath he never exonerated trump at all. he said at this hearing and the last hearing he could not prove things because he could not get enough cooperation.

2 things...

1. Prosecutors do not determine guilt or innocence. They do not condemn or exonerate

2. It's not the investigated that must prove their innocence. It's on the state and the prosecutor to prove their guilt.

 

Mueller shouldn't have even been asked the question. The only reason to do so is to reinforce the talking point of Trump not being exonerated, which, Mueller can't do in the 1st place. 

[aubiefifty 16,842]

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

2 things...

1. Prosecutors do not determine guilt or innocence. They do not condemn or exonerate

2. It's not the investigated that must prove their innocence. It's on the state and the prosecutor to prove their guilt.

 

Mueller shouldn't have even been asked the question. The only reason to do so is to reinforce the talking point of Trump not being exonerated, which, Mueller can't do in the 1st place. 

did i say that? mueller can make objective decisions on if he thinks a case should go forward and i believe that was what mueller said. but i tell you what he sure made barr out to be the liar he is. he should be run out of office right now. immediately.

[bigbird 60,576]

2 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

did i say that? 

 

On 7/24/2019 at 6:05 PM, aubiefifty said:

mr mueller did testify under oath he never exonerated trump at all.

 

[aubiefifty 16,842]

ok mueller is supposed to investigate and give his findings to congress which he did. he did not think trump should be off the hook but he could not be prosecuted while in office. in my world they are called recommendations and if he cannot give those why even investigate?

[kd4au 1,145]

11 hours ago, bigbird said:

Prosecutors do not determine guilt or innocence

Why is this so hard for the dems to understand?

[homersapien 11,401]

1 hour ago, kd4au said:

Why is this so hard for the dems to understand?

So, presumably you think Hillary is completely innocent of everything the Repubs tried to pin on her. 

 

[kd4au 1,145]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

So, presumably you think Hillary is completely innocent of everything the Repubs tried to pin on her. 

 

There you go again trying to divert from the subject.