Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, GW Hayduke said:

We are talking about a failed impeachment that mobilizes potus’ base

That’s right wing pundit bullshit.  If anything, a failed impeachment would mobilize the resistance to Trump because it will be crystal clear there is nothing protecting the people and the country from a lawless autocracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s right wing pundit bullshit.  If anything, a failed impeachment would mobilize the resistance to Trump because it will be crystal clear there is nothing protecting the people and the country from a lawless autocracy. 

No impeachment proceedings or failed impeachment proceedings would have the same outcome concerning “protecting the people and the country from a lawless autocracy” except one increases the potential potus remains in office and immune to prosecution.

The idea a failed impeachment would help the Dems at the ballot box is a political question. It may be correct. But it may be incorrect. That is political calculation. Look to Nancy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asithappens

Asithappens 974

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Under our current DOJ policy, Congress is the only constitutional check on an outlaw president.  If the president proves himself to be an outlaw and the Congress fails to appropriately respond, they are complicit and there is nothing protecting the public from the abuses of power by the president. 

Again, bullshit.

There are 3 branches of govt. Not two. 

Impeachment is a political act, and it's just not worth it politically to the Dems. Imo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s right wing pundit bullshit.  If anything, a failed impeachment would mobilize the resistance to Trump because it will be crystal clear there is nothing protecting the people and the country from a lawless autocracy. 

You mean besides an election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I do not disagree that we need to do away with the Electoral College. But it's currently how we do things in this country.

If only there was a more democratic body in our government that could better represent the will of the people and rein in an undemocratically elected outlaw regime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If you’re looking for Nixon comparisons, we’re currently in quarter two of 1975 without an impeachment hearing. 

Nixon would get re-elected to his third term in today’s America. 

Nixon also didn't have 14 other related investigations and a potential Assange extradition hanging like a sword of Damocles over his head.

Getting Don McGahn and others to publicly testify in detail how Trump enlisted them to obstruct and engage in lawbreaking will carry a significant impact.  If that overlaps with SDNY actions, the calculus will be very different than today.  Trump approval tanked 5% with revelations from the Mueller report.  More on the way.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45899

Posted
Posted

The Dems need to do the math (which I believe they have done) and try to assess the most likely approach to getting DOTUS out of office in 2020.

Impeachment is a dead end -- he will not be removed by Senate vote.

25A is even more of a pipe dream.

Voting him out is far and away the most likely solution.  How do the Dems generate more votes?  By putting more malfeasance in front of their faces.  Whatever effect the Mueller report had, and it was probably a net positive for the Dems, that effect is starting to die on the vine.  In today's world, that report will be a nothingberger within weeks.

So, keep the bad news up on the headlines.  Subpoenas, testimonies, etc.  Bring impeachment proceedings as a last effort when all else is fading.  That's the play.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
21 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Nixon also didn't have 14 other related investigations and a potential Assange extradition hanging like a sword of Damocles over his head.

Getting Don McGahn and others to publicly testify in detail how Trump enlisted them to obstruct and engage in lawbreaking will carry a significant impact.  If that overlaps with SDNY actions, the calculus will be very different than today.  Trump approval tanked 5% with revelations from the Mueller report.  More on the way.

 

 

The Dems have slow played this every step of the way.  Mueller and Rosenstein should have already publicly testified.  They should have subpoenaed Trump’s tax returns back in January.  They let Bill Barr walk all over them and misinform the public with a false narrative about the Mueller report.  They still haven’t seen the full Mueller report.  There’s no guarantee Don McGahn is going to publicly testify.  What happened with Felix Sater’s testimony? Why hasn’t Don Jr testified?  What about Kushner, Ivanka, Mattis, or John Kelly? 

They are working with no sense of urgency or interest in getting the facts to the public.  They are trying as hard as possible to not be forced into the impeachment process and it’s working. 

I expect many more harsh letters and airing of grievances to the media over the next 12 months.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13032

Posted
Posted

And that’s the problem. They continually let the republicans shape the media narrative. Put his malfeasance on display for the world. If that somehow results in a positive for Trump (it won’t, it never has) then so be it. Stop being reactive to what pubs do and shape the fucking narrative

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If you’re looking for Nixon comparisons, we’re currently in quarter two of 1975 without an impeachment hearing. 

Nixon would get re-elected to his third term in today’s America. 

The better, more recent, example would be Clinton, who saw his approval ratings soar during and after the impeachment hearings. I think that is what scares Democrats more than anything, and rightfully so. 

Impeachment obviously isn't getting Trump out of office, so the question is what does a hearing do to his chances of reelection, if recent history is a guide, you would have to think it only helps. Nancy knows that. 

strangegame.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The better, more recent, example would be Clinton, who saw his approval ratings soar during and after the impeachment hearings. I think that is what scares Democrats more than anything, and rightfully so. 

Except that comparison makes no sense.  After Clinton’s impeachment, the Republicans took the White House, retained their majority in the House (lost three seats), and held the Senate (lost four seats) with Cheney as the 50-50 tiebreaker. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

And that’s the problem. They continually let the republicans shape the media narrative. Put his malfeasance on display for the world. If that somehow results in a positive for Trump (it won’t, it never has) then so be it. Stop being reactive to what pubs do and shape the fucking narrative

lol wut

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sachick

sachick 1189

Posted
Posted
The better, more recent, example would be Clinton, who saw his approval ratings soar during and after the impeachment hearings. I think that is what scares Democrats more than anything, and rightfully so. 
Impeachment obviously isn't getting Trump out of office, so the question is what does a hearing do to his chances of reelection, if recent history is a guide, you would have to think it only helps. Nancy knows that. 
strangegame.png

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. That’s not the same as obstruction of justice. You cannot assume Trumps ratings will soar during/after impeachment hearings because Clintons did. An impeachment hearing will put all of the Mueller Report findings out there in a way that the normal everyday American who doesn’t follow politics and isn’t part of the Trump base will hear and understand their severity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Except that comparison makes no sense.  After Clinton’s impeachment, the Republicans took the White House, retained their majority in the House (lost three seats), and held the Senate (lost four seats) with Cheney as the 50-50 tiebreaker. 

Apples to Oranges. Clinton would have easily won a 3rd term (left office with a 66% approval rating, highest in the history of any President leaving office). And Dems gained in the house and Senate. Also, Gore won the popular vote. And that all took place in the middle of the dot com bust.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

lol wut

What the headline should have been a month ago:  “Mueller has found significant evidence Trump committed obstruction of justice multiple times in the Russia investigation”

What the headline was a month ago:  “No criminal conspiracy established and the president can’t obstruct justice”

Bill Barr’s face should be the first image when anyone googles the phrase, “summary of principal conclusions”.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What the headline should have been a month ago:  “Mueller has found significant evidence Trump committed obstruction of justice multiple times in the Russia investigation”

What the headline was a month ago:  “No criminal conspiracy established and the president can’t obstruct justice”

Bill Barr’s face should be the first image when anyone googles the phrase, “summary of principle conclusions”.

Those aren't the headlines anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45899

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, sachick said:


Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. That’s not the same as obstruction of justice. You cannot assume Trumps ratings will soar during/after impeachment hearings because Clintons did.

Well, the average American knows what a blowjob is, and they understand why someone would lie about receipt of said blowjob.  The average American can't even fucking wrap their heads around the concept that it's possible to obstruct justice by intervening in an investigation that ultimately fails to formally declare that a crime was committed.

I think you have more faith in the average American than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, sachick said:


Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. That’s not the same as obstruction of justice. You cannot assume Trumps ratings will soar during/after impeachment hearings because Clintons did. An impeachment hearing will put all of the Mueller Report findings out there in a way that the normal everyday American who doesn’t follow politics and isn’t part of the Trump base will hear and understand their severity.

The gamble is that everyday American's who don't follow politics are tired of hearing about Russia/Mueller and will resent the Democrats keeping it in the headlines instead of pivoting to healthcare, civility, tax cuts, etc. the things they are actually polling very well on. Impeachment would suck all of the oxygen out of what could be winning talking points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted

 

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Impeachment that dies in the Senate will put GOP Senators on Trump's sinking ship.  The potential rewards are much greater than the risks. 

Who doesn’t currently know or feel like the GOP and trump are one? Is there a segment of the population that would suddenly understand this after it fails in the senate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13032

Posted
Posted
Just now, GW Hayduke said:

 

Who doesn’t currently know or feel like the GOP and trump are one? Is there a segment of the population that would suddenly understand this after it fails in the senate?

The same people who don’t know that trump has committed crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18854

Posted
Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Benghazi hearings were a huge political win for Hillary weren’t they? The email investigation helped her a ton I bet?

Clinton is not Trump and Democrats are not Republicans. You are assuming that if Democrats act like Republicans, the result will be the similar. I'm not sure that's a good assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2274

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The gamble is that everyday American's who don't follow politics are tired of hearing about Russia/Mueller and will resent the Democrats keeping it in the headlines instead of pivoting to healthcare, civility, tax cuts, etc. the things they are actually polling very well on. Impeachment would suck all of the oxygen out of what could be winning talking points. 

Because they are going to be able to put together a working healthcare plan that the Senate will approve or the President will not veto?  Or any other policy they want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...