Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Are You A Sadist?

If so, you may want to read these articles about Mueller's testimony.

‘Disaster For The Reputation Of Robert Mueller’: Mueller’s Doddering, Stumbling Performance Shocks Pundits

Ask yourself this. Sure, maybe pundits were shocked--they probably never actually spoke to Bob Mueller. But didn't the Dems speak to him before putting him on? What could they have been thinking? And so they wound up with moments like this:

One moment that stood out in the hours of hearing footage was when Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) asked Mueller whether “conspiracy” and “collusion” were synonymous terms. Collins read Mueller’s report, which said that to the public, “conspiracy” and “collusion” were synonymous terms, even though “collusion” is not a finite legal term. He asked Mueller if that was correct. 
“No,” Mueller responded. 
Collins proceeded to refer Mueller to his own report, in which he did state that “conspiracy” and “collusion” were synonymous terms. 
Mueller decided to change his answer after reading his own report. An entire two minutes of the hearing were dedicated to Mueller re-learning his own work.

Except, we all know it wasn't really his own work--as was confirmed in too many ways to count throughout the hearing.

Robert Mueller’s Testimony Has Been A Complete Disaster For DemocratsFlustered and unprepared, Mueller undermined the Democrats case for impeachment

By making Mueller look like a mere figurehead unfamiliar with his own report, Republicans were able to highlight the bias and conflict of interest inherent in an investigation that not only originated with a Democratic administration spying on the Republican opposition during an election year, but led by prosecutors who had relationships with opposition Democrats.

So libs are left with trying to flog the usual "mean-spirited-Republicans" meme--although surprisingly NYMag doesn't point out that the GOPers were white:

Conservatives Attack Mueller As ‘Doddering’ and ‘Semi-Senile’ in House Testimony


  1. Shouldn't that last headine be "Republicans Pounce . . .". What's the point of the AP/DNC style manual if it isn't followed.

    1. Well, you don't actually have to pounce on roadkill. You can leisurely walk up to it.

  2. There was another occasion when Mueller responded "No".

    He was asked whether he did his May 29 press conference because the judge of the Concord trial had, on the previous day, threatened to declare the prosecution in contempt of court for implying that Concord bought political advertisements on orders from the Kremlin.

    Mueller responded "No" -- a blatant lie.

    He did not offer any other explanation for why he suddenly did his press conference on May 29.

  3. My two cents:

    Here's the crux of it.

    There is no question that there was no collusion by Trump with Russia. The Dems concede this (except for Schifty who persisted in claiming that any contact with any Russian at any time during the campaign by anybody associated with Trump in any way was some kind of admittedly non-criminal but unethical collusion). 

    There has been developing substantial doubt (expressed here and elsewhere) that the 'Russians' actually interfered with the election. Although the report alleges in a conclusory statement sweeping Russian interference, neither the report, nor, very importantly, Mueller today, was able to confirm definitively any kind of Russian governmental interference. Put another way, Mueller did nothing to remove increasing doubts that the Russian-based IRA was in any way acting for the Russian government or in fact influenced the election in any meaningful way or that the Russian GRU was actually the source of the DNC emails published by Wikileaks. Without these two legs the Democrat claim of Russian interference largely evaporates. 

    So...there is substantial fact it is highly unlikely...that there was ever a legitimate predicate for this investigation.  The Dems did not try to establish today either a predicate or collusion. It is conceded.

    So...the entire focus was on whether Trump  obstructed an investigation into alleged wrongdoing which in all likelihood did not have a legitimate predicate and in any event was simply not found to have occurred.  Notwithstanding the absence of any criminal finding on the substance, and notwithstanding Mueller's failure to charge Trump with the crime of obstruction, the Dems persist in arguing that Trump is guilty of obstruction.

    Since it is clear, for numerous reasons, that the Trump DOJ will never charge Trump with obstruction, for numerous reasons, including the considered view of the DOJ that Trump's actions did not constitute obstruction as a matter of law, it is unmistakeably clear that the purpose of this hearing has been to either rekindle an impeachment inquiry based on obstruction or fatally undermine Trump at the polls in 2020.  In both aspects it doesn't seem like the Dems had much success today.

    Does any one disagree?

  4. Thanks for this column; it reminded me that it was Rep Collins who did himself and the Nation great service by ripping the mask off of Bobby Boy. I can't remember what Rep Collins said but it inspired me.

  5. As a side observation, I practiced law for 40 years at a fairly high level. There were times when I took responsibility for client work product but due to pressure of other work or responsibilities let a subordinate oversee the creation of the product (memo, contract, brief, whatever), which product I was ultimately responsible for. Sometimes this went ok, but there was always the risk that I could not defend some aspect (or aspects) of the final product, notwithstanding my complete responsibility for it. I learned...over the be very careful about...and avoid... this risk. Apparently my chronological contemporary, Robert Mueller, missed this lesson.

    1. Totally. I was saying basically the same thing on another thread--you can't take that job with its regulatorily defined responsibilities and not own the final product, the report. If you're not up to that, then your responsibility is to decline the post. There's no such thing as a figurehead prosecutor. You own it, and so I have zero sympathy for him. He was still with it enough to understand that.

    2. Mueller was defiant today when confronted with the fact he employed exclusively Democrat partisans. He angrily insisted he didn't care about political affiliation.
      So the fact his group was composed of exclusively Democrat partisans is simply a coincidence.
      In other words, Mueller is a brazen liar.

    3. That's absolutely right. There were a number of points in the little I actually watched when he was clearly unapologetic. No sympathy. And watch the clip I'll be linking in a few minutes, in which Victoria Toensing insists the same, and says, he was able to lie.

    4. Not defending Mueller by any stretch; but the truth is probably that, as a true believer, he really does see his side as righteous. His idea of political diversity is Kamala Harris versus Bernie Sanders, so of course he'll be insulted if you suggest political bias. If your talking Democrat v. Republican then your choice is good or evil which is a moral decision I'm sure he would argue as beyond the scope to his report.
      The Left side truly sees basic concepts (truth, right, wrong, morality, guilt, innocence) completely differently than what, for lack of a better term, I will call Legacy Americans. It is so fundamental that I am not sure the old joke that, "Liberalism is a mental illness," goes far/deep enough to be descriptive of what is really going on. It's almost as if, for them, the last 3000 years of Western history never happened. Their world view is pharaonic; the only two societal stations they recognize as legitimate are Master and Slave.
      Tom S.

  6. You all are so right. Mueller owns this sick joke. He was defiant with the Republicans. I want to see this doddering old man pay.

    Yes, I am repeating myself. Maybe I am doddering, too.

    Another repeat, how does he get to set the rules that "I won't answer anything that makes me look bad?" I can't think of the specific occasions but there were many times that he demurred on Rep questions because the answer was "an inconvenient truth", to quote Al Gore.

    1. I just saw an article that said the one time he got worked up was when a GOPer attacked Weissmann by name. His defense of the attack on W.'s ethics record was ... that Weissmann had run a lot of units within DoJ. That's all that matters to the true bureaucrat.

  7. Let's let Michael Caputo question Mueller. Let's stipulate that Mueller must pay for his own attorneys to the tune of the $125,000-plus that Michael paid out of his own pocket, by mortgaging his house. Then let's multiply that to whatever Mueller's net worth is.

    All these cretins set up Go Fund Me accounts, get gigs on CNN or MSNBC, work for silk stocking law firms, go work for Lawfare, become tenured professors and get lifetime government pensions.

    I'm so worked up that I can't even insult Mueller today by calling him "Bobby Boy."

    Let's make Mueller tell Michael's children that "your daddy is an honorable man whom I railroaded to save my own ***."